Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Why DOJ Didn't Need a "Super Search Warrant" To Snoop On Fox News' E-mail

samzenpus posted about a year ago | from the because-I-say-so dept.

United States 330

awaissoft writes "If attorney general Eric Holder wanted to perform even a momentary Internet wiretap on Fox News' e-mail accounts, he would have had to persuade a judge to approve what lawyers call a 'super search warrant.' A super search warrant's requirements are exacting: Intercepted communications must be secured and placed under seal. Real-time interception must be done only as a last resort. Only certain crimes qualify for this technique, the target must be notified, and additional restrictions apply to state and local police conducting real-time intercepts. But because of the way federal law was written nearly half a century ago, Holder was able to obtain a normal search warrant — lacking those extensive privacy protections — that allowed federal agents to secretly obtain up to six years of email correspondence between Fox News correspondent James Rosen and his alleged sources."

cancel ×

330 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Not News to Fox (1, Informative)

Frosty Piss (770223) | about a year ago | (#43828693)

And although Fox is playing the indignant victim all over the news right now, they've know about this for a long time. [cnn.com]

Re:Not News to Fox (5, Informative)

mc6809e (214243) | about a year ago | (#43828835)

And although Fox is playing the indignant victim all over the news right now, they've know about this for a long time. [cnn.com]

Did you even bother to read the story at the link you provided?

The story there tells us that FoxNews knew of a telephone records search, but not of an email search.

"CNN and other media outlets have previously reported a separate Justice Department query into Rosen's e-mails. With the approval of Attorney General Eric Holder, Justice officials obtained a warrant from a federal judge to access Rosen's e-mails.

While Fox News is now acknowledging that the Justice Department notified its parent company about the phone records search, that notice apparently did not include anything about the separate search of Rosen's e-mail."

Re:Not News to Fox (5, Interesting)

icebike (68054) | about a year ago | (#43829019)

Under the law they used for the warrant, they didn't have to notify until 90 days after the termination of the intercept.
But since the intercept was continuous, and for all we know, still on-going, they never notified about Rosen's mail.

The whole article is a mess of obfuscation until you read to the bottom of the the story where it FINALLY gets to the point:

The gradual supplanting of the POP protocol, where messages typically were not left on mail servers and available for law enforcement, by the newer server-based IMAP protocol also encouraged this shift.

Any mail you keep on a service for more than 6 months is considered abandoned, and fair game. This means ANY IMAP account outside of your premises is wide open to seizure.
Which means every google/microsoft/yahoo mail account is fair game under the obsolete 68 law unless you take careful pains to only and always use POP, and never leave a copy on the server.

The law is clearly being deliberately misused, and the mail is not abandoned, as long as the account is being used.

Re: Not News to Fox (5, Insightful)

hsmith (818216) | about a year ago | (#43828887)

Not shocking this is flagged informative by the left leaning slashdot. Gotta circle the troops around the commander and chief. God forbid he is worse than GWB, which is a feat in itself no one could have imagined.
An administration spying on journalists and using the IRS as a political tool is chilling as fuck and every single American ought to be scared as shit of it. Oh wait, you voted for him? Makes it ok I guess!

Re: Not News to Fox (-1)

alen (225700) | about a year ago | (#43828999)

IRS is one thing

but the news thing, they reported what was classified info which is illegal. no reason for the government not to try to find out who gave it to them

Re: Not News to Fox (3, Insightful)

gandhi_2 (1108023) | about a year ago | (#43829129)

Funny...

When it's a shitbag PFC posting to wikileaks, it's all Save The Whistle-blower around here.

Re: Not News to Fox (5, Insightful)

amiga3D (567632) | about a year ago | (#43829201)

Especially as the PFC actually raised his right hand and swore to be a good and obedient soldier. His was an act of treason whereas reporters are generally depended upon to be all about the story they are after. This is Fox News though. A lot of the left hates them enough to not mind if the administration they worship pisses all over the First Amendment. I noticed most of the leftist media though wasn't so happy about it however. They, unlike the liberals here, are smart enough to realize that one day there might be another Republican administration (I doubt it but I guess it could happen) and they don't like the precedent this sets. To me this is just another sign that using e-mail is not a good idea. If I was in the news business I'd start raising pigeons.

Re: Not News to Fox (1)

AK Marc (707885) | about a year ago | (#43829225)

When the PFC posted a leak, everyone wanted to know where the leak was. He should have lost his clearance, but not his liberty. The same for the "unnamed person from the Department of State". Nobody called for a hanging, it was about whether leaks can be identified. They should be. Then dealt with - not killed or imprisoned, but restricted from doing it again. That's consistent between this and the previous cases. You see inconsistency only because that's what you want to see.

