Print 64 comment(s) - last by stmok.. on May 19 at 11:19 AM

The Freedom Flow of Information Act would protect journalists from punishment if they decline to identify confidential sources in federal law enforcement proceedings

The Obama administration wants to create a federal media shield law by bringing an old bill back to life. 

Ed Pagano, President Obama’s Senate liaison, called Senator Charles E. Schumer (D-NY) on Wednesday morning to inquire about a version of a 2009 bill called the Freedom Flow of Information Act. 

The Freedom Flow of Information Act would protect journalists from punishment if they decline to identify confidential sources in federal law enforcement proceedings. It would also allow journalists to ask a federal judge to destroy subpoenas for their phone records.

The bill would provide different levels of protection for journalists. Civil cases would receive the greatest protection, criminal cases would be similar (except the reporter would have to try and abolish the subpoena through a “clear and convincing” standard showing that the free flow of information is more important than the needs of law enforcement) and national security cases would lean in favor of the government. 

There were a couple of different versions of the bill, but the Obama administration is looking to recover the one supported by Schumer. It was jointly created by the newspaper industry and the White House, and even approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee in a bipartisan 15-to-4 vote in December 2009. However, issues with Wikileaks exposing confidential government information on the internet put the bill on hold.

President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder

The decision to bring this bill back to life comes amid controversy surrounding the U.S. Department of Justice's (DOJ) subpoena to retrieve calling records of Associated Press reporters. 

DOJ used a subpoena (approved by Deputy James M. Cole) to obtain over 20 phone numbers from the Associated Press, including personal phones of AP editors/columnists and AP business phone numbers in New York; Hartford, Connecticut; and Washington. 

Furthermore, the DOJ did this without any advance notice. This puts the Associated Press' other private sources at risk and violates freedom of the press.

The reason for the subpoena was related to an article in which an unnamed government official leaked an account of a failed May 2012 bomb plot on an aircraft flying into the U.S. -- which involved the Yemen branch of Al Qaeda.

“This kind of law would balance national security needs against the public’s right to the free flow of information," said Schumer in regards to the Freedom Flow of Information Act. "At minimum, our bill would have ensured a fairer, more deliberate process in this case.”

Source: The New York Times

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Damage control
By HostileEffect on 5/16/2013 1:58:19 PM , Rating: 5
Damage control, nuff said.

RE: Damage control
By Brandon Hill on 5/16/2013 2:03:35 PM , Rating: 3
Pretty much. He's gonna need a WHOLE lot more damage control though; this has been a brutal week.

RE: Damage control
By Reclaimer77 on 5/16/2013 3:26:26 PM , Rating: 4

He's, once against, distancing himself from everything that's going on. And everyone is going along with it nodding their heads when he lies to our faces and pretends he had nothing to do with it and that "serious investigations" are being held. Oh you mean like the last 10 or so that didn't go anywhere and lead to no resolutions, Mr President?

Seriously he either knew about at least some of this stuff, or he and his entire Administration is incompetent.

This is what happens when Liberalism (socialism, state'ism, Collectivism) is allowed to thrive: Tyranny. It's happened everywhere else the ideology has taken root, and now it's happening here.

Years after this is forgotten, the Left will probably still be talking about how evil Nixon was. Obama makes Nixon look like a Cub Scout! If using the IRS to intimidate political opponents and raping the First Amendment with illegal media wiretaps isn't grounds for Impeachment, what the hell is?

RE: Damage control
By bah12 on 5/16/2013 3:37:03 PM , Rating: 4
Amen, and we need a new bill why???? uh we have one it's called the First GDamned Amendment maybe if he actually followed the document he swore to uphold we wouldn't need more government to protect us from government ignoring the law anyway. Truly pathtetic.

Hey Obama while your at it you may want to sneak a peak a the next one too.

And come to think of it the 4th one might deserve a look, and the....oh the hell with it he obviously doesn't care what they say.

RE: Damage control
By Reclaimer77 on 5/16/2013 3:48:05 PM , Rating: 1
Yeah well Obama doesn't give two shits about the Constitution. I remember being literally scared of this guy back in 2008 when he spoke about the Constitution on an interview. Then-Illinois State Senator Obama expressed his discontent with the limits of the Constitution, complaining that is only “a charter of negative liberties. It says what the states can’t do to you, it says what the federal government can’t do to you, but it doesn’t say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf.” He went further, stating that the U.S. Supreme Court under Chief Justice Earl Warren was not “that radical” because it “didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution…” and expressing his opinion that neither “redistribution of wealth” nor “major redistributive change” was likely to come through the court system; leaving only the option of legislation, or administrative fiat.

