Tracking the Press?:
It's hard to know what to make of this report, but it seems worth passing on. From the ABC News blog The Blotter, a report by ABC News reporters Brian Ross and Richard Esposito:
A senior federal law enforcement official tells us the government is tracking the phone numbers we call in an effort to root out confidential sources.Link via Raw Story.
"It's time for you to get some new cell phones, quick," the source told us in an in-person conversation.
We do 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.
While there is currently little or no evidince that they did in fact spy on their domestic policital opponents, it's clear that they would if they could. And since there doesn't appear to be any check on their ability to do it, and since everything surrounding the NSA program is secret ( including until recently the program itself), what's to stop them? And with nothing to stop them, it would be foolish to assume that they didn't.
What we have here, Ladies and Gentlemen, is an iceberg.
Until we dive underneath and conclusively determine that all of the ice is above the waterline the prudent thing to assume is that there's a lot more than has been made public so far.
I doubt reporters' changing their cell phone numbers will help much either. It wouldn't surprise me if the reporters are being found out through pen registers on IC employees work and/or personal telephones (which, IIRC from my own experiences trying to get my own security clearance, you must agree to allow any internal investigators to use as a condition of recieving a clearance), followed by reverse directory lookups and other legal, open-source methods to connect names with numbers.
These reporters obviously won't be prosecuted, but I imagine the leaking employees (like Mary McCarthy), will be stripped of their clearance and lose their jobs.
I would be concerned if they WEREN'T doing this.
Says the "Dog"
BCN
Since the morality of the confidential informant is not the story here, your post seems at best off-topic, and more likely intentionally deceptive in order to defend the administration.
You don't suppose that they are attempting to cover up the crimes of Bush, NSA, CIA etc?
I think they are. Kill the leaks and you kill any chance of uncovering crimes committed by this Adminstration. Kill any chance of uncovering the truth.
Why do you hate the truth?
"We would *never* use national security instruments to spy on political opponents!"
Shorter Republican Movement, 2006:
"Of COURSE we would use national security instruments to spy on political opponents - you make this sound like it's a bad thing!"
Until I hear more I'll file this one with the "Little Red Book" story.
Sometimes I appreciate the healthy dose of skepticism that emanates from some of the commenters, but COME ON!! If someone was calling in a bomb threat I would hope that they tracked down who was calling it in!! Oh but don't let the truth and common sense get in the way of a good story.
Anonymous Reader
One could note that the World Trade Center went up during the Nixon administration.
Chill, my friend. The story here isn't that they are investigating leakers: The story is that they are investigating reporters, and checking to see if they are contacting non-work phone numbers (like home phone and cell phone numbers) of potential leakers.
The ABC blog blurb does say it's related to the CIA leak investigation(s), and is entirely mum about the existence or non-existence of any warrants.
Given that the report also says it's just the numbers called being recorded - not their contents - it sounds like an unremarkable pen-register setup, which is the least one could expect in the investigation of a leak of classified information.
Anonymous Reader
Pursuant to what law?
Except, of course, that the CIA already has almost all that information available since they've collected records of every phone call in the U.S. (apart from QWEST's). Why bother with a warrant or a pen register?
Even if the government hasn't started using this for non-terrorist law enforcement, you can see the temptation. After all, bad guys are bad guys, right?
As for whether or not leaks are "justified," it all depends. As a general rule of thumb, when Arlen Specter flips out about some "secret" program he reads about in the press, it's probably something that shouldn't have been secret in the first place.
(2) The story hints at a connection to the NSA phone tracking, but there's no reason from the story itself to believe that's the case. The phone numbers could be tracked pursuant to a warrant. Though it would then appear to be something like obstruction of justice for the source to tip the reporters off on this.
(3) So: either (a) the tracking is being done illegally, and the source is embittered enough to leak that to the reporters; or (b) the source is what, within the confines of this blog's policies, I will call "messing with" the reporters.
I would rate (b) slightly more likely than (a), but these are strange days.
Says the "Dog"
No I don't think they are covering criminal activity because I've seen no evidence of any. In fact as Judge Posner opined, the only crime would have been NOT to do these things.
Says the "Dog"
The crime that makes "leaking classified information" illegal? There is no such crime. There are, obviously, laws that make it illegal to leak certain, specific types of classified information, but those laws are nowhere as broad as many people appear to be assuming.
1) By pen register / trap-and-trace devices, which at least would require some official to certify to a court "that the information likely to be obtained is relevant to an ongoing criminal investigation being conducted." 18 USC 3122. That is a relatively low bar to clear, but at least it is some bar. The current administration has signaled that it will aggressively pursue leaks as criminal matters, and in general seems not to construe legal limits on itself actually to mean very much. The DOJ rule seems to be: If some other party can't compel us not to do something, we will do it.
2) By obtaining phone-company records by warrant or court order that "shall issue only if the governmental entity offers specific and articulable facts showing that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the contents of a wire or electronic communication, or the records or other information sought, are relevant and material to an ongoing criminal investigation." 18 USC 2703(d) That is a slightly higher standard of process.
3) By conveniently querying the mostly comprehensive database of everybody's phone calls, which we now know that major telcos reportedly have provided to the government. Once such a government database exists -- in secret and without legal restrictions -- it can be queried for any purpose at all without a even modicum of process. The Pen Register Act becomes largely irrelevant once the ECPA prohibition against "voluntary" distribution of this data to the government is breached. (18 USC 2702) ECPA provides only civil remedies against the telcos, and DOJ has shown it will seek to protect the companies by intervening in civil suits with a claim of state-secrets privilege.
