Associated Press Blasts Feds

[Q-C]

AP Blasts Feds for phone records search

http://www.cnn.com/2...ones/index.html

"If the Obama administration is going after reporters' phone records, they better have a damned good explanation"

The subpoenas were disclosed to the news agency on Friday, Pruitt wrote. In all, federal agents collected records from more than 20 lines, including personal phones and AP phone numbers in New York; Hartford, Connecticut; and Washington, he wrote.

"We regard this action by the Department of Justice as a serious interference with AP's constitutional rights to gather and report the news," he told Holder. Pruitt demanded that the department return all records collected and destroy all copies.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Freedom v National Security? Are all govts and administrations the same when it comes down to it?

What scares you more? Loss of freedom or threats to our national security? Is their a way to appease both sides?

I don't have any answers. I know my first experience (a taste of it) was a trip to Spain many years ago. I was a teen. There were heavily armed (military? or police?) everywhere. In doorways, on the streets. It was not something I had ever experienced. I realized I really couldn't decide if I felt safer or more threatened. I could not decide. But, I didn't live there either. I was going home where no heavily uniformed men patroled the streets.

I feel the two are related, maybe you don't.

Edited May 14, 2013 by QuiteContrary

[Clarakore]

Keep in mind they were going after a leak.

National security is of prime importance and investigations are part of that.

[Q-C]

I'm not thinking right or wrong here. I honestly don't know. I'd like to side on National Security too.

But it doesn't sound like the press and some others agree. At the very least, they are concerned with this tactic taken by the govt.

"The burden is always on the government when they go after private information -- especially information regarding the press or its confidential sources," said Leahy, D-Vermont. "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."

Was there another way?

Each case has to be judged individually? But does that happen? Is it even possible if under threat?

It doesn't sound to me like serious threats gives any time for "should we or shouldn't we?"

And where do you draw the line? We keep our "privacy" and freedoms unless...

Edited May 14, 2013 by QuiteContrary

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

Whenever people say "for national security" I hear "Deuchland Deuchland ich bien alles...".

Journalists are protected by one of those vaunted Amendments you Americans hold in such regard until it's inconvenient. You either have a free press or you don't. Saying "we want to know where this leak came from, so we're going to piddle on your freedoms" isn't a free press.

[Q-C]

Whenever people say "for national security" I hear "Deuchland Deuchland ich bien alles...".

Journalists are protected by one of those vaunted Amendments you Americans hold in such regard until it's inconvenient. You either have a free press or you don't. Saying "we want to know where this leak came from, so we're going to piddle on your freedoms" isn't a free press.

Is it different Downunder? Can you explain more?

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

Is it different Downunder? Can you explain more?

Our journos are hauled in front of Parliamentary Commissions and the industry Ombudsman all the time.

Hell, IIRc one of the "big name" journos is in trouble for "doorstepping" (for want of a better word) a rape victim on radio.

But very rarely if ever do we get the government covertly going after their sources etc, when they do it's done openly and in court and then the journos trot off to gaol for a quick holiday courtesy of their morals.

Besides, we don't have a free press - we have a Murdoch Press Our press has strict rules to follow and the like and "not having to reveal your sources" isn't IIRC one of those rules.

[Q-C]

Our journos are hauled in front of Parliamentary Commissions and the industry Ombudsman all the time.

Hell, IIRc one of the "big name" journos is in trouble for "doorstepping" (for want of a better word) a rape victim on radio.

But very rarely if ever do we get the government covertly going after their sources etc, when they do it's done openly and in court and then the journos trot off to gaol for a quick holiday courtesy of their morals.

Besides, we don't have a free press - we have a Murdoch Press Our press has strict rules to follow and the like and "not having to reveal your sources" isn't IIRC one of those rules.

Thanks.

Do you truly believe "it's done openly and in court". Not second guessing you, I just have no idea what goes on politically down under.

How much National Security threats do you experience there?

Does Australia have a "CIA" or "NSA" so to speak? Does it get in hot water and float in controversy like ours do?

"doorstepping" not sure what that is?

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

Thanks.

Do you truly believe "it's done openly and in court". Not second guessing you, I just have no idea what goes on politically down under.

This is Australia mate, if anyone here reckons the government's having a go at them they'll be whinging to high heaven.

