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

(Guardian)   President Obama's assault on the First Amendment continues   (theguardian.com) divider line 337
    More: Obvious, Obama administration, 1st amendment, shield laws, press freedom, First Amendment Center, Espionage Act, duty of care  
•       •       •

5437 clicks; posted to Politics » on 12 Aug 2013 at 11:32 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-08-12 07:48:29 PM  

vygramul: firefly212: That's what gets me about this... I don't care about foreign surveillance... but what the FISA court has authorized, by saying anyone three steps out is that if A talks to B, and party A is foreign, and connected to a national security issue, that conversation is covered (I'm ok with that so far)... but then it goes further, even if B is American, it says that the NSA can listen to all calls between B and C, even if there is no evidence of knowledge or participation by B.... then it goes even further, the NSA can listen to conversations between parties C and D under the three steps out rule... C and D can both be American, and even if neither of them is aware of the existence of A, the NSA can record their conversations. What we've effectively constructed under those ospices is a system where the NSA can take any two parties (including domestically), record their conversations, then try to retroactively connect them to some other party, then try to connect that party to someone in one of their investigations... and voila, it's legit!

I know the argument has been made by President Obama, and some here on fark, that it isn't a domestic spying program, it's a foreign spying program that just *happens* to capture all your internet and phone data domestically... but the effect, if not the tortured reasoning behind it, is incredibly Orwellian, and just plain wrong... the net effect is that we are all, in the eyes of our own government, suspects, not citizens.

This is what really bothers me about short-sightedness in government. That Supreme Court ruling from DECADES ago, that phone metadata is not private, is now coming around to truly bite us in the ass.


I agree with you on that.

When I am feeling cynical, I think that the laws are only followed when it's convenient, and that justice is mostly a luxury item that can be counterfeited for the right price.
 
2013-08-12 07:57:10 PM  

Crotchrocket Slim: super_grass: Massive invasions of privacy.

Done.

And don't give me that "legally sound" crap. One of the reasons why these surveillance programs are so obnoxious is the wall of shady legal technicalities used to shield them from scrutiny.

Find a law broken and file your court motion if you have the legal standing then buddy.


The ACLU and like a dozen other organizations already did.
 
2013-08-12 08:03:43 PM  

coyo: Zeppelininthesky: Cletus C.: Zeppelininthesky: *yawn*

Wake me up when leaking classified information is not a crime. The guy released classified info as revenge. He is facing jail time because he refuses to testify against the person who gave him the classified info. This is hardly a new thing. It has been done since 1984, and no one really said much.

Ok then. But it can be rather chilling to the information-gathering process to have the threat of jail hanging over you while you're trying to do your job as a reporter. Does it matter what the past looks like when you have an issue right here, right now that needs discussing.

If you allow the government to have complete control of information it does not speak well for this country. This administration has had several high-profile cases of going after reporters recently. From the AP phone record grab to the Fox guy to this guy.

All government employees are probably afraid to talk to the media these days. That, in my opinion, is not a good thing.

If you think it's boring and not unusual that's your opinion.

Stealing classified information is not legal. Period. This guy is no a whistleblower. He released classified information as revenge for getting fired. He is not doing it because some terrible secret, but because he is a pompous asshole who wanted revenge. The CIA person who gave him the info broke the law, and is on trial. And for the record, the AP phone record grab was legal, because of the same exact reason.

See the papers, pentagon.

Your argument leads directly to the absurdity that if a massacre was classified, revealing it would be wrong and illegal.


No. If it was released that a massacre happened, the person could be a whistleblower, and thus under protection.
 
2013-08-12 08:16:23 PM  
firefly212:

 I can say that in the agency I was working with, that I had access to things I didn't need access to (I never used that access, but it was there)... I had that access because I got my clearance, a clearance that was necessitated by the (imho) improper classification of stuff with no discernible security value whatsoever. I cannot imagine, within DoD (to include NSA) organizational ratings, there are decent safeguards 

You 'had access' but you were not, I am quite sure, actually legally/by policy permitted to access material outside that required for the task you were retained to perform. If you went into another file using your access you would be potentially in deep shiat, regardless of 'clearance'. Clearance to a certain level is NOT in any way equivalent to authorisation to access (let alone release/duplicate) all information at that level. Is anything about that incorrect?