It would seem that the system of statutory privacy protection has failed massively in the face of bad faith behavior by the Bush administration.
Chilling, I think. Abuses are just starting to be revealed. There needs to be a new Church Committee, and the statutes need to be strengthened.
And, of course it is a LIE to say this has anything to do with the NSA program, since there is ZERO evidence to support that assertion. Not that Bush opponents ever have been embarrased about lying in the furtehrance of an attack on Bush.
I'm REAL tired of Washington beltway types and their reporter enablers openly flouting these laws.
See, 18 USC 792 et seq.
So after the war, they lost, and were put on trial. And what was the defense of so many to put those people to death? Just doin' my job, sir. Can't expect ME to blow the whistle! Hannah Arendt, I believe, came up with a phrase -- the banality of evil. The phrase was meant to describe people -- basically government bureaucrats, who willingly put untold millions to death as a routine course of their daily lives.
Today, we wonder how those people could exist. But today, we have CIA officials who actually have a conscience, who are concerned when their organization lies to Congress, who are concerned that torture may be against the law, and certainly against our values, and who want to speak up about it.
But what does everyone here say? Shut up! If you speak up, you are a traitor, and you should be rooted out. So I suppose they also agree that in Nazi Germany, anyone who would have spoken out against the Holocaust would also be a traitor and rooted out.
My god. Have we no conscience at all? Are we a fascist state, where our dear leader can do no wrong? and that any one who criticizes his policies is a heretic? Apparently so.
The animousity I hear on the board towards leakers is quite frightening. And when it comes to certain other leakers, such as George Bush, Scooter Libby or Dick Cheney, all of whom may very well have leaked Valerie Plame's name -- well, I don't hear the calls of treason against them. No -- bad leakers are those who won't follow this adminstration's game, good leakers are those who further the game of playing politics with our national defense.
Amazing.
See, 18 USC 792 et seq.
I trust you will agree that the Espionage Act has numerous elements that make it substantially narrower than the proposition that "leaking classified information is a crime."
So what if the government is doing something illegal and it has been classified? How is the government employee supposed to stop it?
Keep justifying these spying programs, my friends, the hills are alive with the sound of muzak.
Chip
chip
chip
Stopped reading at "the attitude of some people on the right has become indistiguishable from that of the Nazis."
Talk about torching your credibility in the first sentence. If you cannot distinguish between the right and the Nazis, then the rest of what you say cannot be taken seriously.
I should have been more precise. Although the classified information that has been leaked lately plainly pertains to national defense matters and would seem to fall under the Espionage Act.
I said some people on the right. I was over at the Belmont Club website this morning and read post after post that advocated committing warcrimes, torture, genocide, and collective punishment--including killing the families of terrorists. Instapundit, one of the most popular blogs on the right, and run by a law professor, approvingly linked to that thread. How are the people who advocate those positions different from the Nazis?
Even here, the attitude is that if the president orders something, it must be legal and the press must not question it and anyone who reveals programs, even if they are illegal and violate the law, should be prosecuted. That is simply wrong. We prosecuted people at Nuremburg who claimed they were "just following orders" eventhough everything they did was "legal" under German law. Yet people here are arguing that there are no circumstances under which secret programs of the government can ever be revealed. Is that not just a Nuremburg defense?
"Blah blah blah blah NAZI blah blah blah RIGHT WINGER blah blah BUSH blah blah NAZI."
If we want to read this kind of drivel we'll go to Daily Kos.
Very coherent counter argument to my substantive points.
But what you're not acknowledging is the fact that there are specic avenues to address grievances concerning abuse or possible abuse of these govt programs. These leakers can't provide vigilante justice and leak information that has the possibility of putting people at risk.
You can't even compare what happend in Germany with what is happening today. To do so only cheapens the atrocity of that event. Also, if you can show where abuse or misuse of these programs has taken place, please enlighten us.
Anonymous Reader
I think the definitions in the Espionage Act are a good deal tighter than that. After all, virtually anything can be said to "pertain to national defense."
Good leakers: Serve the administrations's goals.
Bad leakers: Try to expose the administration's illegal acts.
Let's get some perspective here - the spirit of the law is to prevent classified information from falling into the hands of someone who shouldn't have it - foreign powers, terrorists, criminals, etc. It's NOT to prevent criminal acts committed by government employees and elected officials from being exposed.
And sorry - Godwin's law is a farce. When you start talking about imprisonment without due process, torture, etc. comparisons to the Nazis become fair game.
As for the leakers... doesn't anybody know how to find a pay phone anymore???
That is truly laughable. It is the left that has become the moral equivalent of the appeasers who enabled the nazis.
I'll start the victory garden, save my tin, and join the Civilian Air Patrol when Al Qaeda invades Poland and sinks a couple battleships. How many panzer divisions does Al Qaeda have again?
Tell it to the folks at the WTC, the Pentagon and Flight 93.
Reynolds is notorious for that kind of thing. The "Nazis" comparison is on point insofar as (1) the Germans were willing to trade liberty for security and (2) they benefited from fellow travelers like Reynolds, who would occasionally deplore the means while enthusiastically endorsing the ends.
