Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Huffington Post)   Old and busted: Jailing reporters who won't reveal their sources. New hotness: Secretly seizing journalists' phone records from their phone companies   (huffingtonpost.com) divider line 385
    More: Scary, U.S. state abbreviations, AP President, Jailing, diplomatic note, telephone tapping, Ronald Machen  
•       •       •

7064 clicks; posted to Main » on 13 May 2013 at 8:45 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



385 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-05-13 08:11:21 PM  
If you violate the National Securities Act, expect to be charged.

What? Is this news? If you want to fight for this, you also want to release Bradley Manning without charge.

Thank about that for a second.
 
2013-05-13 08:11:54 PM  
The Justice Department secretly obtained two months of telephone records of reporters and editors for The Associated Press in what the news cooperative's top executive called a "massive and unprecedented intrusion" into how news organizations gather the news.

and this is surprising because....?

look - we laid the foundation for this back when the patriot act go passed.  from that point forward, more and more government intrusion and control was inevitable.  its like gravity...you just let go and let things take their course.
 
2013-05-13 08:14:47 PM  
Keep telling yourselves power only corrupts the other guy.
 
2013-05-13 08:18:23 PM  

Gulper Eel: Keep telling yourselves power only corrupts the other guy.


that's kinda how we think tho.  only the OTHER team is corrupt.  our team is always honorable and acting with the best of intentions...the OTHER guys always f*ck things up.
 
2013-05-13 08:19:19 PM  
Just as I expected. Our nation is doomed nd we probably deserve it t this point.
 
2013-05-13 08:20:59 PM  
Title VII of the National Security Act requires the CIA, the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, the National Reconnaissance Office, the National Security Agency, and the Defense Intelligence Agency to: exempt operational files from provisions of the Freedom of Information Act that would otherwise require publication or disclosure

Good luck in court, AP. We all know you won't go that route. You'll just pout and moan as did many of us about the expanded power of the USA Patriot Act.
 
2013-05-13 08:28:20 PM  

NewportBarGuy: Title VII of the National Security Act requires the CIA, the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, the National Reconnaissance Office, the National Security Agency, and the Defense Intelligence Agency to: exempt operational files from provisions of the Freedom of Information Act that would otherwise require publication or disclosure

Good luck in court, AP. We all know you won't go that route. You'll just pout and moan as did many of us about the expanded power of the USA Patriot Act.


If Conservatives want to repeal the Patriot Act, I'm sure they won't get any resistance from Liberals.
 
2013-05-13 08:30:12 PM  

mrshowrules: If Conservatives want to repeal the Patriot Act, I'm sure they won't get any resistance from Liberals.


we won't repeal our lovely little state security laws.  they're ever so useful!  what I never understood is why anyone ever thought those laws would never be abused.
 
2013-05-13 08:32:00 PM  

mrshowrules: If Conservatives want to repeal the Patriot Act, I'm sure they won't get any resistance from Liberals.


I'll defer to Weav on this. It will take 100 years or some kind of apocalyptic event for Congress to rescind any of that bullsh*t. Do you realize ho many post offices we have to name? Dozens, man!
 
2013-05-13 08:32:46 PM  

NewportBarGuy: Title VII of the National Security Act requires the CIA, the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, the National Reconnaissance Office, the National Security Agency, and the Defense Intelligence Agency to: exempt operational files from provisions of the Freedom of Information Act that would otherwise require publication or disclosure

Good luck in court, AP. We all know you won't go that route. You'll just pout and moan as did many of us about the expanded power of the USA Patriot Act.


Oh, there's a learned legal opinion if I ever saw one.
 
2013-05-13 08:36:50 PM  

NewportBarGuy: If you violate the National Securities Act, expect to be charged.

What? Is this news? If you want to fight for this, you also want to release Bradley Manning without charge.

Thank about that for a second.


Huh?  I'm pretty sure that he directly violated the U.C.M.J. in more than one way.  They don't need any civilian laws to throw him away for life.
 
2013-05-13 08:39:02 PM  
Imagine if this was MSNBC.

Would you who dont care about AP be silent on that one, too?
 
2013-05-13 08:39:31 PM  
Is there anyone on Fark who LIKES the Patriot Act?  It makes this anti-Republican sick that the Obama administration has used it.  Warrantless wiretapping, this current bullshiat...it all started with the Patriot Act.

Look at how far we have come as a country in the past fifteen years.  Patriot Act, Citizens United etc...

Greatest country on Earth?  Probably, but not by much of a margin anymore.
 
2013-05-13 08:40:28 PM  

Nabb1: Oh, there's a learned legal opinion if I ever saw one.


The theory is that is was over the intelligence operation in Yemen with the improved underwear explosives. They were asked to sit on the story and ran with it. They compromised assets and methods. I'm not a huge defender of government intelligence, but you have to at least allow them to operate in a way where they tell you how they got the bad guy without exposing their methods. Yes, black sites and torture are exempt from such things because they are illegal.

There was none of that here. Just a news source that wanted a scoop. I fail to see the case AP has if they violated NSA. Hell, the same people that will champion this are the ones who decried the exposure of the CIA black sites by Washington Post.
 
2013-05-13 08:41:12 PM  

AdolfOliverPanties: Is there anyone on Fark who LIKES the Patriot Act?  It makes this anti-Republican sick that the Obama administration has used it.  Warrantless wiretapping, this current bullshiat...it all started with the Patriot Act.

Look at how far we have come as a country in the past fifteen years.  Patriot Act, Citizens United etc...

Greatest country on Earth?  Probably, but not by much of a margin anymore.


No one supports it today.  It did have some support during Dubya's days.
 
2013-05-13 08:41:30 PM  

remus: NewportBarGuy: If you violate the National Securities Act, expect to be charged.

What? Is this news? If you want to fight for this, you also want to release Bradley Manning without charge.

Thank about that for a second.

Huh?  I'm pretty sure that he directly violated the U.C.M.J. in more than one way.  They don't need any civilian laws to throw him away for life.


Forget it. He's rolling.
 
2013-05-13 08:41:56 PM  

remus: Huh? I'm pretty sure that he directly violated the U.C.M.J. in more than one way. They don't need any civilian laws to throw him away for life.


Yes, but it's the unauthorized release of classified information. UCMJ or civilian, it's the exact same thing. Diff law, diff trial, same reason for the law(s) existing.
 
2013-05-13 08:44:51 PM  

NewportBarGuy: Nabb1: Oh, there's a learned legal opinion if I ever saw one.

The theory is that is was over the intelligence operation in Yemen with the improved underwear explosives. They were asked to sit on the story and ran with it. They compromised assets and methods. I'm not a huge defender of government intelligence, but you have to at least allow them to operate in a way where they tell you how they got the bad guy without exposing their methods. Yes, black sites and torture are exempt from such things because they are illegal.

There was none of that here. Just a news source that wanted a scoop. I fail to see the case AP has if they violated NSA. Hell, the same people that will champion this are the ones who decried the exposure of the CIA black sites by Washington Post.


You think it is alright to gather who-knows-what from from innocent reporters to find the guilty one? Its ok if they have nothing to hide, right? Whatever happened to probable cause?
 
2013-05-13 08:45:04 PM  

NewportBarGuy: Nabb1: Oh, there's a learned legal opinion if I ever saw one.

The theory is that is was over the intelligence operation in Yemen with the improved underwear explosives. They were asked to sit on the story and ran with it. They compromised assets and methods. I'm not a huge defender of government intelligence, but you have to at least allow them to operate in a way where they tell you how they got the bad guy without exposing their methods. Yes, black sites and torture are exempt from such things because they are illegal.

There was none of that here. Just a news source that wanted a scoop. I fail to see the case AP has if they violated NSA. Hell, the same people that will champion this are the ones who decried the exposure of the CIA black sites by Washington Post.


Look, if you want to defend Obama at all costs, go ahead, but what you are talking about has f*ck all to do with the AP. Seriously. It has nothing to do with whether or not the subpoena was over broad or specifically tailored for the investigation.
 
2013-05-13 08:48:18 PM  

Nabb1: Look, if you want to defend Obama at all costs, go ahead, but what you are talking about has f*ck all to do with the AP. Seriously. It has nothing to do with whether or not the subpoena was over broad or specifically tailored for the investigation.


Over broad? I thought We The People gave our security services the right to just do whatever they wanted to us? It was OK when Bush did it, right?
 
2013-05-13 08:49:33 PM  
Well, this will get Benghazi out of the news cycle for sure.
 
2013-05-13 08:49:45 PM  
Oh noes! The government is going to find out all of the stupid crap news before it gets sensationalized!
 
2013-05-13 08:49:51 PM  

Nabb1: Look, if you want to defend Obama at all costs, go ahead, but what you are talking about has f*ck all to do with the AP. Seriously. It has nothing to do with whether or not the subpoena was over broad or specifically tailored for the investigation.


So, you'll agree we should repeal the USA Patriot Act and make them get evidence first?
 
2013-05-13 08:50:50 PM  
Congress is going to jump right on this and make sure it never happens again, right?

/guys?
//anyone?
 
2013-05-13 08:50:51 PM  

AdolfOliverPanties: Is there anyone on Fark who LIKES the Patriot Act?  It makes this anti-Republican sick that the Obama administration has used it.  Warrantless wiretapping, this current bullshiat...it all started with the Patriot Act.

Look at how far we have come as a country in the past fifteen years.  Patriot Act, Citizens United etc...

Greatest country on Earth?  Probably, but not by much of a margin anymore.


well, except that citizens united is probably a correct reading of the constitution and relevant law and the PATRIOT Act is not

You wanna biatch about CU, fine. It sucks. But it's right. Get an amendment passed.
 
2013-05-13 08:50:56 PM  
Who the hell signed off on these subpoenas?  How could something think this was a good idea that could be legally defended?
 
2013-05-13 08:50:59 PM  

cman: Imagine if this was MSNBC.

Would you who dont care about AP be silent on that one, too?


Of course we would.  We warned you guys about this during the Bush years when they passed the Patriot Act.  We were called traitors and told we had nothing to be worried about.  This has nothing to do with what news company is complaining.  Your mind went straight to partisanship.
 
2013-05-13 08:51:21 PM  

NewportBarGuy: Nabb1: Look, if you want to defend Obama at all costs, go ahead, but what you are talking about has f*ck all to do with the AP. Seriously. It has nothing to do with whether or not the subpoena was over broad or specifically tailored for the investigation.

So, you'll agree we should repeal the USA Patriot Act and make them get evidence first?


I've always loathed the Patriot Act. Do you want to try another line of argument?
 
2013-05-13 08:52:57 PM  
Robert Novak snickers at justice from Hell.
aarontallent.com
 
2013-05-13 08:53:05 PM  

Nabb1: NewportBarGuy: Nabb1: Look, if you want to defend Obama at all costs, go ahead, but what you are talking about has f*ck all to do with the AP. Seriously. It has nothing to do with whether or not the subpoena was over broad or specifically tailored for the investigation.

So, you'll agree we should repeal the USA Patriot Act and make them get evidence first?

I've always loathed the Patriot Act. Do you want to try another line of argument?


No, I think he's quite content with the tu quoque. It's working so well for him, you see.
 
2013-05-13 08:53:48 PM  

skullkrusher: Nabb1: NewportBarGuy: Nabb1: Look, if you want to defend Obama at all costs, go ahead, but what you are talking about has f*ck all to do with the AP. Seriously. It has nothing to do with whether or not the subpoena was over broad or specifically tailored for the investigation.

So, you'll agree we should repeal the USA Patriot Act and make them get evidence first?

I've always loathed the Patriot Act. Do you want to try another line of argument?

No, I think he's quite content with the tu quoque. It's working so well for him, you see.


It's certainly working better than his legal analysis.
 
2013-05-13 08:54:19 PM  

CynicalLA: cman:


You are correct. Thank you for reminding me to keep my bias in check.
 
2013-05-13 08:55:10 PM  

cman: CynicalLA: cman:

You are correct. Thank you for reminding me to keep my bias in check.


It's all good.
 
2013-05-13 08:55:20 PM  

Weaver95: The Justice Department secretly obtained two months of telephone records of reporters and editors for The Associated Press in what the news cooperative's top executive called a "massive and unprecedented intrusion" into how news organizations gather the news.

and this is surprising because....?

look - we laid the foundation for this back when the patriot act go passed.  from that point forward, more and more government intrusion and control was inevitable.  its like gravity...you just let go and let things take their course.


Nope. Wrong memo. The right is outraged at this as well. The AP is an integral part of our First Amendment protected media and this fascist dictator and his corrupt AG need to get impeached and resign, respectively, immediately. Also, the Patriot Act has nothing to do with this.

I'm serious.
 
2013-05-13 08:55:22 PM  

CynicalLA: cman: Imagine if this was MSNBC.

Would you who dont care about AP be silent on that one, too?

Of course we would.  We warned you guys about this during the Bush years when they passed the Patriot Act.  We were called traitors and told we had nothing to be worried about.  This has nothing to do with what news company is complaining.  Your mind went straight to partisanship.


This.
 
2013-05-13 08:55:37 PM  

Erix: Who the hell signed off on these subpoenas?  How could something think this was a good idea that could be legally defended?


I guess we will find out.  Like I said in another thread.  Two possibilities:

1) Eric Holder resigns

or

2) some people in DC are charged under Federal Law for revealing State secrets


Either way, this should be interesting.
 
2013-05-13 08:55:42 PM  

Nabb1: I've always loathed the Patriot Act. Do you want to try another line of argument?


Nope, that's all I really like to see done away with. This craptacular nightmare is what we get to live with.