How much National Security threats do you experience there?

Mostly down to certain foreign nationals calling us bullies and blowing up bars frequented by Australians overseas.

And the locals calling the government bullies and having a barney (a brawl) on the streets every so often.

Does Australia have a "CIA" or "NSA" so to speak? Does it get in hot water and float in controversy like ours do?

It's called ASIO - Australian Security and Intelligence Organisation IIRC.

Mostly it busts drug smugglers and gets called fascists by the Bikie Gangs.

"doorstepping" not sure what that is?

it's where less scrupulous reporters don't let people get into a place of safety to avoid their questions - it comes from ambushing people on their doorstep when they're getting up to get their morning papers etc. What John Laws did was ask a rape victim (who was SEVEN at the time) relentlessly if she did anything to trigger the rape, if it was her fault etc etc.

[shrooma]

Mostly down to certain foreign nationals calling us bullies and blowing up bars frequented by Australians overseas.

.

y'know sir (and congrats on the recent knighthood btw) I can't imagine anyone thinking of the aussies as 'bullies'.

we've got loads of 'em round here, and all they want to do is work in pubs (they're naturals), get p**sed (again, they're naturals), and have a laugh (see a pattern forming here....?). they tend to be some of the best natured people you could meet!

[Clarakore]

If someone is leaking classified information they would be the target of the investigation. Checking up on the APs phone conversations could lead back to the leak. They were not being spied on just for the fun of it.

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

if someone is leaking classified documents, you look for the leak - as they're the criminals - not at the press.

[Q-C]

If someone is leaking classified information they would be the target of the investigation. Checking up on the APs phone conversations could lead back to the leak. They were not being spied on just for the fun of it.

I'd hope not. But politicians and members of the press are questioning their tactic, with that it deserves discussion and consideration, imo.

But I am not assigning accusations or blame, I'm just discussing and questioning.

Edited May 14, 2013 by QuiteContrary

[chopmo]

Our journos are hauled in front of Parliamentary Commissions and the industry Ombudsman all the time.

Hell, IIRc one of the "big name" journos is in trouble for "doorstepping" (for want of a better word) a rape victim on radio.

But very rarely if ever do we get the government covertly going after their sources etc, when they do it's done openly and in court and then the journos trot off to gaol for a quick holiday courtesy of their morals.

Besides, we don't have a free press - we have a Murdoch Press Our press has strict rules to follow and the like and "not having to reveal your sources" isn't IIRC one of those rules.

Our media is one of the biggest jokes of the world (Australian that is). The stories are consistantly 1/4 truth 3/4 work around, I hate watching/hearing Australian news media. Even to the point if or when the show a full story it is constantly belittled towards one side of the argument in the reporting. We don't having anything lawfully making the media tell a full story not just the interesting bits rewritten into a attention grabber. Even our politics media is pathetic 2 parties that do nothing but b**** and winge at eachother untill voting time then and very little they will acknowledge other parties. It is also constant squabbling.

All in all in Australia terms I think the reporter, news company and corporation should all have to go before the courts if their "news" is found to be false, misleading, slanderous, partial truth. It would make for boring neverending news days thats for sure... or the journalist might think twice about what they report. Same goes for Politicians, if they fail to meet their commitments by the end of their term they should be banished from law and governance.

You can't use the Radio Host/English Hospital Worker Suicide as an example of lawful media. It's a bit different when you have the Queen polishing her sniper rifle off because it stemmed from a Royal engagement, which they (radio hosts) unlawfully (impersonated a royal member) to gain access to information of the Prince of England's wife's hospital condition regarding their child... one would say Juliar would've been grovling on the other end of the phone call almost in a crackwhore fashion.

Don't get me wrong I love my country, I'm just incredibly over the comglomerate "well thats just how it is" attitude we take towards Media and Governance and the two go extremely well hand in hand it's bulls*** that we are belittled by them as the Public.

[preacherman76]

Government spying is WAY outta control. They just recently admitted every single phone conversation and e-mail written is recorded and filed. Where the hell is the AP on that? Most of our elected should be in prison.

[Q-C]

I'm just incredibly over the comglomerate "well thats just how it is" attitude we take towards Media and Governance and the two go extremely well hand in hand it's bulls*** that we are belittled by them as the Public.

