Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
BREAKING: Obama Justice Department Secretly Monitored AP Reporters' Phone Records
4 views
Skip to first unread message
Joe Cooper
May 13, 2013, 6:01:01 PM5/13/13
to
What the hell is going on within the Obama administration? Another huge
scandal rears its head, and I'd bet the press won't take this one lying
down:
The Justice Department secretly obtained two months of telephone
records of reporters and editors for The Associated Press in what the
news cooperative's top executive called a "massive and unprecedented
intrusion" into how news organizations gather the news. The records
obtained by the Justice Department listed incoming and outgoing calls,
and the duration of each call, for the work and personal phone numbers of
individual reporters, general AP office numbers in New York, Washington
and Hartford, Conn., and the main number for AP reporters in the House of
Representatives press gallery, according to attorneys for the AP. In all,
the government seized those records for more than 20 separate telephone
lines assigned to AP and its journalists in April and May of 2012. The
exact number of journalists who used the phone lines during that period
is unknown but more than 100 journalists work in the offices whose phone
records were targeted on a wide array of stories about government and
other matters.
The Associated Press is understandably livid:
In a letter of protest sent to Attorney General Eric Holder on
Monday, AP President and Chief Executive Officer Gary Pruitt said the
government sought and obtained information far beyond anything that could
be justified by any specific investigation. He demanded the return of the
phone records and destruction of all copies. "There can be no possible
justification for such an overbroad collection of the telephone
communications of The Associated Press and its reporters. These records
potentially reveal communications with confidential sources across all of
the newsgathering activities undertaken by the AP during a two-month
period, provide a road map to AP's newsgathering operations, and disclose
information about AP's activities and operations that the government has
no conceivable right to know," Pruitt said.
Was the DOJ snooping for leakers and potential whistle-blowers? That's
my initial gut reaction. Stay tuned for details. If you're keeping
score at home, here's what we've discovered since last Friday:
(1) The Obama administration changed its Benghazi talking points 12
times, scrubbing politically unhelpful elements, and radically changing
the best analysis of the intelligence community. The White House had
previously denied presiding over anything but minor, cosmetic changes to
the talking points.
(2) The IRS targeted conservative groups for extra harassment from 2010
to 2012, and top officials knew about it since at least 2011. No
disciplinary action has been taken so far.
(3) The Obama Department of Health and Human Services is requesting
"voluntary" donations from the healthcare companies over which it wields
enormous power in order to help fund Obamacare's implementation, perhaps
in violation of the law.
(4) The Obama Justice Department secretly monitored dozens of Associated
Press journalists' work and personal phone records for purposes that
remain unclear. This lasted for at least two months.
I'd toss in some "what if Bush had done it?" snark, but that hardly seems
necessary. This is quite simply astonishing. And to think, Ron
Fournier's piece about President Obama's credibility crisis was written
before this latest bomb dropped. Last week, Obama told Ohio State
graduates to "reject" those "cynical" voices who warn of government abuse
and tyranny. Then the IRS and AP stories broke. Listen up, grads. And
all other citizens.
UPDATE - Here's the DOJ's deeply Orwellian statement:
We take seriously our obligations to follow all applicable laws,
federal regulations, and Department of Justice policies when issuing
subpoenas for phone records of media organizations. Those regulations
require us to make every reasonable effort to obtain information through
alternative means before even considering a subpoena for the phone
records of a member of the media. We must notify the media organization
in advance unless doing so would pose a substantial threat to the
integrity of the investigation. Because we value the freedom of the
press, we are always careful and deliberative in seeking to strike the
right balance between the public interest in the free flow of information
and the public interest in the fair and effective administration of our
criminal laws.
Notifying the AP that they were secretly collecting work and personal
phone records data on dozens of reporters and editors for months was a
"substantial threat" to the investigation? But remember, they "value the
freedom of the press."
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2013/05/13/breaking-obama-justice-
department-secretly-monitored-ap-reporters-phone-records-n1594033
Spread this around if you oppose fascism.
--
Enjoy Internet Privacy And Anonymity: http://hidemyass.com/vpn/r6995:5/
Leftists think and act like protofascists. Control is the key. And
control through fear, threat of force, and rhetorical intimidation
is the modus operandi. (Ben Shapro, "Bullies")
scandal rears its head, and I'd bet the press won't take this one lying
down:
The Justice Department secretly obtained two months of telephone
records of reporters and editors for The Associated Press in what the
news cooperative's top executive called a "massive and unprecedented
intrusion" into how news organizations gather the news. The records
obtained by the Justice Department listed incoming and outgoing calls,
and the duration of each call, for the work and personal phone numbers of
individual reporters, general AP office numbers in New York, Washington
and Hartford, Conn., and the main number for AP reporters in the House of
Representatives press gallery, according to attorneys for the AP. In all,
the government seized those records for more than 20 separate telephone
lines assigned to AP and its journalists in April and May of 2012. The
exact number of journalists who used the phone lines during that period
is unknown but more than 100 journalists work in the offices whose phone
records were targeted on a wide array of stories about government and
other matters.
The Associated Press is understandably livid:
In a letter of protest sent to Attorney General Eric Holder on
Monday, AP President and Chief Executive Officer Gary Pruitt said the
government sought and obtained information far beyond anything that could
be justified by any specific investigation. He demanded the return of the
phone records and destruction of all copies. "There can be no possible
justification for such an overbroad collection of the telephone
communications of The Associated Press and its reporters. These records
potentially reveal communications with confidential sources across all of
the newsgathering activities undertaken by the AP during a two-month
period, provide a road map to AP's newsgathering operations, and disclose
information about AP's activities and operations that the government has
no conceivable right to know," Pruitt said.
Was the DOJ snooping for leakers and potential whistle-blowers? That's
my initial gut reaction. Stay tuned for details. If you're keeping
score at home, here's what we've discovered since last Friday:
(1) The Obama administration changed its Benghazi talking points 12
times, scrubbing politically unhelpful elements, and radically changing
the best analysis of the intelligence community. The White House had
previously denied presiding over anything but minor, cosmetic changes to
the talking points.
(2) The IRS targeted conservative groups for extra harassment from 2010
to 2012, and top officials knew about it since at least 2011. No
disciplinary action has been taken so far.
(3) The Obama Department of Health and Human Services is requesting
"voluntary" donations from the healthcare companies over which it wields
enormous power in order to help fund Obamacare's implementation, perhaps
in violation of the law.
(4) The Obama Justice Department secretly monitored dozens of Associated
Press journalists' work and personal phone records for purposes that
remain unclear. This lasted for at least two months.
I'd toss in some "what if Bush had done it?" snark, but that hardly seems
necessary. This is quite simply astonishing. And to think, Ron
Fournier's piece about President Obama's credibility crisis was written
before this latest bomb dropped. Last week, Obama told Ohio State
graduates to "reject" those "cynical" voices who warn of government abuse
and tyranny. Then the IRS and AP stories broke. Listen up, grads. And
all other citizens.
UPDATE - Here's the DOJ's deeply Orwellian statement:
We take seriously our obligations to follow all applicable laws,
federal regulations, and Department of Justice policies when issuing
subpoenas for phone records of media organizations. Those regulations
require us to make every reasonable effort to obtain information through
alternative means before even considering a subpoena for the phone
records of a member of the media. We must notify the media organization
in advance unless doing so would pose a substantial threat to the
integrity of the investigation. Because we value the freedom of the
press, we are always careful and deliberative in seeking to strike the
right balance between the public interest in the free flow of information
and the public interest in the fair and effective administration of our
criminal laws.
Notifying the AP that they were secretly collecting work and personal
phone records data on dozens of reporters and editors for months was a
"substantial threat" to the investigation? But remember, they "value the
freedom of the press."
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2013/05/13/breaking-obama-justice-
department-secretly-monitored-ap-reporters-phone-records-n1594033
Spread this around if you oppose fascism.
--
Enjoy Internet Privacy And Anonymity: http://hidemyass.com/vpn/r6995:5/
Leftists think and act like protofascists. Control is the key. And
control through fear, threat of force, and rhetorical intimidation
is the modus operandi. (Ben Shapro, "Bullies")
Ian B MacLure
May 14, 2013, 1:26:54 AM5/14/13
to
Joe Cooper <nieqez...@tormail.org> wrote in
news:XnsA1BFA38BC2C...@78.46.70.116:
> What the hell is going on within the Obama administration? Another
> huge scandal rears its head, and I'd bet the press won't take this one
> lying down:
Soetaro and his Stooges must have a political deathwish.
Screwing with the Enemedia?
Even they will only stand for so much from their lord and master.
Only way it makes sense is if they figure there's an economic
trainwreck a'comin due to Soetarocae and are trying to ensure
that the GOP is left holding the bag.
news:XnsA1BFA38BC2C...@78.46.70.116:
> What the hell is going on within the Obama administration? Another
> huge scandal rears its head, and I'd bet the press won't take this one
> lying down:
Screwing with the Enemedia?
Even they will only stand for so much from their lord and master.
Only way it makes sense is if they figure there's an economic
trainwreck a'comin due to Soetarocae and are trying to ensure
that the GOP is left holding the bag.
Enraged Apostate, World Citizen
May 14, 2013, 11:22:34 AM5/14/13
to
Joe Cooper <nieqez...@tormail.org> wrote on Mon 13 May 2013 03:01:01p
> The Associated Press is understandably livid:
LOLOLOLOLOL!!!
Lemme get this right: when right-wing filth like yourself is not calling the
journalists of the Associated Press "libtards" or communists or socialist
shills for a usurper, THEN you are all suddenly concerned about the
government victimizing the rights of journalists at the AP????
GFY
--
The Enraged Apostate
Right-wing talking points show a popular appeal in
the same way that trainwrecks are morbidly fascinating.
But soon after the desire to be horrified at the spectacle passes,
the realization soon follows that it is all an ugly, bloody mess,
and it will only be cleaned up with leftist methods and a liberal in charge.
> The Associated Press is understandably livid:
Lemme get this right: when right-wing filth like yourself is not calling the
journalists of the Associated Press "libtards" or communists or socialist
shills for a usurper, THEN you are all suddenly concerned about the
government victimizing the rights of journalists at the AP????
GFY
--
The Enraged Apostate
Right-wing talking points show a popular appeal in
the same way that trainwrecks are morbidly fascinating.
But soon after the desire to be horrified at the spectacle passes,
the realization soon follows that it is all an ugly, bloody mess,
and it will only be cleaned up with leftist methods and a liberal in charge.
Joe Cooper
May 14, 2013, 11:25:49 AM5/14/13
to
"Enraged Apostate, World Citizen"
<Finding...@Every.Opportunity.invalid> wrote in
news:XnsA1C055D87C...@78.46.70.116:
> Joe Cooper <nieqez...@tormail.org> wrote on Mon 13 May 2013
> 03:01:01p
>
>> The Associated Press is understandably livid:
>
>
> LOLOLOLOLOL!!!
>
> Lemme get this right: when right-wing filth like yourself is not
> calling the journalists of the Associated Press "libtards" or
> communists or socialist shills for a usurper, THEN you are all
> suddenly concerned about the government victimizing the rights of
> journalists at the AP????
Sorry about your inability to comprehend a massive violation of First
Amendment rights. It does not matter who the government has victimized -
it's still wrong.
I have been told that proggies are somehow incapable of understanding
such simple concepts, but haven't believed it until now.
<Finding...@Every.Opportunity.invalid> wrote in
news:XnsA1C055D87C...@78.46.70.116:
> Joe Cooper <nieqez...@tormail.org> wrote on Mon 13 May 2013
> 03:01:01p
>
>> The Associated Press is understandably livid:
>
>
> LOLOLOLOLOL!!!
>
> Lemme get this right: when right-wing filth like yourself is not
> calling the journalists of the Associated Press "libtards" or
> communists or socialist shills for a usurper, THEN you are all
> suddenly concerned about the government victimizing the rights of
> journalists at the AP????
Amendment rights. It does not matter who the government has victimized -
it's still wrong.
I have been told that proggies are somehow incapable of understanding
such simple concepts, but haven't believed it until now.
