• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama administration spied on Fox News reporter James Rosen: Report [W:85]

Hatuey

Hatuey

Rule of Two
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 17, 2006
Messages
59,331
Reaction score
26,991
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Obama administration spied on Fox News reporter James Rosen: Report

Using italics for emphasis, Reyes explained how Rosen allegedly used a “covert communications plan” and quoted from an e-mail exchange between Rosen and Kim that seems to describe a secret system for passing along information.


In the exchange, Rosen used the alias “Leo” to address Kim and called himself “Alex,” an apparent reference to Alexander Butterfield, the man best known for running the secret recording system in the Nixon White House, according to the affidavit.


Rosen instructed Kim to send him coded signals on his Google account, according to a quote from his e-mail in the affidavit: “One asterisk means to contact them, or that previously suggested plans for communication are to proceed as agreed; two asterisks means the opposite.”


He also wrote, according to the affidavit: “What I am interested in, as you might expect, is breaking news ahead of my competitors” including “what intelligence is picking up.” And: “I’d love to see some internal State Department analyses.”

​
Click to expand...

Heads on both sides should roll for this. Mr Kim's for leaking national security information unto the press and Rosen for conspiring to break the law.
 
Nonsense, not how it works here. If you want that take it to some stalinist country.

I agree Kim should go down for leaking the info, part of his sworn position is to keep that material to himself and other authorized individuals. But Rosen? By intent and letter of the Constitution he was doing exactly his job.
 
clownboy said:
Nonsense, not how it works here. If you want that take it to some stalinist country.

I agree Kim should go down for leaking the info, part of his sworn position is to keep that material to himself and other authorized individuals. But Rosen? By intent and letter of the Constitution he was doing exactly his job.
Click to expand...

Freedom of the press is not freedom to conspire to a crime.
 
Bronson said:
How do you sleep at night defending a man who knowingly lied to the faces of grieving families as they sat next to the coffins of their loved ones?
Click to expand...

Pretty well, thank you. I usually have a cup of warm green tea, that just sets the mood for a good sleep.
 
Hatuey said:
Freedom of the press is not freedom to conspire to a crime.
Click to expand...

In this specific context it is as that "crime" is not a crime for the reporter but a constitutionally protected act.
 
Hatuey said:
Pretty well, thank you. I usually have a cup of warm green tea, that just sets the mood for a good sleep.
Click to expand...

So you support knowingly lying to the faces of grieving families after their loved ones were murdered by terrorists. Deaths that could have been prevented.

Clearly you will rationalize and support all levels corruption and thuggery committed by this administration
 
clownboy said:
In this specific context it is as that "crime" is not a crime for the reporter but a constitutionally protected act.
Click to expand...

Conspiring to obtain national security information is NOT constitutionally protected. If it were Bradley Manning wouldn't be sitting in jail right now and Peter T. King (Republican) wouldn't be calling for the prosecution of Julian Assange (a foreigner) under the Espionage Act.
 
Bronson said:
So you support knowingly lying to the faces of grieving families after their loved ones were murdered by terrorists. Deaths that could have been prevented.

Clearly there is no level of corruption and thuggery committed by this administration you won't support and rationalize
Click to expand...

Can I suggest some brands of green tea? They'll help you sleep at night and not try and derail threads with your nonsense.
 
Hatuey said:
Conspiring to obtain national security information is NOT constitutionally protected. If it were Bradley Manning wouldn't be sitting in jail right now and Peter T. King (Republican) wouldn't be calling for the prosecution of Julian Assange (a foreigner) under the Espionage Act.
Click to expand...

Wrong on all counts. Manning, like Kim, had a different duty under law and constitution. They are both on the hook legally. Assange is a foreign national receiving classified information that put currently deployed US assets at risk - precisely what the FISA and the PA were written to address. A US reporter reporting on information obtained doesn't fit in with any of your examples.

You're excusing behavior from a presidential admin for only one reason - because you support this POTUS.
 
Hatuey said:
Can I suggest some brands of green tea? They'll help you sleep at night and not try and derail threads with your nonsense.
Click to expand...

You're the one defending thuggery and corruption here

Where was Obama during the 7 hour Benghazi attack? Where was he and what was he doing? If Benghazi is the new Birther movement, tell us where Obama was and what was he doing.

Tell us the crime committed by Rosen here. He's a journalist soliciting information. The Government seized his personal emails and private communications. You're defending that. Why?
 
clownboy said:
Wrong on all counts. Manning, like Kim, had a different duty under law and constitution. They are both on the hook legally. Assange is a foreign national receiving classified information that put currently deployed US assets at risk - precisely what the FISA and the PA were written to address. A US reporter reporting on information obtained doesn't fit in with any of your examples.
Click to expand...

