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.

(Washington Post)   Turns out AP wasn't the only news outlet Obama was tapping, FOX News also was spied on. Come on Obama, you just completed the right-wing conspiracy trifecta in just two weeks, At least make it hard for them   (washingtonpost.com) divider line 241
    More: Asinine, right-wing, rosen, press freedom, conspiracy  
•       •       •

6134 clicks; posted to Politics » on 20 May 2013 at 9:50 AM (48 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-05-20 10:24:02 AM

whitman00: A leak from the government outed a deep cover operative who was thiiissss close to a master bomb maker.  The intel lost from this leak damaged our effort to fight terrorism.  So, do conservatives support going after the leaker or not?  What would they do different if they were in power is a great question that no one seems to be asking.


I'm less interested in conservatives, and more interested in the "liberals" that were outraged about Plame being outed that now think this is some kind of outrage.


Doesn't make any farking sense.
 
2013-05-20 10:25:13 AM

PanicMan: To The Escape Zeppelin!: But that raises the issue what what news organizations can and cannot leak. The US government has done lots of legal but morally wrong things in the past. In the future should news organizations be prosecuted because they report on secret and legal but morally corrupt activities?

I believe the court cases related to Watergate and the Pentagon Papers settled that.  The press can report on evidence of wrongdoing.  They can't report on classified information just because.


But what qualifies wrong doing? In this case the government lied to the public to protect an ongoing investigation and the media published the leak showing that what they said was false. Is the government allowed to lie to protect information? Because where does that privilege end?
 
2013-05-20 10:25:44 AM
I don't see a problem here. and Fox news should not report on leaked classified stuff if it might hurt intelligence assets and capabilities. I mean really, does the public's "need to know" about how N Korea might react to sanctions outweigh the need to protect those assets?  here we have classified material leaked to the press that really has no value to the public. it doesn't uncover any corruption in govt. all it does is put intelligence assets at risk.
 
2013-05-20 10:27:20 AM

cwolf20: So remember.  If you ever decide to give an anonymous tip, fark it.  Let the criminal get away


Haven't you learned anything from Spiderman?
 
2013-05-20 10:28:22 AM

FlashHarry: SlothB77: Now FoxNews is gonna come after him.

that may be one of the funniest things i've ever read on fark. so simple. so elegant. so... genius!


I also enjoyed. Brilliant.
 
2013-05-20 10:29:29 AM
I bet they ALL have been monitored since the Towers fell... and I don't much care
 
2013-05-20 10:29:32 AM

PanicMan: To The Escape Zeppelin!: But that raises the issue what what news organizations can and cannot leak. The US government has done lots of legal but morally wrong things in the past. In the future should news organizations be prosecuted because they report on secret and legal but morally corrupt activities?

I believe the court cases related to Watergate and the Pentagon Papers settled that.  The press can report on evidence of wrongdoing.  They can't report on classified information just because.


And our public service pundits think they possess real and actual "secret" classified information.
Like as if what they "know" is not common disinformation shared by all players.
IRL, you cannot see, talk to, or admit existence of those with the real secrets and they NEVER share with the elected stiff of the term, you see posed on TV.
That idiot "speaking for the White House" is given no more truth than the homeless guy on 6th, watching TV thru a window.

Media you can believe in,,, wouldn't it be nice.
 
2013-05-20 10:31:12 AM

SilentStrider: Aarontology: It's amazing how for the past 12 years the government has had the power to do the exact same thing to citizens with the total compliance and silence of the media, but the moment the same things happen to them, they raise a stink.

And no one is proposing taking that power away from the executive branch. They're just mad the blah guy is using it.


I could be wrong, but i believe that the whoel reason that the blah guy was voted in was that he was slinging Hope and Change from the pulpit. He was going to have the most transparent gov't and the flowers would bloom and the world would be right.

