Justice subpoenaed AP phone records, news service says

[ProSense]

Justice subpoenaed AP phone records, news service says

By Matt Smith and Joe Johns

(CNN) -- The Justice Department secretly collected two months of telephone records for reporters and editors at The Associated Press, the news service disclosed Monday in an outraged letter to Attorney General Eric Holder.

The records included calls from several AP bureaus and the personal phone lines of several staffers, AP President Gary Pruitt wrote. Pruitt called the subpoenas a "massive and unprecedented intrusion" into its reporting.

"These records potentially reveal communications with confidential sources across all of the newsgathering activities undertaken by the AP during a two-month period, provide a road map to AP's newsgathering operations and disclose information about AP's activities and operations that the government has no conceivable right to know," wrote Pruitt, the news agency's CEO.

The AP reported that the government has not said why it wanted the records. But it noted that U.S. officials have said they were probing how details of a foiled bomb plot that targeted a U.S.-bound aircraft leaked in May 2012. The news agency said records from five reporters and an editor who worked on a story about the plot were among those collected.

- more -

http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/13/us/justice-ap-phones/index.html

Why The Department Of Justice Is Going After The Associated Press’ Records
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022838537

[CJCRANE]

1. Okay, so AP is making *itself* the story

when the real story is about the leak of classified information that it was a party to.

[jberryhill]

2. Leaking classified information is only a crime when Cheney does it

[ProSense]

5. You mean, the AP isn't objective?

Oh, someone will get to the bottom of this.

[1KansasDem]

3. This won't make the administration

any "new" friends in the media.

[TwilightGardener]

4. I'm trying to figure out why I'm supposed to be outraged.

If laws were broken, then I'm outraged. If not, I don't care.

[ucrdem]

8. I think what ProSense is pointing out with her title is that it's legal.

In which case, I don't have much sympathy with the AP CEO.

[TwilightGardener]

9. They can fight subpoenas legally, right? Why didn't they?

Why carp about it after the records were turned over?

[ucrdem]

10. If they were FISA warrants the AP wouldn't necessarily know about them.

And if the AP was corresponding with overseas contacts, they were probably FISA warrants. But legal as can be as long as Holder approved the warrants.

[leveymg]

14. They may have been FBI Administrative Letters to the telco.

The same principle would apply - the target is not informed, and cannot fight to quash such subpoenas or a FISA warrant when issued.

[alarimer]

6. So they did have a subpoena?

Then why is this is scandal? Just sounds like an investigation to me.

AP can, if they choose, not give them the info and take them to court and we'll see if there's anything to this, but it sounds like a made up scandal to me.

[ProSense]

11. Because

"So they did have a subpoena? Then why is this is scandal? Just sounds like an investigation to me."

...until more information comes out, AP's version is the basis of everything.

[leveymg]

15. The Justice Department doesn't ordinarily wiretap major news media. This is a big deal.

The sad and undeniable fact is that this is happening with greater and greater frequency under this Administration which is even more aggressive than BushCo in investigating and prosecuting whistleblowers and reporters.

[CJCRANE]

18. It's not a "wiretap"

unless content is intercepted AFAIK.

Plus is there a difference between a "whistleblower" and someone who leaks classified info which endangers national security?

For instance, was Scooter Libby a "whistleblower" (or whoever it was that leaked Valerie Plame's name)?

[leveymg]

20. It collects data about the origin and destination of calls. It's called a pen trap.

The context of this suggests that the AP article casts into doubt previous statements made by the WH that there was no known AQ plotting that coincided with bin Laden's death. See the link in this thread. I regret to report, the national security argument doesn't seem to wash in this case.

[CJCRANE]

27. You're changing arguments in mid-stream.

AP released classified information. That is illegal and warrants an investigation.

Whether you think the information should be classified is another story.

However, do you think it's okay to tip off terrorists that we know what they're going to do?
In that case it's no longer intelligence, it's common knowledge and you know longer have the advantage.

For example, the same thing happened when the Iranians were tipped off that Valerie Plame was a covert operative. All of her contacts then became null and void (and in personal danger I assume).

[leveymg]

31. There was a leak. Washington leaks. It's supposed to leak, but previously the WH didn't spy on

reporters and obtain their phone logs when that happened. There's been a dangerous line that's been crossed in this country when people think this sort of spying and chilling of whistleblowers is okay because it's done under "our President."

