• Obama Administration Caught collecting bank records, credit card records, etc.
    37 replies, posted
[URL]http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41787944/ns/us_news-security/[/URL] [QUOTE]WASHINGTON — A court filing in the case of a former CIA officer accused of spilling secrets about Iran’s nuclear program provides new details about the extraordinary measures Justice Department prosecutors are using to identify government leakers. The former CIA officer, Jeffrey Sterling, was indicted in December on charges that he disclosed “national defense information” to New York Times reporter James Risen. In a court filing this week, Sterling’s lawyers revealed that, as part of the investigation, prosecutors obtained Risen’s telephone, credit and bank records. They also obtained credit reports on Risen conducted by three credit agencies — Equifax, TransUnion and Experian — as well as records of his airline travel, the filing states. Those records, as well as other material, have been turned over to Sterling’s lawyers as part of pre-trial discovery in the case, the lawyers said. “I find this every disturbing,” said Lucy Dalglish, executive director of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press. “This tells us the Obama administration will do almost anything to figure out who is leaking government information.” Matt Miller, a spokesman for the Justice Department, declined to comment on the court filing or say whether department subpoenas for Risen’s bank and credit reports occurred under President Barack Obama’s attorney general, Eric Holder, or earlier, during the Bush administration, when the investigation into Sterling began. A lawyer for Risen also declined comment. Although there have been other public controversies over subpoenas — real and threatened — to reporters in recent years, there have been few, if any, cases in which it has been documented that federal prosecutors obtained the bank records and credit reports of journalists. But a former Justice Department prosecutor, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said subpoenas for such records — often without the journalists’ knowledge — are not a surprising tactic, given the unusually aggressive Justice Department efforts to prosecute leakers in recent years. In fact, the former prosecutor noted, that because subpoenas for financial records are standard practice in criminal investigations, there is no reason for the Justice Department not to use them to obtain records from journalists in leak probes. The data from credit and bank records would allow prosecutors to home in on where journalists have traveled, lunches or dinners they might have paid for, and other information that could help identify their sources for a story, the former prosecutor said. Reporters urged to take precautions Dalglish said she now repeatedly urges journalists to use old school methods when communicating with their sources to avoid creating any paper trail. “What I tell them is ‘buy disposable phones, purchase manila envelopes and identify park benches’” to meet their sources, she said. The government’s efforts to identify Risen’s source was unusually aggressive by any measure, lasting more than six years. It stems from what was deemed to be damaging disclosures in Risen’s 2006 book “State of War,” which included a chapter about a CIA program called “Operation Merlin.” Risen described it as a botched attempt under the Clinton administration to sabotage Iran’s nuclear program by feeding the Iranians deliberately flawed design blueprints for key nuclear components. But according to Risen’s book, the Iranians uncovered the scheme and the effort ended up accelerating Iran’s nuclear program. The government’s investigation led the FBI to Sterling, who had worked on the Iranian desk at the CIA and, according to his indictment, had raised concerns about the program to the Senate Intelligence Committee. He had also filed a lawsuit against the CIA alleging that he had been he had been discriminated against — and was turned down on his request to work on sensitive Iranian cases — because he was African American. As part of the investigation, prosecutors twice subpoenaed Risen to testify —once during the Bush administration and more recently under President Obama. In both cases, the subpoenas were quashed by a federal judge. But the indictment of Sterling — for allegedly violating a World War One era law known as the Espionage Act -- could now lead to yet another court battle over whether the reporter will be forced to testify at Sterling’s trail. Sterling has pleaded not guilty to the charges. The larger concern, according to Dalglish, is the growing number of leak investigations under President Obama’s Justice Department — a development considered especially ironic since the White House had publicly endorsed a so-called “shield” law to provide limited protection for journalists’ sources. In fact, the efforts to enact a shield law have all but died. Instead, the administration has engaged in highly public efforts to stanch government leakers, the current probe into WikiLeaks being the best-known example. In fact, said Dalglish, “They don’t like leaks of any sort.” Until recently, such prosecutions were exceedingly rare, largely because leakers were notoriously difficult to identify. But in the past year, in addition to Sterling, Justice Department prosecutors have indicted a former National Security Agency official for allegedly leaking to a Baltimore Sun reporter and a former State Department contractor for allegedly leaking to Fox News. In addition, military prosecutors have charged Army Pvt. Bradley Manning for allegedly leaking to WikiLeaks. [/QUOTE]
My dad will love Obama even more!
