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.

(Fox News)   New report shows that the Obama administration has created a "chilling effect" on the free press unseen since...well, you already know who else had a chilling effect on the free press, so I'll just stop there   (foxnews.com) divider line 220
    More: Scary, Obama, Committee to Protect Journalists, Bush administration, open government, Espionage Act  
•       •       •

1800 clicks; posted to Politics » on 11 Oct 2013 at 11:44 AM (42 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-10-11 01:57:34 PM

LasersHurt: I'm not refuting it, I'm asking for real proof of anything.


what do you want, this is like witness testimony, you want dna evidence or something? I've heard reporters on NPR mention similar concerns and then the ACLUs concerns. It's not like it's just some known partisan blowhards who hate all things Obama.
 
2013-10-11 01:59:06 PM

LasersHurt: lennavan: LasersHurt: So you DO believe that not only should they not be prosecuted, but not even investigated. Noted.

You're one of those guys who thinks journalists should remain jailed until they give up their sources, aren't you?  Fme dude, the first amendment is kinda a big deal.  You should re-familiarize yourself with it.

Yes because that's precisely the same as what we're talking about, AND the article you linked. And definitely not hyperbolic BS.


Yeah, I'm the one with the hyperbolic BS.  Posting an article where the DOJ secretly and broadly collected phone records from the AP totally meant I think no one should ever be prosecuted or even investigated for leaking national secrets.
 
2013-10-11 02:03:15 PM

Biological Ali: Are you suggesting that an investigation into the source of a damaging national security leak is something that wouldn't have happened before? Previous administrations would've just let it slide?


No, I'm suggesting the current administration is ever so slightly worse.  You see, not everything is completely black and white.

In 2001, the DOJ inappropriately subpoenad a SINGLE REPORTER's phone records.  That's bad.
In 2013, the DOJ inappropriately subpoenad a WHOLE BUNCH OF REPORTERS' phone records.  That's worse.

LasersHurt: LasersHurt: lennavan: But no one is claiming the press is not free (read: 0%), they are claiming the press is less free than before.

Okay, prove THAT then.


So, what did I win?
 
2013-10-11 02:03:27 PM

lennavan: LasersHurt: lennavan: LasersHurt: So you DO believe that not only should they not be prosecuted, but not even investigated. Noted.

You're one of those guys who thinks journalists should remain jailed until they give up their sources, aren't you?  Fme dude, the first amendment is kinda a big deal.  You should re-familiarize yourself with it.

Yes because that's precisely the same as what we're talking about, AND the article you linked. And definitely not hyperbolic BS.

Yeah, I'm the one with the hyperbolic BS.  Posting an article where the DOJ secretly and broadly collected phone records from the AP totally meant I think no one should ever be prosecuted or even investigated for leaking national secrets.


Seriously? You said I advocate indefinitely jailing journalists, so yes, YOU are the one with the Hyperbolic BS.

And you clearly take issue with Journalists being investigated, that's why you posted that link.

Headso: LasersHurt: I'm not refuting it, I'm asking for real proof of anything.

what do you want, this is like witness testimony, you want dna evidence or something? I've heard reporters on NPR mention similar concerns and then the ACLUs concerns. It's not like it's just some known partisan blowhards who hate all things Obama.


I want people to realize that the opinions of people with heavily vested interest might be less than jake, even if they agree with those opinions.
 
2013-10-11 02:03:34 PM

Biological Ali: Aexia: It was a leak so that automatically makes it okay. Why? BECAUSE SHUT UP THAT'S WHY.

Excuse me?


Information wants to be free. If you leak something, that automatically means you're a whistleblower and beyond reproach. We should never question the motivations of leakers because SHUT UP THAT'S WHY FASCIST.
 
2013-10-11 02:03:49 PM
Step 1:  Click FOX News link.
Step 2:  Press Ctrl+F
Step 3:  Search or "Hitler."

IT ALWAYS FINDS A RESULT!
 