That said, the people who can grasp the comparison don't need reminding, and the people who do need reminding, can't or won't grasp the comparison. So, rhetorically, it's a bust.
Well, no I'm comparing us to Nazi Germany, I'm comparing the attitude to some on the right to Nazis. There is a big difference. We're not to a point where the Nazis were in 1943 when the machinery of death was in full swing. Maybe just the early '30s when Hitler was trying to convince everyone that there was a international Jewish and Communist conspiracy that wanted to destroy the German way of life and that civil liberties had to be sacrificed to save civilization.
I see too many people who are all too willing to use ruthless, barbaric methods to defeat Islamic terrorism and are all too willing to sacrifice civil rights in the belief that it will make them safe.
I'm still amazed at all the commentors who blithely make this assertion without being able to identify what crime it is. Is it a firing offense? Of course. Is it a crime? Only in specific cases.
Yes, the road to Auschwitz was paved with publicly available phone records.
Actually I think it is the left which is showing authoritarian tendencies. By repeatedly charging the right in this country with operating death camps and exterminating millions of people the left is trying to demonize conservatives and set up a rational for a purge of the right. A blueprint for setting up a gulag of re-education camps for conservatives across the great basin is being developed as we speak. Ridiculous? Of course. But at least I realize it when I write something idiotic.
I'm sure you'll be the first to let us know when we start down that path. But to say it now only cheapens your argument. Again, if you had proof of abuses, even slight abuses (if there's such a thing as a slight abuse), please shine the light on it.
Until then, the only thing that the govt can be accused of is being aggressive in their fight to protect the american people. In my opinion, I think they are doing the right thing. If something is amiss, I would have hoped that our brave elected representatives who have been briefed on these programs would have stood up and bravely denounced the abuses of our civil liberties.
Anonymous Reader
If you're such an expert on 9/11 maybe you can explain why building 7 was imploded? This was on the evening of 9/11, there were still people trapped down in subway or PATH trains - and they imploded a building nearby? Normally it takes at least days to do engineering studies and wire a building for demolition - and building 7 was ready in hours? You seem to have all the answers, let's hear them.
Oh, and Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. It was on PNAC hit-lists for quite a while, however.
(This is by no means a dig on the victims of 9/11 - they have my utmost respect and sympathies. Neither is it a dig against our armed services, I have the utmost respect for them as well.)
Remember Life Rule No. 1: When you are in a hole, stop digging.
These phone records are simply not publically available. They are the private phone records of length of phone calls and numbers called and are not revealed to anyone without a court order. Don't lie about the availability of these records.
Again, if you had proof of abuses, even slight abuses (if there's such a thing as a slight abuse), please shine the light on it.
Umm, what about the subject of this post? The president said on Saturday the records were only being used to track down Al Qaeda, not keep track of reporters. And since we know very little about the programs, how are we supposed to now if they are being abused?
I stand corrected: The road to Dachau was paved with phone bills.
If there was no warrant and the phone company released the records voluntarily, that would be unlawful under 18 USC 2702. Unfortunately, there is no such thing as "prosecuting" such companies because the only remedy is civil litigation.
And the DOJ is not on the side of litigating against such unlawful behavior, which has actually been solicited by the government. In fact, DOJ already has intervened on the other side by moving to block such a civil suit, citing state secrets privilege. Your tax dollars at work.
Don't people who work in the CIA and get security clearance sign agreements allowing the government to invade their privacy in certain ways? It is entierly possible that to get your security clearance to work at the CIA you need to sign a document allowing the government to look at your phone call records.
As the recent debate about phone call logs pointed out if these people have signed away such rights then the government is behaving perfectly legally.
However, this practice greatly worries me. In particular not everything a CIA employee might tell a reporter is classified information. For instance the dissatisfaction of the career staff with Gauss is such an example. Also any general sense that they are supposed to report certain sorts of info, e.g., if your info doesn't show WMD keep looking type attitudes.
The fact that even talking on one's home phone to a reporter about moral or general culture at the CIA might bring one under sucpiscion for leaking is troubling. It means that an administration can exert strong pressure on the CIA to give it the results it wants and the public will have no check on this practice. Sure the people in the CIA can complain to congress using the intelligence community whistleblower act but this isn't helpful as the activity reported isn't necessarily illegal and a reporter can hardly source a partisan congressman about general attitudes in the CIA.
So while not illegal the level of control and fear the administration is starting to exercise over government employees is really begining to trouble me. Especially if it turns out this control is used in a partisan fashion (only stop leakers that leak things the admin doesn't like).
Really what these events demonstrate is that we need a seperate agency to prosecute leaks that we can guarantee will do so in a non-partisan manner. Additionally the same sort of agency should somehow guarantee that declasification is done in a fair manner (the prez can't just declassify the evidence that supports his position).
See, Life Rule No. 1.
*Still* not publicly available information. Wanna try "opening my mail"?
What's sad is that the party of FDR has now been reduced to a bunch of whiny rights-mongerers.
I can see the argument that one is entitled to break the law in pursuit of a higher goal. I can also see the contrary argument, that one should not break the law but, rather, work within the system.
What I can't see is berating a leaker for "violating the law" and not "working within the system" because they exposed an illegal program being run by the government. If the government/administration can argue that the illegal program is justified because, though it breaks the law, it serves a higher purpose, why can't the leaker make a similar argument? That the leak, though "illegal," served a high purpose because it exposed illegal activity by the government?
