World Library  
Flag as Inappropriate
Email this Article
 

2013 Department of Justice investigations of reporters

In 2013, the United States Department of Justice, under Attorney General Eric Holder, came under scrutiny from the media and some members of Congress for subpoenaing phone records from the Associated Press and naming Fox News reporter, James Rosen, a "criminal co-conspirator" under the Espionage Act of 1917 in order to gain access to his personal emails and phone records.

Contents

  • Associated Press 1
  • James Rosen 2
  • Department of Justice 3
  • Prosecutions during the Obama Administration's tenure 4
  • Perception 5
  • Aftermath 6
  • See also 7
  • References 8

Associated Press

On May 13, 2013, the Associated Press announced telephone records for 20 of their reporters during a two-month period in 2012 had been subpoenaed by the Justice Department. AP reported the Justice Department would not say why it sought the records, but news sources noted the US Attorney's office for the District of Columbia was conducting a criminal investigation into a May 7, 2012, AP story about a CIA operation which prevented the Yemeni terrorist Fahd al-Quso's plot to detonate an explosive device on a commercial flight.[1] The DOJ did not direct subpoenas to the Associated Press; instead, the subpoenas were issued to their telephone providers, including Verizon Wireless.[2]

The AP claimed these acts were a "massive and unprecedented intrusion" into news-gathering operations.[3][4] Gary Pruitt, CEO of the Associated Press stated: "These records potentially reveal communications with confidential sources across all of the newsgathering activities undertaken by the AP during a two-month period, provide a road map to AP's newsgathering operations and disclose information about AP's activities and operations that the government has no conceivable right to know."[5][6]

The US Attorney's office in Washington responded that federal investigators seek records from news outlets only after making "every reasonable effort to obtain information through alternative means."[5] Verizon neither challenged the subpoena nor did it try to alert the journalists whose records were being requested. Debra Lewis, Verizon Wireless spokeswoman, said the company "complies with legal processes for requests for information by law enforcement."[7]

James Rosen

On May 17, 2013, the Washington Post reported the Justice Department had monitored reporter James Rosen's activities by tracking his visits to the State Department, through phone traces, timing of calls and his personal emails in a probe regarding possible leaks of classified information in 2009 about North Korea.[8] In obtaining the warrants, they labeled Rosen a "criminal co-conspirator" with Stephen Kim.[9] Rosen was also described as a "flight-risk" to keep him from being informed of the ongoing surveillance.[10]

In a written statement, the Justice Department said it had followed “all applicable laws, regulations, and longstanding Department of Justice policies intended to safeguard the First Amendment interests of the press in reporting the news and the public in receiving it.”[8]

Some analysts have described the Justice Department's actions as "aggressive investigative methods"[11][12] that have a chilling effect on news organizations' ability to play a watchdog role. Fox News contributor Judge Andrew Napolitano commented: "This is the first time that the federal government has moved to this level of taking ordinary, reasonable, traditional, lawful reporter skills and claiming they constitute criminal behavior."[13]

An editorial board of the New York Times wrote: "With the decision to label a Fox News television reporter a possible 'co-conspirator' in a criminal investigation of a news leak, the Obama administration has moved beyond protecting government secrets to threatening fundamental freedoms of the press to gather news."[14]

Dana Milibank of the [15]

Department of Justice

Days prior on May 15, 2013, Attorney General Holder had testified under oath in front of the House Judiciary Committee that he had recused himself from the leak investigations to avoid any appearance of a conflict of interest. Holder said his Deputy Attorney General, James Cole, was in charge of the AP investigation and would've ordered the subpoenas.[16] When questioning turned to the possibility of journalists being charged under the Espionage Act for reporting classified material, Holder stated: “With regard to the potential prosecution of the press for the disclosure of material, that is not something that I’ve ever been involved in, heard of or would think would be a wise policy.”[17] On May 23, 2013, NBC confirmed with the Justice Department that Eric Holder had personally signed off on the Rosen case. The Justice Department defended their decision and spoke about a balance between protecting national secrets and the 1st Amendment, stating: "After extensive deliberations, and after following all applicable laws, regulations and policies, the Department sought an appropriately tailored search warrant under the Privacy Protection Act.”[17] The revelation brought into question whether Holder was being intentionally misleading during his previous testimony when he denied knowing of, or being part of possible prosecutions of journalists. House Committee members sent an open letter to Holder, saying: "It is imperative that the committee, the Congress, and the American people be provided a full and accurate account of your involvement."[18]

Prosecutions during the Obama Administration's tenure

To date, seven Americans working for the U.S. Government or government contractors with security clearances have faced criminal charges under the Espionage Act of 1917 because of alleged leaks to members of the press or online outlets during the Obama Administration's tenure:[11]

