Latest Breaking News

DirkGently

(12,151 posts)

106. Why don't you ask Jefferson & Madison why they

Sat May 18, 2013, 05:58 PM

May 2013

put freedom of the press in the First Amendment?

Maybe they'd had some experience with what happens when government gets to harass and intimidate journalists.

And it's not a freedom to which individuals are not entitled. None of us should be subjected to unwarranted governmental spying based on our communications.

I don't give a shit what Obama supports or doesn't support. I don't even think press shield laws are the point or are particularly helpful. No one in this case was trying to coerce a journalist to give up a source. They didn't even ask. They just set up a secret spying operation instead.

Because, you know, they felt it was necessary, and didn't want to bother a judge first.

THIS was wrong. THIS was unwarranted spying on the public's mechanism for obtaining information, including information government sources sometimes wish were not available.

I think that's important. You clearly don't.

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