DOJ tracked movements, phone records of Fox News reporter

[jonny5]

he Washington Post reported Sunday on a Justice Dept. investigation into Fox News' chief Washington correspondent James Rosen's connection with possible leaks of classified information about North Korea in 2009.

According to the Post, investigators suspected Rosen was given classified information by Stephen Jin-Woo Kim, a State Department security adviser. As a result, the Post reports:

They used security badge access records to track the reporter’s comings and goings from the State Department, according to a newly obtained court affidavit. They traced the timing of his calls with a State Department security adviser suspected of sharing the classified report. They obtained a search warrant for the reporter’s personal e-mails.

The Post reported that in an affidavit, an FBI investigator wrote there "was evidence Rosen had broken the law, 'at the very least, either as an aider, abettor and/or co-conspirator'" and alleged that the Fox News reporter used a "covert communications plan” with Kim to obtain information from his source.

Report: DOJ tracked movements, phone records of Fox News reporter - POLITICO.com

Wow, it just gets worse. We know the White House has a general boycott on Fox News. And now we have info they were doing far more than just grabbing phone records. Should it be illegal for the press to seek classified info from the govt? Leaking goes on all the time. Does this mean there are other spyings going on of the press we wont find out about for 4 years?

WaPO full story - http://www.washingtonpost.com/local...c473de-be5e-11e2-97d4-a479289a31f9_story.html

 

[Taylor]

alleged that the Fox News reporter used a "covert communications plan” with Kim to obtain information from his source.

This reporter sounds like a tin-foil hat conspiracy nut. Covert communications plan? I mean what... does he think the US government is keeping some secret file on him, tracking his movements, reading his emails-

Oh, wait...

 

[calamity]

Fox isn't really news. So there is that to consider.

 

[jonny5]

This reporter sounds like a tin-foil hat conspiracy nut. Covert communications plan? I mean what... does he think the US government is keeping some secret file on him, tracking his movements, reading his emails-

Oh, wait...

From the wapo article

However, it remains an open question whether it’s ever illegal, given the First Amendment’s protection of press freedom, for a reporter to solicit information. No reporter, including Rosen, has been prosecuted for doing so.

And I agree, im torn. Its certainly a crime to leak classified information, but for the press to try and uncover it?

 

[jonny5]

Fox isn't really news. So there is that to consider.

Really? Thats what your going with?

 

[American]

Fox isn't really news. So there is that to consider.

So the 1st Amendment only applies to REAL news. I guess we can gag you now right? You've just claimed no protection for yourself under 1A.

 

[calamity]

So the 1st Amendment only applies to REAL news. I guess we can gag you now right? You've just claimed no protection for yourself under 1A.

Nonsense. I'm not involved with leaks on security matters. Besides, I believe the DOJ followed legal means here.

The Justice Department used security badge access records to track the reporter’s comings and goings from the State Department, according to a newly obtained court affidavit. They traced the timing of his calls with a State Department security adviser suspected of sharing the classified report. They obtained a search warrant for the reporter’s personal emails.

A rare peek into a Justice Department leak probe - The Washington Post

 

[calamity]

Really? Thats what your going with?

Have you no sense of humor?

See post 7 for a sober look at the reality/

 

[Taylor]

And I agree, im torn. Its certainly a crime to leak classified information, but for the press to try and uncover it?

As far as I'm aware, it's not illegal to solicit such information unless it's a vigorous attempt to learn the identity of covert operatives (even without divulging that information to others).

 

[CalGun]

if they had a judge to sign off no big deal, but I'm glad they found out and reported it. Our media should begin to feel the overbearing nature of govt like the rest of us.

 

[TacticalEvilDan]

I wonder how many supporters of the PATRIOT Act are having a problem with this.

After all, if you've got nothing to hide you've got nothing to worry about.

Right?

 

[HonestJoe]

And I agree, im torn. Its certainly a crime to leak classified information, but for the press to try and uncover it?

Freedoms aren't unconditional. Regardless, aiding and abetting someone else in breaking the law should remain illegal in itself, whether you're part of the press or not.

 

[Born Free]

I wonder how many supporters of the PATRIOT Act are having a problem with this.

After all, if you've got nothing to hide you've got nothing to worry about.

Right?

Then I guess you would not mind anyone looking into your bedroom spying on you at night. I mean if you've got nothing to hide, what's there to worry about?

 

[TacticalEvilDan]

Then I guess you would not mind anyone looking into your bedroom spying on you at night. I mean if you've got nothing to hide, what's there to worry about?

I think maybe you missed what was, to me at least, obvious sarcasm. The point I'm making is that people who are okay with the PATRIOT Act should not be complaining about any of this.

 

[clownboy]

I wonder how many supporters of the PATRIOT Act are having a problem with this.