Re: Not News to Fox (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43829293)

When the PFC posted a leak, everyone wanted to know where the leak was. He should have lost his clearance, but not his liberty. The same for the "unnamed person from the Department of State". Nobody called for a hanging, it was about whether leaks can be identified. They should be. Then dealt with - not killed or imprisoned, but restricted from doing it again. That's consistent between this and the previous cases. You see inconsistency only because that's what you want to see.

This PFC posted classified information to the public, after having signed documents never to do so. Sorry, but I don't give a shit who he's blowing the whistle on, that's jail time. You go through the proper channels, or you can rot.

Re: Not News to Fox (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43829329)

The pfc gave classified government documents to a foreigner. That's treason. He should spend a decade in jail, and have a long time to think about how stupid he was. He's kinda like you, I guess.

Re: Not News to Fox (1)

bignetbuy (1105123) | about a year ago | (#43829133)

Nonsense. Rosen reported that the DPK was going to detonate another nuke. That isn't sensitive material. Rosen didn't go into the means and methods in his reporting. Just that a detonation was coming up. BFD..

Re: Not News to Fox (1)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | about a year ago | (#43829353)

So suppose I'm in the NPK counter intelligence agency and see this report.

It wouldn't take a giant step to come to the conclusion that there is a plant in out organization.

Just the report is enough.

Re: Not News to Fox (-1, Flamebait)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | about a year ago | (#43829187)

"commander and chief"

Don't we all hate when people use terms that they don't understand, trying to make other people believe that they are knowledgeable?

Next time, try using a dictionary, or a thesaurus, or SOMETHING. Using such terms in such blatantly ignorant ways makes all the rest of your post suspect. Even if you're correct, you've made yourself look STUPID!

Re: Not News to Fox (1)

ebno-10db (1459097) | about a year ago | (#43829335)

Not shocking this is flagged informative by the left leaning slashdot. Gotta circle the troops around the commander and chief. God forbid he is worse than GWB

Uh, you did read the summary at least, right? This is extremely critical of Obama and Holder.

Re:Not News to Fox (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43828953)

Fox News only cares because it's happening to them. Where's the outrage when this stuff happens because of some non-existent link to "terrism" or whatever? Oh, right, they're all for it then.

Hypocrites, the lot of them.

Re:Not News to Fox (2, Insightful)

craigminah (1885846) | about a year ago | (#43829017)

Fox is the most honest mainstream new outlet in the US with CNN coming in second. Every news outlet has bias but I think Fox provides less fluff and candy-coated "news". Ms. Crowly at CNN and many many others at CNN are in love with the President. While that is fine, it seems to shape what they say regarding news. For example, the only thing on CNN this week was the Jodi Arias trial which to me isn't newsworthy but they did this to hide the fact the administration (e.g. IRS, DOJ, and President) are all involved in various scandals. Fox reported this and barely mentioned the trial, which is how it should be. You got to hope the news outlets report on things that matter, on things that could screw or unscrew the country. I don't like or dislike President Obama, but I absolutely despise how the media is ignoring the administration's lack of regard for the Constitution, for federal laws, for state laws, or for American values. The only way to keep our politicians in check is to report on the things they do that we don't agree with.

You can attack me all you want but in the end you're just parroting liberal talking points and are unable to think about the future and what's ultimately good for our country. Socialism is where we're headed. Seems good on the surface because you get "free stuff" but when they run out of money to give away the free stuff they tax and tax and tax. When that's not enough they confiscate everything to redistribute it to who needs it. It never ends well so we need to find something short of Socialism. President Obama may be on track or may not be, I personally think he's gone a little too far, but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt. In the end, it's the media's fault for not holding politicians accountable.

Re:Not News to Fox (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43829071)

If you are an honest individual, the easiest way to show you that you are wrong is to have you look at youtube for the times where they have taken news from elsewhere and spliced it together to try to make something which never existed... for example, fox took a segment from the daily show during the 2008 election and did just that.

I am being polite here, the alternative to the above would just be a troll fest.

Re:Not News to Fox (2)

amiga3D (567632) | about a year ago | (#43829203)

I'd love a link to that.