There's no evidence that this leak endangered national security. It appears, instead, that the investigation was launched as a vendetta against AP for printing a story that casts into doubt previous WH and DHS statements about no known threats. Smacks of a vendetta and a cover-up. Double-double-plus bad.

[CJCRANE]

34. It is not wise to broadcast information about known threats if...

doing so would jeopardize stopping them.

I thought you of all people would understand the intricacies of intelligence work.

If there is chatter about an attack but the details are not know then it may be wise to raise the threat level and warn the relevant agencies to be extra vigilant (as should have happened before 9/11).

But if the perps are under surveillance and not at operational level then telling the whole world about it will just blow the whole intelligence operation and let the perps off the hook.

Not all classified info should be discussed in the public domain especially as once you do that you blow your contacts (as happened in the Valerie Plame case).

[leveymg]

40. You don't know the back-story. No details of an ongoing intel op were blown by the leak

It was known to AQ that the bombing plot was foiled, and made to look like the bomber was arrested on his way to the airport. The "bomber" was a Saudi double-agent - it's not like the guy could just reappear and ask for a new bombing assignment after that.

Also, one can't argue that this was part of an ongoing operation. This staged incident happened in April 2012 - Al-Awlaki was killed in September, 2011, in part using this and previous plots that were also infiltrated as justification after the fact. That's the root source of the unusual agitation directed at this leak. It still threatens to cast further doubt on the justification offered for the drone attacks on US citizens in Yemen.

[rusty fender]

36. Exactly!

Looks like the Admin's jihad against whistleblowers has come to bite them in the ass!
Are they going to learn from this and back off? Probably not. They'll most likely double down.

[ProSense]

38. This is just

"There's no evidence that this leak endangered national security. It appears, instead, that the investigation was launched as a vendetta against AP for printing a story that casts into doubt previous WH and DHS statements about no known threats. Smacks of a vendetta and a cover-up. Double-double-plus bad. "

...wrong. The AP was not the target: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022840983

[ucrdem]

7. The AP guy sounds awfully upset.

Maybe there's a reason these records were subpoenaed?

[ProSense]

12. Usually,

"Maybe there's a reason these records were subpoenaed? "

...there is. Looking forward to more information.

[leveymg]

13. WaPo reported the May 2012 Yemen bomb plot was tied to drone program & "underwear bomber."

That indeed followed the drone killings of al-Awlaki and his 17-year old son in September 2011. http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012-05-07/world/35455296_1_underwear-bomb-aqap-explosive-device

U.S. officials said the CIA and other agencies tracked the plot for about a month before moving to seize the device in recent days in the Middle East outside Yemen, where the bomb was built. Officials said that the bomb or its components were in transit when intercepted, but that the device was not seized at an airport and that al-Qaeda had yet to target a specific flight, let alone take steps to smuggle the explosive onboard. U.S. officials declined to provide key details about the plot, citing concern about protecting sensitive intelligence sources and operations. Officials would not say whether a suspect had been caught or specify where the device was seized.

The timing of the alleged terrorist plot coincides with a major escalation of the clandestine U.S. drone campaign in Yemen. U.S. officials said the explosive appears to have been assembled by al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, or AQAP, a Yemen-based affiliate that has been linked to high-profile attacks against the United States.

“AQAP is the responsible group here,” said a senior U.S. official who, like others, spoke on the condition of anonymity to share sensitive intelligence. “We believe AQAP produced the device, and we believe it was intended to be used by a suicide bomber on an aircraft.” In addition to the 2009 airliner bombing plot, AQAP has been tied to an unsuccessful 2010 attempt to mail parcels packed with explosives to addresses in Chicago and a 2009 attack in Saudi Arabia in which a suicide bomber was killed during a gruesome attempt to assassinate the kingdom’s top counterterrorism official, Mohammed bin Nayef.

[Jake Izzy]

16. Nobody was arguing that subpoenas were not issued

The scandal does not revolve around whether subpoenas were issued.
Is the progressive Electronic Frontier Foundation, for example, citing lack of subpoenas as the reason why this is outrageous?

Read: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/05/doj-subpoena-ap-journalists-shows-need-protect-calling-records

[leveymg]

17. Here's the AP report - draws into question statements made by WH that there was no known AQ plotting

of an attack to coincide with the anniversary of bin Laden's death. http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=news/national_world&id=8650811

WASHINGTON -- The CIA thwarted an ambitious plot by al-Qaida's affiliate in Yemen to destroy a U.S.-bound airliner using a bomb with a sophisticated new design around the one-year anniversary of the killing of Osama bin Laden, The Associated Press has learned.