2013-10-11 02:05:28 PM

Aexia: Information wants to be free. If you leak something, that automatically means you're a whistleblower and beyond reproach. We should never question the motivations of leakers because SHUT UP THAT'S WHY FASCIST.


Information needs to be secret.  If you leak something, that automatically means you're a traitor and should be immediately executed.  We should never question the motivations of the DOJ because NATIONAL SECURITY.

Hey look, I can do it too!
 
2013-10-11 02:05:58 PM

lennavan: Aexia: Information wants to be free. If you leak something, that automatically means you're a whistleblower and beyond reproach. We should never question the motivations of leakers because SHUT UP THAT'S WHY FASCIST.

Information needs to be secret.  If you leak something, that automatically means you're a traitor and should be immediately executed.  We should never question the motivations of the DOJ because NATIONAL SECURITY.

Hey look, I can do it too!


lennavan: Yeah, I'm the one with the hyperbolic BS.

 
2013-10-11 02:08:24 PM

LasersHurt: Seriously? You said I advocate indefinitely jailing journalists, so yes, YOU are the one with the Hyperbolic BS.


I was mocking your hyperbole with my own hyperbole.  Translated: YOU STARTED IT

LasersHurt: And you clearly take issue with Journalists being investigated, that's why you posted that link.


You dont?!

Okay, now I actually want to know, how do you feel about judges indefinitely jailing journalists who will not reveal their sources?

[insert your answer here]

Great answer.  Now why do you feel that way?  Why do you feel it is important that journalists be allowed to keep their sources secret?

[insert your answer here]

Yes, EXACTLY.  That's EXACTLY how I feel about this situation.  That's EXACTLY why reporters should be allowed to keep their phone records secret.  That's also EXACTLY why the first amendment exists.  Hey, great conversation.  We ended much earlier than I would have guessed, so we have some free time to kill.  Wanna grab a beer?
 
2013-10-11 02:08:36 PM

Ashyukun: Not gonna give them the click- I assume this is as fair and balanced as you'd expect it to be?

Take it easy Francis. It's actually an AP story Fox the Washinton Post and others just picked up. You can check it out here. Link

 
2013-10-11 02:09:19 PM

LasersHurt: lennavan: Aexia: Information wants to be free. If you leak something, that automatically means you're a whistleblower and beyond reproach. We should never question the motivations of leakers because SHUT UP THAT'S WHY FASCIST.

Information needs to be secret.  If you leak something, that automatically means you're a traitor and should be immediately executed.  We should never question the motivations of the DOJ because NATIONAL SECURITY.

Hey look, I can do it too!

lennavan: Yeah, I'm the one with the hyperbolic BS.


How can you not see what I did there?
 
2013-10-11 02:10:11 PM

COMALite J: Almost Everybody Poops: Mr_Fabulous: [img.fark.net image 612x612]

Are you farking kidding me?!

SordidEuphemism: ...bwuh. ##NO CARRIER##

Cuthbert Allgood: Chapelle is a precog!

I'm an Egyptian!: Please tell me that bottom half of the image is shooped. Even if it's not, just tell me it is.

Yes, it's shooped.
[thisistwitchy.files.wordpress.com image 430x242]
The "O"riginal

[thisistwitchy.files.wordpress.com image 430x242]
Yet another lame 'shoop attempt to use that same frame of video to smear Fox.
This sort of thing upsets me. We don't need to stoop to Fox's level. The real stuff they really do is bad enough.


Phew. That's a relief.
 
2013-10-11 02:10:42 PM

lennavan: No, I'm suggesting the current administration is ever so slightly worse. You see, not everything is completely black and white.

In 2001, the DOJ inappropriately subpoenad a SINGLE REPORTER's phone records. That's bad.
In 2013, the DOJ inappropriately subpoenad a WHOLE BUNCH OF REPORTERS' phone records. That's worse.


I'm not sure what specific incident from 2001 you're referring to, but in the AP case, the records of multiple people were sought because multiple people worked on the story that ultimately published the leaked information. Had they just randomly picked one and ignored the others, I don't exactly think that would've been better. More importantly, this doesn't exactly work as a metric for showing that the press has become less free, which was the initial claim.

