DOJ snoops on AP
-
No new posts
Moderators: k9car363, the bear, DerekL, alicefoeller | Reply |
|
![]() |
Champion ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() After you read this... http://bigstory.ap.org/article/govt-obtains-wide-ap-phone-records-probe Might I suggest this... http://www.amazon.com/1984-Signet-Classics-George-Orwell/dp/0451524934 Seriously. Benghazi, the IRA scandal, and now this. Not looking like the most friendly of governments right now is it? |
|
![]() ![]() |
Elite ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() (Puts tinfoil hat on) That's because when the economy collapses, all of the proverbial poop will hit the fan.
ETA: This is why I wear a sweet hat.
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/03/ff_nsadatacenter/all/1 Edited by JoshR 2013-05-13 4:29 PM |
![]() ![]() |
Expert ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() I'm sorry, what exactly is the scandal? The records were legally obtained. |
![]() ![]() |
Master ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() KateTri1 - 2013-05-13 2:38 PM I'm sorry, what exactly is the scandal? The records were legally obtained. You mean the part where the AP story catches the administration in a lie, and then everybody involved in the story has their phone records analyzed to ferret out their sources and prosecute them. Yeah, I don't see any scandal at all there. Why would we want any freedom of the press? There's no good reason. |
![]() ![]() |
Master ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() KateTri1 - 2013-05-13 5:38 PM I'm sorry, what exactly is the scandal? The records were legally obtained. Wow... Say it was discovered that the DOJ was tapping your phone lines and listening to your conversations, minimally, reviewing your call records. So if they did so legally (BTW, not proved it was in this case yet), you would have no problem with it? This is an incredible violation of freedom of the press (never thought I would defend journalists) and individual rights. This is not a partisan issue, but an American issue. This is not directed at you KateTri1. I just hope that people stop trying to defend who they voted for and sacrifice their overall rights to freedom and transparency. I would be equally outraged if this was DOJ, IRS or GOP Admisistration being accused of same accounts. |
![]() ![]() |
Champion ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() cardenas1 - 2013-05-13 5:42 PM KateTri1 - 2013-05-13 5:38 PM I'm sorry, what exactly is the scandal? The records were legally obtained. Wow... Say it was discovered that the DOJ was tapping your phone lines and listening to your conversations, minimally, reviewing your call records. So if they did so legally (BTW, not proved it was in this case yet), you would have no problem with it? This is an incredible violation of freedom of the press (never thought I would defend journalists) and individual rights. This is not a partisan issue, but an American issue. This is not directed at you KateTri1. I just hope that people stop trying to defend who they voted for and sacrifice their overall rights to freedom and transparency. I would be equally outraged if this was DOJ, IRS or GOP Admisistration being accused of same accounts. Again with the outrage. Very little has been proven--you said it yourself. The AP has filed a grievance,and the ACLU has demanded an explanation. How about we wait until this is sorted out at least a little more or even until the investigation is completed before getting outraged? Weren't we all complaining, a few weeks ago, after the Boston Marathon bombings that the press in this country is completely out of control? If reporters are irresponsibly divulging information that is potentially damaging to national security, they should be investigated and held accountable. Now, all of a sudden, just because there's the hint of scandal, the right-wing media is so eager to advance yet another conspiracy theory that they're jumping into bed with the AP and the ACLU? I'm not saying there's nothing here--maybe there is, but going from zero-to-outraged in five seconds does nothing but further inspire the media to report the titillating innuendo first, and check the facts later. |
|
![]() ![]() |
Master ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Yes, it has been proven that AP phone numbers at work and on personl lines of reporters were tapped and call information logged for incoming/outgoing calls. I am equally curious what comes out of investigation, but these facts just at face value are disturbing enough. We are not going to come to common ground here, it is obvious. It just goes to show how fundamentally different the population is in this Country. That is not a complaint by the way. I am amazed at the level of TRUST people place behind their government regardless of Party. Perhaps this will be another case of the DOJ opening up an investigation on the DOJ. Does that not worry you? Kind of like putting a card in the suggestion box and the box is opened only by the party you are complaining about. And hit rewind about BC Bombers and comments on journalists. Not sure how that has anything to do with this example we are talking about. |
![]() ![]() |
Master ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() I wonder where the people who were all riled up over the Patriot act went? Anyway, with the actions of the IRS and the DOJ I don't think posting in here is safe, it may open one up for a tax audit or a wire tap. |
![]() ![]() |