[Taun]

I greatly mistrust (and generally despise) the media as it is today (ALL media - not just some networks, etc) but I'm not too sure they are not right in this...

I do believe that they should not have the right to withhold their sources - because it's way too easy for them to just invent something and then say "Sorry. I can't give you my source"... And to be frank I'm not sure I understand where that "right" came from... As in: Where does it specifically say they can withhold their sources?... I'm sure it does somewhere - I just don't know where... (I don't think the 1st Amendment specifically says that)...

Anyway... I agree that this should be handled in a courtroom or before an official committee rather than just a Justice Department demand...

[Ashotep]

They may of had a good reason to search their phone records but I think they should have to get a warrant to do this. Too much is allowed without a warrant anymore.

[Ashotep]

If someone is leaking classified information they would be the target of the investigation. Checking up on the APs phone conversations could lead back to the leak. They were not being spied on just for the fun of it.

I hope they weren't being spied on just for fun but who knows anymore since they can do so much without a warrant.

[Kowalski]

Whenever people say "for national security" I hear "Deuchland Deuchland ich bien alles...".

Journalists are protected by one of those vaunted Amendments you Americans hold in such regard until it's inconvenient. You either have a free press or you don't. Saying "we want to know where this leak came from, so we're going to piddle on your freedoms" isn't a free press.

The whole POINT of the founding fathers saying we had a free press was so we could keep a close eye on what the government was doing. NOT so they can do stuff like this. They can't pick and choose which parts of the Constitution they want to follow. It doesn't work like that....

[Babe Ruth]

Whenever people say "for national security" I hear "Deuchland Deuchland ich bien alles...".

Journalists are protected by one of those vaunted Amendments you Americans hold in such regard until it's inconvenient. You either have a free press or you don't. Saying "we want to know where this leak came from, so we're going to piddle on your freedoms" isn't a free press.

Bravo! That much better coming from somebody outside the country!

The irony is almost delicious, coming from the presstitute MSM. Though I do consider AP to be more or less an exception to the rule regarding the presstitute media. Julian Assange must be chuckling, there in his embassy prison.

For those of us who have been criticizing the illegal methods of government for all these years, this is a bittersweet vindication.

NYT, AT & Treason and many others enabled and covered up the government crimes, and now quickly the shoe is on the other foot.

Yes, we have the government we deserve.

[Babe Ruth]

They may of had a good reason to search their phone records but I think they should have to get a warrant to do this. Too much is allowed without a warrant anymore.

After 911 and the Unpatriot Act, warrants are sooo 1787, you know?

Rather like the specious notion of "embedded" journalism of the GWOT, and now those embedded are discovering that they might also be sodomized, figuratively.

ACLU and others warned that the Constitution was being gutted, but everybody rationalized it away. Now they are discovering the reality of it. Quite predictable, 10 years ago.

[Harte]

.

y'know sir (and congrats on the recent knighthood btw) ...

I'd like to add my congratulations as well, Sir Wearer. About time. What took them so long?

Harte

[Tata Rompe Pecho]

We're still not over the fact that our constitution doesn't mean anything anymore?

Wow you guys are late.

The Constitution is really The CON-stitution.

Our country is not what it should be. Security comes at the price of our freedoms, meanwhile we are being disarmed. Constitutional rights are constantly disregarded, and referred to as "obsolete doctrine". Americans are paying tax dollars to buy the equipment necessary to be spied on. The list really goes on and on, this stuff is no shock, the only shock is how the AP is so surprised that it's happening to them. I must have missed the part of the constitution that says AP has rights, but the people don't.. Oh wait that one don't exist, we all have rights.. They've all been trampled.

You guys aren't really surprised by this are you?

Edited May 15, 2013 by xFelix

[Babe Ruth]

Watching the TV news last night, the presstitute media has already rationalized away the government's illegal actions in this case.

Holder claimed that the american people were in real danger, and the govt simply HAD to violate the Fourth Amendment so that the leaker of certain things might be found. And the presstitute media has now accepted that rationale. A pretty sad state of affairs for this once great country.

[Kowalski]

Watching the TV news last night, the presstitute media has already rationalized away the government's illegal actions in this case.