Thus it should come as no surprise that he treats the rights enshrined in the First Amendment as inconveniences to be dispensed with when they conflict with one of his deeply-desired policy objectives.

RE: Damage control
By FITCamaro on 5/16/2013 3:54:46 PM , Rating: 5
Well you don't actually have to know anything about the Constitution to teach it any more you know.

RE: Damage control
By FITCamaro on 5/16/2013 3:53:28 PM , Rating: 4
Freedom of the press and freedom of speech also don't mean you can literally say anything you want and not have any consequences for it.

It's illegal to release classified information. Freedom of speech/press doesn't protect you if you are saying/printing something you're not legally allowed to.

RE: Damage control
By ComputerJuice on 5/16/13, Rating: -1
RE: Damage control
By FITCamaro on 5/16/2013 4:39:36 PM , Rating: 4
There are plenty of things that are not considered free speech. Slander being one of the most prominent.

Free speech and press is largely unlimited but there are things that it is illegal to say and print.

If I go and talk about all the confidential details of the program I'm working on, when they come and fire me or even put me in jail, I can't claim my rights to free speech are being violated. The same goes with reporters being told confidential or classified information and then spreading that information.

RE: Damage control
By ven1ger on 5/16/2013 3:52:08 PM , Rating: 2
Dude, you are really off the deep end.

To get from here to Tyranny, but you are in reality a bit of an extremist. Look back at some of the roots of the problem, it started back during the Bush years, that the Federal gov't has overstepped itself. This administration is continuing on the same basis as the previous administration that has help to remove a lot of the barriers in the name of national security like the Patriot Act.

RE: Damage control
By Reclaimer77 on 5/16/2013 4:00:03 PM , Rating: 4
Yes and for eight years under Bush all we heard about was "tyranny and warmongering" and bla bla bla.

But oh no, you can't criticize Obama, that's going off the deep end lol. 'Scuse me?

This administration is continuing on the same basis as the previous administration that has help to remove a lot of the barriers in the name of national security like the Patriot Act.

Right because the Patriot Act is totally somehow complicit in using the IRS to commit voter intimidation on a scale so massive, so disgustingly corrupt, as to blatantly target the political and ideological opponents of the current President. And not just opponents, but those who simply believed differently than him!

This is indefensible. Enough with this canned Bush-blaming tactic. Goddammit, it's 2013!! When is Obama going to be responsible for his Administration and the policies and actions under his watch!? If not now, when?

I don't care what party you support or what your belief system is, there's just NO WAY you can be okay with this!

RE: Damage control
By Spuke on 5/16/2013 4:04:18 PM , Rating: 4
I don't care what party you support or what your belief system is, there's just NO WAY you can be okay with this!
Remember, it's only injustice when that injustice is being perpetrated by the group you disagree with. If it's the group you agree with, well, that's called change.

RE: Damage control
By ven1ger on 5/16/13, Rating: 0
RE: Damage control
By half_duplex on 5/16/2013 4:32:21 PM , Rating: 3
You have every right to disagree with the US going into the middle east following 9/11, but the 'illegal war' talking point has long been debunked.

Stop using a past war to excuse your presidents growing record of assaults on our liberty and intelligence. It sounds almost as stupid as someone defending our invasion of Iraw by saying that WWII was a lot worse.

RE: Damage control
By ven1ger on 5/16/13, Rating: -1
RE: Damage control
By Reclaimer77 on 5/16/13, Rating: -1
RE: Damage control
By ven1ger on 5/16/13, Rating: 0
RE: Damage control
By Reclaimer77 on 5/16/2013 5:35:51 PM , Rating: 3
Hey buddy this argument is about 5 years too late. We've spoken about Iraq and Bush until we were blue in the face.

I will not allow you to further deflect this conversation away from Obama and continue with this lame Bush obsession.

Again, criticism of Obama is NOT a defense of Bush. When you're ready to discuss what's happening today, I'll be here.

RE: Damage control
By ven1ger on 5/16/2013 5:49:20 PM , Rating: 1
To Quote:

Sounds like a personal problem. The door is ------------> way Reclaimer.

RE: Damage control
By Ammohunt on 5/16/2013 8:57:26 PM , Rating: 1
Just because our lawmakers voted going to war against a sovereign nation because of hyped up and faked intelligence, does not make it legal in the eyes of the world body.

I see because you are a "World" citizen and not a citizen of the US? I personally can a rats ass what the "World body" thinks when it comes to American interests abroad. The UN is antagonistic to freedom and of course they were against the Iraq war because UN higher ups were enriching themselves with the oil for food scheme.