Elite ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Wait a minute...one minute the AP is considered part of the "lame stream" media in bed with this administration...but now they're not? Which is it? This is getting confusing. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() | ![]() Just checked in to see if we were getting the "false outrage" bit in here too. Yep... |
![]() ![]() |
Champion ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() cardenas1 - 2013-05-13 6:22 PM Yes, it has been proven that AP phone numbers at work and on personl lines of reporters were tapped and call information logged for incoming/outgoing calls. I am equally curious what comes out of investigation, but these facts just at face value are disturbing enough. We are not going to come to common ground here, it is obvious. It just goes to show how fundamentally different the population is in this Country. That is not a complaint by the way. I am amazed at the level of TRUST people place behind their government regardless of Party. Perhaps this will be another case of the DOJ opening up an investigation on the DOJ. Does that not worry you? Kind of like putting a card in the suggestion box and the box is opened only by the party you are complaining about. And hit rewind about BC Bombers and comments on journalists. Not sure how that has anything to do with this example we are talking about. If the reporters were knowingly giving away information that was potentially damaging to national security, or endangering lives I think the DOJ has the right to try to determine whether they were merely irresponsible or whether they were trying to aid a terrorist organization. I'm not saying one shouldn't be "disturbed", but I think it's a little early in the game to be "outraged". Yes, generally speaking, I trust the government, regardless of who's in the White House. I don't expect them to be perfect and i don't agree with everything they do, but i believe that as a whole, the government of the us has the best interests of the american people in mind. I don't have anything to hide and I'm not the least bit worried. I'm troubled more by what I see as their incompetence and inefficiency than by suggestions of conspiracy and corruption. |
|
![]() ![]() |
Champion ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() ChineseDemocracy - 2013-05-13 7:40 PM Wait a minute...one minute the AP is considered part of the "lame stream" media in bed with this administration...but now they're not? Which is it? This is getting confusing. Never mind the AP! The ACLU! The GOP is on the same side as those freedom-hating hippie commies! Clearly the apocalypse is upon us. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() | ![]() jmk-brooklyn - 2013-05-13 7:50 PM Problem with the above statement is that a reporter signed no NDA, no confidentiality agreement, etc. you can't investigate him for reporting. That's what the 1A is for. You can tap everyone's phone at DOJ to find out who's talking to the media. There's no "Official State Secrets Act" here like there are in England, so the media can report everything they find.cardenas1 - 2013-05-13 6:22 PM If the reporters were knowingly giving away information that was potentially damaging to national security, or endangering lives I think the DOJ has the right to try to determine whether they were merely irresponsible or whether they were trying to aid a terrorist organization. I'm not saying one shouldn't be "disturbed", but I think it's a little early in the game to be "outraged". Yes, generally speaking, I trust the government, regardless of who's in the White House. I don't expect them to be perfect and i don't agree with everything they do, but i believe that as a whole, the government of the us has the best interests of the american people in mind. I don't have anything to hide and I'm not the least bit worried. I'm troubled more by what I see as their incompetence and inefficiency than by suggestions of conspiracy and corruption. Yes, it has been proven that AP phone numbers at work and on personl lines of reporters were tapped and call information logged for incoming/outgoing calls. I am equally curious what comes out of investigation, but these facts just at face value are disturbing enough. We are not going to come to common ground here, it is obvious. It just goes to show how fundamentally different the population is in this Country. That is not a complaint by the way. I am amazed at the level of TRUST people place behind their government regardless of Party. Perhaps this will be another case of the DOJ opening up an investigation on the DOJ. Does that not worry you? Kind of like putting a card in the suggestion box and the box is opened only by the party you are complaining about. And hit rewind about BC Bombers and comments on journalists. Not sure how that has anything to do with this example we are talking about. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() | ![]() jmk-brooklyn - 2013-05-13 7:55 PM ChineseDemocracy - 2013-05-13 7:40 PM Never mind the AP! The ACLU! The GOP is on the same side as those freedom-hating hippie commies! Clearly the apocalypse is upon us.Wait a minute...one minute the AP is considered part of the "lame stream" media in bed with this administration...but now they're not? Which is it? This is getting confusing. Strange isn't it. I think it's an indication of how far the administration has gone. But I understand your reluctance to see it that way. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() | ![]() There it is, WH didn't know about the AP and DOJ... http://twitchy.com/2013/05/13/clown-carney-white-house-shocked-to-hear-about-aps-phone-records-being-investigated/ |
![]() ![]() |
