Government Secretly Seizes Associated Press Phone Records

[BridgeTroll]

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/govt-obtains-wide-ap-phone-records-probe

Gov't obtains wide AP phone records in probe

By MARK SHERMAN
â€" May. 13 10:53 PM EDT

WASHINGTON (AP) â€" The Justice Department secretly obtained two months of telephone records of reporters and editors for The Associated Press in what the news cooperative's top executive called a "massive and unprecedented intrusion" into how news organizations gather the news.

The records obtained by the Justice Department listed outgoing calls for the work and personal phone numbers of individual reporters, for general AP office numbers in New York, Washington and Hartford, Conn., and for the main number for the AP in the House of Representatives press gallery, according to attorneys for the AP. It was not clear if the records also included incoming calls or the duration of the calls.

In all, the government seized the records for more than 20 separate telephone lines assigned to AP and its journalists in April and May of 2012. The exact number of journalists who used the phone lines during that period is unknown, but more than 100 journalists work in the offices where phone records were targeted, on a wide array of stories about government and other matters.

In a letter of protest sent to Attorney General Eric Holder on Monday, AP President and Chief Executive Officer Gary Pruitt said the government sought and obtained information far beyond anything that could be justified by any specific investigation. He demanded the return of the phone records and destruction of all copies.

"There can be no possible justification for such an overbroad collection of the telephone communications of The Associated Press and its reporters. 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," Pruitt said.

The government would not say why it sought the records. Officials have previously said in public testimony that the U.S. attorney in Washington is conducting a criminal investigation into who may have provided information contained in a May 7, 2012, AP story about a foiled terror plot. The story disclosed details of a CIA operation in Yemen that stopped an al-Qaida plot in the spring of 2012 to detonate a bomb on an airplane bound for the United States.

In testimony in February, CIA Director John Brennan noted that the FBI had questioned him about whether he was AP's source, which he denied. He called the release of the information to the media about the terror plot an "unauthorized and dangerous disclosure of classified information."

Prosecutors have sought phone records from reporters before, but the seizure of records from such a wide array of AP offices, including general AP switchboards numbers and an office-wide shared fax line, is unusual.

In the letter notifying the AP, which was received Friday, the Justice Department offered no explanation for the seizure, according to Pruitt's letter and attorneys for the AP. The records were presumably obtained from phone companies earlier this year although the government letter did not explain that. None of the information provided by the government to the AP suggested the actual phone conversations were monitored.

Among those whose phone numbers were obtained were five reporters and an editor who were involved in the May 7, 2012, story.

The Obama administration has aggressively investigated disclosures of classified information to the media and has brought six cases against people suspected of providing classified information, more than under all previous presidents combined.

The White House on Monday said that other than press reports it had no knowledge of Justice Department attempts to seek AP phone records.

"We are not involved in decisions made in connection with criminal investigations, as those matters are handled independently by the Justice Department," spokesman Jay Carney said.

Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., chairman of the investigative House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, said on CNN, "They had an obligation to look for every other way to get it before they intruded on the freedom of the press."

Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said in an emailed statement: "The burden is always on the government when they go after private information, especially information regarding the press or its confidential sources. ... On the face of it, I am concerned that the government may not have met that burden. I am very troubled by these allegations and want to hear the government's explanation."

The American Civil Liberties Union said the use of subpoenas for a broad swath of records has a chilling effect both on journalists and whistleblowers who want to reveal government wrongdoing. "The attorney general must explain the Justice Department's actions to the public so that we can make sure this kind of press intimidation does not happen again," said Laura Murphy, the director of ACLU's Washington legislative office.

Rules published by the Justice Department require that subpoenas of records of news organizations must be personally approved by the attorney general, but it was not known if that happened in this case. The letter notifying AP that its phone records had been obtained through subpoenas was sent Friday by Ronald Machen, the U.S. attorney in Washington.

