Do the DOJ's intimidation tactics really make us safer?

We still don't know all there is to know about the U.S. Department of Justice's decision to secretly grab piles of phone records from the Associated Press.

We know it was done as part of an investigation into leaks regarding a foiled terror plot, but we don't know exactly how it was done, when, or why. I'll leave reporting on the intricacies to folks who know what they're talking about. (I'm also trying to get up to speed on the evolving, troubling IRS saga. )

What we do know, or should know, regardless of the legalities and spin, is that this is not how our government should operate.

The justice department, operating in a nation where a free press is guaranteed in our very First Amendment, decided to dig through a news organization's phone records on a remarkably broad scale. The AP called it a "massive and unprecedented intrusion." I think they got it right. The phone lines targeted were used by more than 100 journalists over a two-month period.

Attorney General Eric Holder likely will insist that national security is at stake. Which is what they always say, right after they've gone fishing through your phone calls and personal data. The White House is claiming ignorance. Which is unbelievable. When AG's do massive, unprecedented things, I'd like to think they at least send a note up the chain.

What we really need to ask ourselves is if we're truly being made safer by a government, more precisely, by an administration, that's willing to go to these extreme lengths to intimidate government officials into not telling journalists what's really going on. Not to mention sending a chilling message to the journalists.

I concede, sometimes, there are leaks that need plugging. And then there is unnecessary, excessive secrecy, intended not to protect the public, but to shield bureaucrats and politicians from being held accountable.

And when news organizations have shown ample willingness to consider the national security implications of their work, even holding stories to avoid compromising security, as AP did, why would this administration compromise their freedom and independence even more with this overreach? At a time when Americans are already troubled by the power of technology to diminish privacy, their government fans the flames.

A president who got elected talking a good game about transparency has shown it was pretty much all talk. As evidence by the fact that the AP disclosure wasn't a huge surprise.

I don't know what Holder's folks found in those records, but I hope it was worth the further erosion of trust and credibility in a justice department already bruised and dented. There were already plenty of reasons to wonder whether President Obama should fold on Holder. Could this, finally, be it?

And, yes, maybe news organizations should have cared a whole lot more before about all the secret data mining, warrantless wiretapping, surveillance and other dark arts being done in the name of our security. I hope this gets our attention.