I'm also not sure the use of the term "inappropriately" is meant to connote here. Is there an "appropriate" way to subpoena such documents, or are you just against these types of investigation on principle?
 
2013-10-11 02:10:59 PM
If the media were doing its job I might give a shiat.
 
2013-10-11 02:11:07 PM

lennavan: LasersHurt: And you clearly take issue with Journalists being investigated, that's why you posted that link.

You dont?!


No. They are not above the law.

lennavan: Okay, now I actually want to know, how do you feel about judges indefinitely jailing journalists who will not reveal their sources?


Badly, because indefinite jailing without criminal charges is bad.

Great answer.  Now why do you feel that way?  Why do you feel it is important that journalists be allowed to keep their sources secret?

There is a wide gulf between "keeping sources secret" and "indefinite jailing" that you are leaping across for reasons I do not understand.

lennavan: Wanna grab a beer?


Oh lord yes do I ever
 
2013-10-11 02:11:29 PM

Cubicle Jockey: Here is the original source document for those that don't want to give fox a click..

http://cpj.org/reports/2013/10/obama-and-the-press-us-leaks-surveill an ce-post-911.php


People definitely should check out the original report - not the AP story, either from Fox or elsewhere - before evaluating these claims. When I saw TFH I immediately wondered about the reliability of the source of this "new report," but it turns out that both the author, Leonard Downie, Jr., and the organization which published the report, the Committee to Protect Journalists, have pretty solid reputations and credentials. The report is completely anecdotal, of course, and is subject to criticism on that basis I think, but I don't know that the problem should be dismissed out of hand.

Look, I'm a pretty big supporter of this president. I like him the way a lot of people liked Clinton. I must admit, though, that like nearly every other president before him, he is a bit enamored of executive power. This sort of thing bugs me, and I don't mind seeing the White House confronted on this matter.
 
2013-10-11 02:12:04 PM

CynicalLA: That "chilling effect" started after 9/11 when America freaked out and let the government do anything they wanted to fight terrorism.


Then in 2008 we voted to Change that.
 
2013-10-11 02:12:15 PM

lennavan: Information needs to be secret.  If you leak something, that automatically means you're a traitor and should be immediately executed.  We should never question the motivations of the DOJ because NATIONAL SECURITY.


Let's trust the motivations of a guy who joined a firm explicitly to steal information and then fled with it to Russia.

Let's trust the motivations of a reporter who solicited classified information so he could influence foreign policy.

FREE ALDRICH AMES!
 
2013-10-11 02:12:54 PM
fark the media.  They are doing a horrible job theses days and don't deserve any credibility.
 
2013-10-11 02:15:07 PM

GoldSpider: CynicalLA: That "chilling effect" started after 9/11 when America freaked out and let the government do anything they wanted to fight terrorism.

Then in 2008 we voted to Change that.


That's funny.  We all knew that once you give the President more power.  No future President is just going to give that up.  But, terrorism.
 
2013-10-11 02:16:08 PM
More prosecutions for leaks =/= "chilling effect" on the free press, you morons.

Unless the press lets it.
 
2013-10-11 02:17:24 PM

Biological Ali: I'm also not sure the use of the term "inappropriately" is meant to connote here. Is there an "appropriate" way to subpoena such documents, or are you just against these types of investigation on principle?


Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press

When you subpoena the phone records of a reporter, then people who wish to stay anonymous are more wary of calling reporters to give them information.  That reduces the ability of the press to function.  It's pretty farking clear dude.  If you want to violate that, you better have a pretty farking good reason and a pretty farking solid case already.  Neither of these two instances are where you want to hang your hat.
 
2013-10-11 02:17:35 PM

lennavan: LasersHurt: Seriously? You said I advocate indefinitely jailing journalists, so yes, YOU are the one with the Hyperbolic BS.

