Skip to content
 
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.

(Huffington Post)   Old and busted: Jailing reporters who won't reveal their sources. New hotness: Secretly seizing journalists' phone records from their phone companies   (huffingtonpost.com) divider line
    More: Scary, U.S. state abbreviations, AP President, Jailing, diplomatic note, telephone tapping, Ronald Machen  
•       •       •

7104 clicks; posted to Main » and Politics » on 13 May 2013 at 8:45 PM (8 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



385 Comments     (+0 »)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-05-13 8:11:21 PM  
If you violate the National Securities Act, expect to be charged.

What? Is this news? If you want to fight for this, you also want to release Bradley Manning without charge.

Thank about that for a second.
 
2013-05-13 8:11:54 PM  
The Justice Department secretly obtained two months of telephone records of reporters and editors for The Associated Press in what the news cooperative's top executive called a "massive and unprecedented intrusion" into how news organizations gather the news.

and this is surprising because....?

look - we laid the foundation for this back when the patriot act go passed.  from that point forward, more and more government intrusion and control was inevitable.  its like gravity...you just let go and let things take their course.
 
2013-05-13 8:14:47 PM  
Keep telling yourselves power only corrupts the other guy.
 
2013-05-13 8:18:23 PM  

Gulper Eel: Keep telling yourselves power only corrupts the other guy.


that's kinda how we think tho.  only the OTHER team is corrupt.  our team is always honorable and acting with the best of intentions...the OTHER guys always f*ck things up.
 
2013-05-13 8:19:19 PM  
Just as I expected. Our nation is doomed nd we probably deserve it t this point.
 
2013-05-13 8:20:59 PM  
Title VII of the National Security Act requires the CIA, the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, the National Reconnaissance Office, the National Security Agency, and the Defense Intelligence Agency to: exempt operational files from provisions of the Freedom of Information Act that would otherwise require publication or disclosure

Good luck in court, AP. We all know you won't go that route. You'll just pout and moan as did many of us about the expanded power of the USA Patriot Act.
 
2013-05-13 8:28:20 PM  

NewportBarGuy: Title VII of the National Security Act requires the CIA, the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, the National Reconnaissance Office, the National Security Agency, and the Defense Intelligence Agency to: exempt operational files from provisions of the Freedom of Information Act that would otherwise require publication or disclosure

Good luck in court, AP. We all know you won't go that route. You'll just pout and moan as did many of us about the expanded power of the USA Patriot Act.


If Conservatives want to repeal the Patriot Act, I'm sure they won't get any resistance from Liberals.
 
2013-05-13 8:30:12 PM  

mrshowrules: If Conservatives want to repeal the Patriot Act, I'm sure they won't get any resistance from Liberals.


we won't repeal our lovely little state security laws.  they're ever so useful!  what I never understood is why anyone ever thought those laws would never be abused.
 
2013-05-13 8:32:00 PM  

mrshowrules: If Conservatives want to repeal the Patriot Act, I'm sure they won't get any resistance from Liberals.


I'll defer to Weav on this. It will take 100 years or some kind of apocalyptic event for Congress to rescind any of that bullsh*t. Do you realize ho many post offices we have to name? Dozens, man!
 
2013-05-13 8:32:46 PM  

NewportBarGuy: Title VII of the National Security Act requires the CIA, the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, the National Reconnaissance Office, the National Security Agency, and the Defense Intelligence Agency to: exempt operational files from provisions of the Freedom of Information Act that would otherwise require publication or disclosure

Good luck in court, AP. We all know you won't go that route. You'll just pout and moan as did many of us about the expanded power of the USA Patriot Act.


Oh, there's a learned legal opinion if I ever saw one.
 
2013-05-13 8:36:50 PM  

NewportBarGuy: If you violate the National Securities Act, expect to be charged.

What? Is this news? If you want to fight for this, you also want to release Bradley Manning without charge.

Thank about that for a second.


Huh?  I'm pretty sure that he directly violated the U.C.M.J. in more than one way.  They don't need any civilian laws to throw him away for life.
 
2013-05-13 8:39:02 PM  
Imagine if this was MSNBC.

Would you who dont care about AP be silent on that one, too?
 
2013-05-13 8:39:31 PM  
Is there anyone on Fark who LIKES the Patriot Act?  It makes this anti-Republican sick that the Obama administration has used it.  Warrantless wiretapping, this current bullshiat...it all started with the Patriot Act.

Look at how far we have come as a country in the past fifteen years.  Patriot Act, Citizens United etc...

Greatest country on Earth?  Probably, but not by much of a margin anymore.
 
2013-05-13 8:40:28 PM  

Nabb1: Oh, there's a learned legal opinion if I ever saw one.


The theory is that is was over the intelligence operation in Yemen with the improved underwear explosives. They were asked to sit on the story and ran with it. They compromised assets and methods. I'm not a huge defender of government intelligence, but you have to at least allow them to operate in a way where they tell you how they got the bad guy without exposing their methods. Yes, black sites and torture are exempt from such things because they are illegal.

There was none of that here. Just a news source that wanted a scoop. I fail to see the case AP has if they violated NSA. Hell, the same people that will champion this are the ones who decried the exposure of the CIA black sites by Washington Post.
 
2013-05-13 8:41:12 PM  

AdolfOliverPanties: Is there anyone on Fark who LIKES the Patriot Act?  It makes this anti-Republican sick that the Obama administration has used it.  Warrantless wiretapping, this current bullshiat...it all started with the Patriot Act.

Look at how far we have come as a country in the past fifteen years.  Patriot Act, Citizens United etc...

Greatest country on Earth?  Probably, but not by much of a margin anymore.


No one supports it today.  It did have some support during Dubya's days.
 
2013-05-13 8:41:30 PM  

remus: NewportBarGuy: If you violate the National Securities Act, expect to be charged.

What? Is this news? If you want to fight for this, you also want to release Bradley Manning without charge.

Thank about that for a second.

Huh?  I'm pretty sure that he directly violated the U.C.M.J. in more than one way.  They don't need any civilian laws to throw him away for life.


Forget it. He's rolling.
 
2013-05-13 8:41:56 PM  

remus: Huh? I'm pretty sure that he directly violated the U.C.M.J. in more than one way. They don't need any civilian laws to throw him away for life.


Yes, but it's the unauthorized release of classified information. UCMJ or civilian, it's the exact same thing. Diff law, diff trial, same reason for the law(s) existing.
 
2013-05-13 8:44:51 PM  

NewportBarGuy: Nabb1: Oh, there's a learned legal opinion if I ever saw one.

The theory is that is was over the intelligence operation in Yemen with the improved underwear explosives. They were asked to sit on the story and ran with it. They compromised assets and methods. I'm not a huge defender of government intelligence, but you have to at least allow them to operate in a way where they tell you how they got the bad guy without exposing their methods. Yes, black sites and torture are exempt from such things because they are illegal.

There was none of that here. Just a news source that wanted a scoop. I fail to see the case AP has if they violated NSA. Hell, the same people that will champion this are the ones who decried the exposure of the CIA black sites by Washington Post.


You think it is alright to gather who-knows-what from from innocent reporters to find the guilty one? Its ok if they have nothing to hide, right? Whatever happened to probable cause?
 
2013-05-13 8:45:04 PM  

NewportBarGuy: Nabb1: Oh, there's a learned legal opinion if I ever saw one.

The theory is that is was over the intelligence operation in Yemen with the improved underwear explosives. They were asked to sit on the story and ran with it. They compromised assets and methods. I'm not a huge defender of government intelligence, but you have to at least allow them to operate in a way where they tell you how they got the bad guy without exposing their methods. Yes, black sites and torture are exempt from such things because they are illegal.

There was none of that here. Just a news source that wanted a scoop. I fail to see the case AP has if they violated NSA. Hell, the same people that will champion this are the ones who decried the exposure of the CIA black sites by Washington Post.


Look, if you want to defend Obama at all costs, go ahead, but what you are talking about has f*ck all to do with the AP. Seriously. It has nothing to do with whether or not the subpoena was over broad or specifically tailored for the investigation.
 
2013-05-13 8:48:18 PM  

Nabb1: Look, if you want to defend Obama at all costs, go ahead, but what you are talking about has f*ck all to do with the AP. Seriously. It has nothing to do with whether or not the subpoena was over broad or specifically tailored for the investigation.


Over broad? I thought We The People gave our security services the right to just do whatever they wanted to us? It was OK when Bush did it, right?
 
2013-05-13 8:49:33 PM  
Well, this will get Benghazi out of the news cycle for sure.
 
2013-05-13 8:49:45 PM  
Oh noes! The government is going to find out all of the stupid crap news before it gets sensationalized!
 
2013-05-13 8:49:51 PM  

Nabb1: Look, if you want to defend Obama at all costs, go ahead, but what you are talking about has f*ck all to do with the AP. Seriously. It has nothing to do with whether or not the subpoena was over broad or specifically tailored for the investigation.


So, you'll agree we should repeal the USA Patriot Act and make them get evidence first?
 
2013-05-13 8:50:50 PM  
Congress is going to jump right on this and make sure it never happens again, right?

/guys?
//anyone?
 
2013-05-13 8:50:51 PM  

AdolfOliverPanties: Is there anyone on Fark who LIKES the Patriot Act?  It makes this anti-Republican sick that the Obama administration has used it.  Warrantless wiretapping, this current bullshiat...it all started with the Patriot Act.

Look at how far we have come as a country in the past fifteen years.  Patriot Act, Citizens United etc...

Greatest country on Earth?  Probably, but not by much of a margin anymore.


well, except that citizens united is probably a correct reading of the constitution and relevant law and the PATRIOT Act is not

You wanna biatch about CU, fine. It sucks. But it's right. Get an amendment passed.
 
2013-05-13 8:50:56 PM  
Who the hell signed off on these subpoenas?  How could something think this was a good idea that could be legally defended?
 
2013-05-13 8:50:59 PM  

cman: Imagine if this was MSNBC.

Would you who dont care about AP be silent on that one, too?


Of course we would.  We warned you guys about this during the Bush years when they passed the Patriot Act.  We were called traitors and told we had nothing to be worried about.  This has nothing to do with what news company is complaining.  Your mind went straight to partisanship.
 
2013-05-13 8:51:21 PM  

NewportBarGuy: Nabb1: Look, if you want to defend Obama at all costs, go ahead, but what you are talking about has f*ck all to do with the AP. Seriously. It has nothing to do with whether or not the subpoena was over broad or specifically tailored for the investigation.

So, you'll agree we should repeal the USA Patriot Act and make them get evidence first?


I've always loathed the Patriot Act. Do you want to try another line of argument?
 
2013-05-13 8:52:57 PM  
Robert Novak snickers at justice from Hell.
aarontallent.comView Full Size
 
2013-05-13 8:53:05 PM  

Nabb1: NewportBarGuy: Nabb1: Look, if you want to defend Obama at all costs, go ahead, but what you are talking about has f*ck all to do with the AP. Seriously. It has nothing to do with whether or not the subpoena was over broad or specifically tailored for the investigation.

So, you'll agree we should repeal the USA Patriot Act and make them get evidence first?

I've always loathed the Patriot Act. Do you want to try another line of argument?


No, I think he's quite content with the tu quoque. It's working so well for him, you see.
 
2013-05-13 8:53:48 PM  

skullkrusher: Nabb1: NewportBarGuy: Nabb1: Look, if you want to defend Obama at all costs, go ahead, but what you are talking about has f*ck all to do with the AP. Seriously. It has nothing to do with whether or not the subpoena was over broad or specifically tailored for the investigation.

So, you'll agree we should repeal the USA Patriot Act and make them get evidence first?

I've always loathed the Patriot Act. Do you want to try another line of argument?

No, I think he's quite content with the tu quoque. It's working so well for him, you see.


It's certainly working better than his legal analysis.
 
2013-05-13 8:54:19 PM  

CynicalLA: cman:


You are correct. Thank you for reminding me to keep my bias in check.
 
2013-05-13 8:55:10 PM  

cman: CynicalLA: cman:

You are correct. Thank you for reminding me to keep my bias in check.


It's all good.
 
2013-05-13 8:55:20 PM  

Weaver95: The Justice Department secretly obtained two months of telephone records of reporters and editors for The Associated Press in what the news cooperative's top executive called a "massive and unprecedented intrusion" into how news organizations gather the news.

and this is surprising because....?

look - we laid the foundation for this back when the patriot act go passed.  from that point forward, more and more government intrusion and control was inevitable.  its like gravity...you just let go and let things take their course.


Nope. Wrong memo. The right is outraged at this as well. The AP is an integral part of our First Amendment protected media and this fascist dictator and his corrupt AG need to get impeached and resign, respectively, immediately. Also, the Patriot Act has nothing to do with this.

I'm serious.
 
2013-05-13 8:55:22 PM  

CynicalLA: cman: Imagine if this was MSNBC.

Would you who dont care about AP be silent on that one, too?

Of course we would.  We warned you guys about this during the Bush years when they passed the Patriot Act.  We were called traitors and told we had nothing to be worried about.  This has nothing to do with what news company is complaining.  Your mind went straight to partisanship.


This.
 
2013-05-13 8:55:37 PM  

Erix: Who the hell signed off on these subpoenas?  How could something think this was a good idea that could be legally defended?


I guess we will find out.  Like I said in another thread.  Two possibilities:

1) Eric Holder resigns

or

2) some people in DC are charged under Federal Law for revealing State secrets


Either way, this should be interesting.
 
2013-05-13 8:55:42 PM  

Nabb1: I've always loathed the Patriot Act. Do you want to try another line of argument?


Nope, that's all I really like to see done away with. This craptacular nightmare is what we get to live with.

The law is the law. Until we change it, why the f*ck are we arguing about those who follow it?
 
2013-05-13 8:56:08 PM  

cman: CynicalLA: cman:

You are correct. Thank you for reminding me to keep my bias in check.


This is why you're a refreshing anomaly on Fark.
 
2013-05-13 8:56:25 PM  

NewportBarGuy: remus: Huh? I'm pretty sure that he directly violated the U.C.M.J. in more than one way. They don't need any civilian laws to throw him away for life.

Yes, but it's the unauthorized release of classified information. UCMJ or civilian, it's the exact same thing. Diff law, diff trial, same reason for the law(s) existing.


Ummm...  You really don't know a thing about the military, do you?  If an Officer orders you to pick daisies, and you don't do it, that's a UCMJ violation for failure to follow a lawful order.  This isn't anything even close to the civilian world.  The only way he gets out is to prove that safeguarding secret information is not a lawful order.  That isn't going to happen.  It's a perfectly lawful order.  Even the daisies is a lawful order.  Silly.  Crazy, but lawful.  The point in your sentence above that said "unauthorized" is pretty much all the military needs to establish.  That's case closed.
 
2013-05-13 8:56:43 PM  

mrshowrules: Erix: Who the hell signed off on these subpoenas?  How could something think this was a good idea that could be legally defended?

I guess we will find out.  Like I said in another thread.  Two possibilities:

1) Eric Holder resigns

or

2) some people in DC are charged under Federal Law for revealing State secrets


Either way, this should be interesting.


Could be both, you know.
 
2013-05-13 8:58:42 PM  

NewportBarGuy: Nabb1: I've always loathed the Patriot Act. Do you want to try another line of argument?

Nope, that's all I really like to see done away with. This craptacular nightmare is what we get to live with.

The law is the law. Until we change it, why the f*ck are we arguing about those who follow it?


Sometimes cases like this fore change in the law.
 
2013-05-13 9:00:05 PM  

Nabb1: mrshowrules: Erix: Who the hell signed off on these subpoenas?  How could something think this was a good idea that could be legally defended?

I guess we will find out.  Like I said in another thread.  Two possibilities:

1) Eric Holder resigns

or

2) some people in DC are charged under Federal Law for revealing State secrets


Either way, this should be interesting.

Could be both, you know.


Maybe, but I doubt it.  Either they can put together a convincing case of why they had to do this, in which case they'll charge someone, or they won't.  I don't think he'd resign unless the evidence they gather through this is inadmissible or otherwise goes nowhere.
 
2013-05-13 9:00:10 PM  
Can someone explain why this is bad? Maybe I'm just missing part of the story. Was it just that they obtained so much? Since the article seems to only condemn the breadth of the search, did they obtain warrants?

I'm not a lawyer, so I don't really know enough to get upset yet. It looks like they suspected the AP of violating the law and they're investigating it, but it seems like they messed up somewhere. So, can someone explain why the government is the bad guy? I'm sure there's some other part of the story missing, so I'm hoping someone can fill me in.
 
2013-05-13 9:00:28 PM  

Nabb1: mrshowrules: Erix: Who the hell signed off on these subpoenas?  How could something think this was a good idea that could be legally defended?

I guess we will find out.  Like I said in another thread.  Two possibilities:

1) Eric Holder resigns

or

2) some people in DC are charged under Federal Law for revealing State secrets


Either way, this should be interesting.

Could be both, you know.


I don't think so.  Either he had a weak case and overstepped the bounds of his office.  Or he had an actual case which will justify the actions of his office plus he will have someone else (the person or persons charged) that will draw the attention of media.
 
2013-05-13 9:00:40 PM  
Hope you like the change.
 
2013-05-13 9:00:48 PM  

Nabb1: Sometimes cases like this fore change in the law.


You honestly thing Congress will act on this? Or SCOTUS? hahahahahahanfdno[jfdj nvcvc

Oh, wow.
 
2013-05-13 9:00:58 PM  
The freedom of the press really ought to include a right to keep sources secret.
 
2013-05-13 9:01:02 PM  
meanwhile congress critters and senators keep releasing intimate government secrets every time they interrogate a new appointee or benghaziiiiiiiiiiiiii witness to government.

/Congress: We will find this leak, even if we have to order it ourselves via a secret government agent in the DOJ so Obama can be impeached for it.
 
2013-05-13 9:02:21 PM  
images3.static-bluray.comView Full Size
 
2013-05-13 9:02:44 PM  
As long as this is for the greater good I'm ok with it.

//black robed gathering has said its for the greater good so were good
 
2013-05-13 9:02:56 PM  

Myria: The freedom of the press really ought to include a right to keep sources secret.


of course. Unless that source is leaking classified information that compromises ongoing operations. That shiat should be treason.
 
2013-05-13 9:03:08 PM  
Oh and

Patriot act = Martial Law.

/Different name but same abuse of your Rights and Freedoms.
//Fark Independents give thanks to Bush the junior for starting it
 
2013-05-13 9:03:24 PM  

Nabb1: I think you missed the point, chief.


What, that it's a bad comparison? Nope. It's still leaking of classified information and I don't give a f*ck if it's covered under UCMJ or NSA. It's STILL LEAKING OF CLASSIFIED INFORMATION.

In BOTH cases, it's military intelligence. One is covered under UCMJ, the other is covered under US Code.

I know the point he was making, he was making it by ignoring that both cases involve the leak of classified military intelligence that caused harm to national security.
 
2013-05-13 9:03:51 PM  

lexnaturalis: Can someone explain why this is bad? Maybe I'm just missing part of the story. Was it just that they obtained so much? Since the article seems to only condemn the breadth of the search, did they obtain warrants?

I'm not a lawyer, so I don't really know enough to get upset yet. It looks like they suspected the AP of violating the law and they're investigating it, but it seems like they messed up somewhere. So, can someone explain why the government is the bad guy? I'm sure there's some other part of the story missing, so I'm hoping someone can fill me in.


Pretty much because this lets the government see who the press is talking to and when.  If people don't feel they can safely talk to the press, it really hampers their ability to get information.  Casting such a broad net can easily be seen as an attempt to intimidate whistleblowers and other anonymous sources.
 
2013-05-13 9:04:16 PM  

AdolfOliverPanties: Is there anyone on Fark who LIKES the Patriot Act?  It makes this anti-Republican sick that the Obama administration has used it.  Warrantless wiretapping, this current bullshiat...it all started with the Patriot Act.

Look at how far we have come as a country in the past fifteen years.  Patriot Act, Citizens United etc...

Greatest country on Earth?  Probably, but not by much of a margin anymore.


And you though it wouldn't happen?

Camel's nose in the tent.
 
2013-05-13 9:04:18 PM  

lexnaturalis: Can someone explain why this is bad? Maybe I'm just missing part of the story. Was it just that they obtained so much? Since the article seems to only condemn the breadth of the search, did they obtain warrants?

I'm not a lawyer, so I don't really know enough to get upset yet. It looks like they suspected the AP of violating the law and they're investigating it, but it seems like they messed up somewhere. So, can someone explain why the government is the bad guy? I'm sure there's some other part of the story missing, so I'm hoping someone can fill me in.


No, they are not saying the AP broke the law. They are apparently trying to find out the source of information leaked to the AP. The subpoena was apparently very broad, more so than what they think should be sufficient and the AP wants the documents back .
 
2013-05-13 9:04:19 PM  
click here to find out this one weird trick about how on man flipped Obaminator's blunder to make it RICH!
 
2013-05-13 9:04:25 PM  

sheep snorter: Oh and

Patriot act = Martial Law.

/Different name but same abuse of your Rights and Freedoms.
//Fark Independents give thanks to Bush the junior for starting it


Oh and...

no, it isn't.
 
2013-05-13 9:05:30 PM  
Thank God.

We might get a scandal that doesn't involve a stupid argument with semantics (a la Benghazi and IRS)
 
2013-05-13 9:05:51 PM  
Bush started the Patriot Act, and Obama kept the Patriot Act. It is one thing that I am not happy that he has done. I know it will never get repealed, but this sort of thing will happen until it goes away.
 
2013-05-13 9:05:55 PM  
It's Bush's fault! --Living the lie since 2008.

*the nda did not approve this message.
 
2013-05-13 9:05:55 PM  

sheep snorter: Oh and

Patriot act = Martial Law.

/Different name but same abuse of your Rights and Freedoms.
//Fark Independents give thanks to Bush the junior for starting it


Not quite, but a ways down that path.  A couple of more events (I wonder what al Quaeda charges?) and we will be there.
 
2013-05-13 9:06:33 PM  
When the Administration outs an ACTIVE CIA agent involved in controlling nuclear proliferation, wake me up.

This is a use of the USA Patriot Act. It's written law. It is a law that should NOT exist. At least THIS administration, in this instance, is trying to find out how the sources and methods of active intelligence agents are compromised instead of leaking that intel themselves for pure political gain.

Kill the Patriot Act and we can move on. Aside from that, sleep in the bed. We made it.
 
2013-05-13 9:06:47 PM  
I see some of the apologists got an early start in this thread.
 
2013-05-13 9:07:27 PM  

Erix: Who the hell signed off on these subpoenas?  How could something think this was a good idea that could be legally defended?


Most versions say that they only looked at outgoing numbers, which doesn't even require a warrant as far as I can tell: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_v._Maryland
And that is before the Patriot Act.
 
2013-05-13 9:07:52 PM  

CynicalLA: We were called traitors and told we had nothing to be worried about.


Not to spoil your pity party but it's not like Republicans haven't been called traitors and terrorists as of late for the simple act of not supporting gun control, ACA, and Sandy Relief pork. With the overly dramatic reinterpretation of 2001-2008 you'd think America was a Soviet state.

The key thing though, is your side has the power to undo all the things you critiqued back prior to 2009 but now seem at best indifferent. Bush didn't abuse his office like this. How about some actual outrage or have you feigned it for so long you can't be real about it?

I bet the actual civil libertarians are getting that feeling that they were used.