Enraged Apostate, World Citizen
May 14, 2013, 11:28:58 AM5/14/13
to
Joe Cooper <nieqez...@tormail.org> wrote on Tue 14 May 2013 08:25:49a
> "Enraged Apostate, World Citizen"
> <Finding...@Every.Opportunity.invalid> wrote in
> news:XnsA1C055D87C...@78.46.70.116:
>
>> Joe Cooper <nieqez...@tormail.org> wrote on Mon 13 May 2013
>> 03:01:01p
>>
>>> The Associated Press is understandably livid:
>>
>>
>> LOLOLOLOLOL!!!
>>
>> Lemme get this right: when right-wing filth like yourself is not
>> calling the journalists of the Associated Press "libtards" or
>> communists or socialist shills for a usurper, THEN you are all
>> suddenly concerned about the government victimizing the rights of
>> journalists at the AP????
>
> Sorry about your inability to comprehend a massive violation of First
> Amendment rights. It does not matter who the government has victimized -
> it's still wrong.
Where's the 1st Amendment violation, rightard???
Do you NEVER stop being morons??
> "Enraged Apostate, World Citizen"
> <Finding...@Every.Opportunity.invalid> wrote in
> news:XnsA1C055D87C...@78.46.70.116:
>
>> Joe Cooper <nieqez...@tormail.org> wrote on Mon 13 May 2013
>> 03:01:01p
>>
>>> The Associated Press is understandably livid:
>>
>>
>> LOLOLOLOLOL!!!
>>
>> Lemme get this right: when right-wing filth like yourself is not
>> calling the journalists of the Associated Press "libtards" or
>> communists or socialist shills for a usurper, THEN you are all
>> suddenly concerned about the government victimizing the rights of
>> journalists at the AP????
>
> Sorry about your inability to comprehend a massive violation of First
> Amendment rights. It does not matter who the government has victimized -
> it's still wrong.
Do you NEVER stop being morons??
Joe Cooper
May 14, 2013, 12:43:47 PM5/14/13
to
"Enraged Apostate, World Citizen"
<Finding...@Every.Opportunity.invalid> wrote in
news:XnsA1C056ED86...@78.46.70.116:
<Finding...@Every.Opportunity.invalid> wrote in
> Where's the 1st Amendment violation, rightard???
Enraged Apostate, World Citizen
May 14, 2013, 2:07:23 PM5/14/13
to
Joe Cooper <nieqez...@tormail.org> wrote on Tue 14 May 2013 09:43:47a
> "Enraged Apostate, World Citizen"
> <Finding...@Every.Opportunity.invalid> wrote in
> news:XnsA1C056ED86...@78.46.70.116:
>
>> Where's the 1st Amendment violation, rightard???
>
> If you don't understand the 1st. Amendment, you may be a progressive.
Though not at all surprising, that's a rather verbose way of saying that you
are an ass whose got nuthin'.
> "Enraged Apostate, World Citizen"
> <Finding...@Every.Opportunity.invalid> wrote in
> news:XnsA1C056ED86...@78.46.70.116:
>
>> Where's the 1st Amendment violation, rightard???
>
> If you don't understand the 1st. Amendment, you may be a progressive.
are an ass whose got nuthin'.
Message has been deleted
Kirby Grant
May 15, 2013, 8:32:14 AM5/15/13
to
On 14-May-2013, "Enraged Apostate, World Citizen"
<Finding...@Every.Opportunity.invalid> wrote:
> Joe Cooper <nieqez...@tormail.org> wrote on Mon 13 May 2013 03:01:01p
>
> > The Associated Press is understandably livid:
>
>
> LOLOLOLOLOL!!!
>
> Lemme get this right: when right-wing filth like yourself is not calling
> the
> journalists of the Associated Press "libtards" or communists or socialist
> shills for a usurper, THEN you are all suddenly concerned about the
> government victimizing the rights of journalists at the AP????
>
> GFY
You expect Republicans to be consistent? How naive of you. They simply are
> Joe Cooper <nieqez...@tormail.org> wrote on Mon 13 May 2013 03:01:01p
>
> > The Associated Press is understandably livid:
>
>
> LOLOLOLOLOL!!!
>
> Lemme get this right: when right-wing filth like yourself is not calling
> the
> journalists of the Associated Press "libtards" or communists or socialist
> shills for a usurper, THEN you are all suddenly concerned about the
> government victimizing the rights of journalists at the AP????
>
> GFY
not bright enough to recognize that they are wrong about most things. In a
room of mixed company, the Republicans will always be the dumbest group in
the room.
Kirby Grant
May 15, 2013, 8:35:12 AM5/15/13
to
On 14-May-2013, Joe Cooper <nieqez...@tormail.org> wrote:
> Enraged Apostate, World Citizen"
> <Finding...@Every.Opportunity.invalid> wrote in
> news:XnsA1C055D87C...@78.46.70.116:
>
> > Joe Cooper <nieqez...@tormail.org> wrote on Mon 13 May 2013
> > 03:01:01p
> >
> >> The Associated Press is understandably livid:
> >
> >
> > LOLOLOLOLOL!!!
> >
> > Lemme get this right: when right-wing filth like yourself is not
> > calling the journalists of the Associated Press "libtards" or
> > communists or socialist shills for a usurper, THEN you are all
> > suddenly concerned about the government victimizing the rights of
> > journalists at the AP????
>
> Sorry about your inability to comprehend a massive violation of First
> Amendment rights. It does not matter who the government has victimized -
> it's still wrong.
>
> I have been told that proggies are somehow incapable of understanding
> such simple concepts, but haven't believed it until now.
>
>
has said that the taps were there to discover a leak of classified
information. Anyone involved in such a leak is a criminal and the 1st
amendment is not meant to protect criminals. In addition, freedom of the
press is not there to protect secrecy - while the press is free to report
news, they have not been given the ability to conduct their affairs in
secret.
Kirby Grant
May 15, 2013, 8:37:17 AM5/15/13
to
automatically wrong. Conservatives may have an understanding of how to shine
shoes and clean septic tanks, but the capability to understand things in the
intellectual realm is extremely limited. I mean look at it. They don't even
know that they are pathetic dolts. So how can you expect anything greater of
them?
Sancho Panza
May 15, 2013, 10:27:26 AM5/15/13
to
On 5/15/2013 8:35 AM, Kirby Grant wrote:
> Freedom of the press is not a protection against breaking the law. Justice
> has said that the taps were there to discover a leak of classified
> information. Anyone involved in such a leak is a criminal and the 1st
> amendment is not meant to protect criminals. In addition, freedom of the
> press is not there to protect secrecy - while the press is free to report
> news, they have not been given the ability to conduct their affairs in
> secret.
Then how come the reporters who wrote about the Swift system and the NSA
> Freedom of the press is not a protection against breaking the law. Justice
> has said that the taps were there to discover a leak of classified
> information. Anyone involved in such a leak is a criminal and the 1st
> amendment is not meant to protect criminals. In addition, freedom of the
> press is not there to protect secrecy - while the press is free to report
> news, they have not been given the ability to conduct their affairs in
> secret.
taps were never even investigated?
Kirby Grant
May 15, 2013, 10:48:41 AM5/15/13
to
not. It all has to do with manpower and whether there is some higher cause
that is being pursued. It isn't a perfect system where all bad guys are
universally and consistently prosecuted and all good guys are universally
and consistently left alone. There are trade-off. In the end there is just
no way to ever really get it right. If that ever did happen, the Republican
party would be decimated out of existence in just a few weeks because every
pedophile would be immediately executed - and we all know that pedophilia is
rampant among those in the Republican party.
Sancho Panza
May 15, 2013, 10:55:34 AM5/15/13
to
On 5/15/2013 10:48 AM, Kirby Grant wrote:
> On 15-May-2013, Sancho Panza <otter...@xhotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 5/15/2013 8:35 AM, Kirby Grant wrote:
>>
>>> Freedom of the press is not a protection against breaking the law.
>>> Justice
>>> has said that the taps were there to discover a leak of classified
>>> information. Anyone involved in such a leak is a criminal and the 1st
>>> amendment is not meant to protect criminals. In addition, freedom of the
>>> press is not there to protect secrecy - while the press is free to
>>> report
>>> news, they have not been given the ability to conduct their affairs in
>>> secret.
>>
>> Then how come the reporters who wrote about the Swift system and the NSA
>> taps were never even investigated?
>
> Decisions are made all the time on what is worth investigating and what is
> not. It all has to do with manpower and whether there is some higher cause
> that is being pursued. It isn't a perfect system where all bad guys are
> universally and consistently prosecuted and all good guys are universally
> and consistently left alone. There are trade-off. In the end there is just
> no way to ever really get it right.
Especially when craven double standards are invoked.
> On 15-May-2013, Sancho Panza <otter...@xhotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 5/15/2013 8:35 AM, Kirby Grant wrote:
>>
>>> Freedom of the press is not a protection against breaking the law.
>>> Justice
>>> has said that the taps were there to discover a leak of classified
>>> information. Anyone involved in such a leak is a criminal and the 1st
>>> amendment is not meant to protect criminals. In addition, freedom of the
>>> press is not there to protect secrecy - while the press is free to
>>> report
>>> news, they have not been given the ability to conduct their affairs in
>>> secret.
>>
>> Then how come the reporters who wrote about the Swift system and the NSA
>> taps were never even investigated?
>
> Decisions are made all the time on what is worth investigating and what is
> not. It all has to do with manpower and whether there is some higher cause
> that is being pursued. It isn't a perfect system where all bad guys are
> universally and consistently prosecuted and all good guys are universally
> and consistently left alone. There are trade-off. In the end there is just
> no way to ever really get it right.
[snip irrelevant rant]
Kirby Grant
May 15, 2013, 1:20:50 PM5/15/13
to
opinions the same as yours and disparage everyone else. That means you are
biased instead of objective. So you have double standards as to what you
consider to be the truth.
As has been shown on numerous occasions, conservativism is legally
classified as a mental illness. With good cause.
Joe Cooper
May 15, 2013, 1:26:39 PM5/15/13
to
"Kirby Grant" <kgr...@whatzit.org> wrote in news:StPkt.118629$Zu6.98861
@fed09.iad:
> As has been shown on numerous occasions, conservativism is legally
> classified as a mental illness. With good cause.
Fascinating, Mr. Grant. Please share the peer-reviewed journal articles
which document this phenomenon.
Take your time.
@fed09.iad:
> As has been shown on numerous occasions, conservativism is legally
> classified as a mental illness. With good cause.
which document this phenomenon.
Take your time.
Enraged Apostate, World Citizen
May 15, 2013, 1:42:48 PM5/15/13
to
Siri Cruise <chine...@yahoo.com> wrote on Tue 14 May 2013 11:38:49a
>> Sorry about your inability to comprehend a massive violation of First
>> Amendment rights. It does not matter who the government has victimized
>> - it's still wrong.
>
> There is no first amendment violation.
The right-wing filth to whom you are responding should have realized that the
phone records search of the AP is really more of a 4th Amendment issue and not
a 1st Amendment issue.
If an insider is reporting a wrongdoing or corrupt activity of government---and
perhaps attaining whistleblower status----what difference does it make if he
whispers it to an AP reporter, gives an affidavit to a law enforcement
organization, or puts it up on his own website or blog? Only one of those
activities involves a person who gets paid as a professional journalist, and
yet the goal is to get a hideous truth out that is trying to be covered up with
official secrecy laws.
>> Sorry about your inability to comprehend a massive violation of First
>> Amendment rights. It does not matter who the government has victimized
>> - it's still wrong.
>
The right-wing filth to whom you are responding should have realized that the
phone records search of the AP is really more of a 4th Amendment issue and not
a 1st Amendment issue.
If an insider is reporting a wrongdoing or corrupt activity of government---and
perhaps attaining whistleblower status----what difference does it make if he
whispers it to an AP reporter, gives an affidavit to a law enforcement
organization, or puts it up on his own website or blog? Only one of those
activities involves a person who gets paid as a professional journalist, and
yet the goal is to get a hideous truth out that is trying to be covered up with
official secrecy laws.
Sancho Panza
May 15, 2013, 1:50:18 PM5/15/13
to
On 5/15/2013 1:20 PM, Kirby Grant wrote:
>
> You apply double standards as well. You only support people who have
> opinions the same as yours and disparage everyone else. That means you are
> biased instead of objective. So you have double standards as to what you
> consider to be the truth.