You're the one who needs to wakeup (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43829377)

First, Team Obama have had an effort underway since the start of their campaign in late 2007 to push the theme that Fox news is evil/bad/untrustworthy because it is the ONLY network in the US with no financial ties, employment ties, or family ties (by blood or marriage) to the Obama campaign and PR people (look it up... it's shocking how many at the other news outlets have either worked for the Obama admin, fund raised for them, or are married or biologically related to them). No other president in U.S. History has had the media in his pocket to this degree. PBS is financially dependent on him. The NBC network (via GE and including MSNBC) had its CEO in the Obama team, partly funded Obama, and GE itself was untaxed under Obama (but of course this has NOTHING to do with the relentless pro-Obama NBC and MSNBC coverage...). If you watch any news outlet other than Fox, ask yourself how often you have seen a reporter shouting tough questions at Obama and how many times you have seen stories about Obama policies or actions that did not presume he was right. This used to be the norm with ALL news outlets and all previous presidents... not with Obama... with Obama, the press is friendly to him and always assumes as the baseline of any story that he is a good guy doing good things... it's like 1936 Germany... a progressive press spoon-feeding good news about a progressive leader to a public which therefore, seeing nearly nothing negative about him approves of him getting more and more power over their lives... it's bizarre and unsettling to see AMERICANS interviewed about Obama talking about him in such messianic terms as some now do (we've seen this play before and it rarely ends well).

The Obama campaign to de-legitimize Fox has included the effort to flood You-Tube with anti-Fox bits. Obama's human drone supporters flood message boards with anti-Fox stuff all the time in an effort to keep people from getting any news that might be critical of Obama.

Second, it's the Daily Show (which, DUH, is a COMEDY show) that doctors the news clips (to help set-up comedy and satire bits). Fox has repeatedly shown entire news clips then showed Jon Stewart's take on the matters (using hacked bits of the Fox video) and debunked this stuff... Jon Stewart and his supporters either ignore it or say "so what? he's a COMEDIAN...nobody takes this SERIOUSLY!".

People who think that ANYTHING they get on a COMEDY channel from two Democrat SATIRISTS (Stewart and Colbert) is actual NEWS are fools... exactly the sort that Obama NEEDS to vote for him and support him and NEVER watch anything like Fox that might debunk anything he says/does.

You, sir, have been manipulated by the nation's court jester on behalf of his king... and you do not even know it. Very sad indeed

Re:You're the one who needs to wakeup (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43829451)

You have no clue as to what is really going on in this country and it shows.

Re:Not News to Fox (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43829241)

How do you explain the fact that viewers of Fox News have been shown, through objective and repeatable testing, to be less-informed about current events than viewers/listeners of any other US news network?

Re:Not News to Fox (4, Funny)

I'm New Around Here (1154723) | about a year ago | (#43829371)

Does that "current events" selection include all of Obama's scandals and coverups? Or is it limited to who won American Idol and how big Kim Kararshian's ass is?

Re:Not News to Fox (2)

ebno-10db (1459097) | about a year ago | (#43829367)

Fox News only cares because it's happening to them.

At least they care about it for some reason. They may be hypocrites and only care about their own, but things like this make the press more sensitive to such issues and people in general more aware.

So (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43828733)

I'm guessing this relates to some big news story in the US. Possibly wouldn't have hurt to provide a little background though.

Re:So (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43828763)

I am guessing you suck dick professionally.

And I am guessing you are just pretending you are unaware of a resource called "The Google" because you are an asshole.

Re:So (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43828787)

Right, why read slashdot at all when you can just use "The Google"...

Re:So (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43828781)

I'm guessing this relates to some big news story in the US.

Nah, it has to do with the Obama administration's gigantic overreach and efforts to stifle free speech by those in the media who would dare question his Obamaness, so it's therefore a very minor and unimportant story, like the Benghazi coverup, the illegal IRS profiling, and the AP wiretaps.

It's not surprising you haven't heard of it, it's not about tornadoes in Oklahoma and how they're TOTALLY the fault of Bush's environmental policies.

Eric Holder (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43828759)

Typical Dumb uncle tom nigger who does EXACTLY what his white masters above him tell me to do

JUST like Obama.

That should cover the entire slashdot conversation to a T

What did Fox News do? (0, Flamebait)

Nyder (754090) | about a year ago | (#43828771)

I know they are stupid and shouldn't be called a news show, but what did they do that requires wiretapping?

Re:What did Fox News do? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43828791)

> "I know they are stupid and shouldn't be called a news show, "

Hahaha. Well played, Comrade! You spout the party's talking points well, my friend!

But you should call it, "Faux News". Didn't you get the memo?

Re:What did Fox News do? (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43828799)

Investigative journalism apparently. You know, the stuff that the major networks gave up on years ago.

Re:What did Fox News do? (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43828833)

rofl

Funniest comment in years-
"FOX News doing investigative journalism...."

lmao

Re:What did Fox News do? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43828861)

Dear Retard,

The reporter in question, Rosen, published a story about North Korea's nuclear program citing an unnamed State Department source. That IS "investigative journalism.

If you want to be a "me too! me too! Can slam Faux News like a retard, too?" try cricitizing the quality of their reporting, rather than going for the ludicrous and instantly refutable claim that they don't do any reporting at all.

