Harmony Central Forums
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.

Why The Feds Bugged The News Media

Collapse



X
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Why The Feds Bugged The News Media

    I was listening to NPR this morning. They were discussing privacy and government snooping in the electonic age. One of the things they brought up was the incident where the Justice Department asked for the telephone records of the Associated Press and other news organizations. 

    To read the flaming rhetoric of the anti-Obama crowd, that was some sort of press intimidation/revenge on those who spoke out against the government. 

    The truth is more complicated: The New York Times published a story detailing how the FBI and other agencies thwarted a plot by Al Qaeda to blow up an airplane on the anniversary of Usama bin Laden's death. The news story exposed the fact that the government knew what Al Qaeda was up to, and told Al Qaeda that there was an American mole in their organization. 

    So why the Federal Fuss over that leak? 

    First, the simple fact that someone had leaked sensitive information to the press. 

    Second, it told Al Qaeda that they needed to be even more careful what they told to whom and how they said it. The last time a news story did something like that was when the Times or some other paper (I forget which one) said the American government had listened in on Bin Laden's sattelite cellular telephone, which was relatively easy to do. When the story came out, Al Qaeda stopped using sattelite cell phones and information gathering got more difficult. 

    Third, it put an American spy in danger of being found-out and "dealt with," according to Al Qaeda's perverted interpretation of Sharia law. 

    The federal government wanted to know who the source of the information leak was, so they could close the leak and make their anti-terrorism efforts a little less difficult. The Associated Press refused to "reveal a source," so the government went looking for him/her the old fashioned way -- looking at all the AP's phone calls for a couple of months, figuring out which numbers belonged to whom and trying to find the information leaker by process of elimination. 

    Homeland Security laws, the Patriot Act and a Supreme Court ruling dating back to 1972, which said that any message passed through a "third party" -- including telephones and computer servers -- was not "private information" like a sealed letter, and thus open to snooping all said this was legal

     

     

    Well, there goes one more "Obama Scandal."

    __________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ ______________
    How Come Other People Can Get Away With Jokes Like That?

    Face it Tea Bagging Neo-Cons...if Reagan ran today, you'd be calling him a RINO socialist! -- scott666

    Barack Obama must be kenyan - everytime he speaks they trot a translator out the next day to explain what he said.-- ToBeAnnounced

    And even then some people still don't understand.-- RogueGnome

  • #2
    Scandalgate is gonna sting for the GOP. Lulz
    "Political Correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end."“Conservatives say if you don't give the rich more money, they will lose their incentive to invest. As for the poor, they tell us they've lost all incentive because we've given them too much money.”― George Carlin"The founding fathers were well aware of rapid firing capabilities by the indians." - NormH

    Comment


    • The Badger
      The Badger commented
      Editing a comment

      LithiumZero wrote:
      Scandalgate is gonna sting for the GOP. Lulz

      One can only hope. 

      Isn't it funny how knowing the whole story changes what the GOP are trying to say?


    • Tom Hicks
      Tom Hicks commented
      Editing a comment

      there was a similar disregard for secrecy and natl security when the bu$h admin outed valerie plame in retaliation for her husband revealing the lies behind the admin "yellowcake" claims, which were one of their rhetorical drivers trying to justify war in iraq.

      plame was a CIA agent working on nuclear non-proliferation in the middle east, and had a network of confidential informants who were engangered when her identity as CIA was revealed.

       

      that fact never seemed seemed to bother the bu$h supporters. at least the ones i saw posting here in support of the bu$h admin's actions.

       

      i have strong suspicions that there were covert activities going on at the consulate in benghazi as well, making the GOP use of that incident as a political football in line with their tone-deaf ham-fisted tactics in those other matters.

       

       


    • willhaven
      willhaven commented
      Editing a comment

      LithiumZero wrote:
      Scandalgate is gonna sting for the GOP. Lulz

      Maybe it won't sting, but it will give them the worst kind of political blue balls.

      All of this build up and no satisfaction.


  • #3

    Comment


    • The Badger
      The Badger commented
      Editing a comment

      moonlightin wrote:

      Ya I heard that on the news as well. You can trust the repugs to not look deeply into things before opening their mouths.


      Of course they didn't look too deeply into it. IF they had, they'd have known how foolish they are and may have had to back off and shut up. If "Ignorance Is Bliss," those guys must be in supreme ecstasy.