The law is the law. Until we change it, why the f*ck are we arguing about those who follow it?
 
2013-05-13 08:56:08 PM  

cman: CynicalLA: cman:

You are correct. Thank you for reminding me to keep my bias in check.


This is why you're a refreshing anomaly on Fark.
 
2013-05-13 08:56:25 PM  

NewportBarGuy: remus: Huh? I'm pretty sure that he directly violated the U.C.M.J. in more than one way. They don't need any civilian laws to throw him away for life.

Yes, but it's the unauthorized release of classified information. UCMJ or civilian, it's the exact same thing. Diff law, diff trial, same reason for the law(s) existing.


Ummm...  You really don't know a thing about the military, do you?  If an Officer orders you to pick daisies, and you don't do it, that's a UCMJ violation for failure to follow a lawful order.  This isn't anything even close to the civilian world.  The only way he gets out is to prove that safeguarding secret information is not a lawful order.  That isn't going to happen.  It's a perfectly lawful order.  Even the daisies is a lawful order.  Silly.  Crazy, but lawful.  The point in your sentence above that said "unauthorized" is pretty much all the military needs to establish.  That's case closed.
 
2013-05-13 08:56:43 PM  

mrshowrules: Erix: Who the hell signed off on these subpoenas?  How could something think this was a good idea that could be legally defended?

I guess we will find out.  Like I said in another thread.  Two possibilities:

1) Eric Holder resigns

or

2) some people in DC are charged under Federal Law for revealing State secrets


Either way, this should be interesting.


Could be both, you know.
 
2013-05-13 08:58:42 PM  

NewportBarGuy: Nabb1: I've always loathed the Patriot Act. Do you want to try another line of argument?

Nope, that's all I really like to see done away with. This craptacular nightmare is what we get to live with.

The law is the law. Until we change it, why the f*ck are we arguing about those who follow it?


Sometimes cases like this fore change in the law.
 
2013-05-13 09:00:05 PM  

Nabb1: mrshowrules: Erix: Who the hell signed off on these subpoenas?  How could something think this was a good idea that could be legally defended?

I guess we will find out.  Like I said in another thread.  Two possibilities:

1) Eric Holder resigns

or

2) some people in DC are charged under Federal Law for revealing State secrets


Either way, this should be interesting.

Could be both, you know.


Maybe, but I doubt it.  Either they can put together a convincing case of why they had to do this, in which case they'll charge someone, or they won't.  I don't think he'd resign unless the evidence they gather through this is inadmissible or otherwise goes nowhere.
 
2013-05-13 09:00:10 PM  
Can someone explain why this is bad? Maybe I'm just missing part of the story. Was it just that they obtained so much? Since the article seems to only condemn the breadth of the search, did they obtain warrants?

I'm not a lawyer, so I don't really know enough to get upset yet. It looks like they suspected the AP of violating the law and they're investigating it, but it seems like they messed up somewhere. So, can someone explain why the government is the bad guy? I'm sure there's some other part of the story missing, so I'm hoping someone can fill me in.
 
2013-05-13 09:00:28 PM  

Nabb1: mrshowrules: Erix: Who the hell signed off on these subpoenas?  How could something think this was a good idea that could be legally defended?

I guess we will find out.  Like I said in another thread.  Two possibilities:

1) Eric Holder resigns

or

2) some people in DC are charged under Federal Law for revealing State secrets


Either way, this should be interesting.

Could be both, you know.


I don't think so.  Either he had a weak case and overstepped the bounds of his office.  Or he had an actual case which will justify the actions of his office plus he will have someone else (the person or persons charged) that will draw the attention of media.
 
2013-05-13 09:00:40 PM  
Hope you like the change.
 
2013-05-13 09:00:48 PM  

Nabb1: Sometimes cases like this fore change in the law.


You honestly thing Congress will act on this? Or SCOTUS? hahahahahahanfdno[jfdj nvcvc

Oh, wow.
 
2013-05-13 09:00:58 PM  
The freedom of the press really ought to include a right to keep sources secret.
 
2013-05-13 09:01:02 PM  
meanwhile congress critters and senators keep releasing intimate government secrets every time they interrogate a new appointee or benghaziiiiiiiiiiiiii witness to government.

/Congress: We will find this leak, even if we have to order it ourselves via a secret government agent in the DOJ so Obama can be impeached for it.
 
2013-05-13 09:02:21 PM  
images3.static-bluray.com
 
2013-05-13 09:02:44 PM  
As long as this is for the greater good I'm ok with it.

//black robed gathering has said its for the greater good so were good
 
Displayed 50 of 385 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report