And we thought the Immigration plan was the news of the day?

[manic mechanic]

If the administration has begun reviewing the telephone calls of reporters not to catch lawbreakers but to prevent revelations of its own lawlessness, then this White House has strayed onto dangerous political turf.


http://www.thenation.com/blogs/thebeat?pid=83880

[PackerfanXD]

Officials say the FBI makes extensive use of a new provision of the Patriot Act which allows agents to seek information with what are called National Security Letters (NSL).

The NSLs are a version of an administrative subpoena and are not signed by a judge. Under the law, a phone company receiving a NSL for phone records must provide them and may not divulge to the customer that the records have been given to the government.

The executive is superceding the judiciary? We're all f*cked!

[beardman2]

I think its time for this country to relearn about our constitution.

[VTJames]

Smith vs Maryland, 1979

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...=442&invol=735

Quick summary is that there is a lowered expectation of privacy with regards to pen information (originating number, dialed number, time of call, duration of call), and therefore isn't protected under the 4th amendment.

In practical terms, the NSA was watching patterns of calls from known or supsected terrorists to find other terrorists. If you're giving piano lessons to a terrorist, you've got nothing to worry about. They're going to get a legal warrant with probable cause to eavesdrop on some calls. Then they'll find out that you're a piano teacher and you're none the wiser.

If you're a terrorist, then now the Good Guys know who you are and will find out who you're talking to, and eventually you'll be behind bars where you'll sit until you make your final trip to Hell.

Oh, and under the Patriot Act, if they got the warrant to see if you were a terrorist or not, and found out you were actually peddling child porn or selling drugs to those terrorists, then the call is still admissible as evidence. Same results as above.

I fail to see the problem here.

[manic mechanic]

First Amendment Freedom of the Press comes to mind.

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom...of the press." Although the First Amendment specifically mentions only the federal Congress, this provision now protects the press from all government, whether local, state or federal

http://usinfo.state.gov/journals/itd...de/goodale.htm

[boater1217]

So the press is allowed to publish offical secrets? I guess that is because they are so much smarter than the rest of us, it is up to them to determine what is really a secret and what is not.

[manic mechanic]

Depends on how they got them and why the government wants it suppressed.

The Pentagon Papers case proves the value of the First Amendment, says Jim Goodale, general counsel to The New York Times during the time of this landmark decision. "It serves as a shield against an overzealous government."

http://usinfo.state.gov/journals/itd...de/goodsb1.htm

[bd1]

If Nixon had used the same sort of illegal spy tactics that Bush is sanctioning we probably never would have found out about the Watergate break ins.


bd

[Brickboy240]

The Nation is a VERY left leaning "news source" and has run some questionable stories and alarmist stories before getting all the facts in. They are to the left what Newsmax is to the right - a sometimes questionable news source. Don't take everything they print as the gospel truth. it is well known they have an agenda.

I am not saying their story is not true. It very well may be, but many times in the past, those guys have slanted things to fit their agenda and put stories out there that get everyone all riled up, without knowing all the facts.

The Dubai ports deal and the latest phone record gathering story come to mind.

...be weary of your source before takin it as the gospel truth...theres an agenda behind it...I can almost guarantee it.

- Brickboy240

[manic mechanic]

Is ABC News more to your liking?

This was the Chicago Tribune using them as a source.

Federal Source to ABC News: We Know Who You're Calling
May 15, 2006 10:33 AM

Brian Ross and Richard Esposito Report:

A senior federal law enforcement official tells ABC News the government is tracking the phone numbers we call in an effort to root out confidential sources.

"It's time for you to get some new cell phones, quick," the source told us in an in-person conversation.

ABC News does 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.

One former official was asked to sign a document stating he was not a confidential source for New York Times reporter James Risen.

Our reports on the CIA's secret prisons in Romania and Poland were known to have upset CIA officials.

People questioned by the FBI about leaks of intelligence information say the CIA was also disturbed by ABC News reports that revealed the use of CIA predator missiles inside Pakistan.

Under Bush Administration guidelines, it is not considered illegal for the government to keep track of numbers dialed by phone customers.

The official who warned ABC News said there was no indication our phones were being tapped so the content of the conversation could be recorded.

A pattern of phone calls from a reporter, however, could provide valuable clues for leak investigators.

http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/...ource_tel.html