William Miller, a spokesman for Machen, said Monday that in general the U.S. attorney follows "all applicable laws, federal regulations and Department of Justice policies when issuing subpoenas for phone records of media organizations." But he would not address questions about the specifics of the AP records. "We do not comment on ongoing criminal investigations," Miller said in an email.

The Justice Department lays out strict rules for efforts to get phone records from news organizations. A subpoena can be considered only after "all reasonable attempts" have been made to get the same information from other sources, the rules say. It was unclear what other steps, in total, the Justice Department might have taken to get information in the case.

A subpoena to the media must be "as narrowly drawn as possible" and "should be directed at relevant information regarding a limited subject matter and should cover a reasonably limited time period," according to the rules.

The reason for these constraints, the department says, is to avoid actions that "might impair the news gathering function" because the government recognizes that "freedom of the press can be no broader than the freedom of reporters to investigate and report the news."

News organizations normally are notified in advance that the government wants phone records and then they enter into negotiations over the desired information. In this case, however, the government, in its letter to the AP, cited an exemption to those rules that holds that prior notification can be waived if such notice, in the exemption's wording, might "pose a substantial threat to the integrity of the investigation."

It is unknown whether a judge or a grand jury signed off on the subpoenas.

Arnie Robbins, executive director of the American Society of News Editors, said, "On the face of it, this is really a disturbing affront to a free press. It's also troubling because it is consistent with perhaps the most aggressive administration ever against reporters doing their jobs â€" providing information that citizens need to know about our government."

Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., a potential 2016 presidential candidate, said: "The Fourth Amendment is not just a protection against unreasonable searches and seizures, it is a fundamental protection for the First Amendment and all other Constitutional rights. It sets a high bar â€" a warrant â€" for the government to take actions that could chill exercise of any of those rights. We must guard it with all the vigor that we guard other constitutional protections."

The May 7, 2012, AP story that disclosed details of the CIA operation in Yemen to stop an airliner bomb plot occurred around the one-year anniversary of the May 2, 2011, killing of Osama bin Laden.

The plot was significant both because of its seriousness and also because the White House previously had told the public it had "no credible information that terrorist organizations, including al-Qaida, are plotting attacks in the U.S. to coincide with the (May 2) anniversary of bin Laden's death."

The AP delayed reporting the story at the request of government officials who said it would jeopardize national security. Once officials said those concerns were allayed, the AP disclosed the plot, though the Obama administration continued to request that the story be held until the administration could make an official announcement.

The May 7 story was written by reporters Matt Apuzzo and Adam Goldman with contributions from reporters Kimberly Dozier, Eileen Sullivan and Alan Fram. They and their editor, Ted Bridis, were among the journalists whose April-May 2012 phone records were seized by the government.

Brennan talked about the AP story and investigation in written testimony to the Senate. "The irresponsible and damaging leak of classified information was made ... when someone informed The Associated Press that the U.S. government had intercepted an IED (improvised explosive device) that was supposed to be used in an attack and that the U.S. government currently had that IED in its possession and was analyzing it," he wrote.

He also defended the White House decision to discuss the plot afterward. "Once someone leaked information about interdiction of the IED and that the IED was actually in our possession, it was imperative to inform the American people consistent with government policy that there was never any danger to the American people associated with this al-Qaida plot," Brennan told senators.

[carpnter]

Some people will have no problem with this simply because the person currently in the White House is a Democrat. 

Everyone should have a problem with this no matter who is doing it or what your political leanings are. 

[BridgeTroll]

Some people will have no problem with this simply because the person currently in the White House is a Democrat. 

Everyone should have a problem with this no matter who is doing it or what your political leanings are.

100% agree with you carpenter.  This isn't 'slippery slope' this is downright dangerous.

No doubt... all should be concerned with erosions of ANY of the original Bill of Rights... even the ones some of us do not use...

[BridgeTroll]

Some people will have no problem with this simply because the person currently in the White House is a Democrat. 

