AP CEO calls records seizure unconstitutional by Jongsstraw

REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

AP CEO calls records seizure unconstitutional

POSTED BY: JONGSSTRAW
UPDATED: Monday, May 20, 2013 03:02
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 675
PAGE 1 of 1

Sunday, May 19, 2013 1:06 PM

http://news.yahoo.com/ap-ceo-calls-records-seizure-unconstitutional-16
2821460.html

Oh dear. Something unconstitutional from Obama and Holder. Freedom of the press ain't really that important, is it? AP CEO better keep his head looking up, 'cause there may be an Obama killer drone zeroing in on his limo.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 19, 2013 2:55 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

"... the news cooperative had not ruled out legal action against the Justice Department."

If they did pursue a lawsuit that would be a good thing. Only time will tell. And this could be one of those things that goes all the way up to the Supreme Court. Given it's make-up, I can't see it ruling in favor of freedom of the press.

"Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky said the government needs to stop leaks by whatever means necessary."

Not all republicans are on board with this being a bad thing.

I think we need a constitutional privacy amendment which would protect citizens against government and corporations, and the press against government. As I posted before, if this action is legal, we need to work on changing the laws.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 19, 2013 5:17 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

Huh. Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) claimed that it was vital to find out exactly how the information got to the AP in the first place.

Quote:
Saxby Chambliss on Intel Leak: There's "Cause for Wonder" About Whether Politics Is to Blame
BY
FOX NEWS INSIDER
// JUN 07 2012 // 7:01PM
Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-GA), Vice Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, met today with the director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, on the release of sensitive intelligence information. Chambliss said that he and his colleagues feel it's vital to get to the bottom of who's behind the release, for matters of security, assuring our allies, and protecting the lives of sources.

"What's happened here is something I've never seen in my now 18 years in public office and 10 years on the intelligence committee," he said, "because number one, we're always very careful about the kind of information we put out there; we have to be careful not to expose our sources and methods."

When such a leak does happen, Chambliss says

those sources and their lives are put in jeopardy. When asked whether he believes this recent incident is about politics and trying to make the current president look better, Chambliss replied: "I would hope not, but when you have newspaper articles that lineate in detail specific operations, and you have quotes from individuals who are members of the administration ... then it gives certainly cause for wonder."

Read more: http://foxnewsinsider.com/2012/06/07/saxby-chambliss-on-intel-leak-the
res-cause-for-wonder-about-whether-politics-is-to-blame/#ixzz2TnYtPLFm

Diane Feinstein raised concerns over how the details of out counter-terrorism operations was getting out, too.

You might not remember it, but this all happened last June and July. There were lots of congressional Republicans calling for investigations into how the story got out.

Now it seems that someone in the DOJ took them at their word and started investigating, and now they're outraged about THAT.

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 19, 2013 11:10 PM

JONGSSTRAW

Investigation, fine. But it's a mattter of scope and size. Did the DOJ need to seize the phone records and e-mails of 100 reporters and editors? There were only a few leaked stories involving top secret info anyhow. That seems like massive unconstitutional overreaching to me, like using a flamethrower to toast a marshmallow. Seems like a blatant attack on the First Amendment. Also seems that these leaks came right from the Situation Room, from someone in the NSA, Pentagon, or White House with the highest clearance who would have been there to know the details. Seems like those people would be the obvious place to start an investigation. What do their phone records and e-mails reveal? Who did they talk to? And then there's the political angle to consider. These leaks about Seal Team Six, etc. operations were very positive for Obama, and they helped build an image of him in the minds of many as being strong on defense.

And when I think of crisis, image, and political opportunity, I think first of Rahm Emanuel, followed closely by David Axelrod and David Plouffe, aka All The President's Men.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 20, 2013 2:57 AM

NEWOLDBROWNCOAT

Kwicko, not aiming this at you, just clicked " Reply to" on your post. But you're welcome to reply, or not, or anybody else

Lotta little things I can't get straight about the AP phone scandal.

I keep seeing mention that the Administration subpoenaed the records, but I can't find any details on that. Means they went to court, made some argument, presented some data, convinced a judge, got him to sign a court order, doesn't it? Even if it was one of those top secret anti-terrorism courts, they went. Even if they picked out the easiest rubber stamp guy they could find, he reviewed the stuff.

Also according to something I read but haven't seen verified, they were supposed to ask the media executives before tapping their phone lines, or get the one and only Attorney General, that is, Eric Holder, to personally sign off if they didn't want to do that. I can't get clear on that- seems he recused himself from SOMETHING, I'm not clear what, and they got his Assistant to do it. Was it that exact item? Or was it from the follow up investigation, which is what the media piece I saw ambiguously suggested?

So they served the subpoenas on the phone companies instead of the customers.

The phone companies keep the records of which calls were made from which phone to which phone, so they know who to bill and for what. That's where the info they wanted was.

And does notification make sense anyway? You wanta investigate The Godfather. You call him up, you ask, "Hey, Don Vido. We wanta tap-a your phone. That OK wit' you?"

Also I saw in a piece somewhere, one of the phones was in one of the government buildings, in a hall outside the Congressional chambers, I think. The gov't pays the bill for that one, doesn't it? They have the right to ask who called who on the phone that they paid for, don't they?

And I don't see how any of this is intimidating the media, the liberal media that's already biased on their side, or so I keep hearing. Why not just call up that biased, friendly media and saw, "Hey, bud, put a lid on this for me, will ya?" Wouldn't intimidating be, "Hey, we found something on your wire tap. Cover this stuff up for us or we'll spill about your mistress, or bust you over those calls to your cocaine dealer," spoken to somebody already hostile, like Fox News.

Now, all that said, I don't approve of intimidating the media. But that means pressuring them to do something; to cover or not some story; to write something a particular way; backed by a threat of some sort of consequence. That may be implied in this gathering of data, as the next logical step, but I don't hear anybody in the media coming forward to say that " they pressured ME to write so-and-so."

And another thing: Jong ( I think it was Jong, if not I'll come back and correct this.) suggests that if anybody was leaking it was Rahm Emmanuel or two other Obama insiders. He says tap their phones, investigate them. Well, yeah, if the government can find any evidence to suggest that the leaks were thru them. But it needs more than Jong's accusation to back that claim. And hadn't Rahm Emmanuel already resigned and gone back to Chicago when this happened?

Well, there are my questions. I got the target hung around my neck. Anybody got any citable sources on any of those, pro or con ?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 20, 2013 3:02 AM

KWICKO

Actually, Jongsie is suggesting casting a very wide net in tapping communications from all sorts of Obama Administration officials, all based on lots and lots and lots of "seems like" supposition, and little to no evidence of any wrongdoing.

And he's saying that in response to what he feels is an outrageous overreach of authority and an attempt to intimidate people into not doing their jobs.

And he doesn't see the irony of that, at all.

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER	POST DATE

USER

POST DATE