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  
•       •       •

6153 clicks; posted to Politics » on 20 May 2013 at 9:50 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
2013-05-20 09:00:47 AM
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
 
2013-05-20 09:05:32 AM
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.
 
2013-05-20 09:10:01 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


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.
 
2013-05-20 09:15:22 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.


And no one is proposing taking that power away from the executive branch. They're just mad the blah guy is using it.
 
2013-05-20 09:20:27 AM

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


As a general rule, that's how you can tell how full of shiat people are.

When there's more time spent on assigning blame and rabble rousing instead of taking action to make sure it can't happen again, you can tell that the people upset about it aren't that upset.
 
2013-05-20 09:24:17 AM
Woohoo, I get to be the initial person to beat subby for linking to page 3 of the article!
 
2013-05-20 09:27:38 AM
Ah, perfect time to turn my phone's tethering name back to "Surveillance Unit Seven" and walk around randomly with broadcast on, I see.
 
2013-05-20 09:53:12 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.


Someone should just quote this every 4th or 5th post in this thread.  There really isn't a whole lot else to be said.
 
2013-05-20 09:53:54 AM
And these are the only tappings that were FOUND OUT.

I remember when spooks showed up at my restaurant reservation in San Diego after following me along hwy 8.
No one knew about the reservation except my work phone.
NICE.
 
2013-05-20 09:54:13 AM
Now FoxNews is gonna come after him.
 
2013-05-20 09:54:50 AM
Sort of lamenting cheer leading for the telecoms' immunity, eh?
 
2013-05-20 09:55:19 AM
Whatever. The important thing everyone's overlooking here is that we were able to foil those pretend terror attacks.
 
2013-05-20 09:56:27 AM
When will they start reporting on the Fark Modmin vast right-wing conservative conspiracy? tens of thousands of greenlights from only a handful of extremist right-wing sources. WAKE UP SHEEPLE
 
2013-05-20 09:56:57 AM
Irrelevant  Irrelevant Irrelevant  Irrelevant

Irrelevant  Irrelevant Irrelevant  Irrelevant

Irrelevant  Irrelevant Irrelevant  Irrelevant

Irrelevant  Irrelevant Irrelevant  Irrelevant

Irrelevant  Irrelevant Irrelevant  Irrelevant

Irrelevant  Irrelevant Irrelevant  Irrelevant

Irrelevant  Irrelevant Irrelevant  Irrelevant

Irrelevant  Irrelevant Irrelevant  Irrelevant
 
2013-05-20 09:57:02 AM

SlothB77: Now FoxNews is gonna come after him.


Oh Noes!!!!
 
2013-05-20 09:57:43 AM
Everything that has been reported the government has done to media outlets was authorized under the Patriot Act. In the past they got court orders to look at civilian phone and email records, now they're doing it to media outlets, and suddenly people are outraged? It's all legal and written down in black and white, and a judge signed off on it. Don't like it, conservatives? Go ahead and amend and/or repeal the Patriot Act, then.

Oh, you don't like it because a Democrat is using the bill you pushed through Congress. Well, that makes all the difference, doesn't it?

/no it doesn't
//the Patriot Act sucks whether a (D) or (R) is using it
 
2013-05-20 09:58:14 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


Thanks for mailing that in.
 
2013-05-20 09:58:26 AM

LowbrowDeluxe: 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.

Someone should just quote this every 4th or 5th post in this thread.  There really isn't a whole lot else to be said.


No, this should be.

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.

 
2013-05-20 09:59:16 AM
All of these "scandals" that have "exploded" over last few weeks make me think of all the sharks from Shark Week in a frenzy over a Slim Jim wrapper.
 
2013-05-20 10:00:23 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.


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?
 
2013-05-20 10:00:31 AM
So remember.  If you ever decide to give an anonymous tip, fark it.  Let the criminal get away
 
2013-05-20 10:00:40 AM
www.bartleby.com

The Dems have found their Nixon.
 
2013-05-20 10:00:41 AM
They had a warrant, which makes it completely different in my book.
 
2013-05-20 10:01:03 AM
"Tapping"?
 
2013-05-20 10:01:17 AM
Come on Fark, admit that your hero is capable of making a mistake.
 
2013-05-20 10:01:48 AM

Bendal: Oh, you don't like it because a Democrat is using the bill you pushed through Congress. Well, that makes all the difference, doesn't it?


You may want to go back and look at the actual vote before making such a claim. The PATRIOT act was as bipartisan as it gets. While you're at it, take a look at who was in charge when it was renewed.

/no it doesn't
//the Patriot Act sucks whether a (D) or (R) is using it


Yes it does, so maybe you should cut the partisan horseshiat so we can work together to do something about it.
 
2013-05-20 10:02:29 AM
Subpoena phone records!=tapping.

For some reason I keep seeing people who want to be really angry about this "confuse" the two

Wonder why they keep doing that?

Is it because it sounds a whole lot worse?
 
2013-05-20 10:02:32 AM
"Hi. I'm from the government. We just killed 8 kajillion brown people in Bumfarkistan. But they we're going to say that they were all terrorists, even the 4 year olds, so that means if you report on it we're going to throw your ass in jail. Kthxbai. FREEDOM!"
 
2013-05-20 10:03:01 AM

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


If you obtained the tip through illegal means, you shouldn't be surprised if law enforcement starts looking into it.

Where did we get the idea that reporting something to the news media somehow confers immunity from prosecution?
 
2013-05-20 10:03:09 AM

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

As a general rule, that's how you can tell how full of shiat people are.

When there's more time spent on assigning blame and rabble rousing instead of taking action to make sure it can't happen again, you can tell that the people upset about it aren't that upset.


They are only upset because now its THEM. They had no issue with it when it was other people. Although, most of the time, people don't care too much about something until it affects them in some way.

And they are so outraged, they should push this law to be repealed.
 
2013-05-20 10:03:28 AM
Great, Obama.  This means that I will have to endure about a jillion loony emails from my GFs Mom.  And they won't be snopes-killable.  Thanks for giving her legitimacy.

/I'm forwarding it to the whitehouse spam filter out of spite.
//grumble grumble grumble
 
2013-05-20 10:08:07 AM
Hey, Subby, you ignorant slut, obtaining phone records is not the same as phone tapping.
The records only show what calls were made, phone tapping means listening in on the actual conversations.
It may be a minor point, but these are two very different levels of intrusion.
 
2013-05-20 10:08:31 AM

Bendal: Everything that has been reported the government has done to media outlets was authorized under the Patriot Act. In the past they got court orders to look at civilian phone and email records, now they're doing it to media outlets, and suddenly people are outraged? It's all legal and written down in black and white, and a judge signed off on it. Don't like it, conservatives? Go ahead and amend and/or repeal the Patriot Act, then.

Oh, you don't like it because a Democrat is using the bill you pushed through Congress. Well, that makes all the difference, doesn't it?

/no it doesn't
//the Patriot Act sucks whether a (D) or (R) is using it


Whats this "you" stuff. Since when is the AP and the Washington Post part of the vast right wing conspiracy?

/I have no problem with this story as it is. They were investigating a crime.
 
2013-05-20 10:09:34 AM

fireclown: Great, Obama.  This means that I will have to endure about a jillion loony emails from my GFs Mom.  And they won't be snopes-killable.  Thanks for giving her legitimacy.

/I'm forwarding it to the whitehouse spam filter out of spite.
//grumble grumble grumble


Is that code for flag[nospam-﹫-backwards]esu­oh­e­tihw­*gov?
 
2013-05-20 10:10:35 AM

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

The Dems have found their Nixon.


You know, funny you should say that because when all this broke I was laughing my ass off that Obama's basically pulled a page from Nixon's playbook. The GOP could never pull anything like that off anymore because most of their people are too goddamn dumb. Nixon was smarter than hell and pretty awesome. So is Obama.

Basically, Obama's just a way better Nixonion politician than any of the clowns currently in Republican positions of power. And I love it.

Even Nixon's happy that somebody can finally  live up to his legacy of dirty tricks, massive foreign policy success and legislation that redefines America:

www.onepennysheet.com

Face it righties, Obama's kicking your ass six ways from Sunday using your own goddamn playbook. You're just too damn dumb to follow it.
 
2013-05-20 10:12:08 AM

Bendal: Everything that has been reported the government has done to media outlets was authorized under the Patriot Act. In the past they got court orders to look at civilian phone and email records, now they're doing it to media outlets, and suddenly people are outraged? It's all legal and written down in black and white, and a judge signed off on it. Don't like it, conservatives? Go ahead and amend and/or repeal the Patriot Act, then.

