Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

US Justice Department Targeted Fox News Reporter!

page: 1
24
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
+4 more 
posted on May, 20 2013 @ 11:02 AM
link   
Another day, another set of details ...and I'm starting to see why the media are looking past Libya as well as the IRS to focus on this one. Oh my, they DO take this outright personal...and with good reason as it's starting to appear. The White House, directly, made Media an adversary as no one since Nixon has really done. They went beyond what even Nixon had attempted though. Doom on them. Talk about a bad bad group of people to anger when your whole life is about living in the media spotlight.


When the Justice Department began investigating possible leaks of classified information about North Korea in 2009, investigators did more than obtain telephone records of a working journalist suspected of receiving the secret material.

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.


Now, lest we get comfortable by simply telling ourselves that "They all do it...no biggy". Well, yes and no. Previous administrations have done this. None, literally, have taken it to anything like these levels.


The Obama administration has pursued more such cases than all previous administrations combined, including one against a former CIA official charged with leaking U.S. intelligence on Iran and another against a former FBI contract linguist who pleaded guilty to leaking to a blogger.


Now one source is always a little limited in scope and perspective, so in this case? I found another with additional information.


. . .Justice Department took extraordinary steps to investigate Fox News reporter James Rosen for possible leaks of classified information about North Korea:”It 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. . . .”


In a further quote of administration action and policy, we get a glimpse of the mindset that drove some of this and what the term slippery slope actually means in practice.


The administration went on to try to exclude Fox from the network pool that covers the White House, making a recent appointee — pay czar Kenneth Feinberg — available for interviews to every network but Fox. When the other networks refused to conduct the interview until Fox was included, the White House relented. But the verbal assault continued, with Obama telling Rolling Stone magazine in 2010 that the network represents a point of view that is “ultimately destructive for the long-term growth of a country that has a vibrant middle class and is competitive in the world.”
Source

Perhaps they should have listened, learned and understood in 2009 when attacking Fox News saw *ALL* media rally and defend the Network. They may hate each other but they understand better than most others in the world, the term "Hang together or hang Separately". Once this was done to Fox and carried on well past that initial move (as both stories detail here), it was a small leap to take it on to other organizations like the AP. Once lines are already crossed, it's not much to cross them again and again. A little further each time.

Slippery Slopes are defined this way...and it appears on the media tapping scandal that is still JUST starting to take form? They slipped right down the slope and into the sewage at the bottom. Right in, up to their necks, by the look of it. You know, the media could have forgiven and been distracted from almost anything else.....except attacks against them, directly.




posted on May, 20 2013 @ 11:14 AM
link   
What amazes me is the absolute bullpatooey that Oama comes up with.....
Vibrant middle class?
Competitive in the world markets?
WTF?
How do the newshounds let this crap slip by without calling his bluff.....
platitudes and more platitudes...the idiot has a million of em...just no real solutions....



posted on May, 20 2013 @ 11:18 AM
link   
There are some that will laugh or say Fox News deserved it and try and justify it in some way. Those are also the same intellectually stunted individuals that will always choose a side by the letter after someone's name. People smart enough to see pass left and right will know that if this is allowed to go unpunished that the next time it may be them that are on the wrong side and are targeted by a political foe.

It is also interesting that the very person at the center of the IRS targeting scandal said this:




“For me, it’s about collaboration.” — National Treasury Employees Union President Colleen Kelley on the relationship between the anti-Tea Party IRS union and the Obama White House


Link


The stunning questions are raised by the following set of new facts. The White House lists the IRS union leader’s visit this way:

Kelley, Colleen Potus 03/31/2010 12:30
The very next day after her White House meeting with the President, according to the Treasury Department’s Inspector General’s Report, IRS employees — the same employees who belong to the NTEU — set to work in earnest targeting the Tea Party and conservative groups around America. The IG report wrote it up this way:

April 1-2, 2010: The new Acting Manager, Technical Unit, suggested the need for a Sensitive Case Report on the Tea Party cases. The Determinations Unit Program Manager Agreed.