He's not merely reporting, did you read the article? He purposely asked somebody to break the law so he could get fodder for a news article. That's not constitutionally protected in the least. Methods by which information is obtained are relevant to whether or not a reporter is within their constitutional right to freedom of the press. For example, a reporter who gains information through blackmail, is within their constitutional right to publish that information, they're not immune from the laws which they broke in order to gather it. If he had simply gathered the information from somebody who leaked it, he'd have no legal issues, however the article makes it clear that he enticed somebody to break the law in order to gather information. Again, not constitutionally protected.
 
Hatuey said:
He's not merely reporting, did you read the article? He purposely asked somebody to break the law so he could get fodder for a news article. That's not constitutionally protected in the least. Methods by which information is obtained are relevant to whether or not a reporter is within their constitutional right to freedom of the press. For example, a reporter who gains information through blackmail, is within their constitutional right to publish that information, they're not immune from the laws which they broke in order to gather it.
Click to expand...

You're flat out wrong. Thank goodness too. Your strawman won't work here, there was no blackmail involved. The reporter asked the official the questions and got the answers. The official broke the law by answering the reporter, the reporter did not break the law by asking the questions or reporting on the answers.
 
clownboy said:
You're flat out wrong. Thank goodness too. Your strawman won't work here, there was no blackmail involved.
Click to expand...

Who said there was? I gave an example of how freedom of the press is not a get out of jail free card. Methods and information in question matter.

The reporter asked the official the questions and got the answers. The official broke the law by answering the reporter, the reporter did not break the law by asking the questions or reporting on the answers.
Click to expand...

He conspired for somebody to break the law, that's not constitutionally protected. Which kind of shows why he had to use "coded" signals in order to get the information he wanted. If he wasn't breaking the law in ANY way, why the secrecy?
 
Hatuey said:
He's not merely reporting, did you read the article? He purposely asked somebody to break the law so he could get fodder for a news article. That's not constitutionally protected in the least. Methods by which information is obtained are relevant to whether or not a reporter is within their constitutional right to freedom of the press. For example, a reporter who gains information through blackmail, is within their constitutional right to publish that information, they're not immune from the laws which they broke in order to gather it. If he had simply gathered the information from somebody who leaked it, he'd have no legal issues, however the article makes it clear that he enticed somebody to break the law in order to gather information. Again, not constitutionally protected.
Click to expand...

That's a pretty poor analogy.

Blackmail is illegal in and of itself. Asking someone for something is not.

Rosen hasn't been charged with anything and I would assume if he ever is, he won't be found guilty.

I wonder if we would be having this conversation if it was a New York Times reporter being charged by a Republican administration though.
 
Moderator's Warning:
There are DOZENS of threads to discuss and debate Benghazi. This thread has a topic, I suggest people stick to IT and not attempt to thread jack it. Simply because a thread somehow tangentally touches upon Obama or the State Department does not give you carte blanche to turn it into "Benghazi debat #2517"
 
clownboy said:
You're flat out wrong. Thank goodness too. Your strawman won't work here, there was no blackmail involved. The reporter asked the official the questions and got the answers. The official broke the law by answering the reporter, the reporter did not break the law by asking the questions or reporting on the answers.
Click to expand...

The Obama Administration is trying to criminalize textbook journalism

Most of the biased corrupt press are stenographers anyways, but there are still a few left out there that practice real journalism from time to time. This just shows a pattern of behavior from the corrupt Obama Administration. Target and intimidate. Create fear.

Rosen and the AP and not the targets here. They are the example for everyone else to see to make them get in line and report only what these Chicago thugs approve of. What I want to know is why the OP and other like minded individuals like him SUPPORT this nonsense.
 
Dapper Andy said:
That's a pretty poor analogy.

Blackmail is illegal in and of itself. Asking someone for something is not.
Click to expand...

Depends on what you're asking. Enticing somebody to break the law is considered conspiracy at the very least.
 
Hatuey said:
He conspired for somebody to break the law, that's not constitutionally protected. Which kind of shows why he had to use "coded" signals in order to get the information he wanted. If he wasn't breaking the law in ANY way, why the secrecy?
Click to expand...

I get your anger, and I'm somewhat leaning that direction too. However, this IS different than blackmail. Blackmail would be actively forcing or coercing another person to break the law for the journalist. In this case, the Journalist is asking for information and the guy is giving it.

I understand the anger and frustration at it, but I also understand a hestitance to go after the journalist. Anytime a journalist is posting a story concerning information that leaked to him via illegal activity could technically fall into the same type of thing. I can understand that there's a difference and fine line between ACTIVELY assisting, coercing, or forcing someone to break the law to get your story...and simply asking for information and leaving it up to the individual to do or not. For example, should the journalist posting private emails illegally obtained from Sarah Palin's computer some time back be arrested for conspiring to commit a crime since he at least had some contact with the person that did it, however vague, and participated in the act by publishing it.

For Kim, there's no question...the book has to be thrown at him there. But when it comes to the reporter, this is a FAR trickier situation and I can understand the fervor and/or hesitation of both sides.
 
