login
DOJ snoops on AP (Page 2)
-
No new posts
|
 2013-05-14 1:49 PM in reply to: #4742017 |
Champion  7347     SRQ, FL |  Subject: RE: DOJ snoops on APjmk-brooklyn - 2013-05-14 1:29 PM briderdt - 2013-05-14 8:58 AM 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.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.
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. I do not see how you can believe both of those statements to be true. They are at odds with each other. The "government" (this collective of people carrying out the work) only does what these leaders tell the "government" to do via rules, laws and directives. If they are corrupt and uncaring, how can the "government" be anything else? |
| 2013-05-14 3:08 PM in reply to: #4742140 |
Elite 4564 Boise | Subject: RE: DOJ snoops on AP TriRSquared - 2013-05-14 12:49 PM jmk-brooklyn - 2013-05-14 1:29 PM briderdt - 2013-05-14 8:58 AM 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.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.
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. I do not see how you can believe both of those statements to be true. They are at odds with each other. The "government" (this collective of people carrying out the work) only does what these leaders tell the "government" to do via rules, laws and directives. If they are corrupt and uncaring, how can the "government" be anything else? I don't think that is that hard to believe. My wife is a teacher, therefore the government. It's not hard to divorce her job from beaurocrats in the department of education. |
| 2013-05-14 3:14 PM in reply to: #4740752 |
Member 5452 NC | Subject: RE: DOJ snoops on AP CBarnes - 2013-05-13 7:57 PM I wonder where the people who were all riled up over the Patriot act went? We're still here and generally don't defend any jack wagon politician or administration.
|
| 2013-05-14 3:19 PM in reply to: #4740524 |
Pro 15655 | Subject: RE: DOJ snoops on AP I've been able to read a bit about this whole deal. Like it or not, if it's a criminal investigation, and no laws were broken, and legal procedure was followed in the obtainment of the subpoenas for the phone records, I don't see where there is a story. The fact is, if someone is leaking classified information that could put the safety of our country or countrymen at risk (as looks to be the case to me), then I'm all for a full investigation using any means available by law. |
| 2013-05-14 3:23 PM in reply to: #4742288 |
Master 4101 Denver | Subject: RE: DOJ snoops on AP JoshR - 2013-05-14 2:08 PM I'd bet that something like 90% of the federal workforce is made up of career civil servants too. Not that there isn't a portion of them that are happy to sit out the clock, do the minimum and pick up a paycheck, just like at any company, but there's also a significant number who do what they do because they genuinely want to serve their country and make it a better place. I don't feel hypocritical at all placing trust in those people and that part of government while being untrusting and skeptical of the intentions of the political appointees and elected officials who make up the minority but public face of government. I don't think that is that hard to believe. My wife is a teacher, therefore the government. It's not hard to divorce her job from beaurocrats in the department of education. |
| 2013-05-14 3:25 PM in reply to: #4742314 |
Champion 7347 SRQ, FL | Subject: RE: DOJ snoops on AP Left Brain - 2013-05-14 4:19 PM I've been able to read a bit about this whole deal. Like it or not, if it's a criminal investigation, and no laws were broken, and legal procedure was followed in the obtainment of the subpoenas for the phone records, I don't see where there is a story. I think the concern is the breadth of the info gathered. They had no idea who might be the leak or when it happened (or IF it happened) So they just took all the phone records for 20 people for 2 months. If you gather enough info I bet you can find wrong doing just about anywhere. |
| 2013-05-14 3:25 PM in reply to: #4742314 |