Turns out he was this transparent gov't was selling guns to Mexican gangs (and losing them), telling lies about the death of an American ambassador, offering assistance in Lybia to the same people we were fighting in Iraq, dogging those with opposing views with the IRS, watching the media black ops style in an operation of national securty that neither the AG or POTUS new anything about (must have been super serious and important).

I saw all of this to say that all Obama had to do to win some points with people who give a crap about somethign other than getting a check is NOT renew the Patriot Act and he effed that up as well. I had one hope for him and he blew it.

I won't likely vote for another presidential candidate until they promise to NOT renew Patriot Act, cut the TSA, cut DHS.
 
2013-05-20 10:31:27 AM

Aarontology: It's amazing how for the past 12 years the government has had the power to do the exact same thing to citizens with the total compliance and silence of the media, but the moment the same things happen to them, they raise a stink.


^ This ^

When people get power, it's hard to make them give it up, and silly to expect they won't exercise it as well.

But 9/11, Terr'ists, Flag Pin, Freedom.
 
2013-05-20 10:32:21 AM

SlothB77: [www.bartleby.com image 246x300]

The Dems have found their Nixon.


That's not Darrel Issa.
 
2013-05-20 10:34:57 AM

whitman00: A leak from the government outed a deep cover operative who was thiiissss close to a master bomb maker.  The intel lost from this leak damaged our effort to fight terrorism.  So, do conservatives support going after the leaker or not?  What would they do different if they were in power is a great question that no one seems to be asking.


I don't think anyone wishes the leaker gets off the hook. The government has a right and obligation to protect undercover operations in support of national security. It's the manner in which this leaker is pursued that's the question.

It's like asking if someone supports planes being blown up in midair if they don't support TSA strip searches at all airports... well, with a bit more hyperbole but you get it
 
2013-05-20 10:34:59 AM

PreMortem: jedihirsch: And so it goes on. And yet people somehow think this guy is on top of things, honest and genuine guy. I mean this guy is another typical Chicago politician who's a crooked as a $3 bill

FTA:  Privacy protections limit searching or seizing a reporter's work, but not when there is evidence that the journalist broke the law against unauthorized leaks. A federal judge signed off on the search warrant - agreeing that there was probable cause that Rosen was a co-conspirator.


Reading is hard, for you anyway.


QFT.
 
2013-05-20 10:35:02 AM

jaybeezey: SilentStrider: Aarontology: It's amazing how for the past 12 years the government has had the power to do the exact same thing to citizens with the total compliance and silence of the media, but the moment the same things happen to them, they raise a stink.

And no one is proposing taking that power away from the executive branch. They're just mad the blah guy is using it.

I could be wrong, but i believe that the whoel reason that the blah guy was voted in was that he was slinging Hope and Change from the pulpit. He was going to have the most transparent gov't and the flowers would bloom and the world would be right.

Turns out he was this transparent gov't was selling guns to Mexican gangs (and losing them), telling lies about the death of an American ambassador, offering assistance in Lybia to the same people we were fighting in Iraq, dogging those with opposing views with the IRS, watching the media black ops style in an operation of national securty that neither the AG or POTUS new anything about (must have been super serious and important).

I saw all of this to say that all Obama had to do to win some points with people who give a crap about somethign other than getting a check is NOT renew the Patriot Act and he effed that up as well. I had one hope for him and he blew it.

I won't likely vote for another presidential candidate until they promise to NOT renew Patriot Act, cut the TSA, cut DHS.


So, an empty promise would make it all right with you?
'Cause, dude, that crap is part of the Forever War on Citizens and IS NOT going away.
Promise, no promise, this is where I came in,,,
 
2013-05-20 10:35:29 AM
Here's the thing about the AP Phone Records thing:

The DoJ was investigating a leak about an Al-Qaeda affiliate's plot to hijack airline flights in Yemen. The operation had managed to embed a British informant on the inside who was feeding information to MI-6 and US Intelligence agencies on the plot. When the AP decided to publish their story, MI-6 and the CIA had the scramble to extract the inside informant and his family because they were in immediate danger. Plus, the AP story put an entire operation to take down an Al-Qaeda affiliate down into jeopardy, not to mention they made it a lot harder for the US to infiltrate the operation in the future.