I was mocking your hyperbole with my own hyperbole.  Translated: YOU STARTED IT

LasersHurt: And you clearly take issue with Journalists being investigated, that's why you posted that link.

You dont?!

Okay, now I actually want to know, how do you feel about judges indefinitely jailing journalists who will not reveal their sources?

[insert your answer here]

Great answer.  Now why do you feel that way?  Why do you feel it is important that journalists be allowed to keep their sources secret?

[insert your answer here]

Yes, EXACTLY.  That's EXACTLY how I feel about this situation.  That's EXACTLY why reporters should be allowed to keep their phone records secret.  That's also EXACTLY why the first amendment exists.  Hey, great conversation.  We ended much earlier than I would have guessed, so we have some free time to kill.  Wanna grab a beer?


I know I wasn't the one this was directed at, but...

In general, I disagree with the argument that the First Amendment confers extra protections to journalists beyond what is afforded to a normal citizen. The spirit of the Amendment is meant to protect the spoken and written word, i.e. the government cannot punish you for what you say and write (whether or not the government and courts abide by this restriction is a separate question; the short answer is that currently, not really); however, the First Amendment does not confer any sort of immunity from prosecution or legitimate subpoenas related to how someone obtained the information.

In short, you can write what you want and you (probably) won't get prosecuted; how you obtain that information, however, remains subject to all applicable laws.
 
2013-10-11 02:18:57 PM

lennavan: Biological Ali: I'm also not sure the use of the term "inappropriately" is meant to connote here. Is there an "appropriate" way to subpoena such documents, or are you just against these types of investigation on principle?

Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press

When you subpoena the phone records of a reporter, then people who wish to stay anonymous are more wary of calling reporters to give them information.  That reduces the ability of the press to function.  It's pretty farking clear dude.  If you want to violate that, you better have a pretty farking good reason and a pretty farking solid case already.  Neither of these two instances are where you want to hang your hat.


I agree with that. On the other hand if you leak information that genuinely puts our nation's security at risk, I have no problem with that being illegal.
 
2013-10-11 02:25:53 PM

LasersHurt: lennavan: LasersHurt: And you clearly take issue with Journalists being investigated, that's why you posted that link.

You dont?!

No. They are not above the law.


Just so we're clear, you realize the journalists were not being investigated in these cases, right?  The journalists were never in any danger of being prosecuted.  The DOJ took the journalists phone records in an attempt to identify a source.

LasersHurt: There is a wide gulf between "keeping sources secret" and "indefinite jailing" that you are leaping across for reasons I do not understand.


The charge is for contempt of court.  The journalists are indefinitely jailed for contempt of court because they are keeping sources secret.  When a journalist does not want their phone records subpoena'd, it's because they want to keep their sources secret.  Wow, I bridged that gulf pretty fast.  Maybe it wasn't so wide?

The two situations are incredibly similar.  I'm all for busting criminals and traitors and whatnot.  By all means, bust away.  But there's a reason why you shouldn't be able to do it by forcing a journalist to reveal their sources.  It's in the very first amendment to the constitution.
 
2013-10-11 02:27:30 PM

lennavan: When you subpoena the phone records of a reporter, then people who wish to stay anonymous are more wary of calling reporters to give them information.  That reduces the ability of the press to function.  It's pretty farking clear dude.  If you want to violate that, you better have a pretty farking good reason and a pretty farking solid case already.  Neither of these two instances are where you want to hang your hat.


Rosen was actively soliciting classified information with the explicitly stated goal of influencing foreign policy. fark him. The only thing DOJ did wrong was not prosecuting him.
 
2013-10-11 02:28:25 PM

lennavan: The journalists were never in any danger of being prosecuted.  The DOJ took the journalists phone records in an attempt to identify a source.


What Rosen did is illegal.
 
2013-10-11 02:29:27 PM

CynicalLA: That's funny. We all knew that once you give the President more power. No future President is just going to give that up. But, terrorism.