Inadequate monitoring of actual access to prevent simple criminal theft (manning) or just plain excessive access/snooping (snowden) is a potentially serious issue, but not the issue being actually highlighted and complained about by anyone at all.

I have a key/security code to this building and access to all rooms and servers. I have the necessary credentials to access/manipulate all data. However accessing my colleagues (or even worse, customers) personnel files or wage records would be both illegal and an instant dismissal offense.
 
2013-08-12 08:28:36 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: I am the libbiest lib who has ever been a liberal and even I think that this is going to far.
It isn't just an attack on the First Amendment, it is an attack on Journalism (with a capital "J").


I'm sorry, but this was HILARIOUS. 5kg of dairy product a LIBERAL?! Man, I've seen everything.
 
2013-08-12 08:30:04 PM  
That darn, darn Bush!
 
2013-08-12 08:31:59 PM  

Zeppelininthesky: coyo: Zeppelininthesky: Cletus C.: Zeppelininthesky: *yawn*

Wake me up when leaking classified information is not a crime. The guy released classified info as revenge. He is facing jail time because he refuses to testify against the person who gave him the classified info. This is hardly a new thing. It has been done since 1984, and no one really said much.

Ok then. But it can be rather chilling to the information-gathering process to have the threat of jail hanging over you while you're trying to do your job as a reporter. Does it matter what the past looks like when you have an issue right here, right now that needs discussing.

If you allow the government to have complete control of information it does not speak well for this country. This administration has had several high-profile cases of going after reporters recently. From the AP phone record grab to the Fox guy to this guy.

All government employees are probably afraid to talk to the media these days. That, in my opinion, is not a good thing.

If you think it's boring and not unusual that's your opinion.

Stealing classified information is not legal. Period. This guy is no a whistleblower. He released classified information as revenge for getting fired. He is not doing it because some terrible secret, but because he is a pompous asshole who wanted revenge. The CIA person who gave him the info broke the law, and is on trial. And for the record, the AP phone record grab was legal, because of the same exact reason.

See the papers, pentagon.

Your argument leads directly to the absurdity that if a massacre was classified, revealing it would be wrong and illegal.

No. If it was released that a massacre happened, the person could be a whistleblower, and thus under protection.


What is the distinction in this case? Is it that one was secretly rubber stamped as legal? What if the massacre was deemed legal and it's knowledge a matter of 'national security'?
 
2013-08-12 08:35:44 PM  

coyo: Zeppelininthesky: coyo: Zeppelininthesky: Cletus C.: Zeppelininthesky: *yawn*

Wake me up when leaking classified information is not a crime. The guy released classified info as revenge. He is facing jail time because he refuses to testify against the person who gave him the classified info. This is hardly a new thing. It has been done since 1984, and no one really said much.

Ok then. But it can be rather chilling to the information-gathering process to have the threat of jail hanging over you while you're trying to do your job as a reporter. Does it matter what the past looks like when you have an issue right here, right now that needs discussing.

If you allow the government to have complete control of information it does not speak well for this country. This administration has had several high-profile cases of going after reporters recently. From the AP phone record grab to the Fox guy to this guy.

All government employees are probably afraid to talk to the media these days. That, in my opinion, is not a good thing.

If you think it's boring and not unusual that's your opinion.

Stealing classified information is not legal. Period. This guy is no a whistleblower. He released classified information as revenge for getting fired. He is not doing it because some terrible secret, but because he is a pompous asshole who wanted revenge. The CIA person who gave him the info broke the law, and is on trial. And for the record, the AP phone record grab was legal, because of the same exact reason.

See the papers, pentagon.

Your argument leads directly to the absurdity that if a massacre was classified, revealing it would be wrong and illegal.

No. If it was released that a massacre happened, the person could be a whistleblower, and thus under protection.

What is the distinction in this case? Is it that one was secretly rubber stamped as legal? What if the massacre was deemed legal and it's knowledge a matter of 'national security'?


"Collateral damage".

The word is "collateral damage". And word gets out on the massacre, the enemy would know our troops' position, endangering American lives. We can't have that. It's best if he just went through the proper government channels and filed a complaint.
 