The plot involved an upgrade of the underwear bomb that failed to detonate aboard a jetliner over Detroit on Christmas 2009. This new bomb was also designed to be used in a passenger's underwear, but this time al-Qaida developed a more refined detonation system, U.S. officials said. The FBI is examining the latest bomb to see whether it could have passed through airport security and brought down an airplane, officials said. They said the device did not contain metal, meaning it probably could have passed through an airport metal detector. But it was not clear whether new body scanners used in many airports would have detected it.

< . . .>

White House spokeswoman Caitlin Hayden said President Barack Obama learned about the plot in April and was assured the device posed no threat to the public. "The president thanks all intelligence and counterterrorism professionals involved for their outstanding work and for serving with the extraordinary skill and commitment that their enormous responsibilities demand," Hayden said.

The operation unfolded even as the White House and Department of Homeland Security assured the American public that they knew of no al-Qaida plots against the U.S. around the anniversary of bin Laden's death. The operation was carried out over the past few weeks, officials said. "We have no credible information that terrorist organizations, including al-Qaida, are plotting attacks in the U.S. to coincide with the anniversary of bin Laden's death," White House press secretary Jay Carney said on April 26. On May 1, the Department of Homeland Security said, "We have no indication of any specific, credible threats or plots against the U.S. tied to the one-year anniversary of bin Laden's death." The White House did not explain those statements Monday.

[CJCRANE]

28. As per previous post...

you're missing the point of intelligence work. If all your secrets are known then you lose the advantage. In this case the plot was stopped. This would only be an issue if the plot wasn't stopped and the relevant who should've been on it didn't do their job.

Intelligence agencies can't be completely transparent otherwise there's no point.

If they were then there would be no covert agents like Valerie Plame tracking nuclear material for example.

[leveymg]

29. You're missing the point that in a free society, the gov't doesn't spy on reporters

The issue, in addition to spying on reporters, is the White House appears to have misrepresented facts when it and DHS stated that there was no known al Qaeda plot to coincide with the anniversary of bin Laden's death.

The subpoena makes it appear that there's an Administration vendetta against AP for pointing out those inaccurate statements. Double-plus bad. This is potentially more damaging than the IRS debacle.

[CJCRANE]

30. Unfortunately the government can look into criminal activity.

That's what happened in this case.

I think it's strange that suddenly all classified info is fair game.

[treestar]

32. Julian Assange

That's how they brainwashed themselves into believing government is evil for not being completely transparent and for having any classified documents at all.

Yet if the terrorist attack occurs, they are the first to blame government for not stopping it. You Better Believe It!

[leveymg]

33. There's an expectation of reporter-source priviledge that's been violated.

There's also a sense that this administration is applying the 1917 Espionage Act as an Official Secrets Act to investigated and prosecute gov't officials and the media, alike, and that's not exactly the way it's supposed to be done in this country, and hasn't as a normal matter until now. New normal - no thank you.

[CJCRANE]

35. So what if the source is a mole..

either a neocon mole or a foreign mole who is leaking information for nefarious purposes?

[leveymg]

37. What evidence is there of that sort of dirty-tricks operation?

I have to disagree with you. The gov't shouldn't be routinely issuing subpoenas to review reporter's phone records every time there's a leak of an apparently embarrassing mistatement by Administration officials about counter-terrorism operations. That smacks of a vendetta and cover-up, which compounds the error of domestic spying on reporters.

The Administration is touching a live wire here, and it's a shame that so many people can't (or don't want to) see that.

[CJCRANE]

39. It's less than a full day since this "scandal" broke...we don't even know all the facts yet.

How do I know what the evidence is? How do you know what the evidence is?
You seem very eager to make assumptions before the facts are known.

[baldguy]

19. This is a bigger deal than either Benghazi or the IRS. By far.

But the GOP will ignore it, because they hate the real news media and will do anything to subvert it.

[FSogol]

21. No it isn't. The DOJ followed the law and subpoenaed phone records.

Someone at AP spilled classified info. Should the DOJ do nothing?

[CTyankee]

23. Joe Scar was running with it today. Carl Bernstein was furious but even he said it

wasn't done illegally. Bernstein is now the "outrage meter" on this stuff, playing on his Watergate stuff.

[libtodeath]

22. Since they had a subpoena

why do they keep saying it was secret?
Sounds like the AP is trying to manipulate the truth.