Oh, you don't like it because a Democrat is using the bill you pushed through Congress. Well, that makes all the difference, doesn't it?

/no it doesn't
//the Patriot Act sucks whether a (D) or (R) is using it


Why do you assume that everyone critical of how the DoJ handled the AP investigation is conservative? The vast majority of both parties support the Patriot Act. Republicans in the House and Senate have largely defended the Administration's heavy-handed dealing with the AP.  You are correct that the Patriot Act sucks. That's all that needs to be said, but this partisan excuse making isn't going to solve anything.
 
2013-05-20 10:12:18 AM
A subpoena is not a wiretap.

Seeking a warrant and getting one issued because of suspected wrong-doing is not "spying".

Engaging in legally authorized activities is not the same as engaging in illegal activities.

Going through proper channels, by the book, is not the same thing as "getting caught doing something wrong".

(And pointing out these stunningly obvious facts does not make me some starry-eyed fanboi cultist.)

That is all.
 
2013-05-20 10:13:14 AM

Callous: LowbrowDeluxe: 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.

Someone should just quote this every 4th or 5th post in this thread.  There really isn't a whole lot else to be said.

No, this should be.

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.


also of the GOP don't like this stuff they should have voted for the media shield law. not that it would have stopped this incident here but it might have made the govt jump through a few more hoops in the AP case.
 
2013-05-20 10:13:20 AM
Fox News has "sources"? I thought they pull all their stories out of their own asses.
 
2013-05-20 10:14:28 AM
The funny thing is that it was probably legal, and the outraged conservatives won't ever support the necessary changes to nat. security exceptions that would make it illegal.
 
2013-05-20 10:14:40 AM
Also, in the instance of the AP, a judge did not sign off on the subpoenas. A clerk did, and the subpoenas were to the phone companies and the AP was not made aware of this until after the information had been turned over by the phone companies to the DoJ. Most subpoenae are signed by the clerk of court and a judge will only see it if some sort of motion is filed later in connection with it.
 
2013-05-20 10:15:43 AM

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!
 
2013-05-20 10:16:32 AM
www2.b3ta.com
Nixon with charisma?
 
2013-05-20 10:16:42 AM

Bendal: Everything that has been reported the government has done to media outlets was authorized under the Patriot Act. In the past they got court orders to look at civilian phone and email records, now they're doing it to media outlets, and suddenly people are outraged? It's all legal and written down in black and white, and a judge signed off on it. Don't like it, conservatives? Go ahead and amend and/or repeal the Patriot Act, then.

Oh, you don't like it because a Democrat is using the bill you pushed through Congress. Well, that makes all the difference, doesn't it?

/no it doesn't
//the Patriot Act sucks whether a (D) or (R) is using it



Pretty much that. Fark the "Patriot" Act its as useful as a "jobs" bill.
And like so many have said they are not listening in just seeing who the called......as far as we know so far.
 
2013-05-20 10:18:18 AM
"Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom. . . of the press;"


Freedom to do what exactly? Print anything?  What about encryption keys to people's bank accounts?
 
2013-05-20 10:18:48 AM

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
 
2013-05-20 10:18:56 AM

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.
 
2013-05-20 10:19:00 AM
Meet the New Boss, same as the Old Boss.

I for one, am shocked, shocked, I say, to find evidence that the POUSA is a crook.
Some might say, just a paid actor following instructions from the same Real Boss as all the rest of the dickheads.
I mean, just look at the trash carried for 50 years.

Remember, if voting changed anything real, it would be illegal.
 
2013-05-20 10:20:23 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.


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

Put your nose in the corner for an hour and think about what you did.
 
2013-05-20 10:22:30 AM
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.
 
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.
 
2013-05-20 11:06:59 AM

skullkrusher: leaking cocknose


You should probably get that looked at. It sounds serious.
 
2013-05-20 11:07:22 AM

MFAWG: 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?


that's the story
 
2013-05-20 11:07:25 AM
So who is gonna be Obamas deep throat?
 
2013-05-20 11:07:58 AM

qorkfiend: skullkrusher: leaking cocknose

You should probably get that looked at. It sounds serious.


heh yeah it felt funny coming out of my fingers at the moment
 
2013-05-20 11:08:52 AM

Cubicle Jockey: 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.


I seem to recall one party or the other advocating for shield laws for journalists.
 
2013-05-20 11:12:14 AM

skullkrusher:
the issue is the breadth of the search.


And what is the issue with that? Obtaining phone records and emails between implicated parties doesn't seem like an overreach.

The issue is the secrecy behind the search.

How secret was it? Who do you feel should have been additionally informed during the investigation?
 
2013-05-20 11:13:10 AM

skullkrusher: MFAWG: 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?

that's the story


From where?

I honestly had not heard that.

Not that it changes anything. Faux is still being misleading by using the word 'seized' as opposed to 'subpoenaed' in their headline.
 
2013-05-20 11:16:49 AM

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

If you obtained the tip through illegal means, you shouldn't be surprised if law enforcement starts looking into it.

Where did we get the idea that reporting something to the news media somehow confers immunity from prosecution?


Yeah!  Where the hell do these people get this "freedom of the press" idea??  Sheesh!
 
2013-05-20 11:19:51 AM

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

If you obtained the tip through illegal means, you shouldn't be surprised if law enforcement starts looking into it.

Where did we get the idea that reporting something to the news media somehow confers immunity from prosecution?

Yeah!  Where the hell do these people get this "freedom of the press" idea??  Sheesh!


All that means is that your newspaper won't be shut down for publishing an article critical of the government, similarly to how an individual citizen won't be tossed in jail for voicing an opinion critical of the government (usually). "Freedom of the press" does not mean you're immune from being compelled to produce testimony or documents, or from criminal prosecution if the means you use to obtain information break laws.

Why do you believe the First Amendment confers additional protections, above and beyond those granted to a normal citizen, simply because an organization calls itself "the press"?
 
2013-05-20 11:20:49 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.


We weren't mad at the media... we were mad to the administration for punishing someone who (gasp) told the truth by deliberately putting his wife in jeopardy.  That's a wildly different scenario.  In this case, we're mad that the gov't, who farked up, is taking that fark-up out on the free press instead of punishing its own.
 
2013-05-20 11:21:01 AM
thetubameister:
Yeah!  Where the hell do these people get this "freedom of the press" idea??  Sheesh!


Freedom of the Press does not mean, nor has it ever meant, that you have the freedom to pass classified information to the press.
 
2013-05-20 11:22:08 AM

MFAWG: I seem to recall one party or the other advocating for shield laws for journalists.


The proposed shield law does the exact opposite of what it claims to.
It makes exceptions to protections when "National Security" issues are involved.
it would be horrible for whistleblower/reporter relations.
 
2013-05-20 11:22:08 AM
So spilling state secrets is okay if your in the "news business"?

Glad to know.
 
2013-05-20 11:23:01 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.


I disagree with everything you said... except the last sentence, to which I exclaim "Amen!".
 
2013-05-20 11:23:06 AM
you're damn it you're
 
2013-05-20 11:23:14 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.


You have to remember how warrants are given out after the patriot act.  it's sort of like finding the right doctor when you need your next oxy fix.  Hell, there are even retroactive warrants.
 
2013-05-20 11:23:24 AM

Dansker: And what is the issue with that? Obtaining phone records and emails between implicated parties doesn't seem like an overreach.


it sounds a lot more like "We know the killer lives in this town so we are going to search every house in the town until we find him." or "There is a trader we suspect of insider trading at Bank of America so we are going to all their trading records for the past 6 months"
 
2013-05-20 11:23:51 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.


He did escalate Yemen & Pakistan
And Holder definitely counts as a clown
 
2013-05-20 11:24:18 AM
every story I've seen on the topic refers to the "secret" subpoenas. Here's an example

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-3460_162-57585213/ap-president-blasts-un co nstitutional-phone-records-probe/
 
2013-05-20 11:24:54 AM

skullkrusher: Dansker: And what is the issue with that? Obtaining phone records and emails between implicated parties doesn't seem like an overreach.

it sounds a lot more like "We know the killer lives in this town so we are going to search every house in the town until we find him." or "There is a trader we suspect of insider trading at Bank of America so we are going to subpoena all their trading records for the past 6 months"


I accidentally that post
 
2013-05-20 11:25:37 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.


Rex Talionis:
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.


Maybe, just maybe, the liberals who were pissed at Plame's outing (and wanted to know the source of the leak, and extract consequences for that leak) and the liberals who support Obama for going after a leak of a similar nature, are actually being consistent in their application of those liberal beliefs.  Unless I'm totally mistaken (which happens frequently), libs were pissed about a leak, and are still pissed about a leak. So maybe it does make sense.  Maybe.
 
2013-05-20 11:26:02 AM

Cubicle Jockey: MFAWG: I seem to recall one party or the other advocating for shield laws for journalists.

The proposed shield law does the exact opposite of what it claims to.
It makes exceptions to protections when "National Security" issues are involved.
it would be horrible for whistleblower/reporter relations.


Which specific law is this?
 
2013-05-20 11:26:11 AM

Kibbler: 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


Only Rapublicans are afraid of "Terror" derp.  The rest of us are ready to move on... have been for 11 years.
 
2013-05-20 11:30:03 AM

Dansker: thetubameister:
Yeah!  Where the hell do these people get this "freedom of the press" idea??  Sheesh!

Freedom of the Press does not mean, nor has it ever meant, that you have the freedom to pass classified information to the press.


I'm pretty sure they weren't passing the info to themselves... the Gov't needs to find it's employee.  The individuals at the AP have every right to express whatever it knows or thinks...
 
2013-05-20 11:30:07 AM
I M P E A C H ! ! ! ! !
 
2013-05-20 11:30:41 AM

skullkrusher: Dansker: And what is the issue with that? Obtaining phone records and emails between implicated parties doesn't seem like an overreach.

it sounds a lot more like "We know the killer lives in this town so we are going to search every house in the town until we find him." or "There is a trader we suspect of insider trading at Bank of America so we are going to all their trading records for the past 6 months"


Or, instead of making spurious comparisons, we could say that it sounds like "We have probable cause to suspect that this government employee was passing sensitive, classified information to this journalist, so we are going to obtain some of their phone records and emails."
No?
 
2013-05-20 11:31:32 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.


see in America it doesn't have to be an actual scandal. It only has to be perceived as one.
 
2013-05-20 11:31:34 AM
HHahahahHaha Nd it was these fox news farksticks that promoted the patriot act which made all this.possible. hahahaha my irony meter went off the charts
 
2013-05-20 11:31:35 AM

Nabb1: Bendal: Everything that has been reported the government has done to media outlets was authorized under the Patriot Act. In the past they got court orders to look at civilian phone and email records, now they're doing it to media outlets, and suddenly people are outraged? It's all legal and written down in black and white, and a judge signed off on it. Don't like it, conservatives? Go ahead and amend and/or repeal the Patriot Act, then.

Oh, you don't like it because a Democrat is using the bill you pushed through Congress. Well, that makes all the difference, doesn't it?

/no it doesn't
//the Patriot Act sucks whether a (D) or (R) is using it

Why do you assume that everyone critical of how the DoJ handled the AP investigation is conservative? The vast majority of both parties support the Patriot Act. Republicans in the House and Senate have largely defended the Administration's heavy-handed dealing with the AP.  You are correct that the Patriot Act sucks. That's all that needs to be said, but this partisan excuse making isn't going to solve anything.


Then this is a non-issue and certainly not a "scandal" as Faux News and various other conservative mouthpieces have been trying to make, now is it? Under the Patriot Act every bit of this non-issue is legal; a court order was granted and the phone companies gave up the call records. Case closed, let's move on to something else.

Oh, the conservatives still are trying to turn this into something? Then it is most certainly a partisan issue, isn't it?
 
2013-05-20 11:32:36 AM

DraconianTotalitarian: HHahahahHaha Nd it was these fox news farksticks that promoted the patriot act which made all this.possible. hahahaha my irony meter went off the charts


I think this would have been legal before the patriot act.
 
2013-05-20 11:33:01 AM

Dansker: skullkrusher: Dansker: And what is the issue with that? Obtaining phone records and emails between implicated parties doesn't seem like an overreach.

it sounds a lot more like "We know the killer lives in this town so we are going to search every house in the town until we find him." or "There is a trader we suspect of insider trading at Bank of America so we are going to all their trading records for the past 6 months"

Or, instead of making spurious comparisons, we could say that it sounds like "We have probable cause to suspect that this government employee was passing sensitive, classified information to this journalist, so we are going to obtain some of their phone records and emails."
No?


that would make sense if they obtained the phone records of a single journalist whom they suspected of having contact with the leaker.
 
2013-05-20 11:34:56 AM

puddleonfire: And these are the only tappings that were FOUND OUT.

I remember when spooks showed up at my restaurant reservation in San Diego after following me along hwy 8.
No one knew about the reservation except my work phone.
NICE.


It's not your work phone, it's that chip they implanted the last time you had dental work.
 
2013-05-20 11:41:09 AM

skullkrusher: Dansker: skullkrusher: Dansker: And what is the issue with that? Obtaining phone records and emails between implicated parties doesn't seem like an overreach.

it sounds a lot more like "We know the killer lives in this town so we are going to search every house in the town until we find him." or "There is a trader we suspect of insider trading at Bank of America so we are going to all their trading records for the past 6 months"

Or, instead of making spurious comparisons, we could say that it sounds like "We have probable cause to suspect that this government employee was passing sensitive, classified information to this journalist, so we are going to obtain some of their phone records and emails."
No?

that would make sense if they obtained the phone records of a single journalist whom they suspected of having contact with the leaker.


Can you cite a relevant court case or actual law that says this?
 
2013-05-20 11:43:53 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.


And /thread.
 
2013-05-20 11:44:21 AM

MFAWG: skullkrusher: Dansker: skullkrusher: Dansker: And what is the issue with that? Obtaining phone records and emails between implicated parties doesn't seem like an overreach.

it sounds a lot more like "We know the killer lives in this town so we are going to search every house in the town until we find him." or "There is a trader we suspect of insider trading at Bank of America so we are going to all their trading records for the past 6 months"

Or, instead of making spurious comparisons, we could say that it sounds like "We have probable cause to suspect that this government employee was passing sensitive, classified information to this journalist, so we are going to obtain some of their phone records and emails."
No?

that would make sense if they obtained the phone records of a single journalist whom they suspected of having contact with the leaker.

Can you cite a relevant court case or actual law that says this?


that says what? He mischaracterized what the story is about. It isn't about seizing the records of a single journalist. So no, I cannot cite a court case or law which says that his post was incorrect.
 
2013-05-20 11:51:30 AM

ThighsofGlory: It's not your work phone, it's that chip they implanted the last time you had dental work.


i.movie.as

Approves
 
2013-05-20 11:53:03 AM

Schubert'sCell: 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.

Rex Talionis:
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.

Maybe, just maybe, the liberals who were pissed at Plame's outing (and wanted to know the source of the leak, and extract consequences for that leak) and the liberals who support Obama for going after a leak of a similar nature, are actually being consistent in their application of those liberal beliefs.  Unless I'm totally mistaken (which happens frequently), libs were pissed about a leak, and are still pissed about a leak. So maybe it does make sense.  Maybe.


First you didn't want me to get the pony! Now you want me to take it back! Make up your mind.
 
2013-05-20 12:00:54 PM
Application for search warrant. Link, PDF
 
2013-05-20 12:05:54 PM

skullkrusher: Dansker: skullkrusher: Dansker: And what is the issue with that? Obtaining phone records and emails between implicated parties doesn't seem like an overreach.

it sounds a lot more like "We know the killer lives in this town so we are going to search every house in the town until we find him." or "There is a trader we suspect of insider trading at Bank of America so we are going to all their trading records for the past 6 months"

Or, instead of making spurious comparisons, we could say that it sounds like "We have probable cause to suspect that this government employee was passing sensitive, classified information to this journalist, so we are going to obtain some of their phone records and emails."
No?

that would make sense if they obtained the phone records of a single journalist whom they suspected of having contact with the leaker.


Maybe you read a different article, and maybe you are conflating two different cases.
 
2013-05-20 12:08:44 PM

ShadowKamui: 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.

He did escalate Yemen & Pakistan
And Holder definitely counts as a clown


LOLOLOL. Holder is nowhere near the level of John Mitchell or Liddy. Hell, the entire "Fast and Furious" thing was Fox's attempt to create something far bigger than it was. G. Gordon Liddy is a macho moron who farked the Nixon presidency six ways to Sunday. Even Colson admitted that Liddy went overboard in his break-ins. The right sure does love posturing macho morons who wave their guns around but can't back up shiat, don't they?

How did Obama escalate Yemen? Did he go and bomb Saudi Arabia or something? Did he send Kissenger in?

