



« Bush guarding the border | Latest postings | Karl Rove on our 'sour time' » Originally posted: May 15, 2006

Secret gov't source tells ABC News: 'Get new cellphones' Posted by Frank James at 12:10 pm CDT ABC News has a very disturbing report today, at least for reporters and anyone else who believe that whistleblowers serve an important role in safeguarding American democracy. On its blog, The Blotter, ABC News reports that a senior government source has told its reporters that the reporters’ phone calls with sources are being tracked by the U.S. government “to root out confidential sources.” I hasten to say I don't have independent confirmation of the facts underlying the ABC News report. But I thought it was something readers of The Swamp would find interesting. The item follows. Federal Source to ABC News: We Know Who You're Calling

May 15, 2006 10:33 AM Brian Ross and Richard Esposito Report: A senior federal law enforcement official tells ABC News 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. ABC News does 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. A pattern of phone calls from a reporter, however, could provide valuable clues for leak investigators. Being a confidential source who disagrees with a presidential administration then decides to oppose it by becoming a whistleblower can take courage when discovery means loss of a job and possible legal consequences. It’s just that kind of courage that this revelation is likely to chill. That could be the administration’s intent here, to make would-be confidential sources think twice before talking with reporters. It’s no small irony that the only reason we now know about this is because a ABC News’ confidential source told them about it. The Blotter posting raises the question of whether ABC News’ phone calls were swept up as part of the vast National Security Agency database consisting of the phone-call records of millions of Americans which USA Today reported on last week. It’s impossible for anyone outside of a few inside the government to say. But the fact that ABC News journalists are even seriously wondering about whether the warning is connected to the NSA’s domestic surveillance activities indicates just how anxious many people in Washington have become.

in Homeland Security, Media and Washington, National Security, Privacy | Permalink Comments Now do you understand why we don't want the NSA spying on us? Posted by: Cheryl | May 15, 2006 12:43:58 PM Wait, I'm confused; you mean I can't trust this administration when it says they're just using this power to catch terrorists? I did NOT see that coming... Posted by: Andy Burdick | May 15, 2006 12:47:19 PM I think reporters and the CIA personal that leaked this information should take a long look in the mirror and decide whose side they are on. Posted by: Matt Holland | May 15, 2006 12:51:46 PM Good Job brothers! We are now almost ready to unveil the plan to rid the country of all those who are dragging us down. You know who I am talking about! The unfirm, mentally unfit to work at the weapons factory. Those who are old and weak and costing much of our countries valuable resources. It is time for the cleansing to begin! Adolf Bush Posted by: Adolf | May 15, 2006 12:54:05 PM Being a whistleblower implies being courageous enough to 'blow the whistle' in the face of consequences. Wether this latest story (which once again sees print w/o any sort of evidence to back it up) is true, the rules of the game haven't changed in that regard. Frankly it's high time the government does something to clamp down on a media who seems to have confused 'freedom of press' with 'freedom to spill every state secret we can get our hands on in the pursuit of ratings'. Posted by: RG | May 15, 2006 12:56:20 PM I cannot believe commenters really think that the people that spoke to the media about these crimes should be "clamped down on". In a free country the government does not clamp down on the press. Posted by: Stephen | May 15, 2006 12:59:34 PM wow Posted by: Sinner | May 15, 2006 1:00:25 PM Wow - I feel so much safer now....but why am I more scared than ever?

Posted by: fear itself | May 15, 2006 1:01:29 PM When will our congressmen and women start doing their jobs and do something about this????? I think nothing less than impeachment is in order for Bush. My God, Clinton got impeached for doing something FAR less! It's too bad elections aren't being held today. It's time to clean house. But, unfortunately, all of this will have been forgotten by November and we will vote to keep in power those that are doing us the most harm. Say good bye to the Bill of Rights! Posted by: DWH | May 15, 2006 1:01:49 PM Surely this can't be Pres Geo. Bush and General Hayden ya'll takin' about now can it? They frum the gov'mint and they heah to hep ya'll...don'cha know!? Posted by: Bob Anderson | May 15, 2006 1:02:05 PM Matt, I think you might take a look in the mirror and consider whether you're proud of your country just because you happened to be born here or because you understand and value the principles that once made this nation a beacon to the world.

Personally, I'd rather die on my feet than live on my knees, and I think that's an American virtue; unlike cowardly consent to bullying. Those who would trade liberty for security deserve niether. Posted by: Nathan Cederoth | May 15, 2006 1:03:14 PM The biggest problem I have with the NSA eavesdropping program is it does not seem to be cost-effective. Why haven't they made links between large drug or arms suppliers, and prosecuted same. Instead, they are looking at small-level dealers, citizens with relatives/friends in foreign countries, and anyone who disagrees with their policies. Hayden took an oath to defend the Constitution, but it seems to me he must never have read it. Posted by: Steve Wilson | May 15, 2006 1:05:09 PM "

Being a confidential source who disagrees with a presidential administration then decides to oppose it by becoming a whistleblower can take courage when discovery means loss of a job and possible legal consequences.

