ABC News’ press office just sent out this release to news organizations, RAW STORY has learned. The story has been posted at the ABC NEWS blog

ABC’s 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.

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.

A pattern of phone calls from a reporter, however, could provide valuable clues for leak investigators.

DEVELOPING…

it specifically saying you can NOT give it to the government unless it meets one of the OTHER exceptions…can you not read or what? Or are you confused about the fact that the Constitution is about the government and not private companies?

I am confused that
1) it seems to directly contradict Smith v. Maryland, 1979 which held that govt could collect these phone numbers
and
2) if these phone records were considered so private/secret/important, than why, under the Title 18 law you mention, could any person or private company purchase them and/or sell them to government? I read Steve’s explanation, I just don’t find it persuasive in the least.

Doesn’t seem like anyone treated these records with that much care about privacy concerns in the past. Why suddenly is such a privacy concern ‘crisis’ now that these same records are used to hunt terrorists?

As Steve pointed out, the FBI doesn’t always need ‘judicial oversight’ either before getting access to phone records:

That’s a subpeona but instead of committing perjury to a judge to get it illegaly, you have to commit perjury by signing an affidavit. It’s the exact same penalty for abuse. It’s also obviously for time-sensitive things

Any non-judical procedure involves someone having to sign their ass and job onto everything they do. You’ll notice no one has had to sign a damn thing for this giant program you claim can be justified because sometimes non-judical ways exist

To any person or company at their discretion. Anyone. But Bush is shredding the constitution by using that same info to hunt terrorists, right?

Well maybe you didn’t read what you pasted…it specifically saying you can NOT give it to the government unless it meets one of the OTHER exceptions…can you not read or what? Or are you confused about the fact that the Constitution is about the government and not private companies?

what a fuckin moron. There is no constitutional right to drive an automobile. The state can do whatever it wishes to regulate driving.

May I refer you to the 9th and 10th Amendments?

You seem to think it’s no big deal because, after all, the phone companies can sell your records to whoever they please

I think the expectation of privacy regarding phone records is overblown given that anyone or any company can acquire your phone records. Again, these are call records, not wiretaps of phone conversations. As for the $1,000/violation, you already pointed out that it’s highly unlikely the legal depts. of these large telecom companies would have approved turning over phone records to the government if it was in fact illegal. Only scandal-plagued Qwest refused, perhaps holding out for money, or perhaps they had valid legal concerns. We’ll see

As for my ‘shredding the constitution’ hyperbole, in this case I wasn’t directing it at you, but at those who are reacting completely over the top imo, using this issue as another excuse to Bush bash (you better not disagree with them, or you’ll be a sycophant too)

I also think you’re guilty of a little hyperbole yourself in characterizing the Bush administration’s attitude as “we’re not going to even try and make it legal”, as if the program has already been demonstrated to be illegal. Also, are you suggesting that there is less Congressional oversight on this program than in the past under similar programs involving national security? as I’ve seen no evidence of that and I don’t think you have either

To any person or company at their discretion. Anyone. But Bush is shredding the constitution by using that same info to hunt terrorists, right?

I seriously don’t understand you, Darrell. You have one style of argument, which is to toss out some over-the-top hyperbole, and then present a binary choice, i.e. is Bush shredding the Constitution or isn’t he.

What we’ve established is that the phone companies seem to have broken the law by turning over these records to the government. Period. If someone wants to offer a legal argument as to why it wasn’t illegal, I’ll happily offer my take on it, but as of now this is where all the legal experts seem to stand. Millions and millions of violations of the law sounds like a big deal to me. Even if the constitution hasn’t been shredded!

You seem to think it’s no big deal because, after all, the phone companies can sell your records to whoever they please. Well, with that in mind, let’s think about the reason why they bothered to pass this law in the first place. It’s not that people feel their phone records are super-secret info that no one should ever get to see; it’s that they have a specific concern about what might happen if the government starts going through their phone records. The government has the power to do a lot of bad things to you, like charging you with a crime, auditing your tax returns, conducting surveillance on you. There are good reasons why people fear the government more than they fear eBay purchasing their phone records and sending them some junk mail.

Now, maybe the new paradigm is that your government is not something to be feared, but it’s now your friend, protecting you from the terrorists. Okay, but let’s keep in mind, this specific statutory section relating to disclosure of phone records has been modified 4 times since 9/11, including once in the Patriot Act and again in the renewal of the Patriot Act that was enacted earlier this year. If enough people really felt that it was important, after 9/11 and all, that the government have unfettered access to everyone’s phone records, they could have changed the law, but they didn’t. In 2001, the Executive Branch, knowing that they wanted to start this program, could have requested a change in the law, but they didn’t. At any time thereafter, including this year, they knew that the program was ongoing and they could have requested a chance in the law, but they didn’t. Nope, they left the law on the books that says you can’t turn these records over to the government, and if you do, you owe the customer $1,000 for each violation of the law.