How did he escalate Pakistan? Seriously, how? By killing Bin Laden? Pakistan was escalated the minute we went in during 9/11. Once we're out of Afghanistan, Pakistan will be deprived of it's military aid, again.

Also, the Nixon Library had Rumsfeld last week as a guest. That piece of shiat had the nerve to talk about Benghazi as a scandal. Never mind that scumbag killed how many Americans by sending in an ill-equipped force with a short-sighted, shiat long term strategy to invade a state that stabilized the region.
 
2013-05-20 12:09:37 PM

SilentStrider: 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.


That's only a valid point if the same people doing it now were NOT opposed to it when the last guy did it, and/or if those who are opposed to it now were not opposed to it before.

Also, please prove that race is what is driving the opposition to this crap.
 
2013-05-20 12:24:17 PM
If I remember, Dems were in an uproar when Robert Novak outed Valerie Plame and that as a journalist he had freedom of the press. However, now that Obama's Administration and DOJ are targeting the opposition with the complicit MSM it's ok?

Dems are funny people.  Buncha little Eichmann's.
 
2013-05-20 12:24:31 PM
It's not as if Fox News has anything to do with journalism.
 
2013-05-20 12:28:00 PM

Cubicle Jockey: 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.


Well, only if you think "investigate" and "prosecute" are synonyms.

Could be they're trying to prosecute only the person or persons who leaked the info, and are investigating the journalists to find the leaker(s).
 
2013-05-20 12:28:54 PM

SithLord: If I remember, Dems were in an uproar when Robert Novak outed Valerie Plame and that as a journalist he had freedom of the press. However, now that Obama's Administration and DOJ are targeting the opposition with the complicit MSM it's ok?

Dems are funny people.  Buncha little Eichmann's.


Wrong talking point. This is supposed to be about Obama targeting the MSM during an investigation of a DoJ employee.
 
2013-05-20 12:31:56 PM
givien the statistics on black men in prison, Mr. Obama has got to be sweating this now. peoeple will go to jail ove the tax records leak and when they start playing lets make a deal how many ghetto rats will roll over on the black jesus?


//over under?
 
2013-05-20 12:33:58 PM
I certainly trust Republicans more now.


Oh wait.
 
2013-05-20 12:36:40 PM

skullkrusher: skullkrusher: Dansker: And what is the issue with that? Obtaining phone records and emails between implicated parties doesn't seem like an overreach.

it sounds a lot more like "We know the killer lives in this town so we are going to search every house in the town until we find him." or "There is a trader we suspect of insider trading at Bank of America so we are going to subpoena all their trading records for the past 6 months"

I accidentally that post


More like "We are going to search every house that we believe the killer and his accomplices visited" or "We are going to subpoena records for trades executed by the people we suspect of insider trading".
 
2013-05-20 12:36:47 PM
Sorry, a State Department employee, not DoJ.
 
2013-05-20 12:39:02 PM
Too many alts, not enough space on the ignore list
 
2013-05-20 12:47:12 PM

thetubameister: Dansker: thetubameister:
Yeah!  Where the hell do these people get this "freedom of the press" idea??  Sheesh!

Freedom of the Press does not mean, nor has it ever meant, that you have the freedom to pass classified information to the press.

I'm pretty sure they weren't passing the info to themselves... the Gov't needs to find it's employee.  The individuals at the AP have every right to express whatever it knows or thinks...


I'm terribly sorry, I've made the faux pas of talking about the case described in the actual article. My bad.
 
2013-05-20 12:55:51 PM
AP is right wing? since when?
 
2013-05-20 12:56:03 PM

skullkrusher: He mischaracterized what the story is about.


I would be insulted, if I wasn't so drunk.
 
2013-05-20 01:03:30 PM

Duke_leto_Atredes: givien the statistics on black men in prison, Mr. Obama has got to be sweating this now. peoeple will go to jail ove the tax records leak and when they start playing lets make a deal how many ghetto rats will roll over on the black jesus?


//over under?


WTF is this I don't even
 
2013-05-20 01:04:53 PM
I'm afraid that between this, the IRS screw up, Benghazi and a whole host of other issues the Democratic Party will have a very very difficult time in both the 2014 and 2016 elections. There are also yet to happen crisis in the next 3 years to add to this pile as well.
Perhaps it is wise that Hillary might not run afterall because she will come in as a liability and will almost certainly concede the WH to a Republican.
 
2013-05-20 01:05:03 PM
This would make me upset if I thought of Fox as a valid journalistic source.

Comparing Fox to "news" is like comparing churches to scientific laboratories. It's apples to wing nuts.
 
2013-05-20 01:17:22 PM
Warrentless wire-tapping was fine when GWB was president, but now that  Black Democrat is president there is a problem.

Some people just really fail at logic
 
2013-05-20 01:19:33 PM
And they caught the government leak.

/Back to whargarble about how a jobs bill needs to ban abortion in order to create more jobs in child welfare offices.
 
2013-05-20 01:20:16 PM

kkinnison: Warrentless wire-tapping was fine when GWB was president, but now that  Black Democrat is president there is a problem.

Some people just really fail at logic


Some of us are opposed to it no matter who is in office.
 
2013-05-20 01:24:16 PM

YixilTesiphon: kkinnison: Warrentless wire-tapping was fine when GWB was president, but now that  Black Democrat is president there is a problem.

Some people just really fail at logic

Some of us are opposed to it no matter who is in office.


Shouldn't you be saving this conversation for when there's actually a story about warrantless wiretaps?
 
2013-05-20 01:37:17 PM

SuperNinjaToad: I'm afraid that between this, the IRS screw up, Benghazi and a whole host of other issues the Democratic Party will have a very very difficult time in both the 2014 and 2016 elections. There are also yet to happen crisis in the next 3 years to add to this pile as well.
Perhaps it is wise that Hillary might not run afterall because she will come in as a liability and will almost certainly concede the WH to a Republican.


You sound... concerned.
 
2013-05-20 01:41:50 PM

SithLord: If I remember, Dems were in an uproar when Robert Novak outed Valerie Plame and that as a journalist he had freedom of the press. However, now that Obama's Administration and DOJ are targeting the opposition with the complicit MSM it's ok?

Dems are funny people.  Buncha little Eichmann's.


It could be that Plame was outed because of political reasons related to the lie that Bush made about going to war, and the AP records were seized because they put a deep cover operative in danger.

Apples and oranges.
 
2013-05-20 01:43:13 PM

Bendal: Everything that has been reported the government has done to media outlets was authorized under the Patriot Act. In the past they got court orders to look at civilian phone and email records, now they're doing it to media outlets, and suddenly people are outraged? It's all legal and written down in black and white, and a judge signed off on it. Don't like it, conservatives? Go ahead and amend and/or repeal the Patriot Act, then.

Oh, you don't like it because a Democrat is using the bill you pushed through Congress. Well, that makes all the difference, doesn't it?

/no it doesn't
//the Patriot Act sucks whether a (D) or (R) is using it


This isn't even Partiot Act Stuff,  with a awarrant a wiretap of a phone (or these days E-mail) has been legal since mabel was a canoe, and phone RECORDS which the AP is getting pissy about have never needed a a warrant,  The Supreme court ruled long ago that Phone records and pin registers that record what umber calls a particular phone or waht calls are made from it do NOT require a warrant to search.install.  The logic is they beling to the phone company, not you, so there is no "expectation of privacy" that attaches to them
 
2013-05-20 01:46:11 PM

kkinnison: Warrentless wire-tapping was fine when GWB was president, but now that  Black Democrat is president there is a problem.

Some people just really fail at logic


Except this has nothing to do with warrantless wiretapping, and everything to do with seizing phone records with a legal warrant.
 
2013-05-20 01:47:48 PM

To The Escape Zeppelin!: 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.

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?


OTOH should news organizations hostile to the government have carte blanche to solicit and publish information damaging to national security?  The heart of this story is a leak that more or less blew the cover of an Al-qaeda double agent  who we had turned.   Whether that was fatal to him or not, it certainly badly hurt our intel gathering and made us more vulnerable to terrorist attack.  IF it is illegal for the possesors of classified information to dislcose it, at what point does soliciting those links cross over into "accessory" territory?   Is it possible to draw a line that preserves a free press AND national security?

I don;t pretend to have the answers, I'm just askin the questions
 
2013-05-20 01:50:22 PM

Zeppelininthesky: SithLord: If I remember, Dems were in an uproar when Robert Novak outed Valerie Plame and that as a journalist he had freedom of the press. However, now that Obama's Administration and DOJ are targeting the opposition with the complicit MSM it's ok?