So, the AP put lives in danger and compromised an active intelligence operation because they wanted a scoop.

I don't have a lot of qualms about getting a subpoena for the AP's telephone records to find where the leak is. This kind of shiat can lead to people getting executed.
 
2013-05-20 10:35:35 AM

MFAWG: SlothB77: The Dems have found their Nixon.

David Gregory gave Peg Noonan a pretty good slapdown yesterday when she said these were the worst abuses she'd ever seen by pointing out that Pegs used to work for Nixon


Obama so far has not:

Authorized a clown like Gordon Liddy to bungle what should have been an easy break in to the opposition's HQ and the Psychologists office of a press leak. (Nixon didn't hire Liddy, Colson and Hunt did, Liddy's still a clown act though)

Hired Cubans to act as "foot soldiers"

Authorize "Union Thugs" to beat the snot out of Tea Tard protestors in DC

Go on a witch hunt for political purposes.

Expand a war he is trying to wind down

Nixon and Obama did:

Replace nearly all of their cabinet at the second term.

Inspire irrational hatred amongst the opposition ( to be honest though, Nixon's was kind of justified as he was very well known in politics)

Say they are going to end a war. And do exactly that.

Laugh at the opposition and proceed to do exactly what they want anyway.
( I really like McGovern and the '72 race is great because McGovern was a man of principles who refused to compromise to win. Rmoney was a man of absolutely zero principles who would have compromised anything to win)

If I were Obama I would thank the right for comparing him to Nixon. Nixon, despite the dirty tricks, did many good things. Nixon was the last of the good Republicans.
 
2013-05-20 10:35:53 AM

DarnoKonrad: whitman00: A leak from the government outed a deep cover operative who was thiiissss close to a master bomb maker.  The intel lost from this leak damaged our effort to fight terrorism.  So, do conservatives support going after the leaker or not?  What would they do different if they were in power is a great question that no one seems to be asking.

I'm less interested in conservatives, and more interested in the "liberals" that were outraged about Plame being outed that now think this is some kind of outrage.


Doesn't make any farking sense.


your post makes no sense. Plame (and her entire CIA front company) were outed as political revenge for her husband exposing the lies that Bushco was peddling to the public about Saddam buying yellowcake from Niger. This didn't involve him leaking any classified information. The CIA sent him to check it out and he did. Then he reported his findings back to Bushco. They didn't like what he found out so they ran with their lies anyway. He wrote an op-ed exposing their lies. They retaliated by destroying his wife's career and endangering her and her associates and their contacts.
 
2013-05-20 10:36:58 AM
Sheryl Attkisson better watch her back.
 
2013-05-20 10:37:21 AM

RexTalionis: Here's the thing about the AP Phone Records thing:

The DoJ was investigating a leak about an Al-Qaeda affiliate's plot to hijack airline flights in Yemen. The operation had managed to embed a British informant on the inside who was feeding information to MI-6 and US Intelligence agencies on the plot. When the AP decided to publish their story, MI-6 and the CIA had the scramble to extract the inside informant and his family because they were in immediate danger. Plus, the AP story put an entire operation to take down an Al-Qaeda affiliate down into jeopardy, not to mention they made it a lot harder for the US to infiltrate the operation in the future.

So, the AP put lives in danger and compromised an active intelligence operation because they wanted a scoop.

I don't have a lot of qualms about getting a subpoena for the AP's telephone records to find where the leak is. This kind of shiat can lead to people getting executed.


as well it should
 
Bf+
2013-05-20 10:37:45 AM
Ok that did it-- I'm convinced he's from Kenya now.
 
2013-05-20 10:38:09 AM
Calling this "Wire Tapping" is like when some frau leaves her phone open to Facebook and her kid updates her status to "Fart" and she says "Little Brieley hacked my computer!"
 
