US Government Monitoring Associated Press Phone Records 248
Picass0 writes with distressing news from the AP wire, about the AP: "The Justice Department secretly obtained two months of telephone records of reporters and editors for The Associated Press in what the news cooperative's top executive called a 'massive and unprecedented intrusion' into how news organizations gather the news."
They obtained call records from a number of desk phones, and the personal phones of many news editors. The DOJ has not commented, but it may be related to the possibility that the CIA director leaked information on a foiled terror plot in Yemen last year.
Dontcha know? (Score:5, Funny)
*Sigh* (Score:5, Insightful)
It is time to fire the Attorney General. If he knew of this then he is a criminal. And if he didn't then he is an idiot. Neither are acceptable.
Re:*Sigh* (Score:5, Insightful)
Some of us have been saying this exact sentence since 2011 when Fast and Furious broke and we found out that Holder was responsible for giving 2000+ guns to Mexican drug cartels, who then used them to murder hundreds of Mexican citizens (so far).
Glad to finally have you on board!
Re: (Score:2)
Hundreds of Mexicans and at leas 4 Americans, including Brian Terry.
Re: (Score:2)
Hundreds of murdered Mexicans are less important to the press than a dog riding on top of the family car.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe you should turn around and look up exactly what Holder and Co. did. See they sold the guns without the intention of tracking them. This is called "walking the guns" and this has lead to hundreds of deaths.
Re:*Sigh* (Score:5, Insightful)
If Holder knew about Breuer's decision not to prosecute any bankers -- he did -- then he should fired for that alone. Unfortunately, Holder is in his position precisely because he did know this, and because he will uphold the law in as dysfunctional a manner as the administration desires.
Sometimes I think the only reason they are getting away with this is because Obama is the President and liberals and progressives are unwilling to challenge him, and conservatives are secretly cheering the whole thing on. But secretly, deep down, I understand that this is all just fallout from September 11th 2001, and that the United States of America will never be able to go back to the way it was.
Which is a big problem for the rest of us.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Correction. With the passage of the Patriot Act, the U.S. had failed. This is just one of the aspects of what that failure looks like.
Re: (Score:3)
The Patriot Act has not been used to successfully convict any US citizen of a crime. The couple of times the government tried invoking the Patriot Act the court dismissed the charges with prejudice. It's the main reason Gitmo was opened becuase the government did not want to risk the court system getting involved. The Executive and Legislative branches of government may pass new laws but the Judicial branch always has the final word on the legality and applicable of laws.
Change (Score:2, Interesting)
Yeah some real change from the John Ashcroft days...
Warrant? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Warrant? (Score:5, Insightful)
How is there no mention of if there was or was not a warrant for this in the summary? More over, how the hell does the TFA not even use the word once?
These are not recordings of calls, they are records of what numbers were called at what time and for how long. It is has been long established law in the US that collecting this level of information does not require a warrant. This is the same sort of thinking that makes it legal to record the headers of email messages but not the text bodies.
I think this area of law needs to be revisited, the amount of information that can be gleaned by looking at call records and cross referencing them with other databases is far beyond what the court could have envisioned at the time of the rulings that made such collections legal. But it isn't likely that we'll see any change on that front for a while.
Re: (Score:2)
This is the same sort of thinking that makes it legal to record the headers of email messages but not the text bodies.
No, it is the thinking that makes it legal to record the SMTP "MAIL FROM" and "RCPT TO" transactions for email, since that is the closest analogy to "what number was called from where and when". Email headers have a lot more information than that, such as "Subject", "In Reply To", etc...
By the way, every mail server I have records the SMTP info. Illegal should this be?
Re: (Score:3)
Because the point is, with or without a warrant the tapping of the phones of journalists on this scale is terrifying. There is NO justification for behavior like this from our government. If they had a warrant its almost worse.
Re: (Score:3)
Because the point is, with or without a warrant the tapping of the phones of journalists on this scale is terrifying.
Had there been tapping, that would have been terrible. Perhaps you meant to say "with or without warrant the outright murder and torture of journalists on this scale is terrifying"? That would be a much better escalation of the matter into the hyperbolic.
Re: (Score:2)
details are sparse at this time, but it appears they had a subpoena for the information. The subpoena was delivered last Friday, well after the data was collected. However, that is allowed under certain circumstances. That is, when knowledge of the subpoena would ruin the investigation. Parties of interest don't need to have knowledge of warrants and subpoenas acquired during an active investigation. How well would a phone tap work if the person being tapped was told? Same thing here.