Re:What did Fox News do? (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43828957)

Dear Numbnuts-
I will never pass up any opportunity to bash FOX, even if the rare ACTUAL news item is reported by them.

They are a joke.

If you choose to defend them, along with all the other "Me Too! I LOVE FOX!" clowns out there, go right ahead.

Fox IS a joke, end of story.

Re:What did Fox News do? (3, Insightful)

Austerity Empowers (669817) | about a year ago | (#43828895)

They investigate what they choose to investigate for their own ends. No network has given that up. Fox News just tends to be investigating a lot more now, with a left leaning president, while during W they mostly just pandered. Now MSNBC is in pander mode, having done the "investigating" thing during W.

Pretending anything else is just exposing your personal bias. The crime here is our news outlets have such blatant bias, and very little dedication to journalism and conveying the facts to the masses. Worst, people actually think that what these organizations are doing is truth.

Re:What did Fox News do? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43828969)

Very good point, no news source has ever been in existence that didn't have an ulterior motive. Weather it was for profit, pander or ideals. The news has always been spoon fed to us.

Re:What did Fox News do? (3, Insightful)

ATMAvatar (648864) | about a year ago | (#43829433)

Very good point, no news source has ever been in existence that didn't have an ulterior motive. Weather it was for profit, pander or ideals. The news has always been spoon fed to us.

Well, the bias has manifested itself in different ways and severity. I'm sure that there have been some egregious cases of bias in the past. In past decades though, many news stations took their job seriously and strove for objective news, with biases creeping in mostly as a result of subconscious slips when putting together stories.

Today, because echo chamber news has shown to be more profitable than real news, the bias is mostly mandated by company policy. Fox started first by pandering to the right, MSNBC came next by pandering to the left, and CNN... well, I think CNN just has a gas leak somewhere in their office.

Re:What did Fox News do? (2)

ebno-10db (1459097) | about a year ago | (#43829415)

They investigate what they choose to investigate for their own ends. No network has given that up. Fox News just tends to be investigating a lot more now, with a left leaning president, while during W they mostly just pandered. Now MSNBC is in pander mode, having done the "investigating" thing during W.

So between the two of them at least somebody is doing some investigation regardless of who is president. Ideally news outfits would be less biased and more willing to hang any president, but the way this works now is pretty much how the press has worked for most of our history. It's a lot better than having no one investigating.

BTW, when did Obama become a "left leaning president" as you put it? He's a Democrat, which means CNN loves him and Fox hates him, but on most issues he doesn't lean left at all. You must be imagining some opposition party that no longer exists.

Re:What did Fox News do? (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43828827)

I know they are stupid and shouldn't be called a news show, but what did they do that requires wiretapping?

Perhaps the more relevant question should be what does anyone do to justify wiretapping, which in this police state, amounts to jack shit.

(I didn't use the word "warrant" here, because that might imply they need to follow the law and obtain one. They don't.)

But hey, keep arguing red vs. blue and vote for that two-party system. You see how much fucking good it does...

Re:What did Fox News do? (2)

BitterOak (537666) | about a year ago | (#43828845)

I know they are stupid and shouldn't be called a news show, but what did they do that requires wiretapping?

It's not what they did; it's what the person talking to them was allegedly doing. The Executive branch was investigating a leak from one of its own, and Fox News was on the receiving end of the information, apparently, so by wiretapping Fox News' communications, they were hoping to find the source of the leak.

Re:What did Fox News do? (4, Insightful)

mysidia (191772) | about a year ago | (#43828889)

It's not what they did; it's what the person talking to them was allegedly doing. The Executive branch was investigating a leak from one of its own, and Fox News was on the receiving end of the information, apparently, so by wiretapping Fox News' communications, they were hoping to find the source of the leak.

This is exactly the kind of activity that is supposed to be prohibited by the 1st amendment; attempting to force the press (covertly or not) to reveal the identity of their sources.

Re: What did Fox News do? (5, Funny)

F.Ultra (1673484) | about a year ago | (#43828935)

Yes but Gouvernments these days asks themselves the important question of "What Would Nixon Do?".

Re: What did Fox News do? (1, Troll)

roman_mir (125474) | about a year ago | (#43829239)

Yes but Gouvernments these days asks themselves the important question of "What Would Nixon Do?".

- yeah, and then they multiply it by about 1000 and do that instead.

Has Nixon actually bombed a bunch of Americans around the world? I hate the guy, by the way, but I don't think he has done anything even close to what the modern day politicians are doing daily.

Re: What did Fox News do? (2)

gl4ss (559668) | about a year ago | (#43829443)

Yes but Gouvernments these days asks themselves the important question of "What Would Nixon Do?".

