FBI acknowledges: Journalists' phone records are fair game

That's really scary, Tom. "Whether or not patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel, national security can be the last refuge of the tyrant." ~Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe.

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

Investigations have been going on for many years and back tracking contacts is a well known and often used (and useful) method.

Nothing has been stated about any of the records aquisitions being "illegal", although ABC insinuates this. Don't you wonder why they didn't come right out and say something like "without warrants" or "purchasing the records from employees"--they surely would have if they could have.

Are you even aware that others whose names have surfaced can and most likely did authorize obtaining their records which could broaden or localize certain aspects of an investigation WITHOUT any further requirement for additional authorization?

Additionally the Patriot Act is what is being referred to when mention was made of "It used to be very hard and complicated to do this, but it no longer is in the Bush administration," said a senior federal official. No effort was made to clarify that and that lack of effort paid dividends with the ignorant believing that it was "Bush's fault".

For the criminal investigations I've done, all investigations start with an accusation. That's it, no proof, just an as yet unfounded accusation. Then the tools of the trade are applied to see if there is any evidence to support the accusation. Sometimes, an investigation can drag on for years with no evidence uncovered, depending on who is investigating and how much that person wants there to be evidence.

Sometimes an investigation is carried on long after it should've been dropped for lack of evidence, but then too, sometimes sticking to it will produce results only after a very long time.

Not so much time has passed, in my opinion, to cut off this avenue of investigation just yet.

But as I said, up to a point, a limit should be set. As I understand it the FBI is proceeding as if there is no such limit, that they can continue on this line as long as they want, even if no evidence is found. I could be wrong, but that is how I see it. And that seems to me to be a skiewed view on the part of the FBI. Up to a point such actions are necessary to protect us all, but there has to be a limit, or else none of us is protected. More data is necessary to set my mind one way or the other.

Has anyone given the FBI a tip, anonymous or otherwise, to look in this area?

Has any evidence been uncovered without that being revealed to the general public?

Of course if the answer is no, and the FBI is just fishing in case they happen to find something, then someone needs to take their pole away.

does not entitle the FBI or the President or anyone else to commit crimes in order to uncover them. That is actually part of the reason for warrants for wire-taps. Trawling someones phone records may be legal if a person is suspected of a crime, trawling the records of a news organization with millions of irrelevant incoming calls in the hope of finding one that might be investigable or monitoring news organizations incoming calls on the off-chance that one might be from a leaker is far too broad a reason. It'd never stand up in court. Of course this President doesn't believe in Courts, or due process.

Whatever happened to probable cause, and due process? Oh, I forgot, you don't believe in those liberal tenets.

Rob

They can do no wrong. The First Amendment says so. They can murder someone and it's protected as "Free Speech".

records. Ever watch L&O? Absent probable cause or some corroborating evidence you don't get the warrant. Ever watch L&O?

The phone LUDs (what ever LUDs are) that are so frequently mentioned on L&O are either from public phones where there is no expectation of privacy, ergo you don't need a warrant, or are the product of a warrant whether it is mentioned or not. Ask a lawyer.

Rob

... Rob, do they claim the FBI INAPPROPRIATELY is seeking records? What makes you think they don't have probable cause, and then some, to look for phone contacts of Mary McCarthy to see which journalists she was leaking to? When a story is BOLD FACED reported to contain "classified information" so the "confidential source" is kept anonymous, what makes you think that PUBLIC report isn't sufficient to probe who that source might be?

Unlike you, I believe that TRULY disclosing classified info is a serious thing.