2013-05-20 10:38:29 AM
Roll forward x years when a Repub is in the White House, and gets caught doing the same thing, and the response will be "because TERROR, you treasonous TREASON TRAITOR."

The right hates, loathes and despises the press so very very much that they are filled with white-hot indignation over allegations that freedom of the press has been abridged.

/until they do it
//because TERROR
 
2013-05-20 10:38:55 AM

Hobodeluxe: DarnoKonrad: whitman00: A leak from the government outed a deep cover operative who was thiiissss close to a master bomb maker.  The intel lost from this leak damaged our effort to fight terrorism.  So, do conservatives support going after the leaker or not?  What would they do different if they were in power is a great question that no one seems to be asking.

I'm less interested in conservatives, and more interested in the "liberals" that were outraged about Plame being outed that now think this is some kind of outrage.


Doesn't make any farking sense.

your post makes no sense. Plame (and her entire CIA front company) were outed as political revenge for her husband exposing the lies that Bushco was peddling to the public about Saddam buying yellowcake from Niger. This didn't involve him leaking any classified information. The CIA sent him to check it out and he did. Then he reported his findings back to Bushco. They didn't like what he found out so they ran with their lies anyway. He wrote an op-ed exposing their lies. They retaliated by destroying his wife's career and endangering her and her associates and their contacts.



Outing CIA operatives for political gain (Bushco) or commercial gain (the AP) is wrong.  It's the same crime -- and the press is complicit either way.
 
2013-05-20 10:39:12 AM

Hobodeluxe: I don't see a problem here. and Fox news should not report on leaked classified stuff if it might hurt intelligence assets and capabilities. I mean really, does the public's "need to know" about how N Korea might react to sanctions outweigh the need to protect those assets?  here we have classified material leaked to the press that really has no value to the public. it doesn't uncover any corruption in govt. all it does is put intelligence assets at risk.


hence a large part of the issue with Wikileaks and Bradley Manning. Uncovering corruption in government and government-business collusion contrary to the welfare of the people is a great thing. Had Assange limited the leaks to such things, he WOULD be a hero. He didn't and therefore is a douche. Exposing private communiques which can damage diplomatic relations or threaten ongoing ops does not serve a public good.
 
2013-05-20 10:40:04 AM

skullkrusher: whitman00: A leak from the government outed a deep cover operative who was thiiissss close to a master bomb maker.  The intel lost from this leak damaged our effort to fight terrorism.  So, do conservatives support going after the leaker or not?  What would they do different if they were in power is a great question that no one seems to be asking.

I don't think anyone wishes the leaker gets off the hook. The government has a right and obligation to protect undercover operations in support of national security. It's the manner in which this leaker is pursued that's the question.

It's like asking if someone supports planes being blown up in midair if they don't support TSA strip searches at all airports... well, with a bit more hyperbole but you get it


So nice of you to give blanket approval for "undercover operations". That right there is the whole farking problem.
When those operations are illegal, immoral, profiteering, false flagged, etc.,,, OUT THE FARKERS.

The light of day will not be kind to the vast majority of "undercover operations" done in YOUR NAME for YOUR OWN GOOD.
 
2013-05-20 10:41:13 AM
Hope and change was sold to idiots who have to believe in something rather reality.

Ron Paul!

/obligatory
 
2013-05-20 10:42:36 AM

snocone: skullkrusher: whitman00: A leak from the government outed a deep cover operative who was thiiissss close to a master bomb maker.  The intel lost from this leak damaged our effort to fight terrorism.  So, do conservatives support going after the leaker or not?  What would they do different if they were in power is a great question that no one seems to be asking.

I don't think anyone wishes the leaker gets off the hook. The government has a right and obligation to protect undercover operations in support of national security. It's the manner in which this leaker is pursued that's the question.

It's like asking if someone supports planes being blown up in midair if they don't support TSA strip searches at all airports... well, with a bit more hyperbole but you get it

So nice of you to give blanket approval for "undercover operations". That right there is the whole farking problem.
When those operations are illegal, immoral, profiteering, false flagged, etc.,,, OUT THE FARKERS.