- yeah, and then they multiply it by about 1000 and do that instead.

Has Nixon actually bombed a bunch of Americans around the world? I hate the guy, by the way, but I don't think he has done anything even close to what the modern day politicians are doing daily.

Everything Nixon did is legal in current day USA.

Think about that.

Re: What did Fox News do? (2)

gallondr00nk (868673) | about a year ago | (#43829331)

Yes but Governments these days asks themselves the important question of "What Would Nixon Do?"

Quick, get someone over to the Watergate!

Re: What did Fox News do? (5, Insightful)

Totenglocke (1291680) | about a year ago | (#43829445)

Except Nixon was a saint compared to Obama.

Re:What did Fox News do? (1)

Tablizer (95088) | about a year ago | (#43829101)

It's a sticky balancing act between protecting national security and protecting freedom of the press. Should we try to find secret leakers even if the investigation goes through journalist?

Re: What did Fox News do? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43829267)

You left out the part where Holder swore to a judge that he was a co-conspirator and that he may be charged with a felony. It is not ok to go after leaks via the press. They will all have to start using burner phones

Re:What did Fox News do? (4, Interesting)

_xeno_ (155264) | about a year ago | (#43828869)

I know they are stupid and shouldn't be called a news show, but what did they do that requires wiretapping?

Journalism.

No, seriously: James Rosen asked someone at the State Department questions about North Korea.

Because that apparently could involve classified information (not that it necessarily did), Obama's Department of Justice pulled six years of Rosen's email.

Re:What did Fox News do? (4, Informative)

mc6809e (214243) | about a year ago | (#43828883)

I know they are stupid and shouldn't be called a news show, but what did they do that requires wiretapping?

Rosen reported that,

"U.S. intelligence officials have warned President Obama and other senior American officials that North Korea intends to respond to the passage of a U.N. Security Council resolution this week... with another nuclear test,"

And now the "Justice" Department is telling us that they consider him an accomplice to espionage.

Re:What did Fox News do? (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43828897)

> "And now the "Justice" Department is telling us that they consider him an accomplice to espionage."

And...

"The Obama Administration fought to keep a search warrant for James Rosen’s private e-mail account secret, arguing to a federal judge that the government might need to monitor the account for a lengthy period of time"

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2013/05/how-justice-fought-to-keep-rosens-warrant-secret.html [newyorker.com]

Yeah, that's the reason Obama fought to keep this hidden. Because Rosen might be some kind of super-spy.

Nigga please.

Re:What did Fox News do? (3, Informative)

braeldiil (1349569) | about a year ago | (#43828885)

Essentially, the reporter in question wrote an article just to say that we had a high-level asset inside the North Korean government. There was no new factual information in the article otherwise - just the need to out a spy in an article about North Korea responding to sanctions. Similar to the AP case, where the reporter felt the need to out the fact that the British had an undercover operative inside Al Qaida who delivered them a sample bomb for analysis.

There you have it (1, Troll)

tsotha (720379) | about a year ago | (#43828819)

They told me if I voted for Romney the government would engage in unconstitutional wiretapping.

Nothing is more amusing to me that watching leftists trying to pretend this is all okay because it's Fox and not what they consider real news organizations. I hope you remember this moment when the next Republican president takes office.

Re:There you have it (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43828841)

Leftist here. It's not OK because its Fox and it's not OK because Obama did it. And FYI I'm sure the government would have also engaged in unconstitutional wire tapping were Romney (or Paul, or [Insert your favorite controlled opposition candidate here]).
Your problem might be that you have mistaken Democrats for actual leftists.

Re:There you have it (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43828851)

Actual leftists would be even worse. You have read history I take it?

Re:There you have it (2, Insightful)

houghi (78078) | about a year ago | (#43828959)

The countries that failed where not leftist. The only said they were.
Countries that are actually leftist are doing pretty well. Sweden, among others.

Re: There you have it (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43829025)

Funny you should mention sweden, heard anything about stockholm and some riots lately?

Re: There you have it (1, Insightful)

amiga3D (567632) | about a year ago | (#43829221)

Leave the facts out of this. You'll destroy the fantasy with facts.

Re:There you have it (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43829053)

Countries that are actually leftist are doing pretty well. Sweden, among others.

last i checked, sweden isn't doing too well.

Re:There you have it (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43829113)

ROFL.
Low information much?

Re:There you have it (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43828899)

It's funny, I click on Fox News every day, and they always trying to turn "Fast and Furious" and Solyndra/Fisker into major scandals, when it was clear that voters (except for those firmly in Romney's corner) didn't care. And whenever Obama or Biden or anyone connected to the administration mis-spoke, that would get another multi-day run.