>
> As has been shown on numerous occasions, conservativism is legally
> classified as a mental illness. With good cause.
>
There is one huge difference that any sentient person would see right
>
> You apply double standards as well. You only support people who have
> opinions the same as yours and disparage everyone else. That means you are
> biased instead of objective. So you have double standards as to what you
> consider to be the truth.
>
> As has been shown on numerous occasions, conservativism is legally
> classified as a mental illness. With good cause.
>
away. Opinions are free like the air. Prosecutions and official
intimidation are inimical to America. But thanks for conceding the
double standards practiced by the Justice Department and its servile
handmaidens in the media.
Sancho Panza
May 15, 2013, 1:52:34 PM5/15/13
to
On 5/15/2013 1:42 PM, Enraged Apostate, World Citizen wrote:
> Siri Cruise <chine...@yahoo.com> wrote on Tue 14 May 2013 11:38:49a
>
>>> Sorry about your inability to comprehend a massive violation of First
>>> Amendment rights. It does not matter who the government has victimized
>>> - it's still wrong.
>>
>> There is no first amendment violation.
>
> The right-wing filth to whom you are responding should have realized that the
> phone records search of the AP is really more of a 4th Amendment issue and not
> a 1st Amendment issue.
>
> If an insider is reporting a wrongdoing or corrupt activity of government---and
> perhaps attaining whistleblower status----what difference does it make if he
> whispers it to an AP reporter, gives an affidavit to a law enforcement
> organization, or puts it up on his own website or blog? Only one of those
> activities involves a person who gets paid as a professional journalist, and
> yet the goal is to get a hideous truth out that is trying to be covered up with
> official secrecy laws.
>
>
Virtually all courts, including the Supreme Court, have consistently
> Siri Cruise <chine...@yahoo.com> wrote on Tue 14 May 2013 11:38:49a
>
>>> Sorry about your inability to comprehend a massive violation of First
>>> Amendment rights. It does not matter who the government has victimized
>>> - it's still wrong.
>>
>> There is no first amendment violation.
>
> The right-wing filth to whom you are responding should have realized that the
> phone records search of the AP is really more of a 4th Amendment issue and not
> a 1st Amendment issue.
>
> If an insider is reporting a wrongdoing or corrupt activity of government---and
> perhaps attaining whistleblower status----what difference does it make if he
> whispers it to an AP reporter, gives an affidavit to a law enforcement
> organization, or puts it up on his own website or blog? Only one of those
> activities involves a person who gets paid as a professional journalist, and
> yet the goal is to get a hideous truth out that is trying to be covered up with
> official secrecy laws.
>
>
ruled against government actions that affect the free press in any
shape, manner or form.
Kirby Grant
May 15, 2013, 3:57:31 PM5/15/13
to
On 15-May-2013, Joe Cooper <nieqez...@tormail.org> wrote:
> Kirby Grant" <kgr...@whatzit.org> wrote in news:StPkt.118629$Zu6.98861
> @fed09.iad:
>
> > As has been shown on numerous occasions, conservativism is legally
> > classified as a mental illness. With good cause.
>
> Fascinating, Mr. Grant. Please share the peer-reviewed journal articles
> which document this phenomenon.
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/evolutionary-entertainment/201206/conservatism-mental-illness
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/genius-and-madness/200809/is-political-conservatism-mild-form-insanity
http://www.rollitup.org/politics/279315-study-concludes-conservatism-mental-illness.html
http://ripley8.newsvine.com/_news/2013/01/27/16722961-conservatism-as-a-mental-illness
http://reason.com/archives/2004/10/20/pathologizing-conservatism
http://www.thebereancall.org/content/are-conservatives-mentally-ill
Remember, conservatives are not really qualified to comment on this because
they simply are not very bright and are incapable of understanding the very
nature of behavior pathology.
Joe Cooper
May 15, 2013, 4:10:29 PM5/15/13
to
"Kirby Grant" <kgr...@whatzit.org> wrote in
news:LMRkt.34515$BC1....@fed01.iad:
>
> On 15-May-2013, Joe Cooper <nieqez...@tormail.org> wrote:
>
>> Kirby Grant" <kgr...@whatzit.org> wrote in
>> news:StPkt.118629$Zu6.98861 @fed09.iad:
>>
>> > As has been shown on numerous occasions, conservativism is legally
>> > classified as a mental illness. With good cause.
>>
>> Fascinating, Mr. Grant. Please share the peer-reviewed journal
>> articles which document this phenomenon.
>
>
> Ask and you shall receive:
them?
> http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/evolutionary-entertainment/201206/c
> onservatism-mental-illness
> http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/genius-and-madness/200809/is-politi
> cal-conservatism-mild-form-insanity
> http://www.rollitup.org/politics/279315-study-concludes-conservatism-me
> ntal-illness.html
> http://ripley8.newsvine.com/_news/2013/01/27/16722961-conservatism-as-a
> -mental-illness
> http://reason.com/archives/2004/10/20/pathologizing-conservatism
> http://www.thebereancall.org/content/are-conservatives-mentally-ill
>
> Remember, conservatives are not really qualified to comment on this
> because they simply are not very bright and are incapable of
> understanding the very nature of behavior pathology.
> http://reason.com/archives/2004/10/20/pathologizing-conservatism
> http://www.thebereancall.org/content/are-conservatives-mentally-ill
>
> Remember, conservatives are not really qualified to comment on this
> because they simply are not very bright and are incapable of
> understanding the very nature of behavior pathology.
Message has been deleted
Kirby Grant
May 15, 2013, 6:44:08 PM5/15/13
to
articles say.
Sancho Panza
May 15, 2013, 7:11:29 PM5/15/13
to
On 5/15/2013 5:18 PM, Siri Cruise wrote:
> In article <5193cb65$0$25612$607e...@cv.net>,
> Haven't you heard about reporter being jailed for contempt?
That was the exception. And she never wrote anything. Besides, the
prosecutor knew all along who the leaker really was. If that doesn't
speak to a rotten case, then nothing else can.
> In article <5193cb65$0$25612$607e...@cv.net>,
> Sancho Panza <otter...@xhotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Virtually all courts, including the Supreme Court, have consistently
>> ruled against government actions that affect the free press in any
>> shape, manner or form.
>
> Actually federal courts always enforce legitimate subpeonas against the press.
>
>> Virtually all courts, including the Supreme Court, have consistently
>> ruled against government actions that affect the free press in any
>> shape, manner or form.
>
> Haven't you heard about reporter being jailed for contempt?
That was the exception. And she never wrote anything. Besides, the
prosecutor knew all along who the leaker really was. If that doesn't
speak to a rotten case, then nothing else can.
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Joe Cooper
May 23, 2013, 1:41:38 PM5/23/13
to
"Kirby Grant" <kgr...@whatzit.org> wrote in
news:1krnt.99133$8u7....@fed10.iad:
> Except when members of the media break the law, which is clearly the
> case in this instance.
Really, Mr. Grant? Document your claim. Demonstrate that any reporter at AP
or Fox has broken the law.
I'll wait.
Mr. Obama, much too pure and innocent to be told about mistakes in his
administration, was too busy bathing the feet of the poor and tending
to lepers to be told that his administration was engaged in an
Orwellian attack on free speech. (Ben Stein)
Joe Cooper
May 23, 2013, 1:44:30 PM5/23/13
to
Siri Cruise <chine...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:chine.bleu-
382363.093...@news.eternal-september.org:
> Cite the court decision that there is a press-informant privilege.
Interesting issue. A good indicator can be found in New York Times Co. v.
United States (1971)
382363.093...@news.eternal-september.org:
> Cite the court decision that there is a press-informant privilege.
Interesting issue. A good indicator can be found in New York Times Co. v.
United States (1971)
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Sancho Panza
May 23, 2013, 4:38:27 PM5/23/13
to
On 5/23/2013 3:45 PM, Kirby Grant wrote:
> Republicans are so willing to waste their time in this way.
>
So you don't have one iota of anything to show that any AP or Fox News
reporter has broken the law. No surprise there!
> On 23-May-2013, Joe Cooper <nieqez...@tormail.org> wrote:
>
>> "Kirby Grant" <kgr...@whatzit.org> wrote in
>> news:1krnt.99133$8u7....@fed10.iad:
>>
>>> Except when members of the media break the law, which is clearly the
>>> case in this instance.
>>
>> Really, Mr. Grant? Document your claim. Demonstrate that any reporter at
>> AP
>> or Fox has broken the law.
>>
>> I'll wait.
>>
>
> I like making you wait. It gives me power over you. It is amazing that
>
>> "Kirby Grant" <kgr...@whatzit.org> wrote in
>> news:1krnt.99133$8u7....@fed10.iad:
>>
>>> Except when members of the media break the law, which is clearly the
>>> case in this instance.
>>
>> Really, Mr. Grant? Document your claim. Demonstrate that any reporter at
>> AP
>> or Fox has broken the law.
>>
>> I'll wait.
>>
>
> Republicans are so willing to waste their time in this way.
>
So you don't have one iota of anything to show that any AP or Fox News
reporter has broken the law. No surprise there!
Sancho Panza
May 23, 2013, 4:50:08 PM5/23/13
to
On 5/23/2013 3:48 PM, Siri Cruise wrote:
> In article <XnsA1C97822156...@78.46.70.116>,
> could be subpeoned to reveal who gave them the material.
>
Shield laws for reporters are by and large at the state level. Federal
shield cases are far fewer. Perhaps the OP was thinking of the infamous
Judy Miller case, in which not only was an article never published. It
was also never even written. But that never bothered the
ultra-determined prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald, who, by the way,
already knew who the leaker was.
> In article <XnsA1C97822156...@78.46.70.116>,
> Joe Cooper <nieqez...@tormail.org> wrote:
>
>> Siri Cruise <chine...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:chine.bleu-
>> 382363.093...@news.eternal-september.org:
>>
>>> Cite the court decision that there is a press-informant privilege.
>>
>> Interesting issue. A good indicator can be found in New York Times Co. v.
>> United States (1971)
>
> Nope. That was whether publication could be prohibitted, not whether the Times
>
>> Siri Cruise <chine...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:chine.bleu-
>> 382363.093...@news.eternal-september.org:
>>
>>> Cite the court decision that there is a press-informant privilege.
>>
>> Interesting issue. A good indicator can be found in New York Times Co. v.
>> United States (1971)
>
> could be subpeoned to reveal who gave them the material.
>
Shield laws for reporters are by and large at the state level. Federal
shield cases are far fewer. Perhaps the OP was thinking of the infamous
Judy Miller case, in which not only was an article never published. It
was also never even written. But that never bothered the
ultra-determined prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald, who, by the way,
already knew who the leaker was.
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Sancho Panza
May 23, 2013, 5:41:08 PM5/23/13
to
On 5/23/2013 5:34 PM, Siri Cruise wrote:
> In article <519e8101$0$19545$607e...@cv.net>,
> state laws. It is a general question of whether participants in some kinds of
> communications can be subpeoned to testify about the communications.
>
> Reporters pretend they have an immunity in federal law, but they don't. Nor do
> parents/children, unmarried lovers, best friends forever, poker buddies, etc.
>
Here is brand-new commentary from the victim of the most salient recent
case on that point:
> by Judith Miller
> New York Daily News
> May 23, 2013
> http://www.judithmiller.com/13341/ap-seizure-justice-department
>
> Dropboxes. Disposable cell phones. Encryption technology. Is this
what American journalism has come to?
>
> James Goodale, the former New York Times general counsel who ran the
Pentagon Papers case in 1971, says that the Justice Department's secret
seizure of reporters' phone and email records and its use of official
press passes to track reporters' movements in government buildings make
President Obama's record on press freedom worse than President Richard
Nixon's.
>
> But we live in a very different, far more dangerous time than the
America of Watergate. Protecting the nation post-9/11, when the world's
worst people seek to obtain the world's worst weapons, means taking
aggressive measures.
>
> The fact that terrorists have not succeeded in staging a WMD strike
does not mean they have given up trying. And blowing the cover of agents
and other sources, even inadvertently, who have infiltrated Al Qaeda in
Yemen or brutal regimes undermines our national security.
