Posted on 05/15/2006 8:33:11 AM PDT by jmc1969
A senior federal law enforcement official tells us the government is tracking the phone numbers we call in an effort to root out confidential sources.
"It's time for you to get some new cell phones, quick," the source told us in an in-person conversation.
We do not know how the government determined who we are calling, or whether our phone records were provided to the government as part of the recently-disclosed NSA collection of domestic phone calls.
Other sources have told us that phone calls and contacts by reporters for ABC News, along with the New York Times and the Washington Post, are being examined as part of a widespread CIA leak investigation.
One former official was asked to sign a document stating he was not a confidential source for New York Times reporter James Risen.
Our reports on the CIA's secret prisons in Romania and Poland were known to have upset CIA officials.
People questioned by the FBI about leaks of intelligence information say the CIA was also disturbed by ABC News reports that revealed the use of CIA predator missiles inside Pakistan.
Under Bush Administration guidelines, it is not considered illegal for the government to keep track of numbers dialed by phone customers.
The official who warned ABC News said there was no indication our phones were being tapped so the content of the conversation could be recorded.
(Excerpt) Read more at blogs.abcnews.com ...
I've been grilled plenty. But unless someone new is clearly acting as a disruptor, we shouldn't be grilling them some hard.
BTTT
Yep one of those posters signed up one day after me (2 1/2 years ago), the other signed up 1 1/2 years ago. Poor newbies, they never knew what hit 'em. : )
And you have a very interesting posting record, too. Should I assume from your numerous posts on Mormons that you're trying to alienate one of the few states that still has favorable views of this adminstration? Should I assume that what you wrote in this post means that you'd spread disinformation if given the chance? (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1630097/posts?page=10#10) Should I assume you've already done so?
I don't. I assume you've written honestly and with the best intentions for this country. If you can't assume that about me, I won't try to persuade you. It's an impossible task.
So, yes, data mine away through my few posts. Fire away at me for not posting as much as most people here. Suspect me for finally being critical of an administration that in my opinion in this case is trashing Conservative ideals and American traditions. And then ask yourself why O'Reilly, Scarborough, and others have been critical of this administration, too--if not always on this issue, then others. Are they leftwing plants? Or is it possible that being a real Conservative isn't always the same thing as being pro-administration? Is it possible we should fear what the next president will do, if it isn't one of our guys, after what we do when we're in power? Is it possible we should expect more of our leaders for the very reason that they're OUR leaders with good intentions and not just some power-hungry leftists? Is it possible this all could prompt a longtime reader of this site to finally post?
Finally a sane post. Thank you, I do wonder at times...
I guess that's the part I don't agree with, even though I understand the mistrust of government.
Right now the government has the "ability" to do many many things that would be really bad. All that keeps them from doing those bad things are people in power that don't take advantage of that power.
You don't want them to have the phone records because of what they might do with them. But to take that argument seriously, I don't want Verizon to even HAVE the records either, because, as you would say, you don't know what illegal thing the government MIGHT do, like break into the Verizon computers and steal the information.
The point is, once you presume that the government will act illegally, you might as well give up, because whatever you deny them legally they can just do illegally.
I'm saying that I see a good enough use for these records, and nothing of an aasault on my freedom from the mere EXISTANCE of the records, that I want the government to have that database.
If they use it improperly or illegally, I'll be right with you protesting. But taking away a powerful tool of protection simply because of fear that someone will, at some future time, use it for evil doesn't persuade me.
Some said the same thing when we developed the atom bomb -- we shouldn't do it, because someone will someday use it for evil purposes. But those who want to use it for evil purposes won't NOT do it because they have to take some other evil step first.
It's like criminals and guns. If we made it illegal to own guns, some say, it would deter gun crime. But the rational response is that people who are criminals won't obey the law preventing them from owning the weapon.
And a person in government willing to use the database for illegal purposes won't be deterred by the fact that getting the data is illegal.
And THAT part only deals with getting the account information -- there is NOTHING in the privacy statement suggesting they will keep the list of connected phone numbers private.
Such as the Clintons? That wasn't long ago, and it could happen again.
And there are two other things that keep them from taking advantage of power - the Constitution (or at least what is left of it), and the resistance of the people to potential abuses of power.
Superseded by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) of 1986.
"OTOH if the government used my income tax records in order to slime me and "shut me up," I WOULD have a problem with that. That is exactly what the Clintons did....why do we not hear the outrage from the left?"
Because they're hypocrites.
Hello, Everyone:
I'm chiming in here very late and haven't read the entire line of traffic, so apologies if I'm stepping on someone else's earlier observation . . .
Why should we take this post from Brian Ross at ABC News seriously? It's entirely possible that someone in the Fed is pulling his chain just for fun or to make Mr. Ross think that he is more important than he really is. Why aren't we hearing about these kind of mysterious warnings to other crack media investigative reporters at CBS, NBC, the New York Times, in other words the usual gang of suspects? Come on, now. If I was a nervous Fed with inside information, why would I try to protect only Brian Ross?
Are you the only person who has ever owned your phone number? (I still get many solicitations for the previous owner of my phone number.) Someone thinks this number (whosever it is) belongs to someone else. I guess, it's OK if the government assumes that people trying this number want the previous owner and not me.
I have been served (or at least the attempt was made) with a Federal warrant (grand jury) that was meant for a previous owner of some property; I refused the warrant (OK, but then they wanted the guy's phone number), but the neighbors wanted to know why all the fuzz was around.
Lovely neck, ain't it? I rarely advocate plastic surgery, but maybe it would also shut her up for a few days.
Yep. Some folks toggle their views on government usurpation of powers when the White House changes hands. I don't.
Wow - interesting case.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.