Dems are funny people.  Buncha little Eichmann's.

It could be that Plame was outed because of political reasons related to the lie that Bush made about going to war, and the AP records were seized because they put a deep cover operative in danger.

Apples and oranges.


Just give it up, man. You can't logic your way through that much derp.
 
2013-05-20 01:50:29 PM
global3.memecdn.com
 
2013-05-20 01:52:14 PM

Zeppelininthesky: SithLord: If I remember, Dems were in an uproar when Robert Novak outed Valerie Plame and that as a journalist he had freedom of the press. However, now that Obama's Administration and DOJ are targeting the opposition with the complicit MSM it's ok?

Dems are funny people.  Buncha little Eichmann's.

It could be that Plame was outed because of political reasons related to the lie that Bush made about going to war, and the AP records were seized because they put a deep cover operative in danger.

Apples and oranges.


Not to mention that "Dems" were anti-leak in both cases. A better contract would have been the Manning/Wikileaks incident. Personally, the only time I might forgive someone for leaking national secrets would be if it exposed ongoing abuses. And, the leaked material would have to be limited to what was needed to expose the abuse.
 
2013-05-20 02:04:49 PM

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


Still better than Mittens/Ryan
 
2013-05-20 02:08:45 PM
Obtaining phone records is not the same as phone tapping, you stupid piece of farking garbage!
 
2013-05-20 02:11:58 PM

YixilTesiphon: kkinnison: Warrentless wire-tapping was fine when GWB was president, but now that  Black Democrat is president there is a problem.

Some people just really fail at logic

Some of us are opposed to it no matter who is in office.


Are either of you opposed to acting like this is about wiretapping or lack of warrant?
 
2013-05-20 02:15:58 PM
The good part is that when the neocons start pissing themselves with fake-ass righteous anger about some trumped-up shiate they invented as a pathetic method of publicly smearing Barack, all we have to do is start laughing at how they can totally suck balls until 2016, when we will elect Hillary. I can already imagine the right-wing heads exploding over that. They'll be absolutely having kittens when they lose in 2020. By then hopefully even more of them will have died out.
 
2013-05-20 02:20:08 PM

trotsky: ShadowKamui: 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.

He did escalate Yemen & Pakistan
And Holder definitely counts as a clown

LOLOLOL. Holder is nowhere near the level of John Mitchell or Liddy. Hell, the entire "Fast and Furious" thing was Fox's attempt to create something far bigger than it was. G. Gordon Liddy is a macho moron who farked the Nixon presidency six ways to Sunday. Even Colson admitted that Liddy went overboard in his break-ins. The right sure does love posturing macho morons who wave their guns around but can't back up shiat, don't they?

How did Obama escalate Yemen? Did he go and bomb Sau ...


Shrub wasn't bombing Yemen and Obama sure as hell escalated the drone strike program in Pakistan

And Holder is the worse AG in modern history (well maybe the labor riot Pinkerton one from the 20s is still worse) for "To Big To Jail" and HSBC, he's either the stupidest or is flat out in bed w/ the Mexican drug lords.  F&F is nothing but a derp cherry on top of that fail cake
 
2013-05-20 02:25:49 PM
What an overly left biased headline that is.  Come on submitter, you are better than that.
 
2013-05-20 02:27:43 PM

Mr_Fabulous: A subpoena is not a wiretap.

Seeking a warrant and getting one issued because of suspected wrong-doing is not "spying".

Engaging in legally authorized activities is not the same as engaging in illegal activities.

Going through proper channels, by the book, is not the same thing as "getting caught doing something wrong".

(And pointing out these stunningly obvious facts does not make me some starry-eyed fanboi cultist.)

That is all.


Yeah, I totally agree.  If we were to reform what was actually illegal to address how wrong this seems, sure.  If you're in the middle of "pretend it's Obama's fault and he's breaking the law," then you're a bad citizen.
 
2013-05-20 02:38:54 PM

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.


Yes. A free press able to report the governments actions without fear definitely does outweigh some spook.
 
2013-05-20 02:40:23 PM
Which do you think is worse an administration who knew nothing about it (assuming they are telling the truth) or an administration who ordered it and is now trying to distance themselves from it? Either way you go you fail which is pretty much standard operating procedure for this administration. Incompetence or injustice.
 
2013-05-20 02:43:59 PM

Ned Stark: 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.

Yes. A free press able to report the governments actions without fear definitely does outweigh some spook.


Why do you believe the First Amendment confers additional protections upon journalists and the press, above and beyond those afforded to other citizens?
 
2013-05-20 02:48:26 PM

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

As a general rule, that's how you can tell how full of shiat people are.

When there's more time spent on assigning blame and rabble rousing instead of taking action to make sure it can't happen again, you can tell that the people upset about it aren't that upset.


This. I'm still disgusted by it, but I don't hear the media calling for the law's repeal. I don't hear Republicans screaming about how bad the law is, and that they're going to eliminate it soon. No, I hear a lot of crying about a legal (though morally repugnant to me) search warrant.

I want the law gone, heck the whole unPatriot Act should go. The expanded FISA should be erased from the books. I'm not just against it for this instance, it's morally repugnant to me, and has been for years.

Yes, all the way back when it was first passed. I was called a liebeul terrist simpathizer, because I thought the laws we were passing were idiotic and morally wrong.

The reporters sided with Bush on this issue. They sowed the wind and are now reaping the whirlwind. The same goes for Republicans who don't have the balls to move for it's change or removal.
 
2013-05-20 02:48:57 PM

qorkfiend: Ned Stark: 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.

Yes. A free press able to report the governments actions without fear definitely does outweigh some spook.

Why do you believe the First Amendment confers additional protections upon journalists and the press, above and beyond those afforded to other citizens?


1)Refresh my memory, where did I mention the first amendment at all?
 
2013-05-20 02:50:56 PM

Ned Stark: qorkfiend: Ned Stark: 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.

Yes. A free press able to report the governments actions without fear definitely does outweigh some spook.

Why do you believe the First Amendment confers additional protections upon journalists and the press, above and beyond those afforded to other citizens?

1)Refresh my memory, where did I mention the first amendment at all?


"Free press".
 
2013-05-20 02:53:58 PM

Profedius: Which do you think is worse an administration who knew nothing about it (assuming they are telling the truth) or an administration who ordered it and is now trying to distance themselves from it? Either way you go you fail which is pretty much standard operating procedure for this administration. Incompetence or injustice.


Obama is personally involved in every minute detail of every agency in government?
 
2013-05-20 02:55:12 PM
This iS all just an effort to distract the country from umbrellagate.
 
2013-05-20 02:55:55 PM

Profedius: Which do you think is worse an administration who knew nothing about it (assuming they are telling the truth) or an administration who ordered it and is now trying to distance themselves from it?


I don't see why the administration would be involved in a State Dept. leak probe, and I haven't seen anything to indicate they are doing anything to distance themselves from this case.

Incompetence or injustice.

The leaker was found and has been indicted by a grand jury on a charge of espionage.
I fail to see the incompetence or injustice
 
2013-05-20 02:56:32 PM

qorkfiend: Ned Stark: qorkfiend: Ned Stark: 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.

Yes. A free press able to report the governments actions without fear definitely does outweigh some spook.

Why do you believe the First Amendment confers additional protections upon journalists and the press, above and beyond those afforded to other citizens?

1)Refresh my memory, where did I mention the first amendment at all?

"Free press".


You must be confused. We were looking for where I mentioned "first amendment".

They do both start with f I suppose.
 
2013-05-20 02:59:49 PM

Mr_Fabulous: A subpoena is not a wiretap.

Seeking a warrant and getting one issued because of suspected wrong-doing is not "spying".

Engaging in legally authorized activities is not the same as engaging in illegal activities.

Going through proper channels, by the book, is not the same thing as "getting caught doing something wrong".

(And pointing out these stunningly obvious facts does not make me some starry-eyed fanboi cultist.)

That is all.


Bears repeating.
 
2013-05-20 03:10:41 PM
The three big crises this week:
(1) Getting legal subpoenas to determine is a person did something illegal, who happens to be an AP reporter;
(2) The IRS investigating groups that identified themselves as political organizations to find out if they did something illegal by getting a big tax break from claiming that they were not political organizations; and
(3) Getting an embassy in Benghazi blowed up a long, long time ago.

It seems to me that the rightwinger types are really getting desperate to find something to whine about. Is that really the best they can do?
 