Slower Than You 9566 Cracklantaburbs | Subject: RE: DOJ snoops on AP Left Brain - 2013-05-14 4:19 PM I've been able to read a bit about this whole deal. Like it or not, if it's a criminal investigation, and no laws were broken, and legal procedure was followed in the obtainment of the subpoenas for the phone records, I don't see where there is a story. If I've heard correctly, it's that notice of obtaining records is REQUIRED BY LAW TO BE GIVEN, and it wasn't. Thus, laws were broken and it could be a criminal case. |
| 2013-05-14 3:31 PM in reply to: #4742320 |
| Austin, Texas or Jupiter, Florida | Subject: RE: DOJ snoops on AP drewb8 - 2013-05-14 3:23 PM JoshR - 2013-05-14 2:08 PM I'd bet that something like 90% of the federal workforce is made up of career civil servants too. Not that there isn't a portion of them that are happy to sit out the clock, do the minimum and pick up a paycheck, just like at any company, but there's also a significant number who do what they do because they genuinely want to serve their country and make it a better place. I don't feel hypocritical at all placing trust in those people and that part of government while being untrusting and skeptical of the intentions of the political appointees and elected officials who make up the minority but public face of government. I don't think that is that hard to believe. My wife is a teacher, therefore the government. It's not hard to divorce her job from beaurocrats in the department of education. As the brat of a federal employee who has done ~37 years and having done 8 years in the Federal Government myself, I'd agree, there are a lot of great people working in the gubment. But by and large, my experience and my father's experience has been that a significant majority of career federal employees are there to convert oxygen to CO2 and collect a paycheck. Anything above that and you're ruining their day... |
| 2013-05-14 3:31 PM in reply to: #4742328 |
Pro 15655 | Subject: RE: DOJ snoops on AP bcart1991 - 2013-05-14 3:25 PM Left Brain - 2013-05-14 4:19 PM If I've heard correctly, it's that notice of obtaining records is REQUIRED BY LAW TO BE GIVEN, and it wasn't. Thus, laws were broken and it could be a criminal case.I've been able to read a bit about this whole deal. Like it or not, if it's a criminal investigation, and no laws were broken, and legal procedure was followed in the obtainment of the subpoenas for the phone records, I don't see where there is a story. Eh....who you THINK the notice has to be given to is not necessarily who it has to be given to. There is the issue of who the phone records actually belong to. They didn't get conversations, they got phone records. The argument has been made many time that the records belong to the phone company. I'll tell you this....SOMEONE got notified....the records didn't just pop out of thin air. You are still a long way from criminal. Besides......forget what you think you know about procedures when the investigation falls under the umbrella of the Patriot Act. Edited by Left Brain 2013-05-14 3:35 PM |
| 2013-05-14 3:34 PM in reply to: #4742326 |
| Austin, Texas or Jupiter, Florida | Subject: RE: DOJ snoops on AP TriRSquared - 2013-05-14 3:25 PM Left Brain - 2013-05-14 4:19 PM I've been able to read a bit about this whole deal. Like it or not, if it's a criminal investigation, and no laws were broken, and legal procedure was followed in the obtainment of the subpoenas for the phone records, I don't see where there is a story. I think the concern is the breadth of the info gathered. They had no idea who might be the leak or when it happened (or IF it happened) So they just took all the phone records for 20 people for 2 months. If you gather enough info I bet you can find wrong doing just about anywhere. ^^ This. Carl Bernstein, this morning on MSNBC said that whenever they want information, the AP cooperated. In this case, they did a massive dragnet to get all kinds of records, most of which will be irrelevant but still valuable to anyone who wants to use it for other means or to intimidate reporters into doing something. |
| 2013-05-14 3:35 PM in reply to: #4742288 |
Champion 7347 SRQ, FL | Subject: RE: DOJ snoops on AP
JoshR - 2013-05-14 4:08 PM TriRSquared - 2013-05-14 12:49 PM jmk-brooklyn - 2013-05-14 1:29 PM briderdt - 2013-05-14 8:58 AM 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.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.