Now I argue that this is a little more damning in that she met with obama and I think the timing justifies an answer to what was discussed. Under oath if need be.



posted on May, 20 2013 @ 11:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


I'm trying to get my head around all these accusations and "scandals" (|I don't like Obama, in fact, I don't like any leader or any government, they are all corrupt and self serving), but some of this is going way too far and stretching even the loose limits of my suspicious nature.

Someone was leaking sensitive information, and you think it's an attack that they investigated it? I don't care who it is, if someone is leaking information like that they have a DUTY to investigate whoever they think needs to be investigated! The fact that it was a Fox News employee makes absolutely no difference - in fact, it's potentially MORE dangerous given the nature of their job, and the fact that they would like to potentially meddle in national security to score political points against their own damned government!

As for the blocking of Fox news, I actually think that's pretty funny. The fact that so many idiots still consider Fox to be news is what's remarkable. Even right wing loons should be able to see just how insane their precious network is, it's verging on the extreme!

So much of American news is bought and paid for, and doesn't tell you people squat, but you'll defend one of the biggest propagandists on American TV just because it leans a certain way?


Lets not forget too, Fox News even thinks it's own viewers are idiot sheep, and calls you all that when they get the chance. Remember their little Christmas card of all the sheep pulling them through the snow? That's what they think of their own viewers!



posted on May, 20 2013 @ 11:40 AM
link   
reply to post by Carreau
 




Now I argue that this is a little more damning in that she met with obama and I think the timing justifies an answer to what was discussed. Under oath if need be.

Thanks for posting that link.

It certainly doesn't look good, does it? I am eager to hear an answer to the question that some reporter should ask the President.



posted on May, 20 2013 @ 11:51 AM
link   
At the rate that all these scandals are breaking its starting to look like a plan. Are we seeing the real string pullers selling off the puppets with some other plan already in the works? The far reaching scope of all these scandals could lead to so many head rolling that out government could use the Continuity of Government plan. This is a crazy time we are in…. Thanks. Painfulhead



posted on May, 20 2013 @ 11:54 AM
link   
reply to post by Rocker2013
 


I'm sorry some people see "Fox News" and find amusement in the attack of a legitimate News Organization by arms of the United States Government. I find absolutely nothing remotely humorous about it. Now I found Bush and Cheney's comments about 'accidentally' bombing out Al Jazeera's headquarters a little funny because it was SO far outside the physically possible and what could actually be done....while Al Jazeera was the bane of their existence, that it did warrant a chuckle.

This isn't funny. Not in the least. The level of outlook which would see it that way....is scary and precisely how we're watching freedom in this nation die.

The media/press from Fox News to MSNBC (Just to be fair and cover both EXTREMES of political propagada within Cable News today) is unique in American society. Outside of the Church? No other group in our culture has specific, names protection by the Constitution itself. Not buried in some obscure back page or fine print, either. 1st page, top section, Amendment 1.

Now, you suggest it's baffling why anyone should care? I'd point to the specific..and highlighted context I posted that state this is UNPRECEDENTED and these "powers" have been used more by this administration than ALL OTHERS COMBINED in the past.

That isn't 'just more of the same crap'. That's a whole new dump truck of crap to dump on the media and by extension, the American public. To look at this another way....since attacking Fox News is funny. How about next term, it's a Republican President ...and since Obama ALMOST excluded Fox outright, while attacking their reporters behind the scenes? How about the next one just destroy ABC, NBC, CBS and CNN? The principle is unchanged and all the next guy has to do is find a suitable "cause" to "justify" the dismantling of those organizations by intimidation and bully boy tactics.

^^^ THIS is why knowing and understanding history is absolutely critical. THIS is why principled stands are absolutely critical. These scandals don't represent JUST ONE behavior by JUST ONE man, in any of them. They are all system wide failures that took dozens, if not hundreds of idiots to pull off ...all failing to one degree or another. If these are let slide? The next President will start where these ended ...and then? Freedom will likely be lost. After all, this comes DAMN CLOSE as it is. Without a free press? We have absolutely nothing left but what someone like Jay Carney tells us is the truth.



posted on May, 20 2013 @ 12:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Rocker2013
 


I was going to say thank you for proving my point but your post was so over the top it looks like I paid you to type that. It's this type of thinking that has allowed this situation to occur. My team is more important than the law or truth. Treating politics and the government like college sports is going to be the downfall of this nation.



posted on May, 20 2013 @ 02:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000


. . .Justice Department took extraordinary steps to investigate Fox News reporter James Rosen for possible leaks of classified information about North Korea



This seems the most relevant excerpt to my question.