Didn't the Bush administration do the exact same thing? This doesn't sound like any new news from the grand ol american government :patriot:
stay classy america.
He just wants to know that you bought that $3000 grill at Walmart you don't need, and steer you back in to the green!
The American govenment? Trying to find the source of leaks? Why would they ever do that?
I love how they say they're all for privacy, but don't do anything to protect it.
[QUOTE=Richard Simmons;28294379]Didn't the Bush administration do the exact same thing? This doesn't sound like any new news from the grand ol american government :patriot:[/QUOTE] When Obama or the left does something like this: "Oh well it's been going on forever it's nothing new, the right-wing did it too." When the right does something like this: "Fucking ignorant republicans are ruining the US fucking nazis spying on us revolt!" And no, I'm not Republican, but it's a trend I'm noticing.
[QUOTE=acds;28294892]When Obama or the left does something like this: "Oh well it's been going on forever it's nothing new, the right-wing did it too." When the right does something like this: "Fucking ignorant republicans are ruining the US fucking nazis spying on us revolt!" And no, I'm not Republican, but it's a trend I'm noticing.[/QUOTE] Its very hypocritical when the people who do that turn around and criticise republicans for this sort of thing, although I have noticed its bad posters like simmons who do it. I am a leftie too.
Perhaps the government should try operating in a way that wouldn't fear being embarrassed by leaks. I realize that there are things that need to be kept secret (operations dealing with intelligence and counter-intelligence or anything dealing with specific troop deployment), but most of the leaks show how terrible things are being run.
[QUOTE=acds;28294892]When Obama or the left does something like this: "Oh well it's been going on forever it's nothing new, the right-wing did it too." When the right does something like this: "Fucking ignorant republicans are ruining the US fucking nazis spying on us revolt!" And no, I'm not Republican, but it's a trend I'm noticing.[/QUOTE] Quickly snip your post before JDK and his ilk yell "PERSECUTION COMPLEX" at you.
[QUOTE=acds;28294892]When Obama or the left does something like this: "Oh well it's been going on forever it's nothing new, the right-wing did it too." When the right does something like this: "Fucking ignorant republicans are ruining the US fucking nazis spying on us revolt!" And no, I'm not Republican, but it's a trend I'm noticing.[/QUOTE] Younger people tend to side with the liberal/democratic side of things, so that might be why. But I agree, facepunchers have something up their asses about Republicans. They see the actions of a single republican thus assuming all republicans are similar. I'm neither democratic or republican.
[QUOTE=redBadger;28297095]But I agree, facepunchers have something up their asses about Republicans.[/QUOTE] gee, I wonder why. it might have to do with the fact that they're homophobic, racist, etc.
[QUOTE=JDK721;28297137]gee, I wonder why. it might have to do with the fact that they're homophobic, racist, etc.[/QUOTE] There you go. Just because some are doesn't mean they all are. You're being judgmental.
Where's Glaber when you need him?
[QUOTE=redBadger;28297154]There you go. Just because some are doesn't mean they all are. You're being judgmental.[/QUOTE] a large percentage of them are, and their parties' core beliefs are too.
[QUOTE=JDK721;28297190]a large percentage of them are, and their parties' core beliefs are too.[/QUOTE] It's funny because wasn't the republican party founded during Abe Lincolns presidency to make an attempt to abolish slavery and to advocate equal rights for all? Your, 'homophobic' argument, while slightly true, is based off the religious beliefs of the Republican Party. As I said, not all republicans are homophobic and you're judging around 55 million people based on a small portion of the party who happens to be the representatives of the party.
