Federal government spying on journalists using phone records

  • Thread starter Thread starter Manchot
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Government
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the federal government's surveillance of journalists through the collection of phone records, particularly in the context of national security and whistleblowing. Participants explore the implications of such actions on transparency, accountability, and the rights of individuals, with a focus on the Bush administration's policies and practices.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Exploratory

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants express concern that the government's use of phone records to track journalists undermines the era of whistleblowing and transparency in government.
  • Others argue that monitoring leaks related to national security is acceptable, suggesting that not all leaks pose a threat.
  • A participant presents a hypothetical scenario regarding the prosecution of a government employee for leaking information, questioning the fairness of such a trial if the information is deemed too sensitive for public knowledge.
  • Concerns are raised about the lack of accountability and oversight for intelligence agencies, with calls for checks and balances to prevent abuses of power.
  • Some participants assert that the leaks in question do not threaten national security but rather expose wrongdoing by the Bush administration.
  • There is a discussion about the implications of warrantless wiretapping and the legality of such actions, with references to past incidents involving journalists.
  • Participants challenge each other's views on the nature of national security threats and the ethical considerations surrounding government surveillance.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants exhibit a range of opinions, with no clear consensus. Some agree on the need for oversight of intelligence activities, while others defend the government's actions as necessary for national security. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the balance between security and civil liberties.

Contextual Notes

Participants reference specific incidents and policies without providing definitive evidence or links to support their claims. The discussion reflects a variety of assumptions about the legality and morality of government surveillance practices.

Manchot
Messages
470
Reaction score
5
According to one of http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2006/05/federal_source_.html, the federal government is using the collected phone records of journalists to find "leaks." This directly contradicts Bush's http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/05/11/bush.transcript/index.html/ that "our intelligence activities strictly target al Qaeda and their known affiliates." Since the phone records are probably legal, does this mean that the era of the whistleblower (and subsequently the transparent government) is over? Should we be concerned about this?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Computer science news on Phys.org
Manchot said:
Should we be concerned about this?
No. I don't have too much of a problem if there's a leak that can thearten national security I don't have problem with it.
 
Manchot said:
According to one of http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2006/05/federal_source_.html, the federal government is using the collected phone records of journalists to find "leaks." This directly contradicts Bush's http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/05/11/bush.transcript/index.html/ that "our intelligence activities strictly target al Qaeda and their known affiliates." Since the phone records are probably legal, does this mean that the era of the whistleblower (and subsequently the transparent government) is over? Should we be concerned about this?
Uh... YES!

We've already discussed eavesdropping on UN members, tracking anti-war activists and even environmentalists. Of course this would be used to suppress the media from playing a watchdog role in our so-called democracy, since other tactics such as intimidation has been used as well (on the press and government employees). And I have no doubt the democratic party is being monitored in some unethical way. It's the Bush/Cheney dictatorship in action.

This is why the right to privacy must be upheld regardless of whether one has anything to hide, or if it helped prevent another 9-11 (which I seriously doubt it would). There is no excuse to overlook the constitution and bill of rights--EVER. Those who say it's okay are unpatriotic and should be tried for treason right along with the Bush cabal. What is wrong with this friggin' country?!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
No. I don't have too much of a problem if there's a leak that can thearten national security I don't have problem with it.
Ok, I've got a scenario for you. Let's imagine that Bush notices that the Deputy Associate Director of the FBI is making a lot of calls to the Washington Post, finds out that he is a leaker, and has him tried for treason. Since the information that he was going to leak was important to national security, no one at the trial could find out what the information was, and he is convicted. Would that be acceptable to you?
 
Last edited:
Way back in January, there were rumors that CNN journalist Christiane Amanpour's phone/internet lines were being tapped. The NSA responded quickly by denying the taps.

Now this props up !

PS : Amanpour's husband (Jamie Rubin) was Kerry's national security advisor during the '04 campaign.
 
It seems like common sense to ask, that an intelligence agency with such incredible power have some sort of accountability or oversight system by which the public can verify it is not violating laws. Some basic checks and balances, like judicial oversight (which this program obviously lacks). For some reason, the general public does not demand this; it seems to be a widespread failure of critical reasoning ability. Since when is it sane to let an agency police its own actions, and take it all on mere trust?!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
scott1 said:
No. I don't have too much of a problem if there's a leak that can thearten national security I don't have problem with it.
The leaks so far do NOT threaten National Security. Rather they point to criminal mischief on the part of the Bush Administration. :mad:

The Bush administration is a threat to US national security. :mad:
 
Manchot said:
Ok, I've got a scenario for you. Let's imagine that Bush notices that the Deputy Associate Director of the FBI is making a lot of calls to the Washington Post, finds out that he is a leaker, and has him tried for treason. Since the information that he was going to leak was important to national security, no one at the trial could find out what the information was, and he is convicted. Would that be acceptable to you?
Well I asuming that jury would find out but everone elese should not know.
What if every does find out and thoundsands died.
 
Astronuc said:
The leaks so far do NOT threaten National Security. Rather they point to criminal mischief on the part of the Bush Administration. :mad:
Ok how do you know that(can you please provide a link)? It's top secert information and the Terroist want to kill bush too.
Astronuc said:
The Bush administration is a threat to US national security. :mad:
What I don't understand is why don't people treat Bush like he's a person?
 
  • #10
Ok how do you know that(can you please provide a link)? It's top secert information and the Terroist want to kill bush too.
When it was leaked that the NSA was tapping without warrants, there was no threat to national security as a result. People aren't idiots: everyone knows that the government can perform wiretaps (potential terrorists included). It was just assumed that they'd go through the FISA courts to do so. The leaking of the illegal warrantless program therefore was no threat to national security.

Well I asuming that jury would find out but everone elese should not know.
What if every does find out and thoundsands died.
For the sake of argument, let's assume that the lawyers simply tell the jury that the information is simply too vital for them to know about, and they convict the person. What do you think about this situation?

What I don't understand is why don't people treat Bush like he's a person?
No one did so...
 
  • #11
scott1 said:
What I don't understand is why don't people treat Bush like he's a person?
What are you talking about? It's good to be the King.
 
  • #12
Manchot said:
For the sake of argument, let's assume that the lawyers simply tell the jury that the information is simply too vital for them to know about, and they convict the person. What do you think about this situation?
That's assuming there even is a trial. More likely the suspects would be imprisoned without any due process in one of Bush's secret prisons or Guantanamo Bay.
 
  • #13
scott1 said:
No. I don't have too much of a problem if there's a leak that can thearten national security I don't have problem with it.
The leaks Bush is trying to plug are the leaks showing illegal activity by his administration. He is using US law enforcement agencies to try to coverup crimes his admin has and is committing under the guise of national security.

For example
warrantless wiretaping, rendition of prisoners, the defense of torture, the distribution of classified information in order to punish political critics and other abuses of power
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #14
Art said:
The leaks Bush is trying to plug are the leaks showing illegal activity by his administration. He is using US law enforcement agencies to try to coverup crimes his admin has and is committing under the guise of national security.
Exactly. These illegal activities have been revealed on a general level (with no specifics), and in the case of warrantless wiretaps, the revelation certainly wasn't anything terrorists haven't avoided for a long time. If you want to talk about a national security issue, it is the outing of a CIA agent (Plame).
 

Similar threads

News Should the Times and the Washington post be presecuted
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
5K
News Bush Honest & Trustworthy Until How Many Lies?
  • · Replies 65 ·
3
Replies
65
Views
12K