Hatuey said:
He conspired for somebody to break the law, that's not constitutionally protected. Which kind of shows why he had to use "coded" signals in order to get the information he wanted. If he wasn't breaking the law in ANY way, why the secrecy?
Click to expand...

I hate to state the obvious but Kim was breaking the law and risking his job.
 
Hatuey said:
Depends on what you're asking. Enticing somebody to break the law is considered conspiracy at the very least.
Click to expand...

Is there any proof of "enticement" though? Any monetary incentive given or offered? Are we suggesting that asking someone something is "enticing" them? (love that video)
 
Hatuey said:
He's not merely reporting, did you read the article? He purposely asked somebody to break the law so he could get fodder for a news article. That's not constitutionally protected in the least. Methods by which information is obtained are relevant to whether or not a reporter is within their constitutional right to freedom of the press. For example, a reporter who gains information through blackmail, is within their constitutional right to publish that information, they're not immune from the laws which they broke in order to gather it.
Click to expand...
Apparently you did not read the article. Or you would realize that it contains, and uses, the word allegation. Given Ainta Dunn and Mr. Axelrod's preoccupation with Fox News, outright calls for a so called "war" on it, plus the fact that DOJ spent most of 2012 hacking Rosen's emails, phone calls and following him in and out of the country? They have come up with only an "allegation" and frankly to all but the Fox News obsessed it looks like what has always been normal investigative techniques are now suddenly supposed to be illegal. Olivier Knox at Yahoo News (who professes to being a friend of Rosen’s) minces no words in his report, calling the DOJ’s treatment of the Fox reporter “a chilling move sure to rile defenders of civil liberties.” ”The details of the government’s strategy against Rosen sound like something out of a spy novel,” writes Knox, who observes that Rosen’s alleged offenses “fall inside the bounds of traditional news reporting.”
Obama administration spied on Fox News reporter James Rosen: Report
And of course not only was Rosen the subject of this DOJ move but also two other Fox News employees, William LaJeunesse and producer Mike Levine were also similarly monitored by DOJ, added to the list with the rest and the AP.

Media professionals from both the left and the right have offered similar criticism since the story broke.
Chilling report: Obama’s DOJ spied on Fox News’ James Rosen; Criminalizes reporting; Update: Fox issues statement | Twitchy

As AP President Gary Pruitt said on CBS’ “Face the Nation” Sunday that the AP records grab was not only unconstitutional but damaging to the operation of the press. “It will hurt,” he said. “We’re already seeing some impact. Officials are saying they’re reluctant to talk.”


Now remember this all occurred at the exact same time as the Obama administration itself apologized to Israel for their leak of classified information on its recent bombing of targets in Syria to the media… leaks that most analysts believe has made the situation in the Middle East even more dangerous, by provoking a response from Syria and its allies. No need to investigate that fact, not allegation for the DOJ is there?
Report: Obama Administration Apologizes for Another National Security Leak

I'll wait for cooler heads to prevail and some serious bird dogging of the rather inconsistent DOJ before I'll sign on to calling for the head of any reporter by this DOJ. Though I do understand the appeal to Faux News obsessives here.
 
Bronson said:
You're the one defending thuggery and corruption here

Where was Obama during the 7 hour Benghazi attack? Where was he and what was he doing? If Benghazi is the new Birther movement, tell us where Obama was and what was he doing.

Tell us the crime committed by Rosen here. He's a journalist soliciting information. The Government seized his personal emails and private communications. You're defending that. Why?
Click to expand...

Here's the crime you are defending.....


"...The case began when Rosen reported on June 11, 2009, that U.S. intelligence believed North Korea might respond to tighter United Nations sanctions with new nuclear tests. Rosen reported that the information came from CIA sources inside the hermetic Stalinist state.

Investigators zeroed in on State Department arms expert Stephen Jin-Woo Kim, who was among a small group of intelligence officials to receive a top-secret report on the issue the same day that Rosen's piece ran online...."

Investigators looking into disclosures of sensitive information about North Korea got Rosen’s telephone records and a warrant for his personal emails but also used his State Department security badge to track his movements in and out of that building, the Post reported, citing court documents.

And just what did Rosen do? Here's Reyes in an affidavit to support his request for a search warrant:

“From the beginning of their relationship, the Reporter asked, solicited and encouraged Mr. Kim to disclose sensitive United States internal documents and intelligence information about the Foreign Country," the FBI agent wrote. "The Reporter did so by employing flattery and playing to Mr. Kim’s vanity and ego.”

"Much like an intelligence officer would run an clandestine intelligence source, the Reporter instructed Mr. Kim on a covert communications plan," Reyes said, explicitly comparing reportorial tactics to espionage...."



You're defending someone who knowingly commited espionage against the U.S., Bronson. How patriotic of you.
 
The article makes it sound like it is probably solicitation borderline conspiracy. Now whether or not his first amendment rights will allow his behavior is a different question, but there are elements to a conspiracy crime there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom