Oh really...

[Ferno]

From CapitolHillBlue



Using many of the questionable surveillance and monitoring techniques that brought both questions and criticism to his administration, President George W. Bush has launched a war against reporters who write stories unfavorable to his actions and is planning to prosecute journalists to make examples of them in his \"war on terrorism.\"

Bush recently directed Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to use \"whatever means at your disposal\" to wiretap, follow, harass and investigate journalists who have published stories about the administration's illegal use of warrantless wiretaps, use of faulty intelligence and anything else he deems \"detrimental to the war on terror.\"

Reporters for The New York Times, which along with Capitol Hill Blue revealed use of the National Security Agency to monitor phone calls and emails of Americans, say FBI agents have interviewed them and criminal prosecutors at the Justice Department admit they are laying \"the groundwork for a grand jury that could lead to criminal charges,\"

CIA Director Porter Goss told Congress recently that \"it is my aim and it is my hope that we will witness a grand jury investigation with reporters present being asked to reveal who is leaking this information. I believe the safety of this nation and the people of this country deserve nothing less.\"

As part of the investigation, the Justice Department, Department of Homeland Security and the National Security Agency are wiretapping reporters' phones, following journalists on a daily basis, searching their homes and offices under a USA Patriot Act provision that allows \"secret and undisclosed searches\" and pouring over financial and travel records of hundreds of Washington-based reporters.

Spokesmen for the Justice Department and Department of Homeland Security admit there are \"ongoing investigations\" regarding publication of stories \"involving threats to national security\" but will not reveal what those investigations include.

In addition to using the USA Patriot Act to pry into the lives of journalists, the Justice Department has also dusted off a pre-World War I law to prosecute people who receive classified information, although the law was aimed at military personnel not civilians.

\"This is the first administration that I can remember, including Nixon's, that said we need to think about a law that would put journalists who print national security things up in front of grand juries and put them in jail if they don't reveal their sources,\" says David Gergen, who served as President Regan's director of communication and also worked in the Nixon and Ford White Houses.

Political scientist George Harleigh, who worked in the Nixon administration, says such use of federal law enforcement authority was illegal when Nixon tried it and still so today.

\"We're talking about a basic violation of the Constitutional guarantee of a free press as well as a violation of the rights of privacy of American citizens,\" Harleigh says. \"I had hoped we would have learned our lessons from the Nixon era. Sadly, it appears we have not.\"

In recent weeks, the FBI has issued hundreds of \"National Security Letters,\" directing employers, banks, credit card companies, libraries and other entities to turn over records on reporters. Under the USA Patriot Act, those who must turn over the records are also prohibited from revealing they have done so to the subject of the federal probes.

\"The significance of this cannot be overstated,\" says prominent New York litigator Glenn Greenwald. \"In essence, while the President sits in the White House undisturbed after proudly announcing that he has been breaking the law and will continue to do so, his slavish political appointees at the Justice Department are using the mammoth law enforcement powers of the federal government to find and criminally prosecute those who brought this illegal conduct to light.

\"This flamboyant use of the forces of criminal prosecution to threaten whistle-blowers and intimidate journalists are nothing more than the naked tactics of street thugs and authoritarian juntas.\"

Just how widespread, and uncontrolled, this latest government assault has become hit close to home last week when one of the FBI's National Security Letters arrived at the company that hosts the servers for this web site, Capitol Hill Blue.

The letter demanded traffic data, payment records and other information about the web site along with information on me, the publisher.

Now that's a problem. I own the company that hosts Capitol Hill Blue. So, in effect, the feds want me to turn over information on myself and not tell myself that I'm doing it. You'd think they'd know better.

I turned the letter over to my lawyer and told him to send the following message to the feds:

★■◆● you. Strong letter to follow.




If you want to see if capitolhillblue.com is indeed a threat, I implore you to read their other written pieces. (forums, blogs, etc)

[Will Robinson]

\"Oh really\" is the proper reaction indeed considering Capitol Hill Blue is basically a lightweight gossip page for washington insiders...kind of like the Drudge Report for for washington staffers.
The only news they report is when they re-report something that the mainstream media has already uncovered. They never break a news story....why? No real reporters, no investigative work....just repeating the buzz they hear.

Their editorial pages are often loaded with conspiracy spin. And I think if you look at this blog entry or whatever you want to classify it as you'll see the tell tale signs of spin. It's written by someone who obviously has a personal interest in the story, he doesn't like the DOJ asking for info he may have and he wrote the piece to sound like the administration is fishing for information on all reporters.

I'll bet you anything the only quotes and factual information he included in there that point at DOJ requesting info on reporters are quotes from DOJ officials that are talking about a specific case that they are looking into.
The bulk of his writing is editorializing and full of spin!

There is a case where some reporters leaked the information about one of our intelligence harvesting programs and that leak is a violation of the law. So although the author wants his readers to think he's alerting them that Bush has:
\"launched a war against reporters who write stories unfavorable to his actions and is planning to prosecute journalists to make examples of them in his \"war on terrorism.\"\" what few actual facts he has built his case on merely describe the plan the administration has to find and prosecute the specific reporters who leaked the intel in this one specific case.

If you've ever heard Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity explain(spin) something to make it sound like the left is Satans spawn then what you have now read in this piece is the polar opposite in the way this guy has explained something.

[Iceman]

LOL!

[Ferno]

Why would someone put spin on a personal experience?

[Zuruck]

Another interesting point is why outspoken critics of this administration have seemed to show up on no fly lists quite frequently. Capitol Blue author is one one, Kennedy is on one, quite a few are...seems a little political doesn't it?

[VonVulcan]

Why would someone put spin on a personal experience?

Surely your not serious here Fern?

[dissent]

Another interesting point is why outspoken critics of this administration have seemed to show up on no fly lists quite frequently. Capitol Blue author is one one, Kennedy is on one, quite a few are...seems a little political doesn't it?

Is this what you are talking about Zuruck?

It was a "watch" list, not a "no fly" list; and it was an acknowledged error.

More bureaucratic bungling than deep seated conspiracy in that case.

[Will Robinson]

Why would someone put spin on a personal experience?

Please list the personal experiences he sites and then list the rhetoric, hyperbole, assumptions and unfounded conclusions he makes and then compare the two lists.....
Now tell me if what he wrote is built on personal experience or did he mention one personal experience ie; the one request he supposedly recieved from the DOJ and then he threw a lot of stuff in there that not only isn't personal experience but is actually a misrepresentation of the facts or outright fabrications on his part.

Oh, by the way, as to whether or not one is capable putting spin on personal experiences...that depends on what the meaning of is is, doesn't it?

[Ferno]

well, the entry I posted is the personal experience of the company who hosts capitolhillblue, which is blueridgecreative.com

try reading it again.

look to see if it has any merit.


Questions that come up in my head after reading it are:

1)Why are the investigators so determined to find 'leakers' instead of following up on the leaked information? One cannot communicate in or out of the US without using either the internet or the phone, which essentially negates the argument that 'leakers are helping the enemy.'

2)Why can't the reporters know they are being investigated? in a civilized society you have the right to be told that you are being charged with a crime.

3)Is there a large effort to undo whistleblower legislation? and if so, why?

4)why is the company that HOSTS the website, instead of the site itself (which is a seperate entity) be served with a notice to disclose all records about the site, and himself?


\"launched a war against reporters who write stories unfavorable to his actions and is planning to prosecute journalists to make examples of them in his \"war on terrorism.\"


and there are reporters who have written stories that are favorable to Washington's activities. what's your point?

Now your comment about opinions and editorials, yes. they are exactly that. opinions and editorials. Opinions and editorials are usually not (but sometimes are) based in fact.

Take the rant section for example. they are filled with, you guessed it, rants.


If they were articles or news stories, they would fall under those titles.

[Will Robinson]

well, the entry I posted is the personal experience of the company who hosts capitolhillblue, which is blueridgecreative.com

try reading it again.

look to see if it has any merit.

No, what you posted was a bunch of opinion, rhetoric and bull★■◆● that also included one small bit of actual experience!
Yes they recieved a request from the DOJ for information. But that's where their experience ends and the rest is someones opinion and misleading out of context information designed to lead the uninformed to a conclusion that is based in partisan politics not in fact!

If what you posted was merely the experience they had it would only be one sentance long!

1)Why are the investigators so determined to find 'leakers' instead of following up on the leaked information? One cannot communicate in or out of the US without using either the internet or the phone, which essentially negates the argument that 'leakers are helping the enemy.'

