General Discussion

Earth_First

(14,910 posts)

14. Good job, AP...

Reply to ProSense (Original post)

Mon May 13, 2013, 07:35 PM

May 2013

Prior to this it certainly was unthinkable that the CIA was on to AQAP.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

47 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Why The Department Of Justice Is Going After The Associated Press’ Records [View all] ProSense May 2013 OP

Should a warrant be needed to search something owned by a corporation? jberryhill May 2013 #1

Should a warrant be needed to tap press phone lines? Skip Intro May 2013 #2

Not according to Move To Amend jberryhill May 2013 #3

"freedom of the press" has to apply to a collection of people, not just an individual muriel_volestrangler May 2013 #12

One person can own and operate a press jberryhill May 2013 #13

Do you think "the press" was intended to be restricted to one person operations? muriel_volestrangler May 2013 #17

You can argue with Move To Amend on that one jberryhill May 2013 #18

I have no interest in 'Move To Amend' at all muriel_volestrangler May 2013 #21

I say "correct?" to avoid putting words into someone's mouth jberryhill May 2013 #24

Citizen's United is a topic for another thread muriel_volestrangler May 2013 #39

But you included making movies in your definition of "press" jberryhill May 2013 #45

That was an 'electioneering communication' muriel_volestrangler May 2013 #46

Are you suggesting that neither the 1st nor the 4th Amendments apply to AP? eom leveymg May 2013 #41

End Corporate Personhood! jberryhill May 2013 #44

This was not a tap, and ProSense May 2013 #4

Subpoena to telco reveals reporters phone records - who calls, who gets called. Called a "pen trap." leveymg May 2013 #42

The press is protected choie May 2013 #11

Okay, so.... jberryhill May 2013 #15

Should journalists be spied on in a Democracy? sabrina 1 May 2013 #23

Corporations are already legally treated as "US persons" for FISA purposes. eom leveymg May 2013 #40

Patriot Act says no stinkin' warrant is needed... Bandit May 2013 #5

Yes, I assumed "warrantless wiretapping" CJCRANE May 2013 #6

The Boston bombers call from wife is case in point.....an attorney on CNN said they will listen to Gin May 2013 #33

Oh I can't wait to see the hypocrisy of conservatives getting outraged about this. JaneyVee May 2013 #7

You Rebl May 2013 #22

If they had a subpoena or a warrant, this wouldn't be much of a story. winter is coming May 2013 #8

Yes it would. It'll be a bigger story if there were none, but geek tragedy May 2013 #9

Spying on mainstream media is still big news in the US leveymg May 2013 #43

Big Deal mick063 May 2013 #10

Good job, AP... Earth_First May 2013 #14

coming on the back of and mixed with the Benghazi story and the IRS story this is not good Douglas Carpenter May 2013 #16

Actually, ProSense May 2013 #20

You're dismissing the IRS story? Skip Intro May 2013 #25

Why ProSense May 2013 #26

Oh come on. Skip Intro May 2013 #27

Maybe ProSense May 2013 #28

If you think it isn't nothing, then what do you think it is? Skip Intro May 2013 #29

Oh ProSense May 2013 #30

So no effort to hamper or stifle political speech? Skip Intro May 2013 #31

No, ProSense May 2013 #32

Just to be clear: Skip Intro May 2013 #34

Maybe this will be ProSense May 2013 #35

Now you're wasting my time. Skip Intro May 2013 #36

On this point ProSense May 2013 #37

Evasive "answer" with mandatory link to something. Skip Intro May 2013 #38

You're saying that non-profit groups should be able to use tax deductible funds for political speech CreekDog May 2013 #47

Found this comment on ThinkProgress.. FWIW Cha May 2013 #19