Skip to main content

View Diary: Anonymous Government Officials Leak Defense of DOJ's Spying on Reporter (187 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  dallasdoc (6+ / 0-)

    IIRC, an FBI report stated that Rosen was a co-conspirator, which would have justified surveillance.  
       The allegation against Rosen, apparently, was that he solicited the theft of the information and was not just a passive recipient.
       Given that there are whistleblowers and sometimes journalists do publish information that is necessary for the public understanding of the issue.
       But, by publishing a story that compromises intelligence methods and sources, a journalist can get Americans killed.
       DOJ was apparently looking for a leak in the Sate Department, during wartime. I'd cut them some slack on this.
       The question: Under what circumstances does a journalist have the right to publish classified information?
       And who is a journalist?
       

    •  What investigative journalist (11+ / 0-)

      in the national defense field doesn't solicit classified information?  At the absurd rate anything and everything of import gets classified, they could hardly do their jobs without doing that.

      So do you really want to endorse the criminalization of such journalistic activity?  If not, how does one separate the legitimate solicitation from the illegitimate?

      “What’s the use of having developed a science well enough to make predictions if, in the end, all we’re willing to do is stand around and wait for them to come true?” - Sherwood Rowland

      by jrooth on Wed May 29, 2013 at 09:43:13 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  despite his lack of general integrity (13+ / 0-)

      for working for FOX--a specious outfit, but nonetheless protected as a "news source"--James Rosen is a journalist whether any of us likes it or not.

      And "cut the DOJ some slack"?? No. Their job is the rule of law. Period. They need to demonstrate that what they did was on the up-and-up, before they go pointing fingers (or worse) at others.

      And not for nothing, but the irony of the DOJ or the WH using anonymous leakers to drop a defense on the public, to lessen the impact of their possibly-not-on-the-up-and-up actions has surely escaped your scrutiny...
       

      "The “Left” is NOT divided on the need to oppose austerity and the Great Betrayal. The Third Way is not left or center or even right. It is Wall Street on the Potomac."--Bill Black

      by lunachickie on Wed May 29, 2013 at 09:45:13 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Let's start with the premise (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Quicklund

        that there is a limit on freedom of the press under the First Amendment.  How do you determine what kind of restraint on newsgathering complies with the Amendment and what does not?  The strict scrutiny test applies to freedom of speech cases.  Why not here?

        For the uninitiated, strict constitutional scrutiny is (and I paraphrase) that there is a compelling governmental interest in the law or policy; the law or policy is narrowly tailored to meet that interest; and the law or policy is the least restrictive means possible.

        How would this turn out under strict scrutiny?

        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 Wed May 29, 2013 at 10:05:04 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  cfm said Rosen offered a job at a "think tank" to (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        3goldens, lunachickie

        bribe the guy to release classified info.  Have you read anything about this aspect of the case?  Which "think tank"?

        Journalists have a right to solicit info, but if Rosen offered a bribe to obtain classified info, is that covered by Freedom of the Press?

        What if a spy uses journalism as a cover for espionage?  How can he be prosecuted?

        cfm didn't provide a link, though.

        Either Rosen is a legitimate journalist or, as cfm has alleged, he is a spy using bribery to obtain classified info.  If he is a spy, then prosecute him for being a spy, not a journalist seeking info legitimately.  For what entity or country is Rosen spying to affect change in foreign policy?

        Information is the currency of democracy. ~Thomas Jefferson

        by CIndyCasella on Wed May 29, 2013 at 10:18:29 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  This, right here (0+ / 0-)

          is what I've been trying to find the words for all morning...

          If he is a spy, then prosecute him for being a spy, not a journalist seeking info legitimately.
          Exactly. And if he's a spy, wouldn't they have already done that?

          And how?  How did they come up with this scenario at all? How did the DOJ extrapolate the possibility of Rosen being a spy before any crimes had taken place? That should be the bottom line here. The DOJ had to know and understand that one of the downsides of this was the possibility of a court challenge because its actions' net effect is to chill out whistleblowing to the press.

          And if it does, then given the Obama DOJ positions on other areas of whistleblowing, and because of Holder's general incompetence wrapped up in a nice wrapping of fealty ("we can't prosecute criminal bankers, they're too big!"), these people no longer deserve the benefit of the doubt.