The light of day will not be kind to the vast majority of "undercover operations" done in YOUR NAME for YOUR OWN GOOD.


Oh, was this one of those black helicopter ops? It wasn't you say? OK, what's your point then?
 
2013-05-20 10:43:50 AM

Popcorn Johnny: Come on Fark, admit that your hero is capable of making a mistake.


DarnoKonrad: whitman00: A leak from the government outed a deep cover operative who was thiiissss close to a master bomb maker.  The intel lost from this leak damaged our effort to fight terrorism.  So, do conservatives support going after the leaker or not?  What would they do different if they were in power is a great question that no one seems to be asking.

I'm less interested in conservatives, and more interested in the "liberals" that were outraged about Plame being outed that now think this is some kind of outrage.

Doesn't make any farking sense.


It's the difference between stabbing one of your own soldiers in the back for telling you something you don't want to hear...in private, no less...and blabbing about, say, classified troop deployments.  To the enemy.

It's only a tough distinction to make if you're retarded.  Or, you know...Republican.
 
2013-05-20 10:45:00 AM

socoloco: Hope and change was sold to idiots who have to believe in something rather reality.

Ron Paul!


/obligatory


So much irony in one post.
 
2013-05-20 10:45:21 AM

socoloco: idiots who have to believe in something rather reality


socoloco: Ron Paul!


ahh ahhahahah
 
2013-05-20 10:46:33 AM
Well, sure.  Nixon is still vilified for Watergate - but what about Reagan's little Iran/Contra issue?

/Holy Arms for Hostages, Batman!
 
2013-05-20 10:46:42 AM

skullkrusher: snocone: skullkrusher: whitman00: A leak from the government outed a deep cover operative who was thiiissss close to a master bomb maker.  The intel lost from this leak damaged our effort to fight terrorism.  So, do conservatives support going after the leaker or not?  What would they do different if they were in power is a great question that no one seems to be asking.

I don't think anyone wishes the leaker gets off the hook. The government has a right and obligation to protect undercover operations in support of national security. It's the manner in which this leaker is pursued that's the question.

It's like asking if someone supports planes being blown up in midair if they don't support TSA strip searches at all airports... well, with a bit more hyperbole but you get it

So nice of you to give blanket approval for "undercover operations". That right there is the whole farking problem.
When those operations are illegal, immoral, profiteering, false flagged, etc.,,, OUT THE FARKERS.

The light of day will not be kind to the vast majority of "undercover operations" done in YOUR NAME for YOUR OWN GOOD.

Oh, was this one of those black helicopter ops? It wasn't you say? OK, what's your point then?


The point is, this is just business as usual, smoke, mirrors, curtain calls. Of course the news feeds "private" communication is monitored. Always is/was. Just because they can, naturally they do. So, why all the butthurt now?
Who's on first.
 
2013-05-20 10:48:17 AM

snocone: skullkrusher: snocone: skullkrusher: whitman00: A leak from the government outed a deep cover operative who was thiiissss close to a master bomb maker.  The intel lost from this leak damaged our effort to fight terrorism.  So, do conservatives support going after the leaker or not?  What would they do different if they were in power is a great question that no one seems to be asking.

I don't think anyone wishes the leaker gets off the hook. The government has a right and obligation to protect undercover operations in support of national security. It's the manner in which this leaker is pursued that's the question.

It's like asking if someone supports planes being blown up in midair if they don't support TSA strip searches at all airports... well, with a bit more hyperbole but you get it

So nice of you to give blanket approval for "undercover operations". That right there is the whole farking problem.
When those operations are illegal, immoral, profiteering, false flagged, etc.,,, OUT THE FARKERS.

The light of day will not be kind to the vast majority of "undercover operations" done in YOUR NAME for YOUR OWN GOOD.

Oh, was this one of those black helicopter ops? It wasn't you say? OK, what's your point then?