[QUOTE=redBadger;28297233]It's funny because wasn't the republican party founded during Abe Lincolns presidency to make an attempt to abolish slavery and to advocate equal rights for all?[/QUOTE] Party's views on issues are dynamic. That was hundreds of years ago. [editline]26th February 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=redBadger;28297154]There you go. Just because some are doesn't mean they all are. You're being judgmental.[/QUOTE] If such a bill gets the majority of a Republican vote, it's safe to judge the ones in office as the aforementioned.
He said core beliefs, not modern beliefs. The Republican Party was formed with a liberal mindset at that time, which wasn't 'hundreds of years ago'. In fact, it was 150 years ago. They wanted to abolish slavery and promote equal rights for men, which is a liberal agenda. But as stated before, just because some members seem homophobic and/or racist does not mean the entire party is full of racist homophobes.
[QUOTE=redBadger;28297413]He said core beliefs, not modern beliefs. The Republican Party was formed with a liberal mindset at that time, which wasn't 'hundreds of years ago'. In fact, it was 150 years ago. Now they've gone more conservative, but still have liberal agendas. Just because you're liberal does not mean you're a democrat, or vice versa.[/QUOTE] And their core beliefs have changed, there's no point bringing up something they did over 150 years ago in an attempt to divert criticism of the Republican Party.
when was the last time we had a good president w/ a good administration?
[QUOTE=W0w00t;28297500]when was the last time we had a good president w/ a good administration?[/QUOTE] Never.
[QUOTE=W0w00t;28297500]when was the last time we had a good president w/ a good administration?[/QUOTE] George Washington
Obama fucking sucks and dare I say it hes a n****r. [highlight](User was banned for this post ("Racism" - Swebonny))[/highlight]
[QUOTE=porn;28297710]Obama fucking sucks and dare I say it hes a n****r. [highlight](User was banned for this post ("Racism" - Swebonny))[/highlight][/QUOTE] Why would you call him a nascar?
[QUOTE=redBadger;28297233]It's funny because wasn't the republican party founded during Abe Lincolns presidency to make an attempt to abolish slavery and to advocate equal rights for all?[/QUOTE] except the parties have switched views since then lincoln wouldn't be a republican if he was alive today [QUOTE=redBadger;28297233]Your, 'homophobic' argument, while slightly true, is based off the religious beliefs of the Republican Party.[/QUOTE] what's your point? that doesn't justify homophobia and not supporting gay marriage. [QUOTE=redBadger;28297233]As I said, not all republicans are homophobic and you're judging around 55 million people based on a small portion of the party who happens to be the representatives of the party.[/QUOTE] representatives are elected to represent the people (and people who vote for the representatives obviously share at least most of the same beliefs), and no it's not a small portion of the party. the majority of republicans don't support gay marriage, etc.
[QUOTE=redBadger;28297233]It's funny because wasn't the republican party founded during Abe Lincolns presidency to make an attempt to abolish slavery and to advocate equal rights for all? Your, 'homophobic' argument, while slightly true, is based off the religious beliefs of the Republican Party. As I said, not all republicans are homophobic and you're judging around 55 million people based on a small portion of the party who happens to be the representatives of the party.[/QUOTE] Abe Lincoln was a liberal republican. I dare you to try and find one of those today.
Abe Lincoln also suspended Habeas Corpus.
[QUOTE=W0w00t;28297500]when was the last time we had a good president w/ a good administration?[/QUOTE] even though I disagree with many things he did Bill Clinton was the best president we've had in the past 40 years. He didn't do anything as blatantly unconstitutional as the last two we've had and actually got stuff done.
[QUOTE=redBadger;28297154]There you go. Just because some are doesn't mean they all are. You're being judgmental.[/QUOTE] part of the core republican platform is opposing same-sex marriage, so yes, they pretty much are all homophobic. If they weren't homophobic, then they wouldn't be republicans.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.