If you're going to use "cynical" in your user ID at least be cynical evenly and not confuse your partisan cynicism with actual cynicism.
 
2013-05-13 9:08:42 PM  
I'm really not convinced Freedom Of The Press means freedom of investigation by the press. Those aren't the same thing.
 
2013-05-13 9:09:19 PM  

Nabb1: No, they are not saying the AP broke the law. They are apparently trying to find out the source of information leaked to the AP. The subpoena was apparently very broad, more so than what they think should be sufficient and the AP wants the documents back .


So it wasn't the AP the broke the law, but the person who leaked it to the AP, but this was an attempt to find the source? So is this the equivalence of a fishing expedition?

If that's the case, I can see why people would be upset.
 
2013-05-13 9:09:19 PM  
charlock.orgView Full Size
 
2013-05-13 9:09:46 PM  

Nabb1: NewportBarGuy: Nabb1: Look, if you want to defend Obama at all costs, go ahead, but what you are talking about has f*ck all to do with the AP. Seriously. It has nothing to do with whether or not the subpoena was over broad or specifically tailored for the investigation.

So, you'll agree we should repeal the USA Patriot Act and make them get evidence first?

I've always loathed the Patriot Act. Do you want to try another line of argument?


Glad to hear that.  Obviously, you are completely disgusted by the GOP House  that has voted to repeal Obamacare a Brazillion times and voted to repeal the Patriot Act 0 times!
 
2013-05-13 9:09:49 PM  
Ok someone answer me this.

This does sound pretty dickish, but isn't this basically legal?
 
2013-05-13 9:10:05 PM  

MaudlinMutantMollusk: Congress is going to jump right on this and make sure it never happens again, right?

/guys?
//anyone?


Congress will pull its head out of its collective ass the very second Congresspeople start getting arrested and jailed in the middle of the night for no apparent reason. Ooops. Too late.
 
2013-05-13 9:13:01 PM  

Mrtraveler01: Ok someone answer me this.

This does sound pretty dickish, but isn't this basically legal?


legal/illegal may not be what is the important element.

Remember Cheney arguing that he had the authority to declassify information during Plame-gate.  Yes it was technically true but in reality they outed an agent who embarrassed the administration.

Anyways, it seems like the Patriot Act makes almost anything legal.
 
2013-05-13 9:14:22 PM  

Nabb1: mrshowrules: Erix: Who the hell signed off on these subpoenas?  How could something think this was a good idea that could be legally defended?

I guess we will find out.  Like I said in another thread.  Two possibilities:

1) Eric Holder resigns

or

2) some people in DC are charged under Federal Law for revealing State secrets


Either way, this should be interesting.

Could be both, you know.


I'm hoping for both, but I would settle for Holder's head on a pike at the city gates.
 
2013-05-13 9:14:36 PM  

ILostMyPassword: Erix: Who the hell signed off on these subpoenas?  How could something think this was a good idea that could be legally defended?

Most versions say that they only looked at outgoing numbers, which doesn't even require a warrant as far as I can tell: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_v._Maryland
And that is before the Patriot Act.


Huh, I didn't know that.  I'm obviously not a legal expert, but it still seems like an incredibly stupid overreach on the government's part.
 
2013-05-13 9:14:51 PM  

mrshowrules: Mrtraveler01: Ok someone answer me this.

This does sound pretty dickish, but isn't this basically legal?

legal/illegal may not be what is the important element.

Remember Cheney arguing that he had the authority to declassify information during Plame-gate.  Yes it was technically true but in reality they outed an agent who embarrassed the administration.

Anyways, it seems like the Patriot Act makes almost anything legal.


That's what I get out of this as well.

Reading into this more, the reasoning the US DOJ used is the fact that a foiled bomb plot back in 2012 leaked to the AP.

That being said, there was probably a better way of handling that.
 
2013-05-13 9:15:40 PM  

Mrtraveler01: Thank God.

We might get a scandal that doesn't involve a stupid argument with semantics (a la Benghazi and IRS)


Benghazzi: non-scandal
IRS v. Tea Party: bureaucratic scandal not implicating the administration.
AP Subpoenas: hmmm....?
 
2013-05-13 9:16:47 PM  

LessO2: Well, this will get Benghazi out of the news cycle for sure.


BWAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAA---*gasp*.

Good one.


fjnorton: As long as this is for the greater good I'm ok with it.

//black robed gathering has said its for the greater good so were good


SHUT IT!
 
2013-05-13 9:19:27 PM  
25.media.tumblr.comView Full Size


scottystarnes.files.wordpress.comView Full Size
 
2013-05-13 9:20:28 PM  
Step 1.  Go to ostel.me.  sign up, receive email.

Step 2.  Download Csipsimple from the play store.

Step 3.  Set up OSTN network using ostel.me login and password you got in that email from step 1.

Step 4.  Enable ZRTP encryption in settings.  When calling friends 4 digit number, both parties enter ZRTP handshake password at beginning of call.  VOILA!

Step 5.  TELL EVERYONE!

Also, Orbot and Orweb for browsing.  Screw Congress and the telecoms.  Encryption is easy nowadays.
 
2013-05-13 9:22:24 PM  

Mrtraveler01: Ok someone answer me this.

This does sound pretty dickish, but isn't this basically legal?


Yes ... it is. And it was long before the Patriot Act. Just for the legally uninitiated ...


You might not realize that law enforcement agencies have had access to phone records (i.e., numbers called, duration of calls, etc.) long before the passage of the Patriot Act. At the very least it goes back to the SCOTUS decision in 1979 in Smith v. Maryland.

"A big question in determining whether your expectation of privacy is "reasonable" and protected by the Fourth Amendment arises when you have "knowingly exposed" something to another person or to the public at large. Although Katz did have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the sound of his conversation, would he have had a reasonable expectation of privacy in his appearance or actions while inside the glass phone booth? Probably not.

Thus, some Supreme Court cases have held that you have no reasonable expectation of privacy in information you have "knowingly exposed" to a third party - for example, bank records or records of telephone numbers you have dialed - even if you intended for that third party to keep the information secret. In other words, by engaging in transactions with your bank or communicating phone numbers to your phone company for the purpose of connecting a call, you've "assumed the risk" that they will share that information with the government.

You may "knowingly expose" a lot more than you really know or intend. Most information a third party collects - such as your insurance records, credit records, bank records, travel records, library records, phone records and even the records your grocery store keeps when you use your "loyalty" card to get discounts - was given freely to them by you, and is probably not protected by the Fourth Amendment under current law. There may be privacy statutes that protect against the sharing of information about you - some communications records receive special legal protection, for example - but there is likely no constitutional protection, and it is often very easy for the government to get a hold of these third party records without your ever being notified."

  https://ssd.eff.org/your-computer/govt/privacy
 
2013-05-13 9:23:38 PM  
 
2013-05-13 9:24:44 PM  
So they are going after someone who leaked government info?  Par for the course for this administration.  They've gone to unprecedented lengths to find and destroy whistle blowers and scare anyone from following suit.  Hopefully the reporters were using burner phones.
 
2013-05-13 9:24:46 PM  

NewportBarGuy: Kill the Patriot Act and we can move on. Aside from that, sleep in the bed. We made it.


Well, on this at least, I agree with you. The USA PATRIOT Act was put in place by an administration motivated by power and willing to exploit fear to get it. It undermines so much of what we consider our rights, and really has no place in this country.
 
2013-05-13 9:25:52 PM  
Fark the AP they don't investigate shiat. They only report what administration spokespeople tell them.

When they start investigative reporting instead of lap dogging I might give a shiat. Until then boo friggety hoo. Shaddup.
 
2013-05-13 9:27:06 PM  
I've never understood how the government picks and chooses which leaks to go after. They happen all the time. The law should be that if someone leaks classified material that exposes government wrongdoing, they are immune to prosecution. For any other reasons, they are legally accountable.
 
2013-05-13 9:27:09 PM  

Farnn: So they are going after someone who leaked government info?  Par for the course for this administration.  They've gone to unprecedented lengths to find and destroy whistle blowers and scare anyone from following suit.  Hopefully the reporters were using burner phones.


so you think it's okay that someone is giving CIA info to terrorists?
 
2013-05-13 9:27:15 PM  

NewportBarGuy: If you violate the National Securities Act, expect to be charged.

What? Is this news? If you want to fight for this, you also want to release Bradley Manning without charge.

Thank about that for a second.


Sounds fine to me.
 
2013-05-13 9:27:17 PM  

PewterPirate55: Fark the AP they don't investigate shiat. They only report what administration spokespeople tell them.

When they start investigative reporting instead of lap dogging I might give a shiat. Until then boo friggety hoo. Shaddup.


The reason they were being investigated according to the DOJ is because the AP leaked details to a foiled bomb plot back in 2012.
 
2013-05-13 9:27:23 PM  
has anyone here actually bothered to check if conservatives who aren't in congress like the patriot act? They didn't even like bush at the end of his 2nd term.

No? of course not. just post some funny "freeper" photos. who by they way all biatch about the patriot act
 
2013-05-13 9:27:50 PM  

PewterPirate55: Fark the AP they don't investigate shiat. They only report what administration spokespeople tell them.

When they start investigative reporting instead of lap dogging I might give a shiat. Until then boo friggety hoo. Shaddup.


So the administration told them to report on the IRS issue?  Okay.
 
2013-05-13 9:28:33 PM  

NewportBarGuy: When the Administration outs an ACTIVE CIA agent involved in controlling nuclear proliferation, wake me up.


Richard Armitage leaked the info to Bob Novak. Per the record the way it came out was Novak was doing a story on Wilson's op-ed where he called the president a liar. He wanted to know why Wilson was sent and how far was the report. Armitage stated to him it was because his wife worked in counterproliferation for the CIA and had contacts. The investigation never found any connection to Cheney, Rove, or Bush. The connection to Libby stemmed from Libby having discussed it with a reporter after the info had come to light and later tried to cover up his comments to the reporter.

In fact per Colin Powell: Then he goes on to talk about the Valerie Plame affair, and tries to lay it all off on Mister Rich Armitage in the State Department and me. But the fact of the matter is when Mister Armitage realized that he was the source for Bob Novak's column that caused all the difficulty and he called me immediately, two days after the President launched the investigation and what we did was we called the Justice Department. They sent it over the FBI. The FBI had all the information that Mister Armitage's participation in this immediately. And we called Al Gonzalez, the President's counsel, and told him that we had information. The FBI asked us not to share any of this with anyone else, as did Mister Gonzalez. And so, if the White House operatives had come forward as readily as Mister Armitage had done, then we wouldn't have gone on for two more months with the FBI trying to find out what happened in the White House. There wouldn't have been special counsel appointed by the Justice Department who spent two years trying to get to the bottom of it. And we wouldn't have the mess that we subsequently had. And so if the White House and the operatives in the White House and Mister Cheney's staff and elsewhere in the White House had been as forthcoming with the FBI as Mister Armitage was, this problem would not have reached the dimensions that it reached.

The highest official who knew about the leak was Colin Powell. He didn't even discuss how it was leaked by Armitage to Bush, Cheney, or Rove.

The idea that Rove, Cheney, and Bush leaked the info in order to get even with Joe Wilson is a popular but unsupported assertion... unless you think Powell is lying about the whole thing. I suppose your argument is correct, someone in the Bush administration leaked the info... it just so happens to be the guy who reported to the guy who supported Obama in 2008 and 2012.
 
2013-05-13 9:29:07 PM  

Hobodeluxe: It was totally okay when Bush did it though


Not really, but nice deflection though

/new boss, same as the old boss
 
2013-05-13 9:29:25 PM  

FormlessOne: NewportBarGuy: Kill the Patriot Act and we can move on. Aside from that, sleep in the bed. We made it.

Well, on this at least, I agree with you. The USA PATRIOT Act was put in place by an administration motivated by power and willing to exploit fear to get it. It undermines so much of what we consider our rights, and really has no place in this country.



1) It didn't really happen in a way that's out of the ordinary
2) If it did, it's Bush's fault
3) If it wasn't Bush's fault, it only happened to these groups because they deserved it
4) Even if they didn't really deserve it, it's fine because nobody was really put out that much.
5) Even if it  did happen, and it  was bad, it's anybodies fault but Obama's
6) Even if it  is Obama's fault, it's totally fine because we think Republicans are worse.

Is that about right?
 
2013-05-13 9:29:40 PM  

Mrbogey: NewportBarGuy: When the Administration outs an ACTIVE CIA agent involved in controlling nuclear proliferation, wake me up.

Richard Armitage leaked the info to Bob Novak. Per the record the way it came out was Novak was doing a story on Wilson's op-ed where he called the president a liar. He wanted to know why Wilson was sent and how far was the report. Armitage stated to him it was because his wife worked in counterproliferation for the CIA and had contacts. The investigation never found any connection to Cheney, Rove, or Bush. The connection to Libby stemmed from Libby having discussed it with a reporter after the info had come to light and later tried to cover up his comments to the reporter.

In fact per Colin Powell: Then he goes on to talk about the Valerie Plame affair, and tries to lay it all off on Mister Rich Armitage in the State Department and me. But the fact of the matter is when Mister Armitage realized that he was the source for Bob Novak's column that caused all the difficulty and he called me immediately, two days after the President launched the investigation and what we did was we called the Justice Department. They sent it over the FBI. The FBI had all the information that Mister Armitage's participation in this immediately. And we called Al Gonzalez, the President's counsel, and told him that we had information. The FBI asked us not to share any of this with anyone else, as did Mister Gonzalez. And so, if the White House operatives had come forward as readily as Mister Armitage had done, then we wouldn't have gone on for two more months with the FBI trying to find out what happened in the White House. There wouldn't have been special counsel appointed by the Justice Department who spent two years trying to get to the bottom of it. And we wouldn't have the mess that we subsequently had. And so if the White House and the operatives in the White House and Mister Cheney's staff and elsewhere in the White House had been as forthcoming with the FBI a ...


Powell, after all, has no history of lying to help Bush and Cheney. He's so honest, he should get himself a yellow cake.
 
2013-05-13 9:30:47 PM  

Mrtraveler01: PewterPirate55: Fark the AP they don't investigate shiat. They only report what administration spokespeople tell them.

When they start investigative reporting instead of lap dogging I might give a shiat. Until then boo friggety hoo. Shaddup.

The reason they were being investigated according to the DOJ is because the AP leaked details to a foiled bomb plot back in 2012.


Deal with the leak by plugging it Not by trying to scoop the water in as it falls out.

Reporting on a failed bomb plot and actually investigating said failed bomb plot are not one in the same.
 
2013-05-13 9:31:12 PM  

CynicalLA: cman: CynicalLA: cman:

You are correct. Thank you for reminding me to keep my bias in check.

It's all good.


Honest bipartisanship. Brings a tear to the eye.
 
2013-05-13 9:31:28 PM  

Jesterling: [www.charlock.org image 240x182]


I burst out laughing, scaring cats and wife with the sudden noise..

Mrbogey: CynicalLA: We were called traitors and told we had nothing to be worried about.

Not to spoil your pity party but it's not like Republicans haven't been called traitors and terrorists as of late for the simple act of not supporting gun control, ACA, and Sandy Relief pork. With the overly dramatic reinterpretation of 2001-2008 you'd think America was a Soviet state.

The key thing though, is your side has the power to undo all the things you critiqued back prior to 2009 but now seem at best indifferent. Bush didn't abuse his office like this. How about some actual outrage or have you feigned it for so long you can't be real about it?

I bet the actual civil libertarians are getting that feeling that they were used.

If you're going to use "cynical" in your user ID at least be cynical evenly and not confuse your partisan cynicism with actual cynicism.


Spot on, now...Whats to be done?
The veil has lifted somewhat, Even the most partisan can see this admin is no different (Other than being more overt than past Admins) and the Party system is basically a mirror..which reflects the civilian image and fears..but has no real power..

The American people have voted for a portrait of how they wish to be lied too..The real anger comes later, when the majority realizes they have been made to pay attention to events of which they could not care less ..
(Baaaa!)..

 
2013-05-13 9:32:03 PM  

Mrtraveler01: Ok someone answer me this.

This does sound pretty dickish, but isn't this basically legal?


It depends. Why did they do it? Ordering records for that many lines across that many months is pretty broad. Maybe they have good reason to believe the AP is actually Al Qaeda?

I mean, what reason would the US gov't have to shut down reporters? It's not like they're the GOP or anything...
 
2013-05-13 9:32:30 PM  

PewterPirate55: Mrtraveler01: PewterPirate55: Fark the AP they don't investigate shiat. They only report what administration spokespeople tell them.

When they start investigative reporting instead of lap dogging I might give a shiat. Until then boo friggety hoo. Shaddup.

The reason they were being investigated according to the DOJ is because the AP leaked details to a foiled bomb plot back in 2012.

Deal with the leak by plugging it Not by trying to scoop the water in as it falls out.

Reporting on a failed bomb plot and actually investigating said failed bomb plot are not one in the same.


I agree that the DOJ didn't handle this the best way possible.
 
2013-05-13 9:33:12 PM  
i466.photobucket.comView Full Size

 
2013-05-13 9:33:49 PM  

Mrtraveler01: PewterPirate55: Mrtraveler01: PewterPirate55: Fark the AP they don't investigate shiat. They only report what administration spokespeople tell them.

When they start investigative reporting instead of lap dogging I might give a shiat. Until then boo friggety hoo. Shaddup.

The reason they were being investigated according to the DOJ is because the AP leaked details to a foiled bomb plot back in 2012.

Deal with the leak by plugging it Not by trying to scoop the water in as it falls out.

Reporting on a failed bomb plot and actually investigating said failed bomb plot are not one in the same.

I agree that the DOJ didn't handle this the best way possible.


dammit man, you're supposed to do a Valerie Plame something something It's OK When Bush Did It.
 
2013-05-13 9:34:28 PM  

j__z: Hobodeluxe: It was totally okay when Bush did it though

Not really, but nice deflection though

/new boss, same as the old boss


The exact same farking thing Bush was doing.

A senior federal law enforcement official tells ABC News the government is tracking the phone numbers we (Brian Ross and Richard Esposito) call in an effort to root out confidential sources.
"It's time for you to get some new cell phones, quick," the source told us in an in-person conversation.
ABC News does not know how the government determined who we are calling, or whether our phone records were provided to the government as part of the recently-disclosed NSA collection of domestic phone calls.
Other sources have told us that phone calls and contacts by reporters for ABC News, along with the New York Times and the Washington Post, are being examined as part of a widespread CIA leak investigation.
One former official was asked to sign a document stating he was not a confidential source for New York Times reporter James Risen.
Our reports on the CIA's secret prisons in Romania and Poland were known to have upset CIA officials. The CIA asked for an FBI investigation of leaks of classified information following those reports.
People questioned by the FBI about leaks of intelligence information say the CIA was also disturbed by ABC News reports that revealed the use of CIA predator missiles inside Pakistan.
Under Bush Administration guidelines, it is not considered illegal for the government to keep track of numbers dialed by phone customers.
The official who warned ABC News said there was no indication our phones were being tapped so the content of the conversation could be recorded.
A pattern of phone calls from a reporter, however, could provide valuable clues for leak investigators.
 
2013-05-13 9:35:39 PM  

LordJiro: Powell, after all, has no history of lying to help Bush and Cheney. He's so honest, he should get himself a yellow cake.


If you care to look it up, he didn't lie. He was quite angry that the info he stated was later debunked and he blamed Bush and Cheney for making him look like a fool. I'm believing there's no love lost on them by Powell. If you have reason to believe he's still carrying water for them then I'd like to hear it.

The Iron duke: Spot on, now...Whats to be done?


Dismantle the surveillance state? Disband the TSA? End all security theatre?

Okay. All things being equal... let's do the easiest thing.
 
2013-05-13 9:35:50 PM  
Two words: plausible deniability.
 
2013-05-13 9:35:51 PM  

Erix: PewterPirate55: Fark the AP they don't investigate shiat. They only report what administration spokespeople tell them.

When they start investigative reporting instead of lap dogging I might give a shiat. Until then boo friggety hoo. Shaddup.

So the administration told them to report on the IRS issue?  Okay.


In essence yes when they apologized for targeting ...

Until then the complainers were dismissed as right wing nut jobs.

I agree the right wingers are the boy that cried wolf most of the time. But the job of media is to answer every time someone cries wolf and investigate. Not dismiss.

When the admission and apology came the media said holy shiat we summarily dismissed this better brush up on it.
 
2013-05-13 9:36:27 PM  

Hobodeluxe: j__z: Hobodeluxe: It was totally okay when Bush did it though

Not really, but nice deflection though

/new boss, same as the old boss

The exact same farking thing Bush was doing.

A senior federal law enforcement official tells ABC News the government is tracking the phone numbers we (Brian Ross and Richard Esposito) call in an effort to root out confidential sources.
"It's time for you to get some new cell phones, quick," the source told us in an in-person conversation.
ABC News does not know how the government determined who we are calling, or whether our phone records were provided to the government as part of the recently-disclosed NSA collection of domestic phone calls.
Other sources have told us that phone calls and contacts by reporters for ABC News, along with the New York Times and the Washington Post, are being examined as part of a widespread CIA leak investigation.
One former official was asked to sign a document stating he was not a confidential source for New York Times reporter James Risen.
Our reports on the CIA's secret prisons in Romania and Poland were known to have upset CIA officials. The CIA asked for an FBI investigation of leaks of classified information following those reports.
People questioned by the FBI about leaks of intelligence information say the CIA was also disturbed by ABC News reports that revealed the use of CIA predator missiles inside Pakistan.
Under Bush Administration guidelines, it is not considered illegal for the government to keep track of numbers dialed by phone customers.
The official who warned ABC News said there was no indication our phones were being tapped so the content of the conversation could be recorded.
A pattern of phone calls from a reporter, however, could provide valuable clues for leak investigators.


FFS dude, cut it out
 
2013-05-13 9:36:33 PM  

NewportBarGuy: Nabb1: Look, if you want to defend Obama at all costs, go ahead, but what you are talking about has f*ck all to do with the AP. Seriously. It has nothing to do with whether or not the subpoena was over broad or specifically tailored for the investigation.

So, you'll agree we should repeal the USA Patriot Act and make them get evidence first?


You guys need to get a room. Sheesh.
 
2013-05-13 9:36:46 PM  

Mrtraveler01: I agree that the DOJ didn't handle this the best way possible.


Seems to be a recurring theme with this DOJ:

Fast and Furious, Roger Clements, Roman Polanski etc, etc.
 
2013-05-13 9:36:59 PM  

AdolfOliverPanties: Is there anyone on Fark who LIKES the Patriot Act?  It makes this anti-Republican sick that the Obama administration has used it.  Warrantless wiretapping, this current bullshiat...it all started with the Patriot Act.

Look at how far we have come as a country in the past fifteen years.  Patriot Act, Citizens United etc...

Greatest country on Earth?  Probably, but not by much of a margin anymore.


well, actually it is "Greatest surveilled country on Earth", but the word surveilled got redacted.
 
2013-05-13 9:38:28 PM  

hasty ambush: Mrtraveler01: I agree that the DOJ didn't handle this the best way possible.

Seems to be a recurring theme with this DOJ:

Fast and Furious, Roger Clements, Roman Polanski etc, etc.


If any high ranking official gets fired over this, it's probably going to be Holder.
 
2013-05-13 9:38:39 PM  

HindiDiscoMonster: AdolfOliverPanties: Is there anyone on Fark who LIKES the Patriot Act?  It makes this anti-Republican sick that the Obama administration has used it.  Warrantless wiretapping, this current bullshiat...it all started with the Patriot Act.

