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.

(Townhall)   Not only is the DOJ bugging and seizing records from FOX News and AP reporters but their friends, parents, other relatives, oh and the corporate execs. First Amendment weeps   (townhall.com) divider line 523
    More: Asinine, 1st amendment, U.S. state abbreviations, David Limbaugh, Espionage Act, investigative journalists, relatives, Fox News, civil liberties  
•       •       •

1571 clicks; posted to Politics » on 22 May 2013 at 1:44 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-05-22 12:28:23 PM
 
2013-05-22 12:29:04 PM
Townhall? I'm sure the article is reputable, but I'll pass on it.
 
2013-05-22 12:30:01 PM
Oh the OUTRAGE!
Obama and co are tapping my communications!

Nevermind that this has been happening under every president in the last 40 years.
 
2013-05-22 12:30:17 PM
I assume this is all in the PATRIOT Act somewhere that we have only had 11 years to read.
 
2013-05-22 12:31:29 PM
Also, Newscorp complaining about tapped phones is a little pot calling the kettle black.
 
2013-05-22 12:37:36 PM
How do you bug a record?
 
2013-05-22 12:38:37 PM
The New York Times editorial board excoriated the Administration. But, I'm sure, as usual, the Administration has done nothing wrong, ever.
 
2013-05-22 12:38:54 PM
"Now that the word is out that Obama Admin seizes Fox phone records, my friends won't call me at work and since the Obama admin also seizes personal cell and email, my friends wont' call or email," Van Susteran tweeted.

Yeah, that's why they won't call you.  So alone.
 
2013-05-22 12:39:29 PM
What did the Usual Suspects say about this a few years ago? Something something nothing to hide?
 
2013-05-22 12:39:48 PM

Nabb1: The New York Times editorial board excoriated the Administration. But, I'm sure, as usual, the Administration has done nothing wrong, ever.


How would you suggest they find the person leaking classified information?
 
2013-05-22 12:40:16 PM

James!: Whoever provided the initial leak to The Associated Press in April 2012 not only broke the law but caused the abrupt end to a secret, joint U.S.-Saudi-British operation in Yemen that offered valuable intelligence against al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula

Yes, the DOJ takes that quite seriously.


Who cares? All that matters is the perception of the DOJ's actions and, specifically, how to use it as political capital against Obama.
 
2013-05-22 12:42:19 PM

James!: Nabb1: The New York Times editorial board excoriated the Administration. But, I'm sure, as usual, the Administration has done nothing wrong, ever.

How would you suggest they find the person leaking classified information?


Go after the leak on their end. The press did not break the law.  Maybe the source did, but the press did not.  The Administration labeled one reporter a "co-conspirator" for the "crime" of asking a source for information. This is an full blown assault on the First Amendment.
 
2013-05-22 12:43:25 PM

steppenwolf: James!: Whoever provided the initial leak to The Associated Press in April 2012 not only broke the law but caused the abrupt end to a secret, joint U.S.-Saudi-British operation in Yemen that offered valuable intelligence against al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula

Yes, the DOJ takes that quite seriously.

Who cares? All that matters is the perception of the DOJ's actions and, specifically, how to use it as political capital against Obama.


No, it's not the issue. At all. If that's what you think, then that's a damned shame.
 
2013-05-22 12:45:38 PM

Nabb1: The New York Times editorial board excoriated the Administration.


Weird, considering how super liberal they are.
 
2013-05-22 12:45:44 PM

Nabb1: James!: Nabb1: The New York Times editorial board excoriated the Administration. But, I'm sure, as usual, the Administration has done nothing wrong, ever.

How would you suggest they find the person leaking classified information?

Go after the leak on their end. The press did not break the law.  Maybe the source did, but the press did not.  The Administration labeled one reporter a "co-conspirator" for the "crime" of asking a source for information. This is an full blown assault on the First Amendment.


Distributing classified information doesn't become legal just because you have a press pass.
 
2013-05-22 12:48:10 PM

Nabb1: James!: Nabb1: The New York Times editorial board excoriated the Administration. But, I'm sure, as usual, the Administration has done nothing wrong, ever.

How would you suggest they find the person leaking classified information?

Go after the leak on their end. The press did not break the law.  Maybe the source did, but the press did not.  The Administration labeled one reporter a "co-conspirator" for the "crime" of asking a source for information. This is an full blown assault on the First Amendment.


But a few years ago, when Karl Rove did it, it was "criminalizing politics".

Interesting.
 
2013-05-22 12:48:38 PM

James!: Nabb1: James!: Nabb1: The New York Times editorial board excoriated the Administration. But, I'm sure, as usual, the Administration has done nothing wrong, ever.