Champion ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() jmk-brooklyn - 2013-05-13 7:55 PM ChineseDemocracy - 2013-05-13 7:40 PM Wait a minute...one minute the AP is considered part of the "lame stream" media in bed with this administration...but now they're not? Which is it? This is getting confusing. Never mind the AP! The ACLU! The GOP is on the same side as those freedom-hating hippie commies! Clearly the apocalypse is upon us. The media has been in bed with this Administration. It just appears now that the press is finding out that Obama and Holder have been very bad girlfriends. And after all the love the press has thrown their way. |
|
![]() ![]() |
Champion ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() GomesBolt - 2013-05-13 7:58 PM jmk-brooklyn - 2013-05-13 7:55 PM ChineseDemocracy - 2013-05-13 7:40 PM Never mind the AP! The ACLU! The GOP is on the same side as those freedom-hating hippie commies! Clearly the apocalypse is upon us.Wait a minute...one minute the AP is considered part of the "lame stream" media in bed with this administration...but now they're not? Which is it? This is getting confusing. Strange isn't it. I think it's an indication of how far the administration has gone. But I understand your reluctance to see it that way. Yah, I see it as "the GOP is so desperate to smear the administration, they'll jump aboard anyone's bandwagon, even if its an organization that's been a punch line for them for decades." It's a better indication of how far the GOP has gone than the administration. They really don't have a clue anymore. It's pretty clear the plan is to spend the next 3.5 years throwing mud in every conceivable direction and getting faux-outraged by the slightest suggestion of a scandal. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() | ![]() jmk-brooklyn - 2013-05-13 8:56 PM You should make "False Outrage" your sig line so you don't have to keep typing it... GomesBolt - 2013-05-13 7:58 PM Yah, I see it as "the GOP is so desperate to smear the administration, they'll jump aboard anyone's bandwagon, even if its an organization that's been a punch line for them for decades." It's a better indication of how far the GOP has gone than the administration. They really don't have a clue anymore. It's pretty clear the plan is to spend the next 3.5 years throwing mud in every conceivable direction and getting faux-outraged by the slightest suggestion of a scandal. jmk-brooklyn - 2013-05-13 7:55 PM ChineseDemocracy - 2013-05-13 7:40 PM Never mind the AP! The ACLU! The GOP is on the same side as those freedom-hating hippie commies! Clearly the apocalypse is upon us.Wait a minute...one minute the AP is considered part of the "lame stream" media in bed with this administration...but now they're not? Which is it? This is getting confusing. Strange isn't it. I think it's an indication of how far the administration has gone. But I understand your reluctance to see it that way. ![]() Edited by GomesBolt 2013-05-13 9:01 PM |
![]() ![]() |
Champion ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() GomesBolt - 2013-05-13 9:00 PM jmk-brooklyn - 2013-05-13 8:56 PM You should make "False Outrage" your sig line so you don't have to keep typing it... GomesBolt - 2013-05-13 7:58 PM Yah, I see it as "the GOP is so desperate to smear the administration, they'll jump aboard anyone's bandwagon, even if its an organization that's been a punch line for them for decades." It's a better indication of how far the GOP has gone than the administration. They really don't have a clue anymore. It's pretty clear the plan is to spend the next 3.5 years throwing mud in every conceivable direction and getting faux-outraged by the slightest suggestion of a scandal. jmk-brooklyn - 2013-05-13 7:55 PM ChineseDemocracy - 2013-05-13 7:40 PM Never mind the AP! The ACLU! The GOP is on the same side as those freedom-hating hippie commies! Clearly the apocalypse is upon us.Wait a minute...one minute the AP is considered part of the "lame stream" media in bed with this administration...but now they're not? Which is it? This is getting confusing. Strange isn't it. I think it's an indication of how far the administration has gone. But I understand your reluctance to see it that way. ![]() It's my GOP-inspired buzzword, like "death-panel"or "socialism". ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
Pro ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Lacking further information, such as the nature of a possible investigation, I can see both sides of this argument. If classified information is being leaked, there are probably numerous avenues to pursue to find the leak. The problem, if there is one, would come if subpeonas or warrants were issued that lacked a specific target......just a "fishing expedition" for lack of a better term. Then again, the Patriot Act does give some very broad interpretation of what is normally referred to as "probable cause". I'll sit and wait to see where the water goes on this one. |
![]() ![]() |
Champion ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() jmk-brooklyn - 2013-05-13 8:55 PM ChineseDemocracy - 2013-05-13 7:40 PM Never mind the AP! The ACLU! The GOP is on the same side as those freedom-hating hippie commies! Clearly the apocalypse is upon us.Wait a minute...one minute the AP is considered part of the "lame stream" media in bed with this administration...but now they're not? Which is it? This is getting confusing. There is no problem agreeing with folks now and then. I am not fond of the ACLU because they fail to support the 2nd amendment but if they were defending say the 1st or 4th, I would be in their corner. It's blind allegiance that gets us in trouble. I didn't support my local Rep (R) when he supported the Patriot Act extension and I let him know about it. I certainly let my two Senators (R & D) know my view on anti-2nd amendment bills that were floating around. That's how it works. |