2013-08-12 08:40:23 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: someonelse: tenpoundsofcheese: PsiChick: tenpoundsofcheese: I am the libbiest lib who has ever been a liberal and even I think that this is going to far.
It isn't just an attack on the First Amendment, it is an attack on Journalism (with a capital "J").

I have you farkied in orange asking why anyone posts here without getting paid. You're not liberal OR conservative. You're paid for it.

Interesting.  I have you farkied in mauve since you lie so much.
Do you have any proof that I am paid to post?

Do you have any proof that you are the libbiest lib who ever libbed?

I never said that so I need no proof.


Keep note of this, in case you ever slightly twist someone else's words to try and pin them with something. "I didn't say those exact words, so nah nah it's not true!" Just note this right here. We can look at this right here when you change someone else's words, so we can laugh at you even more.
 
2013-08-12 08:43:34 PM  

super_grass: coyo: Zeppelininthesky: coyo: Zeppelininthesky: Cletus C.: Zeppelininthesky: *yawn*

Wake me up when leaking classified information is not a crime. The guy released classified info as revenge. He is facing jail time because he refuses to testify against the person who gave him the classified info. This is hardly a new thing. It has been done since 1984, and no one really said much.

Ok then. But it can be rather chilling to the information-gathering process to have the threat of jail hanging over you while you're trying to do your job as a reporter. Does it matter what the past looks like when you have an issue right here, right now that needs discussing.

If you allow the government to have complete control of information it does not speak well for this country. This administration has had several high-profile cases of going after reporters recently. From the AP phone record grab to the Fox guy to this guy.

All government employees are probably afraid to talk to the media these days. That, in my opinion, is not a good thing.

If you think it's boring and not unusual that's your opinion.

Stealing classified information is not legal. Period. This guy is no a whistleblower. He released classified information as revenge for getting fired. He is not doing it because some terrible secret, but because he is a pompous asshole who wanted revenge. The CIA person who gave him the info broke the law, and is on trial. And for the record, the AP phone record grab was legal, because of the same exact reason.

See the papers, pentagon.

Your argument leads directly to the absurdity that if a massacre was classified, revealing it would be wrong and illegal.

No. If it was released that a massacre happened, the person could be a whistleblower, and thus under protection.

What is the distinction in this case? Is it that one was secretly rubber stamped as legal? What if the massacre was deemed legal and it's knowledge a matter of 'national security'?

"Collateral damage".

The word is "collateral damage". And word gets out on the massacre, the enemy would know our troops' position, endangering American lives. We can't have that. It's best if he just went through the proper government channels and filed a complaint.


How about a year after it happened?
 
2013-08-12 08:57:48 PM  

coyo: super_grass: coyo: Zeppelininthesky: coyo: Zeppelininthesky: Cletus C.: Zeppelininthesky: *yawn*

Wake me up when leaking classified information is not a crime. The guy released classified info as revenge. He is facing jail time because he refuses to testify against the person who gave him the classified info. This is hardly a new thing. It has been done since 1984, and no one really said much.

Ok then. But it can be rather chilling to the information-gathering process to have the threat of jail hanging over you while you're trying to do your job as a reporter. Does it matter what the past looks like when you have an issue right here, right now that needs discussing.

If you allow the government to have complete control of information it does not speak well for this country. This administration has had several high-profile cases of going after reporters recently. From the AP phone record grab to the Fox guy to this guy.

All government employees are probably afraid to talk to the media these days. That, in my opinion, is not a good thing.

If you think it's boring and not unusual that's your opinion.

Stealing classified information is not legal. Period. This guy is no a whistleblower. He released classified information as revenge for getting fired. He is not doing it because some terrible secret, but because he is a pompous asshole who wanted revenge. The CIA person who gave him the info broke the law, and is on trial. And for the record, the AP phone record grab was legal, because of the same exact reason.

See the papers, pentagon.

Your argument leads directly to the absurdity that if a massacre was classified, revealing it would be wrong and illegal.

No. If it was released that a massacre happened, the person could be a whistleblower, and thus under protection.

What is the distinction in this case? Is it that one was secretly rubber stamped as legal? What if the massacre was deemed legal and it's knowledge a matter of 'national security'?

