Look Everybody We're East Berlin, Pre-Wall Topple!

[Undertoad]

http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/..._responds.html

Statement by the FBI:
The impression left by the ABC News report is misleading. In specific cases, after receiving a referral from the Department of Justice, the FBI will take logical investigative steps to determine if a criminal act was committed by a government employee by the unauthorized release of classified information. In such cases, investigators may examine the telephone records of government agencies. In any case where the records of a private person are sought, they may only be obtained through established legal process.

[xoxoxoBruce]

And the FBI wouldn't lie.....ever.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Statement by the FBI:
The impression left by the ABC News report is misleading. In specific cases, after receiving a referral from the Department of Justice, the FBI will take logical investigative steps to determine if a criminal act was committed by a government employee by the unauthorized release of classified information. In such cases, investigators may examine the telephone records of government agencies. In any case where the records of a private person are sought, they may only be obtained through established legal process.

And then ABC News responds with this report:

FBI Secret Probes: 3,501 Targets in the U.S.
Department of Justice says it secretly sought phone records and other documents of 3,501 people last year under a provision of the Patriot Act that does not require judicial oversight.

The records were obtained with the use of what are known as National Security Letters, which can be signed by an FBI agent and are only for use in terrorism cases.
...
Federal law enforcement sources say the National Security Letters are being used to obtain phone records of reporters at ABC News and elsewhere in an attempt to learn confidential sources who may have provided classified information in violation of the law.

The FBI says its request for reporters' phone records are made in compliance with the law.

Let's see. Whistle blowers reporting illegal kidnapping, torture, bugging of citizen's international calls without court order, or simply spyin on UN diplomats to justify an illegal "Peral Harboring" of Iraq .... clearly these whistle blowers must be terrorists.

Same reasoning was used by Nixon to justify the plumbers. Nixon would not lie either.

[glatt]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Statement by the FBI:
...
In any case where the records of a private person are sought, they may only be obtained through established legal process.

What's "established legal process" mean?

I like how they made no mention of a warrant or other judicial review here. Since Bush now says that he don't need no stinkin' badges, that's probably what they mean by "established legal process." Anything they do is legal, because they are the ones doing it. So the FBI could be telling the truth here and so could ABC.

I'll admit the whole set of ABC News stories was sloppy reporting. We don't know if the Feds are looking at the leakers or looking at the press. But the first story clearly said it was the press.

[Undertoad]

OK, we're in favor of leakers this week. I just want to be sure we're clear on that.

[Happy Monkey]

Leakers of what? It matters, you know.

Let's start with ANY unconstitutional activity EVER, by ANY branch, regardless of what they think of their fantasy status.

[tw]

Originally Posted by rkzenrage

Let's start with ANY unconstitutional activity EVER, by ANY branch, regardless of what they think of their fantasy status.

Why would anyone leak anything to the press that was not in the interest of America (and against extremist interests of Democrat, Republican and Communist party loyalists)?

Oh. Valerie Plame. Clearly we must access all phone records so that the President and Vice President will be prosecuted for outing a CIA agent.

Oh. Maybe all this J Edgar Hoover security without judicial review would not stop such criminal activity. So why does the President and Vice President want all this power without judicial review?

Tin Soldiers and Nixon's coming.
We're finally on our own.
Why do such refrains sound so familiar?

Nixon had an 'Enemies List'. George Jr has '1984 Big Brother'. Both required no judicial review. Both to provide the president with more power. America be damned.

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by tw

Tin Soldiers and Nixon's coming.
We're finally on our own.
Why do such refrains sound so familiar?

Because evidently Neil Young is still the same whiney moron he was thirty years ago. :-)
It's not just the military who is always "perfectly trained and equipped to win the last war".

It's possible to take nostalgia too far. Anybody see South Park last night? :-)

[tw]

Originally Posted by MaggieL

Because evidently Neil Young is still the same whiney moron he was thirty years ago. :-)
It's not just the military who is always "perfectly trained and equipped to win the last war".