Look at how far we have come as a country in the past fifteen years.  Patriot Act, Citizens United etc...

Greatest country on Earth?  Probably, but not by much of a margin anymore.

well, actually it is "Greatest surveilled country on Earth", but the word surveilled got redacted.


Okay...that's a good one.
 
2013-05-13 9:38:39 PM  

Gulper Eel: Keep telling yourselves power only corrupts the other guy.


LOL! I see that the usual Fark suspects lining up to dutifully support this. Wonder what they would be saying if it was the Bush DOJ doing it?
 
2013-05-13 9:39:49 PM  

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Gulper Eel: Keep telling yourselves power only corrupts the other guy.

LOL! I see that the usual Fark suspects lining up to dutifully support this. Wonder what they would be saying if it was the Bush DOJ doing it?


they did do it.
 
2013-05-13 9:40:41 PM  

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Gulper Eel: Keep telling yourselves power only corrupts the other guy.

LOL! I see that the usual Fark suspects lining up to dutifully support this. Wonder what they would be saying if it was the Bush Democratic DOJ doing it?


that's what "they" would be saying.

See how it is almost identical to what you just said?
 
2013-05-13 9:41:23 PM  

PewterPirate55: Erix: PewterPirate55: Fark the AP they don't investigate shiat. They only report what administration spokespeople tell them.

When they start investigative reporting instead of lap dogging I might give a shiat. Until then boo friggety hoo. Shaddup.

So the administration told them to report on the IRS issue?  Okay.

In essence yes when they apologized for targeting ...

Until then the complainers were dismissed as right wing nut jobs.

I agree the right wingers are the boy that cried wolf most of the time. But the job of media is to answer every time someone cries wolf and investigate. Not dismiss.

When the admission and apology came the media said holy shiat we summarily dismissed this better brush up on it.


I think I misread your initial post, since I agree that the AP, and most media in general, pretty much only reports and sucks at investigating.  The comment about lap dogging threw me though, since I feel like they're more lazy than obedient.
 
2013-05-13 9:42:20 PM  

mrshowrules: NewportBarGuy: Title VII of the National Security Act requires the CIA, the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, the National Reconnaissance Office, the National Security Agency, and the Defense Intelligence Agency to: exempt operational files from provisions of the Freedom of Information Act that would otherwise require publication or disclosure

Good luck in court, AP. We all know you won't go that route. You'll just pout and moan as did many of us about the expanded power of the USA Patriot Act.

If Conservatives want to repeal the Patriot Act, I'm sure they won't get any resistance from Liberals.


Sure they would (if it was a liberal administration). Go ahead, tell me I'm wrong with a straight face.

Same thing, of course, applies to the conservatives.

I'm afraid there is only one way that the Patriot Act is gonna be "repealed" and that way is something that I really can't mention on an open forum. For, you know, my own safety.

But I think that everyone knows what I'm talking about.
 
2013-05-13 9:43:29 PM  
But its not Fascism when Obama does it, right?
 
2013-05-13 9:43:41 PM  

NewportBarGuy: Yes, but it's the unauthorized release of classified information. UCMJ or civilian, it's the exact same thing. Diff law, diff trial, same reason for the law(s) existing.


No. A Manning comparison would be the person who gave the information to the AP. AP would be Wikileaks in this example. There are no charges that I'm aware of against Wikileaks. The DOJ tried to use phone records (and apparently all phone calls are collected by the NSA nowadays so they can go back and listen to them if they need to) to see who called who and if the NSA thing is true go through those recordings to see if the source is identified.

The problem with that is that AP is a well known news agency and the proper way to find out their sources is to take them in front of a judge and ask them who it was. At that point the reporter being questioned can either give up the source or risk contempt charges by invoking the journalistic equivalent of the 5th amendment.
 
2013-05-13 9:44:00 PM  

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: mrshowrules: NewportBarGuy: Title VII of the National Security Act requires the CIA, the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, the National Reconnaissance Office, the National Security Agency, and the Defense Intelligence Agency to: exempt operational files from provisions of the Freedom of Information Act that would otherwise require publication or disclosure

Good luck in court, AP. We all know you won't go that route. You'll just pout and moan as did many of us about the expanded power of the USA Patriot Act.

If Conservatives want to repeal the Patriot Act, I'm sure they won't get any resistance from Liberals.

Sure they would (if it was a liberal administration). Go ahead, tell me I'm wrong with a straight face.

Same thing, of course, applies to the conservatives.

I'm afraid there is only one way that the Patriot Act is gonna be "repealed" and that way is something that I really can't mention on an open forum. For, you know, my own safety.

But I think that everyone knows what I'm talking about.


Uh, I think so, Brain, but we'll never get a monkey to use dental floss.
 
2013-05-13 9:45:36 PM  
Lemme lay some bad stats on you guys,

The NSA is building a surveillance facility in Utah that had to create a new unit of measure for how much data it stores... The yottabyte.  As you can discover on wikipedia:

To store a yottabyte on terabyte sized hard drives would require a million city block size data-centers...

That's everything.  All your mail, all your bills, all your medical records, all phone calls everywhere of any type, all credit card purchases, for everyone, world wide, all the time,  forever.  And they have the power now to process it all in real time.  This is what we have wrought by allowing our idiot government to scare the shiat out of us over terrible random acts of violence in order to use that fear to herd us around.  We practically BEGGED them to do it.  This isn't a right wing or left wing thing, its a coward thing.  We gave them this power, because we were afraid.   The folks at the top sit up there on Mount Olympus, and they don't give 2 shiats about you or anything you care about, and they sure as hell don't care about your liberty or freedom.  Liberty and Freedom are big ideas meant for speeches at bridge openings, not something to be wasted on the little people like you and me.    And they know that if they know enough about you, you can be cowed into submission.  And you can.

Hitler and Stalin and a whole host of other bad folks taught us this in the past, and we were too dumb to listen.  "Don't let fear drive society, the consequences are disastrous..." ... oops.

Modern politics is a PT Barnum affair.  I'd be surprised if DC Republicans and Democrats don't get together and laugh twice a month at all the fool followers on both sides who let fear and hate drive them in this sick narcissistic media cycle.   Seriously, when no ones looking, you just know Eric Cantor and Nancy Pelosi probably hang out in the rotunda and make fun of protesters together.  We all of us are just pawns, the rabid trash they shout is just for the cameras.  It's all a carefully crafted show to suck the money and energy out of the people.  I bet they don't even care who wins elections anymore, it's not like it matters.  Hell you have to lose some, so the upper crust can jump ship to the private sector and rake in all the bribes they cached up during the "in office" years.  farkers.

Anyone who claims party affiliation is an idiot.   Anyone who thinks they have an angle on all this is an idiot.  There is no angle, it's a bunch of puff chested "elites" spitting all over each other on Sunday morning talk shows, all total BS to make money.  Above all these freaks, way up in the stratosphere are the banks, and the old money, and the same bad cast of characters that has always run the world... except, now technology and the internet has gifted them the ultimate weapon for controlling a population.   And this has led us here, a point in history where we got exactly what we asked for.

We are all cowards, and we deserve this (at least Americans do).
 
2013-05-13 9:46:10 PM  

Mrbogey: HindiDiscoMonster: AdolfOliverPanties: Is there anyone on Fark who LIKES the Patriot Act?  It makes this anti-Republican sick that the Obama administration has used it.  Warrantless wiretapping, this current bullshiat...it all started with the Patriot Act.

Look at how far we have come as a country in the past fifteen years.  Patriot Act, Citizens United etc...

Greatest country on Earth?  Probably, but not by much of a margin anymore.

well, actually it is "Greatest surveilled country on Earth", but the word surveilled got redacted.

Okay...that's a good one.


Thank you, thank you.... I'll be here all week... please tip your waitress.
 
2013-05-13 9:46:42 PM  

Myria: The freedom of the press really ought to include a right to keep sources secret.


They used to. Not sure if this happens nowadays.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_Throat
 
2013-05-13 9:46:46 PM  
Why the outrage?.. From what I see it was from phones from a U.S. govt building.  Who's phone records are we talking about?  Who's name is on the lines as the owner?

AP assigned phones by the house of rep if I'm correct. Does not say that the AP owned the lines.  who pays the bills.. and if there are AP lines in the building.. why?
 
2013-05-13 9:47:08 PM  

djkutch: CynicalLA: cman: CynicalLA: cman:

You are correct. Thank you for reminding me to keep my bias in check.

It's all good.

Honest bipartisanship. Brings a tear to the eye.


Careful. It may be a trap.
 
2013-05-13 9:47:15 PM  
It's cool everybody.  I was just told by some very smart people that this whole thing is OK because of Bush and some other Republicans and stuff, and that one dude at a Tea Party rally that had that screwed up misspelled sign.

Quite frankly, I feel pretty comfortable with that explanation.  We can all stop posting now and go give some money to MoveOn.org because they're gearing up with a biatch'in new campaign to ban some shiat.  Maybe it was raise taxes or someth'in... Whatever it was, it sounded pretty rad.
 
2013-05-13 9:47:26 PM  

skullkrusher: Hobodeluxe: j__z: Hobodeluxe: It was totally okay when Bush did it though

Not really, but nice deflection though

/new boss, same as the old boss

The exact same farking thing Bush was doing.

A senior federal law enforcement official tells ABC News the government is tracking the phone numbers we (Brian Ross and Richard Esposito) call in an effort to root out confidential sources.
"It's time for you to get some new cell phones, quick," the source told us in an in-person conversation.
ABC News does not know how the government determined who we are calling, or whether our phone records were provided to the government as part of the recently-disclosed NSA collection of domestic phone calls.
Other sources have told us that phone calls and contacts by reporters for ABC News, along with the New York Times and the Washington Post, are being examined as part of a widespread CIA leak investigation.
One former official was asked to sign a document stating he was not a confidential source for New York Times reporter James Risen.
Our reports on the CIA's secret prisons in Romania and Poland were known to have upset CIA officials. The CIA asked for an FBI investigation of leaks of classified information following those reports.
People questioned by the FBI about leaks of intelligence information say the CIA was also disturbed by ABC News reports that revealed the use of CIA predator missiles inside Pakistan.
Under Bush Administration guidelines, it is not considered illegal for the government to keep track of numbers dialed by phone customers.
The official who warned ABC News said there was no indication our phones were being tapped so the content of the conversation could be recorded.
A pattern of phone calls from a reporter, however, could provide valuable clues for leak investigators.

FFS dude, cut it out


So is this a new overreach of power or par for the course?

I'm not particularly thrilled with what happened, but the administration has a responsibility to identify the source of leaks, particularly if the leak includes information on ongoing CIA operations. Phone records aren't exactly private.
 
2013-05-13 9:48:50 PM  
Yep, no reason whatsoever a government might be interested in controlling leaks. Only stuff that makes the government look bad can get leaked!'

/Hint: If 'bad stuff' can get leaked, 'good stuff' can be leaked, too.
//Still think it's a bad deal, but the people screaming OMFGTYRANNY!1! are hyperbolic idiots.
 
2013-05-13 9:49:16 PM  
This shiat was done by the last administration and will be done by the next one and the one after that...

Can we all agree that this must end?
 
2013-05-13 9:49:19 PM  

mrlewish: Why the outrage?.. From what I see it was from phones from a U.S. govt building.  Who's phone records are we talking about?  Who's name is on the lines as the owner?

AP assigned phones by the house of rep if I'm correct. Does not say that the AP owned the lines.  who pays the bills.. and if there are AP lines in the building.. why?


Yes. Who is phone? Who is names? Who?
 
2013-05-13 9:49:55 PM  

saturn badger: Myria: The freedom of the press really ought to include a right to keep sources secret.

They used to. Not sure if this happens nowadays.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_Throat


good ummm... film
 
2013-05-13 9:51:45 PM  

AdolfOliverPanties: Is there anyone on Fark who LIKES the Patriot Act?  It makes this anti-Republican sick that the Obama administration has used it.  Warrantless wiretapping, this current bullshiat...it all started with the Patriot Act.

Look at how far we have come as a country in the past fifteen years.Patriot Act, Citizens United etc...

Greatest country on Earth?  Probably, but not by much of a margin anymore.


You should read this.

(And BTW, that $124 price is a bargain that you should snap at. I've seen it at over $500 in the recent past. It's out of print; it looks like a bunch of used copies have surfaced.)

There's a wonderfully educational plot element in the book that goes something like this: A young lawyer, who is also fascinated with big game hunting, wins a huge tort case. His fee is sufficient that he retires to Africa and eventually becomes a "White Hunter" and guide. 15 years later he returns to America. Right from the gitgo he starts running afoul of all kinds of regulations that were not there when he left. It is an incredibly powerful way of showing what you said above.
 
2013-05-13 9:51:49 PM  
My bad. not just the U.S. house of reps phones.  Sorry..

Anyway.. does the Patriot Act allow this?  If so why the whining?  Isn't this what they voted for?
 
2013-05-13 9:52:26 PM  
67.18.219.83View Full Size
 
2013-05-13 9:52:53 PM  

Erix: PewterPirate55: Erix: PewterPirate55: Fark the AP they don't investigate shiat. They only report what administration spokespeople tell them.

When they start investigative reporting instead of lap dogging I might give a shiat. Until then boo friggety hoo. Shaddup.

So the administration told them to report on the IRS issue?  Okay.

In essence yes when they apologized for targeting ...

Until then the complainers were dismissed as right wing nut jobs.

I agree the right wingers are the boy that cried wolf most of the time. But the job of media is to answer every time someone cries wolf and investigate. Not dismiss.

When the admission and apology came the media said holy shiat we summarily dismissed this better brush up on it.

I think I misread your initial post, since I agree that the AP, and most media in general, pretty much only reports and sucks at investigating.  The comment about lap dogging threw me though, since I feel like they're more lazy than obedient.


I've learned lazy vs lap dogging is subjective and is directly related to the readers political leanings vs the political leanings of the administration in power.

Either way the media doesn't do their job and government gets away with too much shiat.
 
2013-05-13 9:52:55 PM  

Ontos: It's cool everybody. I was just told by some very smart people that this whole thing is OK because of Bush and some other Republicans and stuff, and that one dude at a Tea Party rally that had that screwed up misspelled sign.


Between this one, the IRS scandal, and the Benghazi sideshow, this one is the most serious.

That being said, this seems like more of a DOJ miscalculation than a nefarious plot from Obama.

That also being said, Eric Holder's job just got less secure.

And Moveon.org? Really? Even those folks are too far to the left for me.
 
2013-05-13 9:55:00 PM  

L Buff: Mrtraveler01: Ok someone answer me this.

This does sound pretty dickish, but isn't this basically legal?

Yes ... it is. And it was long before the Patriot Act. Just for the legally uninitiated ...


You might not realize that law enforcement agencies have had access to phone records (i.e., numbers called, duration of calls, etc.) long before the passage of the Patriot Act. At the very least it goes back to the SCOTUS decision in 1979 in Smith v. Maryland.

"A big question in determining whether your expectation of privacy is "reasonable" and protected by the Fourth Amendment arises when you have "knowingly exposed" something to another person or to the public at large. Although Katz did have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the sound of his conversation, would he have had a reasonable expectation of privacy in his appearance or actions while inside the glass phone booth? Probably not.

Thus, some Supreme Court cases have held that you have no reasonable expectation of privacy in information you have "knowingly exposed" to a third party - for example, bank records or records of telephone numbers you have dialed - even if you intended for that third party to keep the information secret. In other words, by engaging in transactions with your bank or communicating phone numbers to your phone company for the purpose of connecting a call, you've "assumed the risk" that they will share that information with the government.

You may "knowingly expose" a lot more than you really know or intend. Most information a third party collects - such as your insurance records, credit records, bank records, travel records, library records, phone records and even the records your grocery store keeps when you use your "loyalty" card to get discounts - was given freely to them by you, and is probably not protected by the Fourth Amendment under current law. There may be privacy statutes that protect against the sharing of information about you - some communications records receive s ...


Thanks for cheering me up.

i141.photobucket.comView Full Size
 
2013-05-13 9:57:04 PM  

mrlewish: Why the outrage?.. From what I see it was from phones from a U.S. govt building.  Who's phone records are we talking about?  Who's name is on the lines as the owner?

AP assigned phones by the house of rep if I'm correct. Does not say that the AP owned the lines.  who pays the bills.. and if there are AP lines in the building.. why?


So by that reasoning, the government should be able to read your mail because it is handled by .gov employees, equipment and carried by their vehicles... right?
 
2013-05-13 9:59:28 PM  

GTATL: I'm not particularly thrilled with what happened, but the administration has a responsibility to identify the source of leaks, particularly if the leak includes information on ongoing CIA operations. Phone records aren't exactly private.


I think the breadth of the record search is the issue. Of course the government has the right to protect national security secrets. Of course leaking information to the enemy shouldn't be as simple as "just tell a member of the press lol can't do anything to us". Not that this was an intentionally treasonous act but to allow the press unlimited ability to spread secrets obtained through illegal disclosure is suicidal - the leaks should be investigated in a way which minimizes how much private records are disclosed
 
2013-05-13 10:00:08 PM  

Ontos: mrlewish: Why the outrage?.. From what I see it was from phones from a U.S. govt building.  Who's phone records are we talking about?  Who's name is on the lines as the owner?

AP assigned phones by the house of rep if I'm correct. Does not say that the AP owned the lines.  who pays the bills.. and if there are AP lines in the building.. why?

So by that reasoning, the government should be able to read your mail because it is handled by .gov employees, equipment and carried by their vehicles... right?


No. The person who pays the bills can look at the records. Your employer has the right to read your work email. This isn't new.
 
2013-05-13 10:00:57 PM  

Ontos: mrlewish: Why the outrage?.. From what I see it was from phones from a U.S. govt building.  Who's phone records are we talking about?  Who's name is on the lines as the owner?

AP assigned phones by the house of rep if I'm correct. Does not say that the AP owned the lines.  who pays the bills.. and if there are AP lines in the building.. why?

So by that reasoning, the government should be able to read your mail because it is handled by .gov employees, equipment and carried by their vehicles... right?


I a better analogy is that they should be able to see who your mail goes to, but not open it.
 
2013-05-13 10:00:58 PM  

Ontos: So by that reasoning, the government should be able to read your mail because it is handled by .gov employees, equipment and carried by their vehicles... right?


Why bother, almost all modern mail is typed, and they can just get it at the source.  Consequently, did you know that the way you use a keyboard is like a signature?  Google can probably figure out who you are, logged in or not, in under 5 searches.
 
2013-05-13 10:01:01 PM  

skullkrusher: GTATL: I'm not particularly thrilled with what happened, but the administration has a responsibility to identify the source of leaks, particularly if the leak includes information on ongoing CIA operations. Phone records aren't exactly private.

I think the breadth of the record search is the issue. Of course the government has the right to protect national security secrets. Of course leaking information to the enemy shouldn't be as simple as "just tell a member of the press lol can't do anything to us". Not that this was an intentionally treasonous act but to allow the press unlimited ability to spread secrets obtained through illegal disclosure is suicidal - the leaks should be investigated in a way which minimizes how much private records are disclosed


Agreed.
 
2013-05-13 10:01:43 PM  

ILostMyPassword: Erix: Who the hell signed off on these subpoenas?  How could something think this was a good idea that could be legally defended?

Most versions say that they only looked at outgoing numbers, which doesn't even require a warrant as far as I can tell: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_v._Maryland
And that is before the Patriot Act.


Since the defendant had disclosed the dialed numbers to the telephone company so they could connect his call, he did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the numbers he dialed.

This is why pay phones are going away.

Just kidding but wow. Can I take a breath today with not being recorded somewhere?
 
2013-05-13 10:01:44 PM  

Erix: I a better analogy is that they should be able to see who your mail goes to, but not open it.


I accidentally a word there.
 
2013-05-13 10:01:44 PM  

Ontos: mrlewish: Why the outrage?.. From what I see it was from phones from a U.S. govt building.  Who's phone records are we talking about?  Who's name is on the lines as the owner?

AP assigned phones by the house of rep if I'm correct. Does not say that the AP owned the lines.  who pays the bills.. and if there are AP lines in the building.. why?

So by that reasoning, the government should be able to read your mail because it is handled by .gov employees, equipment and carried by their vehicles... right?


well, a better analogy would be me allowing you to use my phone and then you biatching when I look at my phone bill
 
2013-05-13 10:02:09 PM  

chitlenz: Lemme lay some bad stats on you guys,

The NSA is building a surveillance facility in Utah that had to create a new unit of measure for how much data it stores... The yottabyte.  As you can discover on wikipedia:

To store a yottabyte on terabyte sized hard drives would require a million city block size data-centers...

That's everything.  All your mail, all your bills, all your medical records, all phone calls everywhere of any type, all credit card purchases, for everyone, world wide, all the time,  forever.  And they have the power now to process it all in real time.  This is what we have wrought by allowing our idiot government to scare the shiat out of us over terrible random acts of violence in order to use that fear to herd us around.  We practically BEGGED them to do it.  This isn't a right wing or left wing thing, its a coward thing.  We gave them this power, because we were afraid.   The folks at the top sit up there on Mount Olympus, and they don't give 2 shiats about you or anything you care about, and they sure as hell don't care about your liberty or freedom.  Liberty and Freedom are big ideas meant for speeches at bridge openings, not something to be wasted on the little people like you and me.    And they know that if they know enough about you, you can be cowed into submission.  And you can.

Hitler and Stalin and a whole host of other bad folks taught us this in the past, and we were too dumb to listen.  "Don't let fear drive society, the consequences are disastrous..." ... oops.

Modern politics is a PT Barnum affair.  I'd be surprised if DC Republicans and Democrats don't get together and laugh twice a month at all the fool followers on both sides who let fear and hate drive them in this sick narcissistic media cycle.   Seriously, when no ones looking, you just know Eric Cantor and Nancy Pelosi probably hang out in the rotunda and make fun of protesters together.  We all of us are just pawns, the rabid trash they shout is just for the cameras.  ...


I like you, Stuart.
 
2013-05-13 10:04:41 PM  
I sure HOPE the guys at associated press CHANGED their phone numbers.
 
2013-05-13 10:08:29 PM  

HindiDiscoMonster: saturn badger: Myria: The freedom of the press really ought to include a right to keep sources secret.

They used to. Not sure if this happens nowadays.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_Throat

good ummm... film


It wasn't bad. Got an 8.0. But c'mon! Anything with Dustin Hoffman and Robert Redford in it can't be all bad.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0074119/?ref_=fn_al_ch_2a
 
2013-05-13 10:08:50 PM  
Along with the biometric national ID system being debated in the senate, we've crossed the line no true democracy should cross..
 
2013-05-13 10:09:09 PM  

GTATL: skullkrusher: GTATL: I'm not particularly thrilled with what happened, but the administration has a responsibility to identify the source of leaks, particularly if the leak includes information on ongoing CIA operations. Phone records aren't exactly private.

I think the breadth of the record search is the issue. Of course the government has the right to protect national security secrets. Of course leaking information to the enemy shouldn't be as simple as "just tell a member of the press lol can't do anything to us". Not that this was an intentionally treasonous act but to allow the press unlimited ability to spread secrets obtained through illegal disclosure is suicidal - the leaks should be investigated in a way which minimizes how much private records are disclosed

Agreed.


