Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Holder OK'd search warrant for Fox News reporter's private emails, official says

openchannel.nbcnews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 86 posts

Re: Holder OK'd search warrant for Fox News reporter's private emails, official says

#21

Post by tshile »

mtgx wrote: post #11
jbooth wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, I thought this was settled with the Pentagon Papers. But apparently everyone changed their mind after Wikileaks, and without court oversight. Can Fox News sue here? It seems like calling him a co-conspirator (aka journalist) just to get the search warrant with no plans to charge him is super fishy. And even more puzzling than Holder's actions, why isn't Fox News trumpeting this instead of Benghazi?

There was an article on BI a few days ago saying how "Americans don't care" about the AP spying (from a survey), and that they cared a lot more about IRS and Benghazi. But let's put things in context. The IRS scandal, and especially the Benghazi one, have been trumpeted at least 10x more than the AP one. Maybe 100x more. With such "awareness campaign" is it really a surprise most people responded in the surveys with…

As an American that doesn't care, I can say that the media is in quite a hypocritical situation with this one.

They've had 10 years to look into this, to take a stance, to confront the US Government on the issue. For 10 years they've ignored, or not cared, about issues like wire tapping, searching through emails and phone records, etc without a warrant. Issues like locking up an american citizens indefinitely without a right to trial. Issues like using drones to kill americans.

They've ignored these issues for going on 10 years because, I assume, they felt they were immune to them. That they had protections against them that 'regular' Americans didn't.

Now they find out and they are just as susceptible to those rules as the rest of us an want to put a rallying cry for us to come to their side? Even further they want special legislation protecting them from it, while leaving the rest of us unprotected?

Please. The media deserves absolutely zero sympathy on this one. Maybe if they were doing their jobs, maybe if they actually cared about the American people the way they claim, they wouldn't be in this mess.

Re: Holder OK'd search warrant for Fox News reporter's private emails, official says

#22

Post by chiph »

pekk wrote: post #16

This is part of an extremely strong partisan streak in HN's political postings over the last year or two which I find irritating and inappropriate. If I wanted right-wing skewed tech news, there is already Slashdot.

This isn't a left-wing or right-wing issue, it's a civil-liberties issue concerning life in a free society. The press, while not one of the checks & balances envisioned by the country founders, serve in that role by revealing the misdeeds & transgressions of those in positions of authority.

Re: Holder OK'd search warrant for Fox News reporter's private emails, official says

#23

Post by conover »

adolph wrote: post #18
dllthomas wrote: post #12

It sounds like there was an actual warrant in this case? Not a huge fan of the actions taken here but it's not as horrendous as the end run around oversight that the subpoenas entail.

I am not a lawyer, but my naive understanding of how it works is that a judge (or magistrate, somesuch from judicial branch) "signs off" on a warrant to authorize it. Maybe the article means that the AG approved requesting a warrant from a judge?

I seem to remember reading somewhere that there are extra procedures in the Justice Department when issuing search warrants involving members of the press. Namely, that the AG has to sign off personally. I'll see if I can find a source.

Edit: Yes. The AG has to personally sign off on them.

"Justice Department regulations call for subpoenas for journalists’ phone records to be undertaken as a last resort and narrowly focused, subject to the attorney general’s personal signoff. Under normal circumstances, the regulations call for notice and negotiations, giving the news organization a chance to challenge the subpoena in court."

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/14/us/phone-records-of-journa...

Double Edit: I guess that just references phone records. It's not clear if it includes all types of summons.

Re: Holder OK'd search warrant for Fox News reporter's private emails, official says

#24

Post by kingkawn »

symfoniq wrote: post #19
pekk wrote: post #16

This is part of an extremely strong partisan streak in HN's political postings over the last year or two which I find irritating and inappropriate. If I wanted right-wing skewed tech news, there is already Slashdot.

