Skip to main content

View Diary: Report: Holder approved search warrant labeling reporter as a co-conspirator (356 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Nonsense. In a police state there are no search (3+ / 0-)

    warrants. This is absolute nonsense and hyperbole.

    •  Police states can be the most bureaucratic (8+ / 0-)

      of all.  Issuing paper documents has nothing to do with protecting civil rights once the system itself has become corrupted.  Holder isn't a local rogue cop who is going to be reined in by a wise and impartial judge.  

      •  Stalin's Russia had search warrants. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        greenbell, 3goldens

        Of course, they weren't issued by impartial judges, they were issued by autocratic bureacurats.  Sound familiar?  "National Security Letters"?

        I think a lot of people don't know very much about how police states actually operate.  (I'm agreeing with greenbell.)

    •  Whereas here, there are search warrants (7+ / 0-)

      executed in secret, with the target given no chance to have his day in court.

      "When people spin this in partisan terms to obfuscate the truth, it does a real disservice to normal people not in the big club in DC. Many of them will be hurting...That is why I write."--priceman

      by SouthernLiberalinMD on Fri May 24, 2013 at 08:24:18 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Reporters who publish leaks have no reasonable (0+ / 0-)

        expectation of privacy, they know that what they are
        doing is going to be investigated and they are still
        liable to end up in court. This is baloney.

      •  warrants have always neen that way. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        wadingo, jdsnebraska

        Are you really saying that law enforcement must never conduct investigation without first notifying the target?  Is that really what progressives maintain now?

        •  It's not a warrant. If it's a warrant (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          deep info, aliasalias, 3goldens

          then what was the probable crime, being  a journalist? having sources within the federal government?

          It is customary, according to DOJ's own regs, to inform the press when its phone records are being targeted by a subpoena.

          So yes, in response to enemy of the people, reporters who publish leaks have every reasonable expectation of privacy.

          And that's ignoring the insane overreach of the Administration here, who went after something like 100 reporters' call logs for two months, because the AP broke a story the night before the WH wanted to break it themselves, after the entire plot was over.

          Marcy Wheeler lays out the timeline, and the absurdity of DOJ's claims, here

          Although this is interesting speculation.

          "When people spin this in partisan terms to obfuscate the truth, it does a real disservice to normal people not in the big club in DC. Many of them will be hurting...That is why I write."--priceman

          by SouthernLiberalinMD on Fri May 24, 2013 at 12:20:59 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  You don't get advance warning (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        wadingo, edwardssl, jdsnebraska, Tony Situ

        of a search warrant: "Um, hello sir, we're going to your house next tuesday to look for items that could implicate you in this crime we suspect you of. Do be sure not to remove any of these items from the house:

        LIST OF ITEMS THAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR

        Thank you have a nice day.
        Signed,

        ...."

        Conservatives need to realize that their Silent Moral Majority is neither silent, nor moral, nor a majority.

        by nominalize on Fri May 24, 2013 at 09:44:13 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  So journalism is a crime now? (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          deep info, 3goldens

          Normally, the relationship between the Department of Justice and the Press is not supposed to be the same as that of a cop with a warrant and a suspected criminal.

          What crime were the journalists suspected of committing?

          "When people spin this in partisan terms to obfuscate the truth, it does a real disservice to normal people not in the big club in DC. Many of them will be hurting...That is why I write."--priceman

          by SouthernLiberalinMD on Fri May 24, 2013 at 12:22:00 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Well, if you read the affidavit (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Tony Situ

            "I believe there is probable cause to conclude that the contents of the wire and electronic communications pertaining to [Mr Rosen's e-mail account] are evidence, fruits and instrumentalities of criminal violations of 18.U.S.C. Sec 793 (Unauthorized Disclosure of National Defense Information), and that there is probable cause that the Reporter has committed or is committing a violation of section 793(d), as an aider and abettor and/or co-conspirator, to which the materials relate.

            What is section 793(d), you ask? Well, here's the copy-and-paste from findlaw:

            (d) Whoever, lawfully having possession of, access to, control
            over, or being entrusted with any document, writing, code book,signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint,plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defense, or information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it,
            So far, this applies especially to the leaker... but we're not done:
            or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it on demand to the officer or employee of the United States entitled
            The affidavit then notes section (g) of the same act:
            (g) If two or more persons conspire to violate any of the foregoing provisions of this section, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each of the parties to such conspiracy shall be subject to the punishment provided for the offense which is the object of such conspiracy.
            The offense for violating section (d) is up to ten years' imprisonment.  