>
> Obama is right to be alarmed by that danger and, yes, to rely on some
of the same methods invoked by his predecessors, to keep Americans
secure. There may also be a long-term need to recalibrate the balance
between freedom of the press and national security in such a world. But
a secret war on journalism is the wrong approach. This needs to be done
with eyes wide open, with a robust public and legal debate about
executive power and its consequences.
>
> On its face, the Justice Department's seizure of months of records
across 20 Associated Press phone lines was an overreach. The AP, after
all, had delayed publishing the story in question for five days at the
government's request to avoid endangering national security.
>
> Even worse, it now appears, is the department's argument that Fox
News reporter James Rosen was "aiding and abetting" the violation of the
Espionage Act of 1917 by "soliciting" news. That led to the department
secretly seizing not only his phone records and emails, but the phone
records of many others at Fox.
>
> The department's seizure was prompted by a 2009 article Rosen wrote.
The CIA, he disclosed, relying on sources inside North Korea, expected
the regime to respond to a UN Security Council resolution criticizing
its nuclear program by testing another bomb. Suspicion focused on an
intelligence analyst on loan to the State Department, who was
subsequently charged with the leak, which he has denied.
>
> The astonishing government affidavit accuses Rosen of being an
"aider, abettor and/or co-conspirator," with the source in violating the
Espionage Act by arranging a private way of communicating, adopting
aliases and "soliciting" the information.
>
> But the Espionage Act requires that the leak "is to be used to the
injury of the United States." What was Rosen's motive? "Let's break some
news and expose muddleheaded policy when we see it," Rosen wrote his
alleged source, according to the affidavit. Sounds like journalism to me.
>
> It remains unclear, moreover, whether either story compromised
national security, as the government alleges. Were the ongoing
intelligence operation in Yemen and the British-Saudi agent allegedly
involved blown by The AP, which didn't mention an agent at all?
>
> Or was it harmed by briefings by then-counterterrorism adviser John
Brennan and other top officials who spoke about the plot being "under
control"? Did Rosen's story compromise a human source within the
notoriously paranoid North Korean regime? Or could the "sources" inside
North Korea that Rosen referred to, after withholding information he
feared could harm national security, have been an allusion to "signals
intelligence" or the many other well-known ways in which U.S. agencies
collect information in closed states?
>
> It's not easy to strike a balance between the need to safeguard
classified information and the constitutional imperative to allow
"unfettered" freedom of the press. The challenge has been with us for
centuries and will challenge us long after Obama. But history urges
caution about letting Presidents or Justice Departments strike that
balance unilaterally or in the dark.
>
> Obama's top aides � like their predecessors � have had few qualms
about leaking classified information that makes them look good. Remember
their detailed briefings on the killing of Osama Bin Laden? Back then,
the crowing got so out of hand that then-Defense Secretary Robert Gates
had to counsel his fellow senior officials to "shut . . . up."
>
> No President should be trusted to be disinterested in striking the
balance between security and freedom. Ceding to him alone that authority
means that Americans will get only the leaks a White House wants us to
have. And that risks us winding up with neither security nor a free press.
> In article <519e8101$0$19545$607e...@cv.net>,
> Sancho Panza <otter...@xhotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 5/23/2013 3:48 PM, Siri Cruise wrote:
>>> In article <XnsA1C97822156...@78.46.70.116>,
>>> Joe Cooper <nieqez...@tormail.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Siri Cruise <chine...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:chine.bleu-
>>>> 382363.093...@news.eternal-september.org:
>>>>
>>>>> Cite the court decision that there is a press-informant privilege.
>>>>
>>>> Interesting issue. A good indicator can be found in New York Times Co. v.
>>>> United States (1971)
>>>
>>> Nope. That was whether publication could be prohibitted, not whether the
>>> Times
>>> could be subpeoned to reveal who gave them the material.
>>>
>> Shield laws for reporters are by and large at the state level. Federal
>
> There is no press immunity in federal law. Such immmunities only exist in some
>
>> On 5/23/2013 3:48 PM, Siri Cruise wrote:
>>> In article <XnsA1C97822156...@78.46.70.116>,
>>> Joe Cooper <nieqez...@tormail.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Siri Cruise <chine...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:chine.bleu-
>>>> 382363.093...@news.eternal-september.org:
>>>>
>>>>> Cite the court decision that there is a press-informant privilege.
>>>>
>>>> Interesting issue. A good indicator can be found in New York Times Co. v.
>>>> United States (1971)
>>>
>>> Nope. That was whether publication could be prohibitted, not whether the
>>> Times
>>> could be subpeoned to reveal who gave them the material.
>>>
>> Shield laws for reporters are by and large at the state level. Federal
>
> state laws. It is a general question of whether participants in some kinds of
> communications can be subpeoned to testify about the communications.
>
> Reporters pretend they have an immunity in federal law, but they don't. Nor do
> parents/children, unmarried lovers, best friends forever, poker buddies, etc.
>
Here is brand-new commentary from the victim of the most salient recent
case on that point:
> by Judith Miller
> New York Daily News
> May 23, 2013
> http://www.judithmiller.com/13341/ap-seizure-justice-department
>
> Dropboxes. Disposable cell phones. Encryption technology. Is this
what American journalism has come to?
>
> James Goodale, the former New York Times general counsel who ran the
Pentagon Papers case in 1971, says that the Justice Department's secret
seizure of reporters' phone and email records and its use of official
press passes to track reporters' movements in government buildings make
President Obama's record on press freedom worse than President Richard
Nixon's.
>
> But we live in a very different, far more dangerous time than the
America of Watergate. Protecting the nation post-9/11, when the world's
worst people seek to obtain the world's worst weapons, means taking
aggressive measures.
>
> The fact that terrorists have not succeeded in staging a WMD strike
does not mean they have given up trying. And blowing the cover of agents
and other sources, even inadvertently, who have infiltrated Al Qaeda in
Yemen or brutal regimes undermines our national security.
>
> Obama is right to be alarmed by that danger and, yes, to rely on some
of the same methods invoked by his predecessors, to keep Americans
secure. There may also be a long-term need to recalibrate the balance
between freedom of the press and national security in such a world. But
a secret war on journalism is the wrong approach. This needs to be done
with eyes wide open, with a robust public and legal debate about
executive power and its consequences.
>
> On its face, the Justice Department's seizure of months of records
across 20 Associated Press phone lines was an overreach. The AP, after
all, had delayed publishing the story in question for five days at the
government's request to avoid endangering national security.
>
> Even worse, it now appears, is the department's argument that Fox
News reporter James Rosen was "aiding and abetting" the violation of the
Espionage Act of 1917 by "soliciting" news. That led to the department
secretly seizing not only his phone records and emails, but the phone
records of many others at Fox.
>
> The department's seizure was prompted by a 2009 article Rosen wrote.
The CIA, he disclosed, relying on sources inside North Korea, expected
the regime to respond to a UN Security Council resolution criticizing
its nuclear program by testing another bomb. Suspicion focused on an
intelligence analyst on loan to the State Department, who was
subsequently charged with the leak, which he has denied.
>
> The astonishing government affidavit accuses Rosen of being an
"aider, abettor and/or co-conspirator," with the source in violating the
Espionage Act by arranging a private way of communicating, adopting
aliases and "soliciting" the information.
>
> But the Espionage Act requires that the leak "is to be used to the
injury of the United States." What was Rosen's motive? "Let's break some
news and expose muddleheaded policy when we see it," Rosen wrote his
alleged source, according to the affidavit. Sounds like journalism to me.
>
> It remains unclear, moreover, whether either story compromised
national security, as the government alleges. Were the ongoing
intelligence operation in Yemen and the British-Saudi agent allegedly
involved blown by The AP, which didn't mention an agent at all?
>
> Or was it harmed by briefings by then-counterterrorism adviser John
Brennan and other top officials who spoke about the plot being "under
control"? Did Rosen's story compromise a human source within the
notoriously paranoid North Korean regime? Or could the "sources" inside
North Korea that Rosen referred to, after withholding information he
feared could harm national security, have been an allusion to "signals
intelligence" or the many other well-known ways in which U.S. agencies
collect information in closed states?
>
> It's not easy to strike a balance between the need to safeguard
classified information and the constitutional imperative to allow
"unfettered" freedom of the press. The challenge has been with us for
centuries and will challenge us long after Obama. But history urges
caution about letting Presidents or Justice Departments strike that
balance unilaterally or in the dark.
>
> Obama's top aides � like their predecessors � have had few qualms
about leaking classified information that makes them look good. Remember
their detailed briefings on the killing of Osama Bin Laden? Back then,
the crowing got so out of hand that then-Defense Secretary Robert Gates
had to counsel his fellow senior officials to "shut . . . up."
>
> No President should be trusted to be disinterested in striking the
balance between security and freedom. Ceding to him alone that authority
means that Americans will get only the leaks a White House wants us to
have. And that risks us winding up with neither security nor a free press.
Joe Cooper
May 23, 2013, 6:46:08 PM5/23/13
to
Siri Cruise <chine...@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:chine.bleu-D394F...@news.eternal-september.org:
> I like how wingnuts declare Julian Assange is spy and traitor but Fox
> cannot be required to obey the same law.
What law has Fox - or anyone AT Fox - broken? Cite it.
Joe Cooper
May 23, 2013, 6:47:40 PM5/23/13
to
Siri Cruise <chine...@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:chine.bleu-8FFFE...@news.eternal-september.org:
> There is no press immunity in federal law. Such immmunities only exist
> in some state laws. It is a general question of whether participants
> in some kinds of communications can be subpeoned to testify about the
> communications.
>
> Reporters pretend they have an immunity in federal law, but they
> don't. Nor do parents/children, unmarried lovers, best friends
> forever, poker buddies, etc.
Take your time :-)
Sancho Panza
May 23, 2013, 9:15:02 PM5/23/13
to
On 5/23/2013 5:38 PM, Siri Cruise wrote:
> In article <519e7e44$0$19561$607e...@cv.net>,
"Assange's attorney, Mark Stephens, has "heard from Swedish authorities
there has been a secretly empanelled grand jury in Alexandria
[Virginia]" meeting to consider criminal charges for the WikiLeaks case.[80]
In Australia, the government and the Australian Federal Police have not
stated what Australian laws may have been violated by WikiLeaks, but
Prime Minister Julia Gillard has stated that the foundation of WikiLeaks
and the stealing of classified documents from the US administration is
illegal in foreign countries.[81] Gillard later clarified her statement
as referring to "the original theft of the material by a junior US
serviceman rather than any action by Mr Assange."[82] . . .
On 17 July 2010, Jacob Appelbaum spoke on behalf of WikiLeaks at the
Hackers on Planet Earth conference in New York City, replacing Assange
because of the presence of federal agents at the conference.[205][206]
He announced that the WikiLeaks submission system was again operating,
after it had been suspended temporarily.[205][207][208] Assange was a
surprise speaker at a TED conference on 19 July 2010 in Oxford, England,
and confirmed that the site had begun accepting submissions again.[167]
Upon returning to the US from the Netherlands, on 29 July, Appelbaum was
detained for three hours at the airport by US agents, according to
anonymous sources.[209] The sources told CNET that Appelbaum's bag was
searched, receipts from his bag were photocopied, and his laptop
computer was inspected, although in what manner was unknown.[209]
Appelbaum reportedly refused to answer questions without a lawyer
present, and was not allowed to make a telephone call. His three mobile
telephones were reportedly taken and not returned.[209] On 31 July, he
spoke at a Defcon conference and mentioned his telephone being "seized".
After speaking, he was approached by two FBI agents and questioned.[209]
Access to WikiLeaks is currently blocked in the United States Library of
Congress.[210] On 3 December 2010 the White House Office of Management
and Budget sent a memorandum forbidding all unauthorised federal
government employees and contractors from accessing classified documents
publicly available on WikiLeaks and other websites.[211] The U.S. Army,
the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the Justice Department are
considering criminally prosecuting WikiLeaks and Assange "on grounds
they encouraged the theft of government property",[212] although former
prosecutors say doing so would be difficult.[75] According to a report
on the website Daily Beast, the Obama administration asked the UK,
Germany, and Australia among others to also consider bringing criminal
charges against Assange for the Afghan war leaks and to help limit
Assange's travels across international borders.[213] Columbia University
students have been warned by their Office of Career Services that the
U.S. State Department had contacted the office in an email saying that
the diplomatic cables which were released by WikiLeaks were "still
considered classified" and that "online discourse about the documents
'would call into question your ability to deal with confidential
information.'"[214]
All U.S. federal government staff have been blocked from viewing
WikiLeaks.[215]
As for individual responses, government officials had mixed feelings.
