Two Judges Told DOJ It Had To Disclose Spying On Journalist; DOJ Found A Third Judge Instead
from the incredible dept
This probably won't come as a surprise, but as people dig deeper into the DOJ's surveillance of reporter James Rosen, now it's come out that the DOJ worked extra hard to avoid having to tell Rosen they were spying on him by bouncing around from judge to judge until they found one who said okay. First, the DOJ argued that they wanted to spy on him for a while, so letting Rosen know (even after a bit of time) would interfere with the ongoing spying:[US Attorney Ronald C. Machen, Jr.] argued that disclosure of the search warrant would preclude the government from monitoring the account, should such a step become necessary in the investigation. Machen added that “some investigations are continued for many years because, while the evidence is not yet sufficient to bring charges, it is sufficient to have identified criminal subjects and/or criminal activity serious enough to justify continuation of the investigation.”Of course, since any surveillance of reporters is supposed to be especially narrowly focused, it shouldn't have been allowed for ongoing situations. But it was. And that might be because the DOJ waited until they found a judge who bought their argument.
The new documents show that two judges separately declared that the Justice Department was required to notify Rosen of the search warrant, even if the notification came after a delay. Otherwise: “The subscriber therefore will never know, by being provided a copy of the warrant, for example, that the government secured a warrant and searched the contents of her e-mail account,” Judge John M. Facciola wrote in an opinion rejecting the Obama Administration’s argument.This suggests, yet again, that this wasn't a one-off effort, but rather part of a larger, concerted effort to spy on journalists and create chilling effects for whistleblowers.
Machen appealed that decision, and in September, 2010, Royce C. Lamberth, the chief judge in the Federal District Court for the District of Columbia, granted Machen’s request to overturn the order of the two judges.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: doj, forum shopping, journalists, spying
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Familiar tactic...
"No."
"Daddy, can I spy on journalists?"
"No."
"Uncle, can I spy on journalists?"
"Eh, sure, why not?"
I guess the DoJ is run by a bunch of 6-year-olds.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Familiar tactic...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Pssst! It's not really spying if the subject is told about it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Given that two magistrate judges interpreted it differently however I'm somewhat inclined to wonder whether there is not some other controlling statute as well.
[1] http://www.volokh.com/2013/05/28/notice-for-e-mail-warrants-and-the-james-rosen-case/
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Geez, Mike, the Volokh link blows away you and Drudge.
Besides that, at least there was a warrant, so better than usual for DOJ.
"This probably won't come as a surprise," but I'm forced to find Mike ill-informed at best, and throwing out a quick re-write soon as his template sorta fit, as usual.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
It would appear that there wasn't any judge shopping here, rather the justice department fighting for and obtaining a warrant after the first two judges botched the job. The restrictions that would have been in place under the first two judges was not required as a matter of law, and the justice department was smart to keep trying until someone got it right.
Mike may not like the result, but calling it judge shopping is pretty much Republican't BS.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Familiar tactic...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Why?
Seems like a judge should not have any authority to sign an order (or whatever they do in these situations) unless they are officially assigned the duty. And then once ruled on that is the ruling, bar some designated appeal process. The 'officials' shouldn't just be able to go ask another judge, and another, and another, and so on until they get the answer they want.
I mean the last time I checked I, as a citizen can not do that, so why can the government.
I guess what I am saying is that judges should not have their judicial powers outside of specifically assigned cases and that all cases need to be assigned from a known, predefined process. Obviously most of the system already works this way. I just think that the entire system needs to work this way. Judges are people, with personal and political agendas. While as a group I think most do a good job of leaving these out of their work, why leave areas open for abuse.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
And it paid off, right?
Oh, wait...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Geez, Mike, the Volokh link blows away you and Drudge.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
If so, this is the way the system is supposed to work, except for the fact that the reporter had no one arguing on his side.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
A few years ago, he was with the anti-Bush crew. It's almost as if he didn't care much whether the letter after the wannabe tyrant's name were D or R.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
First: there are laws other then the one that was sighted that may make the other two judges right, but not in the way that they thought. Journalists have a few laws to protect their sources. I don't know the law well enough to be sure, but the right to keep secret sources could easily change the outcome.
Second: The article you link to suggests that the E-Mail account and all E-Mails in said account are owned in their entirety by the ISP, not the reporter. This is where the crux of the DOJ's argument is. They didn't have to inform the reporter as it was an ISP owned E-Mail account. Again, I don't know the law well enough to say for sure, but as a person, I think that's wrong. I own my E-Mails and no one else.
So, in my opinion, the DOJ is using the letter of one law to defeat the spirit of law in general.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Hating abuse of authority is very different from hating authority.
Most people can tell the difference.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Whose power is being delegated?
In this country the power of governance is supposed to come from the governed themselves.
There can be no way to determine whether those to whom power has been delegated are responsibly using their authority if journalists do not keep us informed.
This is why restricting the freedom of journalists to pursue their trade threatens the freedom of all of us.
I suspect Mike, like many more of us feels that 'the national security card' has been played too many times in the last 12 years, and is it too often being used as an excuse to avoid the scrutiny that citizens must be able to direct at government if liberty is to be preserved.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
One of those things that makes sense in the physical world but is just moronic in the digital one.
http://consumer.findlaw.com/online-scams/email-privacy-concerns.html
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Sound like "judge shopping" to me, boy.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Psst! It is if it's after the fact, boy!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Reuters Reporting
"Last week, news outlets reported that Holder had approved a decision to seek a search warrant for Fox News email records as part of a leak investigation. Reuters later reported Holder signed off on a subpoena for telephone records as well."
..."In a defense of Holder, White House spokesman Jay Carney said that Holder had testified truthfully. Carney told reporters at a briefing on Wednesday there was an "extremely large distinction" between describing a reporter as a co-conspirator and charging him with a crime."
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/05/29/us-usa-justice-holder-idUSBRE94S12I20130529
So the standard now it to list Every bad thing you can on a warrant to get it signed.
Good Guys or Bad Guys, which jumps to that standard?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
here's the thing: it hardly took me 5 seconds of 'thought' to think why the 'argument' that the ISP "owns" our email is simply ludicrous on its face...
now, as big an ego as i have, i can't believe judges who -on average, at minimum- have been through college, law school, practiced law for many decades, etc, do NOT see the same HUGE flaw in both logic and fairness...
that leads to one of two inescapable conclusions: the judge(s) who decide in such a manner are either corrupt, or senile...
QED
art guerrilla
aka ann archy
eof
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Why?
we are NOT a meritocracy...
laws are NOT made for the greatest good for the greatest number...
the justice system is NOT fair...
the media is NOT our watchdog...
and -most importantly- it is NOT 'our' (sic) gummint...
what it is, is a kapitalist Empire to strip the wealth of the planet to benefit the 1%...
...and the pitiful mewlings of the sheeple about this 'natural' state of affairs is beginning to annoy our betters: examples are being made...
(see, shwarz, aaron; manning, bradley; kiriakou, john; etc, ad infinitum...)
art guerrilla
aka ann archy
eof
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Another crooked judge
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Another crooked judge
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Most people can tell the difference.
You think it's all abused, ergo, you hate it all.
[ link to this | view in thread ]