General Discussion

sabrina 1

(62,325 posts)

66. So you have fully accepted Bush's anti-Constitutional 'terror' laws.

Sat May 18, 2013, 04:53 PM

May 2013

The Fourth Amendment still stands and trumps all those 'laws' as far as I am concerned and while Bush was president Democrats never wavered in their support for the protections of the Constitutions. What changed YOUR mind, or did you support Bush's lies about the need to dispense with the Constitution?

Seems Bush was right after all, the Constitution is just a 'quaint document' and if he had his way he would rather be a dictator. We thought that was insane once upon a time. Amazing to see this back-tracking. That article about Democrats who now support Bush's laws appears to have been true after all.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

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

78 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

What if the AP had been communicating with Julian Assange? [View all] BainsBane May 2013 OP

don't expect party-liners to make sense. HiPointDem May 2013 #1

You'll probably find that many DUers already agree with you CJCRANE May 2013 #2

Then there is the fact BainsBane May 2013 #5

AFAIK they didn't "record" anything (as in voice content). CJCRANE May 2013 #6

It's not all or nothing BainsBane May 2013 #7

+1!!!!! Lady Freedom Returns May 2013 #12

No it isn't, but a reporter shield law would fix Progressive dog May 2013 #54

It is the Government's job to protect information if leaking of that information would sabrina 1 May 2013 #25

Wikileaks turned over it's info to three large newspapers and those newspapers KoKo May 2013 #39

Neither the newspapers nor Wikileaks reviewed the millions of documents that were released. randome May 2013 #41

assange and Manning rso May 2013 #45

The simplest explanation is usually the most likely. randome May 2013 #56

"And the ones who don't agree with you, see all of them as criminals." Chan790 May 2013 #40

Indeed, someone who pleads guilty to 22 crimes is a mass criminal. Not a good person graham4anything May 2013 #51

"leaking is wrong 100% of the time." Bonobo May 2013 #72

The AP 100% wrong. graham4anything May 2013 #73

YOU said "leaking" is 100% wrong. Those are your words. Bonobo May 2013 #74

I answered you already in the 1st post. The AP is 100% wrong. graham4anything May 2013 #75

80% have 7% of the financial wealth in the USA, 20% have 93%. nt Bonobo May 2013 #76

I feel without the FREE press we loose more freedom and rights newfie11 May 2013 #3

So anyone working for the government should be able to leak any information to the press? CJCRANE May 2013 #4

Well that's your opinion newfie11 May 2013 #8

The AP published the story. No one stopped them. CJCRANE May 2013 #9

Look, if you use the press to get them... Lady Freedom Returns May 2013 #11

Right newfie11 May 2013 #13

Well where is the leaker? Who is facing those consequences? Or did their fishing produce Bluenorthwest May 2013 #15

This message was self-deleted by its author emulatorloo May 2013 #16

How long did it take to get to the bottom of the Plame leak? CJCRANE May 2013 #21

+1 emulatorloo May 2013 #22

So are you equating the way Bushco handled that leak (they leaked it) to this? Bluenorthwest May 2013 #24

If Government officials, Congress etc know that we have a healthy free press who will not fear sabrina 1 May 2013 #28

But the AP leaker is probably someone in the government! CJCRANE May 2013 #31

You mean he is a whistle blower. I do not have it backwards. The press needs sources sabrina 1 May 2013 #46

'Whistle blower'? What crime was alleged? None that I know of. randome May 2013 #53

"None that I know of" LiberalLovinLug May 2013 #59

As I understand the leak was a "scoop" of a sensational story, not really an expose. CJCRANE May 2013 #71

+1! Lady Freedom Returns May 2013 #10

The story was published. Therefore it wasn't "censored." emulatorloo May 2013 #19

What if the AP had been communicating with Mike Rogers? GeorgeGist May 2013 #14

"DOJ's surveillance" is rather hyperbolic emulatorloo May 2013 #17

I'd say the word 'Justice' in DOJ is hyperbolic. Bluenorthwest May 2013 #23

Q: Do you have evidence AP was surveilled (wiretaps, email monitored)? A: No emulatorloo May 2013 #26

You are making up the definition of surveillance Bluenorthwest May 2013 #29

The subpoenas didn't come until after the surveillance. But that's the world Bush created and this sabrina 1 May 2013 #47

The subpoena wasn't necessary if the case merited certain exceptions. randome May 2013 #49

So you have fully accepted Bush's anti-Constitutional 'terror' laws. sabrina 1 May 2013 #66

Unless Bush said the sky was blue, I don't think I'd agree with anything he did or said. randome May 2013 #67

Grand juries are one of the most abused and misused part of our judicial system as everyone knows. sabrina 1 May 2013 #69

and Bradley is facing the consequences zerosumgame0005 May 2013 #18

There won't really be any consequences for the AP. As the investigation is all about the leaker. emulatorloo May 2013 #20

20 phone lines out of thousands and only for a 2 month period. randome May 2013 #27

Just a little government spying on reporters. Is that now a good thing? I remember sabrina 1 May 2013 #48

A subpoena, not a warrant. Legally issued. randome May 2013 #68

an administrative subpoena BainsBane May 2013 #70

Awful lot of hypotheticals and hairsplitting lately. The fact is, the AP leak led to no compromise leveymg May 2013 #30

'Compromise' is not the point. Someone betrayed their oath and their country by leaking the info. randome May 2013 #32

Nobody's complains when DOJ bugs agency phones to look for a leaker. But, there is still an leveymg May 2013 #36

I do want them to conduct secret operations in secret. randome May 2013 #38

After 9/11, they lost the presumption of competence to conduct such "controlled" operations. leveymg May 2013 #42

Agree with that, too. randome May 2013 #43

Assange is not a member of the the US Government burnodo May 2013 #33

Burning an asset isn't even relevant. randome May 2013 #35

Assange and Manning rso May 2013 #34

Assange and Wikileaks didn't just dump the data. It's been filtered through 4 or 5 major news- leveymg May 2013 #37

Irrelevant question. Julian would never leak this type of information to AP. Zorra May 2013 #44

I don't see a disconnect treestar May 2013 #50

The issue is not AP's publication of documents BainsBane May 2013 #61

If law enforcement has to be perfect such that it only investigates the actually guilty treestar May 2013 #62

Investigation is different from accessing private information BainsBane May 2013 #63

The administrative subpoena is legal treestar May 2013 #64

The Patriot Act is legal too BainsBane May 2013 #65

The Father Knows Best wing of our party would be verrry upset. Tierra_y_Libertad May 2013 #52

Seems to me that most defending also are wanting to get Assange TheKentuckian May 2013 #55

There are procedures in place for whistle blowers. Leaking secrets to the press is not one of them. randome May 2013 #58

exactly. there is a group on here who wants to go after any or all whistleblowers or anyone that boilerbabe May 2013 #77

Strawman emulatorloo May 2013 #78

�News is what somebody somewhere wants to suppress; all the rest is advertising.� Lord Northcliffe Tierra_y_Libertad May 2013 #57

I don't defend the DOJ in either case. MNBrewer May 2013 #60