Although Hillary Clinton refused to comment on specific reports, she
claimed that the leaks "put people's lives in danger" and "threatens
national security."[23] Former United States Secretary of Defense Robert
Gates commented, "Is this embarrassing? Yes. Is it awkward? Yes.
Consequences for U.S. foreign policy? I think fairly modest."[23]
Furthermore, several companies ended association with WikiLeaks. After
providing 24-hour notification, American-owned EveryDNS deleted
WikiLeaks from its entries on 2 December 2010, citing DDoS attacks that
"threatened the stability of its infrastructure".[43][223] . . .
several U.S. government officials have criticized WikiLeaks for exposing
classified information and claimed that the leaks harm national security
and compromise international diplomacy.[288][289][290][291][292] Several
human rights organisations requested with respect to earlier document
releases that WikiLeaks adequately redact the names of civilians working
with international forces, in order to prevent repercussions.[293] Some
journalists have likewise criticised a perceived lack of editorial
discretion when releasing thousands of documents at once and without
sufficient analysis.[294] In response to some of the negative reaction,
the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights has expressed concern over the
"cyber war" against WikiLeaks,[295] and in a joint statement with the
Organization of American States the UN Special Rapporteur has called on
states and other actors to keep international legal principles in
mind.[296] According to journalist Catherine A. Fitzpatrick, WikiLeaks
is motivated by "a theory of anarchy," not a theory of journalism or
social activism.[297] --wikipedia.org
So which law do you say is not being applied to Fox News? Especially as
compared to, say, what The New York Times publicized about secret
international money transfers and NSA monitoring of overseas calls.
> In article <519e7e44$0$19561$607e...@cv.net>,
> I like how wingnuts declare Julian Assange is spy and traitor but Fox cannot be
> required to obey the same law.
>
Assange seems to be getting much more heat from the liberal powers that be:
> required to obey the same law.
>
"Assange's attorney, Mark Stephens, has "heard from Swedish authorities
there has been a secretly empanelled grand jury in Alexandria
[Virginia]" meeting to consider criminal charges for the WikiLeaks case.[80]
In Australia, the government and the Australian Federal Police have not
stated what Australian laws may have been violated by WikiLeaks, but
Prime Minister Julia Gillard has stated that the foundation of WikiLeaks
and the stealing of classified documents from the US administration is
illegal in foreign countries.[81] Gillard later clarified her statement
as referring to "the original theft of the material by a junior US
serviceman rather than any action by Mr Assange."[82] . . .
On 17 July 2010, Jacob Appelbaum spoke on behalf of WikiLeaks at the
Hackers on Planet Earth conference in New York City, replacing Assange
because of the presence of federal agents at the conference.[205][206]
He announced that the WikiLeaks submission system was again operating,
after it had been suspended temporarily.[205][207][208] Assange was a
surprise speaker at a TED conference on 19 July 2010 in Oxford, England,
and confirmed that the site had begun accepting submissions again.[167]
Upon returning to the US from the Netherlands, on 29 July, Appelbaum was
detained for three hours at the airport by US agents, according to
anonymous sources.[209] The sources told CNET that Appelbaum's bag was
searched, receipts from his bag were photocopied, and his laptop
computer was inspected, although in what manner was unknown.[209]
Appelbaum reportedly refused to answer questions without a lawyer
present, and was not allowed to make a telephone call. His three mobile
telephones were reportedly taken and not returned.[209] On 31 July, he
spoke at a Defcon conference and mentioned his telephone being "seized".
After speaking, he was approached by two FBI agents and questioned.[209]
Access to WikiLeaks is currently blocked in the United States Library of
Congress.[210] On 3 December 2010 the White House Office of Management
and Budget sent a memorandum forbidding all unauthorised federal
government employees and contractors from accessing classified documents
publicly available on WikiLeaks and other websites.[211] The U.S. Army,
the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the Justice Department are
considering criminally prosecuting WikiLeaks and Assange "on grounds
they encouraged the theft of government property",[212] although former
prosecutors say doing so would be difficult.[75] According to a report
on the website Daily Beast, the Obama administration asked the UK,
Germany, and Australia among others to also consider bringing criminal
charges against Assange for the Afghan war leaks and to help limit
Assange's travels across international borders.[213] Columbia University
students have been warned by their Office of Career Services that the
U.S. State Department had contacted the office in an email saying that
the diplomatic cables which were released by WikiLeaks were "still
considered classified" and that "online discourse about the documents
'would call into question your ability to deal with confidential
information.'"[214]
All U.S. federal government staff have been blocked from viewing
WikiLeaks.[215]
As for individual responses, government officials had mixed feelings.
Although Hillary Clinton refused to comment on specific reports, she
claimed that the leaks "put people's lives in danger" and "threatens
national security."[23] Former United States Secretary of Defense Robert
Gates commented, "Is this embarrassing? Yes. Is it awkward? Yes.
Consequences for U.S. foreign policy? I think fairly modest."[23]
Furthermore, several companies ended association with WikiLeaks. After
providing 24-hour notification, American-owned EveryDNS deleted
WikiLeaks from its entries on 2 December 2010, citing DDoS attacks that
"threatened the stability of its infrastructure".[43][223] . . .
several U.S. government officials have criticized WikiLeaks for exposing
classified information and claimed that the leaks harm national security
and compromise international diplomacy.[288][289][290][291][292] Several
human rights organisations requested with respect to earlier document
releases that WikiLeaks adequately redact the names of civilians working
with international forces, in order to prevent repercussions.[293] Some
journalists have likewise criticised a perceived lack of editorial
discretion when releasing thousands of documents at once and without
sufficient analysis.[294] In response to some of the negative reaction,
the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights has expressed concern over the
"cyber war" against WikiLeaks,[295] and in a joint statement with the
Organization of American States the UN Special Rapporteur has called on
states and other actors to keep international legal principles in
mind.[296] According to journalist Catherine A. Fitzpatrick, WikiLeaks
is motivated by "a theory of anarchy," not a theory of journalism or
social activism.[297] --wikipedia.org
So which law do you say is not being applied to Fox News? Especially as
compared to, say, what The New York Times publicized about secret
international money transfers and NSA monitoring of overseas calls.
Sancho Panza
May 23, 2013, 9:17:28 PM5/23/13
to
On 5/23/2013 6:46 PM, Joe Cooper wrote:
> Siri Cruise <chine...@yahoo.com> wrote in
> news:chine.bleu-D394F...@news.eternal-september.org:
>
>> I like how wingnuts declare Julian Assange is spy and traitor but Fox
>> cannot be required to obey the same law.
>
> What law has Fox - or anyone AT Fox - broken? Cite it.
>
>
That's becoming tougher to do. The judge who issued the warrant with the
> Siri Cruise <chine...@yahoo.com> wrote in
> news:chine.bleu-D394F...@news.eternal-september.org:
>
>> I like how wingnuts declare Julian Assange is spy and traitor but Fox
>> cannot be required to obey the same law.
>
> What law has Fox - or anyone AT Fox - broken? Cite it.
>
>
flimsiest of legal bases has already stated that he regrets doing that.
Message has been deleted
Joe Cooper
May 24, 2013, 2:51:21 AM5/24/13
to
Siri Cruise <chine...@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:chine.bleu-BAC77...@news.eternal-september.org:
>>
>> What law has Fox - or anyone AT Fox - broken? Cite it.
>
>
> Of coourse nless convicted they are presumed innocent. However they
> and others can be subpoened while investigating the incident.
Has anyone been charged with an offense? No - and no one is going to be
charged. No law has been broken.
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Sancho Panza
May 24, 2013, 9:20:17 AM5/24/13
to
On 5/23/2013 11:24 PM, Siri Cruise wrote:
> In article <XnsA1C9AB4541E...@78.46.70.116>,
the U.S.: "(a) Whoever, for the purpose of obtaining information respecting
the national defense with intent or reason to believe that the
information is to be used to the injury of the United States, or to
the advantage of any foreign nation, goes upon, enters, flies over,
or otherwise obtains information concerning any vessel, aircraft,
work of defense, navy yard, naval station, submarine base, fueling
station, fort, battery, torpedo station, dockyard, canal, railroad,
arsenal, camp, factory, mine, telegraph, telephone, wireless, or . . ."
etc.
That hurdle has consistently proven insurmountable in the case of
journalists. Otherwise even Google could be prosecuted. After all, it
posts quite decent aerial surveillance of sensitive and top secret
military installations. Not to mention other media having contact with
national security. Under that theory, whoever gave information for, say,
"Zero, Dark Thirty" or similar endeavors should be prosecuted.
> In article <XnsA1C9AB4541E...@78.46.70.116>,
> Joe Cooper <nieqez...@tormail.org> wrote:
>
>> Siri Cruise <chine...@yahoo.com> wrote in
>> news:chine.bleu-D394F...@news.eternal-september.org:
>>
>>> I like how wingnuts declare Julian Assange is spy and traitor but Fox
>>> cannot be required to obey the same law.
>>
>> What law has Fox - or anyone AT Fox - broken? Cite it.
>
>
>> Siri Cruise <chine...@yahoo.com> wrote in
>> news:chine.bleu-D394F...@news.eternal-september.org:
>>
>>> I like how wingnuts declare Julian Assange is spy and traitor but Fox
>>> cannot be required to obey the same law.
>>
>> What law has Fox - or anyone AT Fox - broken? Cite it.
>
> 18 USC 793.
>
> Of coourse nless convicted they are presumed innocent. However they and others
> can be subpoened while investigating the incident.
>
The first section of the law requires establishing the intention to harm
>
> Of coourse nless convicted they are presumed innocent. However they and others
> can be subpoened while investigating the incident.
>
the U.S.: "(a) Whoever, for the purpose of obtaining information respecting
the national defense with intent or reason to believe that the
information is to be used to the injury of the United States, or to
the advantage of any foreign nation, goes upon, enters, flies over,
or otherwise obtains information concerning any vessel, aircraft,
work of defense, navy yard, naval station, submarine base, fueling
station, fort, battery, torpedo station, dockyard, canal, railroad,
arsenal, camp, factory, mine, telegraph, telephone, wireless, or . . ."
etc.
That hurdle has consistently proven insurmountable in the case of
journalists. Otherwise even Google could be prosecuted. After all, it
posts quite decent aerial surveillance of sensitive and top secret
military installations. Not to mention other media having contact with
national security. Under that theory, whoever gave information for, say,
"Zero, Dark Thirty" or similar endeavors should be prosecuted.
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
R. Dean
May 24, 2013, 11:37:01 AM5/24/13
to
On 5/15/2013 8:32 AM, Kirby Grant wrote:
> On 14-May-2013, "Enraged Apostate, World Citizen"
> <Finding...@Every.Opportunity.invalid> wrote:
>
>> Joe Cooper <nieqez...@tormail.org> wrote on Mon 13 May 2013 03:01:01p
>>
>>> The Associated Press is understandably livid:
>>
>>
>> LOLOLOLOLOL!!!
>>
>> Lemme get this right: when right-wing filth like yourself is not calling
>> the
>> journalists of the Associated Press "libtards" or communists or socialist
>> shills for a usurper, THEN you are all suddenly concerned about the
>> government victimizing the rights of journalists at the AP????
>>
>> GFY
>
> You expect Republicans to be consistent? How naive of you. They simply are
> not bright enough to recognize that they are wrong about most things. In a
> room of mixed company, the Republicans will always be the dumbest group in
> the room.
>
Have you ever stopped to think which group of voters has the lowest
education rate, ie the highest high school drop out rate, the lowest
college graduation rate and the highest unemployment rate, the highest
rate of out of wedlock births and one parent families, the lowest family
income level, the highest poverty rate, but the single highest block
voting rate of all groups in the U.S. which usually votes in the
92 - 95 percent(%) range for one party.