I'll assume you're more familiar with these procedures than me. Nevertheless it seems like an absurdly broad subpoena. Why not just ask for the phone records of everyone in DC (or wherever the hell the AP is).
oh darn... /s (Score:3, Interesting)
Seriously, the press is all over things like wiretapping, political intrigues, what kind of corn was in the president's bowel movement today (was it GMO corn!?), etc, and seems to think that this kind of 'microscope up the ass' intrusiveness is not only 'news!' But also "the public has a right to KNOW!"
But, when somebody turns around and investigates one of THEM, "oh loaurd Jeezuz it's a fiar!".
What's good for the goose, is good for the gander AP. When you shamelessly cram the microscope up asses, don't act insensed or surprised when you get the microscope colonoscopy too. Simply because your shiny little badge says "news", does not make you immune to the law, and you are *not* people of priveledge.
Don't get me wrong, sunshine is good, and breaking stories about govt wrongdoing is healthy and good. Just don't foster an image of sweeping disregard for privacy, and due process while doing so, unless you want the same treatment for yourselves.
Enjoy your DoJ probing. You enjoyed probing others, so its surely right up your alley, AP.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
The press doesn't have any real power. I mean sure, there's the media, but they can't make laws and they only have as much influence as a casual reader is likely to grant them, which outside the UK isn't much. On the other hand governments intimidating and tracking reporters is a much more serious issue since what power the press does have relies entirely upon their ability to act with a free hand. Maybe not always an unbiased hand, but there are good reasons for them not to simply make up lies as a rule. T
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Oh, without question.
The issue I have with the press, at least as incarnated in the USA (and the group being probed in the story to boot) have a very nasty habit of convicting people in the court of public opinion on national television to drum up ratings, and then routinely failing to follow up with apologies when same people get aquitted, and those people they harm have long lasting public stigmatism from this practice.
You can see that hand at work here, in fact.
AP shrieks "Oh that wicked evil government!
Re: (Score:2)
99% of the time, the so-called "press" is simply acting as the propaganda wing of the government. I think THAT is when they are acting inappropriately.
The First Amendment clearly elaborates the freedom of the press. The government can investigate leaks within the constraint of the law. They don't have and should not have the power to crack down on or intimidate the press as part of their war on whistle-blowers. The government commits CRIMES and tells LIES. They are not above the law and information sho
Re:oh darn... /s (Score:4, Insightful)
Seriously, the press is all over things like wiretapping, political intrigues, what kind of corn was in the president's bowel movement today (was it GMO corn!?), etc, and seems to think that this kind of 'microscope up the ass' intrusiveness is not only 'news!' But also "the public has a right to KNOW!"
The difference is, the press doesn't have the legal authority to compel telephone companies to provide call records. In fact, I suspect there are privacy laws that would prohibit them from turning that information over to the press. That's why we need to hold the government to a higher standard.
Re: (Score:3)
Except when the press flagrantly violates those laws, and illegally accesses phone systems, installs malware, and deletes voicemail on dead people's phones, to get their scoops, like murdoch's newscorp scandal.
Or, when they scolicit libeleous commentary for high profile criminal investigations, and diminish the defendent's right to a fair trial.
Because the public has a right, somehow, to know things they aren't entitled to, and to ruin the lives of people involved in a high exposure court case with their op
Re: (Score:2)
Except when the press flagrantly violates those laws, and illegally accesses phone systems, installs malware, and deletes voicemail on dead people's phones, to get their scoops, like murdoch's newscorp scandal.
I don't know when the press has been caught doing that without being prosecuted. Either in the UK or US.
Re: (Score:3)
Because Journalists are irritating. The government claims to have the right to send a hellfire missile into your living room by command of the executive branch with no over-site from any other branch of government. We need to keep tight control of one of those 2 groups... I vote for the one with the nukes.
Re: (Score:2)
And I agree.
Where I disagree, is in giving the lesser one carte blanc as they transform legitimate journalism into a 3 ring circus, and incite controversy where there is none, and yes, incite violence and death, and get away with it.
They BOTH need to be watched. The press functions best when the protections intended for the press are extended to anyone doing journalism, and not just their circlejerk buddies and friends. By preventing a "thin press line" (play on "thin blue line found in police depts) by a
Re: (Score:3)
First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist...