RE: Damage control
By ven1ger on 5/16/2013 10:03:22 PM , Rating: 2
So Cheney and his cronies aka Halliburton didn't get rich off the war with Iraq? So it's okay if our elected leaders and friends enrich themselves off the blood of Americans and Iraqis who had nothing to do with 9/11. Glad to see how you're not such a hypocrite.

By the same reasoning if Iran or North Korea bombs the US because they believe that the US is a threat to them, then it'd be legal because their government voted to bomb the US. Legally, Iran or North Korea's government is in the clear. Guess no such thing as respecting anyone's sovereignty anymore as we may as well act as the terrorists that we claim to be against, in the eyes of other countries we are looking like terrorists ourselves. Why do you think that the Taliban and others like them come from it is from those that think the US and other Western countries are terrorists.

RE: Damage control
By Reclaimer77 on 5/17/2013 1:14:51 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah let's just spend all our time debating Iraq and not what the current President is doing?

By the same reasoning if Iran or North Korea bombs the US because they believe that the US is a threat to them, then it'd be legal because their government voted to bomb the US.

Why do you insist on using "legal" for actions such as this? There's no law that Iran or North Korea is bound to, that states they cannot bomb the US. Just as there was no "law" stating we couldn't properly declare war on Iraq.

Curious that you're so obsessed with legality when it comes to wars, yet are such a defender of Obama. Who actually didn't so much as consult Congress when he decided to invade Libya. Yeeeah, I believe that was, wait for it, ILLEGAL!

And please stop being ignorant. Iraq was under sanctions, which they were breaking on a daily basis, from the first war in which they lost. Remember Saddam constantly violating the No-Fly Zone and firing on allied aircraft? Well maybe not, you're probably too young. But I digress, calling Iraq "sovereign" is about as accurate as the rest of your straw men.

RE: Damage control
By ven1ger on 5/17/2013 3:51:39 AM , Rating: 2
Okay old fart, you want to call me a kid then that would make you about 90 years old, but considering that your memory is failing you. You claim the Iraq invasion was technically legal because our gov't voted for it. Well if another nation's gov't votes to bomb or do harm to some other nation then I guess it is technically legal, right?

I guess, I should maybe call you Chicken Little, everytime something with Obama comes up, you start screaming, we're going to hell because the black man in the White House is going to bring down damnation on us all. Well Chicken Little, if you memory hasn't failed you as yet, we did not invade Libya, we bombed them, and yes he failed to seek congressional approval after 90 days of bombings but if I remember correctly a lot of the war hawks wanted to put boots on the ground and thought Obama wasn't doing enough, and generally the war hawks are more on the Republican side of the coin. Considering that they were Nato planes, I'd say that it was UN sanctioned, and no American lives lost, I think. A lot better than an illegal war (but then you get mixed up between legal and illegal) with Iraq.

Straw men now...come on Chicken Little, the invasion of Iraq was not because of them violating the No-Fly Zone, it was pictures of mushroom clouds, the guarantee that WMDs would be found, the links to Al-Qaeda, talk about setting up straw men, you do know what that means right? You claiming that we invaded Iraq because of violation of a No-Fly Zone or firing on allied aircraft is an example of creating straw men. If we're to believe you, then invading Iraq with the lost of thousands of American lives, tens of thousands, possibly hundreds of thousands maimed if you include Iraqi citizens, were worth the invasion because of firing on allied aircraft in which no American lives were lost then you are a nutjob that is willing to make up any reason to bolster your position.

Btw, thought you were done talking about Bush. Please, stay relevant. Anyway, I think I had enough giving you lessons on history, nutjobs like you work best in a vacuum when you can rail all about big bad Obama but as soon as the facts get in the way, you get your panties all in a bunch. You don't want to discuss, you want to rant, even others that try to present a different take you jump all over them just because they don't see Obama as the evil tyrant you like to believe.

I'm done with you on this thread. Unlike you I keep my word. And I'm much too busy and bored to keep following your twisted logic and revisionist history.

RE: Damage control
By Ammohunt on 5/17/2013 1:44:03 PM , Rating: 1
Halliburton fulfilled a need for services associated with the war there were no other companies at the time that could do the job. obviously Dick Cheney or whomever is going to stick with what he was familiar with rather than take a risk with an unknown that's human nature. The idea of some type of conspiracy between Halliburton and Dick Cheney is so much leftist tin foil hat nonsense.

By the same reasoning if Iran or North Korea bombs the US because they believe that the US is a threat to them, then it'd be legal because their government voted to bomb the US.