20 lines for 2 months. That seems like a lot, but considering that multiple reporters used each line, they may have had to get all 20 lines' records in order to track the reporter calling the leak. I'm not saying it's was certainly necessary, but it's plausible.

We'll find out in due time why they deemed it necessary, and we can be sure to judge then.
 
2013-05-13 10:10:23 PM  

saturn badger: ILostMyPassword: Erix: Who the hell signed off on these subpoenas?  How could something think this was a good idea that could be legally defended?

Most versions say that they only looked at outgoing numbers, which doesn't even require a warrant as far as I can tell: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_v._Maryland
And that is before the Patriot Act.

Since the defendant had disclosed the dialed numbers to the telephone company so they could connect his call, he did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the numbers he dialed.

This is why pay phones are going away.

Just kidding but wow. Can I take a breath today with not being recorded somewhere?


Not saying I agree with it, just that this seems like it has been completely legal and probably done pretty often for the past 30+ years.
 
2013-05-13 10:12:05 PM  

GTATL: 20 lines for 2 months. That seems like a lot, but considering that multiple reporters used each line, they may have had to get all 20 lines' records in order to track the reporter calling the leak. I'm not saying it's was certainly necessary, but it's plausible.

We'll find out in due time why they deemed it necessary, and we can be sure to judge then.


You know, the cynic in me says if you're the Justice Department/FBI you capture everything, and just get subpoenas for what you already know.  This is the world we live in.
 
2013-05-13 10:12:15 PM  
Color me shocked. i used to think Obama was becoming Jimmy Carter faster than Jimmy Carter become Jimmy Carter, but I was wrong. Obama is making Richard Nixon look like an amateur.
 
2013-05-13 10:13:34 PM  
dnrta
Sports Journalists? If so, it would be okay.
go leafs
 
2013-05-13 10:14:59 PM  

TheDumbBlonde: Obama is making Richard Nixon look like an amateur.


Do you know how I know you didn't read about what the circumstances of the case are?
 
2013-05-13 10:15:42 PM  
So, if the feds get a time machine, they can go back and get the phone records of suspect back to the beginning, or just interview the switchboard operator on pain of death.

4.bp.blogspot.comView Full Size
 
2013-05-13 10:16:11 PM  

skullkrusher: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Gulper Eel: Keep telling yourselves power only corrupts the other guy.

LOL! I see that the usual Fark suspects lining up to dutifully support this. Wonder what they would be saying if it was the Bush Democratic DOJ doing it?

that's what "they" would be saying.

See how it is almost identical to what you just said?


Yes, I do. I never said I would have supported it under Bush. Both sides are evil fucsk.
 
2013-05-13 10:16:40 PM  

Erix: Who the hell signed off on these subpoenas?  How could something think this was a good idea that could be legally defended?


Do we know for certain that there were subpoenas? I see some references in stories, such as "the White House was unaware of any subpoenas"

These are call detail records, I don;t think you need a subpoena.  They can just ask, and the phone companies hand them over.
 
2013-05-13 10:16:43 PM  

TheDumbBlonde: Color me shocked. i used to think Obama was becoming Jimmy Carter faster than Jimmy Carter become Jimmy Carter, but I was wrong. Obama is making Richard Nixon look like an amateur.


So Obama isn't inept after all?
 
2013-05-13 10:17:23 PM  

WhyteRaven74: TheDumbBlonde: Obama is making Richard Nixon look like an amateur.

Do you know how I know you didn't read about what the circumstances of the case are?


He/She does live up to their Fark Handle.
 
2013-05-13 10:17:44 PM  
Earlier report said home and cell lines too..was it just work lines?
 
2013-05-13 10:19:27 PM  

WhyteRaven74: TheDumbBlonde: Obama is making Richard Nixon look like an amateur.

Do you know how I know you didn't read about what the circumstances of the case are?


Wash up and enlighten me..
 
2013-05-13 10:19:49 PM  
I'm going to go ahead and assume this had some legitimate purpose because the excuses being made so far sound plausible.

Though I do find it hi-farking-larious that some big wig at the AP is busting a gut over this. The press has a 'right to know' everything but start looking in to their business and it's a no no?
 
2013-05-13 10:19:52 PM  

Mrtraveler01: He/She does live up to their Fark Handle.


I'm hoping it's a huge clitoris. HUGE
 
2013-05-13 10:19:55 PM  

remus: NewportBarGuy: remus: Huh? I'm pretty sure that he directly violated the U.C.M.J. in more than one way. They don't need any civilian laws to throw him away for life.

Yes, but it's the unauthorized release of classified information. UCMJ or civilian, it's the exact same thing. Diff law, diff trial, same reason for the law(s) existing.

Ummm...  You really don't know a thing about the military, do you?  If an Officer orders you to pick daisies, and you don't do it, that's a UCMJ violation for failure to follow a lawful order.  This isn't anything even close to the civilian world.  The only way he gets out is to prove that safeguarding secret information is not a lawful order.  That isn't going to happen.  It's a perfectly lawful order.  Even the daisies is a lawful order.  Silly.  Crazy, but lawful.  The point in your sentence above that said "unauthorized" is pretty much all the military needs to establish.  That's case closed.


No, that's probably a candidate for prosecution for maltreatment under Article 93, UCMJ, as picking daisies is "neither a necessary, nor proper duty."

"It is not necessary to prove physical or mental harm or suffering on the part of the victim, although proof of such harm or suffering may be an important aspect of proving that the conduct meets the objective standard; it is only necessary to show, as measured from an objective viewpoint in light of the totality of the circumstances, that the accused's actions reasonably could have caused physical or mental harm or suffering."
 
2013-05-13 10:19:56 PM  

TheDumbBlonde: Color me shocked. i used to think Obama was becoming Jimmy Carter faster than Jimmy Carter become Jimmy Carter, but I was wrong. Obama is making Richard Nixon look like an amateur.


This wasn't illegal....
 
2013-05-13 10:20:32 PM  

BitwiseShift: So, if the feds get a time machine, they can go back and get the phone records of suspect back to the beginning


They sort of have a time machine over at the NSA where phone calls are concerned.
 
2013-05-13 10:21:17 PM  

WhyteRaven74: TheDumbBlonde: Obama is making Richard Nixon look like an amateur.

Do you know how I know you didn't read about what the circumstances of the case are?


So what? One of the objectives of one of the Watergate break-ins was to get dirt on Daniel Ellsberg, the source of the Pentagon Papers leak. Abuse of power is abuse of power.
 
2013-05-13 10:21:28 PM  

chitlenz: GTATL: 20 lines for 2 months. That seems like a lot, but considering that multiple reporters used each line, they may have had to get all 20 lines' records in order to track the reporter calling the leak. I'm not saying it's was certainly necessary, but it's plausible.

We'll find out in due time why they deemed it necessary, and we can be sure to judge then.

You know, the cynic in me says if you're the Justice Department/FBI you capture everything, and just get subpoenas for what you already know.  This is the world we live in.


They've been working on that for years. It was the Total Information Awareness with that classy patriot, Poindexter. So that got nixed, but I'd bet a lot of the work continued. And now we have the Utah Data Center, and god knows what else out there. Is it worthwhile to encrypt all my shopping lists just to make them devote more resources to it? Yeah, probably. Because, fark those fascists.

JL1DQpLmDwIK2mJ7k9QMiRexFnOQ1qvlW63D62mAdTOh58sKpYKjsJsD+G7Uw9Cpk8MJL r TkLnkDOLgUEZekHSmIHZAsXev4kPP6SnJ8reXJwLCuazqPYSPSWakcw0QZB/JWiDn1+Z4D Wf3AZ/yd2C1FKASItp928/Ebw1IHcKbT4Nz8opkCWVoEIqIvtxQf5EDi6ly+nPqXwnobu6 uKzEEKeT66X+ULmaXV2kyH7UpD+oqfrc4fPGcuzonTB6wy0L4UHEBZq8TqbwFxSkbhes4K uZvTM/Ulhb6Kx2z6rRHAW0AKNwF6o2EY9GDQOS0Bd5ZNdxq0h91dcFoIFou+saNuRo3kW7 BvMvQaFwbFJ0NF0NJOBpRqkjMlYpEBFIkFWmvtRu71xKkD8uv6ZYCe759xsMEXK7Ek2mz8 YhauQd6b+igNTXZbfAmwrKqx2I0NoAZg95Xe7DwDyqbithmuH/+vq+vC7tY5+o/zBAp7WT 8mY/rw4woSGfg/WrdS45sR
 
2013-05-13 10:21:51 PM  

GTATL: TheDumbBlonde: Color me shocked. i used to think Obama was becoming Jimmy Carter faster than Jimmy Carter become Jimmy Carter, but I was wrong. Obama is making Richard Nixon look like an amateur.

This wasn't illegal....


LOL.
 
2013-05-13 10:21:53 PM  

Evil High Priest: chitlenz: Lemme lay some bad stats on you guys,

The NSA is building a surveillance facility in Utah that had to create a new unit of measure for how much data it stores... The yottabyte.  As you can discover on wikipedia:

To store a yottabyte on terabyte sized hard drives would require a million city block size data-centers...

That's everything.  All your mail, all your bills, all your medical records, all phone calls everywhere of any type, all credit card purchases, for everyone, world wide, all the time,  forever.  And they have the power now to process it all in real time.  This is what we have wrought by allowing our idiot government to scare the shiat out of us over terrible random acts of violence in order to use that fear to herd us around.  We practically BEGGED them to do it.  This isn't a right wing or left wing thing, its a coward thing.  We gave them this power, because we were afraid.   The folks at the top sit up there on Mount Olympus, and they don't give 2 shiats about you or anything you care about, and they sure as hell don't care about your liberty or freedom.  Liberty and Freedom are big ideas meant for speeches at bridge openings, not something to be wasted on the little people like you and me.    And they know that if they know enough about you, you can be cowed into submission.  And you can.

Hitler and Stalin and a whole host of other bad folks taught us this in the past, and we were too dumb to listen.  "Don't let fear drive society, the consequences are disastrous..." ... oops.

Modern politics is a PT Barnum affair.  I'd be surprised if DC Republicans and Democrats don't get together and laugh twice a month at all the fool followers on both sides who let fear and hate drive them in this sick narcissistic media cycle.   Seriously, when no ones looking, you just know Eric Cantor and Nancy Pelosi probably hang out in the rotunda and make fun of protesters together.  We all of us are just pawns, the rabid trash they shout is just for the cameras.  ...

I like you, Stuart.


Burrow owl?
 
2013-05-13 10:22:11 PM  

Erix: Ontos: mrlewish: Why the outrage?.. From what I see it was from phones from a U.S. govt building.  Who's phone records are we talking about?  Who's name is on the lines as the owner?

AP assigned phones by the house of rep if I'm correct. Does not say that the AP owned the lines.  who pays the bills.. and if there are AP lines in the building.. why?

So by that reasoning, the government should be able to read your mail because it is handled by .gov employees, equipment and carried by their vehicles... right?

I a better analogy is that they should be able to see who your mail goes to, but not open it.


So, how would you feel about the government building a list with regards to who send mail to whom?
 
2013-05-13 10:22:34 PM  

j__z: Hobodeluxe: It was totally okay when Bush did it though

Not really, but nice deflection though

/new boss, same as the old boss


Yeah nice to see the Dems lowering the bar from "He's not as bad as Bush was" to "He's the same so it's okay."
 
2013-05-13 10:23:07 PM  
Patriot Act biatch. Conservatives could lead a charge to repeal in the House. Could. Should. Won't.
 
2013-05-13 10:23:28 PM  
prepaidreviews.comView Full Size
 
2013-05-13 10:24:42 PM  

Triumph: The law should be that if someone leaks classified material that exposes government wrongdoing, they are immune to prosecution. For any other reasons, they are legally accountable.


I think that whistleblower laws might have such a provision, but in this case there was no government wrongdoing. This is the Justice department being pissed on behalf of the Intelligence community for the AP revealing their secrets. They want to know who leaked it, and probably throw them in jail.
 
2013-05-13 10:25:15 PM  

oldcrow95: Burrow owl?


Lol no, but as a DICOM developer, that is pretty cool :)

Might have to play with that later tonight.
 
2013-05-13 10:25:30 PM  

TheDumbBlonde: GTATL: TheDumbBlonde: Color me shocked. i used to think Obama was becoming Jimmy Carter faster than Jimmy Carter become Jimmy Carter, but I was wrong. Obama is making Richard Nixon look like an amateur.

This wasn't illegal....

LOL.


My take away from your post is that Nixon was the worst office holder.
 
2013-05-13 10:26:14 PM  
Its okay when our guys do it!!  yay!
 
2013-05-13 10:26:49 PM  

djkutch: TheDumbBlonde: GTATL: TheDumbBlonde: Color me shocked. i used to think Obama was becoming Jimmy Carter faster than Jimmy Carter become Jimmy Carter, but I was wrong. Obama is making Richard Nixon look like an amateur.

This wasn't illegal....

LOL.

My take away from your post is that Nixon was the worst office holder.


That's your choice.
 
2013-05-13 10:27:01 PM  

nmrsnr: Triumph: The law should be that if someone leaks classified material that exposes government wrongdoing, they are immune to prosecution. For any other reasons, they are legally accountable.

I think that whistleblower laws might have such a provision, but in this case there was no government wrongdoing. This is the Justice department being pissed on behalf of the Intelligence community for the AP revealing their secrets. They want to know who leaked it, and probably throw them in jail.


Yes, they do, but if the press cannot protect its sources, we may never find out about a lot of things our government is doing behind out backs. This should not be a partisan issue. This is fundamental press versus the state.
 
2013-05-13 10:27:19 PM  
Wow. Blind hatred of a black man as President will even drive conservatards to rush to the defense of the Evil Media? You people need to take a break and wipe the foam from around your mouths...
 
2013-05-13 10:27:47 PM  

spazzhappy: [www.prepaidreviews.com image 300x200]


What does a program created by Ronald Reagan have to do with this?
 
2013-05-13 10:28:05 PM  
I suspect this isn't the first time this has happened.  Sadly, it won't be the last time.
 
2013-05-13 10:28:27 PM  

chitlenz: oldcrow95: Burrow owl?

Lol no, but as a DICOM developer, that is pretty cool :)

Might have to play with that later tonight.


Don't you see? It's all about what they're doing to the soil!
 
2013-05-13 10:29:15 PM  

stevejovi: Wow. Blind hatred of a black man as President will even drive conservatards to rush to the defense of the Evil Media? You people need to take a break and wipe the foam from around your mouths...


qui?
 
2013-05-13 10:29:23 PM  

stevejovi: Wow. Blind hatred of a black man as President will even drive conservatards to rush to the defense of the Evil Media? You people need to take a break and wipe the foam from around your mouths...


You missed my post lol
 
2013-05-13 10:30:32 PM  
It's ok because the Obama administration did it and now it is just republicans stirring up yet another non-scandal for political points.
 
2013-05-13 10:31:56 PM  

Nabb1: nmrsnr: Triumph: The law should be that if someone leaks classified material that exposes government wrongdoing, they are immune to prosecution. For any other reasons, they are legally accountable.

I think that whistleblower laws might have such a provision, but in this case there was no government wrongdoing. This is the Justice department being pissed on behalf of the Intelligence community for the AP revealing their secrets. They want to know who leaked it, and probably throw them in jail.

Yes, they do, but if the press cannot protect its sources, we may never find out about a lot of things our government is doing behind out backs. This should not be a partisan issue. This is fundamental press versus the state.


The press does not have a right to shield their sources at present. While I agree this is important, I would never argue that this is always in the best interests if the country.
 
2013-05-13 10:32:35 PM  

TheDumbBlonde: djkutch: TheDumbBlonde: GTATL: TheDumbBlonde: Color me shocked. i used to think Obama was becoming Jimmy Carter faster than Jimmy Carter become Jimmy Carter, but I was wrong. Obama is making Richard Nixon look like an amateur.

This wasn't illegal....

LOL.

My take away from your post is that Nixon was the worst office holder.

That's your choice.


What's yours?
 
2013-05-13 10:33:40 PM  

TheDumbBlonde: GTATL: TheDumbBlonde: Color me shocked. i used to think Obama was becoming Jimmy Carter faster than Jimmy Carter become Jimmy Carter, but I was wrong. Obama is making Richard Nixon look like an amateur.

This wasn't illegal....

LOL.


Are you saying it was illegal?
 
2013-05-13 10:34:41 PM  

Mrtraveler01: He/She does live up to their Fark Handle.


It's she, and you have no idea how much she does..

.

Nabb1: Abuse of power is abuse of power.


It appears whoever the AP was talking to had a high level security clearance, which means they agreed to a few things. High level security clearances work that way, you get access to certain things but you agree to certain conditions, like that your phone communications from work may be if not tapped then recorded just in case. Granted unless you've done something previous to get people to watch you, you can do whatever you want outside of work. Like, dish to an AP reporter.
 
2013-05-13 10:35:00 PM  

hasty ambush: Mrtraveler01: I agree that the DOJ didn't handle this the best way possible.

Seems to be a recurring theme with this DOJ:

Fast and Furious, Roger Clements, Roman Polanski etc, etc.


You forgot too big to jail. Holder is possibly the stupidest AD in US history or is taking bribes from drug lords.
 
2013-05-13 10:36:10 PM  

Nabb1: Yes, they do, but if the press cannot protect its sources, we may never find out about a lot of things our government is doing behind out backs. This should not be a partisan issue. This is fundamental press versus the state.


I don't think the state is looking to prosecute the reporters. I don't even think they can. But I don't, and never have, bought the Fourth Estate line that communication between reporter and source is privileged. I believe that a reporter should never be compelled to betray their source, but the communication per se isn't beyond the scope of investigation. The problem here is that the Justice Department looks like they were fishing instead of searching, which isn't ok.
 
2013-05-13 10:36:34 PM  

stevejovi: Wow. Blind hatred worship of a black man as President will even drive conservalibtards to rush to the defense of the Evil treatment of Media? You people need to take a break and wipe the foam jizz from around your mouths...

 
2013-05-13 10:37:55 PM  

TedDalton: stevejovi: Wow. Blind hatred worship of a black man as President will even drive conservalibtards to rush to the defense of the Evil treatment of Media? You people need to take a break and wipe the foam jizz from around your mouths...


Got nothing huh?

Talk about being lazy.
 
2013-05-13 10:38:35 PM  
Wow, shocking Holder and his justice department did something corrupt and authoritarian! What a joke the two party system is, at least I don't see too many partisan liberal douches defending this like they normally do. That's progress I guess.
 
2013-05-13 10:39:10 PM  

ShadowKamui: hasty ambush: Mrtraveler01: I agree that the DOJ didn't handle this the best way possible.

Seems to be a recurring theme with this DOJ:

Fast and Furious, Roger Clements, Roman Polanski etc, etc.

You forgot too big to jail. Holder is possibly the stupidest AD in US history or is taking bribes from drug lords.


Goldman farking Sachs. Jamie Dimon.  You know, the wall street farkers he really works for...  cuz hey this AG gig is looking finite, and a man's gotta eat!
 
2013-05-13 10:39:30 PM  

TedDalton: Evil treatment of Media


But I thought the media was liberal and in the tank for Obama. Now I don't know what to believe!
 
2013-05-13 10:41:09 PM  

TheJoe03: at least I don't see too many partisan liberal douches defending this like they normally do.


Biatch and moan while being part of the problem eh? So got nothing in other words? How about having something instead of whining like a biatch?
 
2013-05-13 10:42:59 PM  

chitlenz: ShadowKamui: hasty ambush: Mrtraveler01: I agree that the DOJ didn't handle this the best way possible.

Seems to be a recurring theme with this DOJ:

Fast and Furious, Roger Clements, Roman Polanski etc, etc.

You forgot too big to jail. Holder is possibly the stupidest AD in US history or is taking bribes from drug lords.

Goldman farking Sachs. Jamie Dimon.  You know, the wall street farkers he really works for...  cuz hey this AG gig is looking finite, and a man's gotta eat!


Even that crew didn't touch drug lord and AQ money. HSBC managed to some how one up the rest of the scumbag bankers.
 
2013-05-13 10:43:13 PM  

Ontos: Erix: Ontos: mrlewish: Why the outrage?.. From what I see it was from phones from a U.S. govt building.  Who's phone records are we talking about?  Who's name is on the lines as the owner?

AP assigned phones by the house of rep if I'm correct. Does not say that the AP owned the lines.  who pays the bills.. and if there are AP lines in the building.. why?

So by that reasoning, the government should be able to read your mail because it is handled by .gov employees, equipment and carried by their vehicles... right?

I a better analogy is that they should be able to see who your mail goes to, but not open it.

So, how would you feel about the government building a list with regards to who send mail to whom?


I think that would suck.  I'm also think this sucks unless they have some ridiculously valid reason, but I'm just clarifying how I understand it so far.  They supposedly aren't listening in on the phone conversations, just seeing who the reporters at the AP are calling.
 
2013-05-13 10:43:25 PM  

stevejovi: Wow. Blind hatred of a black man as President will even drive conservatards to rush to the defense of the Evil Media? You people need to take a break and wipe the foam from around your mouths...


If that makes you feel better about the abuses done by Holder while he's been in office. Basically you're a dumbass and you should feel bad.
 
2013-05-13 10:44:36 PM  

MisterRonbo: Erix: Who the hell signed off on these subpoenas?  How could something think this was a good idea that could be legally defended?

Do we know for certain that there were subpoenas? I see some references in stories, such as "the White House was unaware of any subpoenas"

These are call detail records, I don;t think you need a subpoena.  They can just ask, and the phone companies hand them over.


yeah cops do this all the time w/o a warrant. it's not like they are actually wiretapping their phone. just checking the logs.
 
2013-05-13 10:44:59 PM  

WhyteRaven74: Biatch and moan while being part of the problem eh? So got nothing in other words? How about having something instead of whining like a biatch?


What are you talking about? How am I part of the problem? Why is it so offensive to you that I'm complaining about this? Got nothing, huh?

/can't blame you for being a partsian coont, this site promotes that way of thinking
 
2013-05-13 10:45:48 PM  

mrshowrules: If Conservatives want to repeal the Patriot Act, I'm sure they won't get any resistance from Liberals.


BladBoy: Glad to hear that. Obviously, you are completely disgusted by the GOP House that has voted to repeal Obamacare a Brazillion times and voted to repeal the Patriot Act 0 times!


You guys know who signed the bill to renew the Patriot Act in 2011 right?
 
2013-05-13 10:46:35 PM  

TheJoe03: What are you talking about? How am I part of the problem? Why is it so offensive to you that I'm complaining about this? Got nothing, huh?


complaining about a two party system while doing nothing about it, and use of the ad hominem.
 
2013-05-13 10:47:13 PM  

sheep snorter: meanwhile congress critters and senators keep releasing intimate government secrets every time they interrogate a new appointee or benghaziiiiiiiiiiiiii witness to government.


who got in trouble for outing valerie plame? that's one of the more egregious examples but that shiat goes on all the time. partisan hacks tell reporters stuff to influence the course of government.

if the public has a "right to know"* then we also have a right to get honest accurate info, not bullshiat so slanted it falls over.

*yes i believe we do but damn what we get now is gobs of BS spinning so fast it throws off crap everywhere.
 
2013-05-13 10:47:39 PM  

EatenTheSun: You guys know who signed the bill to renew the Patriot Act in 2011 right?


And if he vetoed it you'd be crying about the terrists.
 
2013-05-13 10:47:58 PM  
ShadowKamui:

Even that crew didn't touch drug lord and AQ money. HSBC managed to some how one up the rest of the scumbag bankers.

