WP: Washington Post's Response to DOJ Patriot Act Letter

Washington Post's Response to DOJ Patriot Act Letter
Monday, December 5, 2005; 7:00 AM


A 10-page letter from the Justice Department to the House and Senate Judiciary Committee chairmen, dated Nov. 23 and distributed widely this week, took issue with a Nov. 6 article in The Washington Post about the FBI's use of "national security letters" under the Patriot Act. The Washington Post published an article about the Justice Department letter on Wednesday and washingtonpost.com reprints it today in full. What follows is The Post's reply to assertions that the article contained "many ... distortions and falsehoods":

The Justice Department did not authorize interviews for the disputed article before it appeared or respond to questions sent by email.

The Nov. 23 letter to Congress from Assistant Attorney General William E. Moschella said The Post created the false impression that national security letters empower the FBI "to listen to phone calls or read emails."

The article in fact said the reverse: "A national security letter cannot be used to authorize eavesdropping or to read the contents of e-mail."

Moschella's letter offered 17 additional allegations of factual error. Many relied on assertions that the article implied or insinuated things it did not, in fact, say. The Justice Department objections are summarized below in bold print....


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/05/AR2005120500215_pf.html

refreshing.

I'm glad to see others take as much issue with the unPATRIOTic Act as I do.

government starts messing with them or their reporters.

It's probably the WORST thing a president can do... because he is losing the confidence of the entire White House Press Corps (minus Faux, of course)

"political capital" filthy lucre to buy back their reporters' good graces?

Funny I don't see a lot of US newspapers digging out Memos as diligently as the British, nor do I see a lot of US media running to print the latest memo after the British courts said no...and again there is that little problem with a certain journalist/bookwriter/celebrity editor at the WaPo.

But then again, after seeing Good Night and Good Luck, I realized that dissent is an elite thing involving the Great Men ;-)

:kick:

anything right, but I'm confident the FBI almost always makes the right interpretation and if erring, always errs on the side of individal freedom, especially if national security is not immediately at issue. I'm also confident the FBI will never go on fishing expeditions if someones' politics aren't right.

Seems like the DOJ is a little sensitive. Pardon my Shakespeare butchery, but he protesteth too much. Our government wouldn't spy on us, right?