Don't let your distaste for the victim blunt the horror of the crime. Either we stand up and say "No!" now, or later generations will look back upon this moment and ask why we didn't. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. There are so many cliche catch-phrases that describe exactly what we're seeing in our government today it's almost comedy that we let it continue. It's fucking obvious what is happening here.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you feel the same way about Bradley Manning? Would he, too, be deemed a hypocrite by you were he to complain about the Army's investigation of him? Does the power imbalance between the press and government or between a soldier and the army not matter? Are you saying the government should be a press-watchdog as equally as the press should be a government-watchdog? I wonder how many of the people who modded you up are Manning supporters.
Re: (Score:2)
Manning violated the law. Thus, he should be prosecuted.
Manning performed a vital public service by outing dirty secrets.
The two are not as dissonant as you may think.
The problem is that it was illegal for him to release the information. By being illegal, the govt must punish him, or undermine the value of rule of law.
Gandhi understood this well; if you are going to be dissonant, then accept the consequences with grace. It causes much more consternation to those that want to silence you, and you never lose
Re: (Score:2)
No. I did not.
Nice strawman though.
How silly you must be to believe that because I ask for accountability from people who wield power over the public (both explicit and implicit), that I must have been brainwashed by the "chicken in every pot! Oh, and free gas and heathcare too! With unprecidented government transparency, and rainbows, and unicorns!" Bullshit.
Centrist: left of the conservatives, right of the liberals.
But aren't these just "business records"? (Score:5, Insightful)
Awww, the press is upset that someone checked over their phone records. At least they obtained a warrant. The FBI appears to think that no such thing is needed when it's a common citizen that they want records for. How come the press is upset when it happens to them but seems to ignore the FBI doing it to others?
Re: (Score:2)
If your news sources ignored the FBI's wiretapping, you need to change your sources.
I for one (Score:2)
Look forward to big brother telling me when I can piss and shit.
Chicago (Score:5, Insightful)
What did people expect when Obama took Mayor Daley's goon and thug squad to DC?
subject (Score:2)
Relax, citizens. Stasi has only your best interests at heart.
War on whistle-blowers (Score:3)
Warrantless surveillance of U.S. citizens, torture, indefinite detention, war crimes, arbitrary assassinations, gun smuggling to drug cartels, facilitating financial fraud, etc. etc.
And who gets punished for these crimes? The whistle-blowers who reveal the criminal activity to the American people.
Government is a giant extortion racket with the same moral principles as organized crime.
Re:Impeach Bush!!! (Score:4, Insightful)
No one could be worse than Bush!
Hell yeah, if only we could impeach that Bush and get someone new (with promise of hope) instead.
Oh, wait...
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Threw out Robert Gates, Ben Bernanke, Larry Summers, Tim Geithner, David Axelrod.
Got in return:
Robert Gates, Ben Bernanke, Larry Summers, Tim Geithner, David Axelrod.
Re:Impeach Bush!!! (Score:5, Interesting)
Some of us would love any kind of job we could get. Some of us have resumes that 10 years ago would have landed us a job in a week at almost any entry level position in the great capitalist machine.
Some of us had the ability to start our own businesses and run our own lives. Before the price became to great to compete.
(Sarcasm inc) We also owe society a permanent debt. Didn't you learn that in gradeschool?
But seriously when some are above the law. And most have no chance at controlling their fate. It's really fascist of you to demand we "kill off all the chaff". Especially when we have the means of providing everyone a clean and safe environment to live in with plenty of food. It doesn't matter if their oppressed. Unwilling to fight for themselves, or unable to. The better man will enlighten them and guide them on a path to success and liberty. You don't OWN this planet, and no one does. Maybe you should learn to share it?
But the technology and means of distribution has been suppressed by the rich dynastic few. Your entitled to not believe this. But I promise you are wrong. This is about the only thing I can know with a certainty any more.
Re:Impeach Bush!!! (Score:5, Insightful)
I am very sad for all of you who have to mod -5 troll an argument for charity. What will it take to teach people to work together instead of against each other? I am not damning capitalism. I am just saying that abuses made by the rich and powerful affect us all. And the only way to combat such abuse is to unite together. Either under government or some other means.
