Obama Administration orders DOJ to spy on journalists.

[JBond]

Will the press finally start reporting the real news? I doubt it. Barry will continue to get a free pass.

Lawmakers from both parties sharply questioned the Justice Department over its reported effort to secretly obtain two months of phone records from Associated Press journalists, with House Speaker John Boehner’s office saying “they better have a damned good explanation.”

The AP disclosed the department’s actions Monday afternoon, revealing that the news service had recently learned the department obtained records listing outgoing calls for the work and personal phone numbers of AP reporters and various AP offices. In all, the government seized the records for more than 20 separate telephone lines assigned to AP and its journalists in April and May of 2012.

Concern about what the AP’s top executive called an “unprecedented intrusion” quickly spanned party lines.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, a Democrat, said he’s “very troubled” by the allegations.

“The burden is always on the government when they go after private information -- especially information regarding the press or its confidential sources. I want to know more about this case, but on the face of it, I am concerned that the government may not have met that burden,” Leahy said in a statement.

The AP also reported that the Justice Department got records for the main AP number in the House of Representatives press gallery. One congressional source told Fox News this allegation in particular “is not sitting too well” with congressional leadership.

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., said he plans to ask Attorney General Eric Holder “pointed questions” on the issue at a hearing Wednesday.

Boehner spokesman Michael Steel also had pointed words for the administration.

“The First Amendment is first for a reason. If the Obama administration is going after reporters’ phone records, they better have a damned good explanation,” he said.


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...ment-over-ap-phone-record-grab/#ixzz2TH8Ts5sV

 

[iceberg]

well early on obama wanted to take fox news off the air for not being "real" news.

how he gets to decide that is still beyond my comprehension.

 

[Dodger12]

I understand the controversy here but I can also understand the reason for the subpoenas. The government is trying to identify someone who leaked classified information tot he press. To me, leaking classified information to anyone is a serious violation for any government employee and the fact that he/she leaked it to the press should not minimize the seriousness of the conduct.

 

[JBond]

Honestly no one can reasonably expect a right to any privacy in this day and age. The fourth amendment has been relegated to the dust bin of history. I will be curious to see if every single member of the executive team, congress and their staffers were also tracked. If this is really about a leak of classified material, every single person that potentially had access to the material should have been tracked, not just the reporters.

 

[iceberg]

I understand the controversy here but I can also understand the reason for the subpoenas. The government is trying to identify someone who leaked classified information tot he press. To me, leaking classified information to anyone is a serious violation for any government employee and the fact that he/she leaked it to the press should not minimize the seriousness of the conduct.

i agree - leaking info is a serious event to be sure. so is trashing our 1st amendment rights. they told NO ONE at the AP they were doing this or asked to work in conjunction with them, they just did it.

one of my favorite facebook figures for politics is judge napolitano, libertarian i believe. here's his take:

Reacting to Attorney General Eric Holder‘s Tuesday afternoon press briefing on the Department of Justice’s secret seizing of Associated Press phone records, Fox senior judicial analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano tore into the agency for its “direct assault” on the Constitution that he says circumvented the proper channels laid out by the law.

On Monday afternoon it was revealed that the DOJ had obtained the private phone records of Associated Press reporters and editors. In response, Holder explained today that the seizure was part of an investigation into one of the worst leaks he has ever seen in his legal career, one he believes could have compromised national security.

Napolitano was not convinced, calling Justice’s actions a “profound and direct assault on the First Amendment.” He explained to Fox host Megyn Kelly that the feds have three different methods to legally seize documents from an outlet like the Associated Press: 1. “Grand jury subpoena, in which case the U.S. attorney has to tell the person, ‘We are going for your records.’” 2. “Go to a judge and present evidence of probable cause of crime to get a search warrant.” 3. “Obtain a national security letter, in which a federal agent writes a search warrant authorizing another federal agent to get the documents under the PATRIOT Act.”

The third option, Napolitano added, “is unconstitutional, but it is the law.” But as the judge sees it, the only crime that’s been identified by Holder thus far was the “crime of leaking,” which does not constitute a national security threat.

And so without following any of the three steps to legally obtaining documents under federal law, Napolitano told Kelly, the seizure “was absolutely done improperly and it violated most the core protected rights under the Constitution: freedom of speech.”

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/judge-na...ofound-and-direct-assault-on-first-amendment/

 

[superpunk]

Honestly no one can reasonably expect a right to any privacy in this day and age. The fourth amendment has been relegated to the dust bin of history. I will be curious to see if every single member of the executive team, congress and their staffers were also tracked. If this is really about a leak of classified material, every single person that potentially had access to the material should have been tracked, not just the reporters.