[randome]

24. I believe the records were gathered a year ago but AP was informed about it recently.

So a DOJ investigation was kept 'secret' from the AP and their use of the word 'secretly' is designed to paint the situation as more nefarious than it perhaps should.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[earthside]

26. There may indeed be regulatory violations of law

Justice Department Subpoena of AP Journalists Shows Need to Protect Calling Records
by Cindy Cohn and Kurt Opsahl and Nate Cardoza - CommonDreams.org

EXCERPT

The widespread collection of information, as well as the apparent delay in notifying AP, both appear to be yet another violation the government's own regulations, 28 C.F.R. sec. 50.10. In 2010, the DOJ Inspector General reported on three other violation, involving the Washington Post and New York Times. The regulations require that, "wherever possible" subpoenas of records of the news media should be "directed at material information regarding a limited subject matter, should cover a reasonably limited period of time and should avoid requiring production of a large volume of unpublished material."

None of those limits appear to have been observed here. It seems impossible to imagine how a subpoena for all the records of call to and from AP's main switchboard, for example, is as narrowly tailored as the law required. Importantly, the regulations anticipate negotiation with the news media prior to subpoena, which also didn't occur. And in any event the regulations require notification to the news media within 45 days of any receipt of any information. with another 45 days possible with additional authorization. Since the timeframe of the records is a year ago, it seems likely that the government did not abide by this regulation either. While the regulations do not allow a lawsuit, violations of them can be grounds for discipline for governmental officials.

The culture of the Patriot Act, FISA, NSA wiretapping ... some of us warned of the potential abuses of these laws and regulations back when they were formulated.

Holder needs to go.
Of course, this latest little episode is the least of the reasons ...

[leveymg]

25. Subpoena was issued in secret to collect AP's phone co. records. AP just learned about it.

[ucrdem]

41. Weren't you arguing just yesterday that the USG routinely intercepts

all US digital communications, per Greenwald et al?

link: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2828588

And now you're up in arms because Holder got a subpoena to look at some phone logs?

Why would they need to look at phone logs if they already had the messages stored at TIA, Utah?

You see the problem?

[leveymg]

42. Yes, they do routinely intercept, but they usually don't obtain subpoenas.

Last edited Tue May 14, 2013, 01:06 PM - Edit history (1)

This is being treated in an unusual way, because they want to prosecute. The regular intercepts of voice and email are inadmissible for prosecution purposes unless there is a FISA warrant in place. An FBI Administrative Subpoena is a different process to obtain much the same information.

Understand the difference?

[ucrdem]

43. Yes, I understand the difference,

but it's the difference between fantasyland and facts on the ground. If the USG was really collecting every phone call that would mean the AP and Leahy are either the last to know or just playacting, neither of which seems likely.

[leveymg]

44. They have the technical capability (or soon will) for universal collection and storage

But few calls are actually looked at by an analyst. Most of the data just sits there on the shelf, but can be called up in an instant. Obviously, Leahy has been read into the current program. I doubt if AP really knows more than you or me.

[ucrdem]

45. I just don't see how it could fly.

Holder is taking hits from his own party over legal subpoenas of phone logs while he's authorizing grotesquely illegal wiretapping and nobody's calling him on it? Or he's not authorizing it, and the NSA or some rogue mil-intel agency is secretly (except to New Yorker readers) doing it anyway? Or Holder, Obama and the entire Congress have no knowledge or oversight of NSA activities? Harry Reid isn't worried about getting busted for allowing a gigantic spy-works to operate next door and teabaggers are happy to let him slide? Etc.

Under Bush-Cheney, maybe, but they've been gone four years.

[leveymg]

46. The NSA program is legal after '08 FISA Amendment, and the Holder AP subpoena

is probably also legal under present law. However, the potential for abuse of both is finally beginning to hit the public consciousness.

You've made the following points several times: " (Holder's) authorizing grotesquely illegal wiretapping and nobody's calling him on it? Or he's not authorizing it, and the NSA or some rogue mil-intel agency is secretly (except to New Yorker readers) doing it anyway? Or Holder, Obama and the entire Congress have no knowledge or oversight of NSA activities?"

None of the above statements are true under present law. But, that's the problem. It's all legal. The program was illegal until '08, and the DOJ has long had the ability to obtain reporter's phone logs using an Administrative Subpoena under the Patriot Act, but until recently, didn't go that route.

[ucrdem]

47. It isn't legal, and we've already discussed this. n/t