          "The “Left” is NOT divided on the need to oppose austerity and the Great Betrayal. The Third Way is not left or center or even right. It is Wall Street on the Potomac."--Bill Black

          by lunachickie on Wed May 29, 2013 at 11:54:13 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  you ask... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      virginislandsguy
      And who is a journalist?
      funny... but not a single name comes to mind today.  plenty of names from years past - cronkite, edwards, murrow, rather, reynolds - the list could go on and on - but today, i'm struggling to find just one.

      we HAVE no real journalists in america - we've talking heads, opinion writers, rumor peddlers, egomaniacs - but not real journalists that prominently come to mind.

      reading these comments, i am stunned that so few are willing to condemn the actions of rosen on the basis of the false meme of "WHISTLEBLOOOOWER!"

      at last look, newsreaders and "fournalists" don't have diplomatic immunity and are not outside the bounds of civil law.

      this entire converstion (not your part, but the diary) is based on a false hypothesis and false equivalency.  but, then, i am not surprised... are you?

      EdriesShop Is it kind? is it true? is it necessary?

      by edrie on Wed May 29, 2013 at 09:59:20 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Rosen is NOT a whistleblower or leaker (7+ / 0-)

        He can't be because he's never signed a confidentiality agreement or had secret access. He's reporting information someone else provided him. This case is about going after a reporter because some leaked information. And I note that you don't even mention the lies holder is telling.

        Apparently everyone is closing ranks on this one. If that's where this place is headed then my time here may have to come to an end.

        If debt were a moral issue then, lacking morals, corporations could never be in debt.

        by AoT on Wed May 29, 2013 at 10:15:00 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  AoT, i find it impossible to discuss an issue (0+ / 0-)

          that is already based on a false premise ("rosen is a whistleblower")

          as usual, raddack has distracted from the actual issue by throwing in this caveat - and it keeps us from actually discussing the issues here.

          when a position is based on inaccuracies and distortions, it is NEVER possible to have an honest discussion.

          if you or anyone else wants to write a diary on whether or not the actions of a reporter usurps the laws regarding classified information and when it would be acceptible, i'd love to participate.

          to be drawn into a discussion where the diarist is pushing a personal agenda only serves to lend support to that agenda - so, as for the "issue" of rosen and the doj is usurped.

          btw, are you coming to nn13?  would love to see you and sit and chat face to face again.  

          EdriesShop Is it kind? is it true? is it necessary?

          by edrie on Wed May 29, 2013 at 10:26:41 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  No one said rosen was a whistle blower (9+ / 0-)

            Because he can't have been. He's a reporter. Only the people who support this attack on the press arecalling him a leaked or a whistleblower. The person who he got the info from was definitely a leaked and breaking the law. And from what I know this also wasn't a case of whistleblowing. But that's besides the point. The point is that reporters have freedoms that government employees don't and if this precedent stands then we'll have a situation where the government can go after any reporter who reports leaked information. In fact, this precedent could be used, and likely would be, to go after wikileaks.

            If debt were a moral issue then, lacking morals, corporations could never be in debt.

            by AoT on Wed May 29, 2013 at 10:39:53 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  reporters are still bound by some constraints in (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              AoT

              the law - and that is the larger issue.  reporters don't have diplomatic immunity - they cannot simply do what ever they want because they are a reporter.

              and, they can't use being a reporter as an excuse for putting lives at risk or for publishing information with total disregard to the consequences.  

              if the reason people are upset is related to wikileaks, that is not what is on the table here.

              but, let's discuss it elsewhere.  i'd prefer not to give more energy to this tainted diary.

              ANY diary that is so filled with the innuendo and slant of this one is not one where i choose to spend much time.  i will call out the obvious bias, then leave to prevent more "hits" on the actual propaganda.  i'd love to talk about this with you - only somewhere other than here - another diary, perhaps?

              EdriesShop Is it kind? is it true? is it necessary?

              by edrie on Wed May 29, 2013 at 10:54:44 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  What lives did Rosen put at risk by reporting (4+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Dallasdoc, 4kedtongue, AoT, SamanthaCarter

                what he did about North Korea?

                The influence of the [executive] has increased, is increasing, and ought to be diminished.

                by lysias on Wed May 29, 2013 at 11:23:08 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Reporting on our NK insider info gives heads up (0+ / 0-)

                  to NK that we have inside sources of some kind, and NK might take action to find the source and deal with them.  