I know this probably doesn't apply here but let's say this circumvention of our rights could have prevented something like 9-11 or the Boston bombing. Justified in a case like that or is it unacceptable for slippery slope reasons no matter what? Points will be deducted if you quote Ben Franklin.

 

[ScipioCowboy]

I know this probably doesn't apply here but let's say this circumvention of our rights could have prevented something like 9-11 or the Boston bombing. Justified in a case like that or is it unacceptable for slippery slope reasons no matter what? Points will be deducted if you quote Ben Franklin.

That's like the water boarding question: Would you support water boarding suspected terrorist if there was an imminent and substantial threat to national security, such as a nuclear bomb planted in downtown New York?

I suppose Charles Krauthammer had the best answer in response to the question above: "Yes, provided you can prove the existence of an imminent and substantial threat to national security."

So, there. I quoted Charles Krauthammer rather than Ben Franklin.

 

[JBond]

Your hypothetical is useless because even if they did have information relating to terrorists they would not do much with it. Every single act of terror committed under Obama's watchful eye was done by people they knew were very bad people.

I think that NYC policy of grabbing people and searching them without probable cause is illegal as hell and completely disagree with it. I believe altering our way of life, our founding system of values and rights, because there are bad people out there means the bad people have achieved some of their goals. No, I do not think we should trade away our rights for personal safety. Do you? Do I lose points for paraphrasing?

 

[superpunk]

That's like the water boarding question: Would you support water boarding suspected terrorist if there was an imminent and substantial threat to national security, such as a nuclear bomb planted in downtown New York?

I suppose Charles Krauthammer had the best answer in response to the question above: "Yes, provided you can prove the existence of an imminent and substantial threat to national security."

So, there. I quoted Charles Krauthammer rather than Ben Franklin.

Kind of a tautology. Or something. If they could prove it they wouldn't need to waterboard him, so the answer is simply evasive.

 

[VTA]

It's not about pre-empting anything other than political enemies from voicing the truth.
When they are warned, concerning attacks, they ignore them:

American diplomats were warned of possible violent unrest in Benghazi three days before the killings of US Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three members of his team, Libyan security officials say.

The claim came as the country's interim President, Mohammed el-Megarif, said his government had information that the attack on the US consulate had been planned by an Islamist group with links to al-Qa'ida and with foreigners taking part.

Link

 

[superpunk]

noone gives a shit about benghazi ffs let it go. christ your every post is about it somehow. who gives a flying fuck

 

[VTA]

It's more about dousing your lame ass theory that they do it to pre-empt any attacks. Dopey.

 

[superpunk]

It's more about dousing your lame ass theory that they do it to pre-empt any attacks. Dopey.

Really, that's my theory?

Please c&p the post where I stated that.

 

[VTA]

Post #6 Dopey. Or were you taking a poll for 500 Alex?

Also:

(CNN) -- Russia withheld details from U.S. officials about suspicions of Boston Marathon bombings suspect Tamerlan Tsarnaev in 2011, information that could have altered the course authorities followed, a U.S. law enforcement official told CNN.

While Russia did alert U.S. authorities about Tsarnaev's possible extremism, it kept out some facts, namely text messages referencing his desire to join a militant group, the source said.

They didn't need to spy on reporters to get info they would ignore.

 

[superpunk]

really? good christ. even jbond knew that was just a hypothetical and he's more than mildly retarded.

 

[JBond]

noone gives a shit about benghazi ffs let it go. christ your every post is about it somehow. who gives a flying fuck

I think the family members of the people Obama and Clinton encouraged to be killed care. Quite honestly everyone should care that Sec. of Defense is terrified to "place troops in harms way". People should care that the administration ordered the response teams to "stand down" and allowed our ambassador and some very brave soldiers to be slaughtered. They felt taking a nap was much more important then saving the life of the Ambassador.

Does anyone know why Obama/Clinton sent him to a POS little town in the middle of nowhere after stripping his protection detail?

 

[VTA]

really? good christ. even jbond knew that was just a hypothetical and he's more than mildly retarded.

Nah, I probably just lazily counted on your Obama ass sniffing to influence my view of what you had to say about it.

 

[ScipioCowboy]

Kind of a tautology. Or something. If they could prove it they wouldn't need to waterboard him, so the answer is simply evasive.

Not really.

You don't need an actual bomb to prove the existence of a credible threat. That's an argument from lack of imagination. You could prove it with a paper trail, chain of financial information, etc.

 

[superpunk]

Nah, I probably just lazily counted on your Obama ass sniffing to influence my view of what you had to say about it.

this was probably a better option than just admitting you misspoke and were wrong and are stupid.

Not really.

You don't need an actual bomb to prove the existence of a credible threat. That's an argument from lack of imagination. You could prove it with a paper trail, chain of financial information, etc.

if you can already prove it...

 

[VTA]

It's sort of cute when retarded kids try to insult me.