
Leaked Documents Show the U.S. Tracking Journalists Through a Secret Database - jseliger
https://www.nbcsandiego.com/investigations/Source-Leaked-Documents-Show-the-US-Government-Tracking-Journalists-and-Advocates-Through-a-Secret-Database-506783231.html
======
sehugg
Not only tracking them, but putting flags on their passports and interrogating
them at the border:

 _“They asked about the new caravan and if word had gotten out about how
difficult it is to seek asylum in the U.S.,” Drehsler said. “Then before I
left, the female agent asked if I rented or owned my home.”_

This sounds much more like a political intimidation operation than serving a
national security purpose.

~~~
vectorEQ
this is normal. journalists are hot targets to either spoof or buy to snoop
around as they often have more access than regular civilians to high profile
targets.... counter-intelligence and counter-espionage. people should realise
that forgein powers demotivate them against their own government, and now
these demotivated people are the ones complaining about this kind of shit,
preventing their own government from functioning normally.

so yes. keep complaining about your governments hard work to keep you safe,
i'm sure the opposing forces will thank you later.

~~~
pjc50
This is the standard wartime playbook for restricting freedom. It's completely
incompatible with functioning democracy.

------
tomohawk
Journalists are often harrassed when they dig into things the powerful want to
leave burried.

[https://sharylattkisson.com/new-update-attkisson-v-doj-
and-f...](https://sharylattkisson.com/new-update-attkisson-v-doj-and-fbi-for-
govt-computer-intrusions/)

[https://cpj.org/asia/china/](https://cpj.org/asia/china/)

~~~
18pfsmt
Sharyl Attkisson, the person interviewing Jerome Corsi, author of _Killing the
Deep State: The Fight to Save President Trump_ in this interview?

[https://www.c-span.org/video/?442260-1/after-words-jerome-
co...](https://www.c-span.org/video/?442260-1/after-words-jerome-corsi)

Or how about this:

"Citizens United’s David Bossie and former Trump campaign manager Corey
Lewandowski argued that Washington bureaucrats are seeking to undermine the
presidency of Donald Trump."

[https://www.c-span.org/video/?454330-1/after-words-david-
bos...](https://www.c-span.org/video/?454330-1/after-words-david-bossie-corey-
lewandowski)

Sorry, if I find Atkisson a dubious source of information.

~~~
codezero
Are you saying that if a journalist interviews a controversial figure they
lose credibility? Was there something about those interviews that made you
determine she is dubious?

~~~
18pfsmt
Watch the interviews. She does not call them out, no matter how ridiculous or
unsubstantiated the claims being made are. It's utterly ridiculous.

An interviewer is supposed to push back when claims are made that contradict
reality. Chris Wallace's interview with Stephen Miller for how it's done.

~~~
codezero
Thanks, I’ll check them out, apologies for not putting in an effort before
commenting.

One problem I feel exists (no evidence) is that sometimes the options are
fluffy interview or none at all, and the interviewer is incentivized not to
dig out the truth but to get the guest. It’s a bummer. I feel like the blame
lays on the guest more than the interviewer because they tend to have the
power in that dynamic.

~~~
18pfsmt
That's a good point, at least WRT _After Words_ on C-SPAN where I believe the
book author has a say in who their interviewer will be. Still, it was jarring
someone would not push back on some of this crap that I see as "Bircherism."

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Birch_Society](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Birch_Society)

------
mellow-lake-day
>Documents obtained by NBC 7 Investigates show the U.S. government created a
secret database of activists, journalists, and social media influencers tied
to the migrant caravan and in some cases, placed alerts on their passports.

It sounds like only people and journalists who are covering "the caravan" are
being tracked. Not that it makes it any better.

It also seems to have been started very recently, probably under the current
administration.

~~~
culot
Journalists make up a minority of those being tracked in that operation. Most
of those tracked are involved in organizations that encourage and assist
illegal immigration, like Pueblos Sin Fronteras and Border Angels. Founders of
both of those organizations explicitly encourage illegal immigration, and have
been organizing migrant caravans for some 15+ years.

