Skip to main content

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

Comment Preferences

  •  Ah, but signing an affidavit listing a reporter as (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    aliasalias, 3goldens

    a "possible co-conspirator"??? When case law has never made reporting on or publishing classified information a crime?? Why don't you read up on the friggin' Fourth Amendment after you're done Sieg Heiling?

    •  Read the affidavit (0+ / 0-)

      The judge wouldn't have checked off on it unless there was probable cause that the reporter had committed a crime.  I'll take the judge's word for it over yours.

      And you can cram your "Seig Heil"

      I do not feel obligated to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use -- Galileo Galilei

      by ccyd on Fri May 24, 2013 at 12:04:47 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Before I cram my 'Sieg Heil,' I would like you (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        aliasalias, 3goldens

        to consider that you, by agreeing with this judge's issuance of the warrant, are agreeng that the gathering of news is itself a criminal offense.

        To quote from the ACLU:

        What's astonishing here is that never before has the government argued that newsgathering—in this case, asking a source to provide sensitive information—is itself illegal. That would, quite literally, make virtually any question by a reporter implicating classified information a potential felony. The logic behind the FBI's warrant application would extend even to a reporter asking a question at a public press briefing at the CIA, Pentagon, or State Department. If the question is designed to elicit the disclosure of classified information, and prompts that disclosure, I don't see how the reporter couldn't be held responsible under the FBI's rationale.
        ACLU on the Rosen Affair

        You want to line up with this judge against the ACLU, be my guest. Just don't come touting your civil liberties credentials and not be expected to be laughed off of the board.

        •  and that is really tendentious reasoning (0+ / 0-)

          It's at the level of "gun registration will lead to Nazi death camps".
           

          self-appointed intellectual cop

          by citizen k on Fri May 24, 2013 at 12:57:54 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Sometimes warrants are just valid (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Tony Situ

          And sometimes the ACLU is wrong.  I do not agree with their characterization in this case.

          If the ACLU wants to take up Rosen's case, then good for them.  I had a law professor who was a no-exceptions First Amendment disciple.  He would say, "What's so difficult to understand about 'Congress shall make no law?'"  Yet, there are lots of exceptions to the First Amendment.  It is important to have the ACLU out there protecting the edges of the envelope (they do much more than that, but protecting the edges is one of the things they do), but that doesn't make it the law, nor does it make the ACLU the arbiter of the law.  The law is determined by judges and it is what it is, not what the ACLU wishes it were.

          I take it that you still haven't read the affidavit.  All the DOJ needs is probable cause, which isn't a particularly high standard.  A Federal Judge determined that the strictures of the Fourth Amendment were met and issued the search warrant.  The DOJ gathered its evidence and ultimately decided not to bring charges against Rosen.  Police work is like that -- there are times when the evidence collected under a search warrant is inconsistent with bringing an indictment, and it looks like this case is one of those times.

          At this point, the warrant is valid and there is no process by which to test that determination.  There is no Art. III case or controversy here because the DOJ's decision not to bring charges renders the matter moot.  If the DOJ changes its mind and does bring charges, then Rosen can challenge the evidence obtained under the warrant.  He'll lose, and appeal, lose again and the the Supreme Court will deny cert.  The Espionage Act is pretty broad and has been upheld many times.

          And, hey, if I'm wrong, I'm wrong and I'll write a diary that says "CharlesInCharge was right about the Rosen case and I was wrong."  So far, I'm not sharpening my pencil.

          And by the way, I've represented the ACLU on a couple of occasions in my career on matters involving civil liberties, so I'll tout my credentials however I please.

          I do not feel obligated to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use -- Galileo Galilei

          by ccyd on Fri May 24, 2013 at 02:17:26 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  sorry, but a judge thoght different. (0+ / 0-)

      Had the judge agreed with you, he/she would have denied the warrant.  Sorry, but them's the breaks.  Nobody wins 'em all.  Your side lost this time.  You can keep shouting to the sky, shaking your fist, but that won't change the judge's decision to grant the warrant.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site