Now that the administration actually has scandals worth reporting on, it's like the boy crying wolf over at Fox. What are they going to do, use 45-pt headlines instead of 38-pt they were using for Solyndra?

Re:There you have it (1)

Le Marteau (206396) | about a year ago | (#43828919)

Now that the administration actually has scandals worth reporting on, it's like the boy crying wolf over at Fox. What are they going to do, use 45-pt headlines instead of 38-pt they were using for Solyndra?

They don't have to. I did not read about this on Fox news, and I doubt you did either. Other news agencies have taken the story and run with it.

Re:There you have it (5, Insightful)

tsotha (720379) | about a year ago | (#43828949)

Fast & Furious is a major scandal. It's perfectly reasonable for Fox to treat it as such.

Re:There you have it (4, Informative)

Kohath (38547) | about a year ago | (#43829191)

It's just hundreds of innocent Mexicans murdered by guns the administration supplied to drug cartels. How is that a scandal?

Meanwhile, Mitt Romney made his dog ride on top of the family car once. Sorry widows and orphans of murdered Mexicans, you lose.

Re:There you have it (2, Insightful)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | about a year ago | (#43829209)

> Fast & Furious is a major scandal. It's perfectly reasonable for Fox to treat it as such.

It is absolutely a major scandal. But Fox trivializes the scandal by politicizing it. Instead of making it about government run amok, they keep trying to make it about the "other team" running amok. That is a major disservice because it makes people like the OP tune out. They are the little network that cried Fox.

Re:There you have it (1)

BlueStrat (756137) | about a year ago | (#43829211)

Fast & Furious is a major scandal. It's perfectly reasonable for Fox to treat it as such.

Not if you believe that private, individual gun ownership should be highly restricted/regulated and/or outright prohibited at almost any cost, and that the ends justify the means, so that running guns to Mexican drug cartels resulting in innocent Mexican civilian and US law enforcement deaths, all as a propaganda scheme to attack the 2nd Amendment, is OK as long as nobody finds out.

Sort of like the Benghazi, AP, and IRS scandals. Those in power view the whistle-blowers as the problem, not their own illegal actions. That's the reason for the recent big push to ferret-out whistle blowers (or "national security threats", as the DoJ calls those exposing their corruption).

PROTIP: If you're a government official planning something that includes calculations of the risk of being caught by watchdog groups, exposed by journalists, and/or prosecuted by (the remaining small non-corrupt parts of) law enforcement or Congress, it's probably a very bad idea.

Particularly when it involves innocent people being brutally murdered as collateral damage or (in the case of Benghazi) being left to die to eliminate "loose ends" who could expose and/or testify against those in power

Strat

Re:There you have it (1)

amiga3D (567632) | about a year ago | (#43829227)

It can't be a major scandal. CBS, ABC and NBC are pretty much treating it as minor news.

Re:There you have it (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43829333)

More sugar in their Kool-Aid

Re:There you have it (2)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | about a year ago | (#43829369)

Howcum it wasn't a major scandal when Bush was doing the same thing?

Could it be the House and was Republican for 6 out of his 8 years in office?

Re:There you have it (1)

felrom (2923513) | about a year ago | (#43829109)

You really think it's not a scandal when the US government gives 2500+ guns to Mexican drug cartels, which are then used to murder hundreds of Mexican citizens (so far) and at least one US border patrol agent? Let's not even bring the issue of responsibility into it; no questions about how much Holder and Obama knew, or when they knew it, or why they never released the subpena'd documents congress demanded, or the illegal use of executive privilege to just make it all go away. Simply keep the question in terms of ,"the US government did it." Was it a scandal?

Please tell me what you would consider a scandal.

Re:There you have it (3, Funny)

amiga3D (567632) | about a year ago | (#43829235)

Nobody gave the cartels anything. They sold them to the cartels. We're running out of money and we've got to get some revenue somehow.

Re:There you have it (3, Interesting)

Kohath (38547) | about a year ago | (#43829237)

Please tell me what you would consider a scandal.

Mitt Romney said 47% of people don't pay income taxes and so his tax cut message might not appeal to them. Scandal-palooza!

(Sorry dead Mexicans and grieving widows and orphans and parents of murdered children. You lose.)

Re:There you have it (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43829245)

Please tell me what you would consider a scandal.

How about Operation Wide Receiver [google.com] ?

Re:There you have it (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43829347)

BTW I never heard about Operation Wide Receiver in 2008 or 2012 (didn't even recognize the term), and I followed the elections pretty closely.

Republican or Democratic administrations doing this ill-advised stuff, voters didn't care either way. Maybe they should have. But they didn't.

Re:There you have it (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43829249)

Please tell me what you would consider a scandal.

Obviously, all that under a Republican administration.