It's not that they didn't touch it, it's that they didn't get caught.  Apparently that's supposed to matter.

Psst hey man, wanna know the future of America? Denial, Anger, Bargaining, Depression, Acceptance.  In that order.
 
2013-05-13 10:48:27 PM  

WhyteRaven74: complaining about a two party system while doing nothing about it, and use of the ad hominem.


Oooh boy you got me, I guess that make's Holder's actions go away somehow. I guess because I posted about how the two party system sucks it means I'm not doing anything! You know so much!
 
2013-05-13 10:49:04 PM  

remus: NewportBarGuy: If you violate the National Securities Act, expect to be charged.

What? Is this news? If you want to fight for this, you also want to release Bradley Manning without charge.

Thank about that for a second.

Huh?  I'm pretty sure that he directly violated the U.C.M.J. in more than one way.  They don't need any civilian laws to throw him away for life.


The UCMJ is United States Code, and is part of the same body of law that every other federal law is.

/ 10 USC 47, biatches!
 
2013-05-13 10:49:11 PM  
You people realize that with the wars winding down abroad, where "The War" is headed now, right?

You have vast entities that need to look busy.
 
2013-05-13 10:49:29 PM  

TheDumbBlonde: qui?


Let's make a deal, lets get rid of all punishments for sharing classified info. Would you be cool with that?
 
2013-05-13 10:49:29 PM  

Oldiron_79: But its not Fascism when Obama does it, right?


It is racist to suggest otherwise
 
2013-05-13 10:50:08 PM  

TheDumbBlonde: Color me shocked. i used to think Obama was becoming Jimmy Carter faster than Jimmy Carter become Jimmy Carter, but I was wrong. Obama is making Richard Nixon look like an amateur.


Show me exactly how anything that the GOP are trying to pin on him is even remotely true or wrong. Please use evidence.
 
2013-05-13 10:50:28 PM  

Nabb1: nmrsnr: Triumph: The law should be that if someone leaks classified material that exposes government wrongdoing, they are immune to prosecution. For any other reasons, they are legally accountable.

I think that whistleblower laws might have such a provision, but in this case there was no government wrongdoing. This is the Justice department being pissed on behalf of the Intelligence community for the AP revealing their secrets. They want to know who leaked it, and probably throw them in jail.

Yes, they do, but if the press cannot protect its sources, we may never find out about a lot of things our government is doing behind out backs. This should not be a partisan issue. This is fundamental press versus the state.


In 1972, Richard Helms destroyed all the files of MK-Ultra and some other CIA projects, because revealing them would "scandalize the public." They were dosing 5-year-old kids with LSD and doing all sorts of mind/drug research apparently. As far as I know, no government figures ever got prosecuted for what was done. What's frightening to me is that there's no way the CIA would spend years doing research and then just destroy all their files. They probably moved those files into affiliated private hands and then destroyed all copies at Langley, so they were unreachable by Congress. When the government needs to break the law or hide something, it often uses affiliated private groups like Blackwater or whatever. Yet that's what the government goes after "whistleblowers" the hardest on - revealing "sources and methods" which is often code for "our ties with private organizations"
 
2013-05-13 10:51:17 PM  

TheJoe03: I guess because I posted about how the two party system sucks it means I'm not doing anything! You know so much!


It's all you do, you've never once posted a constructive criticism or alternative. It's all you have, to denigrate others to make yourself like you can stand for something when in reality you stand for nothing and are too afraid to do it.
 
2013-05-13 10:54:11 PM  

WhyteRaven74: TheJoe03: I guess because I posted about how the two party system sucks it means I'm not doing anything! You know so much!

It's all you do, you've never once posted a constructive criticism or alternative. It's all you have, to denigrate others to make yourself like you can stand for something when in reality you stand for nothing and are too afraid to do it.


An alternative? A multi-party system, with a more parliamentary style. Take money out of politics and bring back campaign finance reform. Stop supporting authoritarian coont faces. Run the lobbyists out. Have more oversight.  It's not my fault you want it to remain the way it is now, which is a total and utter failure that leaves us with no actual options or alternatives.
 
2013-05-13 10:54:18 PM  

EatenTheSun: mrshowrules: If Conservatives want to repeal the Patriot Act, I'm sure they won't get any resistance from Liberals.

BladBoy: Glad to hear that. Obviously, you are completely disgusted by the GOP House that has voted to repeal Obamacare a Brazillion times and voted to repeal the Patriot Act 0 times!

You guys know who signed the bill to renew the Patriot Act in 2011 right?


It does not make what was done illegal. It is one thing Obama did that I do not agree with. On the other hand, it would be political suicide to try to repeal the Patriot Act.
 
2013-05-13 10:54:40 PM  

WhyteRaven74: EatenTheSun: You guys know who signed the bill to renew the Patriot Act in 2011 right?

And if he vetoed it you'd be crying about the terrists.


I believe you have me confused with someone else.
 
2013-05-13 10:55:33 PM  
Just because I don't stand for or with Democrats or Republicans doesn't mean I don't stand for anything, I'm just not a partisan douche. Sorry that makes you so mad, you probably feel bad that you're trapped in that worldview.

/left wing civil libertarian, so go fark yourself if you think I don't have solid views and opinions.
 
2013-05-13 10:56:06 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: TedDalton: Evil treatment of Media

But I thought the media was liberal and in the tank for Obama. Now I don't know what to believe!


they've been blowing him for years.  They shouldn't be surprised when they take it in the face.
 
2013-05-13 10:57:14 PM  

Slappajo: Dusk-You-n-Me: TedDalton: Evil treatment of Media

But I thought the media was liberal and in the tank for Obama. Now I don't know what to believe!

they've been blowing him for years.  They shouldn't be surprised when they take it in the face.


Yawn.

Can't we come up with something more original?
 
2013-05-13 10:57:34 PM  
Patriot act is god-awful. Libs seem to forget that a near-identical version was written by Biden after OKC bombing, and that obama continues to renew it. More examples of party before country,
 
2013-05-13 10:57:45 PM  

Slappajo: they've been blowing him for years


Sure they have.
 
2013-05-13 10:59:18 PM  

Zeppelininthesky: It does not make what was done illegal. It is one thing Obama did that I do not agree with. On the other hand, it would be political suicide to try to repeal the Patriot Act.


I have no idea if what they did was illegal or not. I suspect it's a whole lot of AP sour grapes, but that doesn't make it look any less bad. And I dunno about political suicide. If he had let the Patriot Act expire, it would give me a reason to like the guy.
 
2013-05-13 10:59:50 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: Slappajo: they've been blowing him for years

Sure they have.


That was Clinton, I hear Obama likes rim jobs (and that no cow is safe in a room with Bush.. just saying).
 
2013-05-13 10:59:56 PM  

mrshowrules: AdolfOliverPanties: Is there anyone on Fark who LIKES the Patriot Act?  It makes this anti-Republican sick that the Obama administration has used it.  Warrantless wiretapping, this current bullshiat...it all started with the Patriot Act.

Look at how far we have come as a country in the past fifteen years.  Patriot Act, Citizens United etc...

Greatest country on Earth?  Probably, but not by much of a margin anymore.

No one supports it today.  It did have some support during Dubya's days.


I had relatives telling me, in even more blatant and nasty terms than I'm about to type, that if I don't support The Patriot Act that I hate America, want it to be destroyed by terrorists, and need to GTFO because I'm a traitor.  I know I'm not alone on that one.
 
2013-05-13 11:00:00 PM  
The idea of a government holding any secrets beyond current operational specifics is... well... the difference between a free society and a control state. We should be able to know what our diplomats have been saying in the past, what the various sub rosa congressional committees discussed in prior terms, what was done in interrogations once the operational value has drifted into the past.

If the government can be embarassed or ashamed it should be.
 
2013-05-13 11:02:07 PM  
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.

The AP complaining about Holder and 0bama's out of control actions!

That is FUNNY!
 
2013-05-13 11:02:26 PM  

remus: NewportBarGuy: If you violate the National Securities Act, expect to be charged.

What? Is this news? If you want to fight for this, you also want to release Bradley Manning without charge.

Thank about that for a second.

Huh?  I'm pretty sure that he directly violated the U.C.M.J. in more than one way.  They don't need any civilian laws to throw him away for life.


Perhaps you can explain the difference?  Not trolling, but I'm pretty sure this is the law, and while I may have mixed feelings and misgivings ABOUT that law, and things like the patriot act, it seems an apt comparison.

/show of hands, how many people DON'T see the two cases as (essentially) equivalent
//I'm not expecting many hands, but I've been wrong before.
 
2013-05-13 11:04:44 PM  

Ontos: So by that reasoning, the government should be able to read your mail because it is handled by .gov employees, equipment and carried by their vehicles... right?


You will catch a few with this one.
 
2013-05-13 11:05:11 PM  
The ACLU submitted a FOIA request to obtain the Obama administration's policy on intercepting text messages sent to and from cell phones. This is the document they received from the Most Transparent Administration Ever™.

http://www.aclu.org/files/pdfs/email-content-foia/DOJ%20Crim%20Div%2 0d ocs/CRM-1.pdf

Fark you, Holder.
 
2013-05-13 11:06:52 PM  

Weaver95: mrshowrules: If Conservatives want to repeal the Patriot Act, I'm sure they won't get any resistance from Liberals.

we won't repeal our lovely little state security laws.  they're ever so useful!  what I never understood is why anyone ever thought those laws would never be abused.


If conservatives fought for it it would happen.  The dems may secretly (openly) find the powers in those laws useful (fun) but they still hinge it on GOP obstruction when defending their actions among their constituents.  They wouldn't BOTHER unless they knew it was politically unfeasible to just double-down and support the laws 100%.

BSABSWrite your congresscritter.
 
2013-05-13 11:09:21 PM  

TheBigJerk: BSABSWrite your congresscritter.


Seriously, what has EVER gotten done through a letter to congress.  EVER?

Probably about as much as an argument on Fark.
 
2013-05-13 11:11:20 PM  

EatenTheSun: Zeppelininthesky: It does not make what was done illegal. It is one thing Obama did that I do not agree with. On the other hand, it would be political suicide to try to repeal the Patriot Act.

I have no idea if what they did was illegal or not. I suspect it's a whole lot of AP sour grapes, but that doesn't make it look any less bad. And I dunno about political suicide. If he had let the Patriot Act expire, it would give me a reason to like the guy.


It is legal according to the Patriot Act.I f he tried to repeal the Patriot Act, the GOP and the Conservative Right would go apeshiat and say that he was making the US weaker because he wants to terrorists to win.
 
2013-05-13 11:11:42 PM  

Zeppelininthesky: Bush started the Patriot Act, and Obama kept the Patriot Act. It is one thing that I am not happy that he has done. I know it will never get repealed, but this sort of thing will happen until it goes away.


Do liberals intentionally forget the vote numbers that were behind the patriot act? That Obama signed the continuance of the act just 2 years ago? Do they forget or just ignorant?
 
2013-05-13 11:12:27 PM  

Ontos: So, how would you feel about the government building a list with regards to who send mail to whom?


Don't they do this with email? I seem to recall they do.
 
2013-05-13 11:12:41 PM  

Zeppelininthesky: It is legal according to the Patriot Act.I f he tried to repeal the Patriot Act, the GOP and the Conservative Right would go apeshiat and say that he was making the US weaker because he wants to terrorists to win.


So keep authorizing it because you're scared about what the looney tunes on the right think?
 
2013-05-13 11:12:51 PM  

Hobodeluxe: It was totally okay when Bush did it though


Hobodeluxe   It was totally okay when Bush did it though

Which is the equivalent of saying, its ok that Obama did it because bush did it and bush was satan...without the slightest bit of irony.
 
2013-05-13 11:13:20 PM  

MyRandomName: Zeppelininthesky: Bush started the Patriot Act, and Obama kept the Patriot Act. It is one thing that I am not happy that he has done. I know it will never get repealed, but this sort of thing will happen until it goes away.

Do liberals intentionally forget the vote numbers that were behind the patriot act? That Obama signed the continuance of the act just 2 years ago? Do they forget or just ignorant?


Democrats are just as guilty as the Republicans when it comes to the Patriot Act.

Feel better now?
 
2013-05-13 11:15:28 PM  
farm5.staticflickr.comView Full Size
 
2013-05-13 11:15:38 PM  

TheJoe03: Zeppelininthesky: It is legal according to the Patriot Act.I f he tried to repeal the Patriot Act, the GOP and the Conservative Right would go apeshiat and say that he was making the US weaker because he wants to terrorists to win.

So keep authorizing it because you're scared about what the looney tunes on the right think?


I am not making excuses for him. I am not happy he renewed it.
 
2013-05-13 11:15:52 PM  

Zeppelininthesky: It is legal according to the Patriot Act.


No it is not.
This type of fishing expedition is specifically not covered.
Try again.
 
2013-05-13 11:17:09 PM  

L Buff: Mrtraveler01: Ok someone answer me this.

This does sound pretty dickish, but isn't this basically legal?

Yes ... it is. And it was long before the Patriot Act. Just for the legally uninitiated ...


You might not realize that law enforcement agencies have had access to phone records (i.e., numbers called, duration of calls, etc.) long before the passage of the Patriot Act. At the very least it goes back to the SCOTUS decision in 1979 in Smith v. Maryland.

"A big question in determining whether your expectation of privacy is "reasonable" and protected by the Fourth Amendment arises when you have "knowingly exposed" something to another person or to the public at large. Although Katz did have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the sound of his conversation, would he have had a reasonable expectation of privacy in his appearance or actions while inside the glass phone booth? Probably not.

Thus, some Supreme Court cases have held that you have no reasonable expectation of privacy in information you have "knowingly exposed" to a third party - for example, bank records or records of telephone numbers you have dialed - even if you intended for that third party to keep the information secret. In other words, by engaging in transactions with your bank or communicating phone numbers to your phone company for the purpose of connecting a call, you've "assumed the risk" that they will share that information with the government.

You may "knowingly expose" a lot more than you really know or intend. Most information a third party collects - such as your insurance records, credit records, bank records, travel records, library records, phone records and even the records your grocery store keeps when you use your "loyalty" card to get discounts - was given freely to them by you, and is probably not protected by the Fourth Amendment under current law. There may be privacy statutes that protect against the sharing of information about you - some communications records receive s ...


There is the "current legal and political climate" argument.  This case, and the body of cases related to it, would be at greater risk of public condemnation/lawsuits or simply failing because "The Law" needed to dot more 'i's and cross more 't's than they do now.

But yeah, phone records, with a warrant, aren't that hard to get.  If you don't like it stop supporting authoritarians and stop accepting "economic freedom" as a substitute for personal freedom.
 
2013-05-13 11:18:16 PM  

Zeppelininthesky: TheJoe03: Zeppelininthesky: It is legal according to the Patriot Act.I f he tried to repeal the Patriot Act, the GOP and the Conservative Right would go apeshiat and say that he was making the US weaker because he wants to terrorists to win.

So keep authorizing it because you're scared about what the looney tunes on the right think?

I am not making excuses for him. I am not happy he renewed it.


Fair enough, I just wish Democrats would stop using what conservatives think as an excuse for their inaction. That's always been the knock on them, that they have no balls. I voted for Obama partly because he said he was against the Patriot Act so it is disappointing that he's done nothing about it.
 
2013-05-13 11:18:34 PM  

Weaver95: mrshowrules: If Conservatives want to repeal the Patriot Act, I'm sure they won't get any resistance from Liberals.

we won't repeal our lovely little state security laws.  they're ever so useful!  what I never understood is why anyone ever thought those laws would never be abused.


The Act was supposed to expire, not be permanent. I know numerous conservatives that are regretting pushing for it so hard in the first place. They don't want their homes and lives invaded anymore than others. Question is, how do you put the tiger back in the cage?
 
2013-05-13 11:19:10 PM  

WhyteRaven74: It appears whoever the AP was talking to had a high level security clearance, which means they agreed to a few things. High level security clearances work that way, you get access to certain things but you agree to certain conditions, like that your phone communications from work may be if not tapped then recorded just in case. Granted unless you've done something previous to get people to watch you, you can do whatever you want outside of work. Like, dish to an AP reporter.


Not really. The security agreement comes with more than just talking on the phone. It comes with a need to know agreement. If the AP reporter did not have a need to know then the security person should have kept their mouth shut.
 
2013-05-13 11:19:22 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: Zeppelininthesky: It is legal according to the Patriot Act.

No it is not.
This type of fishing expedition is specifically not covered.
Try again.


He/she was close, it's legal according to the Supreme Cout in 1979  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_v._Maryland
 
2013-05-13 11:19:42 PM  

veedeevadeevoodee: [67.18.219.83 image 500x861]


I wish I had that image before I put up this post.
 
2013-05-13 11:20:16 PM  

TheJoe03: Zeppelininthesky: TheJoe03: Zeppelininthesky: It is legal according to the Patriot Act.I f he tried to repeal the Patriot Act, the GOP and the Conservative Right would go apeshiat and say that he was making the US weaker because he wants to terrorists to win.

So keep authorizing it because you're scared about what the looney tunes on the right think?

I am not making excuses for him. I am not happy he renewed it.

Fair enough, I just wish Democrats would stop using what conservatives think as an excuse for their inaction. That's always been the knock on them, that they have no balls. I voted for Obama partly because he said he was against the Patriot Act so it is disappointing that he's done nothing about it.


what do you mean he did nothing about it?  He extended it AND he made it stronger.
Bonus points:  he is killing US citizens with drones without the benefit of trial.
 
2013-05-13 11:20:23 PM  

chitlenz: TheBigJerk: BSABSWrite your congresscritter.

Seriously, what has EVER gotten done through a letter to congress.  EVER?

Probably about as much as an argument on Fark.


People who write letters care, people who care vote, and like voting it may seem to be pissing in the ocean but enough people doing it have an effect.

I mean, to use your own example, how many internet memes, including farkmemes, have politicians ham-handedly tried to adopt to show they aren't all old, decaying fossils who the younger generations can neither trust nor support?  I'm pretty sure the answer is >0.
 
2013-05-13 11:21:10 PM  

remus: This isn't anything even close to the civilian world. The only way he gets out is to prove that safeguarding secret information is not a lawful order. That isn't going to happen.


I don't see why not.

Under Bush, our military routinely ordered soldiers in Iraq to look he other way as we tortured people. This was an illegal order.

Exposing this illegal activity to the light of day makes Manning a true whistle blower.

Of course, the only people Obama and Holder sought to put into prison over illegal torture are Manning and the other torture whistle blower from the CIA who is already sitting in prison now.
 
2013-05-13 11:23:53 PM  
I'm as outraged as I am about unicorn poachers. I wish we had unicorns so I could be outraged, just like I wish we had journalists.
 
2013-05-13 11:25:21 PM  
goddammitsomuch!
 
2013-05-13 11:26:23 PM  

TheBigJerk: I mean, to use your own example, how many internet memes, including farkmemes, have politicians ham-handedly tried to adopt to show they aren't all old, decaying fossils who the younger generations can neither trust nor support? I'm pretty sure the answer is >0.


Bold emphasis because... it's not real.  As you note, it's a show, and doesn't effect they way they govern one iota.  Oh they'll SAY they that issue x is super important to them, and that they'll get right on that when elected... but c'mon man.   I'm pretty cynical about it, because they aren't going to change.   You can almost boilerplate the excuses they use when issue x doesn't go anywhere.  Obstructionism, the other guys don't like us, blah blah.  The only way to win is not to play.
 
2013-05-13 11:26:55 PM  

BullBearMS: remus: This isn't anything even close to the civilian world. The only way he gets out is to prove that safeguarding secret information is not a lawful order. That isn't going to happen.

I don't see why not.

Under Bush, our military routinely ordered soldiers in Iraq to look he other way as we tortured people. This was an illegal order.

Exposing this illegal activity to the light of day makes Manning a true whistle blower.

Of course, the only people Obama and Holder sought to put into prison over illegal torture are Manning and the other torture whistle blower from the CIA who is already sitting in prison now.


Manning didn't just expose that, the douche just down loaded everything labeled secret. So just cause he found one bad thing doesn't excuse him for all the agents and informants who had to go into hiding to not get murdered.
 
2013-05-13 11:27:50 PM  

Nabb1: Yes, they do, but if the press cannot protect its sources, we may never find out about a lot of things our government is doing behind out backs. This should not be a partisan issue. This is fundamental press versus the state.


Exactly this.

Our government has been repeatedly caught red handed doing highly illegal things which the public only found out about after whistle blowers came forward and risked their freedom to inform the public of the truth.

I'm not shocked that the politics tab asshats are willing to defend this bullshiat though.

Because Obama.
 
2013-05-13 11:27:53 PM  
This is the reason I get so incensed with the gun huggers.
All whiney and worried and wringing their hands about their guns and they aren't smart enough to care that their real issue has come and gone.  Thanks to hunting them Mooslums and Terrists's, the natural fascism of the Military Industrial Complex and our other "security institutions".
This isn't new.  As a kid in the early 1960's I clearly remember journalists being jailed for not releasing sources info/names.
It's all so much neater now
And now we have this.  Well, at least you gun huggers have your little guns, I hope you feel safe - for now.

makes me so cranky I can't see straight sometimes
 
2013-05-13 11:29:53 PM  

theknuckler_33: goddammitsomuch!


Actually, the more I think about this, isn't it pretty normal investigative procedure to get phone records? I see it on TV crime shows all the time.

/can't put it on tv if it ain't true
 
2013-05-13 11:32:45 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: TheJoe03: Zeppelininthesky: TheJoe03: Zeppelininthesky: It is legal according to the Patriot Act.I f he tried to repeal the Patriot Act, the GOP and the Conservative Right would go apeshiat and say that he was making the US weaker because he wants to terrorists to win.

So keep authorizing it because you're scared about what the looney tunes on the right think?

I am not making excuses for him. I am not happy he renewed it.

Fair enough, I just wish Democrats would stop using what conservatives think as an excuse for their inaction. That's always been the knock on them, that they have no balls. I voted for Obama partly because he said he was against the Patriot Act so it is disappointing that he's done nothing about it.

what do you mean he did nothing about it?  He extended it AND he made it stronger.
Bonus points:  he is killing US citizens with drones without the benefit of trial.


Because he was making clear and present threats against the United States.
 
2013-05-13 11:35:02 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: TheJoe03: Zeppelininthesky: TheJoe03: Zeppelininthesky: It is legal according to the Patriot Act.I f he tried to repeal the Patriot Act, the GOP and the Conservative Right would go apeshiat and say that he was making the US weaker because he wants to terrorists to win.

So keep authorizing it because you're scared about what the looney tunes on the right think?

I am not making excuses for him. I am not happy he renewed it.

Fair enough, I just wish Democrats would stop using what conservatives think as an excuse for their inaction. That's always been the knock on them, that they have no balls. I voted for Obama partly because he said he was against the Patriot Act so it is disappointing that he's done nothing about it.

what do you mean he did nothing about it?  He extended it AND he made it stronger.
Bonus points:  he is killing US citizens with drones without the benefit of trial.


How do you feel about Dzokhar Tsarnaev (or whatever) being read his miranda rights?
 
2013-05-13 11:40:18 PM  

NewportBarGuy: Nabb1: Oh, there's a learned legal opinion if I ever saw one.