It's possible to take nostalgia too far. Anybody see South Park last night? :-)

Whiney? Probably. Moron? He was correctly on the money back then as he is about a mental midget leader today.

But that is all secondary to a large problem: a president who needs powers that even J Edgar Hoover did not have - and have those powers without Congressional or Judicial oversight. Hoover, with less power, could blackmail anyone in the US - any president, any congressman, or any citizen. Apparently Hoover did so often. And yet this president - like Nixon - declares he needs "more power"? Presidential mouth pieces even justify it by saying "You have no expectation of privacy."

Why complain about a whiney Neil Young when a current president is and is surrounded by those who pervert America (and science, and religious freedoms, and wealth distribution, and education, and social welfare) for their self serving agenda.

God, these governmental perverts even have you blaming illegal immigrants - using emotion - for a problem directly traceable to those leaders. At what point do you stand up for America rather than parrot Rush Limbaugh propaganda?

BTW, in Law and Order, those LUDs get pulled after a court order is issued. But then those who respect American principles would be very angry if that were not true. Those who hate America - Rush Limbaugh disciples - agree that "We have no expectation of privacy".

Want a benchmark to measure enemies of everyone in America - legal, tourist, and illegal? Those enemies of all people say "You have no expectation of privacy". Rush Limbaugh - drug addict and money launder - says "You have no expectation of privacy". Being enemies of all people is profitable? He got all prosecution dropped and his record expunged because so many perverted American (such as a president) also believe "You have no expectation of privacy".

Originally Posted by tw

Why would anyone leak anything to the press that was not in the interest of America (and against extremist interests of Democrat, Republican and Communist party loyalists)?

Oh. Valerie Plame. Clearly we must access all phone records so that the President and Vice President will be prosecuted for outing a CIA agent.

Oh. Maybe all this J Edgar Hoover security without judicial review would not stop such criminal activity. So why does the President and Vice President want all this power without judicial review?

Tin Soldiers and Nixon's coming.
We're finally on our own.
Why do such refrains sound so familiar?

Nixon had an 'Enemies List'. George Jr has '1984 Big Brother'. Both required no judicial review. Both to provide the president with more power. America be damned.

If it violates the rights of Americans it is against the interest of America, period.

[glatt]

Attorney General Gonzales weighed in on this yesterday, saying that the rights under the first amendment, guaranteeing the freedom of the press, are not as strong as the "right" of the federal government to prosecute who it wants to.

His exact words: "I understand very much the role that the press plays in our society, the protection under the First Amendment we want to promote and respect . . . but it can't be the case that that right trumps over the right that Americans would like to see, the ability of the federal government to go after criminal activity."

He admitted that his Justice Department is currently looking for ways it can prosecute the NYT journalists who printed the leaks about the NSA phone surveillance of US citizens.

Originally Posted by glatt

Attorney General Gonzales weighed in on this yesterday, saying that the rights under the first amendment, guaranteeing the freedom of the press, are not as strong as the "right" of the federal government to prosecute who it wants to.

His exact words: "I understand very much the role that the press plays in our society, the protection under the First Amendment we want to promote and respect . . . but it can't be the case that that right trumps over the right that Americans would like to see, the ability of the federal government to go after criminal activity."

He admitted that his Justice Department is currently looking for ways it can prosecute the NYT journalists who printed the leaks about the NSA phone surveillance of US citizens.

"You know, the very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common: they don't alter their views to fit the facts, they alter the facts to fit the views, which can be uncomfortable, if you happen to be one of the facts that needs altering."
Dr. Who (The Face of Evil)

[richlevy]

Originally Posted by glatt

He admitted that his Justice Department is currently looking for ways it can prosecute the NYT journalists who printed the leaks about the NSA phone surveillance of US citizens.

Now that would be an interesting case. Of course we would not hear any of it. The journalists would disappear, maybe get hauled before a FISA court, and shipped to Guantanamo.

[Undertoad]

Typically we don't know what was leaked and in this case we have no idea whatsoever.