  • #4

    The Badger wrote:

    Homeland Security laws, the Patriot Act and a Supreme Court ruling dating back to 1972, which said that any message passed through a "third party" -- including telephones and computer servers -- was not "private information" like a sealed letter, and thus open to snooping all said this was legal

     

     


     

    Would this apply in Bradley Manning's case too?

    Comment


    • Belva
      Belva commented
      Editing a comment

      Sloppy Santa wrote:

      The Badger wrote:

      Homeland Security laws, the Patriot Act and a Supreme Court ruling dating back to 1972, which said that any message passed through a "third party" -- including telephones and computer servers -- was not "private information" like a sealed letter, and thus open to snooping all said this was legal

       

       


       

      Would this apply in Bradley Manning's case too?


      Invalid comparison is invalid. He was trying fo **************** us, not make money selling newspapers.


    • The Badger
      The Badger commented
      Editing a comment

      Sloppy Santa wrote:

      The Badger wrote:

      Homeland Security laws, the Patriot Act and a Supreme Court ruling dating back to 1972, which said that any message passed through a "third party" -- including telephones and computer servers -- was not "private information" like a sealed letter, and thus open to snooping all said this was legal


       Would this apply in Bradley Manning's case too?


      Nope. Bradley Manning was a young non-com in the intelligence division. Part of his job was to keep military secrets, not have a "crisis of conscience" that led him to hand over hundreds of pages of classified documents, videos, etc. to the likes of Julian Assange, knowing full well he'd make them public. 

      What the FBI did was to ask for records of telephone calls between the Associated Press and other news organizations who refused to name their sources in an attempt find who'd been leaking sensitive information to the press. 

      In both cases, Manning and the AP were violating national security laws. In both cases, they were investigated. In Manning's case, he violated his oath as a soldier, his security clearance and his trust with the army; investigating him was part of closing a hole in security caused by a violation of military regulations and possibly treason.

      In the APs case, they published things that were supposed to be kept quiet for reasons of national securty and the Justice Department went after their records when the AP refused to help said investigation. And as I pointed out, the laws and Supreme Court rulings they used to justify this "snooping" are on the books, making it all legal. 

      One more thing the NPR report I mentioned said was that if there was a national Reporter/Source Sheild Law, this would not have happened. 


  • #5

    The Badger wrote:

    I was listening to NPR this morning. They were discussing privacy and government snooping in the electonic age. One of the things they brought up was the incident where the Justice Department asked for the telephone records of the Associated Press and other news organizations. 

    To read the flaming rhetoric of the anti-Obama crowd, that was some sort of press intimidation/revenge on those who spoke out against the government. 

    The truth is more complicated: The New York Times published a story detailing how the FBI and other agencies thwarted a plot by Al Qaeda to blow up an airplane on the anniversary of Usama bin Laden's death. The news story exposed the fact that the government knew what Al Qaeda was up to, and told Al Qaeda that there was an American mole in their organization. 

    So why the Federal Fuss over that leak? 

    First, the simple fact that someone had leaked sensitive information to the press. 

    Second, it told Al Qaeda that they needed to be even more careful what they told to whom and how they said it. The last time a news story did something like that was when the Times or some other paper (I forget which one) said the American government had listened in on Bin Laden's sattelite cellular telephone, which was relatively easy to do. When the story came out, Al Qaeda stopped using sattelite cell phones and information gathering got more difficult. 

    Third, it put an American spy in danger of being found-out and "dealt with," according to Al Qaeda's perverted interpretation of Sharia law. 

    The federal government wanted to know who the source of the information leak was, so they could close the leak and make their anti-terrorism efforts a little less difficult. The Associated Press refused to "reveal a source," so the government went looking for him/her the old fashioned way -- looking at all the AP's phone calls for a couple of months, figuring out which numbers belonged to whom and trying to find the information leaker by process of elimination. 

    Homeland Security laws, the Patriot Act and a Supreme Court ruling dating back to 1972, which said that any message passed through a "third party" -- including telephones and computer servers -- was not "private information" like a sealed letter, and thus open to snooping all said this was legal

     

     

    Well, there goes one more "Obama Scandal."


    Nice try, pops.  The issue according to the AP, (I take it you read the AP's letter to the DOJ-lest you appear simple) was that less invasive procedures (the type usually done) were not attempted first-and that a heavy handed approach was taken.

    This isnt a GOP statement-its an AP statement.

    And yes-it does speak to the boundries of govt.

    Sometimes I think you are unaware of the parameters being discussed-as you seem to lack true insight.