The point is, this is just business as usual, smoke, mirrors, curtain calls. Of course the news feeds "private" communication is monitored. Always is/was. Just because they can, naturally they do. So, why all the butthurt now?
Who's on first.


you're already boring. Troll elsewhere, tinfoil
 
2013-05-20 10:50:47 AM
OMG, I am rebuffed!
I must go cut myself.
 
2013-05-20 10:51:08 AM

The Irresponsible Captain: Aarontology: It's amazing how for the past 12 years the government has had the power to do the exact same thing to citizens with the total compliance and silence of the media, but the moment the same things happen to them, they raise a stink.

^ This ^

When people get power, it's hard to make them give it up, and silly to expect they won't exercise it as well.

But 9/11, Terr'ists, Flag Pin, Freedom.


I clearly remember asking people if they would be happy when the patriot act was used by a democratic President.I was told there would be a  permanent  republican majority.
 
2013-05-20 10:51:35 AM

skullkrusher: It's the manner in which this leaker is pursued that's the question.


What, the judicial oversight and legal authorization based on probable cause?
 
2013-05-20 10:55:14 AM
So I can only assume that the House Rs will be drafting a bill to make this illegal as opposed to currently, where it is totally legal?
 
2013-05-20 10:55:30 AM
So the laws Fox News strongly supported now get used against them, and I'm somehow supposed to feel bad for them?

Cry more crocodile tears.
 
2013-05-20 10:56:34 AM

Dansker: skullkrusher: It's the manner in which this leaker is pursued that's the question.

What, the judicial oversight and legal authorization based on probable cause?


holy crap, does the administration know how easily they can make this go away? You better tell them!
 
2013-05-20 10:56:54 AM

pedrop357: SilentStrider: Aarontology: It's amazing how for the past 12 years the government has had the power to do the exact same thing to citizens with the total compliance and silence of the media, but the moment the same things happen to them, they raise a stink.

And no one is proposing taking that power away from the executive branch. They're just mad the blah guy is using it.

Yep, got to be race.  No other possible reason.

Put your nose in the corner for an hour and think about what you did.


Pointed out that the people who weren't mad when the previous guy did things like this but are suddenly mad that the current guy is doing it now are hypocrites?
That didn't take a lot of corner thinking.
 
2013-05-20 10:57:32 AM

A Dark Evil Omen: So I can only assume that the House Rs will be drafting a bill to make this illegal as opposed to currently, where it is totally legal?


[funny]
 
2013-05-20 10:58:03 AM

trotsky: MFAWG: SlothB77: The Dems have found their Nixon.

David Gregory gave Peg Noonan a pretty good slapdown yesterday when she said these were the worst abuses she'd ever seen by pointing out that Pegs used to work for Nixon

Obama so far has not:

Authorized a clown like Gordon Liddy to bungle what should have been an easy break in to the opposition's HQ and the Psychologists office of a press leak. (Nixon didn't hire Liddy, Colson and Hunt did, Liddy's still a clown act though)

Hired Cubans to act as "foot soldiers"

Authorize "Union Thugs" to beat the snot out of Tea Tard protestors in DC

Go on a witch hunt for political purposes.

Expand a war he is trying to wind down

Nixon and Obama did:

Replace nearly all of their cabinet at the second term.

Inspire irrational hatred amongst the opposition ( to be honest though, Nixon's was kind of justified as he was very well known in politics)

Say they are going to end a war. And do exactly that.

Laugh at the opposition and proceed to do exactly what they want anyway.
( I really like McGovern and the '72 race is great because McGovern was a man of principles who refused to compromise to win. Rmoney was a man of absolutely zero principles who would have compromised anything to win)

If I were Obama I would thank the right for comparing him to Nixon. Nixon, despite the dirty tricks, did many good things. Nixon was the last of the good Republicans.