2013-05-20 03:11:28 PM
Oh really? A Murdoch news agency was spied on? Oh how terrible!
 
2013-05-20 03:27:00 PM

Ned Stark: qorkfiend: Ned Stark: qorkfiend: Ned Stark: 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.

Yes. A free press able to report the governments actions without fear definitely does outweigh some spook.

Why do you believe the First Amendment confers additional protections upon journalists and the press, above and beyond those afforded to other citizens?

1)Refresh my memory, where did I mention the first amendment at all?

"Free press".

You must be confused. We were looking for where I mentioned "first amendment".

They do both start with f I suppose.


Are you serious?
 
2013-05-20 03:30:46 PM

qorkfiend: Ned Stark: 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.

Yes. A free press able to report the governments actions without fear definitely does outweigh some spook.

Why do you believe the First Amendment confers additional protections upon journalists and the press, above and beyond those afforded to other citizens?


False dichotomy.
 
2013-05-20 03:32:21 PM

Mugato: This iS all just an effort to distract the country from umbrellagate.


Wait! What is Rihanna's involvement in all these?
 
2013-05-20 03:32:28 PM

qorkfiend: Ned Stark: qorkfiend: Ned Stark: qorkfiend: Ned Stark: 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.

Yes. A free press able to report the governments actions without fear definitely does outweigh some spook.

Why do you believe the First Amendment confers additional protections upon journalists and the press, above and beyond those afforded to other citizens?

1)Refresh my memory, where did I mention the first amendment at all?

"Free press".

You must be confused. We were looking for where I mentioned "first amendment".

They do both start with f I suppose.

Are you serious?


Are you?

I said that a free press is fundamentally more valuable than some damn spook. Then you started herping about some vaugely related at best matter of constitutional law and you haven't stopped since.
 
2013-05-20 03:34:33 PM

This text is now purple: qorkfiend: Ned Stark: 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.

Yes. A free press able to report the governments actions without fear definitely does outweigh some spook.

Why do you believe the First Amendment confers additional protections upon journalists and the press, above and beyond those afforded to other citizens?

False dichotomy.


You're going to have to get a bit more specific than that, my friend.
 
2013-05-20 03:36:01 PM

Ned Stark: qorkfiend: Ned Stark: qorkfiend: Ned Stark: qorkfiend: Ned Stark: 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.

Yes. A free press able to report the governments actions without fear definitely does outweigh some spook.

Why do you believe the First Amendment confers additional protections upon journalists and the press, above and beyond those afforded to other citizens?

1)Refresh my memory, where did I mention the first amendment at all?

"Free press".

You must be confused. We were looking for where I mentioned "first amendment".

They do both start with f I suppose.

Are you serious?

Are you?

I said that a free press is fundamentally more valuable than some damn spook. Then you started herping about some vaugely related at best matter of constitutional law and you haven't stopped since.


And I was wondering why you think the simple mention of "free press" (the genesis of which is the First Amendment, in case you didn't get that) gives you a get-out-of-jail free card.
 
2013-05-20 03:45:09 PM

Bendal: Everything that has been reported the government has done to media outlets was authorized under the Patriot Act. In the past they got court orders to look at civilian phone and email records, now they're doing it to media outlets, and suddenly people are outraged? It's all legal and written down in black and white, and a judge signed off on it. Don't like it, conservatives? Go ahead and amend and/or repeal the Patriot Act, then.

Oh, you don't like it because a Democrat is using the bill you pushed through Congress. Well, that makes all the difference, doesn't it?

/no it doesn't
//the Patriot Act sucks whether a (D) or (R) is using it


The Patriot act had massive support from both republicans and democrats.
 
2013-05-20 03:45:12 PM

qorkfiend: Ned Stark: qorkfiend: Ned Stark: qorkfiend: Ned Stark: qorkfiend: Ned Stark: 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.

Yes. A free press able to report the governments actions without fear definitely does outweigh some spook.

Why do you believe the First Amendment confers additional protections upon journalists and the press, above and beyond those afforded to other citizens?

1)Refresh my memory, where did I mention the first amendment at all?

"Free press".

You must be confused. We were looking for where I mentioned "first amendment".

They do both start with f I suppose.

Are you serious?

Are you?

I said that a free press is fundamentally more valuable than some damn spook. Then you started herping about some vaugely related at best matter of constitutional law and you haven't stopped since.

And I was wondering why you think the simple mention of "free press" (the genesis of which is the First Amendment, in case you didn't get that) gives you a get-out-of-jail free card.


False premise. The first amendment allegedly protects a free press, but is hardly the origin or be all end all of the concept. "Free press" means exactly what it means. That is, a press which is free. Nothing more or less.

Also, get out of jail free card? Why would I need one? You have raised no argument at all, much less one fit to send me scampering from the thread with my tail between my legs.
 
2013-05-20 03:50:44 PM

qorkfiend: This text is now purple: qorkfiend: Ned Stark: 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.

Yes. A free press able to report the governments actions without fear definitely does outweigh some spook.

Why do you believe the First Amendment confers additional protections upon journalists and the press, above and beyond those afforded to other citizens?

False dichotomy.

You're going to have to get a bit more specific than that, my friend.


Belief in a free press in no way carries the connotation that such a thing "confers additional protections upon journalists and the press, above and beyond those afforded to other citizens." More specifically, such a requirement is specifically untrue -- anyone can be a journalist, which is why the right is interpreted broadly. The press has no rights "above and beyond those afforded to other citizens." They do tend to have lawyers on retainer and ink contracts sold by the barrel, however.
 
2013-05-20 03:52:29 PM

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.


That federal judge is another Chicago Fat Cat deep in his pockets.

/Scarface was the last honest bastion that city ever saw
 
2013-05-20 03:56:36 PM
So has Obama himself been implicated in any of these 'scandals' yet? With, y'know, evidence instead of "Well, he's the President so he should know ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING that happens in the government because we expect Presidents to be farking omnipotent".
 
2013-05-20 03:57:49 PM

SithLord: If I remember, Dems were in an uproar when Robert Novak outed Valerie Plame and that as a journalist he had freedom of the press. However, now that Obama's Administration and DOJ are targeting the opposition with the complicit MSM it's ok?


Uh, no, it's not "ok".

It is, however, legal. Just like it is legal for a judge to jail a reporter who won't reveal a source. The freedom of the press does not include the right to hide information from the authorities during an investigation of a criminal action.

Also, your memory of the Valerie Plame case is faulty. The Dems were in an uproar because the members of the Bush administration apparently leaked classified information to get revenge on an administration critic. It was clear almost right away that the more important question was who were the senior administration officials that were Novak's sources, yet the GOP seemed to want to focus on punishing Novak.

So, you are comparing the uproar over a criminal leak that outed a CIA agent, resulting in the convention of the top aide who leaked the info (Scooter Libby) and a presidential commutation of that aide's sentence with the entirely legal hunt for information to track down a leak.

No wonder you guys have a hard time understanding what is and is not a scandal.
 
2013-05-20 04:03:23 PM

SuperNinjaToad: I'm afraid that between this, the IRS screw up, Benghazi and a whole host of other issues the Democratic Party will have a very very difficult time in both the 2014 and 2016 elections. There are also yet to happen crisis in the next 3 years to add to this pile as well.
Perhaps it is wise that Hillary might not run afterall because she will come in as a liability and will almost certainly concede the WH to a Republican.


I noticed that the GOP has been a lot quieter about Benghazi since it was revealed that it was the emails used to prove the administration was lying were actually altered by the GOP, and it was the GOP that was lying.
 
2013-05-20 04:07:14 PM

Zasteva: SuperNinjaToad: I'm afraid that between this, the IRS screw up, Benghazi and a whole host of other issues the Democratic Party will have a very very difficult time in both the 2014 and 2016 elections. There are also yet to happen crisis in the next 3 years to add to this pile as well.
Perhaps it is wise that Hillary might not run afterall because she will come in as a liability and will almost certainly concede the WH to a Republican.

I noticed that the GOP has been a lot quieter about Benghazi since it was revealed that it was the emails used to prove the administration was lying were actually altered by the GOP, and it was the GOP that was lying.


Gee, I wonder why....
 
2013-05-20 04:15:52 PM

Zasteva: SithLord: If I remember, Dems were in an uproar when Robert Novak outed Valerie Plame and that as a journalist he had freedom of the press. However, now that Obama's Administration and DOJ are targeting the opposition with the complicit MSM it's ok?

Uh, no, it's not "ok".