Everyone should have a problem with this no matter who is doing it or what your political leanings are.

100% agree with you carpenter.  This isn't 'slippery slope' this is downright dangerous.

No doubt... all should be concerned with erosions of ANY of the original Bill of Rights... even the ones some of us do not use...

this isnt an erosion, Bridge Troll.  This is an outright flouting.  But since Bush and the Delay Frist Congress, this kind of thing has been written into our government.  If I remember correctly you personally wrote many posts on this subject to the tune of only fools wanted the terrorists to win.

It will take decades to undo the damage wrought by those terrible six years.  If we can ever truly undo it.

Blaming Bush for this one too?  lol... This particular amendment seems important to you... I can see why you are passionate about it.  I suppose you can also understand why some might be equally passionate about other amendments.

[movedsouth]

Whoever is using electronic media, and assuming any kind of privacy, is a big fool.

[fsquid]

Some people will have no problem with this simply because the person currently in the White House is a Democrat. 

Everyone should have a problem with this no matter who is doing it or what your political leanings are.

100% agree with you carpenter.  This isn't 'slippery slope' this is downright dangerous.

No doubt... all should be concerned with erosions of ANY of the original Bill of Rights... even the ones some of us do not use...

this isnt an erosion, Bridge Troll.  This is an outright flouting.  But since Bush and the Delay Frist Congress, this kind of thing has been written into our government.  If I remember correctly you personally wrote many posts on this subject to the tune of only fools wanted the terrorists to win.

It will take decades to undo the damage wrought by those terrible six years.  If we can ever truly undo it.

Blaming Bush for this one too?  lol... This particular amendment seems important to you... I can see why you are passionate about it.  I suppose you can also understand why some might be equally passionate about other amendments.

actually, this is a rule/law/policy from the Bush admin and the Obama administration has taken full advantage of it.

If Holder isn't canned soon, it is a travesty.

[rohicks]

this isnt an erosion, Bridge Troll.  This is an outright flouting.  But since Bush and the Delay Frist Congress, this kind of thing has been written into our government.  If I remember correctly you personally wrote many posts on this subject to the tune of only fools wanted the terrorists to win.

It will take decades to undo the damage wrought by those terrible six years.  If we can ever truly undo it.

Still blaming Bush lol.
Ignorance is bliss.

[KenFSU]

this isnt an erosion, Bridge Troll.  This is an outright flouting.  But since Bush and the Delay Frist Congress, this kind of thing has been written into our government.  If I remember correctly you personally wrote many posts on this subject to the tune of only fools wanted the terrorists to win.

It will take decades to undo the damage wrought by those terrible six years.  If we can ever truly undo it.

Still blaming Bush lol.
Ignorance is bliss.

This is very much a continuation of Bush-era secret surveillance policy.

One of the big fears when USA Today originally broke the story was that the government could use these controversial new rights to monitor the press and track down their sources.

Now, here we are with Associated Press reporters being monitored at work and at home.

With that said, if you want to assign "blame," start with the acting President who's allowing this shit to continue. He's every bit as guilty as George W. is. He ran on a platform of transparency and change, and not only has he continued the program, but he has blocked release of Bush's original justification for the program:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/08/29/obama-administration-blocks-release-bush-administration-surveillance-policy/

Ain't no good guys when it comes to this one.

Between this and the IRS fiasco, I sincerely hope people grasp just how serious and potentially devastating these revelations are.

Crap like this strikes at the heart of American freedom one billion times harder than a couple of pot heads with pressure cookers in Boston.

[carpnter]

I agree that this is a continuation of what went on under Bush.  Obama was very critical of the warrantless wiretapping program and yet he continued using the program after getting elected which Congress relaxed some of the FISA requirements in 2008, a Congress where the Democrats had control of both houses.