Except the fanatics believed no such thing.  They believed he was different, and that he wouldn't use/abuse the newly-asserted executive powers.  Almost as many believed he'd actually roll them back!  Those useful idiots have since "evolved" to "It's OK when our guy does it" mode.
 
2013-10-11 02:30:13 PM

Rhino_man: Search or "Hitler."


Oh, I'll definitely pick Search, if I get to choose.
 
2013-10-11 02:31:39 PM

Mike Chewbacca: lennavan: Biological Ali: I'm also not sure the use of the term "inappropriately" is meant to connote here. Is there an "appropriate" way to subpoena such documents, or are you just against these types of investigation on principle?

Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press

When you subpoena the phone records of a reporter, then people who wish to stay anonymous are more wary of calling reporters to give them information.  That reduces the ability of the press to function.  It's pretty farking clear dude.  If you want to violate that, you better have a pretty farking good reason and a pretty farking solid case already.  Neither of these two instances are where you want to hang your hat.

I agree with that. On the other hand if you leak information that genuinely puts our nation's security at risk, I have no problem with that being illegal.


Oh I definitely agree with that.  I'm just saying do it without demanding the journalist the leaker went to give up his source.
 
2013-10-11 02:33:08 PM
Obamabots: b.b..b..b. Fox News!!

No, try the Committee to Protect Journalists.

Is there any criticism of Obama you guys will willingly concede?

I know this will be met with howls of objection but I don't care because it is absolutely true and I have no intention of responding to any of it, so howl away.

The ostrich-like approach that rank and file Democrats have taken to the NSA stories, the refusal to prosecute war crimes, the drone wars, Obama's highly selective war on leakers and the attempted criminalization and intimidation of the press is a carbon copy of the unthinking, knee-jerk support that  Republicans gave to Bush for the Iraq fiasco, from conception to withdrawal, and it makes you look every bit as blindly partisan in the face of all facts and reason as they were about Iraq. Congratulations, that's not easy to do.
 
2013-10-11 02:33:23 PM

Aexia: lennavan: When you subpoena the phone records of a reporter, then people who wish to stay anonymous are more wary of calling reporters to give them information.  That reduces the ability of the press to function.  It's pretty farking clear dude.  If you want to violate that, you better have a pretty farking good reason and a pretty farking solid case already.  Neither of these two instances are where you want to hang your hat.

Rosen was actively soliciting classified information with the explicitly stated goal of influencing foreign policy. fark him. The only thing DOJ did wrong was not prosecuting him.


Yes, I have seen many of your posts trying really hard to find someone who believes everything leakers and whistleblowers and journalists ever do is wonderful and beautiful and perfect.  That's not me, you'll have to keep searching.

Best wishes.
 
2013-10-11 02:35:14 PM

Karma Curmudgeon: Obama's highly selective war on leakers and the attempted criminalization and intimidation of the press


Selective? Criminalization and intimidation? Could you expound on what you mean by those statements?
 
2013-10-11 02:38:34 PM

Karma Curmudgeon: Obamabots: b.b..b..b. Fox News!!
No, try the Committee to Protect Journalists.
Is there any criticism of Obama you guys will willingly concede?


By what I assume the definition of "Obamabot" is, no there is no criticism they would concede or they would not be an "Obamabot."  Duh.

Karma Curmudgeon: The ostrich-like approach that rank and file Democrats have taken to the NSA stories, the refusal to prosecute war crimes


Oh, there are lots of Democrats who want to see some people prosecuted for war crimes.  But when they bring it up, that's called "b..b....b.....bush!"

I voted for Obama twice.  You want to know what criticism of Obama I will willingly concede?  Read my posts in this thread.
  

Karma Curmudgeon: I have no intention of responding to any of it, so howl away.


Oh, okay.  Well, I bet you think that's a perfectly reasonable way to act.

Karma Curmudgeon: The ostrich-like approach that rank and file ... makes you look every bit as blindly partisan in the face of all facts and reason.


Awkward.
 