Re: (Score:2)
I certainly don't advocate taping peoples eyelids open and forcing them to watch Little House on the Prairie while under the influence of LSD and shock therapy.
Re:Impeach Bush!!! (Score:5, Insightful)
On a serious note though.
The most I ask is that people stop scoffing at those in need. Because sometimes bigger bullies on the playground beat up your friends, and "we are next (TM)". This is where my speech, hey, some of those guys asking for a hand out are not doing it because they are lazy or dumb or evil, or "less then you". Thats why we tried to create a society were we had the power to look after these people.
It use to be to some degree balanced by the fact that many people associated with a particular religion or creed and through this organization advanced the idea of philanthropy or charity. Now we are in a time of decreasing social aware ness. Less accountability. People far away you do not even know can dictate local policy and economics. There use to be a buffer between fiefdoms before the industrial revolution. So if Rome went down. The Pacific Islanders did not really notice.
That world is gone by the way.
I don't advocate violent solutions to social inequality.
Re: (Score:2)
Anyway, people driving corvettes are not the "rich dynastic few" I think they should be patted on the back and more or less left alone. Not all are for the suppression of mankind either. Some have been quite good for us as a race.
The problem is that the money and influence changes hands as fast as family names and ties do. I doubt anyone with the last name Rockefeller in modern times can be held accountable for the originals.
Re: (Score:2)
*species, race is bad terminology.
Re: (Score:3)
What will it take to teachXXXXX force people to work together instead of against each other?
communism
Fixed it.
If you could teach people to work together, that would be the foundations of communism. However, Communism in the real world had the cart and horse backwards, a lot of cynical hypocrites in charge (who weren't working together) and various other impurities.
Communism, like a lot of philosophies, would work much better if it didn't ignore human nature.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
We've outsourced the jobs, now if only we could outsource our unemployment. Is Australia full? We could try Antarctica next, right?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Impeach Bush!!! (Score:5, Insightful)
Hell yeah, if only we could impeach that Bush and get someone new (with promise of hope) instead. Oh, wait...
You know what? Fuck your cynicism. (Not you, your cynicism.)
Speaking as someone who lives in a country with a history of consistently corrupt, dysfunctional governments, without any kind of police presence in the community, with disgustingly poor health and education services, this litany of complaint and hopelessness sounds to me like nothing more than childish whining.
It wasn't always this way, and frankly, I don't care what happened that reduced the Americans in this audience to such a useless bunch of wankers. But merciful god, could you please show at least a modicum of intelligence and - yes, I'll say it - hope?
You people really have no fucking clue what it's like to live in a broken society. But if you don't shut the fuck up, learn a civics lesson or two and start fixing things, you're going to find out. And before you tell me it's too late, I'm here to say that if you think that, you honestly don't have any fucking idea how bad things can get.
There are very definite steps you can take to curtail this kind of intrusion on press freedom, only the first of which is to shout loud and long to your representative not to stand for it. So get off your ass, shut the fuck up with the whining, and get to fucking work.
Hugs, from the developing world.
Re: (Score:3)
Speaking as someone who lives in a country with a history of consistently corrupt, dysfunctional governments, without any kind of police presence in the community, with disgustingly poor health and education services, this litany of complaint and hopelessness sounds to me like nothing more than childish whining.
Can Bush get some of that perspective? Or is he still a monster rather than just a flawed guy in difficult times?
He didn't send the IRS after his political opponents, so he's got that going for him, at least.
Maybe it's time we stopped the blind worship of one politician and the blind hatred of the other one? Have we finally reached that time?
Re: (Score:3)
Can Bush get some of that perspective? Or is he still a monster rather than just a flawed guy in difficult times?
He didn't send the IRS after his political opponents, so he's got that going for him, at least.
Maybe it's time we stopped the blind worship of one politician and the blind hatred of the other one? Have we finally reached that time?
Bush set the precedent. That's what I cannot forgive. I pointed out at the time that aside from the fact that this kind of stuff was wrong in and of itself that administrations change and that a wise person does not prepare weapons for his enemies to use against him, but...
Don't Worry! America is STILL the "Good Guys" (Score:3, Funny)
As long as we all agree that "Good" is framed by ideology not behavior.
We're protecting everyone's freedom - by looking very closely at how everyone exercises it and categorising every result.
This is, because we all agree, that America was founded on the principle of Safety Assured - and we are guaranteed any freedom that promotes this.