You’re right that there’s a balancing act between liberty and security. Normally, the legislative process is how we collectively carry out that balancing act. The balance was adjusted in favor of security over liberty after 9/11, by means of the Patriot Act; this law is something that wasn’t changed, and it doesn’t even seem like the Executive Branch fought very hard to have it changed. It’s not a “shredding of the Constitution,” but it does bother me a bit that the administration said “you know, since nobody knows about this program, it’s not even worth the trouble to try and get it made legal.” That’s not really how I like the government to operate.

Huge breaking news from Jason Leopold just now at Truthout—Karl Rove has been indicted.

Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald spent more than half a day Friday at the offices of Patton Boggs, the law firm representing Karl Rove.

During the course of that meeting, Fitzgerald served attorneys for former Deputy White House Chief of Staff Karl Rove with an indictment charging the embattled White House official with perjury and lying to investigators related to his role in the CIA leak case, and instructed one of the attorneys to tell Rove that he has 24 hours to get his affairs in order, high level sources with direct knowledge of the meeting said Saturday morning. Robert Luskin, Rove’s attorney, did not return a call for comment.

Leopold reports the charges include lying to investigators and perjury before the grand jury but it is not yet known if obstruction of justice is one of the charges.

If obstruction is off the table, there’s still a chance Karl Rove can avoid prison by pleading guilty and continuing to cooperate with Fitzgerald. Only if prison is unavoidable, do I think Karl Rove will fight.

Update: Jason said the meeting lasted 15 hours. That tells me they were hammering out a plea deal to the charges. Were they successful in coming to terms? Stay tuned.
.

The NSA under Bush may just be using it to map patterns of terrorist activity. The NSA under Hillary Clinton may use it to map patterns of gun owners.

In case I haven’t made myself clear, I’m very much in favor of Congressional oversight of these programs. There is a risk of abuse, just as some municipalities abuse speed traps as a revenue generator

There is no constitutional right to drive an automobile. The state can do whatever it wishes to regulate driving.

Oh I see, suddenly Mr. Privacy rights champion changes his tune once someone steps into a car. Does that mean you can search my car whenever you want? Because after all, the state can “do whatever it wishes” once I get behind the wheel, right? Actually Slide, I’m jabbing at you a little, as I HATE speed traps, and I don’t see a big difference between speed traps and random searches. Don’t you guys claim authority to run random roadblocks to administer breathalizer checks? Do you honestly see a big difference between those roadblocks and random searches of residences or cars which you say you abhor?

But then again, I’m just a Bushbot Defender of nannystatism

Admiting it is the first step. Now we can move on.

this kind of info is probably valuable in hunting terrorists that are already here. This isn’t a wiretapping initiative, and I think the risk of abuse is small.

Those ideas contradict each other. If the program is useful for tracking terrorists, then it is useful in tracking non-terrorists too. When you are doing social network analysis you can set the type of behavior you are looking for to be anything you want. The NSA under Bush may just be using it to map patterns of terrorist activity. The NSA under Hillary Clinton may use it to map patterns of gun owners.

If the tool is useful, it can be abused. If the tool is not useful, why the hell is the NSA wasting my money on it?

The government has alot of restrictions put on it that businesses and individuals don’t have

Just to be clear, any Tom, Dick or Harry can buy these ‘secret’ phone records, but if the NSA uses them, they’re abusing their authority. How rational of you

I know, I know. Conservatives have always trusted the government

Conservatives have strong national security leanings, and probably recognize this kind of info is probably valuable in hunting terrorists that are already here. This isn’t a wiretapping initiative, and I think the risk of abuse is small. But then again, I’m just a Bushbot Defender of nannystatism

But you do run speed traps. And I sure as hell don’t consent to those.

what a fuckin moron. There is no constitutional right to drive an automobile. The state can do whatever it wishes to regulate driving.

To any person or company at their discretion. Anyone. But Bush is shredding the constitution by using that same info to hunt terrorists, right?

You just don’t get it do you Darrell. You really are very ignorant of the nature of our government. Yes, there are laws that prohibit governmental entities that do not apply to non-governmental organizations. That is because of the potential misuse by the government.

For example if I arrest someone I can’t question him without his waving his Miranda rights. A security guard can arrest someone and ask him whatever he wants. And they can use that in a court of law Why? because he is not a governmental entity.

Back to phone records – if AT&T wants to give your records to another commerical enterprise and that did not violate their agreement with you (but all phone companies have agreed not to do so), there is no law against it. The law is against giving it to the government without a warrant. The government has to demonstrate a need to intrude into your privacy. Lots of Federal law is enacted to protect us from the government, something that you don’t seem to understand.