2013-10-11 02:41:17 PM

lennavan: When you subpoena the phone records of a reporter, then people who wish to stay anonymous are more wary of calling reporters to give them information. That reduces the ability of the press to function. It's pretty farking clear dude. If you want to violate that, you better have a pretty farking good reason and a pretty farking solid case already. Neither of these two instances are where you want to hang your hat.


First of all, I don't think even the AP seriously alleged a First amendment violation - I think there were some grumblings for a while about Fourth amendment issue, but even those didn't really amount to anything. I don't think anybody with any legal background is seriously asserting that the actions of the DOJ were a violation of the Constitution.

Second, the AP case involved a known breach of the law (there was no question that the leaks themselves were illegal), and a subsequent attempt to determine who was responsible by consulting the records of the only people known to have been in contact with the criminal. Seems like the case for the investigation on both counts - establishing the occurrence of a crime itself, and investigating people relevant to the incident - was "pretty farking solid".
 
2013-10-11 02:44:04 PM

GoldSpider: CynicalLA: That's funny. We all knew that once you give the President more power. No future President is just going to give that up. But, terrorism.

Except the fanatics believed no such thing.  They believed he was different, and that he wouldn't use/abuse the newly-asserted executive powers.  Almost as many believed he'd actually roll them back!  Those useful idiots have since "evolved" to "It's OK when our guy does it" mode.


Who are these fanatics because that's not the way I remember it.  Most people on Fark knew this was going to happen.
 
2013-10-11 02:47:40 PM

CynicalLA: GoldSpider: CynicalLA: That's funny. We all knew that once you give the President more power. No future President is just going to give that up. But, terrorism.

Except the fanatics believed no such thing.  They believed he was different, and that he wouldn't use/abuse the newly-asserted executive powers.  Almost as many believed he'd actually roll them back!  Those useful idiots have since "evolved" to "It's OK when our guy does it" mode.

Who are these fanatics because that's not the way I remember it.  Most people on Fark knew this was going to happen.


Also, anyone who's acquainted with our system of government would know that Congress is the only body with the authority to permanently roll back these powers. The most the President can do unilaterally is simply not use them, but that just leaves them fully intact for the next President.
 
2013-10-11 02:52:39 PM

Biological Ali: First of all, I don't think even the AP seriously alleged a First amendment violation - I think there were some grumblings for a while about Fourth amendment issue, but even those didn't really amount to anything. I don't think anybody with any legal background is seriously asserting that the actions of the DOJ were a violation of the Constitution.


So it'd be real awkward if I posted a link to an interview with the CEO of the AP, who holds a law degree from UC Berkley, explaining how this violates the first amendment, right?

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-3460_162-57585213/ap-president-blasts-un co nstitutional-phone-records-probe/
 
2013-10-11 03:00:50 PM

lennavan: Biological Ali: First of all, I don't think even the AP seriously alleged a First amendment violation - I think there were some grumblings for a while about Fourth amendment issue, but even those didn't really amount to anything. I don't think anybody with any legal background is seriously asserting that the actions of the DOJ were a violation of the Constitution.

So it'd be real awkward if I posted a link to an interview with the CEO of the AP, who holds a law degree from UC Berkley, explaining how this violates the first amendment, right?

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-3460_162-57585213/ap-president-blasts-un co nstitutional-phone-records-probe/


Sounds like AP's main complaint was that the subpoena was too broad and issued in secret, which would be a Fourth Amendment issue (albeit one with a clear connection to the First).

I also disagree with the assertion that "The government has no business having control over all, monitoring all of this newsgathering information from the Associated Press". If we take this stance to its logical conclusion, that means that "the press" can do literally anything, legal or not, in the process of "newsgathering".
 
2013-10-11 03:03:02 PM

BMulligan: Rhino_man: Search or "Hitler."

Oh, I'll definitely pick Search, if I get to choose.


rightinthemustache.com
You got me good YOU FARKER!
 
2013-10-11 03:04:27 PM
So I am reading these comments, and I just had to quit.  FARKers you not only disappoint me, but you disgust me.  Yeah I get that you are responding to a Faux Noise link by instantly defending Obama... I get that.  It makes sense given what usually comes from them that we would be conditioned to do so since 99% of the time they are wrong.  But this is a broken clock moment here and many of you need a swift kick in the ass.