------
calvinbhai
Based on what I see, it looks like the US Govt is keeping tabs on those
persons (journalists) who are sympathetic to the cause of of a group of people
(the caravans) intending to breach the country border.

How is this intimidation? Isn't this "Keeping borders safe 101" ?

(I'm a legal temp immigrant in the US, and I have a hard time understanding
why some things are news in this country).

~~~
dragonwriter
> Based on what I see, it looks like the US Govt is keeping tabs on those
> persons (journalists) who are sympathetic to the cause of of a group of
> people (the caravans) intending to breach the country border.

The caravans are lawful asylum seekers that are only crossing at non
recognized points because the administration has taken active and dubiously
legal efforts to forcibly prevent them from reaching and applying for asylum
at regular ports of entry, going so far as to close ports if entry and fire
chemical weapons across an international border for that purpose.

Not that being sympathetic to them would be problematic even if that wasn't
the case.

> I'm a legal temp immigrant in the US

No, you aren't. Immigrants are permanent. You can be a legal immigrant or a
legal temporary worker or visitor, but you can't be a legal temporary
immigrant.

~~~
tropo
International treaties covering asylum seekers require that they apply for
asylum in the first safe country. Mexico might not be the most wonderful
place, but it is considered a safe country. (the government is not genocidal)
It is therefore impossible for a legitimate asylum seeker in the US to have
passed through Mexico.

~~~
dragonwriter
> Mexico might not be the most wonderful place, but it is considered a safe
> country. (the government is not genocidal)

Even in the parts of the country superficially under control of the central
government (the parts where the cartels don't openly operate _marked_ patrol
vehicles as if they were the government), the cartels operate with virtual
impunity and frequently with active, high-level cooperation by the police and
military (whole specialized units of which have gone over to the other side
and _become_ cartels), including the military at least cooperating in and
covering up and possibly actually carrying out mass killings on behalf of the
cartels.

And this isn't just violence unrelated to the violence Central American asylum
seekers are fleeing; that violence they are fleeing is in no small part due to
deportation of violent criminals, often in gangs of US origin connected to
international organized crime including the Mexican cartels, deported from the
US, who have then extended the criminal networks of the already
internationally-connected, US-origin gangs across Central America.

The idea that Mexico is a safe country for those who have a reason to flee the
violence in Central America is, well, not something that can be reconciled
with the nature and source of the violence in Central America and the
conditions in Mexico.

~~~
tropo
Well, that isn't how the treaties define a safe country. Mexico is not trying
to exterminate anybody from Central America. Mere crime, even highly organized
or widespread crime, doesn't disqualify Mexico. The country is safe by the
standards of the international treaties.

BTW, about this claim that people are fleeing violence... why should we take
that at face value? Could they be fleeing the law? They could in fact be the
cause of the violence. We have no way to conduct background checks.

~~~
dragonwriter
> Well, that isn't how the treaties define a safe country

As the grounds for asylum or refugee status (the difference is in where you
apply) in both international and US domestic law include both threats from the
government and from groups the government is unwilling or unable to control,
the fact that the same nongovernment and not-restrained-by-government groups
one is fleeing from are operating in and not effectively constrained by the
government in another country would make that country unsafe.

> BTW, about this claim that people are fleeing violence... why should we take
> that at face value

No, we should have a non-rubber-stamp application and review process theat
evaluates evidence.

Which, newsflash, we have for asylum seekers (actually, we have two of
them—the “affirmative” and “defensive” asylum processes), and that is exactly
what the Administration is trying to prevent them from accessing.

~~~
tropo
The review is pretty simple. They were welcomed to apply for asylum in Mexico
and refused to do so: case closed. The administration is not trying to prevent
them from accessing that offer.

Clearly, it is not asylum that they seek. At best, they are shopping around
for the most lucrative benefits. If they just wanted asylum, heading south
would have made as much sense as heading north -- and more if Mexico is really
so scary. Costa Rica, Panama, and Colombia are all safe countries.

You want a review process that evaluates evidence, but how? A person shows up
with a coached sob story and forged or missing identity. If it were just one
person, perhaps we could have the CIA spend a few million dollars in a
possibly futile effort to uncover the person's past. With so many people, that
is simply not possible. What you are proposing is that we accept the word of
these people, meaning that 100% of them would qualify. That is unrestricted
entry.

