Justice Dpt. seizes AP Phone Records, then sends Subpoena

[SerScot]

Here's the story:

www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/law/jan-june13/doj1_05-14.html

From the article:

JUDY WOODRUFF: And in a written response to the AP's Pruitt, Cole cited a May 2012 investigation into the unauthorized disclosure of classified information. He also wrote that call records subpoenaed covered only a portion of that two-month period, and include personnel involved in the reporting of classified information.
On May 7th of last year, the AP reported that a CIA operation in Yemen had foiled an al-Qaida plot to bomb an airliner bound for the U.S. That same day, AP reporter Adam Goldman spoke to the NewsHour's Kwame Holman about the decision to publish.
KWAME HOLMAN: You had been in discussions with the U.S. government about holding the story and decided to go with it today. The government didn't want this story reported.
ADAM GOLDMAN, Associated Press: Last week, my colleague Matt Apuzzo and I learned about this plot as it was unfolding. And we agreed for national security reasons that we wouldn't publish. Once those concerns had passed, we decided today that the public had a right to know that the U.S. had thwarted what we consider to be a very serious plot against aviation.
JUDY WOODRUFF: The Justice Department has not confirmed that story is the focus of the investigation. And at the White House today, Press Secretary Jay Carney wouldn't give specifics.

The subpoena's may be technically legal but is anyone else troubled by this? Should the press be subject to this kind of interfearance from the State?

[Cail]

"Nixonian" has become such a great descriptor for the Obama administration.

[SerScot]

Here's an article from AP on the subpoena:

bigstory.ap.org/article/govt-obtains-wide-ap-phone-records-probe

From the article:

The American Civil Liberties Union said the use of subpoenas for a broad swath of records has a chilling effect both on journalists and whistleblowers who want to reveal government wrongdoing. "The attorney general must explain the Justice Department's actions to the public so that we can make sure this kind of press intimidation does not happen again," said Laura Murphy, the director of ACLU's Washington legislative office.

Rules published by the Justice Department require that subpoenas of records of news organizations must be personally approved by the attorney general, but it was not known if that happened in this case. The letter notifying AP that its phone records had been obtained through subpoenas was sent Friday by Ronald Machen, the U.S. attorney in Washington.

William Miller, a spokesman for Machen, said Monday that in general the U.S. attorney follows "all applicable laws, federal regulations and Department of Justice policies when issuing subpoenas for phone records of media organizations." But he would not address questions about the specifics of the AP records. "We do not comment on ongoing criminal investigations," Miller said in an email.

The Justice Department lays out strict rules for efforts to get phone records from news organizations. A subpoena can be considered only after "all reasonable attempts" have been made to get the same information from other sources, the rules say. It was unclear what other steps, in total, the Justice Department might have taken to get information in the case.

A subpoena to the media must be "as narrowly drawn as possible" and "should be directed at relevant information regarding a limited subject matter and should cover a reasonably limited time period," according to the rules.

The reason for these constraints, the department says, is to avoid actions that "might impair the news gathering function" because the government recognizes that "freedom of the press can be no broader than the freedom of reporters to investigate and report the news."

News organizations normally are notified in advance that the government wants phone records and then they enter into negotiations over the desired information. In this case, however, the government, in its letter to the AP, cited an exemption to those rules that holds that prior notification can be waived if such notice, in the exemption's wording, might "pose a substantial threat to the integrity of the investigation."

It is unknown whether a judge or a grand jury signed off on the subpoenas.[emphasis added]

Interesting that even if this is a Grand Jury investigation the subject of the subpoena was not made aware of the context of the subpoena prior to the seizure of the information listed in the subpoena.

[sindatur]

<Scratches head in confusion>

One year after an Al Queada airplane related plot was foiled, The AP released a story they'd been holding back for the entire year, and they are being investigated/Subpeonaed for it?

What am I missing? The Administration should be very happy (especially in the wake of the Benghazi investigation) to be getting good news reported about their ""War on Terror" victories? Was too much revealed that weakens their Procedures/Infrastructure?

[Hashi Lebwohl]

Here is Democracy Now's little blurb about it which doesn't state anything other news sources are not already also saying.

The Daily Mail--yes, I am aware the The Daily Mail always needs to be taken with a grain of salt but sometimes they give details domestic newspapers don't--is reporting that Holder is trying to throw his second-in-command under the bus.

Holder said that he recused himself from the making the controversial decision to subpoena the phone records of Associated Press journalists, saying that it was made by Deputy Attorney General James Cole.

Why the interest in AP only? Why on this particular story? What, are we not supposed to be letting on that we have "military advisors" in Yemen? It isn't like that is a secret or anything.