After all, if you've got nothing to hide you've got nothing to worry about.

Right?

I'm a supporter of the PA, original and PA Part Deux. I have no problem with it if they got a legal warrant under the FISA requirement for such AND they were targetting the leak (and not the reporter or the news agency). The fellow they exposed should go down (Kim). However, the reporter was doing his constitutionally protected duty.

 

[jonny5]

I wonder how many supporters of the PATRIOT Act are having a problem with this.

After all, if you've got nothing to hide you've got nothing to worry about.

Right?

The purpose of the patriot act is help catch enemies trying to kill americans (counterterrorism), not to catch reporters reporting information. I dont think people have a problem with working with the govt to protect us form invasion.

 

[jonny5]

Freedoms aren't unconditional. Regardless, aiding and abetting someone else in breaking the law should remain illegal in itself, whether you're part of the press or not.

Freedom of the press is unique in that its codified in the constitution and therefore supreme to everything else. THere is no protection of secrets in the constitution.

 

[TacticalEvilDan]

The purpose of the patriot act is help catch enemies trying to kill americans (counterterrorism), not to catch reporters reporting information. I dont think people have a problem with working with the govt to protect us form invasion.

I'm a supporter of the PA, original and PA Part Deux. I have no problem with it if they got a legal warrant under the FISA requirement for such AND they were targetting the leak (and not the reporter or the news agency). The fellow they exposed should go down (Kim). However, the reporter was doing his constitutionally protected duty.

I haven't seen any indication that the Justice Department is going after the reporter -- everything I've seen is about the pending prosecution of the reporter's source. They have to investigate the reporter to figure out if he got classified information so that they can go after the individual responsible for leaking it.

 

[jonny5]

I haven't seen any indication that the Justice Department is going after the reporter -- everything I've seen is about the pending prosecution of the reporter's source. They have to investigate the reporter to figure out if he got classified information so that they can go after the individual responsible for leaking it.

I was responding to your patriot act rhetoric.

 

[TacticalEvilDan]

I was responding to your patriot act rhetoric.

You don't think that pursuing a leak of classified information is as high a priority as counterterrorism? Aren't there many possible scenarios where the two go hand-in-hand? If so, shouldn't someone who is okay with the PATRIOT Act be okay with this investigation?

 

[HonestJoe]

Freedom of the press is unique in that its codified in the constitution and therefore supreme to everything else. THere is no protection of secrets in the constitution.

Yes, but that freedom still isn't unconditional. A journalist can't break in to the White House and flick through the Presidents files for anything of interest any more than they could break in to your office and do the same (even if you were in the news for some legitimate reason).

Similarly, journalists can't involve themselves in a criminal conspiracy to get information. If a journalist paid a doctor to get access to your medical records (again, assuming it was news worthy), that journalist would still implicated in that crime.

Journalists are rightly protected when information that could have been obtained via illegal means is subsiquently brought to them (though even then there are practical limitations) but the claim in this case is that the journalist was somehow involved in the criminal acts obtaining the information and that would cross the line.

 

[cpwill]

if they had a judge to sign off no big deal, but I'm glad they found out and reported it. Our media should begin to feel the overbearing nature of govt like the rest of us.

that...... is an excellent point.

 

[jonny5]

You don't think that pursuing a leak of classified information is as high a priority as counterterrorism? Aren't there many possible scenarios where the two go hand-in-hand? If so, shouldn't someone who is okay with the PATRIOT Act be okay with this investigation?

I dont think that was the purpose of the Patriot Act, which is the comment I was responding to. So no, while people would support uses of the Patriot Act to catch terrorists, they would not support uses of the Patriot act to catch political leaking.

 

[jonny5]

Yes, but that freedom still isn't unconditional. A journalist can't break in to the White House and flick through the Presidents files for anything of interest any more than they could break in to your office and do the same (even if you were in the news for some legitimate reason).

Similarly, journalists can't involve themselves in a criminal conspiracy to get information. If a journalist paid a doctor to get access to your medical records (again, assuming it was news worthy), that journalist would still implicated in that crime.

Journalists are rightly protected when information that could have been obtained via illegal means is subsiquently brought to them (though even then there are practical limitations) but the claim in this case is that the journalist was somehow involved in the criminal acts obtaining the information and that would cross the line.

If that were the case, govt could simply make a law as a run around to abridging the freedom of the press. Except that its specifically prohibited by the constitution. And I dont see any conditions written in the first amendment. But, thats what we have courts. Fox should sue the govt.

 

[Thoreau72]

Fox isn't really news. So there is that to consider.

I take your point, but this is not really about which media company was involved, this is about government crimes. Government violation of constitutional principles. Government secrecy, USSR style.

Obama and Holder are criminals, and that is old news. Their crimes are violation of constitutional principles and their oath of office.