How would you suggest they find the person leaking classified information?

Go after the leak on their end. The press did not break the law.  Maybe the source did, but the press did not.  The Administration labeled one reporter a "co-conspirator" for the "crime" of asking a source for information. This is an full blown assault on the First Amendment.

Distributing classified information doesn't become legal just because you have a press pass.


Whatever happened to innocent before proven guilty?

DoJ is treating everyone as they are guilty. They are attacking the innocent to find the leak. That is completely farked up.
 
2013-05-22 12:50:10 PM

cman: James!: Nabb1: James!: Nabb1: The New York Times editorial board excoriated the Administration. But, I'm sure, as usual, the Administration has done nothing wrong, ever.

How would you suggest they find the person leaking classified information?

Go after the leak on their end. The press did not break the law.  Maybe the source did, but the press did not.  The Administration labeled one reporter a "co-conspirator" for the "crime" of asking a source for information. This is an full blown assault on the First Amendment.

Distributing classified information doesn't become legal just because you have a press pass.

Whatever happened to innocent before proven guilty?

DoJ is treating everyone as they are guilty. They are attacking the innocent to find the leak. That is completely farked up.


How do you determine guilt or innocence if you can't investigate?  Should they be convicted before the DOJ can request phone records?
 
2013-05-22 12:51:16 PM

James!: Nabb1: James!: Nabb1: The New York Times editorial board excoriated the Administration. But, I'm sure, as usual, the Administration has done nothing wrong, ever.

How would you suggest they find the person leaking classified information?

Go after the leak on their end. The press did not break the law.  Maybe the source did, but the press did not.  The Administration labeled one reporter a "co-conspirator" for the "crime" of asking a source for information. This is an full blown assault on the First Amendment.

Distributing classified information doesn't become legal just because you have a press pass.


Wrong. Once the information is leaked, though the person who obtained it may have broken the law, the press cannot be restrained from disseminating it.
 
2013-05-22 12:51:37 PM
Anchor Greta Van Susteran took to Twitter to express her frustration with the secret monitoring, saying friends and family won't call or email anymore out a of a fear of being watched.

Yes Greta, that's why nobody has been calling you.
 
2013-05-22 12:52:46 PM

James!: Whoever provided the initial leak to The Associated Press in April 2012 not only broke the law but caused the abrupt end to a secret, joint U.S.-Saudi-British operation in Yemen that offered valuable intelligence against al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula

Yes, the DOJ takes that quite seriously.


There's an irony here in that the AP (which feeds basically 100% of all media that isn't "a constituent told me") is worried that the DOJ's reaction means that government propaganda will replace journalism, when in reality, it's all propaganda of one kind or another. The AP will never admit that it may have jeopardized a military mission. Or they will, but "journalism" is more important (where "journalism" = "getting my byline on Page 1") anyway, you fascist.

This is why responsible consumers of media at least attempt to find several sources. They may ultimately all come from the same wire report(s), but the secondary sources, the "organizational spin" and the context of the story (like Fox cutting away from the Benghazi hearings because a celebrity got drunk in public) become hugely important.

// no word on whether she was armed with spoon or fork
 
2013-05-22 12:53:20 PM

Nabb1: James!: Nabb1: James!: Nabb1: The New York Times editorial board excoriated the Administration. But, I'm sure, as usual, the Administration has done nothing wrong, ever.

How would you suggest they find the person leaking classified information?

Go after the leak on their end. The press did not break the law.  Maybe the source did, but the press did not.  The Administration labeled one reporter a "co-conspirator" for the "crime" of asking a source for information. This is an full blown assault on the First Amendment.

Distributing classified information doesn't become legal just because you have a press pass.

Wrong. Once the information is leaked, though the person who obtained it may have broken the law, the press cannot be restrained from disseminating it.


What does the law say?
 
2013-05-22 12:55:18 PM

James!: cman: James!: Nabb1: James!: Nabb1: The New York Times editorial board excoriated the Administration. But, I'm sure, as usual, the Administration has done nothing wrong, ever.

How would you suggest they find the person leaking classified information?

Go after the leak on their end. The press did not break the law.  Maybe the source did, but the press did not.  The Administration labeled one reporter a "co-conspirator" for the "crime" of asking a source for information. This is an full blown assault on the First Amendment.

Distributing classified information doesn't become legal just because you have a press pass.

Whatever happened to innocent before proven guilty?

DoJ is treating everyone as they are guilty. They are attacking the innocent to find the leak. That is completely farked up.

How do you determine guilt or innocence if you can't investigate?  Should they be convicted before the DOJ can request phone records?


