ABC News’ 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.”

I am — and continue to be — a strong supporter of the President and his administration, but the crusade against reporters who publish stories based on leaks has got to stop. If they want to find the leakers and punish them, so be it. People who violate their oaths and the laws about government secrecy ought to be in jail. But not the reporters. They’re simply doing what they’re supposed to do — keeping us all informed. That’s their job. And it’s an important one because only an informed population can prevent a government from drifting inexorably towards tyranny.

The First Amendment is under more than enough pressure from the likes of Senator McCain, who has never seen a restriction on free speech that he doesn’t like.

But there is no question the aggressive pursuit of information from and about reporters can do irreparable harm. Enough is enough. Really. It’s time for these stutteringly stupid tactics to stop and those conducting these investigations to behave like responsible adults, not five year olds with a playground grudge.

Jim: Let me play Devil’s advocate.

Out here, I know guys. Marines. Back in Washington, I knew people. I’ll bet you guys do, too. Inside the Beltway, there are enough people who work with classified information that it’s not hard to encounter them.

They have to wait forever to get background checks done to get their clearance. They face really, really tough consequences if they are caught being sloppy with classified information, nevermind deliberately leaking it. Because they tend to freak when they’re dealing with a reporter, I’ve always had an understanding with these good folks; I don’t publish classified information.

Period.

It’s a higher priority that classified information remain secure than for my career to get a boost.

But there are those who don’t subscribe to this attitude. There are those within the government who will gladly leak classified information, either for ego, to score political points, to sway public opinion, or what have you. And there are many, many reporters who will eagerly print whatever scoops they can get, regardless of the damage to national security.

We know there has been an accelerating war of leaks coming from various government agencies to the New York Times, Washington Post, and other news organizations. (It’s a bipartisan habit; Not too long ago, disgruntled conservatives within government agencies leaked to Bill Gertz of the Washington Times.)

So I can’t quite muster my usual outrage of going through a reporter’s phone records to find a leak. I’m sure you heard the tale of Osama and his satellite phone; he stopped using it after somebody bragged our eavesdropping to the press. Chasing after these leakers is only one step less important and dramatic than the annual “CTU Mole Hunt” on 24. After years of next to nothing being done, I’m glad to see our government’s security organizations taking this seriously.

Marshall: Whoa there, partner. When it comes to throwing leakers in jail, I’m all for it. Hell, I’m fine with starting to prosecute these leakers for real felonies and seeing them get hard time.

But you can’t have a democratic republic without a free press. Period. And that means taking the occassional lump when it comes to state secrets. For me, it’s a small price to pay.

More importantly, this sort of investigation is or ought to be illegal. People used to joke about the government tapping their phone just for fun. That’s basically what they seem to be doing to these reporters.

We can debate the merits of the news that’s being broken — and we should. But we can’t debate the necessity of having a press that’s free to break the stories. And having reporters believe the government is cataloguing their calls or that they are facing jail anytime they write something that might be secret is the opposite of the kind of freedom that we need.

UPDATE II: The always reasonable and intelligent James Joyner has weighed in with his own thoughts.

Jim, again: See, to me, this strikes me as a no-brainer for obtaining a warrant. “Your honor, if we get access to this reporter’s cell phone records, we can easily determine who has violated federal law by leaking classified information.”

Cam: Sorry for the late reply. While the topic has evolved a bit since this story was first posted, I’m going to agree with Jeff the Younger in the comments and say “no special rules for reporters”.

Freedom of the press doesn’t mean that the “Press Corps” has freedom to do whatever it wishes. It means that We the People have the right to use the printing press for our own discourse. I don’t want to go down the road of “it’s okay to do this for group A but not for group B.”

Do we need a “free press”? Sure we do. But then again, that free press needs to be made up of free citizens.

Having said that, I wonder if Keith Olbermann is popular enough to have his phones tapped. Probably not. He’s only on MSNBC after all.

Marshall: Just wanted to update the news. According to Editor & Publisher, Ross had more when we went to air on ABC News last night.