                  Rosen reported classified info, not to blow the whistle on a wrongdoing, but to pressure the administration to adopt neocon policy with regards to North Korea (he says this himself).  And he put our NK sources (whatever or whoever they might be) at risk (of at least being compromised from obtaining further NK info, if not at risk of their lives too).

                  I still don't get why progressives are so adamant that Rosen should be held up as some hero for compromising our NK sources (for the purpose of pushing neocon policy, nonetheless) or treating Rosen's leaker as a modern day Ellsburg.  It's like you guys are so wrapped up in your ideology that you allow it to blind you as to what's really going on.

                  •  Our NK sources are almost certainly signals (0+ / 0-)

                    intelligence.  It would hurt our intelligence effort to have North Korea clued in to weaknesses in its communications, but it would hardly endanger lives.

                    The influence of the [executive] has increased, is increasing, and ought to be diminished.

                    by lysias on Thu May 30, 2013 at 07:47:57 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  By the way, I speak as a retired naval officer (0+ / 0-)

                    who spent nearly 20 years in military intelligence.  If that career taught me anything, it is how much is unnecessarily and frivolously overclassified.  That, as much as anything else, endangers our country's intelligence efforts.

                    The influence of the [executive] has increased, is increasing, and ought to be diminished.

                    by lysias on Thu May 30, 2013 at 08:06:15 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

              •  so (0+ / 0-)

                You agree?

                Who died and made it an issue? Really.
                WHO DIED?

                If debt were a moral issue then, lacking morals, corporations could never be in debt.

                by AoT on Wed May 29, 2013 at 03:18:04 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  also (0+ / 0-)

                I'd like to talk soon.

                If debt were a moral issue then, lacking morals, corporations could never be in debt.

                by AoT on Wed May 29, 2013 at 03:19:04 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

            •  But many claim that Rosen's *leaker* is a whistle (0+ / 0-)

              blower, which is a totally false claim.

        •  The statute used (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          edrie, Quicklund

          in the Affidavit specifically prohibits anyone from reporting the type of information Kim leaked.

          No confidentiality agreement has to be signed - you and I and everyone else is specifically prohibited from leaking or disseminating or printing information regarding the government holding or storing munitions.

          The story in question was about the government having intercepted a bomb, which it was storing.

          So, no, it's not just about going after a reporter willy-nilly just cuz he said stuff.

          They cited a law specific to the situation.

          We are not allowed to report classified information about weapons.  Perhaps in this case it is not on the nose, i.e., they didn't discuss where our nukes are or which experimental weapons we are developing.  

          But the Bush-appointed judge saw sufficient justification in the nexus - Kim gave the info to Rosen and Rosen printed the information - and the fact that it is illegal to leak the info or, having received it, to disseminate it further.

          The law is actually that specific.

          Change will not come if we wait for some other person or some other time. We are the ones we've been waiting for. We are the change that we seek. Barack Obama

          by delphine on Wed May 29, 2013 at 11:10:13 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  oh, well (0+ / 0-)

            If they made it illegal first then fine. Fuck the first amendment, it's just quaint bullshit like the Geneva conventions.

            What a joke this site has become.

            If debt were a moral issue then, lacking morals, corporations could never be in debt.

            by AoT on Wed May 29, 2013 at 10:04:46 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Sorry, but (0+ / 0-)

              I kinda don't want just anyone with a press credential telling the world where our weapons are, or how many we have, or how they work, or what we may be innovating.

              That is what this particular law pertains to.

              We are not free to say everything, even with the First Amendment.  

              There is the "crowded theater" exception, which to me includes "Hey, over here!  Weapons!  Blow these up!  Right here!!"

              Change will not come if we wait for some other person or some other time. We are the ones we've been waiting for. We are the change that we seek. Barack Obama

              by delphine on Thu May 30, 2013 at 12:54:01 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  You realize that the "crowded theater" exception (0+ / 0-)

                came from a case where someone was convicted of speaking out against the draft in WWI. And that it was later overturned. We'll see where this case goes, but I'm betting it gets overturned as well. The first amendment is very broad despite the attempts of many like you to limit it to what they want it to be.

                If debt were a moral issue then, lacking morals, corporations could never be in debt.

                by AoT on Thu May 30, 2013 at 01:40:13 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  I don't belong (0+ / 0-)

                  in the "many of you" category.

                  In a world where anyone can call themselves a journalist, I don't believe in absolutes.

                  I have stated one exception.  ONE.  Don't feel free to tell everyone about where our weapons are, or how many there are, etc.