" There is a difference between being a 'whistleblower' and a 'leaker'. Whistleblowers go to Congress with their complaints, where confidential material can remain confidential and a proper investigation can be done. There are laws to protect Whistleblowers if they follow the process. A leaker takes their information to the press. Maybe they tried Congress first, maybe they didn't. Considering the animosity toward this administration by many in Congress, I highly doubt that an issue raised with a Congress member would go uninvestigated. There's a difference between being a whistleblower and a leaker, and that difference is who they tell. The press has a vested interest here in getting a story out, and could care less about proper process being followed in my opinion. Posted by: James B in Plano | May 15, 2006 1:06:31 PM The real problem seems to be that the government has become so paranoid that they deem it necessary to have such secrets. Keep it ethical & legal and it doesn't matter who knows about it! Posted by: B | May 15, 2006 1:06:52 PM Welcome to The Third Reich! Posted by: Joe Sterbenc | May 15, 2006 1:07:27 PM How the heck does this administration keep track of all of its scandals. Holy cow! By the way, the story says, "Under Bush Administration guidelines..." Call them what they are, "DICTATES" not guidelines. Wake up Mushroom Nation. A nation of people kept in the dark and fed bovine chewies. Posted by: Scandalmeister | May 15, 2006 1:07:45 PM Of course, the reporters at ABC or the rest of the Main Stream media would never leak any intelligence secrets to get ratings! Hey, might be a Pulitzer in it for somebody... As a contrast, here's how FDR dealt with domestic surveillance during WWII: -he either imprisoned or deported anyone who could remotely be characterized as a security risk..at least the ones he knew about, as the Soviet archives have now shown us -he authorized the FBI to monitor any and all domestic mail and any and all cable traffic. I have personally seen a medal and citation given to a woman who steamed the stamp off an envelope found microfilm underneath and helped send 6 nazi spies to the gallows. -he authorized surveillance on suspect US nationals and foreign nationals even before we actually entered WWII. Of course, FDR realized that we were in an existential war and that some of the niceties had to be curtailed or eliminated temporarily for the sake of victory. And most of the press, being basically patriotic understood the necessity. Can't say that today, can we? And a lot of Americans will probably die because of it.

Posted by: RM | May 15, 2006 1:09:42 PM Hey Tribune, still enthusiastic about the rubber stamp endorsing of Republicans as an editorial policy? Posted by: mg | May 15, 2006 1:10:18 PM For those who would give up their liberties merely to assuage the blood-thirst of a government gone rampant and insane with a murderous grab for power do not deserve to claim the freedom that was bought with the blood of martyrs and revolutionaries such as Patrick Henry et al. They fought against a government who ruled by force so others could be free. Yet today people are all to ready to give up those same liberties because some government said they should. Is there no irony here? While this article may not have evidential proof and merely be speculation, it does not change the fact that we should ALL be wary of a government, that is known to lie, which says, "Trust me." I THINK NOT! And that applies to ANY POLITICAL PARTY, be it Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, etc. Nixon was called on the carpet for tapes in his possession. When did it become right to eavesdrop, tap, record, etc. without a court order or evidence of a crime? The president is no more above the law than anyone else. He is the EXECUTIVE BRANCH, NOT the Legislative Branch OR the Judicial Branch. The whole thing about separation of powers is to prevent a dictator from ruling. Bush is attempting to take the Office of the President and turn it into the Office of the Dictator. Must we all say, "Seig Heil"? Posted by: John | May 15, 2006 1:10:31 PM "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. -Benjamin Franklin Words to live by i think. Posted by: Justin | May 15, 2006 1:10:40 PM Of course, the reporters at ABC or the rest of the Main Stream media would never leak any intelligence secrets to get ratings! Hey, might be a Pulitzer in it for somebody... As a contrast, here's how FDR dealt with domestic surveillance during WWII: -he either imprisoned or deported anyone who could remotely be characterized as a security risk..at least the ones he knew about, as the Soviet archives have now shown us -he authorized the FBI to monitor any and all domestic mail and any and all cable traffic. I have personally seen a medal and citation given to a woman who steamed the stamp off an envelope found microfilm underneath and helped send 6 nazi spies to the gallows. -he authorized surveillance on suspect US nationals and foreign nationals even before we actually entered WWII. Of course, FDR realized that we were in an existential war and that some of the niceties had to be curtailed or eliminated temporarily for the sake of victory. And most of the press, being basically patriotic understood the necessity. Can't say that today, can we? And a lot of Americans will probably die because of it.

Posted by: RM | May 15, 2006 1:10:45 PM He's got his approval ratings, he's got his paranoia, but Nixon had the courtesy to quit the Presidency. Posted by: Kenny Bunkport | May 15, 2006 1:10:57 PM hey, who cares? if you haven't done anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about. sheesh! Posted by: some one | May 15, 2006 1:11:38 PM Why criticize China anymore. It's obvious that's the direction the US is going in. Posted by: bob | May 15, 2006 1:12:37 PM Oh please. Can you show me one person who's had their phone tapped (or his or her library records pulled)? The media persists in spreading these rumors because members don't like President Bush. Will it take another 9/11 for folks to realize that some measures have to be taken to track down potential terrorists? If the media persists in revealing every secret effort made to track terrorists and prevent them from carrying out their "operations", don't be surprised if it's your butt that gets blown up next. We should remember that old WWII slogan: "loose lips sink ships"—and remember that it's fellow Americans on those "ships". Posted by: Diane Kemp | May 15, 2006 1:14:44 PM Comments are not posted immediately. We review them first in an effort to remove foul language, commercial messages, irrelevancies and unfair attacks. Thank you for your patience.



The comments to this entry are closed.