Latest Breaking News

phleshdef

(11,936 posts)

42. What a load of horse shit.

Thu May 16, 2013, 03:17 PM

May 2013

Legally obtaining phone records to track down people who are outing intelligence agents isn't "heavy handed government intrusion". That's a painfully idiotic characterization.

And no, I'm against the Patriot Act and the part of the 2011 NDAA that you are referring to (there is no 1 NDAA). I am 100% FOR tracking down leakers of classified information. If that classified information exposes the government as having done something illegal itself and the leaker didn't release anything other than information regarding the illegal activity, then I believe said leaker should receive immunity from prosecution. But in either event, the government has the absolute right to track down leakers, period. Especially when it concerns the outing of intelligence agents.

But I should presume that you are a Dick Cheney/Scooter Libby backer and are perfectly fine with people outing CIA agents and putting their lives in further danger.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

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

108 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Obama: �No Apologies� For Investigating Leaks Of Classified Information [View all] DonViejo May 2013 OP

Good. Hit back at these mother fuckers. phleshdef May 2013 #1

Ditto that rightsideout May 2013 #43

megadittoes & let's reopen Chainee's leak of Valerie Plame working for CIA wordpix May 2013 #72

Mr Hope & Change doubles down on unconstitutional infringements of basic rights 99th_Monkey May 2013 #2

CALEA and FISA warrants have been around for a LONG time... snooper2 May 2013 #4

Please see 99th_Monkey May 2013 #8

* AndrewJacksonFaction May 2013 #57

"legally" ~nt 99th_Monkey May 2013 #67

Ok, I'll bite. What was the unconstitutional infringement that was committed? cstanleytech May 2013 #5

Oh, just a "trivial" little matter, called "Freedom of the Press" 99th_Monkey May 2013 #7

Freedom of the Press is not infringed by looking at phone records to find a classified info leaker. phleshdef May 2013 #9

These conversations aren't one way and besides, it's a really dumb leaker who gives information tavalon May 2013 #12

Prove that its meant to "keep the press in line". phleshdef May 2013 #16

I'll edit tavalon May 2013 #19

Does the phrase "Chilling Effect" mean ANYTHING to you? 99th_Monkey May 2013 #20

Not in this circumstance, no it means nothing. phleshdef May 2013 #22

I thought as much 99th_Monkey May 2013 #28

What a load of horse shit. phleshdef May 2013 #42

K&R X 100! COLGATE4 May 2013 #47

OK, good. 99th_Monkey May 2013 #48

K&R a million! Thank you for speaking for me! & especially that about "the NDAA" . . . that's been patrice May 2013 #52

+1 The Valerie Plame analogy ties them up treestar May 2013 #54

No prove whatsoever has been forthcoming, only speculation & heresay 99th_Monkey May 2013 #68

You've missed a lot treestar May 2013 #70

So Chris Hedges POV on this is looking at this "shallowly", then 99th_Monkey May 2013 #78

Chris Hedges belongs on FOX news. ucrdem May 2013 #83

Yeah, because Hedges is such a conservative. Sheesh. Comrade Grumpy May 2013 #103

He's a demagogue who carries their water ucrdem May 2013 #104

There is no "Valerie Plame analogy." DirkGently May 2013 #98

+1 JustAnotherGen May 2013 #92

Actually, the horseshit is all yours. DirkGently May 2013 #97

How is it a loss of liberty that one can't leak classified documents by law? treestar May 2013 #53

There are also longstanding regs that govern seizing journalist phone records Yo_Mama May 2013 #59

And you apparently didn't read your own link. phleshdef May 2013 #60

Really? Which reg was violated? nt msanthrope May 2013 #84

These. DirkGently May 2013 #100

Dude...you proved my point. The first sentence of (d) gives discretion to the AAG. msanthrope May 2013 #101

Dude. Do you know what "discretion" means? DirkGently May 2013 #102

Well, now you know why Senator Obama supported a press shield law. But I fail to msanthrope May 2013 #105

Why don't you ask Jefferson & Madison why they DirkGently May 2013 #106

Freedom of the press doesn't extend to cover criminal activity. Grand juries can msanthrope May 2013 #107

Suspicion of criminal activity does not trump the First Amendment DirkGently May 2013 #108

Of course you can brooklynite May 2013 #95

I don't agree.. I think they are trying to find out who the leaker is. Voice for Peace May 2013 #55

which put lives in dangers , national security all blanket statements that attempt to coerce people leftyohiolib May 2013 #31

I'm not even sure what you just said... phleshdef May 2013 #34

I am aware of Smith in which the Supreme Court held that pen registers could be subpoenaed. JDPriestly May 2013 #66

Yes, a nice quote of the first amendment now how was a legally obtained wiretap an infringment cstanleytech May 2013 #27