"Collateral damage ...


No man, the troop movements are classified until the government decides to have it unclassified. During this time, any attempts to reveal this information will lead to classified charges.

Also, the classification of the information is also classified, and so is the de-classification process.

It's for your safety, who are you to think that you know better than government?
 
2013-08-12 09:21:33 PM  

coyo: Zeppelininthesky: coyo: Zeppelininthesky: Cletus C.: Zeppelininthesky: *yawn*

Wake me up when leaking classified information is not a crime. The guy released classified info as revenge. He is facing jail time because he refuses to testify against the person who gave him the classified info. This is hardly a new thing. It has been done since 1984, and no one really said much.

Ok then. But it can be rather chilling to the information-gathering process to have the threat of jail hanging over you while you're trying to do your job as a reporter. Does it matter what the past looks like when you have an issue right here, right now that needs discussing.

If you allow the government to have complete control of information it does not speak well for this country. This administration has had several high-profile cases of going after reporters recently. From the AP phone record grab to the Fox guy to this guy.

All government employees are probably afraid to talk to the media these days. That, in my opinion, is not a good thing.

If you think it's boring and not unusual that's your opinion.

Stealing classified information is not legal. Period. This guy is no a whistleblower. He released classified information as revenge for getting fired. He is not doing it because some terrible secret, but because he is a pompous asshole who wanted revenge. The CIA person who gave him the info broke the law, and is on trial. And for the record, the AP phone record grab was legal, because of the same exact reason.

See the papers, pentagon.

Your argument leads directly to the absurdity that if a massacre was classified, revealing it would be wrong and illegal.

No. If it was released that a massacre happened, the person could be a whistleblower, and thus under protection.

What is the distinction in this case? Is it that one was secretly rubber stamped as legal? What if the massacre was deemed legal and it's knowledge a matter of 'national security'?


Let's look at it another way. If someone stole plans and secrets for a new stealth fighter, and gave it to another country, would that be legal or illegal? It is all based on intent.

We are not arguing that the guy who stole the classified information was guilty of a crime. We are talking about someone who is compelled to testify against someone who broke the law.
 
2013-08-12 09:57:38 PM  

RexTalionis: factoryconnection: but would it have killed the columnist's message to even briefly explain the basis for the ruling against James Risen invoking reporter's privilege?

You can read the decision for yourself here, however, the crux of the issue pertaining to the Reporter's Privilege was that the 4th Circuit cited the 1972 Supreme Court Decision Branzburg v. Hayes, which stated that there is no general purpose reporter's privilege arising out of the First Amendment.

http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/Published/115028.p.pdf (a discussion of the common law reporter's privilege starts at around page 32.)


We go through this every time a reporter gets jailed for refusing to name sources.

It hasn't "killed" journalism; their own incompetence and inability to report on timely stories in a coherent manner has done that quite adequately for them.
 
2013-08-12 09:59:57 PM  

vpb: Weaver95: Yup. You rat out important and powerful people, then they can destroy your career, put you in jail and scare the piss out of anyone who dares help you. That's the American way!

Except that that's not what this guy did.  He revealed information on CIA operations against CIA operations against the Iranian nuclear program as revenge for his being fired.  He even said hat he was going to leak classified information to get revenge.  The reporter wrote a book about the CIA operations.

I don't think any country would grant immunity to someone like that.  This isn't even about getting the reporter to reveal his source, they already know that.  It's just about having him testify about a crime he witnessed.

Not what TFA claimed at all.


So the whistleblower is a bitter old prick.  Doesn't mean that the information isn't deserving of sunshine.

BTW, couldn't the reporter also claim a 5th Amendment protection?
 
2013-08-12 10:36:55 PM  

pueblonative: vpb: Weaver95: Yup. You rat out important and powerful people, then they can destroy your career, put you in jail and scare the piss out of anyone who dares help you. That's the American way!

Except that that's not what this guy did.  He revealed information on CIA operations against CIA operations against the Iranian nuclear program as revenge for his being fired.  He even said hat he was going to leak classified information to get revenge.  The reporter wrote a book about the CIA operations.

I don't think any country would grant immunity to someone like that.  This isn't even about getting the reporter to reveal his source, they already know that.  It's just about having him testify about a crime he witnessed.