There are no clean hands in this fiasco, Democrats are just as dirty as the Republicans here.  Blaming Bush is not addressing the issue, he left office over 5 years ago and there has been plenty of time for the current administration to change the way things are being done.  It won't take decades to undo the damage, but the damage cannot be undone until the current administration stops engaging in these activities. 

There has been plenty of opportunity for both parties to stop this crap, and it is sad that it took the AP being subjected to very questionable record seizures for anyone to do anything. 

Every time there is a power shift in DC the party taking power promises all sorts of ethical reforms and transparency and they never deliver on it. 

[BridgeTroll]

Justice... the IRS... State... CIA... all going rogue?  Or is it more sinister?

[Lunican]

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2006/05/fbi_acknowledge/

[Lunican]

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2006/05/federal_source_/

[BridgeTroll]

Justice... the IRS... State... CIA... all going rogue?  Or is it more sinister?

You sat and watched all of these agencies get supercharged with breathtaking new powers via the PATRIOT ACT and its devil spawn fellow travellers and you approved of it, Bridge Troll.

Are you really surprised?

Rofl... ah... the Bush thing again... really?

[carpnter]

Justice... the IRS... State... CIA... all going rogue?  Or is it more sinister?

You sat and watched all of these agencies get supercharged with breathtaking new powers via the PATRIOT ACT and its devil spawn fellow travellers and you approved of it, Bridge Troll.

Are you really surprised?

Rofl... ah... the Bush thing again... really?

Back when you were supporting this, did you think that it was going to conveniently go away?  Or maybe that people would forget how it happened?

There are actual consequences to your politics, Bridge Troll.  Its not really all just windy bull sessions about the way things outta be.

You don't have the luxury later on of just trying to dismiss it all by calling it that 'bush thing'.

Or did you seriously not foresee that this would be the outcome?  Because, freedom!?

This isn't a Bush thing any more.  This is a government thing,  The republicans and democrats passed it originally and the republicans were in power with overwhelming support from both parties, it was renewed once while Bush was still President and then renewed again after Obama was in office and the democrats were in power. 

I wasn't here when the Patriot Act was passed so I don't know who was on which side, but this is a perfect of example of what happens when you do something right now instead of doing it right.  Perhaps certain people will remember that this is what you can end up with when you let emotion take over instead of logically examining the situation to see what really needs to be done.   

[carpnter]

Justice... the IRS... State... CIA... all going rogue?  Or is it more sinister?

You sat and watched all of these agencies get supercharged with breathtaking new powers via the PATRIOT ACT and its devil spawn fellow travellers and you approved of it, Bridge Troll.

Are you really surprised?

Rofl... ah... the Bush thing again... really?

Back when you were supporting this, did you think that it was going to conveniently go away?  Or maybe that people would forget how it happened?

There are actual consequences to your politics, Bridge Troll.  Its not really all just windy bull sessions about the way things outta be.

You don't have the luxury later on of just trying to dismiss it all by calling it that 'bush thing'.

Or did you seriously not foresee that this would be the outcome?  Because, freedom!?

This isn't a Bush thing any more.  This is a government thing,  The republicans and democrats passed it originally and the republicans were in power with overwhelming support from both parties, it was renewed once while Bush was still President and then renewed again after Obama was in office and the democrats were in power. 

I wasn't here when the Patriot Act was passed so I don't know who was on which side, but this is a perfect of example of what happens when you do something right now instead of doing it right.  Perhaps certain people will remember that this is what you can end up with when you let emotion take over instead of logically examining the situation to see what really needs to be done.

To his credit Obama's administration removed some very egregious passages and the reauthorization declined to renew Bush/Cheney's imaginary new 'enemy noncombatant' classification, as well as the 'unitary presidency' and the 'vice presidency is actually a 4th Branch of government theory' that Cheney literally espoused.

Do you mean to say that you werent in the US when the PATRIOT ACT passed?

I meant I wasn't posting here on MetroJax so I don't know what anyone's positions here were at the time.