            You can read the whole affidavit here; it's quite the lurid tale:

            the affidavit

            Now, you might say: But this is a journalist!  Well, read on: The Privacy Protection Act specifically protects journalists, unless "there is probable cause to believe that the person possessing such materials has committed or is committing the criminal offense to which the materials relate:"

             Then, the affidavit makes its case for probable cause... and a judge found there to be probable cause.  Spreading secrets is a crime.  We let it pass sometimes if it serves a public interest, but it doesn't always (in this case, the reporter pointed out, the goal was to scoop his competition, and we didn't learn much of interest. Certainly not enough to warrant tipping off the North Koreans, who not only execute spies but ship their families off to labor camps.  I'm sure they'll appreciate Mr Rosen's scoop.)

            Seriously. Read the affidavit.

            Conservatives need to realize that their Silent Moral Majority is neither silent, nor moral, nor a majority.

            by nominalize on Fri May 24, 2013 at 01:39:07 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  OK, so in other words (0+ / 0-)

              now the journalist, because of receiving classified information, is guilty of conspiring with the leaker and therefore faces criminal penalties just like the leaker does.

              If you support that law, you can say goodbye to journalism.

              "When people spin this in partisan terms to obfuscate the truth, it does a real disservice to normal people not in the big club in DC. Many of them will be hurting...That is why I write."--priceman

              by SouthernLiberalinMD on Sat May 25, 2013 at 05:21:44 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

    •  A police state gets reporters (5+ / 0-)

      To censor themselves.  That's what the chilling effect of these investigations is for.

      A slower bleed-out is not a sustainable value.

      by MrJayTee on Fri May 24, 2013 at 09:00:01 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  So does a non-police state (0+ / 0-)

        Or have you never observed our media during war operations

        Conservatives need to realize that their Silent Moral Majority is neither silent, nor moral, nor a majority.

        by nominalize on Fri May 24, 2013 at 09:45:28 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Enough of these horseshit excuses. (5+ / 0-)

          It's a police state tactic and it's not acceptable in a democracy.  Your rationalizations are moral sewage.

          A slower bleed-out is not a sustainable value.

          by MrJayTee on Fri May 24, 2013 at 10:23:23 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  so... (0+ / 0-)

            when the press self-censored itself not to publish FDR's wheelchair-bound situation during the war, that was the same as the Stasi having everyone spy on their neighbors and report to their komissar.  Now you're just wasting everybody's time.

            Conservatives need to realize that their Silent Moral Majority is neither silent, nor moral, nor a majority.

            by nominalize on Fri May 24, 2013 at 10:42:19 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Oh, Christ. (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              deep info, aliasalias, 3goldens

              Yes, the press corps refraining from talking about FDR's wheelchair

              equals the Stasi

              equals the US National Security Apparatus chilling reporters by investigating one as a co-conspirator in a federal national security case and freezing their sources by seizing their phone records.

              You powers of reasoning have overwhelmed me.

              Meanwhile, here are some quotes from MSM journalists who know what they're facing.

              Now run on back to your moral vacuum.

              A slower bleed-out is not a sustainable value.

              by MrJayTee on Fri May 24, 2013 at 11:00:09 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  You're the one talking about "police state" (0+ / 0-)

                and you complain when I follow your point to its logical conclusion. Bravo.

                East Germany was a police state.  The United States is not, was not, and won't be.  I'm glad you recognize the difference, but your rhetoric should reflect that.

                Now, I've read what the journalists think will happen if we put the slightest regulation on dangerous leaks.  They've been saying the same thing for ten years.  I've read what the NRA thinks will happen if we put the slightest regulations on dangerous guns. They've been saying the same thing for twenty years. Funny how they say exactly the same things, and they're both just as ludicrously wrong as each other.  

                Conservatives need to realize that their Silent Moral Majority is neither silent, nor moral, nor a majority.

                by nominalize on Fri May 24, 2013 at 01:44:13 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site