The theory is that is was over the intelligence operation in Yemen with the improved underwear explosives. They were asked to sit on the story and ran with it. They compromised assets and methods. I'm not a huge defender of government intelligence, but you have to at least allow them to operate in a way where they tell you how they got the bad guy without exposing their methods. Yes, black sites and torture are exempt from such things because they are illegal.

There was none of that here. Just a news source that wanted a scoop. I fail to see the case AP has if they violated NSA. Hell, the same people that will champion this are the ones who decried the exposure of the CIA black sites by Washington Post.


Uhm, if you read the NYT article on the topic, you will learn that they did delay publishing at the request of an intelligence agency.
 
2013-05-13 11:42:20 PM  

SirHolo: Uhm, if you read the NYT article on the topic, you will learn that they did delay publishing at the request of an intelligence agency.


The Yemen case or the Black Sites case. This is important.
 
2013-05-13 11:42:55 PM  

ShadowKamui: Manning didn't just expose that, the douche just down loaded everything labeled secret. So just cause he found one bad thing doesn't excuse him for all the agents and informants who had to go into hiding to not get murdered.


Nothing he exposed was classified as secret, much less top secret.

Perhaps you are thinking of Daniel Ellsberg who leaked the Top Secret Pentagon papers showing that our government had systematically lied about past wars.

He was found not guilty.

Said Justice Black at the time:
Only a free and unrestrained press can effectively expose deception in government. And paramount among the responsibilities of a free press is the duty to prevent any part of the government from deceiving the people and sending them off to distant lands to die of foreign fevers and foreign shot and shell.
 
2013-05-13 11:44:44 PM  
Yikes...The admin just screwed the pooch with this one. The media will now viciously turn against Obama.

/don't piss off the press
 
2013-05-13 11:46:36 PM  

FormlessOne: NewportBarGuy: Kill the Patriot Act and we can move on. Aside from that, sleep in the bed. We made it.

Well, on this at least, I agree with you. The USA PATRIOT Act was put in place by an administration motivated by power and willing to exploit fear to get it. It undermines so much of what we consider our rights, and really has no place in this country.


Difficulty: If it was "put in place by an administration," then why did it command such large bipartisan majorities in both chambers?  It passed the House 357-66, and it passed the Senate 98-1.  Russ Feingold was the only senator with the cojones to oppose it.

But keep thinking that it was the fault of "the other side" if that's what it takes for you to sleep at night.  It's not like both parties in power are conspiring to take your rights.
 
2013-05-13 11:47:55 PM  

Zeppelininthesky: tenpoundsofcheese: TheJoe03: Zeppelininthesky: TheJoe03: Zeppelininthesky: It is legal according to the Patriot Act.I f he tried to repeal the Patriot Act, the GOP and the Conservative Right would go apeshiat and say that he was making the US weaker because he wants to terrorists to win.

So keep authorizing it because you're scared about what the looney tunes on the right think?

I am not making excuses for him. I am not happy he renewed it.

Fair enough, I just wish Democrats would stop using what conservatives think as an excuse for their inaction. That's always been the knock on them, that they have no balls. I voted for Obama partly because he said he was against the Patriot Act so it is disappointing that he's done nothing about it.

what do you mean he did nothing about it?  He extended it AND he made it stronger.
Bonus points:  he is killing US citizens with drones without the benefit of trial.

Because he was making clear and present threats against the United States.


The Supreme Court ruled long ago that the Constitution protects citizens talking smack about their government. Even when they advocate violence against the government.
 
2013-05-13 11:48:01 PM  

NewportBarGuy: remus: Huh? I'm pretty sure that he directly violated the U.C.M.J. in more than one way. They don't need any civilian laws to throw him away for life.

Yes, but it's the unauthorized release of classified information. UCMJ or civilian, it's the exact same thing. Diff law, diff trial, same reason for the law(s) existing.


Honest question:  Isn't that double-jeopardy, having both a civilian and UCMJ trial?  Or is there something I'm not aware of?
 
2013-05-13 11:49:23 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: what do you mean he did nothing about it?  He extended it AND he made it stronger.
Bonus points:  he is killing US citizens with drones without the benefit of trial.


Sure, but the same beef I have with liberals when their guy is in power obviously extends to conservatives when they are in power. I didn't hear one peep about the Patriot Act being a bad thing when Bush was pushing it through from conservatives, the only ones on the right that were biatching were Libertarians. All I ask for is consistency or else we will keep going back and forth with nothing positive actually happening.
 
2013-05-13 11:53:16 PM  

TheJoe03: he right that were biatching were Libertarians. All I ask for is consistency or


well us libertarians are always consistently biatching about something, so you have that going for you, which is nice..i guess
 
2013-05-13 11:57:06 PM  

mr lawson: well us libertarians are always consistently biatching about something, so you have that going for you, which is nice..i guess


As a civil libertarian I'm always biatching about civil liberties being eroded and as a lefty I'm always biatching about bankers, Wall St, and corporate greed. Basically, I'm constantly biatching and my views piss everyone off.
 
2013-05-13 11:59:46 PM  

TheJoe03: As a civil libertarian I'm always biatching about civil liberties being eroded and as a lefty I'm always biatching about bankers, Wall St, and corporate greed. Basically, I'm constantly biatching and my views piss everyone off.


lol   yup...
if we ain't biatching, we ain't happy
 
2013-05-14 12:00:23 AM  
Oh look, another non-scandal. This administration is the best evah!
 
2013-05-14 12:02:00 AM  
Jesus. Ron Jeremy is jealous of all the cocksucking Obama is getting from this thread alone.
 
2013-05-14 12:02:14 AM  

mr lawson: Yikes...The admin just screwed the pooch with this one. The media will now viciously turn against Obama.

/don't piss off the press


While I disagree with the stuck out part and the bolded part is an absolute axiom that every administration should heed, I agree with the rest. The press absolutely hated Nixon and went to great lengths to put just about anything he did in a bad light. He essentially diffused an entire cold war with China yet hardly anyone gives him credit for that even today.

/only Nixon could go to China
 
2013-05-14 12:09:15 AM  
To quote Jay Carney: Hey it "happened a long time ago."
 
2013-05-14 12:09:59 AM  

theknuckler_33: tenpoundsofcheese: TheJoe03: Zeppelininthesky: TheJoe03: Zeppelininthesky: It is legal according to the Patriot Act.I f he tried to repeal the Patriot Act, the GOP and the Conservative Right would go apeshiat and say that he was making the US weaker because he wants to terrorists to win.

So keep authorizing it because you're scared about what the looney tunes on the right think?

I am not making excuses for him. I am not happy he renewed it.

Fair enough, I just wish Democrats would stop using what conservatives think as an excuse for their inaction. That's always been the knock on them, that they have no balls. I voted for Obama partly because he said he was against the Patriot Act so it is disappointing that he's done nothing about it.

what do you mean he did nothing about it?  He extended it AND he made it stronger.
Bonus points:  he is killing US citizens with drones without the benefit of trial.

How do you feel about Dzokhar Tsarnaev (or whatever) being read his miranda rights?


You mean the "Miranda warning". (it is a warning, not a right).
I am fine that he was read the warning - especially if it doesn't muddy the warning getting a conviction.
 
2013-05-14 12:13:01 AM  

Zeppelininthesky: tenpoundsofcheese: TheJoe03: Zeppelininthesky: TheJoe03: Zeppelininthesky: It is legal according to the Patriot Act.I f he tried to repeal the Patriot Act, the GOP and the Conservative Right would go apeshiat and say that he was making the US weaker because he wants to terrorists to win.

So keep authorizing it because you're scared about what the looney tunes on the right think?

I am not making excuses for him. I am not happy he renewed it.

Fair enough, I just wish Democrats would stop using what conservatives think as an excuse for their inaction. That's always been the knock on them, that they have no balls. I voted for Obama partly because he said he was against the Patriot Act so it is disappointing that he's done nothing about it.

what do you mean he did nothing about it?  He extended it AND he made it stronger.
Bonus points:  he is killing US citizens with drones without the benefit of trial.

Because he was making clear and present threats against the United States.


So you are not a fan that pesky "put a person on trial" before you execute him.
It is enough for you that there is an accusation.
 
2013-05-14 12:13:43 AM  
This would be pretty outrageous if the press was worth anything to begin with.
 
2013-05-14 12:14:02 AM  

blockhouse: Difficulty: If it was "put in place by an administration," then why did it command such large bipartisan majorities in both chambers? It passed the House 357-66, and it passed the Senate 98-1. Russ Feingold was the only senator with the cojones to oppose it.


You know somebody else who doesn't get nearly enough credit?

dl.dropboxusercontent.comView Full Size


You're looking at the one member of Congress of any party who stood up all by herself against the AUMF that set the whole endless war on terror into motion.

That same document that Bush and Obama have since held up as a justification for all their Unconstitutional actions again and again. She opposed it eloquently.
"[W]e must be careful not to embark on an open-ended war with neither an exit strategy nor a focused target. We cannot repeat past mistakes.

"In 1964, Congress gave President Lyndon Johnson the power to 'take all necessary measures' to repel attacks and prevent further aggression. In so doing, this House abandoned its own constitutional responsibilities and launched our country into years of undeclared war in Vietnam.

"At this time, Senator Wayne Morse, one of the two lonely votes against the Tonkin Gulf Resolution, declared, 'I believe that history will record that we have made a grave mistake in subverting and circumventing the Constitution of the United States. I believe that with the next century, future generations will look with dismay and great disappointment upon a Congress which is now about to make such a historic mistake.'

"Senator Morse was correct, and I fear we make the same mistake today."

She deserves a hell of a lot of respect.
 
2013-05-14 12:14:12 AM  

Gulper Eel: Keep telling yourselves power only corrupts the other guy.


I'm looking forward to it. Imagine, friends. Conservatives rounded up in the dead of night and bussed to FEMA camps in Montana. Leaders of the reactionaries staked out in the public square and executed for treason. Revolutionary governments installed by the iron will of strong leaders of vision.

Tyranny is only bad when the other guys do it, because Republicans are pants-sh*tting, victim-card playing whiners and watching them is like trying to watch a group of horny monkeys trying to f*ck a football stuffed inside a dessicated chicken carcass.

Their economic theories have failed. Their social policy is disastrous. Their foreign policy is awful. Continuing to tolerate them only shows democracy's great weakness, which is that we all have to pretend John Boehner is worthwhile and shouldn't face Bastille Justice.
 
2013-05-14 12:15:40 AM  

tenpoundsofcheese: theknuckler_33: tenpoundsofcheese: what do you mean he did nothing about it?  He extended it AND he made it stronger.
Bonus points:  he is killing US citizens with drones without the benefit of trial.

How do you feel about Dzokhar Tsarnaev (or whatever) being read his miranda rights?

You mean the "Miranda warning". (it is a warning, not a right).
I am fine that he was read the warning - especially if it doesn't muddy the warning getting a conviction.


Well, at least you aren't being pedantic.

Anyway, I'm sure you are mortified at the flailings of those in the GOP outraged by reading him his miranda warning, right?
 
2013-05-14 12:17:39 AM  
Obama's Reptiloid Master:
I'm looking forward to it. Imagine, friends. Conservatives rounded up in the dead of night and bussed to FEMA camps in Montana. Leaders of the reactionaries staked out in the public square and executed for treason. Revolutionary governments installed by the iron will of strong leaders of vision.

As an authoritarian...I came.
 
2013-05-14 12:18:33 AM  

Zeppelininthesky: Bush started the Patriot Act, and Obama kept the Patriot Act. It is one thing that I am not happy that he has done. I know it will never get repealed, but this sort of thing will happen until it goes away.


Yeah.  I voted for Obama in both elections, but he (1) made most of the Bush tax cuts permanent and (2) renewed the horror that is the US Patriot Act.

Feeling quite disappointed, despite his being an even-keeled leader on other fronts.

Well, oh, and he also lacked a spine during his first term, trying to pursue "bipartisanship" while the republicans simply stonewalled his every offer of cross-the-aisle negotiations.  He's got a little bit more of a spine this second term, but still gets stonewalled left and right.  Yet he ignores his mandate and landslide victory and keeps trying to "be friends" with a party that tries to block every single thing that he does.

Recall that John Boner flat-out rejected his proposed 2014 budget, but then admitted to not having even cracked the thing open, much less read and disagreed with any particular items in it.
 
2013-05-14 12:19:57 AM  

Obama's Reptiloid Master: Gulper Eel: Keep telling yourselves power only corrupts the other guy.

I'm looking forward to it. Imagine, friends. Conservatives rounded up in the dead of night and bussed to FEMA camps in Montana. Leaders of the reactionaries staked out in the public square and executed for treason. Revolutionary governments installed by the iron will of strong leaders of vision.

Tyranny is only bad when the other guys do it, because Republicans are pants-sh*tting, victim-card playing whiners and watching them is like trying to watch a group of horny monkeys trying to f*ck a football stuffed inside a dessicated chicken carcass.

Their economic theories have failed. Their social policy is disastrous. Their foreign policy is awful. Continuing to tolerate them only shows democracy's great weakness, which is that we all have to pretend John Boehner is worthwhile and shouldn't face Bastille Justice.


They might deserve to lie at the bottom of a mass grave, but I do not deserve to walk on top of one.
 
2013-05-14 12:20:33 AM  

Obama's Reptiloid Master: Gulper Eel: Keep telling yourselves power only corrupts the other guy.

I'm looking forward to it. Imagine, friends. Conservatives rounded up in the dead of night and bussed to FEMA camps in Montana. Leaders of the reactionaries staked out in the public square and executed for treason. Revolutionary governments installed by the iron will of strong leaders of vision.

Tyranny is only bad when the other guys do it, because Republicans are pants-sh*tting, victim-card playing whiners and watching them is like trying to watch a group of horny monkeys trying to f*ck a football stuffed inside a dessicated chicken carcass.

Their economic theories have failed. Their social policy is disastrous. Their foreign policy is awful. Continuing to tolerate them only shows democracy's great weakness, which is that we all have to pretend John Boehner is worthwhile and shouldn't face Bastille Justice.


This is what an idiot sounds like.
 
2013-05-14 12:20:48 AM  

Obama's Reptiloid Master: I'm looking forward to it. Imagine, friends. Conservatives rounded up in the dead of night and bussed to FEMA camps in Montana. Leaders of the reactionaries staked out in the public square and executed for treason. Revolutionary governments installed by the iron will of strong leaders of vision.


You make this man happy:-)

i.dailymail.co.ukView Full Size
 
2013-05-14 12:25:34 AM  

theknuckler_33: tenpoundsofcheese: theknuckler_33: tenpoundsofcheese: what do you mean he did nothing about it?  He extended it AND he made it stronger.
Bonus points:  he is killing US citizens with drones without the benefit of trial.

How do you feel about Dzokhar Tsarnaev (or whatever) being read his miranda rights?

You mean the "Miranda warning". (it is a warning, not a right).
I am fine that he was read the warning - especially if it doesn't muddy the warning getting a conviction.

Well, at least you aren't being pedantic.

Anyway, I'm sure you are mortified at the flailings of those in the GOP outraged by reading him his miranda warning, right?


Meh.  I am not mortified that someone has a different opinion than I have whether it is a GOP member or Holder's justice department who made the decision.

Not being pedantic about the warning vs. a right.  People on fark seem to think that if they are not read to you that your rights have been violated.
 
2013-05-14 12:26:22 AM  

theknuckler_33: tenpoundsofcheese: theknuckler_33: tenpoundsofcheese: what do you mean he did nothing about it?  He extended it AND he made it stronger.
Bonus points:  he is killing US citizens with drones without the benefit of trial.

How do you feel about Dzokhar Tsarnaev (or whatever) being read his miranda rights?

You mean the "Miranda warning". (it is a warning, not a right).
I am fine that he was read the warning - especially if it doesn't muddy the warning getting a conviction.

Well, at least you aren't being pedantic.

Anyway, I'm sure you are mortified at the flailings of those in the GOP outraged by reading him his miranda warning, right?


FYI that was only the FOX morons with no legal background, the lawyer/judge pundits were saying the opposite. The daily show was clear on which ones didn't give a damn about due process
 
2013-05-14 12:27:24 AM  

mrshowrules: If Conservatives want to repeal the Patriot Act, I'm sure they won't get any resistance from Liberals.


Liberals had two years of unfettered opportunity to repeal it and did nothing. I can't decide whether you have no memory or just think nobody else does.
 
2013-05-14 12:34:06 AM  

jjorsett: mrshowrules: If Conservatives want to repeal the Patriot Act, I'm sure they won't get any resistance from Liberals.

Liberals had two years of unfettered opportunity to repeal it and did nothing. I can't decide whether you have no memory or just think nobody else does.


Citation needed.

Can you please provide the time period when liberals had such an option?
 
2013-05-14 12:35:14 AM  

jjorsett: mrshowrules: If Conservatives want to repeal the Patriot Act, I'm sure they won't get any resistance from Liberals.

Liberals had two years of unfettered opportunity to repeal it and did nothing. I can't decide whether you have no memory or just think nobody else does.


When? List dates.
 
2013-05-14 12:36:19 AM  
After reading these comments I am convinced that Obama could be filmed decapitating puppies with his golf club and folks on FARK still would Not have a problem with his actions. Illegal or no (PROBABLY YES) the press will now turn on Obama and he can kiss any hope he had of being anything other than the lamest of lame ducks goodbye.
 
2013-05-14 12:38:18 AM  
Sheesh..... I know I am in the minority on this site.  I don't think BO and HRC woke up on 09/11/12 and said "hey, let's let Chris Stevens die today along with three others".  I think Benghazi happened and happened so fast that they couldn't react to it.  Could they have done a better job at handling it?  In hindsight, yes.  Was politics involved?  Yes.  When is it not?  Why not  just say "shiat, we could have done something different and wish we had".  The deflection and obfuscation is sadly usual no matter the party.  I am concerned by the revelation of the IRS targeting folks because they are a threat to the IRS.  What if the next guy in power doesn't like what you have to say?   What happens if you are minding your own business but a guy in position has a beef with you and he has the opportunity to intimidate and shut you down for no other reason than you disagree with him / her?  What happens if "They" don't like what you are reporting?  Either side.  I hate it that it has become 50 / 50 and you seem to have to draw down on lines based on the guy with a D or a R by his name because that is your affiliation or what you "know" is right without critical thinking.  If GWB had done it the Dems would be all over him.  Now that it is BHO, Rs are all over him.   Do any of you honestly believe that either side would be called on the carpet to answer pointed questions and answer them truthfully and without spin?  Honestly?  No..... (R) will say "we have to know".. The American people deserve the Truth...(D) will say it is old news and a vast right wing conspiracy.  Swap the D and R depending on whose ox is being gored and you have your answer...... I, for one, am tired of it.  All of politics has become performance art and posturing.

//13 of 13 on the science test from Pew
///skipped first slash on purpose
///lover of arguing
 
2013-05-14 12:39:22 AM  

tenpoundsofcheese: theknuckler_33: tenpoundsofcheese:You mean the "Miranda warning". (it is a warning, not a right).
I am fine that he was read the warning - especially if it doesn't muddy the warning getting a conviction.

Well, at least you aren't being pedantic.

Anyway, I'm sure you are mortified at the flailings of those in the GOP outraged by reading him his miranda warning, right?

Meh.  I am not mortified that someone has a different opinion than I have whether it is a GOP member or Holder's justice department who made the decision.


Hmm, so you aren't the FoxNews/GlennBeck/RuchLimbaugh disciple who just regurgitates the talking points. Interesting. Ain't that a kick in the head? I wonder if such a thing happens in the opposite political direction.

Not being pedantic about the warning vs. a right.  People on fark seem to think that if they are not read to you that your rights have been violated.

It had nothing to do with what the result of not being read the warning was. I was just referring to the reading. When you are referring to the act of reading it, who farking cares if you call them 'rights' or 'warnings' or 'cucumbers'?
 
2013-05-14 12:39:33 AM  

BullBearMS: blockhouse: Difficulty: If it was "put in place by an administration," then why did it command such large bipartisan majorities in both chambers? It passed the House 357-66, and it passed the Senate 98-1. Russ Feingold was the only senator with the cojones to oppose it.

You know somebody else who doesn't get nearly enough credit?

[dl.dropboxusercontent.com image 460x356]

You're looking at the one member of Congress of any party who stood up all by herself against the AUMF that set the whole endless war on terror into motion.

That same document that Bush and Obama have since held up as a justification for all their Unconstitutional actions again and again. She opposed it eloquently.
"[W]e must be careful not to embark on an open-ended war with neither an exit strategy nor a focused target. We cannot repeat past mistakes.

"In 1964, Congress gave President Lyndon Johnson the power to 'take all necessary measures' to repel attacks and prevent further aggression. In so doing, this House abandoned its own constitutional responsibilities and launched our country into years of undeclared war in Vietnam.

"At this time, Senator Wayne Morse, one of the two lonely votes against the Tonkin Gulf Resolution, declared, 'I believe that history will record that we have made a grave mistake in subverting and circumventing the Constitution of the United States. I believe that with the next century, future generations will look with dismay and great disappointment upon a Congress which is now about to make such a historic mistake.'

"Senator Morse was correct, and I fear we make the same mistake today."
She deserves a hell of a lot of respect.


But she is black.


/I kid
//A lot of respect for her foresight
 
2013-05-14 12:40:03 AM  

jjorsett: mrshowrules: If Conservatives want to repeal the Patriot Act, I'm sure they won't get any resistance from Liberals.

Liberals had two years of unfettered opportunity to repeal it and did nothing. I can't decide whether you have no memory or just think nobody else does.


Actually, he's one of the biggest party shills on the entire Fark politics tab.

The fact is, the worst provisions of the Patriot act expire automatically unless they are actively passed into law again.

You don't need to control both halves of Congress to stop it from being renewed since it has to pass in both houses and be signed by the President every time it is renewed.

However, let's take a look at what actually happened the second time it was renewed under Obama:
On Thursday, Democratic and Republican congressional leaders agreed to a deal to extend key provisions of the Patriot Act for four years, a significant decision that generated little press attention or sustained political debate.

Certain sections of the Patriot Act, which originally passed Congress a month after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks with near-unanimous support, have long been criticized by civil libertarians in both political parties.

But the Obama administration and its allies on Capitol Hill have been eager to renew about-to-expire provisions that expanded domestic intelligence collection and wiretapping powers. As the AP put it, "The idea [of the deal] is to pass the extension with as little debate as possible to avoid a protracted and familiar argument over the expanded power the law gives to the government."

They didn't just want to pass it again. They wanted to do so without anyone noticing until it was too late to kick up a fuss.

It's astonishingly embarrassing that the party shills still ty to blame this on the other guys. This is as bipartisan as it gets.
 
2013-05-14 12:42:50 AM  

Doc Lee: jjorsett: mrshowrules: If Conservatives want to repeal the Patriot Act, I'm sure they won't get any resistance from Liberals.

Liberals had two years of unfettered opportunity to repeal it and did nothing. I can't decide whether you have no memory or just think nobody else does.

When? List dates.


The One Hundred Eleventh United States Congress was the meeting of the legislative branch of the United States federal government from January 3, 2009, until January 3, 2011. It began during the last two weeks of the George W. Bush administration, with the remainder spanning the first two years of Barack Obama's presidency. It was composed of the Senate and the House of Representatives. The apportionment of seats in the House was based on the 2000 U.S. Census. In the November 4, 2008 elections, the Democratic Party increased its majorities in both chambers, giving President Obama a Democratic majority in the legislature for the first two years of his presidency.
 
