US Justice Dept secretly seizes Associated Press phone records

[Tinykong]

I remember the Obama campaign in 2008 promised a more transparent and open government.

[Wells]

I remember the Obama campaign in 2008 promised a more transparent and open government.

Therefor any secret actions make them hypocrites?

[Tinykong]

Therefor any secret actions make them hypocrites?

Any? No.

This case? Yes.

[Kujako]

I remember the Obama campaign in 2008 promised a more transparent and open government.

Obama is not in direct control of everything the government does. His commitment to transparency will come into question based on how his administration deals with this event.

[Wells]

Any? No.

This case? Yes.

Why?

10 cahr

[Tinykong]

Obama is not in direct control of everything the government does.

Interesting that this same logic doesn't apply to Bush 2.

[Wells]

Interesting that this same logic doesn't apply to Bush 2.

On what issue?

[The Riddler]

Obama is not in direct control of everything the government does.

He picks and chooses his people. His people are in charge of what the government does. Obama sets the tone, hires the radicals, and otherwise greases the skids for them to keep violating the law and/or abusing their power. He may not personally have handed guns to Mexican drug lords, but he hired Holder - who handed guns to Mexican drug lords. And he keeps protecting and justifying what Holder did/does. To pretend that Obama isn't up to his elbows in the way his administration is conducting itself is sophistry.

The sad part is that they'll over reach and go after the President etc who in all likelihood had nothing to do with this, and ignore the people who are actually responsable

So who IS 'actually responsible'? If they go after the State Department then its a "witch hunt against Hillary! OMG GOP WITCH HUNT!" If they go after the CiC (the guy in charge of the military assets) then its a "witch hunt against Obama". Who was in charge? The guy who was in charge is the one TESTIFYING in Congress. The Ambassador is dead. Who exactly are they supposed to "go after" that isn't going to be seen as a "witch hunt" by the luminaries on the left?

[Kujako]

Interesting that this same logic doesn't apply to Bush 2.

Oh I never thought he was in control. But if you really think Obama micromanages every department of the government, you are attributing almost deity like powers to him, which seems silly.

[Tinykong]

Why?

10 cahr

Hmm, I don't know, perhaps exposing confidential sources resulting in risk to people's lives or the news organizations credibility and ability to operate is negative? Or, do you only expect those kinds of protections for Justice Department when it's under investigation?

[Wells]

Hmm, I don't know, perhaps exposing confidential sources resulting in risk to people's lives or the news organizations credibility and ability to operate is negative? Or, do you only expect those kinds of protections for Justice Department when it's under investigation?

What is wrong with the DoJ investigating the leaking of secret information?

I mean yeah, they probably grabbed way more than they should but still.

[Rukentuts]

Hmm, I don't know, perhaps exposing confidential sources resulting in risk to people's lives or the news organizations credibility and ability to operate is negative? Or, do you only expect those kinds of protections for Justice Department when it's under investigation?

So investigating violations of secret and top secret clearances is a problem now why?

[ptwonline]

Any? No.

This case? Yes.

Well, from my understanding the AP would not give up the source of potentially dangerous info leaked illegally, and so the gov't does have the power to go after things like phone records to try to find out for themselves. Obviously if they make it public BEFOREHAND they would never be able to find out, since contact would be broken.

It would be like notifying a suspect that he is under surveillance for two months. How stupid would THAT be?

Anyway IMO this sort of invasion of privacy and threat to a free press should only be allowed in very strict circumstances, and with oversight. That is why Republicans (Senate and Bush White House) should be blasted for filibustering a bill that would have forced a court order to happen before you could grab records like this. By the way, that bill was co-sponsored by then-Senator Barack Obama, and rejected by many of the same Republicans crying foul now.

[Tinykong]

What is wrong with the DoJ investigating the leaking of secret information?

I mean yeah, they probably grabbed way more than they should but still.

There is nothing wrong with focused investigations. Such sweeping intrusions are uncalled for.

You cried foul when Congress demanded the gun walking docs from the DoJ. You called it a witch hunt. The tables get turned, and you hand wave the actions and say "yeah they grabbed way more than they should but still." It's very hypocritical of you, and the administration.

---------- Post added 2013-05-14 at 03:55 PM ----------

So investigating violations of secret and top secret clearances is a problem now why?

Way to deal in absolutes only when it suits you.

There is such a thing as too broad of a scope.

[oblivionx]

So who IS 'actually responsible'? If they go after the State Department then its a "witch hunt against Hillary! OMG GOP WITCH HUNT!" If they go after the CiC (the guy in charge of the military assets) then its a "witch hunt against Obama". Who was in charge? The guy who was in charge is the one TESTIFYING in Congress. The Ambassador is dead. Who exactly are they supposed to "go after" that isn't going to be seen as a "witch hunt" by the luminaries on the left?

Just about any investigation will be cried "witch hunt". Same thing with the Bush administration was "justice" to these people.

Typically they are witch hunts, thing is they usually turn up witches though.

[Rukentuts]

Way to deal in absolutes only when it suits you.

There is such a thing as too broad of a scope.

So maybe you should take it up with the judge that approved the subpoena.

[ptwonline]

There is nothing wrong with focused investigations. Such sweeping intrusions are uncalled for.

You cried foul when Congress demanded the gun walking docs from the DoJ. You called it a witch hunt. The tables get turned, and you hand wave the actions and say "yeah they grabbed way more than they should but still." It's very hypocritical of you, and the administration.

---------- Post added 2013-05-14 at 03:55 PM ----------



Way to deal in absolutes only when it suits you.

There is such a thing as too broad of a scope.

How is it "too sweeping"? They are trying to find their contact, and the way to do it would be to see who they called or who called them. So they gathered a bunch of phone records from the offices/people who would seem to be more likely to make that contact. They didn't grab phone records from AP worldwide or nationwide. They grabbed them for a couple of months from a few locations.

[Naxere]

Who said this about whistleblowers:

Often the best source of information about waste, fraud, and abuse in government is an existing government employee committed to public integrity and willing to speak out. Such acts of courage and patriotism, which can sometimes save lives and often save taxpayer dollars, should be encouraged rather than stifled.

[ptwonline]

So maybe you should take it up with the judge that approved the subpoena.

I believe in cases like this you do not need a judge. The Attorney General can approve it.

There WAS legislation to force a judge to get involved, but surprise surprise: Republicans filibustered it.

[Tinykong]

So maybe you should take it up with the judge that approved the subpoena.

I love the Obama supporters hand waiving and excuses over this. When the DoJ is the focus, it's a Republican witch hunt and completely ridiculous and heads should be rolling.

Obama does it? No prob, bro.