There seems an element of hypocrisy in fiercely defending the administration while fiercely attacking the leaker. If each rely on his or her moral compass rather than the law to determine "right" and "wrong," why is either more or less blameworthy than the other? Ineed, you can make a more compelling ethical case that the leaker is "right" and the administration "wrong" rather than the reverse.
Is it just that the anti-leakers don't believe the goverment has broken the law? If the government had broken the law, would the leaks be justified?
I apologize, a major political party is just like the Nazis. But it seems that party is the Democrats -- at least in Alabama:
Candidate: Holocaust didn't happen
By Jay Reeves
The Associated Press
BIRMINGHAM -- A Democratic candidate for attorney general denies the Holocaust occurred and said Friday he will speak this weekend to a "pro-white" organization that is widely viewed as being racist.
Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose
Nothin' don't mean nothin' hon' if it ain't free,
Maybe not phone records, but it was paved with an attitude that the government can do no wrong in protecting the people and demonizing an entire class of people--making them subhuman and dangerous to the state. Go over to LGF or the Belmont Club or listen to the rantings of Ann Coulter or Michelle Malkin. The way they talk about "Islamofascists", Arabs or Muslims in general is indistinguishable from the way the Nazis talked about the Jews. Then sites like Instapundit and Redstate are more subtle, but they are nearly as bad. Glenn Reynolds has implied that genocide might be necessary to resolve our differences with the Arabs. Recently, several commentors over at Redstate have advocated prohibiting Muslim immigration (1st amendment be damned).
What the left is missing here, what they refuse to see, is that we're the good guys. We meaning Americans. It doesn't matter what tactics we use, what matters is that we stand for freedom. I believe in freedom at any cost.
Smithy, you never cease to amaze me. I'll give my usual caveat that I assume your posts and website are not meant to be parody. Just a couple of questions: 1) Are there ANY powers that you think the gov't shouldn't have? In past threads you opined that they should tap ALL phones. 2)Do you really think that winning an election means that the party in charge can do anything regardless of the law? You do realize the party you love so dearly won't be in power forever, right? 3) You write: "It doesn't matter what tactics we use, what matters is that we stand for freedom. I believe in freedom at any cost." Do you realize that there are contradictions here? You are saying that you believe in freedom at any cost, including freedom. You need to separate the notions of the US and freedom. Happy, they often coincide. That's why I am generally pretty happy in this country. But they are not equivalent. The US can and does do things all the time that limits the freedoms of its own citizens.
In fact the last sentence from you that I quoted above is just so outlandish that I'm going to have to go back to assuming you're just pulling our leg.
You might want to check your history and our rigid adherence to the Geneva Conventions in World War II. In the closing days of the war, Hitler actually considered ordering the execution of American and British prisoners, hoping that it would trigger massive reprisals against German POWs. Why? Because so many German soldiers were surrendering to the Western Allies knowing they would be well treated, and Hitler was desparate to stop it.
Captured German soldiers had commissary priveleges. This is one of the the things that AG Gonzalez complained about as being "quaint"?
It seems to me if the Gov't was checking who it's employees were calling and recieving calls from on federal phones, that would be ok. I believe an employee has no expectation or right to privacy while using their employers phones.
Checking out from the reporters side would be a no no it seems to me.
What, exactly, does the First Amendment have to do with foreign immigration?
No one is saying that Frederson can't call anyone he likes Nazis.
Folks are merely pointing out that they can take said "calling" into account when they evaluate what Frederson writes.
Why does Frederson think that his opinions are somehow immune from criticism?
Smithy,
Your act is both silly and transparent. It reflects the elitist thinking of the left about how smart they think they are and how dumb everyone who doesn't agree with them must be. The problem with the leftist elitists is that they only *think* they are smart, but that thought isn't supported by reality. Your act here is a perfect example of that false self-knowledge meeting the harsh truth of reality.
Says the "Dog"
Having a religious test as a requirement for immigration or citizenship would certainly violate the establishment clause. That is con law 101.
Yes, we complied with the Geneva Convention in WWII since the Germans and Italians were lawful combatants -- unlike AQ terrorists to which the Convention does not apply. The Germans, for the most part, complied with the Conventions in regard to British, French and Americans as well. AQ does not afford such treatment to us today.
I was going to say the same of you. You do it well, but there's something too good about it. Go back to the Harvard Law School library and do some studying, kid.
Uhhh, because it was not "imploded". WTC 7 collapsed as a result of the structural damage it suffered from the falling debris from the collapse of the two large towers and the attandant fires.
Are you talking about Ken Starr and Henry Hyde?
Even if the government breaks the law when running a classified program, absent permission from the President or a designation of authority under law or executive order to do so, it is still illegal for any appointed government official to reveal classified information to anyone not cleared to recieve it, including the media. If you work for the government, you truly believe that a classified program you have knowledge of violates the law, and you get no aid out of your chain of command, then the proper response is to inform CONGRESS, not the media. (In the case of the NSA phone records collection, that would be the House and Senate Intelligence Committees.)