> On 14-May-2013, "Enraged Apostate, World Citizen"
> <Finding...@Every.Opportunity.invalid> wrote:
>
>> Joe Cooper <nieqez...@tormail.org> wrote on Mon 13 May 2013 03:01:01p
>>
>>> The Associated Press is understandably livid:
>>
>>
>> LOLOLOLOLOL!!!
>>
>> Lemme get this right: when right-wing filth like yourself is not calling
>> the
>> journalists of the Associated Press "libtards" or communists or socialist
>> shills for a usurper, THEN you are all suddenly concerned about the
>> government victimizing the rights of journalists at the AP????
>>
>> GFY
>
> You expect Republicans to be consistent? How naive of you. They simply are
> not bright enough to recognize that they are wrong about most things. In a
> room of mixed company, the Republicans will always be the dumbest group in
> the room.
>
Have you ever stopped to think which group of voters has the lowest
education rate, ie the highest high school drop out rate, the lowest
college graduation rate and the highest unemployment rate, the highest
rate of out of wedlock births and one parent families, the lowest family
income level, the highest poverty rate, but the single highest block
voting rate of all groups in the U.S. which usually votes in the
92 - 95 percent(%) range for one party.
Message has been deleted
Sancho Panza
May 24, 2013, 12:37:11 PM5/24/13
to
On 5/24/2013 4:02 AM, Siri Cruise wrote:
> In article <519e8cf5$0$19563$607e...@cv.net>,
> they responded to was his conspiring to various burglaries and obstructions of
> justice.
>
Congress was responding to the pre-publication efforts to prohibit any
printing of the Pentagon Papers.
> In article <519e8cf5$0$19563$607e...@cv.net>,
> Sancho Panza <otter...@xhotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> President Obama's record on press freedom worse than President Richard
>> Nixon's.
>
> That's nice. Congress didn't respond to Nixon's record on 'press freedom'. What
>
>> President Obama's record on press freedom worse than President Richard
>> Nixon's.
>
> they responded to was his conspiring to various burglaries and obstructions of
> justice.
>
Congress was responding to the pre-publication efforts to prohibit any
printing of the Pentagon Papers.
Message has been deleted
Sancho Panza
May 24, 2013, 1:53:02 PM5/24/13
to
On 5/24/2013 12:21 PM, Kirby Grant wrote:
> It is a foregone assumption that Republicans are out to harm the U.S. -
> otherwise there is no point in their existence.
>
Thankfully that is not valid in our legal system. Nor is it valid to
label the reporter with any descriptor that you have no knowledge of.
> otherwise there is no point in their existence.
>
Thankfully that is not valid in our legal system. Nor is it valid to
label the reporter with any descriptor that you have no knowledge of.
Joe Cooper
May 24, 2013, 2:31:45 PM5/24/13
to
Siri Cruise <chine...@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:chine.bleu-84DF2...@news.eternal-september.org:
> In article <XnsA1CA964240...@78.46.70.116>,
> Joe Cooper <nieqez...@tormail.org> wrote:
>
>> Siri Cruise <chine...@yahoo.com> wrote in
>> news:chine.bleu-BAC77...@news.eternal-september.org:
>>
>> >>
>> >> What law has Fox - or anyone AT Fox - broken? Cite it.
>> >
>> > 18 USC 793.
>> >
>> > Of coourse nless convicted they are presumed innocent. However they
>> > and others can be subpoened while investigating the incident.
>>
>> Has anyone been charged with an offense? No - and no one is going to
>> be charged. No law has been broken.
>
> What you're claiming is that grand juries are not allowed to compel
>
>> Siri Cruise <chine...@yahoo.com> wrote in
>> news:chine.bleu-BAC77...@news.eternal-september.org:
>>
>> >>
>> >> What law has Fox - or anyone AT Fox - broken? Cite it.
>> >
>> > 18 USC 793.
>> >
>> > Of coourse nless convicted they are presumed innocent. However they
>> > and others can be subpoened while investigating the incident.
>>
>> Has anyone been charged with an offense? No - and no one is going to
>> be charged. No law has been broken.
>
> testimony or the presentation of evidence until after they indict
> someone.
No charges have been filed, nor will any charges be filed. This is not
about criminal activity, it's about suppression of the press.
No worries, though...the Obamessiah has appointed Holder to investigate
himself and his role in this scandal, so the truth will come out...
that's rather like appointing Col. Sanders to investigate the slaughter
of chickens, isn't it?
Joe Cooper
May 24, 2013, 2:33:17 PM5/24/13
to
"Kirby Grant" <kgr...@whatzit.org> wrote in
news:9VKnt.108717$BC1....@fed01.iad:
> The thing is, these things don't just happen at random or by accident.
> The reporter broke the law and someone noticed and investigated him.
> If he had
The reporter broke no law. Period.
Joe Cooper
May 24, 2013, 2:34:10 PM5/24/13
to
"Kirby Grant" <kgr...@whatzit.org> wrote in news:aWKnt.224643$JM.113393
@fed17.iad:
>> What law has Fox - or anyone AT Fox - broken? Cite it.
>
> Illegal access to sensitive, controlled, classified information. That was
> the basis for the investigation.
No crime was committed, no law was broken, no charge will be filed. It is
not about the law, but rather a blatant attempt at press intimidation.
@fed17.iad:
>> What law has Fox - or anyone AT Fox - broken? Cite it.
>
> the basis for the investigation.
No crime was committed, no law was broken, no charge will be filed. It is
not about the law, but rather a blatant attempt at press intimidation.
Message has been deleted
Joe Cooper
May 24, 2013, 3:01:58 PM5/24/13
to
Siri Cruise <chine...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:chine.bleu-
EAAA52.115...@news.eternal-september.org:
>> The reporter broke no law. Period.
>
No charges, no trial, no true bill = no crime.
Get used to it.
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Sancho Panza
May 24, 2013, 7:00:12 PM5/24/13
to
On 5/24/2013 4:35 PM, Kirby Grant wrote:
>>
>>> There is no press immunity in federal law. Such immmunities only exist
>>> in some state laws. It is a general question of whether participants
>>> in some kinds of communications can be subpeoned to testify about the
>>> communications.
>>>
>>> Reporters pretend they have an immunity in federal law, but they
>>> don't. Nor do parents/children, unmarried lovers, best friends
>>> forever, poker buddies, etc.
>>
>> Please show that any FOX or AP reporter has violated any federal law.
>> Take your time :-)
>>
>
> The issue isn't directly about whether they did or did not violate a law.
> The investigation began when there was a suspicions that they had broken the
> law and the subnpoenas were used to discover whether any laws had been
> broken.
Which law was suspected to have been broken?
> As was noted in the investigation there was an appearance that the
> reporters had attempted to induce someone with access to classified
> information to provide that information without authorization. But even if
> they never did gain access to that information, just the attempt to get it
> is also considered illegal under espionage laws.
Which "espionage law" says journalists cannot pressure sources for
information of any sort?
<snip customary gratuitous insult>
> On 23-May-2013, Joe Cooper <nieqez...@tormail.org> wrote:
>
>> Siri Cruise <chine...@yahoo.com> wrote in
>> news:chine.bleu-8FFFE...@news.eternal-september.org:
>
>> Siri Cruise <chine...@yahoo.com> wrote in
>>
>>> There is no press immunity in federal law. Such immmunities only exist
>>> in some state laws. It is a general question of whether participants
>>> in some kinds of communications can be subpeoned to testify about the
>>> communications.
>>>
>>> Reporters pretend they have an immunity in federal law, but they
>>> don't. Nor do parents/children, unmarried lovers, best friends
>>> forever, poker buddies, etc.
>>
>> Please show that any FOX or AP reporter has violated any federal law.
>> Take your time :-)
>>
>
> The issue isn't directly about whether they did or did not violate a law.
> The investigation began when there was a suspicions that they had broken the
> law and the subnpoenas were used to discover whether any laws had been
> broken.
Which law was suspected to have been broken?
> As was noted in the investigation there was an appearance that the
> reporters had attempted to induce someone with access to classified
> information to provide that information without authorization. But even if
> they never did gain access to that information, just the attempt to get it
> is also considered illegal under espionage laws.
Which "espionage law" says journalists cannot pressure sources for
information of any sort?
<snip customary gratuitous insult>
Sancho Panza
May 24, 2013, 7:19:53 PM5/24/13
to
On 5/24/2013 4:24 PM, Kirby Grant wrote:
> was classified then he was automatically guilty under the provisions of
> Title 18 USC.
Which section?
>
> Also, see:
>
> http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/secrecy/RS21900.pdf
There is no reference to Title 18.
<snip non-relevant discussion on non-disclosure>
> On 24-May-2013, Joe Cooper <nieqez...@tormail.org> wrote:
>
>> "Kirby Grant" <kgr...@whatzit.org> wrote in
>> news:9VKnt.108717$BC1....@fed01.iad:
>>
>>> The thing is, these things don't just happen at random or by accident.
>>> The reporter broke the law and someone noticed and investigated him.
>>> If he had
>>
>> The reporter broke no law. Period.
>>
>
> If he somehow accessed classified information and knew that the information
>
>> "Kirby Grant" <kgr...@whatzit.org> wrote in
>> news:9VKnt.108717$BC1....@fed01.iad:
>>
>>> The thing is, these things don't just happen at random or by accident.
>>> The reporter broke the law and someone noticed and investigated him.
>>> If he had
>>
>> The reporter broke no law. Period.
>>
>
> was classified then he was automatically guilty under the provisions of
> Title 18 USC.
Which section?
>
> Also, see:
>
> http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/secrecy/RS21900.pdf
There is no reference to Title 18.
<snip non-relevant discussion on non-disclosure>
Sancho Panza
May 24, 2013, 7:26:55 PM5/24/13
to
On 5/24/2013 4:30 PM, Kirby Grant wrote:
> On 24-May-2013, Joe Cooper <nieqez...@tormail.org> wrote:
>
> On 24-May-2013, Joe Cooper <nieqez...@tormail.org> wrote:
>
>> Siri Cruise <chine...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:chine.bleu-
>> EAAA52.115...@news.eternal-september.org:
>>
>>>> The reporter broke no law. Period.
>>>
>>> Lordy, you're stuck on stupid.
>>
>> No charges, no trial, no true bill = no crime.
>> Get used to it.
>>
>
> That is simply not true. Only an ignorant Republican would say something
>> EAAA52.115...@news.eternal-september.org:
>>
>>>> The reporter broke no law. Period.
>>>
>>> Lordy, you're stuck on stupid.
>>
>> No charges, no trial, no true bill = no crime.
>> Get used to it.
>>
>
> like that.
>
> Just because there is no charges and no trial doesn't mean that an
> individual is innocent.
The correct term when discussing laws and trials is "doesn't mean that
an individual is not guilty." Nuances don't mean much to political ax
grinders. To people more familiar with such processes, the meanings of
words counts very much.
> It may not be fiscally sound
> to have a long involved trial of someone based on the known facts. So the
> federal grand jury may decide not to indict some particular case because
> they are pursueing other cases that have caused much greater harm.
The excuse preparation begins.
> But that
> doesn't mean the individual is innocent.
It sure as hell does under our legal and judicial systems. Too bad you
don't subscribe to them.
> It merely means that they might not
> be very important. There is simply no such thing as an important Fox
> reporter. They are all rinky-dink little cry babies that shill for the
> Republican party and we all know that the Republican party simply is not
> very important at all.
Someone has a bad case of envy of the power of the pen or some similar
two-syllable word.
Sancho Panza
May 24, 2013, 7:28:21 PM5/24/13
to
> counts it is widely understood that Republicans are out to harm the U.S.
>
Only in a few people's delusions. Thank goodness this remains for right
now a country of laws.
Message has been deleted
Sancho Panza
May 24, 2013, 8:32:01 PM5/24/13
to
On 5/24/2013 8:20 PM, Siri Cruise wrote:
> In article <519ff599$0$25616$607e...@cv.net>,
>
Oh, no section. Tks.
> In article <519ff599$0$25616$607e...@cv.net>,
> Sancho Panza <otter...@xhotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 5/24/2013 4:24 PM, Kirby Grant wrote:
>>> On 24-May-2013, Joe Cooper <nieqez...@tormail.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Kirby Grant" <kgr...@whatzit.org> wrote in
>>>> news:9VKnt.108717$BC1....@fed01.iad:
>>>>
>>>>> The thing is, these things don't just happen at random or by accident.