Dumb analogy, we have never made threats to either nation or their allies without a previous provocation. Not to mention we are still technically at war with north Korea so we don't need a formal declaration of war its already there. Iran is parnoid unstable country run by aggressive nuts and based on your above arguments you would have not had any issue with germanys invasion of poland during the second word war…how many times do you have to hear people state that they wish Hitler was dealt with earlier rather than later. Your last name must be Chamberlain.

Why do you think that the Taliban and others like them come from it is from those that think the US and other Western countries are terrorists.

Having first hand experince with arabs and islamic culture I know exactly why the Taliban hate us. Its primarily because their culture spawned from their religion is completely and utterly antagonistic to freedom and liberty; the simple concept of basic human rights not derived from allah is offensive to them. in other words they are primitive screw heads if they can’t evolve their ideas then they will exterminate themselves.

RE: Damage control
By mikeyD95125 on 5/17/2013 9:52:08 AM , Rating: 2
I personally can a rats ass what the "World body" thinks when it comes to American interests abroad.

Aye seems to be a theme among us. We employ international law when it is politically advantageous and ignore it when it isn't.

The day I realized politics wasn't about doing the right thing was a sad day.

RE: Damage control
By Mint on 5/16/2013 6:15:35 PM , Rating: 2
Look I get your have issues with Bush. Hell, we all did. But it's honestly time to put that aside. It's 2013 and he's been out of power for five years.
It's not just Bush. A central tenet of GOP strategy (and Fox News) was and remains to scare the public sh1tless about terrorism ever since 9/11, and furthermore anyone who opposes measures that superficially help combat terrorism is a traitor, weak willed, unfit to lead the country, etc. It's a strategy that helped Bush beat Kerry, and it fit well with the "Obama is a Muslim" lies as well.

If Obama ran a platform against the Patriot Act, you really think he'd win? Please, it would be a piece of cake to tar him as a terrorist-loving Muslim. How would the Boston bombings have been viewed with the Patriot Act unrenewed? People would be putting the victims' blood on his hand.

Yes, most Dems supported the Patriot Act and its renewal, but it was not nearly as unanimously as the GOP, and most politicians are almost by definition lemmings that flow with popular opinion. The latter is the root of the problem.

Bush and Fox News did long term damage to the psyche of Americans. No longer did they think a risking a few lives were acceptable to preserve privacy.

RE: Damage control
By Reclaimer77 on 5/16/2013 8:36:12 PM , Rating: 3
If Obama ran a platform against the Patriot Act, you really think he'd win?

Wtf man, he got ELECTED on that platform in the first place. Just go back and read his campaign promises!! He won in a landslide based on a platform of reversing the policies of Bush! Specifically on the anti-terrorism and foreign war side.

I'm so sick of this, where do you guys come up with this crap? Sitting here discussing Bush as if it's relevant still?

Bush and Fox News did long term damage to the psyche of Americans.

Nah I think people like you and your willful ignorance are doing a good job of that.

RE: Damage control
By FITCamaro on 5/17/2013 5:30:45 AM , Rating: 3
Lol. Either some of these guys are young and are just listening to their idiot professors. Or they're incredibly stupid with very short memories.

As you said, that was EXACTLY the platform Obama ran on in 2008. And the youthful idiots fell for it hook, line, and sinker.

RE: Damage control
By Mint on 5/17/2013 8:48:46 AM , Rating: 2
He made no promise to scrap the Patriot Act. He said some vague nonsense about increasing oversight, i.e. politispeak for minimal action.
The Leahy-Paul amendment never got through Congress, so ultimately Obama's only option was to ditch the Patriot Act entirely or keep it. He never campaigned to do the former.

Yeah, he crumpled on Guantanamo, but that's ultimately unrelated to the surveillance/privacy debate.

RE: Damage control
By tayb on 5/16/2013 5:00:02 PM , Rating: 2
Yes and for eight years under Bush all we heard about was "tyranny and warmongering" and bla bla bla.

Pot, meet kettle. Kettle, pot.

You don't give a fuck about what the President is doing. Just admit it. You only care because he is a supposed big bad liberal who is ruining the country. Bush literally lied to the American people to help win support for a war that cost the United States trillions of dollars, thousands of lives, and is STILL going on. Democrats called him a tyrant, Republicans called him a hero. Fast forward to present and the status quo remains unchanged yet here you sit bitching and moaning endlessly while Democrats sit silent. None of you dumbasses actually care about what is happening you only care about championing the party or political ideology you support.