Not what TFA claimed at all.

So the whistleblower is a bitter old prick.  Doesn't mean that the information isn't deserving of sunshine.

BTW, couldn't the reporter also claim a 5th Amendment protection?


Due process violation? Right not to self incriminate? How do you figure?
 
2013-08-12 11:12:24 PM  
Maybe the GOPers in Congress can help.
 
2013-08-12 11:13:11 PM  

SphericalTime: WTF?  Why is a New York Times reporter not being given "reporter's privilege" under the 1st Amendment?


Maybe the NYT should try a second amendment remedy.
 
2013-08-12 11:16:54 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: Aristocles: Generic Republican: tenpoundsofcheese: I am the libbiest lib who has ever been a liberal and even I think that this is going to far.
It isn't just an attack on the First Amendment, it is an attack on Journalism (with a capital "J").

Awww, did someone forget he was logged into his troll account?

When will this "forget what account you logged onto" meme end?

It's been established that tenpoundsofcheese is, in fact, the libbiest lib who has ever held liberal beliefs.

Deal with it.

There are so many odd memes here:
-  must be a paid troll
-  he disagrees with me, so the person is a troll
-  there is more than one person who disagrees with me, so that must be an alt.

I got a 7.9 on the fark libiest lib evaluation last week and I don't think there are that many 8.0s or above.


You got caught using the wrong screen name, but keep spinning.
 
2013-08-13 01:22:31 AM  
Cats eat cheese.
 
2013-08-13 01:34:28 AM  

Kittypie070: Cats eat cheese.


Is that before or after they cut it?
 
2013-08-13 01:42:13 AM  
Let's not forget 0bama used executive privilege to grant companies a year waiver, but individuals must adhere, is against the law.  He signed the frkking thing.  Now  both houses and their aides want waivers, along with a host of others.  He DOES NOT have the power to do that.  He signed the damn law, now wants to fit it to his benefit.  frkking empty suit from the beginning.  And those that said so were called all kinds of names.  He even went as far as blaming Republicans for not wanting health care for 30 million people.  If he was an honest liar, he would have said Republican's don't want health INSURANCE FOR 30 MILLION PEOPLE.  See the difference?
 
2013-08-13 01:48:11 AM  

5Nickels: Let's not forget 0bama used executive privilege to grant companies a year waiver, but individuals must adhere, is against the law.  He signed the frkking thing.  Now  both houses and their aides want waivers, along with a host of others.  He DOES NOT have the power to do that.  He signed the damn law, now wants to fit it to his benefit.  frkking empty suit from the beginning.  And those that said so were called all kinds of names.  He even went as far as blaming Republicans for not wanting health care for 30 million people.  If he was an honest liar, he would have said Republican's don't want health INSURANCE FOR 30 MILLION PEOPLE.  See the difference?


This is why we need single payer as soon as possible.
 
2013-08-13 01:48:46 AM  

Bucky Katt: Kittypie070: Cats eat cheese.

Is that before or after they cut it?


Yes.
 
2013-08-13 01:53:20 AM  

coyo: 5Nickels: Let's not forget 0bama used executive privilege to grant companies a year waiver, but individuals must adhere, is against the law.  He signed the frkking thing.  Now  both houses and their aides want waivers, along with a host of others.  He DOES NOT have the power to do that.  He signed the damn law, now wants to fit it to his benefit.  frkking empty suit from the beginning.  And those that said so were called all kinds of names.  He even went as far as blaming Republicans for not wanting health care for 30 million people.  If he was an honest liar, he would have said Republican's don't want health INSURANCE FOR 30 MILLION PEOPLE.  See the difference?

This is why we need single payer as soon as possible.


Who is going to run it?  We know the government tract record is not great.  kicking the can (both parties) is not funding a program.  Sure you at least know SS was set up to be a retirement subsidy, Not farkking retirement funds to live on. But oh so many fell for it, and we are stuck with it, just like so many other things that just HAVE to be funded.
 
2013-08-13 01:53:35 AM  

imontheinternet: Biological Ali: First of all, this article is something entirely different from TFA or the Drake case - are you conceding the arguments you were making about those things before moving onto this new one?