|
![]() ![]() |
Champion ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() jmk-brooklyn - 2013-05-13 8:50 PM cardenas1 - 2013-05-13 6:22 PM If the reporters were knowingly giving away information that was potentially damaging to national security, or endangering lives I think the DOJ has the right to try to determine whether they were merely irresponsible or whether they were trying to aid a terrorist organization. I'm not saying one shouldn't be "disturbed", but I think it's a little early in the game to be "outraged". Yes, generally speaking, I trust the government, regardless of who's in the White House. I don't expect them to be perfect and i don't agree with everything they do, but i believe that as a whole, the government of the us has the best interests of the american people in mind. I don't have anything to hide and I'm not the least bit worried. I'm troubled more by what I see as their incompetence and inefficiency than by suggestions of conspiracy and corruption. Yes, it has been proven that AP phone numbers at work and on personl lines of reporters were tapped and call information logged for incoming/outgoing calls. I am equally curious what comes out of investigation, but these facts just at face value are disturbing enough. We are not going to come to common ground here, it is obvious. It just goes to show how fundamentally different the population is in this Country. That is not a complaint by the way. I am amazed at the level of TRUST people place behind their government regardless of Party. Perhaps this will be another case of the DOJ opening up an investigation on the DOJ. Does that not worry you? Kind of like putting a card in the suggestion box and the box is opened only by the party you are complaining about. And hit rewind about BC Bombers and comments on journalists. Not sure how that has anything to do with this example we are talking about. True. And if they had only taken the pone records for s small slice of time or from a few people it probably would not have been a huge deal. The information takes must be "as narrowly drawn as possible." according to the DOJ themselves. And there is the difference. Generally speaking I don't trust that mess up in DC at all. They have proven time and time again that they will seize power and generally make a mess of things wherever they can regardless of the letter after their name. They have nothing but their OWN best interests in mind. One only has to look at the back room deals and the way corporations and lobbies influence policy to see that the government, as a whole, doesn't give a damn about you or me. Edited by TriRSquared 2013-05-14 7:41 AM |
![]() ![]() |
Champion ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() I'm not sure what the AP is complaining about. A few weeks ago they were all for expanding background checks. |
![]() ![]() |
Champion ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() jmk-brooklyn - 2013-05-13 5:50 PM Yes, generally speaking, I trust the government, regardless of who's in the White House. Not picking on you in particular, but I think THIS is the first problem -- we trust the government too much. The whole framing of the Constitution was that THE PEOPLE were to act as the watch-dogs of the government so that it didn't becoming a ruling class. And... when I hear phrases used like "the government punishing the people", it's clear the government HAS become a ruling class. I think there needs to be a fundamental shift in this country's thinking to trust less, and watch more. There's no excuse for this kind of thing to even be considered. Edited by briderdt 2013-05-14 9:00 AM |
![]() ![]() |
Champion ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() briderdt - 2013-05-14 8:58 AM jmk-brooklyn - 2013-05-13 5:50 PM Yes, generally speaking, I trust the government, regardless of who's in the White House. Not picking on you in particular, but I think THIS is the first problem -- we trust the government too much. The whole framing of the Constitution was that THE PEOPLE were to act as the watch-dogs of the government so that it didn't becoming a ruling class. And... when I hear phrases used like "the government punishing the people", it's clear the government HAS become a ruling class. I think there needs to be a fundamental shift in this country's thinking to trust less, and watch more. There's no excuse for this kind of thing to even be considered. I said, "generally speaking", not "completely and without reservations". I don't have any illusions about there being corruption in the government at all levels. I also think that Congress, and public office in general has moved away from it being populated with people who "just want to serve their country" and is instead largely populated with people who either a) want to have a pulpit to advance a particular ideology or b b) want to parlay their public office job into a high paying future gig as a lobbyist, consultant, corporate attorney, etc. Those people aren't necessarily corrupt, per se, but I think it's a fair statement that they don't necessarily have the best interests of their consituency in mind. But, overall, I think that the government does a good job of serving the majority of the needs of the majority of the people. The devil is in the details, as they say, and that's where most of the loudest debate comes from. |
|