Fishing expedition ruined by big mouth Lass!

[FluffyMcDeath]

They told her to spy for them. They told her to keep it a secret or else but she blew the whistle.

 

[cecilia]

what is so special about June 25, 2008 ???

 

[Glaucus]

Although I do agree with the overall tone of the article, that this type of request of a news/blog site is troubling, I also find it troubling that the site Fluffy linked to contained an EDITED version of the original CBS article. Thankfully they do include a link to it, but I don't really care for sites that "cherry pick" the facts that suet them. For instance, this was conveniently omitted:

This is not, however, the first time that the Feds have focused on Indymedia -- a Web site whose authors sometimes blur the line between journalism, advocacy, and on-the-streets activism. In 2004, the Justice Department sent a grand jury subpoena asking for information about who posted lists of Republican delegates while urging they be given an unwelcome reception at the party's convention in New York City that year. A Indymedia hosting service in Texas once received a subpoena asking for server logs in relation to an investigation of an attempted murder in Italy.

It also missed an update to the article:

Update 1:59pm E.T.: A Justice Department official familiar with this subpoena just told me that the attorney general's office never saw it and that it had not been submitted to the department's headquarters in Washington, D.C. for review. If that's correct, it suggests that U.S. Attorney Tim Morrison and Assistant U.S. Attorney Doris Pryor did not follow department regulations requiring the "express authorization of the attorney general" for media subpoenas -- and it means that neither Attorney General Eric Holder nor Acting Attorney General Mark Filip were involved. I wouldn't be surprised to see an internal investigation by the Office of Professional Responsibility; my source would not confirm or deny that.

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

Thankfully they do include a link to it, but I don't really care for sites that "cherry pick" the facts that suet them. For instance, this was conveniently omitted:

This is not, however, the first time that the Feds have focused on Indymedia -- a Web site whose authors sometimes blur the line between journalism, advocacy, and on-the-streets activism.

This is not really relevant to the badness of the subpoena. Indymedia and other activist sites are routinely harassed. Peace groups are harassed, political activist groups are routinely harassed, poverty advocate groups are routinely harassed, anti-Olympics groups are routinely harassed.

In that they "blur the line between journalism, advocacy, and on-the-streets activism", they are far more transparent than most news organizations in that respect. All the big companies that own the media do these things too but pretend that they don't.

The fact that the subpoena was withdrawn and that it wasn't properly issued is important to a certain extent but only in the sense that it makes things worse. These subpoenas are probably issued quite often and a lot of organizations would just cave in thinking that there was legitimacy in the subpoena or that they simply didn't want to take the chance.

That the Justice Department or an AG takes back a subpoena that "isn't properly issued" could be just face saving. Who would want to say out loud that this was the normal way it's done? I suspect it is though.

 

[Glaucus]

Not trying to put YOU on the defensive there Fluffy, I just found that site you linked to kinda sketchy in that they like to re-print only a segment of the original article. The same goes for a few other articles I randomly sampled. They should at least put a little footer in there indicating that there's more to that article then they quoted (or is that why everything is in italics?). Aside from that, I agree with your assessment of how the game is played.