The argument I've made all along is that Obama has continued Bush's policies of lack of transparency.  Other cases are just more evidence of that.  Going after whistleblowers and being as aggressive as they are against leakers, going so far as to detain the president of Bolivia suspecting that he's carrying Snowden, are indicative of a broader policy of secrecy and creating a chilling effect to deter anybody who would reveal information about the bad things the administration is doing.

Biological Ali: And, with regards to the link you've just posted: Insinuating that Obama's somehow responsible for court rulings is silly. I mean, I'm sure it's an interesting and controversial topic but framing it as "Obama Poised to Deliver Another Blow to Whistleblower Protections" is really very silly and does a great disservice to anybody trying to encourage meaningful discourse on these topics.

The case went up because agencies within the Administration brought them there.  In order for there to be a case, a party has to be pushing from both sides.  Whistleblower advocates and free press advocates push for protection, while the Administration pushes against them   The DOJ is about to throw a reporter in jail.  The Court's findings are irrelevant to the fact that the Obama Administration is challenging these protections in court and trying to get them thrown out or diminished, while claiming to be pro-transparency.


Dude ( or dudette ), I have been reading your arguments in this thread (I live in India under much worse surveillance for completely different reasons and don't have much of a dog in this game) and I think you are making a mighty fine case, but I am afraid you are in a lost cause against the true believers. If you are having to explain to a guy like biological ali (whose opinion I typically find sound on most issues), on how 'transparency' , 'whistle blowing' , 'ed snowden' and 'prosecution of a reporter by the DoJ' are connected to Obama's presidency and legacy, I think it is an issue of credulity, not comprehension.
 
2013-08-13 01:58:46 AM  

coyo: 5Nickels: Let's not forget 0bama used executive privilege to grant companies a year waiver, but individuals must adhere, is against the law.  He signed the frkking thing.  Now  both houses and their aides want waivers, along with a host of others.  He DOES NOT have the power to do that.  He signed the damn law, now wants to fit it to his benefit.  frkking empty suit from the beginning.  And those that said so were called all kinds of names.  He even went as far as blaming Republicans for not wanting health care for 30 million people.  If he was an honest liar, he would have said Republican's don't want health INSURANCE FOR 30 MILLION PEOPLE.  See the difference?

This is why we need single payer as soon as possible.


Agreed. Single payer is the way to go, but it will never be discussed because... umm.... SOCIALIZIMS. Or something.
 
2013-08-13 02:48:04 AM  

Kittypie070: Cats eat cheese.


My cat helped me eat a cheeseburger today.
 
2013-08-13 02:50:32 AM  
 
2013-08-13 02:52:25 AM  

Kittypie070: angrily throws link across room to smash hole in three suceeding walls and a window


You want to come help me eat another cheeseburger?
 
2013-08-13 02:58:17 AM  

Gyrfalcon: Kittypie070: angrily throws link across room to smash hole in three suceeding walls and a window

You want to come help me eat another cheeseburger?


Where would I go?

After this week is up, I'm done here for good.
I have to say goodbyes around here so people don't worry.
 
2013-08-13 06:08:11 AM  

Triple Oak: tenpoundsofcheese: someonelse: tenpoundsofcheese: PsiChick: tenpoundsofcheese: I am the libbiest lib who has ever been a liberal and even I think that this is going to far.
It isn't just an attack on the First Amendment, it is an attack on Journalism (with a capital "J").

I have you farkied in orange asking why anyone posts here without getting paid. You're not liberal OR conservative. You're paid for it.

Interesting.  I have you farkied in mauve since you lie so much.
Do you have any proof that I am paid to post?

Do you have any proof that you are the libbiest lib who ever libbed?

I never said that so I need no proof.

Keep note of this, in case you ever slightly twist someone else's words to try and pin them with something. "I didn't say those exact words, so nah nah it's not true!" Just note this right here. We can look at this right here when you change someone else's words, so we can laugh at you even more.


There is no magic here, he posted form the wrong alt account and has been spending hours trying to spin away the mistake.  I mean, really, if you don't know tenpoundsofderp is a troll by now there really is no hope for you.
 