As I have asked elsewhere, now other news agencies are checking to see if their lines are monitored and wondering if they are going to have their phone records seized. If they did it to AP then they can do it to Reuters, Bloomberg (who is having a time now over their computers keeping track of who logs on and what they do--another story altogether), etc.

[Vraith]

This may get complicated.
Apparently they only went to get the records AFTER they questioned a few hundred people.

Someone else [someone who worked for Bush, can't recall the name right now] speculated that someone on the ground doing intelligence was killed because of the info leaked.

Apparently, they didn't actually listen in on anything, they just got a list of phone numbers.

I'm not sure that makes a difference, though.

It's gonna be a really tough thing to justify.
I'm not sure there IS an argument strong enough to persuade me...
But if there is one, I wonder if it's possible to make the argument without revealing a bunch of other stuff they probably want to remain secret.

[SerScot]

Vraith,

I don't think it makes a difference at all. The point is that the press is a protected classification. They weren't notified in advance the subpoena issued and after the information was obtained the Justice Department notified AP of the subpoena.

This smells to high heaven. Just because something is legal it doesn't make it right. This wasn't right.

[Avatar]

Just because something is legal it doesn't make it right.

You can say that again.

(And then we can debate whose version of what is right is right. )

--A

[wayfriend]

How did the AP find out about the surveillance? Anyone know why anyone even knows this happened?

Also, I will post this, because no one else will.

Obama Seeks to Revive Reporter Shield Bill After AP Subpoenas

[Cail]

Also, I will post this, because no one else will.

Obama Seeks to Revive Reporter Shield Bill After AP Subpoenas

From your link....

The legislation would let the government compel disclosure of confidential information if it’s essential to stopping or mitigating terrorist acts or other significant harm to national security.

So there's their escape clause. Under the nebulous heading of "national security" (which this administration just loves invoking) they could bypass the proposed law anyway.

It's another feel-good measure with no teeth.

[Hashi Lebwohl]

Any law can be cicrumvented by law enforcement officials or the military saying "because national security", which means that those laws are mere inconveniences to be ignored when needed.

Actually, wayfriend, I was going to link to that article but you beat me to the punch.

[Zarathustra]

But Cail! The title of the bill sounds so good! It just can't be bad.

[Cail]

But Cail! The title of the bill sounds so good! It just can't be bad.

And that's what they count on. This way they can trumpet that they've done something to strengthen privacy rights, while at the same time insuring that the legislation doesn't impede their thirst for surveillance.

[wayfriend]

But Cail! The title of the bill sounds so good! It just can't be bad.

Unlike the Patriot Act, eh? Geez, some people can't let a chance for a cheap shot fly by unmolested.

[SerScot]

wayfriend,

How did the AP find out about the surveillance? Anyone know why anyone even knows this happened?

Also, I will post this, because no one else will.

Obama Seeks to Revive Reporter Shield Bill After AP Subpoenas

Just saw Cail's post. So they can't do what they did here unless the really need to violate the Press protections of the 1st amendment.

[Cybrweez]

WF, again comparing Obama to Bush. Old!

Actually, like WF, a few people are using the original bill's downfall as a reason to attack pubs - hey, this bill would've stopped this! And Obama was for it (tho didn't vote on it?)! That's another pet peeve tactic of mine, saying someone is for or against something b/c of a bill vote, when the bill is loaded w/all kinds of stuff.

[Zarathustra]

Actually, WF, I was thinking of the Patriot Act, too. It's certainly an applicable example. How is it a "cheap shot" to point out the patronizing wording of either one? How or what did I "molest," again ...?

Anyway, it's not like I was implicitly criticizing others for failing to bring up something that no one was talking about, merely because I think it makes my party's leader look slightly better amid his multiple scandals. You know, it's not our responsibility to make your case for you or to run defense for Obama. I have no idea why you'd need to preface your links with a prediction of our unwillingness to post it ourselves. Honestly, I hadn't even heard of it.

Anyway, we have a Constitution which guarantees freedom of the press right in the very first amendment. There's no need for a bill like this ... unless it is how you sneak in a loophole around the Constitution, as Cail's point seems to indicate.

[Cail]

But Cail! The title of the bill sounds so good! It just can't be bad.

Unlike the Patriot Act, eh? Geez, some people can't let a chance for a cheap shot fly by unmolested.

You're on the wrong board if you think you're going to find supporters of the Patriot Act.

But what does that have to do with this?

[Avatar]

Haha, we've just sort of had the opposite...using that the government can compel them to reveal stuff, we've sadly just passed a "protection of state information" bill that lets the government forbid the press from revealing stuff. Not a very good sign I fear. (Although thankfully our press has a long-standing history of revealing stuff anyway.)

--A

[wayfriend]

How did the AP find out about the surveillance? Anyone know why anyone even knows this happened? (II)