That's kind of silly. The investigators are interested in finding who leaked classified information.
There are already plenty of people examining the fact that the administration is using these methods. the investigation of who leaked the information should focus on the crime of leaking the information not ignore the crime and instead look into the merits of the leaked classified intelligence material.

It sounds like you are suggesting that anyone can break the law and leak the classified details of our intelligence gathering activity as long as you find the methods of the activity used questionable. As if all our laws can be put on hold until everyone...or perhaps just you...decides that the crime wasn't justified.

2)Why can't the reporters know they are being investigated? in a civilized society you have the right to be told that you are being charged with a crime.

That is also very silly. In our "civilized society" we don't have an obligation to notify the criminals that we are trying to find the evidence that they broke the law!!
Would you like it if the government had told Ken Lay and the other ENNron execs that they were looking into their bookkeeping scam!?!?
Should we just shoot ourselves in both feet every morning right when we get out of bed before we start chasing bad guys?

3)Is there a large effort to undo whistleblower legislation? and if so, why?

I don't know, do you? Is this an attempt by you to imply something without having any evidence to support the claim? Have you any sauce to serve with that red herring?

4)why is the company that HOSTS the website, instead of the site itself (which is a seperate entity) be served with a notice to disclose all records about the site, and himself?

I don't know, maybe they are the entity legally responsible for holding the keys to the information?

"launched a war against reporters who write stories unfavorable to his actions and is planning to prosecute journalists to make examples of them in his "war on terrorism."


and there are reporters who have written stories that are favorable to Washington's activities. what's your point?

I quoted that statement to illustrate how the author has made outrageous sweeping allegations, he basically fabricated a "war against reporters" based solely on the fact that some reporters have been singled out for their involvement in publishing classified information. the information they published was classified! If someone publishes classified information they will be investigated. Having some reporters being investigated does not mean a war on reporters has been waged

It's an example of what is not the authors "personal experience" but is the authors personal opinion presented as fact.

[Suncho]

That is also very silly. In our "civilized society" we don't have an obligation to notify the criminals that we are trying to find the evidence that they broke the law!!

Whoa. What ever happened to being innocent until proven guilty? Have you ever considered the fact that most of the people under investigation actually *AREN'T* criminals?

[Will Robinson]

Whoa. What ever happened to being innocent until proven guilty? Have you ever considered the fact that most of the people under investigation actually *AREN'T* criminals?

That doesn't mean we don't investigate people to find out if they are actually guilty!
We use warrants all the time and find out the person we named on the warrant was innocent, sometimes those people never knew they were a suspect and the investigation is totally legal!
The idea that we have to notify suspects before we can procede with an investigation is silly!

[Ferno]

\"what you posted was a bunch of opinion\"

Duh. did i claim anything else? no.

\"Would you like it if the government had told Ken Lay and the other ENNron execs that they were looking into their bookkeeping scam!?!? \"

I seem to recall they were told they were being investigated. Usually when they're told, they already have the evidence they need.

\"Is this an attempt by you to imply something\"

no. it was a simple question.

\"maybe they are the entity legally responsible for holding the keys to the information?\"

this is like saying my mother is responsible for my behaviour.

\"the authors personal opinion\"

exactly. the guy was served with a notice to disclose stuff from homeland security (not the DOJ) and he posted his experience and opinion.

the question remains: WHY was this site asked to disclose records on a certain site?

what could be so worrisome to a government agencey that this one site needs to be put under the microscope?

What could be so damn scary, that a government orginization has to donate time and money and manpower to investigate a so-called 'conspiracy site'?

[Zuruck]

I think Ferno, you'll soon be seeing attempts at limiting free speech from both the media and the general public. No longer will they be allowed to speak freely, but rather what the govt censors. This man's site was put on the list simply because he does not like G.W. There is no hatred on his site, no calling for Bush to die or anything like that. He is very critical but it ends there, but you should know that this administration attacks anything it can because they've figured out that if attention is elsewhere, they can continue what they want. Hence, the NSA thing being backpage news, when was the last time you heard of that corrupt lobbyist Abramoff?

[CDN_Merlin]

Funny how this reminds me of the censorship google had to endure to be able to be used in China.

Where is this world going to?

[Ferno]

Wherever it's going, I don't like it.

not one bit.