>>>>> The reporter broke the law and someone noticed and investigated him.
>>>>> If he had
>>>>
>>>> The reporter broke no law. Period.
>>>>
>>>
>>> If he somehow accessed classified information and knew that the information
>>> was classified then he was automatically guilty under the provisions of
>>> Title 18 USC.
>>
>> Which section?
>
> How many times does it have to be repeated before it oozes through your skull?
>
>> On 5/24/2013 4:24 PM, Kirby Grant wrote:
>>> On 24-May-2013, Joe Cooper <nieqez...@tormail.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Kirby Grant" <kgr...@whatzit.org> wrote in
>>>> news:9VKnt.108717$BC1....@fed01.iad:
>>>>
>>>>> The thing is, these things don't just happen at random or by accident.
>>>>> The reporter broke the law and someone noticed and investigated him.
>>>>> If he had
>>>>
>>>> The reporter broke no law. Period.
>>>>
>>>
>>> If he somehow accessed classified information and knew that the information
>>> was classified then he was automatically guilty under the provisions of
>>> Title 18 USC.
>>
>> Which section?
>
>
Oh, no section. Tks.
Sancho Panza
May 24, 2013, 8:36:56 PM5/24/13
to
On 5/23/2013 12:19 PM, Kirby Grant wrote:
> On 15-May-2013, Sancho Panza <otter...@xhotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 5/15/2013 1:42 PM, Enraged Apostate, World Citizen wrote:
>>> Siri Cruise <chine...@yahoo.com> wrote on Tue 14 May 2013 11:38:49a
>>>
>>>>> Sorry about your inability to comprehend a massive violation of First
>>>>> Amendment rights. It does not matter who the government has victimized
>>>>> - it's still wrong.
>>>>
>>>> There is no first amendment violation.
>>>
>>> The right-wing filth to whom you are responding should have realized
>>> that the
>>> phone records search of the AP is really more of a 4th Amendment issue
>>> and not
>>> a 1st Amendment issue.
>>>
>>> If an insider is reporting a wrongdoing or corrupt activity of
>>> government---and
>>> perhaps attaining whistleblower status----what difference does it make
>>> if he
>>> whispers it to an AP reporter, gives an affidavit to a law enforcement
>>> organization, or puts it up on his own website or blog? Only one of
>>> those
>>> activities involves a person who gets paid as a professional journalist,
>>> and
>>> yet the goal is to get a hideous truth out that is trying to be covered
>>> up with
>>> official secrecy laws.
>>>
>>>
>> Virtually all courts, including the Supreme Court, have consistently
>> ruled against government actions that affect the free press in any
>> shape, manner or form.
>
> Except when members of the media break the law, which is clearly the case in
> this instance.
>
Which law?
> On 15-May-2013, Sancho Panza <otter...@xhotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 5/15/2013 1:42 PM, Enraged Apostate, World Citizen wrote:
>>> Siri Cruise <chine...@yahoo.com> wrote on Tue 14 May 2013 11:38:49a
>>>
>>>>> Sorry about your inability to comprehend a massive violation of First
>>>>> Amendment rights. It does not matter who the government has victimized
>>>>> - it's still wrong.
>>>>
>>>> There is no first amendment violation.
>>>
>>> The right-wing filth to whom you are responding should have realized
>>> that the
>>> phone records search of the AP is really more of a 4th Amendment issue
>>> and not
>>> a 1st Amendment issue.
>>>
>>> If an insider is reporting a wrongdoing or corrupt activity of
>>> government---and
>>> perhaps attaining whistleblower status----what difference does it make
>>> if he
>>> whispers it to an AP reporter, gives an affidavit to a law enforcement
>>> organization, or puts it up on his own website or blog? Only one of
>>> those
>>> activities involves a person who gets paid as a professional journalist,
>>> and
>>> yet the goal is to get a hideous truth out that is trying to be covered
>>> up with
>>> official secrecy laws.
>>>
>>>
>> Virtually all courts, including the Supreme Court, have consistently
>> ruled against government actions that affect the free press in any
>> shape, manner or form.
>
> Except when members of the media break the law, which is clearly the case in
> this instance.
>
Which law?
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Sancho Panza
May 24, 2013, 9:45:16 PM5/24/13
to
On 5/24/2013 8:55 PM, Kirby Grant wrote:
Seeing as how you refuse to post the relevant text, here it is:
"(a) Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits,
or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes, or
uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United
States or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of
the United States any classified information.
In what way was the reporter's material prejudicial to the U.S.?
>>>
>>> Also, see:
>>>
>>> http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/secrecy/RS21900.pdf
>>
>> There is no reference to Title 18.
>>
>
> It was a background article that is relevant the the discussion.
In what way?
>
> On 24-May-2013, Sancho Panza <otter...@xhotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 5/24/2013 4:24 PM, Kirby Grant wrote:
>>> On 24-May-2013, Joe Cooper <nieqez...@tormail.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Kirby Grant" <kgr...@whatzit.org> wrote in
>>>> news:9VKnt.108717$BC1....@fed01.iad:
>>>>
>>>>> The thing is, these things don't just happen at random or by accident.
>>>>> The reporter broke the law and someone noticed and investigated him.
>>>>> If he had
>>>>
>>>> The reporter broke no law. Period.
>>>>
>>>
>>> If he somehow accessed classified information and knew that the
>>> information
>>> was classified then he was automatically guilty under the provisions of
>>> Title 18 USC.
>>
>> Which section?
>
>
> 18 USC § 798 - Disclosure of classified information
>
>> On 5/24/2013 4:24 PM, Kirby Grant wrote:
>>> On 24-May-2013, Joe Cooper <nieqez...@tormail.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Kirby Grant" <kgr...@whatzit.org> wrote in
>>>> news:9VKnt.108717$BC1....@fed01.iad:
>>>>
>>>>> The thing is, these things don't just happen at random or by accident.
>>>>> The reporter broke the law and someone noticed and investigated him.
>>>>> If he had
>>>>
>>>> The reporter broke no law. Period.
>>>>
>>>
>>> If he somehow accessed classified information and knew that the
>>> information
>>> was classified then he was automatically guilty under the provisions of
>>> Title 18 USC.
>>
>> Which section?
>
>
Seeing as how you refuse to post the relevant text, here it is:
"(a) Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits,
or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes, or
uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United
States or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of
the United States any classified information.
In what way was the reporter's material prejudicial to the U.S.?
>>>
>>> Also, see:
>>>
>>> http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/secrecy/RS21900.pdf
>>
>> There is no reference to Title 18.
>>
>
In what way?
>
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Sancho Panza
May 24, 2013, 10:18:55 PM5/24/13
to
On 5/24/2013 9:13 PM, Kirby Grant wrote:
> On 24-May-2013, Sancho Panza <otter...@xhotmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 24-May-2013, Sancho Panza <otter...@xhotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 5/24/2013 4:35 PM, Kirby Grant wrote:
>>> On 23-May-2013, Joe Cooper <nieqez...@tormail.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Siri Cruise <chine...@yahoo.com> wrote in
>>>> news:chine.bleu-8FFFE...@news.eternal-september.org:
>>>>
>>>>> There is no press immunity in federal law. Such immmunities only exist
>>>>> in some state laws. It is a general question of whether participants
>>>>> in some kinds of communications can be subpeoned to testify about the
>>>>> communications.
>>>>>
>>>>> Reporters pretend they have an immunity in federal law, but they
>>>>> don't. Nor do parents/children, unmarried lovers, best friends
>>>>> forever, poker buddies, etc.
>>>>
>>>> Please show that any FOX or AP reporter has violated any federal law.
>>>> Take your time :-)
>>>>
>>>
>>> The issue isn't directly about whether they did or did not violate a
>>> law.
>>> The investigation began when there was a suspicions that they had broken
>>> the
>>> law and the subnpoenas were used to discover whether any laws had been
>>> broken.
>>
>> Which law was suspected to have been broken?
>
>>> On 23-May-2013, Joe Cooper <nieqez...@tormail.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Siri Cruise <chine...@yahoo.com> wrote in
>>>> news:chine.bleu-8FFFE...@news.eternal-september.org:
>>>>
>>>>> There is no press immunity in federal law. Such immmunities only exist
>>>>> in some state laws. It is a general question of whether participants
>>>>> in some kinds of communications can be subpeoned to testify about the
>>>>> communications.
>>>>>
>>>>> Reporters pretend they have an immunity in federal law, but they
>>>>> don't. Nor do parents/children, unmarried lovers, best friends
>>>>> forever, poker buddies, etc.
>>>>
>>>> Please show that any FOX or AP reporter has violated any federal law.
>>>> Take your time :-)
>>>>
>>>
>>> The issue isn't directly about whether they did or did not violate a
>>> law.
>>> The investigation began when there was a suspicions that they had broken
>>> the
>>> law and the subnpoenas were used to discover whether any laws had been
>>> broken.
>>
>> Which law was suspected to have been broken?
>
> 18 USC � 798 - Disclosure of classified information
>
>>
>
>>
>>> As was noted in the investigation there was an appearance that the
>>> reporters had attempted to induce someone with access to classified
>>> information to provide that information without authorization. But even
>>> if
>>> they never did gain access to that information, just the attempt to get
>>> it
>>> is also considered illegal under espionage laws.
>>
>> Which "espionage law" says journalists cannot pressure sources for
>> information of any sort?
>>
>
>>> reporters had attempted to induce someone with access to classified
>>> information to provide that information without authorization. But even
>>> if
>>> they never did gain access to that information, just the attempt to get
>>> it
>>> is also considered illegal under espionage laws.
>>
>> Which "espionage law" says journalists cannot pressure sources for
>> information of any sort?
>>
>
> 18 USC � 798 - Disclosure of classified information
What has been and was in this case used to pursue the press was one of
Woodrow Wilson's package of notorious laws, the real Espionage Act:
"The Justice Department did more than seize a Fox News reporter's emails
while suggesting he was a criminal "co-conspirator" in a leak case -- it
did so under one of the most serious wartime laws in America, the
Espionage Act.
It's the same law used by the Nixon administration to go after The New
York Times and Daniel Ellsberg over the leak of the Pentagon Papers.
It's the law used to charge the Rosenbergs, American communists, for
allegedly passing secret information to the Soviet Union -- they were
executed for the offense in 1953.
One Washington attorney, who represents two defendants recently charged
under that World War I-era law, told FoxNews.com that the decision by
the Justice Department to invoke it in the current case is "beyond
chilling" -- and could set a dangerous precedent for going after reporters.
"This kind of puts us into the deep freeze," attorney Jesselyn Radack
said. "I feel like we're back to the Dark Ages."
In the case involving Fox News, a government adviser was accused of
leaking information after a 2009 story by Fox News' James Rosen was
published online which said North Korea planned to respond to looming
U.N. sanctions with another nuclear test.
Court documents, which were filed in 2011 and surfaced earlier this
week, show the Justice Department made a series of claims against Rosen
in the course of seeking a search warrant for his personal emails.
In an affidavit, FBI agent Reginald B. Reyes claimed there's evidence
the Fox News correspondent broke the law, "at the very least, either as
an aider, abettor and/or co-conspirator."
That line cited a section of the U.S. Code that falls under the
Espionage Act -- pertaining to the unauthorized gathering and
transmitting of defense information. The section carries with it a
sentence of up to 10 years in prison.
A federal law enforcement official stressed to FoxNews.com that, as
stated in the affidavit, the Privacy Protection Act governs when
warrants can be executed regarding journalists' materials. And that act
requires the government to show "probable cause" of a criminal offense.
"In order to obtain the search warrant, the Privacy Protection Act
required the government to set forth factual assertions concerning the
reporter's conduct and the conclusion that there was probable cause to
believe that the reporter had committed a criminal offense to which the
materials related, including" possession of defense information, the
official said.
The official noted that saying there is probable cause and actually
charging someone are very different.
"No reporter has been charged in this case," the official said. "And, at
this time, we do not anticipate bringing additional charges against
anyone in this matter."
The administration has come under criticism before for using the
Espionage Act to prosecute leakers and whistle-blowers. Under the Obama
administration, federal prosecutors have used the act six times.
After details on the case involving Fox News were made public, the White
House said President Obama believes reporters should not be prosecuted
for doing their jobs. Attorney General Eric Holder made similar comments
during Hill testimony last week.