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. I do not see how you can believe both of those statements to be true. They are at odds with each other. The "government" (this collective of people carrying out the work) only does what these leaders tell the "government" to do via rules, laws and directives. If they are corrupt and uncaring, how can the "government" be anything else? I don't think that is that hard to believe. My wife is a teacher, therefore the government. It's not hard to divorce her job from beaurocrats in the department of education. And individual is quite different from the "government" as a whole. Esp, since you're talking about local government. "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals." |
| 2013-05-14 3:36 PM in reply to: #4742326 |
Pro 15655 | Subject: RE: DOJ snoops on AP TriRSquared - 2013-05-14 3:25 PM Left Brain - 2013-05-14 4:19 PM I've been able to read a bit about this whole deal. Like it or not, if it's a criminal investigation, and no laws were broken, and legal procedure was followed in the obtainment of the subpoenas for the phone records, I don't see where there is a story. I think the concern is the breadth of the info gathered. They had no idea who might be the leak or when it happened (or IF it happened) So they just took all the phone records for 20 people for 2 months. If you gather enough info I bet you can find wrong doing just about anywhere. Show me your source for that please. |
| 2013-05-14 3:39 PM in reply to: #4742361 |
Champion 7347 SRQ, FL | Subject: RE: DOJ snoops on AP Left Brain - 2013-05-14 4:36 PM TriRSquared - 2013-05-14 3:25 PM Left Brain - 2013-05-14 4:19 PM I've been able to read a bit about this whole deal. Like it or not, if it's a criminal investigation, and no laws were broken, and legal procedure was followed in the obtainment of the subpoenas for the phone records, I don't see where there is a story. I think the concern is the breadth of the info gathered. They had no idea who might be the leak or when it happened (or IF it happened) So they just took all the phone records for 20 people for 2 months. If you gather enough info I bet you can find wrong doing just about anywhere. Show me your source for that please. Just assuming considering they had to pull 2 months of info from 20 people. |
| 2013-05-14 3:43 PM in reply to: #4742347 |
Master 4101 Denver | Subject: RE: DOJ snoops on AP GomesBolt - 2013-05-14 2:31 PM Oh I don't deny they're there for sure. Maybe I'm just off in some far slung corner of goodness that's biasing my view, but I almost never come across the clock watchers. Most of the people I come in contact with could be making more somewhere else but do what they do because they want to make a difference. Even so, even though you're going to get a number of CO2 processors in any large organization, by and large they aren't the ones abusing government power and public trust (that takes actual effort), that almost always seems to be the political folks who just care about winning for their side, not what's good for the country in general. As the brat of a federal employee who has done ~37 years and having done 8 years in the Federal Government myself, I'd agree, there are a lot of great people working in the gubment. But by and large, my experience and my father's experience has been that a significant majority of career federal employees are there to convert oxygen to CO2 and collect a paycheck. Anything above that and you're ruining their day... |
| 2013-05-14 3:46 PM in reply to: #4742368 |
Pro 15655 | Subject: RE: DOJ snoops on AP TriRSquared - 2013-05-14 3:39 PM Left Brain - 2013-05-14 4:36 PM TriRSquared - 2013-05-14 3:25 PM Left Brain - 2013-05-14 4:19 PM I've been able to read a bit about this whole deal. Like it or not, if it's a criminal investigation, and no laws were broken, and legal procedure was followed in the obtainment of the subpoenas for the phone records, I don't see where there is a story. I think the concern is the breadth of the info gathered. They had no idea who might be the leak or when it happened (or IF it happened) So they just took all the phone records for 20 people for 2 months. If you gather enough info I bet you can find wrong doing just about anywhere. Show me your source for that please. Just assuming considering they had to pull 2 months of info from 20 people. If I were you, I wouldn't assume anything when it comes to investigations such as these. I'm just saying. |
| 2013-05-14 4:16 PM in reply to: #4742295 |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: DOJ snoops on AP Goosedog - 2013-05-14 3:14 PM CBarnes - 2013-05-13 7:57 PM I wonder where the people who were all riled up over the Patriot act went? We're still here and generally don't defend any jack wagon politician or administration.