If you watched that Chris Hedges clip, you would know 99th_Monkey May 2013 #33

Sorry but I rather form my own opinions rather than base it on someone elses. cstanleytech May 2013 #35

All true except that Chris Hedges represents ONE perspective, not THE perspective, just patrice May 2013 #49

Not win nationa security is compromised. There are limitations to the First Amendment. Liberal_Stalwart71 May 2013 #39

Is that all you ever intend to learn about it? treestar May 2013 #51

Extinguish the free press because it's in the best interest of national security? midnight May 2013 #69

The very first amendment to the constitution tavalon May 2013 #11

If everything is classified then nothing can be spoken of MNBrewer May 2013 #61

Are you nuts? The identities of intelligence officers in the field is "over classification"? phleshdef May 2013 #75

Are you kidding? MNBrewer May 2013 #82

Yeah, right. MNBrewer May 2013 #85

I'd like see where you get that 99th_Monkey May 2013 #93

If you haven't read extensively on it, you really have no business commenting on it. phleshdef May 2013 #94

I appreciate the information, but not your unnecessarily snarky attitude 99th_Monkey May 2013 #96

I think that I John2 May 2013 #91

Double-down on leaks. A Presidential tradition. leveymg May 2013 #3

In the Bubble pmorlan1 May 2013 #6

"We're becoming just like the Republicans under Bush." OnyxCollie May 2013 #10

My apologies pmorlan1 May 2013 #17

Most people do not view things through an ideological lens. OnyxCollie May 2013 #23

LOL pmorlan1 May 2013 #24

I would find myself a laughing stock to myself if I were to defend the DOJ tavalon May 2013 #13

I agree pmorlan1 May 2013 #21

Obama reminds me a lot of Wilson. Another "progressive" who expanded state power and secrecy leveymg May 2013 #14

He's a BAD, BAD man, that Obama! Let's impeach him!! Liberal_Stalwart71 May 2013 #41

To many, comparison to Woodrow Wilson is not an insult leveymg May 2013 #63

I agree. No president is perfect. Not even FDR and not LBJ. All presidents do things that Liberal_Stalwart71 May 2013 #64

Greenwald is not credible. Liberal_Stalwart71 May 2013 #40

Which one of the Republican chickenhawks leaked and compromised America's safety? Berlum May 2013 #15

well I do recall Chaniee, KarlRove, Libby leaked Valerie Plame's CIA connection & only lowly Scooter wordpix May 2013 #73

For those of you who keep saying that he's a pushover and won't stand up, this article does no Liberal_Stalwart71 May 2013 #18

I'm sorry, but his level of agitation doesn't change the fact that he just tore up tavalon May 2013 #25

No, sorry but you are mistaken tavalon. cstanleytech May 2013 #30

I'm not being mean here, but I'm unsure how that parses tavalon May 2013 #38

Well try thinking of it this way. cstanleytech May 2013 #45

How about Judith Miller? tavalon May 2013 #46

She didnt go to jail for publishing the story though but rather for contempt of court. cstanleytech May 2013 #76

Looking at who their sources were dreamnightwind May 2013 #65

No, it currently isnt infringment. cstanleytech May 2013 #74

Nothing to see here, eh? dreamnightwind May 2013 #79

Unless you mean that opinion piece you posted a link to cstanleytech May 2013 #80

"tore up the First Amendment" treestar May 2013 #56

I actually know a bit about both, and you're right tavalon May 2013 #58

How can this possibly be the most heinous abuse? treestar May 2013 #71

WRONG!! The First Amendment has limitations. The president is right. Liberal_Stalwart71 May 2013 #88

Forceful and Angry? pmorlan1 May 2013 #26

What did the Justice Department do exactly? He needs to defend them. They did nothing wrong. Liberal_Stalwart71 May 2013 #36

Good for Obama cosmicone May 2013 #29

Pity he doesn't feel the same about War Criminals and certain Bankers. nt broadcaster75201 May 2013 #32

According to you... Liberal_Stalwart71 May 2013 #37

Remind me who was it that explicitly stated the will be no prosecution of anyone involved in torture idwiyo May 2013 #86

whatever that means...eom Kolesar May 2013 #44

Why apologize for something he didn't know anything about marshall May 2013 #50

This frightens some folks, here. But look at what a govt does. It provides structure to enable toby jo May 2013 #62

Thanks for the reflection of the purpose, not the spin. freshwest May 2013 #87

I"m sorry if you view this as being an Obama hater BUT this seriously makes me worry diabeticman May 2013 #77

"while still accommodating for the need for information" Ash_F May 2013 #81

Also no apologies for NDAA, NDRP, HR347, drones, FISA, Patriot Act extension, Bush Tax Cut Fire Walk With Me May 2013 #89

No apologies for any of it. woo me with science May 2013 #90

As I pointed out in another thread davidpdx May 2013 #99