The blurring of semantics...The Admin didn't "Investigate" Fox reporter James Rosen...and more that they "investigated" the AP.

Not "investigate" in the prosecutorial sense.

Leaking Classified information is illegal...reporting it is a first amendment right preserved in the constitution.

So James Rosen and the AP are being persecuted, prosecuted or even directly investigated...DOJ is hunting down someone leaking classified information within thier ranks.

It is the fuzzing of the semantics that aim to portray this as suppressing the press's rights to report that seems pointedly dishonest rhetoric IMO.

FYI - What measures DOJ can use to find folks leaking national security secrets is open for debate...it is the idea that this is an attack on the press that I am not seeing in any of the evidence..at all....It is an attack on those leaking secrets.

FYI - The exclusion of FOX from white house press gatherings was not new...false correlation claiming it was in reatliation for this. For effs sake they were all Muslim/Kenyan/Fist bump back then.



posted on May, 20 2013 @ 02:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 





I'm sorry some people see "Fox News" and find amusement in the attack of a legitimate News Organization by arms of the United States Government


No need to wiretap, and follow Rosen around, and search his personal emails it he wasn't a 'legitimate' reporter working for a legitimate news organization.

James Rosen of all people!!!!!!

What nonsense.



posted on May, 20 2013 @ 02:20 PM
link   
If the problem was the leaks, why go after the reporters? Why not go after the government employee who is leaking the information? Have these individuals been identified? Punished? Prosecuted?



posted on May, 20 2013 @ 02:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
reply to post by Rocker2013
 


I'm sorry some people see "Fox News" and find amusement in the attack of a legitimate News Organization by arms of the United States Government.


Following on my post above...how was this reporter attacked? Not at all...Not "attacked", not the "subject" of the investigation, not at risk of persecution or prosecution...zip...nada...they were hunting for the leaker, not the leakee...and continuing to confuse the two for political rhetorical convenience seems BS to me.



posted on May, 20 2013 @ 02:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Carreau
If the problem was the leaks, why go after the reporters?


They didn't. What makes you think otherwise?


Originally posted by Carreau
Why not go after the government employee who is leaking the information?


Which is what they are doing...and to find that leak, wouldn't you look at who reported the leak? See who in the government they visited with and corresponded with heavily right before that leak? Give that gov employee some investigative attention?

I am confused why this doesn't make sense to some? Is it that the the politically advantageous, though logic challenged and factually unsubstantiated theme that this is government "attacking" the press is useful for political BS purposes?



posted on May, 20 2013 @ 03:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Indigo5
 


It is the fuzzing of the semantics that aim to portray this as suppressing the press's rights to report that seems pointedly dishonest rhetoric IMO.

Did you not read the source article or just skim over that part?

I can see you disagreeing with the logic of how this is an attack against the free press of this nation and their ability to operate in a way that supports open reporting.....however, I think it's a bit dishonest to suggest the logic doesn't exist.


Court documents in the Kim case reveal how deeply investigators explored the private communications of a working journalist — and raise the question of how often journalists have been investigated as closely as Rosen was in 2010. The case also raises new concerns among critics of government secrecy about the possible stifling effect of these investigations on a critical element of press freedom: the exchange of information between reporters and their sources.
(Original Op Link)


FYI - What measures DOJ can use to find folks leaking national security secrets is open for debate...it is the idea that this is an attack on the press that I am not seeing in any of the evidence..at all....It is an attack on those leaking secrets.