0bama also did not use the IRS to harass individual journalists or news organizations, something Nixon did on at least 2 occasions
 
2013-05-20 10:58:34 AM

SilentStrider: Aarontology: It's amazing how for the past 12 years the government has had the power to do the exact same thing to citizens with the total compliance and silence of the media, but the moment the same things happen to them, they raise a stink.

And no one is proposing taking that power away from the executive branch. They're just mad the blah guy is using it.


You sound blahsé.
 
2013-05-20 10:58:53 AM

Bendal: //the Patriot Act sucks whether a (D) or (R) is using it


a bunch of THIS.
 
2013-05-20 11:01:00 AM

jedihirsch: And so it goes on. And yet people somehow think this guy is on top of things, honest and genuine guy. I mean this guy is another typical Chicago politician who's a crooked as a $3 bill

. broke dick dog.
FTFY
 
2013-05-20 11:01:44 AM

skullkrusher: Dansker: skullkrusher: It's the manner in which this leaker is pursued that's the question.

What, the judicial oversight and legal authorization based on probable cause?

holy crap, does the administration know how easily they can make this go away? You better tell them!


*shrug* Well, if you won't tell me what the questionable pursuit is, be that way!
As an avid spectator I'm just sitting here across the Atlantic trying to enjoy a bit of US political circus, and I'm sorely disappointed by the lack of actual scandal after all this noise.
 
2013-05-20 11:03:50 AM

Dansker: skullkrusher: Dansker: skullkrusher: It's the manner in which this leaker is pursued that's the question.

What, the judicial oversight and legal authorization based on probable cause?

holy crap, does the administration know how easily they can make this go away? You better tell them!

*shrug* Well, if you won't tell me what the questionable pursuit is, be that way!
As an avid spectator I'm just sitting here across the Atlantic trying to enjoy a bit of US political circus, and I'm sorely disappointed by the lack of actual scandal after all this noise.


the issue is the breadth of the search. The issue is the secrecy behind the search. These are things that do not belong in a free society.
Get the records to nail the leaking cocknose (leaking cocknose?) Do so in a way that protects the privacy of the innocent as much as possible
 
2013-05-20 11:05:33 AM

Popcorn Johnny: Come on Fark, admit that your hero is capable of making a mistake.


Yeah, serving subpoeneas and pulling phone records when someone is accused of a crime totally isn't in the job description of any federal employee anywhere! Oh, wait...
 
2013-05-20 11:06:05 AM

Snarfangel: SilentStrider: Aarontology: It's amazing how for the past 12 years the government has had the power to do the exact same thing to citizens with the total compliance and silence of the media, but the moment the same things happen to them, they raise a stink.

And no one is proposing taking that power away from the executive branch. They're just mad the blah guy is using it.

You sound blahsé.


I lol'd. Nicely done.
 
2013-05-20 11:06:07 AM

skullkrusher: Dansker: skullkrusher: Dansker: skullkrusher: It's the manner in which this leaker is pursued that's the question.

What, the judicial oversight and legal authorization based on probable cause?

holy crap, does the administration know how easily they can make this go away? You better tell them!

*shrug* Well, if you won't tell me what the questionable pursuit is, be that way!
As an avid spectator I'm just sitting here across the Atlantic trying to enjoy a bit of US political circus, and I'm sorely disappointed by the lack of actual scandal after all this noise.

the issue is the breadth of the search. The issue is the secrecy behind the search. These are things that do not belong in a free society.
Get the records to nail the leaking cocknose (leaking cocknose?) Do so in a way that protects the privacy of the innocent as much as possible


Clue me in: were the subpoenas issued in secret?
 
2013-05-20 11:06:45 AM

PreMortem: . A federal judge signed off on the search warrant - agreeing that there was probable cause that Rosen was a co-conspirator.



This rationale is dangerous. The DOJ is trying to criminalize investigative journalism. If a leaker brings up a fact to the reporter, and the reporter asks "I need to see evidence of your claim before I run a story on it, can you provide some proof?", the DOJ claims it can prosecute the reporter for inciting the leaker to reveal additional classified information.
 
Displayed 50 of 241 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report