Re:There you have it (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43829313)

the US government gives 2500+ guns to Mexican drug cartels

Your source?

They allowed known straw purchasers to buy weapons who's serial numbers were recorded.
They did not drive a dumptruck full of guns to Mexico and shout "come git yer guns bad guys!"

Re:There you have it (1)

Tablizer (95088) | about a year ago | (#43829081)

Obama is a centrist, not a leftist, especially with regard to civil liberties.

Re:There you have it (1)

fredgiblet (1063752) | about a year ago | (#43829251)

On an objective scale yes. But most of us here in America think that America's scale is complete, instead of starting in the middle and going right.

Re:There you have it (2)

amiga3D (567632) | about a year ago | (#43829257)

President Obama is a firm supporter of civil liberties. At least for people that agree with him.

Re:There you have it (1, Insightful)

I'm New Around Here (1154723) | about a year ago | (#43829283)

No, he's not a centrist. He's just a really poor leader for his leftist ideals. A leftist who can't get things done is not a centrist.

Read his books. It gets a lot clearer afterwards.

--
By the way, I say this with no problem that he is a leftist. Everyone has the right to their own beliefs. I just want them to be accurate and honest.

Not OK No Matter What. (5, Insightful)

kms_one (1272174) | about a year ago | (#43828867)

Don't let the Red/Blue Faux News debate cloud this issue. It doesn't matter who did it or to whom it is not okay and this policy should be banned.

Re:Not OK No Matter What. (2)

PolygamousRanchKid (1290638) | about a year ago | (#43828973)

The DOJ loves that this has become a Red/Blue slug fest. It diverts the public's attention from the real issue.

Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if the DOJ is throwing fuel on that fire. If the Reds and Blues hung up their gloves for a minute, and really thought about it . . . they would both direct their guns at the DOJ instead of each other.

Re:Not OK No Matter What. (3, Insightful)

I'm New Around Here (1154723) | about a year ago | (#43829291)

Wow. Great way to be above the partisan ship. You can't even restrain yourself from the "Faux" talking point.

Blame game (5, Insightful)

psherman2001 (2739057) | about a year ago | (#43828903)

Doesn't matter who's fault it is...
who started privacy abuses,
what party is/was in power.


There is something going terribly wrong here.

We, as Americans,
have obviously slid quite a little way down the slippery slope,
toward something quite different than the bastion of freedom we like to think of ourselves as...

We should be doing something more about it than pointing fingers and playing politics.

Re:Blame game (4, Interesting)

icebike (68054) | about a year ago | (#43829091)

Exactly.

Everyone is so worried about whose ox was gored and whose ox did the goring that they are totally willing
to overlook that we are all bleeding. And its not JUST this issue or JUST wiretaps.

The constitution is in tatters, our freedoms are an illusion, and everybody thinks that as long as
they can drive to a ball game and have a beer everything is just fine.

Re:Blame game (1)

russotto (537200) | about a year ago | (#43829421)

The constitution is in tatters, our freedoms are an illusion, and everybody thinks that as long as they can drive to a ball game and have a beer everything is just fine.

And one side is working to get rid of the driving. The other side would be working on getting rid of the beer if they didn't need redneck support.

Reminder (5, Informative)

Arancaytar (966377) | about a year ago | (#43829097)

An infringement on the freedom of the press, or the confidentiality of sources, is a threat to democracy regardless of whether it targets an actual news agency or a mockery thereof.

Re:Reminder (1)

amiga3D (567632) | about a year ago | (#43829261)

Did NBC get their e-mails snagged too?

Democrats can do whatever they want (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43829143)

That's why there are no protests for President drone-strikes's killing spree.
That's why the press runs a coverup after the administration gets our ambassador to Libya killed and then lies for two weeks about it being related to a YouTube video.
That's why their fund raiser Corzine can steal $1 billion dollars and escape indictment.
That's why they can send thousands of guns to Mexican drug cartels, resulting in the murder of hundreds of innocent Mexicans.
That's why they can use the IRS and other agencies to infringe the freedom of speech and freedom of association of their opponents.
That's why they can spy on reporters whenever they want.
That's why the unemployment rate and the deficit don't make news.
That's why they can funnel billions to their political contributors in "green" loan guarantees as company after company goes under.
That's why they can receive record amounts of campaign cash from Wall Street and still pretend they're not on Wall Street's side.
That's why they can be against gay marriage and it doesn't matter because everyone knows they don't mean it.
That's why they can take massive cash from Hollywood to make Copyrights permanent and no one calls them on it.
That's why they can force colleges to adopt unconstitutional speech codes in the name of harassment.
That's why they can slur Clarence Thomas and Mia Love and Ted Cruz and Nikki Haley.