2013-05-14 12:43:25 AM  

jjorsett: mrshowrules: If Conservatives want to repeal the Patriot Act, I'm sure they won't get any resistance from Liberals.

Liberals had two years of unfettered opportunity to repeal it and did nothing. I can't decide whether you have no memory or just think nobody else does.


This is awesome. "Libs didn't repeal it, so my support of it is cool!".

Am I wrong?  State a clear opinion on the Patriot act. Or are you just a partisan hack?

*crickets*
 
2013-05-14 12:45:45 AM  

GTATL: Can you please provide the time period when liberals had such an option?


Doc Lee: When? List dates.


May 27th, 2011.
 
2013-05-14 12:46:05 AM  

BullBearMS: jjorsett: mrshowrules: If Conservatives want to repeal the Patriot Act, I'm sure they won't get any resistance from Liberals.

Liberals had two years of unfettered opportunity to repeal it and did nothing. I can't decide whether you have no memory or just think nobody else does.

Actually, he's one of the biggest party shills on the entire Fark politics tab.

The fact is, the worst provisions of the Patriot act expire automatically unless they are actively passed into law again.

You don't need to control both halves of Congress to stop it from being renewed since it has to pass in both houses and be signed by the President every time it is renewed.

However, let's take a look at what actually happened the second time it was renewed under Obama:
On Thursday, Democratic and Republican congressional leaders agreed to a deal to extend key provisions of the Patriot Act for four years, a significant decision that generated little press attention or sustained political debate.

Certain sections of the Patriot Act, which originally passed Congress a month after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks with near-unanimous support, have long been criticized by civil libertarians in both political parties.

But the Obama administration and its allies on Capitol Hill have been eager to renew about-to-expire provisions that expanded domestic intelligence collection and wiretapping powers. As the AP put it, "The idea [of the deal] is to pass the extension with as little debate as possible to avoid a protracted and familiar argument over the expanded power the law gives to the government."
They didn't just want to pass it again. They wanted to do so without anyone noticing until it was too late to kick up a fuss.

It's astonishingly embarrassing that the party shills still ty to blame this on the other guys. This is as bipartisan as it gets.


Or they didnt want the powerful and thus abuseble parts of the law to expire for he new administration, especially when it reduced their abilities to fight terror and shift the narrative from healthcare/ stimulus.

Seems like a logical decision to me.
 
2013-05-14 12:46:22 AM  
Triumph:

That's my favorite scene from a fantastic movie.

/wonderful thing, supenee
 
2013-05-14 12:48:32 AM  

theknuckler_33: tenpoundsofcheese: theknuckler_33: tenpoundsofcheese:You mean the "Miranda warning". (it is a warning, not a right).
I am fine that he was read the warning - especially if it doesn't muddy the warning getting a conviction.

Well, at least you aren't being pedantic.

Anyway, I'm sure you are mortified at the flailings of those in the GOP outraged by reading him his miranda warning, right?

Meh.  I am not mortified that someone has a different opinion than I have whether it is a GOP member or Holder's justice department who made the decision.

Hmm, so you aren't the FoxNews/GlennBeck/RuchLimbaugh disciple who just regurgitates the talking points. Interesting. Ain't that a kick in the head? I wonder if such a thing happens in the opposite political direction.

Not being pedantic about the warning vs. a right.  People on fark seem to think that if they are not read to you that your rights have been violated.

It had nothing to do with what the result of not being read the warning was. I was just referring to the reading. When you are referring to the act of reading it, who farking cares if you call them 'rights' or 'warnings' or 'cucumbers'?


My point is that it is not a "right".
Whether or not it was read has nothing to do with violating a person's rights (which in previous threads people whined about - I know you didn't say that. )
The only issue about reading him the warning was the admissibility of what he says during an interrogation.

So to re-answer your question, I don't care if they were read or not since I expect that they had plenty to convict him with regardless of what he said during an interrogation.
 
2013-05-14 12:48:34 AM  

GTATL: BullBearMS: jjorsett: mrshowrules: If Conservatives want to repeal the Patriot Act, I'm sure they won't get any resistance from Liberals.

Liberals had two years of unfettered opportunity to repeal it and did nothing. I can't decide whether you have no memory or just think nobody else does.

Actually, he's one of the biggest party shills on the entire Fark politics tab.

The fact is, the worst provisions of the Patriot act expire automatically unless they are actively passed into law again.

You don't need to control both halves of Congress to stop it from being renewed since it has to pass in both houses and be signed by the President every time it is renewed.

However, let's take a look at what actually happened the second time it was renewed under Obama:
On Thursday, Democratic and Republican congressional leaders agreed to a deal to extend key provisions of the Patriot Act for four years, a significant decision that generated little press attention or sustained political debate.

Certain sections of the Patriot Act, which originally passed Congress a month after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks with near-unanimous support, have long been criticized by civil libertarians in both political parties.

But the Obama administration and its allies on Capitol Hill have been eager to renew about-to-expire provisions that expanded domestic intelligence collection and wiretapping powers. As the AP put it, "The idea [of the deal] is to pass the extension with as little debate as possible to avoid a protracted and familiar argument over the expanded power the law gives to the government."
They didn't just want to pass it again. They wanted to do so without anyone noticing until it was too late to kick up a fuss.

It's astonishingly embarrassing that the party shills still ty to blame this on the other guys. This is as bipartisan as it gets.

Or they didnt want the powerful and thus abuseble parts of the law to expire for he new administration, especially when it reduced their abilities to fight terror and shift the narrative from healthcare/ stimulus.

Seems like a logical decision to me.


This may have Benn after those things passed. I'm drunk. Point is, why limit your ability to fight terror, as bad as it is. If something happened, you'd have another Benghazi on you hands. It makes sense politically.
 
2013-05-14 12:50:27 AM  

mr lawson: Doc Lee: jjorsett: mrshowrules: If Conservatives want to repeal the Patriot Act, I'm sure they won't get any resistance from Liberals.

Liberals had two years of unfettered opportunity to repeal it and did nothing. I can't decide whether you have no memory or just think nobody else does.

When? List dates.

The One Hundred Eleventh United States Congress was the meeting of the legislative branch of the United States federal government from January 3, 2009, until January 3, 2011. It began during the last two weeks of the George W. Bush administration, with the remainder spanning the first two years of Barack Obama's presidency. It was composed of the Senate and the House of Representatives. The apportionment of seats in the House was based on the 2000 U.S. Census. In the November 4, 2008 elections, the Democratic Party increased its majorities in both chambers, giving President Obama a Democratic majority in the legislature for the first two years of his presidency.


A supermajority (60 votes) is needed in the Senate to pass anything.  To say that there was unfettered opportunity is a lie that's often told by jjorsett and other far-right wing radical extremists.

i.imgur.comView Full Size

This is the breakdown of the Senate.  There were two brief periods where they had a 60 vote majority  if you include Lieberman, who leans conservative on issues of national security.
 
2013-05-14 12:51:03 AM  

GTATL: jjorsett: mrshowrules: If Conservatives want to repeal the Patriot Act, I'm sure they won't get any resistance from Liberals.

Liberals had two years of unfettered opportunity to repeal it and did nothing. I can't decide whether you have no memory or just think nobody else does.

Citation needed.

Can you please provide the time period when liberals had such an option?


Let me guess.

The Republicans can stop any legislation they like from happening unless the Democrats hold a super-majority in the House and the Senate while also holding the White House.

However the Democrats can't prevent the Patriot Act from being passed into law again when it automatically expires despite controlling the White House and Senate?

The same thing goes for passing the Bush tax cuts for the rich into law again after they automatically expired a few weeks ago. All the Democrats had to do was shove their thumbs up their ass and allow the damn thing to finally expire, and there was nothing on earth the Republicans could do to stop the clock from running out.

Instead, the Democrats renew the Patriot Act and the Bush tax cuts they claimed to oppose.
 
2013-05-14 12:51:33 AM  

EatenTheSun: GTATL: Can you please provide the time period when liberals had such an option?

Doc Lee: When? List dates.

May 27th, 2011.


Interesting - the wording here says they can do the wiretaps "in search of terrorists".

How does this apply to searches of the AP reporters?  Are they suspected terrorists?
 
2013-05-14 12:53:41 AM  

Doc Lee: A supermajority (60 votes) is needed in the Senate to pass anything.


Funny!
So you are saying that NOTHING was passed except during those two "brief periods".
 
2013-05-14 12:54:18 AM  

tenpoundsofcheese: EatenTheSun: GTATL: Can you please provide the time period when liberals had such an option?

Doc Lee: When? List dates.

May 27th, 2011.

Interesting - the wording here says they can do the wiretaps "in search of terrorists".

How does this apply to searches of the AP reporters?  Are they suspected terrorists?


This is not what we were referring to, but I will gladly respond. Since you know it so well, please provide the wording you're referring to.
 
2013-05-14 12:54:53 AM  

GTATL: This may have Benn after those things passed. I'm drunk. Point is, why limit your ability to fight terror, as bad as it is. If something happened, you'd have another Benghazi on you hands. It makes sense politically.


So pretend to oppose it right up until the point where you're put into a position yo be able to do something about it?

Just lie to your base and then kick them in the teeth after you win power?
 
2013-05-14 12:56:33 AM  

BullBearMS: GTATL: This may have Benn after those things passed. I'm drunk. Point is, why limit your ability to fight terror, as bad as it is. If something happened, you'd have another Benghazi on you hands. It makes sense politically.

So pretend to oppose it right up until the point where you're put into a position yo be able to do something about it?

Just lie to your base and then kick them in the teeth after you win power?


Why change what works?
cdn.breitbart.comView Full Size
 
2013-05-14 12:56:54 AM  

EatenTheSun: GTATL: Can you please provide the time period when liberals had such an option?

Doc Lee: When? List dates.

May 27th, 2011.


That doesn't answer the question.
Roll call for the House vote:   Here
Roll call for the Senate vote:   Here

Clearly more Democrats were against the Patriot Act than Republicans in both the House and the Senate.
 
2013-05-14 12:58:41 AM  
When you're toiling away in the Martian salt mines, remember...

I gave you the chance to collaborate.
 
2013-05-14 1:01:20 AM  

tenpoundsofcheese: Doc Lee: A supermajority (60 votes) is needed in the Senate to pass anything.

Funny!
So you are saying that NOTHING was passed except during those two "brief periods".


I'm stating that jjorsett's assertion that Democrats had 2 years of unfettered opportunity is wrong and he knows it yet will continue to repeat the lie just like a good little Republican farksicle.

Are you contending that you raped and molested children but shouldn't be prosecuted because you used a condom?

If not, then why are you trying to make an argument that I was not making?
 
2013-05-14 1:03:21 AM  

Doc Lee: EatenTheSun: GTATL: Can you please provide the time period when liberals had such an option?

Doc Lee: When? List dates.

May 27th, 2011.

That doesn't answer the question.
Roll call for the House vote:   Here
Roll call for the Senate vote:   Here

Clearly more Democrats were against the Patriot Act than Republicans in both the House and the Senate.


It is nice that there are a few actual liberals in the Democratic party. Mostly in the House.

The Senate is mostly worthless sellouts aside from Senator Wyden.
 
2013-05-14 1:04:44 AM  
Oh great - another thread full of paranoids. That's exactly what this site was missing.
 
2013-05-14 1:05:13 AM  

Doc Lee: 'm stating that jjorsett's assertion that Democrats had 2 years of unfettered opportunity is wrong and he knows it yet will continue to repeat the lie just like a good little Republican farksicle.


No.

You're trying to claim that the Democrats couldn't prevent the Patriot Act from passing again when it automatically expires, which is total bullshiat.
 
2013-05-14 1:06:10 AM  

Biological Ali: Oh great - another thread full of paranoids. That's exactly what this site was missing.


Speaking of Farks biggest Politics tab party shills...
 
2013-05-14 1:07:22 AM  

Biological Ali: Oh great - another thread full of paranoids. That's exactly what this site was missing.


Is it paranoia when it's actually happening? Feel free to keep your head buried in the sand.
 
2013-05-14 1:10:17 AM  

Charles_Nelson_Reilly: Triumph:

That's my favorite scene from a fantastic movie.

/wonderful thing, supenee


Come sundown, two things are going to be true...
 
2013-05-14 1:11:11 AM  

GTATL: tenpoundsofcheese: EatenTheSun: GTATL: Can you please provide the time period when liberals had such an option?

Doc Lee: When? List dates.

May 27th, 2011.

Interesting - the wording here says they can do the wiretaps "in search of terrorists".

How does this apply to searches of the AP reporters?  Are they suspected terrorists?

This is not what we were referring to, but I will gladly respond. Since you know it so well, please provide the wording you're referring to.


From the first paragraph:  "extension of post-Sept. 11 powers to search records and conduct roving wiretaps in pursuit of terrorists."

I know it is only an article and may not accurately capture the truth.  Is the argument that by wiretapping the reporters they can find terrorists?
 
2013-05-14 1:12:54 AM  

BullBearMS: Doc Lee: 'm stating that jjorsett's assertion that Democrats had 2 years of unfettered opportunity is wrong and he knows it yet will continue to repeat the lie just like a good little Republican farksicle.

No.

You're trying to claim that the Democrats couldn't prevent the Patriot Act from passing again when it automatically expires, which is total bullshiat.


Read jjorsett's comments. He specifically said repeal.

jjorsett: Liberals had two years of unfettered opportunity to repeal it and did nothing. I can't decide whether you have no memory or just think nobody else does.

Your point is moot.
 
2013-05-14 1:12:57 AM  

TheJoe03: Biological Ali: Oh great - another thread full of paranoids. That's exactly what this site was missing.

Is it paranoia when it's actually happening? Feel free to keep your head buried in the sand.


It's paranoia when people are going off the rails without even understanding what "it" is.
 
2013-05-14 1:14:21 AM  

BullBearMS: GTATL: This may have Benn after those things passed. I'm drunk. Point is, why limit your ability to fight terror, as bad as it is. If something happened, you'd have another Benghazi on you hands. It makes sense politically.

So pretend to oppose it right up until the point where you're put into a position yo be able to do something about it?

Just lie to your base and then kick them in the teeth after you win power?


And the half the base blames someone else for the kick in the teeth, while the other half talks about how great it was that their teeth were re-arranged in a very quick and efficient manner.
 
2013-05-14 1:14:58 AM  

Biological Ali: It's paranoia when people are going off the rails without even understanding what "it" is.


What is it that you find so off base about what people have said? You're not bringing anything to the table here.
 
2013-05-14 1:22:42 AM  

TheJoe03: Biological Ali: It's paranoia when people are going off the rails without even understanding what "it" is.

What is it that you find so off base about what people have said? You're not bringing anything to the table here.


What is there to even bring to the table? I, like maybe three other people in this thread, read the article and saw that that there wasn't anything "scary" going on - or, to be more specific, that the Justice Department's actions weren't the "scary" part of the story.

If everyone here read the article (ideally, to the end), this thread would have at most seven or eight comments total.
 
2013-05-14 1:23:34 AM  

Obama's Reptiloid Master: Gulper Eel: Keep telling yourselves power only corrupts the other guy.

I'm looking forward to it. Imagine, friends. Conservatives rounded up in the dead of night and bussed to FEMA camps in Montana. Leaders of the reactionaries staked out in the public square and executed for treason. Revolutionary governments installed by the iron will of strong leaders of vision.

Tyranny is only bad when the other guys do it, because Republicans are pants-sh*tting, victim-card playing whiners and watching them is like trying to watch a group of horny monkeys trying to f*ck a football stuffed inside a dessicated chicken carcass.

Their economic theories have failed. Their social policy is disastrous. Their foreign policy is awful. Continuing to tolerate them only shows democracy's great weakness, which is that we all have to pretend John Boehner is worthwhile and shouldn't face Bastille Justice.


This would probably be a net positive in the long run. But please, this is rehabilitation, not punishment. Can we please use the term re-education? It's like summer camp.
 
2013-05-14 1:26:15 AM  

jjorsett: mrshowrules: If Conservatives want to repeal the Patriot Act, I'm sure they won't get any resistance from Liberals.

Liberals had two years of unfettered opportunity to repeal it and did nothing. I can't decide whether you have no memory or just think nobody else does.


Fark independents don't understand time, among many other concepts.
 
2013-05-14 1:27:30 AM  

Biological Ali: TheJoe03: Biological Ali: It's paranoia when people are going off the rails without even understanding what "it" is.

What is it that you find so off base about what people have said? You're not bringing anything to the table here.

What is there to even bring to the table? I, like maybe three other people in this thread, read the article and saw that that there wasn't anything "scary" going on - or, to be more specific, that the Justice Department's actions weren't the "scary" part of the story.

If everyone here read the article (ideally, to the end), this thread would have at most seven or eight comments total.


Only if your either a authoritarian or some deluded moron who thinks Obama can't do anything evil.  There were 3 reporters who wrote about the Yemen thing and the government went after at least 20 of them.
 
2013-05-14 1:28:15 AM  

NewportBarGuy: If you violate the National Securities Act, expect to be charged.

What? Is this news? If you want to fight for this, you also want to release Bradley Manning without charge.

Thank about that for a second.


I hate to see the 4th amendment get zero respect from the govt. but i love to see you libs squirm and justify this as anything but the same shiat you would have posted a million hate filled rants if W's administration had done the same thing.
 
2013-05-14 1:34:05 AM  

ShadowKamui: Only if your either a authoritarian or some deluded moron who thinks Obama can't do anything evil. There were 3 reporters who wrote about the Yemen thing and the government went after at least 20 of them.


The government looked into 20 phone lines, not 20 reporters.
 
2013-05-14 1:41:59 AM  

Biological Ali: The government looked into 20 phone lines, not 20 reporters.


They still spied on a bunch of media people, is that ok with you?
 
2013-05-14 1:51:03 AM  

TheJoe03: Biological Ali: The government looked into 20 phone lines, not 20 reporters.

They still spied on a bunch of media people, is that ok with you?


I'm perfectly okay with leaks of classified information being investigated.
 
2013-05-14 1:56:18 AM  
The Fark Dependents are nothing if not dependable
 
2013-05-14 2:03:20 AM  

Biological Ali: TheJoe03: Biological Ali: The government looked into 20 phone lines, not 20 reporters.

They still spied on a bunch of media people, is that ok with you?

I'm perfectly okay with leaks of classified information being investigated.


On this level? That's your trip I guess, I personally think it's pretty messed up and doesn't set good precedents in the future.
 
2013-05-14 2:35:35 AM  

TheJoe03: Biological Ali: TheJoe03: Biological Ali: The government looked into 20 phone lines, not 20 reporters.

They still spied on a bunch of media people, is that ok with you?

I'm perfectly okay with leaks of classified information being investigated.

On this level? That's your trip I guess, I personally think it's pretty messed up and doesn't set good precedents in the future.


If you've got some problem with what happened, you should be able to describe the problem in specific terms, and (ideally) also be able to say what should have happened instead. A vague, context-free statement like "spied on a bunch of media people" does nothing to advance the conversation. Any mundane government action can be put in these silly alarmist terms - a simple arrest could be described as "The government grabbed a man off the street and locked him in a room", but that would be neither here nor there.
 
2013-05-14 2:40:01 AM  
I have a problem with the government spying on reporters and members of the media and taking all their records. Can they just take all these records even when they aren't specific to what they are investigating? Do they want to get rid of the concept of anonymous sources? The free media isn't really free if the government can spy on them whenever they please. Seems a bit farked, eh?

/care to defend these actions in specifics instead of being vague about how this leak was investigated.
 
2013-05-14 2:41:35 AM  
Perhaps what they should have done instead is what they typically do, which is inform the media about the investigation and perhaps get some cooperation before they secretly take their records. Did you read the article, you were pretty happy to boast that you did but maybe you didn't take it in.
 
2013-05-14 3:05:29 AM  

TheJoe03: The free media isn't really free if the government can spy on them whenever they please.


Really? Do you honestly think that this investigation is happening in this way because the DoJ just decided to do it on a whim? Of course you don't (or at least I hope you don't). This kind of language is detrimental not just to your own cause (whatever it may be) but also to the discourse on these subjects as a whole. Casual paranoia like this really only resonates with people who are already inclined to have certain views about the government; everyone else just tunes it out (and if you happened to have one or two semi-reasonable concerns buried in there somewhere, they'll get tuned out along with it).

TheJoe03: Perhaps what they should have done instead is what they typically do, which is inform the media about the investigation and perhaps get some cooperation before they secretly take their records. Did you read the article, you were pretty happy to boast that you did but maybe you didn't take it in.


The article explains why they didn't do that.
 
2013-05-14 3:08:26 AM  
I think you confuse paranoia with legitimate concerns about the power of government over media. That's okay, but I'm not going to argue in circles with you, mainly because it's late.

/of course it wasn't on a whim, that's the issue.
//the rest of your post was done to discredit my "side" without addressing what actually happened.
 
2013-05-14 3:09:17 AM  
It's also about the growing power of the government when it comes to spying on its citizens.
 
2013-05-14 3:30:02 AM  

Biological Ali: TheJoe03: The free media isn't really free if the government can spy on them whenever they please.

Really? Do you honestly think that this investigation is happening in this way because the DoJ just decided to do it on a whim? Of course you don't (or at least I hope you don't). This kind of language is detrimental not just to your own cause (whatever it may be) but also to the discourse on these subjects as a whole. Casual paranoia like this really only resonates with people who are already inclined to have certain views about the government; everyone else just tunes it out (and if you happened to have one or two semi-reasonable concerns buried in there somewhere, they'll get tuned out along with it).

TheJoe03: Perhaps what they should have done instead is what they typically do, which is inform the media about the investigation and perhaps get some cooperation before they secretly take their records. Did you read the article, you were pretty happy to boast that you did but maybe you didn't take it in.

The article explains why they didn't do that.


Actually if you really read the article it clearly states that the DoJ refused to comment on why it tapped 20 phones, so yeah grats on being an authoritarian apologist.
 
2013-05-14 4:46:14 AM  
William Miller, a spokesman for Machen, said Monday that in general the U.S. attorney follows "all applicable laws, federal regulations and Department of Justice policies when issuing subpoenas for phone records of media organizations."

in general we follow the law

should i bother asking about the times they dont follow the law
 
2013-05-14 5:37:22 AM  

Weaver95: Gulper Eel: Keep telling yourselves power only corrupts the other guy.

that's kinda how we think tho.  only the OTHER team is corrupt.  our team is always honorable and acting with the best of intentions...the OTHER guys always f*ck things up.


No, Weaver, it's how any dumbass registered as a democrat or republican thinks. Don't lump us all in there with you farking clowns
 
2013-05-14 6:11:10 AM  

chitlenz: Lemme lay some bad stats on you guys,

The NSA is building a surveillance facility in Utah (

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/03/ff_nsadatacenter/) that had to create a new unit of measure for how much data it stores... The yottabyte. . .
. . .

Very nice Wired link, at least judging from the article itself.  Thanks!  I had kind of forgotten that Wired existed.  Do they still make that paper-magazine that focuses on internet-related issues?   How precious.

My main reason to comment, however, has nothing specifically to do with Wired, the NSA
(oops, keyword-alert!), or any of that spook-stuff.  It's the reader-comments below the article.  Holy crap are they chock-full of crazy!  A couple of gems, some actual insight, but it seems to be a rule that each poster is required to fly off the rails by the end of their ultra-long post.

Go check it out.  I've not seen such a concentration of crazy for a while.  Is this their reader-base?
 