It is, however, legal. Just like it is legal for a judge to jail a reporter who won't reveal a source. The freedom of the press does not include the right to hide information from the authorities during an investigation of a criminal action.

Also, your memory of the Valerie Plame case is faulty. The Dems were in an uproar because the members of the Bush administration apparently leaked classified information to get revenge on an administration critic. It was clear almost right away that the more important question was who were the senior administration officials that were Novak's sources, yet the GOP seemed to want to focus on punishing Novak.

So, you are comparing the uproar over a criminal leak that outed a CIA agent, resulting in the convention of the top aide who leaked the info (Scooter Libby) and a presidential commutation of that aide's sentence with the entirely legal hunt for information to track down a leak.

No wonder you guys have a hard time understanding what is and is not a scandal.


They know exactly what a scandal is. A scandal is "Any time someone in a Democratic administration does absolutely anything".
 
2013-05-20 04:27:55 PM
a57.foxnews.com

Ever since Obama thought up The Patriot Act and forced it into law (despite Republican outrage), Fox news has been the only media outlet willing to stand up to this gross abuse of AMERICA'S FREEDOMS.
 
2013-05-20 04:28:44 PM
Who farking cares?

Bush did it and the GOP didn't complain, so why should we care when Obama does the same?
 
2013-05-20 04:34:53 PM

Zeppelininthesky: Obama is personally involved in every minute detail of every agency in government?


Dansker: The leaker was found and has been indicted by a grand jury on a charge of espionage.
I fail to see the incompetence or injustice




Trying to discover a leak within the white house would be an investigation your administration would want to monitor. Incompetence is not following the investigation (I didn't know anything about it.) injustice is interfering with the freedom of the press. Yes I know we have laws that allow for this, but those laws are unjust.
 
2013-05-20 04:39:56 PM

super_grass: Who farking cares?

Bush did it and the GOP didn't complain, so why should we care when Obama does the same?


Because the GOP are pretty terrible people and their outrage or nonoutrage shouldn't steer your decisions?
 
2013-05-20 05:03:51 PM

Profedius:
Trying to discover a leak within the white house would be an investigation your administration would want to monitor.
Incompetence is not following the investigation (I didn't know anything about it.)


A head of state or head of government and their ministers shouldn't be personally involved in or monitor a criminal investigation. It will always raise suspicion of impropriety.

injustice is interfering with the freedom of the press.

Can you describe how press freedom was interfered with? I don't think the journalist has been charged with anything, and legally obtaining phone records in a criminal investigation with possible national security implications can hardly be described as intimidation.
Obviously the concept of "national security implications" can be abused to cover criminal behaviour and injustice, but I can't see where it happened in this case.
 
2013-05-20 05:05:20 PM

Ned Stark: super_grass: Who farking cares?

Bush did it and the GOP didn't complain, so why should we care when Obama does the same?

Because the GOP are pretty terrible people and their outrage or nonoutrage shouldn't steer your decisions?


Yes, but they're usually Obama's biggest critics. Therefore, whenever anyone criticizes Obama I will associate them with the Neo-Cons of the last administration who were okay with Bush's abuses. Obviously those people are hypocrites, and I'm going to summarily dismiss any criticism of Obama that they make.

QED: Any criticism of this president is done by lackeys of the last one, and their opinions don't matter because they didn't speak about this kind of abuse then their guy did the same thing (and their guy is a major asshole).

And no suggestions of how this is a race to the bottom. It's a stupid argument for reasons that I will not say.
 
2013-05-20 05:22:24 PM

Bendal: Everything that has been reported the government has done to media outlets was authorized under the Patriot Act. In the past they got court orders to look at civilian phone and email records, now they're doing it to media outlets, and suddenly people are outraged? It's all legal and written down in black and white, and a judge signed off on it. Don't like it, conservatives? Go ahead and amend and/or repeal the Patriot Act, then.

Oh, you don't like it because a Democrat is using the bill you pushed through Congress. Well, that makes all the difference, doesn't it?

/no it doesn't
//the Patriot Act sucks whether a (D) or (R) is using it


.08/10

/they would have to be legally drunk to fall for this troll.
 
2013-05-20 05:26:44 PM

Profedius: Yes I know we have laws that allow for this, but those laws are unjust.


Is it more or less injust than for news organizations in search of a scoop to be able to publicly disclose classified information about active intelligence operations that put people's lives in danger?
 
2013-05-20 05:35:58 PM

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, still, no call from the Media to repeal the Patriot Act. It's like they are incapable of seeing the connection.
 
2013-05-20 05:44:21 PM

Profedius: Zeppelininthesky: Obama is personally involved in every minute detail of every agency in government?

Dansker: The leaker was found and has been indicted by a grand jury on a charge of espionage.
I fail to see the incompetence or injustice

Trying to discover a leak within the white house would be an investigation your administration would want to monitor. Incompetence is not following the investigation (I didn't know anything about it.) injustice is interfering with the freedom of the press. Yes I know we have laws that allow for this, but those laws are unjust.


The AP journalists had leaked classified information about a terrorist plot and endangered a deep cover operative. The DOJ got a legal warrant to look at the phone records. How is this interfering with the freedom of press?
 
2013-05-20 05:46:00 PM

super_grass: Ned Stark: super_grass: Who farking cares?

Bush did it and the GOP didn't complain, so why should we care when Obama does the same?

Because the GOP are pretty terrible people and their outrage or nonoutrage shouldn't steer your decisions?

Yes, but they're usually Obama's biggest critics. Therefore, whenever anyone criticizes Obama I will associate them with the Neo-Cons of the last administration who were okay with Bush's abuses. Obviously those people are hypocrites, and I'm going to summarily dismiss any criticism of Obama that they make.

QED: Any criticism of this president is done by lackeys of the last one, and their opinions don't matter because they didn't speak about this kind of abuse then their guy did the same thing (and their guy is a major asshole).

And no suggestions of how this is a race to the bottom. It's a stupid argument for reasons that I will not say.


[Funny]ed.

Because anything else is too horrifying.
 
2013-05-20 05:47:21 PM
C'mon Barry, just say the safe words and everyone will back off, it's that simple. Just say it. Say it!!!!!

Hint: "Patriot Act"
 
2013-05-20 05:47:49 PM

Zeppelininthesky: Profedius: Zeppelininthesky: Obama is personally involved in every minute detail of every agency in government?

Dansker: The leaker was found and has been indicted by a grand jury on a charge of espionage.
I fail to see the incompetence or injustice

Trying to discover a leak within the white house would be an investigation your administration would want to monitor. Incompetence is not following the investigation (I didn't know anything about it.) injustice is interfering with the freedom of the press. Yes I know we have laws that allow for this, but those laws are unjust.

The AP journalists had leaked classified information about a terrorist plot and endangered a deep cover operative. The DOJ got a legal warrant to look at the phone records. How is this interfering with the freedom of press?


Because the press publishing information they've been given damn well shouldn't be a crime.
 
2013-05-20 06:23:38 PM

Ned Stark: Because the press publishing information they've been given damn well shouldn't be a crime.


It should never be a crime? Suppose a document filled with personal social security numbers was leaked to the press - should the press be able to publish the entire document to the public?
 
2013-05-20 06:42:16 PM

Ned Stark: Zeppelininthesky: Profedius: Zeppelininthesky: Obama is personally involved in every minute detail of every agency in government?

Dansker: The leaker was found and has been indicted by a grand jury on a charge of espionage.
I fail to see the incompetence or injustice

Trying to discover a leak within the white house would be an investigation your administration would want to monitor. Incompetence is not following the investigation (I didn't know anything about it.) injustice is interfering with the freedom of the press. Yes I know we have laws that allow for this, but those laws are unjust.

The AP journalists had leaked classified information about a terrorist plot and endangered a deep cover operative. The DOJ got a legal warrant to look at the phone records. How is this interfering with the freedom of press?

Because the press publishing information they've been given damn well shouldn't be a crime.


If by "Given", you mean "Actively assisted in leaking".

The press cannot break into your house, steal your records, publish them and hide behind "Freedom of the press".
 
2013-05-20 07:07:21 PM

RexTalionis: Ned Stark: Because the press publishing information they've been given damn well shouldn't be a crime.

It should never be a crime? Suppose a document filled with personal social security numbers was leaked to the press - should the press be able to publish the entire document to the public?


Or the names and addresses of everyone who applied for a gun permit.

/ fwoosh!
 
2013-05-20 07:07:27 PM

Ned Stark: Zeppelininthesky: Profedius: Zeppelininthesky: Obama is personally involved in every minute detail of every agency in government?