The FBI acknowledged late Monday that it is increasingly seeking reporters’ phone records in leak investigations. “It used to be very hard and complicated to do this, but it no longer is in the Bush administration,” said a senior federal official.

Now, Cam — with respect — I think you’re dead wrong. You say that we shouldn’t treat reporters differently than other free citizens. That’s a perfectly valid point of view — but it’s one that’s contradicted by our Founders and the Constitution. After all, they singled out the press for special treatment under the First Amendment, and they did iit for all of the reasons that I articulated above. To be sure, there are limits on the press’s freedom, and their should be. But if we’re going to be a free people, and we’re to protect our rights, we have to start with making sure that reporters can’t be heaved in jail or pursued in some sort of crusade just for doing what they’re supposed to do — gather information and pass it along to the rest of us.

Jim: In the comments, Gary Farber has a bone to pick with me. He says:

That “someone” [who revealed the Osama satellite phone]was Senator Pat Roberts. Funny that no one has prosecuted him, and that you don’t even mention this.

My sinister reason for not mentioning Roberts was that I had forgotten it was him. There’s almost no record of punishing lawmakers for leaking classified information, which I think is wrong and unfortunate. The closest they came [that I recall] was then-Rep. Bob Torricelli, who was very gently reprimanded by the House Ethics Committee back in the 1990s.

In response to my attitude of not publishing classified information, Gary asks:

“So there are absolutely no circumstances whatever, and absolutely no classified information whatever that ever warrants being leaked? Woodward and Bernstein shouldn’t have broken Watergate? The “secret” bombing of Cambodia (not secret to the Cambodians) shouldn’t have been revealed to Americans? And so on?

In my career, I have yet to come across any classified information that I believe ought to be published, or that the public’s right to know outweighs the country’s national security. My sense is that the vast majority of classified leaks are done for not-so-noble motives - ego, point-scoring, partisan games, etc. Perhaps once in a great while, there will be situations where informing the public is the greater good.

Not to mention that the Osama story is entirely bogus. You may want to drop that one from your repetoire.

I checked out the link Gary posted; I think he’s overstating it when he boasts that it proves the Osama anecdote as “entirely bogus.” Post reporter Glenn Kessler says it “appears to be” an urban myth.

The central argument of the Post story was that it had been previously reported that Osama used a satellite phone. Indeed, but just because his use of a phone was public knowledge, it did not necessarily follow that the good guys were listening in.

The Post story Gary cited botched it, according to the Washington Times. According to them it was a USA Today story on Page One that said “a former U.S. official says that bin Laden had a fondness for his cell phone.”

That phrase to me - considering the source - suggests that “we’re listening in.” None of the other stories that mentioned a cell phone made any suggestion that the good guys were eavesdropping.

The Post story suggests that bin Laden may have stopped using his satellite phone because of the Clinton administration’s cruise missile attacks around that time. Perhaps. Maybe the phone was lost or damaged. Maybe bin Laden figured the phone was what led the cruise missiles to the camps.

But if I’m monitoring a guy, and somebody in or just out of the government says, “boy, he’s fond of that phone,” and it shows up in the newspaper, and then he stops using that phone shortly afterwards, I look for the simplest explanation. Occam’s razor, and all that.

Cam: Blaaaeeeaaaagggghhhhh!!!! That’s the sound of me letting out a Dean-like scream in response to your comments Marshall.

I realize I’m getting sidetracked, but go take a look at the 1st Amendment. Does it see say “Freedom for the press?” Nope. It says of, meaning we are all guaranteed the right to use the printing press (or it’s modern day equivalent) to get our views out there. The 1st Amendment wasn’t a guarantee for Helen Thomas. It was a guarantee for the pamphleteers.

Remember back to the fight for online speech that we waged a few months ago? I seem to recall a conversation you and I had where we were in agreement that the government shouldn’t license journalists, that we all have the ability to speak freely, etc.

I’m sorry, but journalists don’t have any special rights or privileges. If you want to say the government shouldn’t be getting their phone records fine, but the government shouldn’t be getting mine either.