                  That is the statute the feds are using in these cases.

                  It's a stretch in this particular one.

                  Yes, very broad.  Extremely broad.  About as broad as you can get.  Just not absolute.

                  Change will not come if we wait for some other person or some other time. We are the ones we've been waiting for. We are the change that we seek. Barack Obama

                  by delphine on Thu May 30, 2013 at 02:02:37 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  You missed the point there (0+ / 0-)

                    The crowded theater exception is not in fact an exception. You might want to make it illegal for people to share information you don't think they should share, but that is still protected under the first amendment, or should be. He had no legal reason that he couldn't share this info, none. You just don't like that he did. You want an arbitrary set of circumstances to define when the first amendment doesn't apply, so yes, you are one of those people.

                    If debt were a moral issue then, lacking morals, corporations could never be in debt.

                    by AoT on Thu May 30, 2013 at 02:15:04 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  You're missing the point (0+ / 0-)

                      The First Amendment is not absolute.  

                      Perhaps it "should be" protected under the First Amendment, but the law currently carves out a specific set of instances where it's illegal to leak information AND illegal to then disseminate the leaked information.

                      Now, if you hate the law, that's fine, but Holder et al did not break new ground by using it.  

                      In a world where a journalist actually whines to Jay Carney because the press wasn't allowed in when Obama spoke to his campaign staff and then the mean old White House put the video on YouTube, I'm not sure I have a problem with laws specifying you can't tell a journalist where our weapons are and the journalist can't report where they are without breaking the law.

                      The law is very specific, not an "arbitrary set of circumstances".  

                      There already are codified exceptions to the First Amendment.

                      http://en.wikipedia.org/...

                      In no way am I advocating an ad hoc approach to the First Amendment.  If you had any idea of my background you might hear what I'm actually saying and not hear what is not there.

                      Change will not come if we wait for some other person or some other time. We are the ones we've been waiting for. We are the change that we seek. Barack Obama

                      by delphine on Thu May 30, 2013 at 03:28:33 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  So, which of those on the list (0+ / 0-)

                        does this fall under? I bet you can't tell me.

                        In no way am I advocating an ad hoc approach to the First Amendment.  If you had any idea of my background you might hear what I'm actually saying and not hear what is not there.
                        You're advocating for a new exception based on no rule that you've explained. None of the exceptions to the first amendment cover this issue. None.
                        I'm not sure I have a problem with laws specifying you can't tell a journalist where our weapons are and the journalist can't report where they are without breaking the law.
                        Here's the thing, it is illegal to tell a journalist where certain weapons are, assuming that's it's classified information. That isn't under dispute. It's illegal to leak classified information, full stop. That means the person who leaked this did something illegal. What they are trying to charge the journalist with is not leaking information or telling people where the weapons were. They are charging him with abetting the leaker. That means that this would in no way be restricted only to people who leak information about weapons' locations, not at all. If this is upheld then it could be applied to any journalist who publishes classified information. That's the issue here.

                        If debt were a moral issue then, lacking morals, corporations could never be in debt.

                        by AoT on Thu May 30, 2013 at 03:46:32 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

        •  Rosen's leaker isn't a whistleblower either. (0+ / 0-)

          Despite the diarist's and her supporters' efforts to conflate the Rosen leaker's actions with the actions of "whistleblowers".

      •  cfm said that Rosen allegedly offered the guy a (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Dallasdoc

        job at a "think tank," which is undisclosed (I really would like to know the name of the think tank), which is a bribe.

        Instead of getting mad at people who legitimately are concerned about the precedent set by charging him merely with soliciting information, which is legal and should remain so, why don't they charge him for bribing a government official if they believe he did so, which is illegal, no  matter what your job ostensibly is...butcher, baker, candlestick maker, journalist....?

        The DOJ bungled this case.  Don't get angry with people who are right about how the way the DOJ snooped into journalists' phone records and Rosen's e-mails did harm Freedom of the Press.  Get angry with the prosecutors at DOJ, who went about this alleged case of spying/bribing all wrong, in such a way that would impinge on all journalists' right to do their jobs.

        If Rosen offered a bribe, charge him with bribery, not soliciting information.

        Information is the currency of democracy. ~Thomas Jefferson

        by CIndyCasella on Wed May 29, 2013 at 10:43:27 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Jeremy Scahill, (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        BradyB, jrooth

        Matt Taibbi, Jane Mayer, Dana Preist, Michael Hastings -- and I haven't mentioned one HACK who reports for television.

