Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

Bonobo

(29,257 posts)

18. Huh? I never said anything of the sort.

Reply to msanthrope (Reply #16)

Wed Aug 28, 2013, 07:20 AM

Aug 2013

I responded to the poster that tried to make a false equivalency between DU'ers not jumping up and defending Judith Miller when she was jailed and I meant to suggest the reason was that it was because she was disliked on DU.

But, if you anyone here defends forcing a reporter to reveal their sources, they should show some consistency and point to how they defended that principle when Bush did it.

The thing is, the stench of hypocrisy is SO STRONG.

It's like a dead body. You can hide it, but its rotten stench always reveals it.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

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

23 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Obama Administration Remains Committed to FORCING REPORTER TO TESTIFY Against His Source [View all] Segami Aug 2013 OP

Oh fuck that freedom of the press stuff. progressoid Aug 2013 #1

I thought secrets were bad? Recursion Aug 2013 #2

Protecting Whistleblowers Aren't the Secrets I'm Worried About HumansAndResources Aug 2013 #7

Remember how DU lined up to support Judy Miller geek tragedy Aug 2013 #3

Actually, I didn't support that either Hydra Aug 2013 #5

Well, you are more consistent than most then. nt geek tragedy Aug 2013 #6

DU was opposed to Judith Miller for reasons that everything to do with lying. Bonobo Aug 2013 #8

Right...kindly point to the DU thread that denounced Patrick Fitzgerald msanthrope Aug 2013 #12

No, YOU point me to the thread where Bush was defended for forcing a reporter Bonobo Aug 2013 #14

You are the one making the fantastical claim that Judith Miller was forced to give over Scooter msanthrope Aug 2013 #16

Huh? I never said anything of the sort. Bonobo Aug 2013 #18

Wait a second--that's priceless. Because Judith Miller was 'disliked' she should be subject to laws msanthrope Aug 2013 #21

No, dude, you still don't get it. Bonobo Aug 2013 #22

As my username clearly indicates, I am no dude. And I do get it--you don't have a cogent legal msanthrope Aug 2013 #23

"The process of news gathering is being criminalized." woo me with science Aug 2013 #4

^ Wilms Aug 2013 #9

Reporters have to testify when they witness a crime treestar Aug 2013 #10

Good luck enforcing that law davidn3600 Aug 2013 #11

Actions have consequences. nt msanthrope Aug 2013 #13

That's always a possibility treestar Aug 2013 #20

Branzburg v. Hayes 408 US 665 (1972) struggle4progress Aug 2013 #15

Not a single poster on DU has ever been able to make a convincing argument why reporters should have msanthrope Aug 2013 #17

Me too. nt kelliekat44 Aug 2013 #19