The rules aren't for them. They get a pass. On everything.

Re:Democrats can do whatever they want (1)

amiga3D (567632) | about a year ago | (#43829279)

I'm not going through the whole silly list. Let me just take the first line. The drone strikes are being criticized all over the place. In fact, one of the few places that isn't critical of them is Fox News. I'm pretty sure they feel it's one of the few things the Obama administration is doing right.

Re:Democrats can do whatever they want (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43829323)

"They are being criticized" is not a "protest". Where are the anti-war protestors? Clearly the protestors were always just phony partisan hacks putting on a show for rubes like you.

Re:Democrats can do whatever they want (2)

AK Marc (707885) | about a year ago | (#43829349)

So your issue isn't that all of those done were done by the Republicans as well, but that the complaints are all by impotent radio talk show hosts if the Democrats are in power, and protesters if the Republicans are in power? You've missed the issue.

Re:Democrats can do whatever they want (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43829389)

The press covers up for Democrat lawlessness. They get a pass. Do you think that will lead to more lawlessness or less? How much more lawlessness do you think the country can take?

Re:Democrats can do whatever they want (2)

ATMAvatar (648864) | about a year ago | (#43829459)

It's not wrong because someone is doing it. It's wrong because they are doing it.

Just pass a fucking new law (4, Interesting)

Tablizer (95088) | about a year ago | (#43829149)

Congress should pass an adjusted law and move on rather than making it a witch hunt. Trying to milk it as a "dirty conspiracy" will just pull BOTH parties (deeper) into the mud.

Computerized gerrymandering is part of the problem: politicians redraw their own districts to be slanted politically so that all they have to do is kiss up to extremists to get re-elected rather than do real work.

The REAL Reason They Didn't Need This (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43829155)

Because they were breaking the fucking law in the first place. Who gives a shit about warrants? It's called the Constitution. Something Holder and Obama give exactly zero shits about.

BUT HEY GUYS, keep supporting them for your pet social issues because that fucking matters so much compared to freedom of the press and the right to bare arms.

Re:The REAL Reason They Didn't Need This (1)

fredgiblet (1063752) | about a year ago | (#43829269)

To the best of my knowledge no one is trying to restrict the right to bare arms. In fact IIRC the law in New York (?) is being adjusted so that women can even bare torsos (including nipples!). I haven't heard any talk about requires people to wear sleeves.

TFA looks familiar (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43829177)

A visual compare of TFA with this Cnet article [cnet.com] suggests that copy-pasta was involved.

Why they didn't need warrant: Fox consented (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43829253)

From Jan 2001 to Jan 2009 Fox yelled every day about how great federal power was, how the federal government needs to get even more powerful and larger and its budget unlimited without regard to any sacrifices the citizenry needs to bear, how true patriots totally and completely trust their government because the government cannot possibly do anything wrong under any circumstances, how only traitors ever worry about "civil rights" and strongly advocated that the bill of rights be repealed, and then they said anyone who disagrees is a traitor. And then they made every one of their employees sign an oath in blood, irrevocable, that that person agrees in perpetuity to consent-by-default to any "intrusion" that the all-wise and totally benevolent federal government may ever wish to perform.

In other words, Fox News consented because they're a bunch of Stalinist Communists, the people all the conservatives warned you about when you were a kid.

Then there was an election and they forgot to revoke it.

Everything is peachy...NOT (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43829457)

We should just keep handing our liberties, rights, money, and lives to any corporation that says they are going to fix all of our problems. In our case we have the good old American Government which if you didn't know is indeed very much a corporation. We just need to keep giving them power so they can have the resources they need to fix everything in the world. I mean look at our deficit. They're really killing it in that department. We can't be too hard on them tho because working with negative numbers can be tricky. Its a good thing we put government in control of educating the masses. If I didn't know any better I would think that someone or something is trying to devalue the economy of the entire world so they can strategically acquire key assets for pennies on the dollar when everything goes to shit. Well its already happening. Did you forget about the government bailouts or the scores of the countries we are currently/have previously aided to overthrow dictators/leaders. The Libyans might have pulled Kadafi out of a hole and stabbed him in the ass with a box cutter to death. However it was French/US drone strikes that decimated his 50 vehicle armored forcing to hide like a little bitch under an overpass. Without millions of weaponized dollars in the air they might not have ever got kadafi exposed. We literally sponsor Call of Duty IRL. The rebels probably got a high enough kill streak and were awarded a drone strike just like in COD. I bet they got UAVs, care packages, and weapon upgrades too. I wonder what game type they play in Libia. Looks like capture the flag mixed with team death match(two of my favs). Things can and will only get worse. How is it possible that damn near every government in the entire world cannot figure out how to produce more than they consume?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>