    When you mention say NPR as a catalyst for your discussion-people think you are kinda slow.

    Comment


    • PFB
      PFB commented
      Editing a comment

      It should not be legal to bug anyone's phone without going before  a judge with some evidence to get a warrant.


    • The Badger
      The Badger commented
      Editing a comment

      Davo17 wrote:

      The Badger wrote:

      I was listening to NPR this morning. They were discussing privacy and government snooping in the electronic age. One of the things they brought up was the incident where the Justice Department asked for the telephone records of the Associated Press and other news organizations. 

      To read the flaming rhetoric of the anti-Obama crowd, that was some sort of press intimidation/revenge on those who spoke out against the government. 

      The truth is more complicated: The New York Times published a story detailing how the FBI and other agencies thwarted a plot by Al Qaeda to blow up an airplane on the anniversary of Usama bin Laden's death. The news story exposed the fact that the government knew what Al Qaeda was up to, and told Al Qaeda that there was an American mole in their organization. 

      So why the Federal Fuss over that leak? 

      First, the simple fact that someone had leaked sensitive information to the press. 

      Second, it told Al Qaeda that they needed to be even more careful what they told to whom and how they said it. The last time a news story did something like that was when the Times or some other paper (I forget which one) said the American government had listened in on Bin Laden's satellite cellular telephone, which was relatively easy to do. When the story came out, Al Qaeda stopped using satellite cell phones and information gathering got more difficult. 

      Third, it put an American spy in danger of being found-out and "dealt with," according to Al Qaeda's perverted interpretation of Sharia law. 

      The federal government wanted to know who the source of the information leak was, so they could close the leak and make their anti-terrorism efforts a little less difficult. The Associated Press refused to "reveal a source," so the government went looking for him/her the old fashioned way -- looking at all the AP's phone calls for a couple of months, figuring out which numbers belonged to whom and trying to find the information leaker by process of elimination. 

      Homeland Security laws, the Patriot Act and a Supreme Court ruling dating back to 1972, which said that any message passed through a "third party" -- including telephones and computer servers -- was not "private information" like a sealed letter, and thus open to snooping all said this was legal

       

       

      Well, there goes one more "Obama Scandal."


      Nice try, pops.  The issue according to the AP, (I take it you read the AP's letter to the DOJ-lest you appear simple) was that less invasive procedures (the type usually done) were not attempted first-and that a heavy handed approach was taken.

      This isn't a GOP statement-its an AP statement.
      I never said it wasn't an AP statement. I was pointing out that the Associated Press reported on things that the government law enforcement, intelligence and security agencies wanted kept quiet for reasons of anti-terrorism secrecy. 

      And yes-it does speak to the boundries of govt.
      True enough, but "the boundaries of government" sometimes ask that certain things not be made public; things such as cluing Al Qaeda in to the fact that their airline bombing plot was thwarted and that they have a spy in their midst. It may not be as blatant and damaging as posting Usama bin Laden's satellite telephone number, but it's bad enough. 

      Sometimes I think you are unaware of the parameters being discussed-as you seem to lack true insight.
      Is this code for "[I] don't agree with [you, therefore [I] brand [you] an idiot, in spite of the fact that [I'm] heavily partisan?"
       
      While I will admit that I am not privvy to what ever blogs you've read on the subject, that does not mean I'm completely ill-informed. Any accusation of "lacking insight," or "shallowness" or anything else on your part is strictly your own viewpoint, not mine.  

      When you mention say NPR as a catalyst for your discussion-people think you are kinda slow.
      Oh wow! Now you're trying to discredit the source by saying "It's NPR!"
       Congratulations; you've managed to poison the well (a logical fallacy) by committing an Argumentum Ad Hominem" against an entire radio news organization. 

      You've also committed a laughably weak argumentum ad hominem against me by declaring that I am "kinda slow." You wound me, sir! Not with your words, but by your lack of them, and your general lack of mastery of both logic and the English language. 


      For those of you who are interested, here is a link to Sunday morning's "Morning Edition," including the text and sound files of a week's worth of NPR news reports on the AP scandal. 

      http://www.npr.org/programs/weekend-edition-sunday/

      Now where are the links to your sources?


  • #6

    Yet another thread telling us there's no "there" there.....

     

    ...such effort.

    Comment


    • Davo17
      Davo17 commented
      Editing a comment

      nedezero1 wrote:

      Yet another thread telling us there's no "there" there.....

       

      ...such effort.


      There is indeed something there, and well will get to the bottom of it.