2013-05-14 6:12:58 AM  

TheJoe03: I have a problem with the government spying on reporters and members of the media and taking all their records. Can they just take all these records even when they aren't specific to what they are investigating? Do they want to get rid of the concept of anonymous sources? The free media isn't really free if the government can spy on them whenever they please. Seems a bit farked, eh?

/care to defend these actions in specifics instead of being vague about how this leak was investigated.


Professor Orin Kerr, of the libertarian law blog  The Volokh Conspiracy wants a word:


A lot of blogs are expressing outrage at the AP story reporting that the government collected logs of telephone numbers used by the AP. The AP's story appears to have been written to get people upset. The first sentence of the AP report is not subtle: "The Justice Department secretly obtained two months of telephone records of reporters and editors for The Associated Press in what the news cooperative's top executive called a 'massive and unprecedented intrusion' into how news organizations gather the news." Yikes, a secret investigation! And a massive and unprecedented intrusion! It sounds like quite the scandal.


But a different picture emerges if you look past the AP's spin. DOJ is investigating a leak of national security information to AP reporters that culminated in a May 7, 2012 story that disclosed details of a CIA operation in Yemen that stopped a terrorist plot in early 2012. The story had the byline of five AP reporters. DOJ opened an investigation into the leak to the AP, and pursuant to its published special rules on investigations involving the media investigations, issued subpoenas to find out what numbers were dialed from the relevant AP reporters during the months of April and May 2012. Presumably the thinking is that AP reporters called their sources, and the investigators want to trace the phone numbers to see who the sources might be. As far as I can tell, the information collected by the subpoena concerned the work and personal phone numbers of the five reporters and their editor, as well as the general AP office numbers where the reporters were located and for the main number for the AP in the House of Representatives press gallery. The AP knows about this because pursuant to DOJ's policies found in 28 C.F.R. 50.10, the government was required to give the AP notice that the records were obtained. The AP received that notice in a letter on Friday, and then today (Monday) it released its AP story expressing AP's outrage. That's pretty much all we know so far.


Based on what we know so far, then, I don't see much evidence of an abuse. Of course, I realize that some VC readers strongly believe that everything the government does is an abuse: All investigations are abuses unless there is proof beyond a reasonable doubt to the contrary. To not realize this is to be a pro-government lackey. Or even worse, Stewart Baker. But I would ask readers inclined to see this as an abuse to identify exactly what the government did wrong based on what we know so far. Was the DOJ wrong to investigate the case at all? If it was okay for them to investigate the case, was it wrong for them to try to find out who the AP reporters were calling? If it was okay for them to get records of who the AP reporters were calling, was it wrong for them to obtain the records from the personal and work phone numbers of all the reporters whose names were listed as being involved in the story and their editor? If it was okay for them to obtain the records of those phone lines, was the problem that the records covered two months - and if so, what was the proper length of time the records should have covered?


I get that many people will want to use this story as a generic "DOJ abuse" story and not look too closely at it. And I also understand that those who think leaks are good things will see investigations of leaks as inherently bad. But at least based on what we know so far, I don't yet see a strong case that collecting these records was an abuse of the investigative process.
 
2013-05-14 6:19:44 AM  

ib_thinkin: The Volokh Conspiracy


I looked them up and they come from a conservative libertarian point of view, a view I don't really believe in.  The points he brought up that were legitimate I feel I already responded to in this thread. I do thank you for actually giving me a well thought out argument against what I think.
 
2013-05-14 6:29:51 AM  

TheJoe03: I looked them up and they come from a conservative libertarian point of view, a view I don't really believe in.  The points he brought up that were legitimate I feel I already responded to in this thread. I do thank you for actually giving me a well thought out argument against what I think.


You're afraid of the government and you don't agree with libertarians? I mean, I'm all for someone who disagrees with libertarians (it's one of my favorite pastimes) but really?

Orin Kerr is probably one of the better experts you'll read on American criminal procedure, though.
 
2013-05-14 6:38:40 AM  

chitlenz: TheBigJerk: I mean, to use your own example, how many internet memes, including farkmemes, have politicians ham-handedly tried to adopt to show they aren't all old, decaying fossils who the younger generations can neither trust nor support? I'm pretty sure the answer is >0.

Bold emphasis because... it's not real.  As you note, it's a show, and doesn't effect they way they govern one iota.  Oh they'll SAY they that issue x is super important to them, and that they'll get right on that when elected... but c'mon man.   I'm pretty cynical about it, because they aren't going to change.   You can almost boilerplate the excuses they use when issue x doesn't go anywhere.  Obstructionism, the other guys don't like us, blah blah.  The only way to win is not to play.


And what, precisely, do you win?

Maximum cynicality: every politician is a sociopath who only cares about what they can use the office to steal.  Given this postulate, they still have to stay in office to keep stealing these things.  The challenge, therefore, becomes to convince or trick them into policy decisions out of fear of losing the next election.
 
2013-05-14 6:51:47 AM  

ib_thinkin: You're afraid of the government and you don't agree with libertarians? I mean, I'm all for someone who disagrees with libertarians (it's one of my favorite pastimes) but really?


Not conservative ones, I'm basically a lefty and liberal, but I am a very devoted CIVIL libertarian. The right wing ones aren't really the same as a guy like me.
 
2013-05-14 6:52:59 AM  
I'm also not afraid of the govt, I'm just really against authoritarianism and the erosion of our civil liberties. I'm basically an ACLU liberal and libertarian, not a Randian in any way.
 
2013-05-14 7:26:52 AM  
All legal. Everyone thought it was a great idea under Bush, so what happened?
 
2013-05-14 7:36:00 AM  
If O'Nixon could just stop the leaks and find out what his enemies are up to, he could get his silent majority to rise up and intimidate any in Congress who oppose him.
 
2013-05-14 7:42:05 AM  

NewportBarGuy: When the Administration outs an ACTIVE CIA agent involved in controlling nuclear proliferation, wake me up.

This is a use of the USA Patriot Act. It's written law. It is a law that should NOT exist. At least THIS administration, in this instance, is trying to find out how the sources and methods of active intelligence agents are compromised instead of leaking that intel themselves for pure political gain.

Kill the Patriot Act and we can move on. Aside from that, sleep in the bed. We made it.


your post finally prompted me to joing after reading for years.  thanks.
 
2013-05-14 7:52:10 AM  
Seriously, blaming Republicans for this?

Wow.

Its okay, can just sick Obama's IRS on em now as well.
 
2013-05-14 7:55:15 AM  

Marcintosh: And now we have this.  Well, at least you gun huggers have your little guns, I hope you feel safe - for now.


Not sure what this has to do with guns but I'll bite?

A government which admits to using the tax code to discriminate against conservative groups is now under fire for monitoring the communications of a media outlet.  Forgive me for thinking that this ends as soon as they get their firearms database.

nothing to fear, Citizen.
 
2013-05-14 8:31:41 AM  
upl.coView Full Size
 
2013-05-14 8:32:59 AM  
mrshowrules

If Conservatives want to repeal the Patriot Act, I'm sure they won't get any resistance from Liberals.
Which is why obama not only renewed, but expanded said act. Because "liberals" like freedom.


riiiiight.
 
2013-05-14 9:20:18 AM  

OnlyM3: mrshowrules

If Conservatives want to repeal the Patriot Act, I'm sure they won't get any resistance from Liberals. Which is why obama not only renewed, but expanded said act. Because "liberals" like freedom.


riiiiight.


Well I was against the Patriot Act from the beginning and I'm on record numerous times as being against Obama's extension of it.  I'm suggesting that if Conservatives were actually against the Patriot Act it would not have been extended by Obama.  If the GOP can block stuff that has a 90% approval rating, they certainly could have blocked this.
 
2013-05-14 9:47:03 AM  

mrshowrules: OnlyM3: mrshowrules

If Conservatives want to repeal the Patriot Act, I'm sure they won't get any resistance from Liberals. Which is why obama not only renewed, but expanded said act. Because "liberals" like freedom.


riiiiight.

Well I was against the Patriot Act from the beginning and I'm on record numerous times as being against Obama's extension of it.  I'm suggesting that if Conservatives were actually against the Patriot Act it would not have been extended by Obama.  If the GOP can block stuff that has a 90% approval rating, they certainly could have blocked this.


Did Obama somehow lose veto power.
 
2013-05-14 9:57:30 AM  

EatenTheSun: mrshowrules: OnlyM3: mrshowrules

If Conservatives want to repeal the Patriot Act, I'm sure they won't get any resistance from Liberals. Which is why obama not only renewed, but expanded said act. Because "liberals" like freedom.


riiiiight.

Well I was against the Patriot Act from the beginning and I'm on record numerous times as being against Obama's extension of it.  I'm suggesting that if Conservatives were actually against the Patriot Act it would not have been extended by Obama.  If the GOP can block stuff that has a 90% approval rating, they certainly could have blocked this.

Did Obama somehow lose veto power.


Yeah, I'm not sure how anyone against the Patriot Act can defend Obama for extending it.  It's a shiat law, and he only extended it because he was afraid of looking weak on terror.  I was very disappointed in him, and the entire government on that one.
 
2013-05-14 10:20:54 AM  

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: AdolfOliverPanties: Is there anyone on Fark who LIKES the Patriot Act?  It makes this anti-Republican sick that the Obama administration has used it.  Warrantless wiretapping, this current bullshiat...it all started with the Patriot Act.

. . .

You should read this (book).

http://www.amazon.com/Unintended-Consequences-John-Ross/produ ct-review s/1888118040/ref=cm_cr_pr_btm_link_next_2?ie=UTF8&pageNumber=2&showVie wpoints=0&sortBy=bySubmissionDateDescending

Hmmn.   From the book:  "The main character, Henry Bowman, thinks that "not only was it possible to kill someone and not be convicted, as the cop in the gun store had explained, but it was also possible to not ever be suspected of the killing in the first place... Killing someone was not an emotionally devastating experience when the person you killed was evil." (Pg. 269)

What a charming excerpt.
 
2013-05-14 10:32:42 AM  

EatenTheSun: mrshowrules: OnlyM3: mrshowrules

If Conservatives want to repeal the Patriot Act, I'm sure they won't get any resistance from Liberals. Which is why obama not only renewed, but expanded said act. Because "liberals" like freedom.


riiiiight.

Well I was against the Patriot Act from the beginning and I'm on record numerous times as being against Obama's extension of it.  I'm suggesting that if Conservatives were actually against the Patriot Act it would not have been extended by Obama.  If the GOP can block stuff that has a 90% approval rating, they certainly could have blocked this.

Did Obama somehow lose veto power.


I guess you missed the part where I said I was against Obama extending it.
 
2013-05-14 10:43:56 AM  

EatenTheSun: mrshowrules: OnlyM3: mrshowrules

If Conservatives want to repeal the Patriot Act, I'm sure they won't get any resistance from Liberals. Which is why obama not only renewed, but expanded said act. Because "liberals" like freedom.


riiiiight.

Well I was against the Patriot Act from the beginning and I'm on record numerous times as being against Obama's extension of it.  I'm suggesting that if Conservatives were actually against the Patriot Act it would not have been extended by Obama.  If the GOP can block stuff that has a 90% approval rating, they certainly could have blocked this.

Did Obama somehow lose veto power.


He said liberals. Obama isn't a liberal. I don't know how many times you people (and yes, I mean "you people") need to hear it. He's a center right president. Just because your conservative media outlets refer to him as the libiest liberal to ever lib, does not mean he's a liberal. It just means you're foolish to believe it.
 
2013-05-14 11:05:13 AM  

mrshowrules: EatenTheSun: mrshowrules: OnlyM3: mrshowrules

If Conservatives want to repeal the Patriot Act, I'm sure they won't get any resistance from Liberals. Which is why obama not only renewed, but expanded said act. Because "liberals" like freedom.


riiiiight.

Well I was against the Patriot Act from the beginning and I'm on record numerous times as being against Obama's extension of it.  I'm suggesting that if Conservatives were actually against the Patriot Act it would not have been extended by Obama.  If the GOP can block stuff that has a 90% approval rating, they certainly could have blocked this.

Did Obama somehow lose veto power.

I guess you missed the part where I said I was against Obama extending it.


No. I totally saw that. Just not grasping how his failure to veto it is the Republican's fault, unless you are implying he felt it was more important to get re-elected than to do the right thing for the country.
 
2013-05-14 11:12:27 AM  

EatenTheSun: mrshowrules: EatenTheSun: mrshowrules: OnlyM3: mrshowrules

If Conservatives want to repeal the Patriot Act, I'm sure they won't get any resistance from Liberals. Which is why obama not only renewed, but expanded said act. Because "liberals" like freedom.


riiiiight.

Well I was against the Patriot Act from the beginning and I'm on record numerous times as being against Obama's extension of it.  I'm suggesting that if Conservatives were actually against the Patriot Act it would not have been extended by Obama.  If the GOP can block stuff that has a 90% approval rating, they certainly could have blocked this.

Did Obama somehow lose veto power.

I guess you missed the part where I said I was against Obama extending it.

No. I totally saw that. Just not grasping how his failure to veto it is the Republican's fault, unless you are implying he felt it was more important to get re-elected than to do the right thing for the country.


The Republican lead house voted to extend the Act.  Obama signed it.  Why is this complicated.  This shiat was extended because of Conservative and DNC support of it.  If Conservatives are against it, they should join in Liberal opposition to it regardless of what Obama wants.
 
2013-05-14 11:19:01 AM  

mrshowrules: EatenTheSun: mrshowrules: EatenTheSun: mrshowrules: OnlyM3: mrshowrules

If Conservatives want to repeal the Patriot Act, I'm sure they won't get any resistance from Liberals. Which is why obama not only renewed, but expanded said act. Because "liberals" like freedom.


riiiiight.

Well I was against the Patriot Act from the beginning and I'm on record numerous times as being against Obama's extension of it.  I'm suggesting that if Conservatives were actually against the Patriot Act it would not have been extended by Obama.  If the GOP can block stuff that has a 90% approval rating, they certainly could have blocked this.

Did Obama somehow lose veto power.

I guess you missed the part where I said I was against Obama extending it.

No. I totally saw that. Just not grasping how his failure to veto it is the Republican's fault, unless you are implying he felt it was more important to get re-elected than to do the right thing for the country.

The Republican lead house voted to extend the Act.  Obama signed it.  Why is this complicated.  This shiat was extended because of Conservative and DNC support of it.  If Conservatives are against it, they should join in Liberal opposition to it regardless of what Obama wants.


So Obama signed it just to make Republicans happy?
 
2013-05-14 11:37:13 AM  

EatenTheSun: mrshowrules: EatenTheSun: mrshowrules: EatenTheSun: mrshowrules: OnlyM3: mrshowrules

If Conservatives want to repeal the Patriot Act, I'm sure they won't get any resistance from Liberals. Which is why obama not only renewed, but expanded said act. Because "liberals" like freedom.


riiiiight.

Well I was against the Patriot Act from the beginning and I'm on record numerous times as being against Obama's extension of it.  I'm suggesting that if Conservatives were actually against the Patriot Act it would not have been extended by Obama.  If the GOP can block stuff that has a 90% approval rating, they certainly could have blocked this.

Did Obama somehow lose veto power.

I guess you missed the part where I said I was against Obama extending it.

No. I totally saw that. Just not grasping how his failure to veto it is the Republican's fault, unless you are implying he felt it was more important to get re-elected than to do the right thing for the country.

The Republican lead house voted to extend the Act.  Obama signed it.  Why is this complicated.  This shiat was extended because of Conservative and DNC support of it.  If Conservatives are against it, they should join in Liberal opposition to it regardless of what Obama wants.

So Obama signed it just to make Republicans happy?


Are you dense? Obama wanted to extended it.  If Conservatives would have joined in Liberal opposition to it, Obama would not have been able to sign it in the first place?  You realize most Liberals are against the Patriot Act, don't you?  To the extend the DNC supports it, they are supporting Obama because they know how the GOP would have crucified him if a serious terrorist attack would have happened under his watch.
 
2013-05-14 11:55:24 AM  
So all you "progressives" are cool with this now? This is what I am gathering.
 
2013-05-14 12:30:00 PM  

tjfly: NewportBarGuy: If you violate the National Securities Act, expect to be charged.

What? Is this news? If you want to fight for this, you also want to release Bradley Manning without charge.

Thank about that for a second.

I hate to see the 4th amendment get zero respect from the govt. but i love to see you libs squirm and justify this as anything but the same shiat you would have posted a million hate filled rants if W's administration had done the same thing.


I've read this entire thread, and have seen very little defense of Obama.

Don't just make stuff up.  It doesn't help.

/welcome to ignore
 
2013-05-14 1:25:47 PM  

ShadowKamui: Actually if you really read the article it clearly states that the DoJ refused to comment on why it tapped 20 phones, so yeah grats on being an authoritarian apologist.


The fark? Did the effort of reading that one line from the article leave you so mentally exhausted that you didn't even see what I was talking about before replying to my post?
 
2013-05-14 1:58:14 PM  

SirHolo: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: AdolfOliverPanties: Is there anyone on Fark who LIKES the Patriot Act?  It makes this anti-Republican sick that the Obama administration has used it.  Warrantless wiretapping, this current bullshiat...it all started with the Patriot Act.

. . .

You should read this (book).http://www.amazon.com/Unintended-Consequences-John-Ross/produ ct-review s/1888118040/ref=cm_cr_pr_btm_link_next_2?ie=UTF8&pageNumber=2&showVie wpoints=0&sortBy=bySubmissionDateDescending

Hmmn.   From the book:  "The main character, Henry Bowman, thinks that "not only was it possible to kill someone and not be convicted, as the cop in the gun store had explained, but it was also possible to not ever be suspected of the killing in the first place... Killing someone was not an emotionally devastating experience when the person you killed was evil." (Pg. 269)

What a charming excerpt.


Well, if you're shocked by that, then I suggest you stay away from the Prey series of detective novels by John Sanford.

Why yes, even with DNA forensics it is theoretically possible to commit murder.
 
2013-05-14 1:58:57 PM  

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: SirHolo: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: AdolfOliverPanties: Is there anyone on Fark who LIKES the Patriot Act?  It makes this anti-Republican sick that the Obama administration has used it.  Warrantless wiretapping, this current bullshiat...it all started with the Patriot Act.

. . .

You should read this (book).http://www.amazon.com/Unintended-Consequences-John-Ross/produ ct-review s/1888118040/ref=cm_cr_pr_btm_link_next_2?ie=UTF8&pageNumber=2&showVie wpoints=0&sortBy=bySubmissionDateDescending

Hmmn.   From the book:  "The main character, Henry Bowman, thinks that "not only was it possible to kill someone and not be convicted, as the cop in the gun store had explained, but it was also possible to not ever be suspected of the killing in the first place... Killing someone was not an emotionally devastating experience when the person you killed was evil." (Pg. 269)

What a charming excerpt.

Well, if you're shocked by that, then I suggest you stay away from the Prey series of detective novels by John Sanford.

Why yes, even with DNA forensics it is theoretically possible to commit murder.


...and not get caught. EVEN if they KNOW you did it.
 
2013-05-14 4:06:17 PM  

Biological Ali: ShadowKamui: Actually if you really read the article it clearly states that the DoJ refused to comment on why it tapped 20 phones, so yeah grats on being an authoritarian apologist.

The fark? Did the effort of reading that one line from the article leave you so mentally exhausted that you didn't even see what I was talking about before replying to my post?


All you do is attack people personally without addressing any issues.
 
2013-05-14 4:40:44 PM  

TheJoe03: Biological Ali: ShadowKamui: Actually if you really read the article it clearly states that the DoJ refused to comment on why it tapped 20 phones, so yeah grats on being an authoritarian apologist.

The fark? Did the effort of reading that one line from the article leave you so mentally exhausted that you didn't even see what I was talking about before replying to my post?

All you do is attack people personally without addressing any issues.


Maybe you can offer a better explanation for what that guy felt the need to reply to my post with something that had nothing to do with what I said.
 
2013-05-14 6:06:13 PM  
mrshowrules [TotalFark]
2013-05-14 09:20:18 AM


OnlyM3: mrshowrules

If Conservatives want to repeal the Patriot Act, I'm sure they won't get any resistance from Liberals. Which is why obama not only renewed, but expanded said act. Because "liberals" like freedom.


riiiiight.

Well I was against the Patriot Act from the beginning and I'm on record numerous times as being against Obama's extension of it. I'm suggesting that if Conservatives were actually against the Patriot Act it would not have been extended by Obama. If the GOP can block stuff that has a 90% approval rating, they certainly could have blocked this.

Good lord your blinders are bigger than the great wall of china.

The dim's are the majority in the Senate. If yours was the party of liberty etc... the bill would have never gotten to zero's desk and not needed even 1 republican to vote against it.
 
2013-05-14 6:10:33 PM  
.. p.s. I'm not defending the republicans. Yes, they should have blocked it. But your bullshiat of putting it all on their shoulders ignores your party owns 100% of the administrative branch and +50% of the legislative.
 
2013-05-14 8:14:41 PM  

Erix: It's a shiat law, and he only extended it because he was afraid of looking weak on terror.


Yes, I'm sure the additional power granted to him and his cronies which they subsequently used against their political enemies had NOTHING to do with it. That's the worst part about the fictional bi-factional ruling party - one "side" can implement something and the other "side" gets to use it also, but without having to take the political hit of having created it. Funny how neither "side" ever seems to undo ANYTHING bad the other "side" did while in office.
 
2013-05-15 12:47:35 AM  

OnlyM3: .. p.s. I'm not defending the republicans. Yes, they should have blocked it. But your bullshiat of putting it all on their shoulders ignores your party owns 100% of the administrative branch and +50% of the legislative.


Thing is that if Obama would have vetoed, don't you think the Republicans, and to some extent Democrats, wouldn't have been howling "weak on terror, not keeping us safe, etc. blah blah".

You are Obama's adviser, what do you recommend he does politically?

Also, I'm willing to entertain the idea that the Patriot Act has revealed some pretty tasty intelligence that keeps us safe, strong on terror, blah blah.

Again, what would you advise?
 
2013-05-15 3:36:42 AM  
Holder needs to go. Either he OK'd this or he is letting people do whatever the hell they want without his approval.  If it were Gonzales, the democrats would be calling for his head.
 
2013-05-15 9:24:29 AM  

Bigdogdaddy: Holder needs to go. Either he OK'd this or he is letting people do whatever the hell they want without his approval.  If it were Gonzales, the democrats would be calling for his head.


its like that scene from Casino.

'either he's too stupid to realize whats going on - or he's in on it"
 
2013-05-15 9:35:28 AM  
djkutch [TotalFark]
2013-05-15 12:47:35 AM


OnlyM3: .. p.s. I'm not defending the republicans. Yes, they should have blocked it. But your bullshiat of putting it all on their shoulders ignores your party owns 100% of the administrative branch and +50% of the legislative.

Thing is that if Obama would have vetoed, don't you think the Republicans, and to some extent Democrats, wouldn't have been howling "weak on terror, not keeping us safe, etc. blah blah".

You are Obama's adviser, what do you recommend he does politically?

Also, I'm willing to entertain the idea that the Patriot Act has revealed some pretty tasty intelligence that keeps us safe, strong on terror, blah blah.

Again, what would you advise?

Wow a tough one.

Lets see, we're supposed to be the "land of the free" how 'bout we start by having these idiots* refuse to sign bills that intrude on individual liberty, freedom and privacy.

That so tough?

*from both parties
 
Displayed 385 of 385 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking




On Twitter


  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.