Why? 1) Members of Congress, by virtue of their position, enjoy Constitutional immunity (Article I sec. 6 cl. 1, the "speech and debate clause") from any criminal charges relating to revealing classified information in the course of their official functions (speeches, congressional reports, hearings, etc.) (Indeed, one way that Daniel Ellsberg covered himself in the Pentagon Papers case in 1971 was by sending a copy of those documents to Sen. Gravel of Alaska, who read them into the Congressional Record and made them permanently public.) 2) Members of Congress who reveal classified information for transient reasons, or even naked political advantage, can be held to account for their actions through the electoral process: in other words, the verdict of "right" or "wrong" rests with the American people. The news media does not enjoy either immunity under law, nor is it accountable before the people.
Well, you must have misunderstood what Fitzgerald said. He clearly said that Plame's status was classified and that revealing it was a crime. Just because proving the underlying crime is very difficult and he chooses not to prosecute a very difficult case, doesn't mean that the underlying crime was not committed.
If some of you don't know what I'm talking about, check out Balloon Juice.
Sigh. Dog, *why* does one lie under oath and obstruct justice?
Isn't a classic motive "to conceal one's crimes"?
So, is it any surprise that someone who perjured himself and obstructed justice would successfully prevent his being prosecuted for the offense about which he lied, etc.?
P.S. How's that new blog coming?
I would argue that you can not classify an illegal act. The classification statute clearly states that you can not use to classification procedures to conceal illegal acts. So if you attempt to classify an illegal act the classification is illegitimate and is null. Therefore the revelation of illegal acts is not a crime because they were never secret in the first place.
Of course the leaker runs the risk that the act will be determined to be legal and therefore legitimately classified. But that is for the courts to decide.
Has my theory ever been litigated?
Once the government has assembled a secret database of everyone's phone calls, which it essentially has done, the distinction you make disappears. Journalists, lawyers, political activists, elected officials, etc. -- all their calls are in the secret government database.
There is supposed to be a legal barrier to populating such a database in the first place, but that barrier seems to have been ignored or circumvented by the companies with the connivance of the U.S. government.
I believe that there are 4th amendment issues when the feds are monitoring their employees.
BTW, I agree that the federal government, like private employers, has a legitimate right to track its own phone traffic.
No snark intended, could you elaborate on that?
Even with all that, the "zing!" post of the day award goes to Junkyard Hypocrite.
Even at the cost of, say, slavery.
That would be a case of the exception eating the rule. Who gets to decide what is legal and what is illegal in an uncertain case involving classified programs? The President? Congress? The Courts? Or is it (as your logic appears to suggest) up to the individual government employee? If every government employee with a clearance found a program they didn't like or disagreed with, there would never be such a thing as "classified" information, or we would end up setting national security policy according to a least common denominator, where no program can be executed or secrets kept if anyone involved has any objection, no matter how trite or ridiculous. Either way, I believe our security would suffer for it.
No, I say better to leave the question of legality, both the obvious cases and the not-so-obvious, to Congress, the one body with the Constitutional authority and immunity, not to mention the direct public accountability, to do so.
Not that I know of, but with the CIA cracking down on leaks I strongly suspect that's about to change.
Well, you must have misunderstood what Fitzgerald said. He clearly said that Plame's status was classified and that revealing it was a crime.
What statute is this? Its not the one about revealing the identity of a covert agent, because Plame wasn't a covert agent working abroad in the past 5 years and the person making the disclosure must KNOW that the USA is keeping the person's identity secret.
So what statute was it that he referred to? He didn't. Because there is no applicable statute, which again is why he went with the crap about dueling memories of 2 year old inconsequential (at the time) conversations.
Says the "Dog"
I hate to be agreeing with a spoof here, but he's right.
I, for one, never thought you were a joke or a spoof. An oxymoron, perhaps -- we will be free, even if we have to kill everyone who disagrees with us.
So, is it any surprise that someone who perjured himself and obstructed justice would successfully prevent his being prosecuted for the offense about which he lied, etc.?
Yes it is actually. I see this false logic repeated many times on the moonbat sites, but I'm surprised to see it here because neither you or any people on this site are usually moonbats.
You see, you can't KNOW about the LIE unless you KNOW THE TRUTH. If you DON'T know the LIE is a LIE, then you would be fooled by the lie. So to claim someone LIED you must also know what you think the TRUTH IS.
Therefore, it is quite impossible, logically, to asset that you KNOW beyond and reasonable doubt that someone LIED and at the same time say we don't know what the TRUTH is the LIE covered up. Only successful LIES and successful coverups prevent others from knowing the truth. If the LIES are successful then people like Fitzgerald don't know they are lies and can't charge that someone lied.
Its simple really. Elemental as Holmes might say to Dr. Watson.
Says the "Dog"
I think there is a typo in this offering. It should read "Iraq," not "Poland."
Collateral damage (quaint term) in Iraq is only in the 6-figure catagory. Is Bpbapista's point we need to wait for the number to grow to 6 million before complaining?
Yes JosephSlater Smithy did, in effect, admit he is nothing but a childish liberal pretending to be his mind's characature of what he thinks those who aren't childish liberals believe. He has no corrected himself is trying desperately to avoid drawing attention to this admission.
However, as I stated to him earlier his little act is silly and quite transparent. Its where his false self-image meets the road of harsh reality.
Says the "Dog"
Over 100 comments in this thread. At least a dozen assertions of the bolded proposition. Still no cite to a statute that says anything nearly this broad.
Oh, and to whoever said that the guy who signs his posts "the Dog" is putting on some kind of act, gee, I have no idea what would make you think such a thing.