Do not support terrorism and discuss the validity of these arguments. Your freedom is not a license to be unorthodox in civil or economic matters.
Re: (Score:2)
I would mod this 'Funny', but there are so many people who actually believe nonsense like this that I can't be sure.
Re:Don't Worry! America is STILL the "Good Guys" (Score:5, Insightful)
We have specific problems right now with presidential overreach by Obama and Bush, and the solution is political change and discussion. Cynicism like yours is part of the problem, not part of a solution. The solution is to kick out politicians responsible for this.
Re:Don't Worry! America is STILL the "Good Guys" (Score:4, Insightful)
Oh yeah. You have a "work within the system" and "hope and change" response. Because that works out, so very well.
See this: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3745845&cid=43715361 [slashdot.org]
The system is corrupted beyond the imaginings of Eisenhower - with his famous warning.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh yeah. You have a "work within the system" and "hope and change" response. Because that works out, so very well.
It's been working for hundreds of years, with degrees of success changing over time, in both the US and UK, and way better than the sort of socialist (or is that communist?) revolution you would prefer*. Why don't you try that in your native Canada first, so we can watch the results before it gets tried in the US?
A big part of the problem is that the news media isn't doing its job. They put their thumb on the scales in favor of Obama, and they still haven't really taken it off. Now, they are reaping the
Re:Don't Worry! America is STILL the "Good Guys" (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Where have you been? Of course, Bush did something like this, from lying about WMDs in Iraq to torture, funneling money to religious organizations, and numerous violations of due process and invasions of privacy.
Yes, I did vote for Obama the first time around, both because he promised to end the abuses of the Bush era, and because the alternative was a doddering fool. The second time around, I voted for neither, because it turned out Obama had been lying through his teeth, and both had come right out saying
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The over-reach is equally enabled by Congress with their great ideas like FISA, the Patriot Act and so on.
It's a disgusting situation.
Re: (Score:2)
The solution is to dissolve *all* of the executive branch orgs created via the executive order process, then plug the executive order hole.
Then, retract all of the legislation that has enabled these overreaches of authority over the past 50 years.
But that won't happen. Tyrants *never* tie their own hands.
Re: (Score:2)
Congress can do that. And the way to make that happen is to put people in Congress with the balls to stand up to the president.
Re: (Score:3)
Where you stop kicking? Things were pretty clear last presidential election, and still one of the 2 candidates that were assuring that everything will still be in the same way or worse were elected. If having the chance nothing was done, even when plenty of evidence of the trend, why you think it will be done next time?
The only possibility is that the Lesters [ted.com] choose someone that will actually fix things for all, not following their goals. And even if by some miracle it happens, all those heavy investors an
Re: (Score:2)
An interesting video.
Re: (Score:2)
Where you stop kicking? Things were pretty clear last presidential election, and still one of the 2 candidates that were assuring that everything will still be in the same way or worse were elected. If having the chance nothing was done, even when plenty of evidence of the trend, why you think it will be done next time?
Once you get to the general election, it is already too late. Start in the primaries by rallying behind a candidate that runs on a platform of freedom and civil rights. Do it on both sides of the aisle. Don't care about other stuff too much. If she's a democrat and supports copyright extension ad infinitum, so be it. If she's a republican and wants to slash Medicare, so be it. Do the same in races for congress, on the state level, etc. Even if your candidate doesn't end up winnng the general election, you'l
Re: (Score:2)
The problem isn't with the president; we rarely get good presidents, and they are mostly interchangeable.
The problem is with Congress having abdicated much of its responsibility to the president, and with voters having unrealistic expectations of the president. The president can't fix the economy, he can't protect us from terrorism, and he can't make sure everybody gets a pony.
As for Lessig, his obsession with money in politics is the wrong focus. The problem isn't that rich people somehow remote control mi
Re: (Score:2)
This is not a good thing, but it is fact. Don't just blame the current and last administration. Blame them all, regardless of party.
Re: (Score:2)
The root cause isn't the president, the root cause is Congress; the president is little more than a janitor for the nation. His job is to implement what the people tell him to do, subject to constitutional constraints and judicial oversight. It's Congress's job to limit and direct presidential power, but they haven't been doing their job. It should be a lot easier to make change happen in Congress, because we can do that one district and one representative at a time.
Why did they bother? (Score:2)
Why did they bother?