2013-08-13 07:47:50 AM  

Kittypie070: angrily throws link across room to smash hole in three suceeding walls and a window


Why? Because that thread is dumber than this one? Or because Congress likes to pretend that it had no input on this?
 
2013-08-13 09:46:56 AM  

Gyrfalcon: pueblonative: vpb: Weaver95: Yup. You rat out important and powerful people, then they can destroy your career, put you in jail and scare the piss out of anyone who dares help you. That's the American way!

Except that that's not what this guy did.  He revealed information on CIA operations against CIA operations against the Iranian nuclear program as revenge for his being fired.  He even said hat he was going to leak classified information to get revenge.  The reporter wrote a book about the CIA operations.

I don't think any country would grant immunity to someone like that.  This isn't even about getting the reporter to reveal his source, they already know that.  It's just about having him testify about a crime he witnessed.

Not what TFA claimed at all.

So the whistleblower is a bitter old prick.  Doesn't mean that the information isn't deserving of sunshine.

BTW, couldn't the reporter also claim a 5th Amendment protection?

Due process violation? Right not to self incriminate? How do you figure?


Well, considering the fact that the Justice Department labeled him a "criminal co-conspirator"  I would figure it like that.  Granted, no journalist has been prosecuted yet and the justice department isn't "anticipating filing" anything against him, there's always a first time.
 
2013-08-13 11:04:41 AM  
amiable:

There is no magic here, he posted form the wrong alt account and has been spending hours trying to spin away the mistake.  I mean, really, if you don't know tenpoundsofderp is a troll by now there really is no hope for you.

Oh I know, but I'm of the "feed them until they explode" notion instead of the "ignore them (they're not going away)" notion. It's funny to hear no counter-argument to it from the cheese, either.
 
2013-08-13 12:03:11 PM  

5Nickels: coyo: 5Nickels: Let's not forget 0bama used executive privilege to grant companies a year waiver, but individuals must adhere, is against the law.  He signed the frkking thing.  Now  both houses and their aides want waivers, along with a host of others.  He DOES NOT have the power to do that.  He signed the damn law, now wants to fit it to his benefit.  frkking empty suit from the beginning.  And those that said so were called all kinds of names.  He even went as far as blaming Republicans for not wanting health care for 30 million people.  If he was an honest liar, he would have said Republican's don't want health INSURANCE FOR 30 MILLION PEOPLE.  See the difference?

This is why we need single payer as soon as possible.

Who is going to run it?  We know the government tract record is not great.  kicking the can (both parties) is not funding a program.  Sure you at least know SS was set up to be a retirement subsidy, Not farkking retirement funds to live on. But oh so many fell for it, and we are stuck with it, just like so many other things that just HAVE to be funded.


Having lived overseas and experiencing government run healthcare vs privately run healthcare, the government did a *much* better job.
 
2013-08-13 01:43:49 PM  

justaguy516: If you are having to explain to a guy like biological ali (whose opinion I typically find sound on most issues), on how 'transparency' , 'whistle blowing' , 'ed snowden' and 'prosecution of a reporter by the DoJ' are connected to Obama's presidency and legacy, I think it is an issue of credulity, not comprehension.


What does that even mean? My whole point in my exchanges with imontheinternet is that merely making a list of buzzwords and other assorted weak arguments that you haven't even bothered to defend properly, and then passing it off as a "pattern" isn't a particularly convincing way to debate. It doesn't matter how many things you have on your list if none of them actually hold up under scrutiny - this form of "argument" is more commonly known as a Gish Gallop, and that's not exactly a compliment.
 
2013-08-13 01:55:24 PM  

pueblonative: Well, considering the fact that the Justice Department labeled him a "criminal co-conspirator" I would figure it like that. Granted, no journalist has been prosecuted yet and the justice department isn't "anticipating filing" anything against him, there's always a first time.


First of all, your links are about a completely different guy, though I know their names are a little similar. James Risen is the New York Times reporter mentioned in TFA, whereas James Rosen is with Fox News.

Second, in cases where a person's testimony is sought in court, as with Risen (as opposed to where a person is being investigated as a suspect, as with Rosen), immunity is typically offered in exchange for testimony, which negates the basis for "pleading the Fifth", for obvious reasons.
 
Displayed 37 of 337 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


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

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

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

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report