FBI Is Reportedly Tracking Journalists’ Phone Calls
Wasn’t all of this surveillance supposed to be to hunt down terrorists? But that was SO YESTERDAY, you see…
Here’s the latest example why when government is given a new power everyone should worry that they will use it in a way that was not officially proclaimed. File this in the If You Have The Power Why Not Use It As You Want Department:
A senior federal law enforcement official tells ABC News the government is tracking the phone numbers we (Brian Ross and Richard Esposito) call in an effort to root out confidential sources.“It’s time for you to get some new cell phones, quick,” the source told us in an in-person conversation.
ABC News does not know how the government determined who we are calling, or whether our phone records were provided to the government as part of the recently-disclosed NSA collection of domestic phone calls.
Other sources have told us that phone calls and contacts by reporters for ABC News, along with the New York Times and the Washington Post, are being examined as part of a widespread CIA leak investigation.
Once again: this is something that would have been vehemently denied as a goal just a few months ago. But now it’s apparently being done…because it can be done. And, politically it can be done because some of the administration’s conservative supporters keep adjusting their former levels of outrage in terms of the power of big government (whatever the administration does must be OK because the administration does it):
Under Bush Administration guidelines, it is not considered illegal for the government to keep track of numbers dialed by phone customers.The official who warned ABC News said there was no indication our phones were being tapped so the content of the conversation could be recorded.
A pattern of phone calls from a reporter, however, could provide valuable clues for leak investigators.
So, kiddies, the fact is:
It’s not all just being done to get the foreign terrorist evildoers anymore. Now the tools are being used to go after leakers who are blabbing unflattering stuff to journalists.
Who’s next?
12 Responses to “FBI Is Reportedly Tracking Journalists’ Phone Calls”
Well, the next obvious victims are anyone that Karl thinks might win against a Republican.
From the follow-up:
Translation: we’re combing through your new and old phone recordsas far back as we have to go. Somehow I doubt it’s a coincidence that Dana Priest’s WaPo and Risen &Lichtblau’s NYT were specifically fingered.
The administration’s sending a message.
The other note:
Welcome to Gitmo post-9/11 America. Enjoy your stay.
Am I the only one thinking this is a significant point, and..
Let’s see if they use this power to “backtrack” phone calls in the Plame case. If they do, I’ll be more willing to accept this as an act against leakers in general, rather than a partisan ploy.
What have I been saying about an Enemies List?
By my count, he’s violated the following amendments in the bill of rights
I, IV, V, VI, VII, IX, X.
Wow! Just three more to go!
Seriously, did anyone not see this coming? Only days ago, when I suggested that just this type of thing and possibly even more could already be happenning, I was called paranoid. How long until we find out about the “even more” part? How long until we know how far the “even more” part goes? More importantly, how far does it go?
One can make the argument that some of that “unflattering stuff” is harmful to the government’s efforts to fight the terrorists. Anyway, govs have always gone after leakers. I’m just wondering why they weren’t doing this years ago.
Good post. I have copied it in its entirity on my Blog as I want more people to read this. Thanks.
Congrats, Joe! You Made the “front page” at Google News for a bit with this post. A milestone?
Here is a question I would like someone to answer: Should the leaking of classified material be a crime?
I only ask because it seems that according to many:
A) The leaking of classified information to reporters should be allowed (unless, of course, the leakers are named Karl Rove or Dick Cheney), and
B) The government shouldn’t be allowed to investigate reporters who would have knowledge of criminal leakers.
And how is this any different from just saying reporters should be above the law? I mean if someone leaks classified material to me, Mr. Joe Average Citizen, *I* can be prosecuted for it. But if I the New York Times pays my salary, well thats different.
Iconic, the leaking of classified informatin should be a crime, and it is. But if a leak reveals crimes being committed under the “national security” cloak of secrecy, then breaking the law may be the right thing to do morally and ethically, if not legally. Yes, the leaker should be charged with a crime and punished according to the seriousness of the crime. Thankfully, federal judges have the authority and freedom to take mitigating factors into account when they sentence someone for breaking the law. And I’d like to think that most judges would see “revealed classified information in the process of exposing criminal activity by members of government” as a mitigating factor.
Iconic, this once again is about credibility. We were told that call records were only being used to hunt down terrorists, nothing else.
Once again, we get the same old thing from this administration. “Yes, we have this program but it’s only used in this one narrow instance and it’s only tracking suspected terrorists.” Later, we get “OK, it’s also used in this second narrow instance and we’re collecting this other data on millions of innocent Americans but only for this one narrow instance.” A little more time passes and we get “OK, both of those sets of data are also used for this third instance.” How far does it actually go? Because of the “national security” veil of secrecy, we have no way of knowing whether this is all that’s going on or it’s just the tip of the iceberg.
Maybe if the NSA actually allowed the Justice Department to investigate what’s going on, there would be less concern about what’s going on. Maybe if something new didn’t come out every few weeks, there would be less concern about what’s going on. Maybe if we weren’t lied to on a regular basis, there would be less concern about what’s going on.