They already record every phone call, every email, every tweet, every text in America. All they had to do was roll back through their own logs.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Because we need to have two classes of people: journalists and ordinary plebians. As if the mainstream media needs anything more to pump up their already stratospheric egos.
I'm just surprised the AP didn't turn over their records voluntarily. It's not like they investigate the current government - hell, the AP is simpatico with their political beliefs, so what advantage is to be gained by being antagonistic?
Re:Shield laws (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
As a doctor I am allowed to do many things that you are not allowed to do. Does that make me into another "class" of citizen? A journalist who studied journalism should certainly have both the rights AND responsibilities that go with his earned degree.
Perhaps, but a doctor's slip of the hand can kill. A journalist's slip of the tongue will only irritate. As well, one can argue about the appropriateness of demanding to see your papers before being afforded protection for public speech in a self-described democracy...
Re: (Score:2)
"The pen is mightier than the sword."
Reflect long and hard on the many meanings and implications of this statement, and how it relates to the power that the press wields.
(Don't forget about how words galvanized very recent and dramatic events, like the arab spring, and the power that freely exchanged words had there, and how people indeed did die from it.)
The glib assertion that the press is a poor defenceless puppy that at most can only make you irritable when it piddles on the carpet is very much in the w
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps, but a doctor's slip of the hand can kill. A journalist's slip of the tongue will only irritate.
Oh, [wikipedia.org] really? [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3)
Doctors are licensed and have at least minimally enforced professional standards. Journalists are not licensed, and professional standards of late seem to be more honoured in the breach than in the observance.
Journalists have the same 1st Amendment rights that other Americans have. They can publish most anything without prior restraint, but there can be consequences after the fact.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm actually against that, too. Shocking, I know.
Re: (Score:2)
What we need is just the right to free speech, and the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure. That's all.
Re:Shield laws (Score:4, Informative)
someone leaked classified info to the press which is a crime
DoJ is investigating
what's the problem?
Someone stole a car in your neighborhood.
The police wiretapped the phones of everyone in town, and record the license plates of all cars at every destination.
what's the problem?
If you don't get it yet, this is how they ran East Germany and Romania. "Laws" are not inherently moral dictates. Hitler had laws that made matters of public interest "classified", too.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If the leak was ok'd by Obama then it is not against the law. Maybe the WH wanted the American people to think they were doing something about terrorism.
Re: Shield laws (Score:2)
The president cannot ok someone to break the law
Re:Shield laws (Score:5, Insightful)
someone leaked classified info to the press which is a crime
DoJ is investigating
what's the problem?
Maybe we should also be asking what compelled the director of one of the most powerful intelligence organizations in the country to feel he had to tell his fellow citizens something that was so important, he was willing to risk his career and his freedom to do.
And if we judge his actions to be on the side of justice, fairness, and the principles of democracy which we say are the foundation of our laws... then perhaps we should examine more closely how a man who did right by his people is being declared a criminal by his government.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Re: (Score:2)
Oft repeated, but not true. In fact, it's getting a bit tired, now. Go look at party platforms from then and now.
Re: (Score:3)
Maybe we should also be asking what compelled the director of one of the most powerful intelligence organizations in the country to feel he had to tell his fellow citizens something that was so important, he was willing to risk his career and his freedom to do.
Apparently nothing, but a good attempt at smearing someone. From TFA:
Maybe we should also be asking him if he's stopped beating his wife?
As for the "seized" phone records that the AP "wants back", should we point out that
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
they weren't fishing, they were hunting.
Re:It's only been 40 years since Nixon (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually, there are shorter cycles as well, kind of like harmonics.
Interesting comment you made there about harmonics.
Harmonics can be deadly: Tacoma Narrows Bridge Collapse "Gallopin' Gertie" [youtube.com]
So, at the moment the Obama administration has the following scandals brewing:
Justice Department: Gov't obtains wide AP phone records in probe [ap.org]
IRS: The IRS’s Tea-Party Targeting [nationalreview.com]
State Department and Office of President: The Benghazi Deception [nationalreview.com]
There are a few other things brewing in the background as well.
It might be a hot summer for the Obama administration regardless of the weather.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
None of the Democrat's supporters, and a good chunk of more moderate Republicans, don't care about weather the President called the Benghazi attack a terrorist attack or not, and for the most part, only his most die-hard opponents are still talking about it. I'm not a supporter of Democrats, and I don't care about it.