        Scahill, in particular, risks his life to keep us informed about our drone policy in Yemen/Saudi Arabia.

        Taibbi was on top of the financial crisis like none of his peers.

        Mayer is responsible for dissecting Cheney's torture policies and telling the world about them.

        Priest won a Pulitzer for her series on America's Security State expansion.

        Hastings was responsible for showing the craven cynicism of the military endeavor in Afghanistan which led to the downfall of a general.

        I'm not surprised that you can't name one journalist.

        •  my apologies to them - i was thinking of (0+ / 0-)

          broadcast media, not print.

          EdriesShop Is it kind? is it true? is it necessary?

          by edrie on Wed May 29, 2013 at 03:02:45 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  edrie... (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            BradyB

            ...believe it or not, I sympathize -- to a certain degree -- with your position.

            Not every leak is a case of whistleblowing.  Not all journalists are of equal caliber or without political bias.  And yes, even some legitimate whistleblowers come with baggage.

            These points, while valid (yes, I said there is some validity to the points you make), they are ultimately incidental to the greater freedom being abridged.  Namely, and this is pretty irrefutable, the government can and does classify information for myriad reasons -- and one of the most common reasons isn't to defend national security, but to hide corruption and sweep embarrassment under the rug.  

            Not in dispute, however, is that until Barack Obama was elected, no single president used the Espionage Act to prosecute leakers (let's not even call them whistleblowers -- let's simply call them leakers).  Nor has there ever been a time when the DoJ spied as thoroughly as this one does on journalists.

            I don't like it.  It smells BAD and no one would be sitting idly by letting W off the hook were it his administration going to these unprecedented lengths.  What makes it all the worse is that it's a Democratic administration waging this war against transparency.

            •  correction: (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Dallasdoc
              Not in dispute, however, is that until Barack Obama was elected, no single president used the Espionage Act to prosecute leakers (let's not even call them whistleblowers -- let's simply call them leakers).  Nor has there ever been a time when the DoJ spied as thoroughly as this one does on journalists.
              should read:

              Not in dispute, however, is that until Barack Obama was elected, no single president used the Espionage Act to prosecute leakers (let's not even call them whistleblowers -- let's simply call them leakers) as much as his administration has -- twice as many times as all the presidents who have come before him in toto.  Nor has there ever been a time when the DoJ spied as thoroughly as this one does on journalists.

              •  have you thought about this aspect? (0+ / 0-)

                prior to obama, the use of the internet was not as volatile.

                when you google "cyberwar", take a look at some of the links.

                we are in different times when a clever geek can infiltrate the pentagon and elsewhere.

                the espionage act was written in 1917 - maybe it really IS time to update it.

                we are in such a different world than i knew or your parents knew - or, for that matter, my own parents.

                when you consider the first "pc" was only introduced by ibm in 1974, that there was no "internet" and that the normal computers required clean rooms and airconditioned raised floors and power protectors, the espionage act only was applicable for people secreting hard documents from areas where they were kept.

                now, everything is in the virtual world stored on pathetically easy to access servers.  we really don't know how to operate in this world yet - but obama's administration is probably the first to be really challenged by "the cloud", the easy access to technology, the new generation of computer-savvy "kids" who have grown up cutting their teeth on the bits and bytes that were foreign to most of us "oldsters".

                this constant "blaming" of this administration for problems it has faced that no other administration has had to deal with is really a bit unfair.  these are uncharted waters... and, quite frankly, i'd rather a democratic administration navigate them than a neocon/republican/tea party one - wouldn't you?

                and, as for your comment that the DOJ has "spied" so thoroughly - i think it is a tit for tat operation.  never before have people so freely demanded access to everything by everyone.

                there are reasons some things are kept in confidence - from your medical records (from the insurers who would previously have dropped you at the slightest sign of illness) to the plans for nuclear weapons.

                this is just one of the problems we face in today's technological world.  and, this is another...

                EdriesShop Is it kind? is it true? is it necessary?

                by edrie on Wed May 29, 2013 at 04:31:39 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  The means of gathering... (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Nada Lemming

                  ...storing and transferring information may have improved, but it's the RELEASE of that information that is prosecuted...not the means by which the information was received.

                  Daniel Ellsberg stood at a Xerox machine and photocopied thousands of pages of documents and had his young son help him smuggle them out of his office.