I'm still here. The Patriot Act was and is the most significant threats to civil liberties, privacy and democratic traditions in U.S. history. Obama had a chance to shut it down and he didn't. So I lump him and Bush in the same department when it comes to civil rights. |
| 2013-05-20 2:12 PM in reply to: tuwood |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: DOJ snoops on AP Front page on foxnews.com... (Sounds legit to me) Justice Dept. calls Fox News journalist doing his job in a free press... 'CONSPIRATOR' ERIC HOLDER'S JUSTICE DEPARTMENT, already under fire for seizing AP phone records, also obtained records pertaining to Fox News' chief Washington correspondent James Rosen's efforts to report leaked material, even calling Rosen a criminal 'co-conspirator' - a charge the news organization called 'chilling.' Justice Department obtained records of Fox News journalist
|
| 2013-05-20 2:42 PM in reply to: KateTri1 |
| Subject: RE: DOJ snoops on AP Originally posted by KateTri1 I'm sorry, what exactly is the scandal? The records were legally obtained.
Couldn't agree more, if you don't have something to hide there is no reason to be concerned about the Federal Government going through companies firewalls and seeing what they have been doing, talking to or the such! This could have a side benefit of keeping people from passing on sensitive or embarrassing info to the Press. |
| 2013-05-20 3:55 PM in reply to: 0 |
| Austin, Texas or Jupiter, Florida | Subject: RE: DOJ snoops on AP Originally posted by crusevegas Originally posted by KateTri1 I'm sorry, what exactly is the scandal? The records were legally obtained.
Couldn't agree more, if you don't have something to hide there is no reason to be concerned about the Federal Government going through companies firewalls and seeing what they have been doing, talking to or the such! This could have a side benefit of keeping people from passing on sensitive or embarrassing info to the Press. Lemme guess, the SARC Font aspect still isn't working??? Do I need to put the backspace code in here now? There was a write-up by an AP reporter who said the intimidation is already taking effect as there are absolutely no government employees willing to talk to media because they're afraid their conversations are being listened to. Meanwhile, even Bob Schiefer has completely turned on the administration... http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/05/19/bob_schieffer_wel... http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/inside-politics/2013/may/19/cbs... I love the last comment: "Why are you here?" ETA- Here's the video. http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2013/05/19/schieffer-oba... Edited by GomesBolt 2013-05-20 3:57 PM |
| 2013-05-20 5:03 PM in reply to: crusevegas |
Master 1795 Boynton Beach, FL | Subject: RE: DOJ snoops on AP Originally posted by crusevegas This could have a side benefit of keeping people from passing on sensitive or embarrassing info to the Press. In other words, prevent whistleblowing. Yeah, that sounds like a great idea. |
| 2013-05-20 5:12 PM in reply to: GomesBolt |
| Subject: RE: DOJ snoops on AP If the gubmnt wants to keep something secret why don't they just put it in a bill in congress,,,,,, nobody will have a clue whats in it until years after it gets passed. |
| 2013-05-20 7:09 PM in reply to: crusevegas |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: DOJ snoops on AP Originally posted by crusevegas If the gubmnt wants to keep something secret why don't they just put it in a bill in congress,,,,,, nobody will have a clue whats in it until years after it gets passed. ok, that made me laugh. I think you might be onto something there. |
| 2013-05-20 10:02 PM in reply to: cardenas1 |
| Subject: RE: DOJ snoops on AP This isn't any bigger of a deal than the Packastany Doctors name being released who helped us track down Bin Laden.
@ Tony, as my sig line says,,,,, always trying to spread good cheer. |
| 2013-05-20 10:03 PM in reply to: cardenas1 |
| Subject: RE: DOJ snoops on AP This isn't any bigger of a deal than the Pakistani Doctors name being released who helped us track down Bin Laden.
@ Tony, as my sig line says,,,,, always trying to spread good cheer. |
| 2013-05-20 10:04 PM in reply to: 0 |
| Subject: RE: DOJ snoops on AP This isn't any bigger of a deal than the Pakistani Doctors name being released who helped us track down Bin Laden.
@ Tony, as my sig line says,,,,, always trying to spread good cheer.
Ooooopsss Edited by crusevegas 2013-05-20 10:28 PM |
|
|
|
|
View profile
Add to friends
Go to training log
Go to race log
Send a message
View album
CONNECT WITH FACEBOOK