"the source told us"
"Other sources have told us"
"One former official"
There is no reason whatsoever to believe this completely anonymous account. On the contrary, its lurid and unverifiable nature marks it as revenue-generating scandal. Why do people keep falling for this nameless "senior administration official" crap?
Therefore, it is quite impossible, logically, to asset that you KNOW beyond and reasonable doubt that someone LIED and at the same time say we don't know what the TRUTH is the LIE covered up. Only successful LIES and successful coverups prevent others from knowing the truth. If the LIES are successful then people like Fitzgerald don't know they are lies and can't charge that someone lied.
One would *hope* that the above was a spoof.
JYLD is of course mixing up (1) the alleged underlying offense and (2) the subjects on which Libby is accused of lying.
Most of that "collateral damage" has been caused by the real Fascists in Iraq -- the Baathist terrorists and AQ. Except that the Fascists are deliberately killing civilians. If you cannot understand that basic distinction, then you are living validation of Godwin's law.
Besides that, your "six figure" claim is extremely dubious and has been debunked a number of times.
Actually, for one set of government employees, those in the military, they not only have an affirmative duty to disobey illegal orders and report those who give such orders, but they also have a duty to intervene to prevent illegal acts. General Peter Pace pointed this out at a press conference with Donald Rumsfeld, directly contradicting the Secretary of Defense. This is a legacy of Nuremburg. A soldier cannot claim he was "just following orders" as a defense to illegal acts. Of course the flipside to this is that if he disobeys a direct order believing it to be illegal and it turns out to be a legal order, he can be prosecuted for disobeying that order. That is a decision that is ultimately made by the Court.
Quick quiz:
1) Is the revelation of CIA preditor missiles in Pakistan necessary for US democracy to survive?
2) Would the US (and the Bush administration) be justified in investigating who leaked this information? If not, explain?
An interesting variant of this issue obtains in the situation of Gen. Hayden and the NSA warrantless surveillance. No doubt he will say that not only was he obeying an order from the President, he was acting on advice of lawyers in NSA and the Justice Department, and thinks the program is lawful despite the black-letter provisions of FISA forbidding it.
If those lawyers turn out to be demonstrably wrong about the law -- that is, if the violation of FISA ever is tested in a real court and those lawyers' theories are rejected -- what is the culpability of someone in Hayden's position?
What does that tell us about how Hayden might enforce (or not enforce) the McCain anti-torture amendment at CIA if the President directs him to disregard it?
Beyond the narrow question of criminal culpability, what standard should be applied to such questions when the Senate is considering Hayden's nomination?
1. No
2. Yes
I suggest they build a database of all phone calls made in the world in order to prosecute those guilty of leaking details about our Predators in Pakistan, but more importantly so they can create a website hall of shame chastising those who failed to call their mothers yesterday.
You can't be that dense. Libby told a recount of conversations with a couple reporters. The reporters told their recount. Fitzgerald decides that the reporters stories are the truth, and Libby's recounts were lies. Therefore, there is no coverup of anything by these alleged lies of Libby because Fitzgerald knows what the reporters said and believes they told the truth. Therefore, Libby's alleged lies did NOT cover up anything.
Andersen you aren't confusing the obstruction allegation with something other than these alleged lies described above are you? The alleged lying by saying something that didn't agree with the reporters' recollections *IS* the alleged obstruction. Since fitzgerald knows the reporters side and he believes what they said to be true and accurate these alleged lies obstructed NOTHING and prevented NOTHING from being known to Fitzgerald.
Elemental my dear Andersen.
Says the "Dog"
I'll get the popcorn... who's got the beer? I've got $5 on Dog.
Right. That's exactly what the case is about. Nice to see you're putting that "law degree" to such good use.
"Therefore, it is quite impossible, logically, to asset that you KNOW beyond and reasonable doubt that someone LIED and at the same time say we don't know what the TRUTH is the LIE covered up. Only successful LIES and successful coverups prevent others from knowing the truth. If the LIES are successful then people like Fitzgerald don't know they are lies and can't charge that someone lied."
Absolutely incorrect. If a lie is logically impossible or otherwise self-evident, it can be identified as such regardless of whether one knows the truth. The fundamental problem with this assertion is that it relies upon a false dichotomy; there are more possibilities than the lie and the truth. There are countless possibilities, any one of which might be true; one can know that (perhaps not usually in the perfect knowledge sense, but certainly in the "beyond a reasonable doubt" sense) a single statement is untrue because of countervailing evidence or logical impossibility, without knowing whether one of the infinite other possibilities is the truth.
Thanks for giving the "kid" a vote of confidence! (wink)
Says the "Dog"
I'm not sure which would have more people rolling in their graves: 1. Suggesting I'm a Kid or 2. Suggesting I belong at Harvard Law School Library.
You are absolutely correct as a general proposition but absolutely incorrect as applied to the specific facts of the alleged lie in the Libby matter. In the Libby matter the alleged lie was revealed because others allegedly testified to the truth. So the facts of the Libby matter and the logic of the alleged lies covering something up successfully completely fails.
We were discussing the Libby matter wherein what you quoted I said and how it applies to the facts of the Libby matter remains absolutely correct and sound.
Says the "dog"
1) Does anyone really think it is appropriate (never mind legal or constitutional) for the Federal government to track the phone numbers that every journalist calls for the purpose of stifling internal dissent among the Bush administration or Federal Government?