    • tequila_titan
      tequila_titan commented
      Editing a comment

      nedezero1 wrote:

      Yet another thread telling us there's no "there" there.....

       

      ...such effort.


      Nothing but lies, lies and more lies from the White House.


  • #7
    You get right to that detective dumbo. Lulz
    "Political Correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end."“Conservatives say if you don't give the rich more money, they will lose their incentive to invest. As for the poor, they tell us they've lost all incentive because we've given them too much money.”― George Carlin"The founding fathers were well aware of rapid firing capabilities by the indians." - NormH

    Comment


  • #8

    Badger, the trouble with your explanation is that it won't fit on the bumper sticker of a radical rightwing conservative extremist's pickup truck.

    Secondly, as you indicated, "The truth is more complicated."

    These guys do not understand complicated stuff.

    Try to dumb it down.

    For example: "Obama's fault".

    I think they can grasp that concept. 

    To you I'm an atheist; but to God, I'm the Loyal Opposition.

    Comment


    • The Badger
      The Badger commented
      Editing a comment

      RogueGnome wrote:

      Badger, the trouble with your explanation is that it won't fit on the bumper sticker of a radical rightwing conservative extremist's pickup truck.

      Secondly, as you indicated, "The truth is more complicated."

      These guys do not understand complicated stuff.

      Try to dumb it down.

      For example: "Obama's fault".

      I think they can grasp that concept. 


      SCORE ! ! ! !

       

      Well said! 


    • mdwagner73
      mdwagner73 commented
      Editing a comment

      RogueGnome wrote:

      Badger, the trouble with your explanation is that it won't fit on the bumper sticker of a radical rightwing conservative extremist's pickup truck.

      Secondly, as you indicated, "The truth is more complicated."

      These guys do not understand complicated stuff.

      Try to dumb it down.

      For example: "Obama's fault".

      I think they can grasp that concept. 


      Unfortunately, aversion to complicated truths is not limited to radical, rightwing extremists. 


  • #9
    Nothing "bugged" no laws broken no scandal here. Sorry guys
    "Political Correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end."“Conservatives say if you don't give the rich more money, they will lose their incentive to invest. As for the poor, they tell us they've lost all incentive because we've given them too much money.”― George Carlin"The founding fathers were well aware of rapid firing capabilities by the indians." - NormH

    Comment


  • #10

    Count me among those who would rather live in a less secure world than one in which the government can spy on us.

    I generally support Obama, but this IMO is the most troubling of the so-called scandals. And I fault both parties for pandering to a paranoid public all to willing to surrender their privacy for illusions of safety.

    Todzilla
    HUGE sound generation & capture facility
    Eno River Basin

    Comment


    • rbstern
      rbstern commented
      Editing a comment

      Todzilla wrote:

      Count me among those who would rather live in a less secure world than one in which the government can spy on us.

      I generally support Obama, but this IMO is the most troubling of the so-called scandals. And I fault both parties for pandering to a paranoid public all to willing to surrender their privacy for illusions of safety.


      One of the troubling aspects of this presidency is that the counterculture, which could historically be counted on to stand up against an abusive government, has now been co-opted into perpetrating that abuse.

      Pardon the cliche, but .... Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss.


  • #11

    The Badger wrote:

    I was listening to NPR this morning. They were discussing privacy and government snooping in the electonic age. One of the things they brought up was the incident where the Justice Department asked for the telephone records of the Associated Press and other news organizations. 

    To read the flaming rhetoric of the anti-Obama crowd, that was some sort of press intimidation/revenge on those who spoke out against the government. 

    The truth is more complicated: The New York Times published a story detailing how the FBI and other agencies thwarted a plot by Al Qaeda to blow up an airplane on the anniversary of Usama bin Laden's death. The news story exposed the fact that the government knew what Al Qaeda was up to, and told Al Qaeda that there was an American mole in their organization. 

    So why the Federal Fuss over that leak? 

    First, the simple fact that someone had leaked sensitive information to the press. 

    Second, it told Al Qaeda that they needed to be even more careful what they told to whom and how they said it. The last time a news story did something like that was when the Times or some other paper (I forget which one) said the American government had listened in on Bin Laden's sattelite cellular telephone, which was relatively easy to do. When the story came out, Al Qaeda stopped using sattelite cell phones and information gathering got more difficult. 

    Third, it put an American spy in danger of being found-out and "dealt with," according to Al Qaeda's perverted interpretation of Sharia law. 