------
Tsubasachan
A journo friend of mine told me foreign journalists need special visa to enter
the US. In fairness I don't think they have ever refused anyone or expelled
the press over reporting but the US knows who is in the country.

~~~
briandear
Journalists going to almost every country as a journalist need a “special
visa.” There is nothing new or unique about that.

~~~
justnotworthit
"Journalist visa, which some countries require of people in that occupation
when traveling for their respective news organizations. Countries that insist
on this include Cuba, China, Iran, Japan, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, the
United States (I-visa) and Zimbabwe."

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Travel_visa](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Travel_visa)

Unfortunately no citation.

I didn't know most countries have a special visa for journalists. What was
your source?

------
throw2016
This is some sort of collective 'memory loss' on these issues. Activists and
journalists have been put under surveillance, infiltrated, harassed, put on
lists and singled out at airports.[1] The harassment of keystone activists and
protestors is ongoing [2], Laura Poitras harassment and surveillance is well
documented [3][4], and evidence keeps popping out but there is some sort of
dissonance and rationalization in play.

After the Snowden revelations this should not surprise anyone but most
articles on these issues have bland assertions of 'law' disconnected from
events on the ground. Contrast that with articles on China, Russia that are
met with indignation and outrage for the exact same issues.

Its like using 'moderation' as a euphemism for censorship when it happens
here, while continuing to shout censorship in other cases. If China or Russia
did this it would be unilaterally condemned as totalitarian and oppression but
because we did it there must be some 'rule of law' reason. People who care
about these issues would be outraged wherever it happens. Selective outrage
gives oppressive governments a pass and dilutes fundamental issues people
claim to care about.

[1] [https://www.aclu.org/blog/free-speech/rights-
protesters/6-wa...](https://www.aclu.org/blog/free-speech/rights-
protesters/6-ways-government-going-after-environmental-activists)

[2]
[https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/sep/20/keystone...](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/sep/20/keystone-
pipeline-protest-activism-crackdown-standing-rock)

[3] [https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/11/government-
documents-s...](https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/11/government-documents-
show-fbi-cleared-filmmaker-laura-poitras-after-six-year)

[4]
[https://www.democracynow.org/shows/2012/4/20](https://www.democracynow.org/shows/2012/4/20)

------
ffi452z
Secret Sharepoint database that is funny.

------
Areading314
This is terrible, but the headline is exaggerating: this only affects 50
people relating to a specific issue, not all journalists in the US.

~~~
nerdponx
No it's not. The headline never says "all", you added that. The fact that the
number is greater than 0 is a problem.

~~~
Areading314
I disagree, CBP targeting people who frequently cross the border for extra
scrutiny, some of whom happen to be journalists, is a far cry from "the US"
tracking "journalists" in general. It is an alarmist headline

------
vas777
Never happened before, and here we go again

------
Trushymcik
It's not only tracking but flagging them also, the government is scared for
journalists digging around shady stuff.

------
Wyndtroy2012
Sounds like a lawsuit waiting to happen. At a minimum.

~~~
Inhalt
Do you think they can appeal to a class action lawsuit here?

------
Zebfross
Crossing the border illegally is a crime and there has been violence on top of
that. I don't see a problem with investigating and tracking those who are
aiding and abetting.

~~~
whatshisface
Reporting isn't aiding, for all you know there could be some conservative
journalists out there.

~~~
Zebfross
The article says they were marked for aiding the migrants. Obviously we don't
know the details of what they were doing, but it doesn't sound like just
journalism.

------
nobrains
Al Qaeda. The database.

------
pimmen
As a European, this is something that could very well make my government
resign because it would be illegal. Like, crazy illegal.

Is this legal in the US or is the current US administration in hot water?

~~~
pjc50
This is probably only true in Germany.

> Is this legal in the US or is the current US administration in hot water?

Keeping immigrants in indefinite detention probably isn't legal in the US,
doesn't mean it's not going to continue.

> current US administration in hot water?