Well, there is no debate about it. There will be legal reviews and lawsuits, probably by the dozen when this is all over. Going between what was done to Fox, so many reporters at the AP and whatever we still haven't heard about? (Oh..seems to be new revelations almost daily at the moment), I'd say the victims who see this very much as an attack continue to grow.

I didn't choose the terms though. The Media itself has. Open a headline site and take a look.It doesn't have to be Drudge. There are many of similar format and they're all looking similar right now. The press isn't calming down. They are getting more pissed off. This isn't good for the man you tend to support on all things.
edit on 20-5-2013 by Wrabbit2000 because: Fixed quote



posted on May, 20 2013 @ 03:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Indigo5
 


If phone records, wiretaps, and tracking of movements were for the discovery of the leakers and not to punish/attack the reporters than where are the arrests?

Completely ignoring my third question in my post did not escape my notice either. I'll wait your response to that question before I say anything else.



posted on May, 20 2013 @ 03:35 PM
link   
I've lost count. Is this #7 or #8 scandal/illegal activities by Obama/Holder?
Is someone keeping count? WOW ... Obama/Holder are making Nixon
look like a freak'n amature. All measurement of corrupt presidential
administration in the future will be measured against this one ... no doubt.



posted on May, 20 2013 @ 03:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
reply to post by Indigo5
 


It is the fuzzing of the semantics that aim to portray this as suppressing the press's rights to report that seems pointedly dishonest rhetoric IMO.

Did you not read the source article or just skim over that part?

I can see you disagreeing with the logic of how this is an attack against the free press of this nation and their ability to operate in a way that supports open reporting.....however, I think it's a bit dishonest to suggest the logic doesn't exist.


The logic supporting the idea that this somehow hampers the presses ability to operate (unsupressed or persecuted or prosecuted BTW) exists only in as an argument of inconvenience. It means that they need to recieve secret material from folks breaking the law and leaking the national security secrets in a manner that would make it difficult for the DOJ to identify the leaker...but whatever the circumstances that is centered on the risk and consequences of the "leaker"...not the leakee (press). If they ahve to take extra and pro-active steps to protect thier sources (not themselves...they are immune via 1st amendment) then they should do so.

Either way....being forced to take extra steps to look out for a source, while thier own (press) vulnerability to prosecution is non-existant... does not = attack on the press.


Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
I didn't choose the terms though. The Media itself has. Open a headline site and take a look.It doesn't have to be Drudge.


Sure...and doesn't that make sense...It is not a partisan issue...press left and right want to protect thier sources and the flow of information.

Again...hunt for CIA agent X or Congressman on Security Council Y...that leaked National Security Secrets to Reporter W that almost cost lives and crushed an operation to infiltrate Al-Qaida...

Wouldn't you look at who Reporter W spoke with from Congress or CIA before the story was leaked?

Is that illegal? If a judge signs the warrant to pull the phone logs? And the "Subject" is not the press, but the leaker?

I am a big believer in Freedom of the Press...just can't figure out how it has been suppressed in this scenario? Cuz it makes it harder for them to report leaked national security secrets? Eff, man up...have a face to face conversation once in a while etc. vs. texting your source at CIA ...do it old school, like they used to. Inconvenience at best, but not "attack" on the press by any defintion.



posted on May, 20 2013 @ 03:45 PM
link   
Funny how people are automatically calling this a 'scandal'.

What if this reporter was legitimately involved in illegal activities? Being part of the "press" doesn't give you the go ahead to break laws. If he was stealing or an active participant of sneaking classified information out of government agencies...then he should be "targeted" and investigated.

If a source comes to you with information and you report on it, that is one thing. If you are an active participant in leaking confidential information, that is an entire other matter. Espionage doesn't have to from another country.



posted on May, 20 2013 @ 03:49 PM
link   
reply to post by flobot
 


Strange I don't recall this amount of support for the government between the years of 2001 and 2008.



posted on May, 20 2013 @ 03:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Carreau
reply to post by flobot
 


Strange I don't recall this amount of support for the government between the years of 2001 and 2008.


If the op, and the rest of those scandals happened between 2001 to 2008 they would care, but they don't because of blind ideology.





new topics

top topics



 
24
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join