#deptofjustice

[yostivanich]

Congressman Peter King (R-NY) called for the arrest not just of Edward Snowden but of Glenn Greenwald, the Guardian journalist who published Snowden’s documents from the National Security Agency. Fox News host Megyn Kelly asked King, “To take it another step and say the journalist who published the information, the guys who publish what he leaked, that they should face prosecution, that is news. Do you believe that? Stand by that? Both Greenwald and the Washington Post reporter?” “I’m talking about Greenwald,” King said. “Greenwald, not only did he disclose this information, he said he has names of CIA agents and assets around the world and threatening to disclose that. The last time that was done in this country, we saw the CIA agent murdered. I think it should be very targeted and very selective and a rare exception. In this case, when you have someone to disclose secrets like this and threatens to release more, yes, there has to be be — legal action should be taken against him.” Kelly asked again if Greenwald should be prosecuted for “what he’s done so far.” “I think it should be considered,” King said. “The reason I say it is, this is putting American lives at risk and clearly done to hurt Americans. To allow it to be done it will cause grave consequences to the United States. I’m tying the two together, and that shows his motivation.” This is not the first time King has applied this kind of rhetoric to a leak investigation. In 2006, he said the Department of Justice should prosecute journalists who publish sensitive national security leaks:

[yostivanich]

The government’s decision means that any woman or girl will soon be able to walk into a drugstore and buy the pill, Plan B One-Step, without a prescription. The Justice Department had been fighting to prevent that outcome, but said late Monday afternoon that it would accept its losses in recent court rulings and begin putting into effect a judge’s order to have the Food and Drug Administration certify the drug for nonprescription use. In a letter to Judge Edward R. Korman of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, the administration said it would comply with his demands.

[yostivanich]

Today the Associated Press reported that the Department of Justice has collected the telephone calling records of many of its reporters and editors. By obtaining these records, the DOJ has struck a terrible blow against the freedom of the press and the ability of reporters to investigate and report the news. As James Madison understood, "a popular government without popular information or the means of acquiring it is but a prologue to a farce or tragedy, or perhaps both." AP had it right when it told Attorney General Holder that it was "a serious interference with AP’s constitutional rights to gather and report the news." The DOJ's decision to dive deep into these call records also shows the growing need to update our privacy laws to eliminate the outmoded Third Party Doctrine and to recognize that datamining has now reached the point where it no longer makes sense to treat calling records and other metadata related to our communications as if they aren't fully protected by the Constitution. According to the AP, "the records obtained by the Justice Department listed outgoing calls for the work and personal phone numbers of individual reporters, for general AP office numbers in New York, Washington and Hartford, Conn., and for the main number for the AP in the House of Representatives press gallery." In all it included more than 20 telephone lines from April and May 2012. While the government has not confirmed, the subpoenas appear to stem from an investigation into a government leak of information to the AP. This is not a sufficient excuse. Imagine if "Deep Throat," the informant critical to Woodward and Bernstein's investigation of the 1972 Watergate burglary, knew that his identity could be obtained through legal process. His career, and perhaps his life, would have been in serious jeopardy, and a cautious individual would have kept silent. The widespread collection of information, as well as the apparent delay in notifying AP, both appear to be yet another violation the government's own regulations, 28 C.F.R. sec. 50.10. In 2010, the DOJ Inspector General reported on three other violation, involving the Washington Post and New York Times. The regulations require that, "wherever possible" subpoenas of records of the news media should be "directed at material information regarding a limited subject matter, should cover a reasonably limited period of time and should avoid requiring production of a large volume of unpublished material." None of those limits appear to have been observed here. It seems impossible to imagine how a subpoena for all the records of call to and from AP's main switchboard, for example, is as narrowly tailored as the law required. Importantly, the regulations anticipate negotiation with the news media prior to subpoena, which also didn't occur. And in any event the regulations require notification to the news media within 45 days of any receipt of any information. with another 45 days possible with additional authorization. Since the timeframe of the records is a year ago, it seems likely that the government did not abide by this regulation either. While the regulations do not allow a lawsuit, violations of them can be grounds for discipline for governmental officials.

[dfilecab-blog]

http://prwatch.org/news/2013/01/11959/frontline-gets-its-man-lanny-breuer-leaves-doj-after-expose

Lanny Breuer Leaves the DOJ after Frontline exposes his inability to bring bankers to justice after the 2008 Financial Meltdown. I watched this the other night and was happy to learn about Mr. Breuer stepping down. This rarely happens but was impressed with these independent journalists who worked hard to make their case so clear.

[yostivanich]

Two key memos outlining the Justice Department’s views about when Americans can be surreptitiously tracked with GPS technology are being kept secret by the department despite a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed by the ACLU to force their release. The FBI’s general counsel discussed the existence of the two memos publicly last year, yet the Justice Department is refusing to release them without huge redactions. (You can see the heavily censored versions sent to the ACLU here and here, and our original FOIA request here.) The Justice Department’s unfortunate decision leaves Americans with no clear understanding of when we will be subjected to tracking—possibly for months at a time—or whether the government will first get a warrant. This is yet another example of secret surveillance policies—like the Justice Department’s secret opinions about the Patriot Act’s Section 215—that simply should not exist in a democratic society. Privacy law needs to keep up with technology, but how can that happen if the government won’t even tell us what its policies are?

[yostivanich]

It’s already common knowledge that law enforcement agencies are using cell phone tracking. As the ACLU points out, wireless carriers already receive 1.5 million requests for data every year, most of which is used for location tracking. Additional technology, such as drones or license plate readers, make endless surveillance a logistic reality, and all without a warrant. A fully-redacted document doesn’t seem to indicate that the FBI is operating within the constraints of United States v. Jones. It signals the very opposite and provides us with another example of how government agencies, when faced with constitutional limitations, are more than happy to simply “interpret” their way around them — and keep these interpretations out of public view, perhaps indefinitely. It’s extremely hypocritical for the FBI and DOJ to sit in a position of law enforcement when they clearly believe abiding by the law is optional.