The FBI is working their way through jailing senior members of the Trump
campaign.

~~~
linkmotif
Really? Name a single member of the trump administration who is in jail,
muchless senior. Why make stuff up?

~~~
pjc50
I said "campaign" for a reason.

[https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-
canada-47263226](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-47263226) : former
election campaign chief Paul Manafort is the big one.

[https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-
canada-46347887](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-46347887) George
Papadopoulos received a short prison sentence for lying to the FBI.

The following associates are convicted but not yet sentenced, presumably while
they cooperate with investigators:

Rick Gates has pled guilty to conspiracy against the United States (!)

Michael Cohen has been allowed medical leave before serving his sentence:
[https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/20/nyregion/michael-cohen-
pr...](https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/20/nyregion/michael-cohen-prison-
sentence.html)

Michael Flynn (who was actually, briefly, a member of the Trump
administration) has pled guilty to lying to the FBI.

~~~
linkmotif
Yeah I must have misread “administration.” In that case obviously you’re
correct. Still, wow, they got Manafort. That’s not exactly the big time. Just
some sheister lobbyist. Something about “working their way through” didn’t
quite connect with my perceived reality.

~~~
akhilcacharya
Lobbyist? He was the head of the campaign and selected Mike Pence! Trump
wanted Chris Christie.

------
spdustin
The comments on this thread have broken me. I’m just not going to read
comments here any more, and consume the FP via an RSS aggregator.

------
geowwy
Is anyone surprised by these leaks? I think most people assume this is
happening.

~~~
adventured
The Bush and Obama Administrations were extraordinarily aggressive in
expanding US espionage action domestically. Obama was infamously aggressive in
targeting the press. The notion that they'd do all of that and not begin
tracking journalists in a comprehensive fashion was an improbable scenario.
The first leaks by Snowden should have prompted the press to assume it. It's
why so many of the major media outlets have gone to increased lengths to
establish more robust communication approaches for secrecy of contact. Surely
they all knew the surveillence systems had been dramatically broadened and
that they'd be a key observation point for domestic intel, leaks, sources. The
only thing different since the Nixon era (it really goes even further back),
is the scale and efficiency at which they can do the tracking through
automation; nothing ever changed about the targeting.

~~~
XorNot
Is there evidence this specific tracking started under a previous
administration?

Or must we first ensure that we deflect blame from the current administration,
notably characterised by ongoing violent rhetoric about journalists, including
a surprising effort to ignore the government sanctioned murder of a journalist
by an "ally".

~~~
creaghpatr
Obama spied on Sharyl Atkinson is pretty well known.

~~~
akhilcacharya
It's not, because it never made sense. She was a nobody and the things she
reported on where reported by others.

One of her allegations of hacking was a stuck delete key [1]

[1] [https://www.vox.com/2014/10/31/7140247/the-right-is-
convince...](https://www.vox.com/2014/10/31/7140247/the-right-is-convinced-
obama-hacked-sharyl-attkisson-over-benghazi)

~~~
18pfsmt
You are correct about that case, but others are well-documented, specifically
regarding the AP and James Rosen:

 _Dana Milbank of the Washington Post stated: "The Rosen affair is as flagrant
an assault on civil liberties as anything done by George W. Bush’s
administration, and it uses technology to silence critics in a way Richard
Nixon could only have dreamed of. To treat a reporter as a criminal for doing
his job — seeking out information the government doesn’t want made public —
deprives Americans of the First Amendment freedom on which all other
constitutional rights are based."_

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_articles_about_the_Depart...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_articles_about_the_Department_of_Justice_investigations_of_reporters)

------
wbg34
There was an incidence of violence at the border. The people in this database
were present at the time.

"CBP told our colleagues at NBC News that the names in the database are all
people who were present during violence that broke out at the border in
November. The agency also said journalists are being tracked so that the
agency can learn more about what started that violence."

~~~
thinkcontext
If they want information relevant to a crime they can ask for an interview,
just like law enforcement in the interior. If they want to compel testimony
they can get a subpoena or if they want to search a device they can get a
warrant. The fact that they are at the border allows them to circumvent these
usual checks on law enforcement.