The IRS targeting Tea Party organizations might raise more hairs on the Republican side of the isle,
Re:It's only been 40 years since Nixon (Score:5, Insightful)
I think you're mistaken on this, at least where it will end up.
The AP issue could easily flip the media to a much more adversarial stand against the Obama administration than they have taken to date. Rather than adversarial, they have actively covered for the administration - ignoring stories that they would have beat President Bush with all year long, minimizing others, asking friendly questions. If reporters come to understand that the administration came after them on a fishing expedition, which is what this was, they will not be happy.
The IRS scandal is one that many Americans will be concerned about. Most Americans understand that the IRS coming after people on a political basis is a very bad thing even if it is about a group that may not be their cup of tea, so to speak. This sort of thing hasn't been in the open like this since the Nixon administration. You may recall that didn't end well for President Nixon, and more than one commentator has referred to President Obamba as Nixonian at best.
But that is what makes the Tea Party aspect of this politically deadly is that there are many Americans that support many aspects of the Tea Party agenda even if they are not members.
Tea Party Supporters: Who They Are and What They Believe [cbsnews.com]
You apparently also misunderstand the Tea Party - they oppose higher taxes and increasing spending, not the IRS or the collection of taxes. There is no legitimate reason for what the IRS did there. The IRS has admitted that it was wrong, completely inappropriate. (I admit a certain fascination in the fact that for some reason there are more than a few on Slashdot that try to defend what the IRS itself has condemned as being completely wrong. Why? It is absolute nonsense. I assume many, if not most are not Americans.)
As to Benghazi, we will see. There are important developments coming out. The Obama administration just held a private background briefing for key press members. Why? Americans were killed. The Ambassador was killed - a very rare event. The administration ignored their security needs before the attack, and then abandoned them during the attack when there were resources available to intervene and save them, and then lied multiple times at multiple levels after the fact. There is an old saying in politics that it isn't the crime but rather the cover up that does you in. There are people scurrying to cover their butt all over Washington on this, and it probably won't turn out well for the Administration.
You are entitled to your interests. I don't think most Americans will agree with you in the near future.
Re: (Score:2)
The IRS scandal is one that many Americans will be concerned about. Most Americans understand that the IRS coming after people on a political basis is a very bad thing even if it is about a group that may not be their cup of tea, so to speak.
I haven't been following it closely, but has any evidence actually emerged that it was politically motivated?
It is pretty typical for it to take many years to get an IRS certification for an organization. It also appears for it to be typical for related organizations to get lumped together to see how things go with a common policy defined to govern all of them. I know that there are tons of FOSS organizations that are waiting in limbo for determinations, perhaps for the same reason.
It shouldn't take years
Re:It's only been 40 years since Nixon (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
One important difference: the things you list are wrongdoing by private companies. The scandals I listed are wrongdoing by Federal agencies or departments themselves.
But you are right, there does need to be more oversight of that sort of thing.
Re: (Score:2)
There are some people that suspect that the IRS revelations are being made public to distract from Benghazi. I don't think that really holds up. I think it is most likely a matter of coincidence since all of these scandals have different time frames as to when they occurred. At least two of them have something in common in that the government agency involved has tried to delay and push things off as long as possible. Unfortunately it has resulted in all of them coming out at about the same time. The q
Re: (Score:2)
I remember watergate very well...was 14 years old.
That summer, you couldn't flip a channel (we only had four tv channels then) without wall to wall 24/7 coverage of the watergate hearings.
NOTHING was on but that it seemed. The newspapers, tv, radio stations were all slamming the cover ups, lies, burglary of the watergate
issue. Not one person died as a result.
Juxtapose that with today, Benghazi, 4 people died, there are lies & cover ups all over the place,
Watergate was a burglary, which was a felony. The President of the United States knew about it, and tried to cover it up, which is a crime. It's either being an accessory after the fact, or obstruction of justice, or whatever the District of Columbia laws call it.
Benghazi did not involve a felony. That's a significant difference.
Re: (Score:2)
What about the case of ATF smuggling guns to Mexican drug cartels? One of which was used to murder a U.S. border patrol agent. You can damned well bet that if one of us little people sold a gun to a member of the Mexican drug cartel and that gun was used to murder a U.S. agent, we'd be charged with a felony.
Where are the criminal charges against the ATF and Justic Dept. officials?