I agree that the less politics on Hacker News, the better. However, I think there is a grave risk in writing off the possible abuse of political power because the alleged victims are not in your camp. As Martin Niemöller said: First they came for the communists, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist. Then they came for the socialists, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a socialist. Then they came f…

Godwin's Law

Re: Holder OK'd search warrant for Fox News reporter's private emails, official says

#25

Post by ianstallings »

pekk wrote: post #16

This is part of an extremely strong partisan streak in HN's political postings over the last year or two which I find irritating and inappropriate. If I wanted right-wing skewed tech news, there is already Slashdot.

Slashdot is right wing? Bahahaha. That's funny. Did you know CmdrTaco actually works for the Washington Post now? Not exactly the fortress of the right wing. In fact, quite liberal. Some would say very liberal.

Anywho, this topic is about government abuse, regardless of party.

Re: Holder OK'd search warrant for Fox News reporter's private emails, official says

#26

Post by jbooth »

rayiner wrote: post #10
jbooth wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, I thought this was settled with the Pentagon Papers. But apparently everyone changed their mind after Wikileaks, and without court oversight. Can Fox News sue here? It seems like calling him a co-conspirator (aka journalist) just to get the search warrant with no plans to charge him is super fishy. And even more puzzling than Holder's actions, why isn't Fox News trumpeting this instead of Benghazi?

There was a warrant, so I'm not sure what lack of court oversight you're talking about.

Bad wording on my part. I guess I was saying that there hasn't been a major court decision overturning US vs Ellsbury/NYT, yet somehow everyone's just pretending it's gone. Seems to me like in order to contradict that previous ruling you should be going to the Supreme Court.

I also think it's sketchy as hell to name someone as a 'co-conspirator' in a leak case for being a journalist who was leaked to. That's not conspiracy, it's doing their job with protection from the first amendment.

Re: Holder OK'd search warrant for Fox News reporter's private emails, official says

#28

Post by bradleyjg »

3825 wrote: post #17
bradleyjg wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Between signing off on warrants against journalists, signing off on the CIA murdering American citizens abroad (via OLC), and giving de facto immunity to banks and bank employees, Holder has been a terrible Attorney General. It's time for him to go.

Can an Attorney General sign a warrant? Isn't it supposed to be a judge who signs warrants?

DOJ regulations require that the AG approve ('sign off' on) the request for a warrant targeting a journalist, but you are right that only a judge (well at least a magistrate) can actually authorize one.

Re: Holder OK'd search warrant for Fox News reporter's private emails, official says

#29

Post by shardling »

Nrsolis wrote: post #3

I supported Obama and worked for the campaign in 2008. I'm sad to see that this administration has been more aggressive in leak persecution than GWB. I don't think there is anything wrong in pursuing illegal leaks of classified information. I DO think it's wrong to target bona fide journalists for criminal prosecution based on their reporting. The optics of this kind of thing are bad no matter how you look at it. As…

> I DO think it's wrong to target bona fide journalists for criminal prosecution based on their reporting.

I'm not sure there's any indication that they were really going to prosecute a journalist, though, was there?

I know the way the warrants were written probably sounds like it implies that. But I think they were using the fact that the journalist technically broke the law to fish for information about the guy they were really targeting: whoever leaked the info.

Now, you might well have a problem with that intent, the current law, or the way they obtained the warrants. But saying that the current administration was actually going to prosecute the journalist seems to me unfounded.

Re: Holder OK'd search warrant for Fox News reporter's private emails, official says

#30

Post by LatvjuAvs »

Nrsolis wrote: post #3

I supported Obama and worked for the campaign in 2008. I'm sad to see that this administration has been more aggressive in leak persecution than GWB. I don't think there is anything wrong in pursuing illegal leaks of classified information. I DO think it's wrong to target bona fide journalists for criminal prosecution based on their reporting. The optics of this kind of thing are bad no matter how you look at it. As…

Oh boy. When you ask government a question they can tell its classified. But if you dare not to comply with government, you are in so much trouble :D And there the illusion shatters where government is for the people.
Post reply on HN