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
Latest Breaking News
In reply to the discussion: Obama: ‘No Apologies’ For Investigating Leaks Of Classified Information [View all]DirkGently
(12,151 posts)102. Dude. Do you know what "discretion" means?
If it means the rule doesn't count, that's not really a rule, now, is it?
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:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Obama: ‘No Apologies’ For Investigating Leaks Of Classified Information [View all]
DonViejo
May 2013
OP
Mr Hope & Change doubles down on unconstitutional infringements of basic rights
99th_Monkey
May 2013
#2
Ok, I'll bite. What was the unconstitutional infringement that was committed?
cstanleytech
May 2013
#5
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
K&R a million! Thank you for speaking for me! & especially that about "the NDAA" . . . that's been
patrice
May 2013
#52
Dude...you proved my point. The first sentence of (d) gives discretion to the AAG.
msanthrope
May 2013
#101
Well, now you know why Senator Obama supported a press shield law. But I fail to
msanthrope
May 2013
#105
Freedom of the press doesn't extend to cover criminal activity. Grand juries can
msanthrope
May 2013
#107
which put lives in dangers , national security all blanket statements that attempt to coerce people
leftyohiolib
May 2013
#31
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
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
Extinguish the free press because it's in the best interest of national security?
midnight
May 2013
#69
Are you nuts? The identities of intelligence officers in the field is "over classification"?
phleshdef
May 2013
#75
If you haven't read extensively on it, you really have no business commenting on it.
phleshdef
May 2013
#94
Obama reminds me a lot of Wilson. Another "progressive" who expanded state power and secrecy
leveymg
May 2013
#14
I agree. No president is perfect. Not even FDR and not LBJ. All presidents do things that
Liberal_Stalwart71
May 2013
#64
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
She didnt go to jail for publishing the story though but rather for contempt of court.
cstanleytech
May 2013
#76
WRONG!! The First Amendment has limitations. The president is right.
Liberal_Stalwart71
May 2013
#88
What did the Justice Department do exactly? He needs to defend them. They did nothing wrong.
Liberal_Stalwart71
May 2013
#36
Pity he doesn't feel the same about War Criminals and certain Bankers. nt
broadcaster75201
May 2013
#32
Remind me who was it that explicitly stated the will be no prosecution of anyone involved in torture
idwiyo
May 2013
#86
This frightens some folks, here. But look at what a govt does. It provides structure to enable
toby jo
May 2013
#62
I"m sorry if you view this as being an Obama hater BUT this seriously makes me worry
diabeticman
May 2013
#77
Also no apologies for NDAA, NDRP, HR347, drones, FISA, Patriot Act extension, Bush Tax Cut
Fire Walk With Me
May 2013
#89