But Radack said that's "cold comfort" given the current circumstance.
Documents show the department, in a probe led by U.S. Attorney Ron
Machen Jr., also obtained phone records of numbers associated with Fox
News offices, including the number of Rosen's parents in Staten Island.
Though Rosen was never charged with any crime, Radack said the feds are
using a "very dangerous shortcut" if they only invoked the Espionage Act
in order to access his emails.
"That means he's a target of a federal criminal leak investigation on
one of the most serious charges that can be leveled against an
American," she said. "It is a huge problem."
She added: "We should take a hard look at how the Espionage Act, a
favorite tool of Nixon, is being used to go after any organization who's
saying things the administration doesn't like."
The affidavit in this case, she said, groups journalists in the same
category as whistle-blowers and "hack-tivists."
Radack, director of national security and human rights with the
Government Accountability Project, represented former National Security
Agency official Thomas Drake, who was charged under the act but
eventually got the charges dropped, and CIA official John Kiriakou, who
is currently serving time.
Former State Department contractor Stephen Jin-Woo Kim has already been
indicted in the case involving Fox News.
The latter case has drawn intense interest from watchdog groups and
other arms of the media.
Joe Newman, spokesman for the Project on Government Oversight, said the
Espionage Act is a "sledgehammer" and not "something that should be used
capriciously."
Mike Cavender, director of the Radio Television Digital News
Association, said in a statement that even though Rosen was not -- and
is not expected to be -- charged with a crime, the fact his movements
were tracked "will only serve to further drive away sources from
reporters for fear their conversations are not likely to remain
confidential."
He said the government has shown "little regard" for press freedom in
pursuing leak cases under the Espionage Act and involving journalists in
the process.
Though some watchdog groups claim being charged under that law is
tantamount to being branded a "traitor," the Justice Department rejects
that argument.
The department has argued in the past that the act has many provisions
-- including the disclosure of classified information, which is not by
itself an espionage charge."
--http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/05/22/doj-invoked-espionage-act-in-calling-fox-news-reporter-criminal-co-conspirator/
It is most definitely notable that the Supreme Court has consistently
supported the First Amendment claims of the press against the
government's "heavy burden of proof" in establishing that the publisher
"has reason to believe" the material published "could be used to the
injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation."
Let's see whoever leaked the classified information on bin Laden and
Stuxnet, to mention just two well-known leaks, as well as cases like
those of Bradley Manning and Julian Assange along with similar instances
prosecuted before baselessly calling a longstanding and unquestioned
professional reporter a flight risk and invading the privacy of his
distant and aging parents.
>
>> <snip customary gratuitous insult>
>
> You may think that you have just been clever, but all it does is remind me
> that I need to provide another gratuitous insult, you ignorant, uneducated
> lout. Now go cry in a corner you little baby.
Typical juvenile waste of everyone's time and space except for the need
for psychological release felt by the poster.
Sancho Panza
May 24, 2013, 10:24:44 PM5/24/13
to
On 5/24/2013 10:17 PM, Siri Cruise wrote:
> In article <51a017ac$0$25618$607e...@cv.net>,
Considering that I was the first poster to provide a few days the actual
text specifying the need to show intention to do injury to the U.S.,
that would make it seem as if you're not following, or maybe not
remembering, important points in this discussion.
>
>> In what way was the reporter's material prejudicial to the U.S.?
>
> DoJ has to investigate his activity, which includes gatherring evidence, before
> deciding whether there is sufficient reason and need to proceed to seek
> indictment.
>
> Many are investigated, few are indicted.
And probably no one else in this case, if the president means what he
has been proclaiming.
> In article <51a017ac$0$25618$607e...@cv.net>,
> Sancho Panza <otter...@xhotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> 18 USC § 798 - Disclosure of classified information
>>
>> Seeing as how you refuse to post the relevant text, here it is:
>
> Fuck, how hard is it for you to look up the US Code?
>
>>> 18 USC § 798 - Disclosure of classified information
>>
>> Seeing as how you refuse to post the relevant text, here it is:
>
Considering that I was the first poster to provide a few days the actual
text specifying the need to show intention to do injury to the U.S.,
that would make it seem as if you're not following, or maybe not
remembering, important points in this discussion.
>
>> In what way was the reporter's material prejudicial to the U.S.?
>
> deciding whether there is sufficient reason and need to proceed to seek
> indictment.
>
> Many are investigated, few are indicted.
And probably no one else in this case, if the president means what he
has been proclaiming.
Message has been deleted
Sancho Panza
May 24, 2013, 11:13:00 PM5/24/13
to
On 5/24/2013 8:41 PM, Kirby Grant wrote:
> Not that Republicans have much regard for laws. Why do you think that the
> Republican party lost the last two presidential elections?
That is a topic that could easily fill up at least one or probably even
more threads. But seeing as you already have your answer below and that
it is highly unlikely, based on what we see here, to change, it might be
best to defer till the new thread starts.
> Because the
> American people no longer trust Republicans in the presidency. This will
> become even more clear in 2016 and 2020. Americans just don't like a party
> that is known for having its leaders engage in pedophilia, drug running,
> terrorism against women, racial and ethnic groups and gays. You have to
> remember that Republicans are now an unimportant minority and will remain so
> as long as they have attitudes rooted in the past. They just are not
> important these days.
>
> Not that Republicans have much regard for laws. Why do you think that the
> Republican party lost the last two presidential elections?
That is a topic that could easily fill up at least one or probably even
more threads. But seeing as you already have your answer below and that
it is highly unlikely, based on what we see here, to change, it might be
best to defer till the new thread starts.
> Because the
> American people no longer trust Republicans in the presidency. This will
> become even more clear in 2016 and 2020. Americans just don't like a party
> that is known for having its leaders engage in pedophilia, drug running,
> terrorism against women, racial and ethnic groups and gays. You have to
> remember that Republicans are now an unimportant minority and will remain so
> as long as they have attitudes rooted in the past. They just are not
> important these days.
>
Joe Cooper
May 25, 2013, 2:20:31 AM5/25/13
to
Siri Cruise <chine...@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:chine.bleu-15FD8...@news.eternal-september.org:
> So you're saying being a Fox employee should give a person legal
> privileges denied to most Americans.
I think he's saying that the federal government has no business attacking
reporters for doing their job.
Get used to it.
--
Enjoy Internet Privacy And Anonymity: http://hidemyass.com/vpn/r6995:5/
Mr. Obama, much too pure and innocent to be told about mistakes in his
administration, was too busy bathing the feet of the poor and tending
to lepers to be told that his administration was engaged in an
Orwellian attack on free speech. (Ben Stein)
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Sancho Panza
May 25, 2013, 1:19:05 PM5/25/13
to
On 5/24/2013 11:05 PM, Siri Cruise wrote:
> In article <51a01f9a$0$25636$607e...@cv.net>,
Yup, the rule of law and its political strong-arm enforcement don't
count for much any more.
>
>> It's the same law used by the Nixon administration to go after The New
>> York Times and Daniel Ellsberg over the leak of the Pentagon Papers.
>
> And they lost in court.
On technicalities. Juridical weaseling.
>> She added: "We should take a hard look at how the Espionage Act, a
>> favorite tool of Nixon, is being used to go after any organization who's
>> saying things the administration doesn't like."
>
> It's the Congress which would make any changes to the act.
That does not exclude general or even expert analysis and commentary.
>> reporters for fear their conversations are not likely to remain
>> confidential."
>
> Why should it? It's not a privileged conversation in federal law.
Nor under legal canons. Just contributing more to tying up free inquiry
by the press and the resultant loss to the integrity and efficacy of our
polity.
>
>> Though some watchdog groups claim being charged under that law is
>> tantamount to being branded a "traitor," the Justice Department rejects
>> that argument.
>
> DoJ is allowed to interpret the law in their own way to push their agenda. The
> interpretation that gets enforced is the one by the judge.
Meanwhile the wild-eyed actions of an intemperate bureaucracy do not add
up to the supposedly required free, fair and objective administration of
justice or the law. Corroding even further the confidence of the citizens.[
>
>> It is most definitely notable that the Supreme Court has consistently
>> supported the First Amendment claims of the press against the
>> government's "heavy burden of proof" in establishing that the publisher
>> "has reason to believe" the material published "could be used to the
>> injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation."
>
> And a judge will dismiss a prosecution early on to comply with an applicable
> precedent.
Only after the intimidiation, secret harassment, spurious allegations
and attempted damage to reputation, among other collateral injuries have
exacted their utterly unneeded costs.
recognized professional, an established family man with strong roots who
will probably end up on the no-fly lists.
> In article <51a01f9a$0$25636$607e...@cv.net>,
> Sancho Panza <otter...@xhotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> "The Justice Department did more than seize a Fox News reporter's emails
>> while suggesting he was a criminal "co-conspirator" in a leak case -- it
>> did so under one of the most serious wartime laws in America, the
>> Espionage Act.
>
> Tough shit.
>
>> "The Justice Department did more than seize a Fox News reporter's emails
>> while suggesting he was a criminal "co-conspirator" in a leak case -- it
>> did so under one of the most serious wartime laws in America, the
>> Espionage Act.
>
Yup, the rule of law and its political strong-arm enforcement don't
count for much any more.
>
>> It's the same law used by the Nixon administration to go after The New
>> York Times and Daniel Ellsberg over the leak of the Pentagon Papers.
>
On technicalities. Juridical weaseling.
>> She added: "We should take a hard look at how the Espionage Act, a
>> favorite tool of Nixon, is being used to go after any organization who's
>> saying things the administration doesn't like."
>
That does not exclude general or even expert analysis and commentary.
>> reporters for fear their conversations are not likely to remain
>> confidential."
>
Nor under legal canons. Just contributing more to tying up free inquiry
by the press and the resultant loss to the integrity and efficacy of our
polity.
>
>> Though some watchdog groups claim being charged under that law is
>> tantamount to being branded a "traitor," the Justice Department rejects
>> that argument.
>
> interpretation that gets enforced is the one by the judge.
Meanwhile the wild-eyed actions of an intemperate bureaucracy do not add
up to the supposedly required free, fair and objective administration of
justice or the law. Corroding even further the confidence of the citizens.[
>
>> It is most definitely notable that the Supreme Court has consistently
>> supported the First Amendment claims of the press against the
>> government's "heavy burden of proof" in establishing that the publisher
>> "has reason to believe" the material published "could be used to the
>> injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation."
>
> precedent.
Only after the intimidiation, secret harassment, spurious allegations
and attempted damage to reputation, among other collateral injuries have
exacted their utterly unneeded costs.
>
>> professional reporter a flight risk and invading the privacy of his
>> distant and aging parents.
>
>> professional reporter a flight risk and invading the privacy of his
>> distant and aging parents.
>
> So you're saying being a Fox employee should give a person legal privileges
> denied to most Americans.
>
In this case, it is clear he was given fewer. A longtime nationally
> denied to most Americans.
>
recognized professional, an established family man with strong roots who
will probably end up on the no-fly lists.
Message has been deleted
Sancho Panza
May 25, 2013, 3:44:56 PM5/25/13
to
On 5/25/2013 2:07 PM, Siri Cruise wrote:
> In article <51a0f294$0$25631$607e...@cv.net>,
Hey, we have to do all we can to keep lawyers gainfully employed.
> In article <51a0f294$0$25631$607e...@cv.net>,
> Sancho Panza <otter...@xhotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Yup, the rule of law and its political strong-arm enforcement don't
>> count for much any more.
>>
>>>
>>>> It's the same law used by the Nixon administration to go after The New
>>>> York Times and Daniel Ellsberg over the leak of the Pentagon Papers.
>>>
>>> And they lost in court.
>>
>> On technicalities. Juridical weaseling.
>
> So much for the rule of law.
>
>> Yup, the rule of law and its political strong-arm enforcement don't
>> count for much any more.
>>
>>>
>>>> It's the same law used by the Nixon administration to go after The New
>>>> York Times and Daniel Ellsberg over the leak of the Pentagon Papers.
>>>
>>> And they lost in court.
>>
>> On technicalities. Juridical weaseling.
>
Hey, we have to do all we can to keep lawyers gainfully employed.
0 new messages