Should we look at every Muslims phone records to find possible terrorists?
 
2013-05-22 12:55:26 PM
The Patriot Act allows for this under the heading of "National Security." You just have to show that someone somewhere did or said something that MIGHT be dangerous. So IMHO it's a non-issue.. it's what America wanted isn't it? To feel safe and cozy knowing that the government was making sure no scary bad guys hurt us?
 
2013-05-22 12:57:00 PM

James!: Nabb1:
Distributing classified information doesn't become legal just because you have a press pass.

Wrong. Once the information is leaked, though the person who obtained it may have broken the law, the press cannot be restrained from disseminating it.

What does the law say?


The First Amendment and the US Supreme Court in  U.S. v. New York Times,when the DOJ under Richard Nixon unsuccessfully tried to block the Timesand  The Washington Post from running classified documents on the Vietnam War ("the Pentagon Papers") that were leaked to them by Daniel Ellsberg.
 
2013-05-22 12:57:00 PM

cman: Should we look at every Muslims phone records to find possible terrorists?


Now you're being hysterical.  Would you be offended if the DOJ had evidence that a particular group of Muslims was in contact with extremists and requested phone records?
 
2013-05-22 12:58:37 PM

Nabb1: This is an full blown assault on the First Amendment.


No, it's not. They're not stopping the press from saying things, they're trying to stop people from telling the press classified information.
 
2013-05-22 12:58:50 PM
The real threat of Obama is that he has such a cult of personality that his die-hards will back any erosion of liberty even when he starts bullying the press like a tin-pot dictator.
 
2013-05-22 12:59:00 PM

James!: cman: Should we look at every Muslims phone records to find possible terrorists?

Now you're being hysterical.  Would you be offended if the DOJ had evidence that a particular group of Muslims was in contact with extremists and requested phone records?


The problem happens to be with the fact that they ARE ASKING FOR EVERY RECORD UNDER THE SUN
 
2013-05-22 12:59:36 PM

cman: James!: cman: Should we look at every Muslims phone records to find possible terrorists?

Now you're being hysterical.  Would you be offended if the DOJ had evidence that a particular group of Muslims was in contact with extremists and requested phone records?

The problem happens to be with the fact that they ARE ASKING FOR EVERY RECORD UNDER THE SUN regardless of any evidence. This is a blanket search.


Whoops. Fixt
 
2013-05-22 01:00:08 PM
The Kool-Aid seems to be getting more potent.
 
2013-05-22 01:00:32 PM
media.cagle.com
 
2013-05-22 01:00:56 PM
From what I've heard, the leaks are of classified information regarding extremely sensitive information on North Korea.

The first amendment doesn't protect treason.
 
2013-05-22 01:00:56 PM

Lando Lincoln: Nabb1: This is an full blown assault on the First Amendment.

No, it's not. They're not stopping the press from saying things, they're trying to stop people from telling the press classified information.


By bullying the press. By secretly obtaining their phone records. By labeling reporters as "co-conspirators." This is authoritarianism.
 
2013-05-22 01:01:34 PM

Nabb1: U.S. v. New York Times


They discuss grave and probable danger in that ruling.  Publishing this information literally put an operative and his family in danger.  They had to be emergency lifted out of Yemen.
 
2013-05-22 01:02:26 PM

vernonFL: From what I've heard, the leaks are of classified information regarding extremely sensitive information on North Korea.

The first amendment doesn't protect treason.


So, the AP and other reporters are committing treason? This country is in grave danger. I'm not joking.
 
2013-05-22 01:02:50 PM

cman: James!: cman: Should we look at every Muslims phone records to find possible terrorists?

Now you're being hysterical.  Would you be offended if the DOJ had evidence that a particular group of Muslims was in contact with extremists and requested phone records?

The problem happens to be with the fact that they ARE ASKING FOR EVERY RECORD UNDER THE SUN


They are literally not asking for every record under the sun.  Unbunch your drawers.
 
2013-05-22 01:04:29 PM

Nabb1: The real threat of Obama is that he has such a cult of personality that his die-hards will back any erosion of liberty even when he starts bullying the press like a tin-pot dictator.


And this is what the hippies were warning you about for the last decade. Not that it helps stop this now, but good luck getting even the "left" half of Congress to do anything about it.

The GOP loves that this makes the president looks bad almost as much as they'd love to retain this executive power for when THEIR guy is in office - yet as recently as 2 years ago, they wouldn't support a press shield law.
 
2013-05-22 01:05:42 PM

cman: James!: cman: Should we look at every Muslims phone records to find possible terrorists?

