Over the past week, controversy emerged when the Department of Justice seized The Associated Press’ phone records, seemingly to hunt down anyone who may have leaked highly confidential government information. The DOJ has been investigating a May 7 AP story, which revealed the unraveling of an al-Qaeda terrorist plot in Yemen by the Central Intelligence Agency to destroy a U.S.-bound airliner.

In the investigation, the DOJ crossed the line to obtain the records of 20 reporters’ and editors’ phone lines that were subpoenaed over a two-month period. The seizure covertly proceeded without the AP’s knowledge and without appropriate justification at the time the investigation was uncovered.

While Attorney General Eric Holder Jr. defends the actions of the DOJ, he has been widely criticized for dodging questions on why the subpoena for the phone numbers was used so broadly. While subpoenas are supposed to be a last resort, according to guidelines set out by the department itself, after all other ways of obtaining information have been exhausted, the DOJ went behind the AP’s back, violating their first amendment right to report the news. In return for unknowingly seizing the numbers, the AP was given nothing more than the same bland statements emphasizing the threatening nature of national security leaks that all other news publications were given.

The May 7 story refuted White House claims, which said there was no terrorist plot near the anniversary of Osama bin Laden’s killing. During times like this — where our own government denies the existence of a threat ultimately proven valid — it is especially important that the press maintain its watchdog role. This is a serious freedom of press issue. Do journalists still have the right to publish information without punishment by government? Constitutionally, yes.

The DOJ’s actions not only intimidate and threaten the AP but all news organizations who use anonymous sources to acquire sensitive information. The media has to secure sources deeply involved in government affairs — and secure they should remain.

While it’s safe to say that some publications use anonymous sources more freely than others, anonymity is a choice reporters can take all the way to prison. Once that right is compromised by the government, what happens to any source’s trust in the media?

It is hard enough already to break the shield of bad criticism people have built into the media’s reputation. The last thing we need is another reason for sources to keep quiet.

With the fear of their name being disclosed, sensitive and often classified information becomes all the more difficult to obtain.

While Holder continues to defend the decision, he has not given a detailed statement on how exactly national security was in danger and what — if any — other measures were taken (or not taken) before the subpoena. If mistakes were made, they should be accounted for.

Considering the lack of White House involvement, including Obama himself in the decision to seize the phone numbers, it is hard to believe all procedures were followed.

In fact, this issue sparked the White House to begin considering protective legislation for reporters to guard their sources known as the media shield bill.

Whether the DOJ’s justifications prove valid, we cannot promote the infringement of the government upon the media. If government intervention is necessary, there is a lawful and suspicion-deterring way to go about it. If it weren’t for the AP uncovering the terrorist plot, Americans may still believe — as the government reiterated — that there wasn’t a threat at all. But ultimately, the AP is being wrongfully punished for doing their job — surfacing lies and uncovering truths — and the government’s at that.