2) Does anyone really think that the Federal Government should avoid all questioning of its behavior by simply classifying everything that anyone could possibly question and prosecuting those who reveal unquestionably illegal behavior. (Imagine if the U.S. Govt were torturing U.S. citizens on relatively weak grounds - i.e., they are Muslims and might know something.)
3) Does anyone really think that revealing troop movements or classified weapons projects or the identity of intelligence agents (I take no position on the specific instance that will call to mind, as I do not have enough information) or other things, the secrecy of which is clearly important to the country, is somehow defensible and not subject to some kind of prosecution?
4) Is it really worth 140 posts to discuss what's left?
Is that all you took out of the discussion? Rather like popping your cork after reading the preface to a good book.
Says the "Dog"
Sorry, you stated it as a general rule, or at least that is the way it appeared to me. Not being sufficiently familiar with the Libby matter, I have nothing to say about that. If you merely meant as applied to that particular context, I obviously can't respond to the merits.
These stories about the NSA having phone records is a joke. I bought diapers on my credit card a few years ago, and within weeks got mailings from every company in the country that sold baby products. And, when I bought a gift card for my parent's dog at PetSmart, I got inundated with pet-related junk mail. So is life in these United States. If the NSA wants to see my phone records, tell them to go ahead. And, if they want to listen to my sister talk to my mother on the phone for 3 hours gossiping about nothing, I feel sorry for them.
If you don't like Bush, that's fine. God Bless America. But please reconsider how your Bush hatred is coloring your logic and experience.
Shocking indeed, to think that the CIA might actually be doing its job? And there I had assumed they were completely ignoring Pakistan, residence of one O.B. Laden, General Delivery, NW Province.
(Though, when you pause to reflect, the very idea of missiles that are peculiar to an intelligence agency is one that you would have to spend a good hour explaining to a visiting Martian.)
It's truly remarkable. These people think of Bush -- not Al Qaeda -- as the enemy now. It's sad what havoc the liberal MSM has wrought upon the American blogscape.
Oh, like there can be only one enemy? Poor trusting Smithy! Don't read any Ira Levin novels?
(But happily, on the Flypaper Theory, Bush's being stuck in Iraq makes it less likely that he can strike us at home; witness his Social Security "reform" and its fate!)
He's a spoof, clearly. No one who has followed the case could believe what he has said. I personally believe that there was no underlying crime here (that Plame was not covert), but there are mounds of evidence that Libby lied repeatedly. This is no longer a partisan view, as anyone who reads Tom Maguire can tell you.
Could you point me to the posts you consider "Bush hatred."
Fine. Now call the NSA and tell them they can have YOUR phone records, but not MINE, since they are legally protected unless there is probable cause to examine them.
Do you think that this revelation helped in their mission? If not, do you think that the leaker should be prosecuted?
Steve,
But the fact remains, you attempted to reduce the Libby case down to an absurd narrative of "Fitzgerald choosing to believe the reporters' word," which doesn't display much understanding of either the facts or the law.
I certainly agree that what Fitzgerald has done is absurd, but nonetheless you have correctly repeated my correct statement of exactly for what Libby was indicted.
If you find it absurd, talk to Fitzgerald. I agree its absurd.
Says the "Dog"
I am sure that the revelation dealt a crippling blow to our efforts to find OBL, which have not been otherwise distracted by our overseas adventures. And of course the leaker should be prosecuted, unless they had authorization from Cheney or Rove, in which case they should be given a medal.
But you posed the question -- what do you think?
Of course the leaker runs the risk that the act will be determined to be legal and therefore legitimately classified. But that is for the courts to decide.
Indeed, ideally, that's the way the system should work. If you see something you believe to be wrong, you speak out, even though you know that doing so could subject you to serious penalties. It used to be called "having the courage of your convictions." The idea that every ethically correct action ought to be done at no cost to the doer is a particulary sad invention of the modern world.
Such great dilemmas as this, so few minds to untangle them.
Above, one made an illusion to the "iceberg" scenario, to me, it seems a safe bet.
Have we so forgotten "eternal vigilence" because the good that currency once purchased has been defunct for so long ?
Sorry Smithy, I guess you won't be able to regale all your friends this Friday with your internet impersonation stories while sipping some chardonnay and having some brie?
You're not even trying now, JunkYardLawDog, are you? No actual conservative would resort to the "brie and chardonnay" joke. We stopped using that line around 2002 (when most of our wives began serving brie and chardonnay at parties).
Sorry Smithy
Says the "Dog"
I beg to differ. Please read Professor Kerr's May 13th blog entry. The only exception he makes is if we *believe* that the NSA only "received and retained" the records--something we don't know yet. Also please read his May 12th entry, wherein he says it"s *arguable* whether the Patriot Act made this legal. My understanding is that unless the exception contained in the Patriot Act obtains, then the government has to have a warrent to obtain my telephone records. I can understand Professor Kerr leaving the door open for the government. I'm not in quite as sanguine a mood about the matter. In any case, I think your flat declaration is not a true statement. I'd certainly welcome correction.
You are funny, though. I'll give you that.
Change cell phones indeed.
The only reason I can see for anyone to give classified information to ABC News or any other media channel is to make a political statement. At least they should try official channels before resorting to the press.
And it is illegal to divulge classified information. Everyone who is briefed is made completely aware of their responsibililty and liability for the information they are granted access to. Even if they disagree with the policy it doesn't give them the right to make the information public.