The article is correct - well it is an AP article really.  But what is important is the substance not the messenger.  There is no doubt they only reposted it because it was critical of the Obama Administration ...and maybe perhaps because Faux Noise likes to pretend they have any thing to do with this thing called "journalism" which really is under attack.  All the same, the important thing here is that the article is not without merit.  The biggest problem it has is that it is not critical nor detailed enough.

For all the things The Obama Administration (Obama does not do everything himself) does right, this is an area they are very, very bad for us.  Their record on this is very clear, and conflicts well with everything we where promised.

This is the administration that has went after Wikileaks (going as far as threatening "pressuring" any financial institution which so much as helps them accept donations), and still intends to have Julian Assange extradited for "crimes" against the US that are not crimes and would not apply to a non-US citizen doing things outside of the US anyhow.

Wikileaks is guilty only of being unconventional press - internet only and beholden to no powerful interest.  They are therefore not easy to control/manipulate and thus are dangerous to those who need to control the narrative.  This is why they are not "legitimate press" and I would like to see any rational argument beyond this but shall not hold my breath.

This is the administration that locked Bradley Manning up in inhuman conditions for an extraordinarily long time for nothing more than to make an example out of him to all would be whistle blowers.  BTW did you know that it was his diplomatic cable dumps which allowed Tunisian dissidents to realize for the first time that it was actually possible to overthrow their government?

They always believed before that the US would forcibly put it down but found out otherwise from those cables.  Those cables started the Arab Spring.  No one died from his releases, but many people where embarrassed.  He exposed many wrongs that where simply covered up(not that our media did such a great job covering much of it).

This is the administration going as far as to stop unrelated planes to possibly catch Edward Snowden that happen to be transporting foreign heads of state?  Lets face is they didn't exactly object - they admitted to knowing in advance and still refuse to condemn it - when the UK illegally detained and humiliated Glen Greenwald's husband for nothing more than being associated with a reporter who reports on things they would rather keep secret...  which brings me to the next point.  The NSA.

What Edward Snowden has helped bring to light makes him a hero.  What the NSA has done is well beyond the bounds of decency and legitimate public service.  It also has routinely violated what insufficient legal protections/rights we do have.  On that subject novels could be written.

Under this administration we have experienced such debacles as the secret and illegal seizing of telephone records for AP journalists.  Besides even the well known whistle blowers, they have went after many others with a zeal even The Bush Administration could not match.  What we know is probably only the tip of the iceberg.  But heck, lets let that slide since Faux Noise is joining the criticism.  If they hate Obama, then he can do no wrong!
 
2013-10-11 03:07:40 PM

lennavan: So it'd be real awkward if I posted a link to an interview with the CEO of the AP, who holds a law degree from UC Berkley, explaining how this violates the first amendment, right?

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-3460_162-57585213/ap-president-blasts-un co nstitutional-phone-records-probe/


Well, when I Googled "ap phone records subpoena first amendment" the results I found fell into largely two categories: Republicans like Rand Paul and Rience Preibus alleging constitutional violations based on dubious reasoning, and legal scholars familiar with constitutional issues (such as CNN's Toobin) saying that there wasn't a First Amendment violation. And I knew from having previously followed the story that the AP's letter to Eric Holder made no mention of the First Amendment, and made only vague, unspecified references to "AP's constitutional rights to gather and report the news".

And, given that the organization itself has yet to actually allege a constitutional violation of any sort, it seems that Pruitt's speculation here is about as credible as Preibus's (who, incidentally, also went to law school).
 
2013-10-11 03:10:54 PM

bk3k: They always believed before that the US would forcibly put it down but found out otherwise from those cables. Those cables started the Arab Spring. No one died from his releases, but many people where embarrassed. He exposed many wrongs that where simply covered up(not that our media did such a great job covering much of it).