    The federal government wanted to know who the source of the information leak was, so they could close the leak and make their anti-terrorism efforts a little less difficult. The Associated Press refused to "reveal a source," so the government went looking for him/her the old fashioned way -- looking at all the AP's phone calls for a couple of months, figuring out which numbers belonged to whom and trying to find the information leaker by process of elimination. 

    Homeland Security laws, the Patriot Act and a Supreme Court ruling dating back to 1972, which said that any message passed through a "third party" -- including telephones and computer servers -- was not "private information" like a sealed letter, and thus open to snooping all said this was legal

     

     

    Well, there goes one more "Obama Scandal."


    Except that AP claims that the story was held until they received assurance from high ranking officials that the threat to national security was over and no one was in danger.  And that the secret seizure of records was far more broad than it needed to be and in violation of the Justice Departments own guidelines.  So I think it's a bit premature to dismiss the whole thing as a non-issue.

     

    http://openchannel.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/05/14/18259039-ap-doj-clash-over-seriousness-of-leak-that-prompted-phone-records-seizure

     

    http://openchannel.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/05/20/18377209-dojs-secret-subpoena-of-ap-phone-records-broader-than-initially-revealed

    Comment


    • Belva
      Belva commented
      Editing a comment

      mdwagner73 wrote:

       

       

       

       

       


      ....the secret seizure of records was far more broad than it needed to be and in violation of the Justice Departments own guidelines. 



      Justice Dept guidelines are a whole lot different than laws. **************** the guidelines. Were any laws broken?

      So far the answer remains no. And I think it will remain no. It's just another example of Rewhinelicans crying like little schools girl who just peed their panties


    • The Badger
      The Badger commented
      Editing a comment

      mdwagner73 wrote:

      The Badger wrote:

      I was listening to NPR this morning. They were discussing privacy and government snooping in the electonic age. One of the things they brought up was the incident where the Justice Department asked for the telephone records of the Associated Press and other news organizations. 

      To read the flaming rhetoric of the anti-Obama crowd, that was some sort of press intimidation/revenge on those who spoke out against the government. 

      The truth is more complicated: The New York Times published a story detailing how the FBI and other agencies thwarted a plot by Al Qaeda to blow up an airplane on the anniversary of Usama bin Laden's death. The news story exposed the fact that the government knew what Al Qaeda was up to, and told Al Qaeda that there was an American mole in their organization. 

      So why the Federal Fuss over that leak? 

      First, the simple fact that someone had leaked sensitive information to the press. 

      Second, it told Al Qaeda that they needed to be even more careful what they told to whom and how they said it. The last time a news story did something like that was when the Times or some other paper (I forget which one) said the American government had listened in on Bin Laden's sattelite cellular telephone, which was relatively easy to do. When the story came out, Al Qaeda stopped using sattelite cell phones and information gathering got more difficult. 

      Third, it put an American spy in danger of being found-out and "dealt with," according to Al Qaeda's perverted interpretation of Sharia law. 

      The federal government wanted to know who the source of the information leak was, so they could close the leak and make their anti-terrorism efforts a little less difficult. The Associated Press refused to "reveal a source," so the government went looking for him/her the old fashioned way -- looking at all the AP's phone calls for a couple of months, figuring out which numbers belonged to whom and trying to find the information leaker by process of elimination. 

      Homeland Security laws, the Patriot Act and a Supreme Court ruling dating back to 1972, which said that any message passed through a "third party" -- including telephones and computer servers -- was not "private information" like a sealed letter, and thus open to snooping all said this was legal

       

       

      Well, there goes one more "Obama Scandal."


      Except that AP claims that the story was held until they received assurance from high ranking officials that the threat to national security was over and no one was in danger.  And that the secret seizure of records was far more broad than it needed to be and in violation of the Justice Departments own guidelines.  So I think it's a bit premature to dismiss the whole thing as a non-issue.

       

      http://openchannel.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/05/14/18259039-ap-doj-clash-over-seriousness-of-leak-that-prompted-phone-records-seizure

       

      http://openchannel.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/05/20/18377209-dojs-secret-subpoena-of-ap-phone-records-broader-than-initially-revealed


      So you say, but the feds still want to know who leaked the story in the first place. Maybe the Associated Press did hold the story for awhile, but a leak is still a leak, and there's no telling how much damage the next one might do.

      Besides, if nothing else, it gives the Republicans and the resident trolls here something to complain about. You know what they're like; if you don't give them something to play with every so often, they get really cranky.













Working...
X