This is only a Preview!

You must Publish this diary to make this visible to the public,
or click 'Edit Diary' to make further changes first.

Posting a Diary Entry

Daily Kos welcomes blog articles from readers, known as diaries. The Intro section to a diary should be about three paragraphs long, and is required. The body section is optional, as is the poll, which can have 1 to 15 choices. Descriptive tags are also required to help others find your diary by subject; please don't use "cute" tags.

When you're ready, scroll down below the tags and click Save & Preview. You can edit your diary after it's published by clicking Edit Diary. Polls cannot be edited once they are published.

If this is your first time creating a Diary since the Ajax upgrade, before you enter any text below, please press Ctrl-F5 and then hold down the Shift Key and press your browser's Reload button to refresh its cache with the new script files.


  1. One diary daily maximum.
  2. Substantive diaries only. If you don't have at least three solid, original paragraphs, you should probably post a comment in an Open Thread.
  3. No repetitive diaries. Take a moment to ensure your topic hasn't been blogged (you can search for Stories and Diaries that already cover this topic), though fresh original analysis is always welcome.
  4. Use the "Body" textbox if your diary entry is longer than three paragraphs.
  5. Any images in your posts must be hosted by an approved image hosting service (one of: imageshack.us, photobucket.com, flickr.com, smugmug.com, allyoucanupload.com, picturetrail.com, mac.com, webshots.com, editgrid.com).
  6. Copying and pasting entire copyrighted works is prohibited. If you do quote something, keep it brief, always provide a link to the original source, and use the <blockquote> tags to clearly identify the quoted material. Violating this rule is grounds for immediate banning.
  7. Be civil. Do not "call out" other users by name in diary titles. Do not use profanity in diary titles. Don't write diaries whose main purpose is to deliberately inflame.
For the complete list of DailyKos diary guidelines, please click here.

Please begin with an informative title:

If you mosey on over to Rolling Stone's website, you'll see a link to an article by John Knefel on the magazine's list of their current, top-five political stories (it's on the bottom, righthand corner of their homepage): "What's at Stake When the Department of Justice Seizes AP Phone Records." All but two or three paragraphs of the story reference quotes and analysis from none other than Kossack Jesselyn Radack.

As some reading this may know, later today, I'm going to publish the last segment of a three-part series (here are the links to Part I and Part II) on the various reports and commentary about this complex and important topic; but, I'm interrupting that effort to bring this Rolling Stone piece to the community's attention. Along the way to concluding this series, yours truly has stumbled upon some "buried" facts about this story that strongly support Ms. Radack's analysis and commentary--to the point where I'd say her comments over at Rolling Stone are much closer to what I'd now describe as being very "prescient and factual," rather than just "analysis and commentary." But, more about that later on, today.

In the meantime, check this out...


You must enter an Intro for your Diary Entry between 300 and 1150 characters long (that's approximately 50-175 words without any html or formatting markup).

What's at Stake When the Department of Justice Seizes AP Phone Records
'It's a crackdown on who controls information,' says one former DOJ employee
John Knefel
Rolling Stone
May 15, 2013 12:01 PM ET

This week, it was revealed that the Department of Justice secretly seized two months' worth of private phone records from Associated Press reporters and editors. As this decision comes under increasing scrutiny, press freedom advocates say it's just part of a larger battle for control of information – one that they've been trying to sound an alarm on for a long time.

"I've been saying for years that this is a backdoor way to go after journalists," says Jesselyn Radack, a former DOJ employee and whistleblower who is now director of national security and human rights at the Government Accountability Project.

The Obama administration has prosecuted more whistleblowers under the Espionage Act of 1917 – a 96-year-old law that was written to target spies, not journalists' sources – than all previous administrations combined. Reporters (sometimes thinly anonymized as "Reporter A") often show up in these indictments, says Radack, a fact that she believes "should have been a wake-up call."

On Monday, the AP revealed that the phone records seized by the DOJ could bring over 100 employees who use those phone lines under the scope of the investigation – which appears to be focused on a single AP story, from May 7th, 2012. The story reported that the CIA disrupted an al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula plot to blow up an airliner, though it later came out that the plot was actually a sting set-up. In recently confirmed CIA director John Brennan's words, "We had inside control of the plot and the device was never a threat to the American public."

So why is the Obama administration targeting the reporters and editors who worked on this story – one that, by the CIA's own admission, didn't even involve an actual national security threat? "There's a broader war on [those who reveal] information," Radack says. "Whistleblowers, hackers, anyone who is dissenting. It's a crackdown on who controls information..."

Extended (Optional)

Originally posted to http://www.dailykos.com/user/bobswern on Sun May 19, 2013 at 03:53 AM PDT.

Also republished by Whistleblowers Round Table.

Your Email has been sent.