  • Shamai Leibowitz, a contract linguist for the FBI, was convicted of leaking information to a blogger from embassy wiretaps in 2010.[19]
  • Jeffrey Sterling, a former CIA employee, was indicted for allegedly revealing classified information to journalist James Risen in 2011.[20]
  • John Kiriakou, a former CIA analyst, pleaded guilty to passing classified information to a reporter in 2013.[21]
  • [22]
  • Stephen Jin-Woo Kim, a senior analyst at the Office of National Security at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, was charged with disclosing national defense information to reporter James Rosen in 2010.[23]
  • Thomas Drake, a former National Security Agency senior executive, was charged with willful retention of national defense information. The charges were dismissed on the eve of his trial in 2010.[24]
  • Edward Snowden, a technical contractor for the NSA and former employee of the CIA, in Russian exile as of 2015, has been charged with theft and the unauthorized disclosure of classified information to columnist Glenn Greenwald and other media outlets in 2013.[25]

Justice Department officials have made the distinction that they do not target whistle-blowers, but rather those who knowingly disclose classified information to others without security clearance: "An individual in authorized possession of classified information has no authority or right to unilaterally determine, that it should be made public or otherwise disclose it.”[26]

Perception

Members of Congress and media figures have questioned the motivations behind the Justice Department's actions, and if they were even warranted: "For five days, reporters at the Associated Press had been sitting on a big scoop about a foiled Al-Qaeda plot at the request of CIA officials. Then, in a hastily scheduled Monday morning meeting, the journalists were asked by agency officials to hold off on publishing the story for just one more day. The CIA officials, who had initially cited national security concerns in an attempt to delay publication, no longer had those worries, according to individuals familiar with the exchange. Instead, the Obama administration was planning to announce the successful counterterrorism operation that Tuesday. AP balked and proceeded to publish that Monday afternoon."[27]

On June 19, 2013, while giving a speech at the

  1. ^
  2. ^
  3. ^
  4. ^
  5. ^ a b
  6. ^
  7. ^
  8. ^ a b
  9. ^
  10. ^
  11. ^ a b
  12. ^
  13. ^
  14. ^
  15. ^
  16. ^
  17. ^ a b
  18. ^
  19. ^
  20. ^
  21. ^
  22. ^
  23. ^
  24. ^
  25. ^
  26. ^
  27. ^
  28. ^
  29. ^
  30. ^
  31. ^
  32. ^

References

See also

The U.S. Department of Justice undertook a comprehensive evaluation of the practices of the DOJ and its policies regarding issuing subpoenas, search warrants and court orders to obtain records or information from journalists, meeting with stakeholders in the news media, First Amendment advocates, and members of the Congress. The DOJ published a 6-page report of the review entitled "Report on Revised Media Guidelines" on July 12, 2013.[29] Holder said the "revised guidelines help ensure the proper balance is struck when pursuing investigations into unauthorized disclosures" and that these "reforms will make a meaningful difference". He claimed that "there are additional protections that only Congress can provide" alluding to media shield legislation.[30] Media lawyers involved in the negotions of the revised guidelines called them a significant progress, but the reactions of journalist were mixed. David E. Sanger, veteran chief Washington correspondent of The New York Times, for example stated that the revised guidelines were “just formalizing what was observed in past administrations. The guidelines worked pretty well until the Obama administration came in.”[31] On February 24, 2014 the Attorney General Eric Holder signed the final new rules that lay down the guidelines for the U.S. Department of Justice on seeking information from journalists. The Attorney General’s Order No. 3420-2014 mentions it lays down the “Policy regarding obtaining information from, or records of, members of the news media; and regarding questioning, arresting, or charging members of the news media.”[32]

Aftermath

[28]

This article was sourced from Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. World Heritage Encyclopedia content is assembled from numerous content providers, Open Access Publishing, and in compliance with The Fair Access to Science and Technology Research Act (FASTR), Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., Public Library of Science, The Encyclopedia of Life, Open Book Publishers (OBP), PubMed, U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Center for Biotechnology Information, U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health (NIH), U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, and USA.gov, which sources content from all federal, state, local, tribal, and territorial government publication portals (.gov, .mil, .edu). Funding for USA.gov and content contributors is made possible from the U.S. Congress, E-Government Act of 2002.
 
Crowd sourced content that is contributed to World Heritage Encyclopedia is peer reviewed and edited by our editorial staff to ensure quality scholarly research articles.
 
By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. World Heritage Encyclopedia™ is a registered trademark of the World Public Library Association, a non-profit organization.
 



Copyright © World Library Foundation. All rights reserved. eBooks from World eBook Library are sponsored by the World Library Foundation,
a 501c(4) Member's Support Non-Profit Organization, and is NOT affiliated with any governmental agency or department.