And since were call patterns private? Consumers have no expectation that their calling patterns are subject to Privacy Act or Constitutional protection. Companies use information about calling patterns all the time to analyze routing and network capacity among other things.
Who is it that is making up these new "privacy rights" for people? Does anyone get a right or just Democrats who don't like Bush's policies?
You don't see a difference between internal usage and handing the same information over to the government?
Theoretically, yes--but what world are you living in?
the article to which you linked is utterly perverse. Although I can not say anything for sure, I have to believe that anyone who hoped to be taken seriously would distance themselves from it. Unless anyone refers to it in a positive light, I would ignore it.
Of course, there's still the matter of other laws beyond the Fourth Amendment.
Also, are people even distinguishing between NSA1, NSA2, and this program, whatever it is? There are serious differences from a legal standpoint between all three, and I have serious doubts about the validity of the program alluded to in the main post.
This of course is nonsense, since call volume through switches is entirely different from individualized call patterns (which are not anonymized--if that is even a word--because the identifying phone numbers are still attached).
USC Title 18 Part I, Chapter 37 Section 793(d).
It's a crime to even attempt to deliver classified information to anyone not authorized to recieve it. Interestingly enough, if I read the punishment section right - the Feds can actually take away any property connected to say a Pulitzer Prize for a story which transmitted classified information to the (unauthorized to recieve it) public?
For those of you who don't want to link here, as they say in the porn industry, is the "money shot":
"If it took the Germans less than four years to rid themselves of 6 million Jews, many of whom spoke German and were fully integrated into German society, it couldn't possibly take more than eight years to deport 12 million illegal aliens, many of whom don't speak English and are not integrated into American society."
as you note, the linked passage was highly offensive and is probably not representative of a mainstream "conservative" view. As a rule, I try to refrain from citing such extreme misrepresentations of the mainstream views opposed to my own, as there is little to be learned from them other than recognition that there are offensive viewpoints on every side of the spectrum. In general, people who want the money shot know where to find it. There is no need to bring the porn into the living room where others are trying to have "clean" fun. And if you feel that your adversaries on the site are carping by bringing up so-called democrat holocaust denires, take the high road and ignore them.
Are you perhaps confusing call volume with individual call patterns? And of what use is such information to the NSA if the callers cannot be identified? Hospitals use statistical information culled from patients' records all the time. But my medical record is still private and guarded by the hospital. The government also uses hospital records for research, but in that case any identifying information is blacked out.
The jist of the story seems to be that they aren't tracking reporters' calls but merely checking their logs when they suspect they've been involved with the leaking of classified info. This makes the story quite different, both legally and, I'm sure in the minds of some on the left, "morally".
Sorry if I wasted valuable comment space with this update, Shangui. And, no, this wasn't supposed to be funny.
"American Pissant" is an imposter, you should have realized that when his posts were not as elegant and devastating as mine.
Smithy-
We(Americans) are supposed to be the good guys because we follow the rules, get the facts, and respect basic human rights. When we don't we approach the level of the Nazis, terrorists, etc. And freedom is never preserved by giving up.....freedom. That's nonsense.
American Pissant-
You, sir, are a scoundrel and a knave. My seconds will be calling on you forthwith to present the challenge that you meet me on the Field of Honor.
MCO-
There is quite a bit of contention to the theory that WTC 7 collapsed due to damage from debris and fire. It collapsed nearly symmetrically and in 7 seconds.
"The collapse of WTC 7 was an event that baffled structural engineers."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_conspiracy_theories
therut-
How many aircraft carriers does Al Qaeda have? I forgot we were fighting a modern military power, I thought we were fighting a few thousand religious fanatics.
Pistols, swords or rapier wit?
Such an administrative instrument, which requires no court approval, is authorized under 18 USC 2709, and requires a simple declaration by the FBI that the records sought "are relevant to an authorized investigation to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities, provided that such an investigation of a United States person is not conducted solely on the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States."
One wonders whether that condition properly can be stretched to include leak investigations. But one can wonder all day without it mattering, because the FBI does not have to justify its particular finding to anyone.
For a general lay article about NSLs, see this Washington Post article. Note: DOJ objected to that article, and the Post responded to its objections here. Also note that the final version of the PATRIOT Act extension, passed this year after the article was written, made some further tweaks in the law.
See also this recent Congressional Research Service summary of the legal history of National Security Letters.
It seems that this is entirely different than what some were suggesting earlier. But, strangely, the commenters here seem to have lost interest in this issue.
However, the article cited by Just An Observer notes that
There is something somewhat Kafkaesque to these NSLs, and I would hope that their use is truly limited. I don't think anyone knows the totality of what the investigating agencies are doing, and there seem to be valid concerns about its oversight. As the poet laureate recently spake:
1. I've always thought it virtuous to change one's opinion in light of the facts. Would you disagree?
2. Under what facts would your opinion change?
We don't know that for sure. The ABC story was ambiguous, but indicated that it might be.
I decided that on-base percentage was more important than batting average after I read Moneyball. Is that good enough for you?
I'm just pointing out here that the issue is now the FBI and NSL's not the NSA and call-tracking. So it changes the legal terrain. Either way, I support cracking down on the leaking of classified information.
This is pursuant to a NSL? Shit
Why shit?
Asks the "Dog"
Because that has about as much to do with the purpose of the Patriot Act as what the FBI is allegedly doing.