Holder claimed that the american people were in real danger, and the govt simply HAD to violate the Fourth Amendment so that the leaker of certain things might be found. And the presstitute media has now accepted that rationale. A pretty sad state of affairs for this once great country.

I guess some people don't remember Watergate...

George Will: Forgetting the lessons of Watergate

"He has, acting personally and through his subordinates and agents, endeavored to ... cause, in violation of the constitutional rights of citizens, income tax audits or other income tax investigations to be initiated or conducted in a discriminatory manner."

— Article 2, Section 1, Articles of Impeachment

— Adopted by the House Judiciary Committee July 29, 1974

The burglary occurred in 1972, the climax came in 1974, but 40 years ago this week — May 17, 1973 — the Senate Watergate hearings began exploring the nature of Richard Nixon's administration. Now the nature of Barack Obama's administration is being clarified as revelations about IRS targeting of conservative groups merge with myriad Benghazi mendacities.

This administration aggressively hawked the fiction that the Benghazi attack was just an excessively boisterous movie review. Now we are told that a few wayward souls in Cincinnati, with nary a trace of political purpose, targeted for harassment political groups with "tea party" and "patriot" in their titles. The Washington Post reported Monday that the IRS also targeted groups that "criticized the government and sought to educate Americans about the U.S. Constitution." Credit the IRS operatives with understanding who and what threatens the current regime.

Jay Carney, whose unenviable job is not to explain but to explain away what his employers say, calls the IRS' behavior "inappropriate." No, using the salad fork for the entree is inappropriate. Using the IRS for political purposes is a criminal offense.

It remains to be discovered whether the chief executive is guilty of more than an amazingly convenient failure to superintend the excesses of some executive branch employees beyond the Allegheny Mountains. Meanwhile, file this under "What a tangled web we weave":

The IRS official in charge of the division that makes politically sensitive allocations of tax-exempt status said last Friday that she learned of the targeting of conservatives from news reports. But a draft report by the IRS inspector general says this official was briefed on the matter two years ago.

An emerging liberal narrative is that this tempest is all the Supreme Court's fault: The Citizens United decision — that corporations, particularly nonprofit advocacy groups, have First Amendment rights — so burdened the IRS with making determinations about who deserves tax exempt status that some political innocents in Cincinnati inexplicably decided to begin by rummaging through the affairs of conservatives. Ere long, presumably, they would have gotten around to groups with "progressive" in their titles.

Remember, all campaign "reform" proposals regulate political speech. And all involve the IRS in allocating speech rights.

Liberals, whose unvarying agenda is enlargement of government, suggest, with no sense of cognitive dissonance, that this IRS scandal is nothing more sinister than typical government incompetence. Five days before the IRS story broke, Obama, sermonizing 109 miles northeast of Cincinnati, warned Ohio State graduates about "creeping cynicism" and "voices" that "warn that tyranny is ... around the corner." Well.

He stigmatizes as the vice of cynicism what actually is the virtue of skepticism about the myth that the tentacles of the regulatory state are administered by disinterested operatives. And the voices that annoy him are those of the Founders.

Time was, progressives like the President 100 years ago, Woodrow Wilson, had the virtue of candor: He explicitly rejected the Founders' fears of government. Modern enlightenment, he said, made it safe to concentrate power in Washington, and especially in disinterested executive branch agencies run by autonomous, high-minded experts. Today, however, progressivism's unambiguous insinuation is that Americans must be minutely regulated because they are so dimwitted they will swallow nonsense. Such as: There was no political motive in the IRS targeting political conservatives.

Episodes like this separate the meritorious liberals from the meretricious. When the IRS story broke, The Washington Post led the paper with it, and, with an institutional memory of Watergate, published a blistering editorial demanding an Obama apology. The New York Times consigned the story to page 11 (its Page One lead was the umpteenth story about the end of the world being nigh because of global warming). Through Monday, the Times had expressed no editorial thoughts about the IRS. The Times' Monday headline on the matter was: "IRS Focus on Conservatives Gives GOP an Issue to Seize On." So that is the danger.

If Republicans had controlled both houses of Congress in 1973, Nixon would have completed his term. If Democrats controlled both today, the Obama administration's lawlessness would go uninvestigated. Not even divided government is safe government, but it beats the alternative.

Taken from http://www.unionlead...9589&source=RSS

Edited May 15, 2013 by Kowalski