                  China cyber-spying on the US is not the same as having someone in the US give secrets to China -- even if they use the internet to transfer those secrets.  No one is arguing that the US shouldn't do everything it can to ensure its computers can't be cyber-attacked by China or any other nation.  Nor are we talking about American cyber-geeks hacking into a CIA computer and handing out state secrets.  

                  THIS DIARY concerns reporters doing their jobs (the old-fashioned way, I maight add) and being spied on by the government.  This isn't the former USSR, ferchrissakes.  This is about the over-reach of the government.  

                  Why is Holder wanting to meet with the Washington bureau chiefs of all the major news outlets if he doesn't feel he has some 'splainin' to do?

                  •  perhaps holder wants to remind the bureau chiefs (0+ / 0-)

                    of the pertainent laws covering release of specifically forbidden information in an attempt to influence policy.

                    perhaps he is meeting with them to remind them they are NOT above the laws of this land.

                    perhaps... just perhaps... he is holding them accountable for their own actions.

                    EdriesShop Is it kind? is it true? is it necessary?

                    by edrie on Wed May 29, 2013 at 04:50:44 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Riiiiggghhht. (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Nada Lemming

                      I'm sure that's what he had in mind -- strong-arming the entire Washington Press establishment.

                      This is actually really scandalous.  Benghazi and the IRS are manufactured scandals and the public knows it, but THIS surveillance of members of the press -- these Star Chamber tactics of indicting reporters as criminal co-conspirators in order to justify getting subpoenas for their personal emails and phone records, this is really shocking and it's not going away.  

                      You're going to see elected Democrats joining in the criticism of the DoJ.  It's not gonna be a few headline seeking Teabggers like Cruz and Paul criticizing the administration.  

                      I'm already seeing hints of it on MSNBC -- pundits usually ready and rearin' to defend the administration are measuring their words very carefully wrt this unfolding drama -- and the final shoe has yet to drop.

                      Messing with leakers is one thing -- not even the press had much to say about that since on man's whistleblower is another man's traitor.  Messing with journalists is something all together different.  Just watch how far the administration concedes on this issue.  Just watch how far the press pushes this issue.  Just watch.

                      •  no, it's NOT surveillance of members of the press. (0+ / 0-)

                        it is an attempt to find out who violated the law - and it is clear that the fox "journalist" who admits in his emails that he is attempting to "influence policy" is not just "reporting" on facts.

                        rosen is NOT a "journalist" by any standard.  he is a partisan hack with an agenda who violated the law.  he is not above the law because he CLAIMS to be a "journalist".

                        we really REALLY need to pick our battles here - carefully pick them.

                        this is not one that we should be supporting!

                        EdriesShop Is it kind? is it true? is it necessary?

                        by edrie on Thu May 30, 2013 at 12:10:14 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  edrie... (0+ / 0-)

                          ...Rosen was indicted as a co-conspirator because it was the only way a judge would sign off to allow the DoJ to peek into his personal emails.  It was a contrivance and an abuse of prosecutorial power.

                          You may not like Rosen by virtue of where he's employed, but he is a reporter.  

                          I like this:

                          we really REALLY need to pick our battles here - carefully pick them.
                          Someone should whisper those words into Holder's ear the next time his office charges a leaker under the Espionage Act or wants to rifle through a journalist's phone logs and emails.

                          Btw, his days are numbered.  He's a political liability at this point.  Dime to a dollar he'll be stepping down to 'spend more time with his family.'

    •  Journalists solicit information. That's part of (5+ / 0-)

      their job.  

      If they claim a journalist is breaking the law for this, then it sets a precedent which destroys freedom of the press.

      cfm said that Rosen offered him a job at a "think tank" as a bribe for the release of the info.   Do you know anything about that?  Which "think tank"?  

      Thank you.

      Information is the currency of democracy. ~Thomas Jefferson

      by CIndyCasella on Wed May 29, 2013 at 10:08:43 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Argh, (0+ / 0-)

        I wish I could take my comments back.

        I am conflating with this story:

        http://www.nytimes.com/...

        Still, the government is using a specific statute in support of the affidavit which refers to "munitions", and the judge accepted the argument.

        Change will not come if we wait for some other person or some other time. We are the ones we've been waiting for. We are the change that we seek. Barack Obama

        by delphine on Wed May 29, 2013 at 11:16:13 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site