Not that I disagree with your analysis, but if the cables started the Arab Spring, a lot of people died from them.
 
2013-10-11 03:17:06 PM

COMALite J: Note that Fox News uses all UPPERCASE AVANT GARDE GOTHIC DEMIBOLD CONDENSED font for its headlines in that section on the maroon patterned background.


The FCC should require them to use Comic Sans... or WingDings.
 
2013-10-11 03:18:10 PM

qorkfiend: Sounds like AP's main complaint was that the subpoena was too broad and issued in secret, which would be a Fourth Amendment issue (albeit one with a clear connection to the First).


That would be a part of the "grumblings about the Fourth amendment" that I referenced earlier. As far as I can see, there has never been any legal tradition exempting "the press" from investigations into criminal activities that "non-press" people would be subject to - the only serious constitutional issues have been about the general validity of those procedures themselves, which is (as you've said) a Fourth amendment issue.
 
2013-10-11 03:21:37 PM

Jairzinho: COMALite J: Yes, it's shooped.
[img.fark.net image 430x242]
The "O"riginal

That has to be shopped too. I clearly see Tina Fey there as "Palin"..



Fox news spews so much stupid BS on a regular basis that there's no need to shoop anything.
 
2013-10-11 03:35:47 PM

bk3k: and still intends to have Julian Assange extradited for "crimes" against the US that are not crimes and would not apply to a non-US citizen doing things outside of the US anyhow.


Soliciting someone in the US government to leak classified information is illegal regardless of whether you're a citizen.

bk3k: This is the administration that locked Bradley Manning up in inhuman conditions for an extraordinarily long time for nothing more than to make an example out of him to all would be whistle blowers.


Setting aside that most of the claims about his "inhuman conditions" turned out to be complete bullshiat, he was put on suicide watch because his lawyer filed a motion to consider whether he was mentally stable and he had "joked" about killing himself. And of course, said motion is just one of the many things Manning's attorney did to drag out things before the trial.

bk3k: No one died from his releases, but many people where embarrassed.


Applauding Manning is like applauding a drunk driver who miraculously didn't kill anyone. Manning indiscriminately dumped hundreds of thousands of unredacted documents into the wild for anyone to read. He had no goal or focus; he simply did it for the lulz.

And, no, I don't concede that "no one died". There are some Chinese dissidents who might argue with that.

bk3k: What Edward Snowden has helped bring to light makes him a hero.


No words of praise for Aldrich Ames? I mean, at least when he blew the whistle on America's illegal activities overseas, he limited his disclosures to the affected parties.

bk3k: Under this administration we have experienced such debacles as the secret and illegal seizing of telephone records for AP journalists.


It wasn't illegal and it wasn't unconstitutional. Journalists aren't above the law.
 
2013-10-11 03:42:39 PM

jakomo002: To be fair, Obama has aggressively prosecuted more leakers than all other administrations combined....

Worst since Nixon, they say.

/I have no dog in this fight


You sound concerned.
 
2013-10-11 03:48:17 PM

jakomo002: GanjSmokr: Could you be any more racist??  Wow.  We get it, he's blah.


Dafuq you on about?

Inheriting a secretive post-9/11 government, Obama pursued more closed policies, rebuffing his promises of transparency, the report states. Six government workers and two contractors have been prosecuted with felony charges under the Espionage since 2009 for allegedly leaking information to the media, with more prosecutions in the pipelines. There have only been three similar prosecutions in all prior administrations.

6 plus 2 is more than 3, right?  Or does math hate black people?


But I thought you had no dog in this fight? Oh let me guess you're an "independent" you people get dumber and more pathetic every farking day.
 
2013-10-11 04:17:27 PM

LasersHurt: I think part of the problem is that people interpreted the idea of more transparency as "complete transparency and total immunity for literally ANY and EVERY leak."


My God. The way some trolls post about it you'd think Obama promised to throw open the gates to Area 51 and start a line for those wanting to take captured UFOs out for a spin.
 
Displayed 50 of 220 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report