Now you're being hysterical.  Would you be offended if the DOJ had evidence that a particular group of Muslims was in contact with extremists and requested phone records?

The problem happens to be with the fact that they ARE ASKING FOR EVERY RECORD UNDER THE SUN


So much hyperbole, it's orbiting the sun like a comet.
 
2013-05-22 01:05:49 PM

Nabb1: So, the AP and other reporters are committing treason?


We're technically at war with Best Korea, so if people are exchanging information that could help our enemy, I think that could be treason, yes.

http://www.politico.com/politico44/2013/05/rosennorth-korea-leak-pro be -stretched-into-white-house-164504.html
 
2013-05-22 01:07:28 PM
This administrations loves leaks... that make it look good.
 
2013-05-22 01:07:47 PM

Nabb1: The real threat of Obama is that he has such a cult of personality that his die-hards will back any erosion of liberty even when he starts bullying the press like a tin-pot dictator.


Of for fark's sake.

He has a "cult of personality" because rational people have spent the last several years listing to conservatives lose their ever loving minds over bullshiat like Benghazi and spicy mustard.

At this point, he could actually violate the constitution, and no one would notice because the howls of outrage have gotten to be white noise.
 
2013-05-22 01:09:11 PM
But the GOP wanted government to have that sort of power. They cried for it, demanded it and fought to make sure the federal government had the authority to shred our rights on a whim so that we would be safe from terror and drugs.

What did they think was going to happen?
 
2013-05-22 01:10:46 PM

what_now: At this point, he could actually violate the constitution, and no one would notice because the howls of outrage have gotten to be white noise.


This, so farking much of THIS. My god man, is this now worse than Benghazi, how about worse than Benghazi time 10? Plus Watergate?

There's so much hysterical shrieking about everything that it's become simply the way the right communicates.
 
2013-05-22 01:11:40 PM
Is Valerie Plame a scandal yet?
 
2013-05-22 01:13:55 PM

Barfmaker: what_now: At this point, he could actually violate the constitution, and no one would notice because the howls of outrage have gotten to be white noise.

This, so farking much of THIS. My god man, is this now worse than Benghazi, how about worse than Benghazi time 10? Plus Watergate?

There's so much hysterical shrieking about everything that it's become simply the way the right communicates.


Exactly. They have cried wolf so many times that when a real scandal comes up (like this) it is impossible to take them seriously.
 
2013-05-22 01:14:00 PM

James!: Nabb1: U.S. v. New York Times

They discuss grave and probable danger in that ruling.  Publishing this information literally put an operative and his family in danger.  They had to be emergency lifted out of Yemen.


Please, we can't be looking at *that* part of the ruling.
 
2013-05-22 01:14:40 PM

Weaver95: But the GOP wanted government to have that sort of power. They cried for it, demanded it and fought to make sure the federal government had the authority to shred our rights on a whim so that we would be safe from terror and drugs.

What did they think was going to happen?


And yet not a single person with a shred of power will suggest repealing the Patriot Act.
They SHOULD. Or they should go back in time and prevent it fron ever being passed in the first place. But heaven forbid anyone take that route. The terrorists would win, or some shiat like that.
 
2013-05-22 01:14:40 PM

Nabb1: steppenwolf: James!: Whoever provided the initial leak to The Associated Press in April 2012 not only broke the law but caused the abrupt end to a secret, joint U.S.-Saudi-British operation in Yemen that offered valuable intelligence against al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula

Yes, the DOJ takes that quite seriously.

Who cares? All that matters is the perception of the DOJ's actions and, specifically, how to use it as political capital against Obama.

No, it's not the issue. At all. If that's what you think, then that's a damned shame.


I'm sorry, but I don't see the issue as monochromatically as you do. While I understand how the DOJs action is more than a little intimidating to journalists and, more importantly, potential whistleblowers, I also understand that this plan was not executed with intimidation as its explicit purpose. As James! has already pointed out, this was started by a particularly egregious leak, and to let it go without doing anything about it is only going to encourage it. My personal opinion on the matter is mixed and I understand your concerns vividly, but I'm finding it hard to be outraged when there is clearly a rational reason for them to persue the action they did.

My original comment is directed at the people at Townhall, WND, and other conservative rags who are disingenuously abusing an issue that deserves critical thought and robust debate as just another sword to wield against their political foe, which only cheapens it.
 
2013-05-22 01:14:46 PM

vernonFL: From what I've heard, the leaks are of classified information regarding extremely sensitive information on North Korea.

The first amendment doesn't protect treason.


Maybe not, but republicans do.  Just try getting a flight into Washington National some time
 
Displayed 50 of 523 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report