Dansker: The leaker was found and has been indicted by a grand jury on a charge of espionage.
I fail to see the incompetence or injustice

Trying to discover a leak within the white house would be an investigation your administration would want to monitor. Incompetence is not following the investigation (I didn't know anything about it.) injustice is interfering with the freedom of the press. Yes I know we have laws that allow for this, but those laws are unjust.

The AP journalists had leaked classified information about a terrorist plot and endangered a deep cover operative. The DOJ got a legal warrant to look at the phone records. How is this interfering with the freedom of press?

Because the press publishing information they've been given damn well shouldn't be a crime.


You mean information that was illegally leaked and compromised a major terrorist investigation? The one that actively endangered a deep cover operative?
 
2013-05-20 07:21:03 PM

Zeppelininthesky: Ned Stark: Zeppelininthesky: Profedius: Zeppelininthesky: Obama is personally involved in every minute detail of every agency in government?

Dansker: The leaker was found and has been indicted by a grand jury on a charge of espionage.
I fail to see the incompetence or injustice

Trying to discover a leak within the white house would be an investigation your administration would want to monitor. Incompetence is not following the investigation (I didn't know anything about it.) injustice is interfering with the freedom of the press. Yes I know we have laws that allow for this, but those laws are unjust.

The AP journalists had leaked classified information about a terrorist plot and endangered a deep cover operative. The DOJ got a legal warrant to look at the phone records. How is this interfering with the freedom of press?

Because the press publishing information they've been given damn well shouldn't be a crime.

You mean information that was illegally leaked and compromised a major terrorist investigation? The one that actively endangered a deep cover operative?


yes, that one.
 
2013-05-20 07:37:45 PM

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.


That's the real scandal.  Power should be taken from the executive branch but only the partisan bullshiat gets air time.
 
2013-05-20 07:46:11 PM

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.


www.slate.com
 
2013-05-20 08:25:05 PM
And the next president will do all the same things plus a little more.  Voters will tolerate it as long as it's there guy in office.
 
2013-05-20 08:25:22 PM

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

Ron Paul!

/obligatory


Yeah. That's because they don't believe in Jesus.

/wants to play too
//isn't proud
low-hanging fruit and all that
 
2013-05-20 09:31:43 PM
Donna always noticed when Josh got a new suit.

/maybe it was Sam. Or, Tobey. NOT TOBEY!
 
2013-05-20 10:00:15 PM
www.troll.me
 
2013-05-20 11:20:55 PM

RobertBruce: 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.

You have to remember how warrants are given out after the patriot act.  it's sort of like finding the right doctor when you need your next oxy fix.  Hell, there are even retroactive warrants.


Was not

"Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for a period not to exceed fifteen calendar days following a declaration of war by the Congress. "

part of FISA well before the Patriot act?
 
2013-05-20 11:35:16 PM

Jake Havechek: Obtaining phone records is not the same as phone tapping, you stupid piece of farking garbage!


Those who think they should be the same, can blame SCOTUS, class of 1979

/VoIP via onion routing, coming soon to a news room near you
//or burner phones if you're really lazy
///I've missed a season.  did Dexter ever get caught because of his fondness for using cell phones from kill rooms?
 
2013-05-20 11:37:35 PM
Lots of partisan herpderp, very little condemnation of an Executive encroaching on freedom of the press. It is not the duty of the media to keep government's secrets for them. Can we all just agree on that, or are we too busy Wharrgarbling about how any criticism of Obama is racism?
 
2013-05-20 11:48:21 PM

mrexcess: Lots of partisan herpderp, very little condemnation of an Executive encroaching on freedom of the press. It is not the duty of the media to keep government's secrets for them. Can we all just agree on that, or are we too busy Wharrgarbling about how any criticism of Obama is racism?


It is also not the duty of the media to actively aid in leaking information. Which this dipsh*t did.

Would you be OK with a reporter giving a burglar a lockpick and having him steal your various personal records, which that reporter then publishes? Would prosecuting that reporter infringe on freedom of the press?
 
2013-05-20 11:53:08 PM

Ned Stark: Because the press publishing information they've been given damn well shouldn't be a crime.


So if the press were doing a documentary on gang rape, and actually participated in a gang rape during research of the story, it wouldn't be a crime because it was for publication?
 
2013-05-21 12:15:38 AM

mrexcess: Lots of partisan herpderp, very little condemnation of an Executive encroaching on freedom of the press. It is not the duty of the media to keep government's secrets for them. Can we all just agree on that, or are we too busy Wharrgarbling about how any criticism of Obama is racism?


They leaked classified information that put lives in danger. It is illegal.
 
2013-05-21 12:58:58 AM

LowbrowDeluxe: 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.

Someone should just quote this every 4th or 5th post in this thread.  There really isn't a whole lot else to be said.


Pfft, like judges aren't crooked.
 
2013-05-21 02:24:50 AM

sendtodave: Pfft, like judges aren't crooked.


Secret judges.  You'll never be able to find out if that's true or not

intrada.net.
 
2013-05-21 08:02:06 AM

RexTalionis: Ned Stark: Because the press publishing information they've been given damn well shouldn't be a crime.

It should never be a crime? Suppose a document filled with personal social security numbers was leaked to the press - should the press be able to publish the entire document to the public?


That wouldn't be news.
 
2013-05-21 08:04:05 AM

LordJiro: Ned Stark: Zeppelininthesky: Profedius: Zeppelininthesky: Obama is personally involved in every minute detail of every agency in government?

Dansker: The leaker was found and has been indicted by a grand jury on a charge of espionage.
I fail to see the incompetence or injustice

Trying to discover a leak within the white house would be an investigation your administration would want to monitor. Incompetence is not following the investigation (I didn't know anything about it.) injustice is interfering with the freedom of the press. Yes I know we have laws that allow for this, but those laws are unjust.

The AP journalists had leaked classified information about a terrorist plot and endangered a deep cover operative. The DOJ got a legal warrant to look at the phone records. How is this interfering with the freedom of press?

Because the press publishing information they've been given damn well shouldn't be a crime.

If by "Given", you mean "Actively assisted in leaking".

The press cannot break into your house, steal your records, publish them and hide behind "Freedom of the press".


That's breaking and entering... hardly a press issue.
 
2013-05-21 08:04:51 AM

super_grass: RexTalionis: Ned Stark: Because the press publishing information they've been given damn well shouldn't be a crime.

It should never be a crime? Suppose a document filled with personal social security numbers was leaked to the press - should the press be able to publish the entire document to the public?

Or the names and addresses of everyone who applied for a gun permit.

/ fwoosh!


Public Record

/buzzed and pointing out the obvious this morning...
 
2013-05-21 08:07:22 AM

Vlad_the_Inaner: Ned Stark: Because the press publishing information they've been given damn well shouldn't be a crime.

So if the press were doing a documentary on gang rape, and actually participated in a gang rape during research of the story, it wouldn't be a crime because it was for publication?


/notsureifserious

The false comparisons on page 5 are hysterical!
 
2013-05-21 08:14:30 AM

Zeppelininthesky: mrexcess: Lots of partisan herpderp, very little condemnation of an Executive encroaching on freedom of the press. It is not the duty of the media to keep government's secrets for them. Can we all just agree on that, or are we too busy Wharrgarbling about how any criticism of Obama is racism?

They leaked classified information that put lives in danger. It is illegal.


LordJiro: mrexcess: Lots of partisan herpderp, very little condemnation of an Executive encroaching on freedom of the press. It is not the duty of the media to keep government's secrets for them. Can we all just agree on that, or are we too busy Wharrgarbling about how any criticism of Obama is racism?

It is also not the duty of the media to actively aid in leaking information. Which this dipsh*t did.

Would you be OK with a reporter giving a burglar a lockpick and having him steal your various personal records, which that reporter then publishes? Would prosecuting that reporter infringe on freedom of the press?


Holy shiat you guys are retarded. It is not illegal for the press to print information that was leaked to them. The government employee (you know, the one person in this mess who actually signed a NDA) leaked the information. Did you idiots learn nothing from the wikileaks fiasco? In that case, Manning broke the law. Assange did not. Is it really that farking hard to understand?
 
2013-05-21 08:47:21 AM

thetubameister: RexTalionis: Ned Stark: Because the press publishing information they've been given damn well shouldn't be a crime.

It should never be a crime? Suppose a document filled with personal social security numbers was leaked to the press - should the press be able to publish the entire document to the public?

That wouldn't be news.


It's Fark?
 
Displayed 241 of 241 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »





Report