People ignore you as a far right blowhard because you are a far right blowhard. You can't talk politics without blaming every single thing on a Democratic President who doesn't have nearly as much power as you think he does. For fucks sake the Republicans control the House and pass all kinds of batshit crazy unconstitutional shit literally monthly. You don't care about this because in reality you don't give a shit about politics you care about ideologies. You are anti-Democrat.

I'm so fucking sick and tired of seeing people such as yourself bash Democrats while raising up the alternative. There is no alternative. Democrat in office, Republican in office, the outcome is the exact same goddamn thing.

RE: Damage control
By Reclaimer77 on 5/16/13, Rating: 0
RE: Damage control
By Spuke on 5/16/2013 6:25:23 PM , Rating: 2
Oh yeah, this is gonna be goooood.

RE: Damage control
By DigitalFreak on 5/16/2013 7:56:28 PM , Rating: 2
"I would think at this point it would be hard for anyone with half a brain to support the goals of the Democrat party."

I would think at this point it would be hard for anyone with half a brain to support the goals of EITHER party.

RE: Damage control
By anactoraaron on 5/16/2013 10:27:24 PM , Rating: 1
Uhh can you please list some of these "crazy" things the House has somehow passed? For five years anything the House has passed has been veto-bait for Obama, but okay, I'll play along.

I would call the 37 attempts to repeal the Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare) both bat-sh1t crazy and incredibly wasteful. I thought this was the party of cutting big government waste? How much money does each of these pointless votes cost taxpayers? I say 'pointless' as there will never ever even be a bill in front of the president to veto yet they keep trying and wasting time and taxpayer money anyway.

Sure, for party ideological reasons try to repeal it 2 or 3 times to show that you're opposed to it and then GET BACK TO DOING YOUR ELECTED JOB. 37 times... omfg

RE: Damage control
By Ammohunt on 5/16/2013 9:01:10 PM , Rating: 2
Had enough then? eventually we may see which ideology has the balls to put up or shutup. Marxist socialists have no place in this country try cuba.

RE: Damage control
By ven1ger on 5/16/2013 10:16:23 PM , Rating: 2
Do you really know what a Marxist Socialist is? Not sure if you're just spouting words from Fox News or if you really know what it is.

Even I don't really know what a Marxist Socialist is supposed to be, given what Fox News is spouting. What came about in Russia was a twisted version of Karl Marx ideals, otherwise known as Marxist. Most countries that I know of have socialist values, where the strong help the weak, in times of disasters others help the distress, etc., even in the US we have social programs so if you don't like social programs then maybe you're in the wrong country.

Go ahead, please lay down your definition so I can relate to what you're saying.

RE: Damage control
By anactoraaron on 5/16/2013 10:41:02 PM , Rating: 2
"Marxist Socialist"

- Noun. Defined as the current American bogeyman for conservatives. Also see wealth redistribution.

Funny, as wealth redistribution works wonders on all levels of an economic scale and it is vital to the success of any society. It means paying employees (that's a form of wealth redistribution!), which relates to further economic growth.

Back on topic, it's funny to me how Obama has changed his tone about this, funny because he's the one that has been targeting press sources. Now that it's gone public (it has been going on for 5 years) he's there to step in and say "I will create a bill to stop things like this (that I did) from happening again.

Major league hypocrisy from both parties.

RE: Damage control
By Xonoahbin on 5/17/2013 12:51:53 PM , Rating: 2
Look, I'm pretty sure you've misunderstood the guy here. Here's the thing: it is Obama's fault. And it's Bush's fault. And it's the fault of every damned politician who decides the government needs to do far more than it's supposed to. See also: both sides of the aisle, probably 90% or more of the folks in Washington.

I really get the sense that you're a partisan hack yourself. You want to ignore the fact that Bush did anything wrong and blame everything on Obama. Well, guess what? Both of them wreaked havoc on civil liberties. Maybe, just maybe, there's something else going on if our presidents are consistently doing the same stupid things. Perhaps the system is broken.

RE: Damage control
By 91TTZ on 5/17/2013 9:55:23 AM , Rating: 2
Are you actually trying to defend Obama by saying that Bush did it too? I don't find that to be much of an excuse for this administration. It's like saying that you stole something because you saw some other guy steal something.

Bush began stealing our rights after 9/11 and Obama is doing the same. This administration is continuing down the same, horrible path that the previous administration did.

RE: Damage control
By karimtemple on 5/16/2013 4:22:48 PM , Rating: 2
I keep forgetting people don't know anything about social theory. Thanks for the reminder.

RE: Damage control
By stmok on 5/19/2013 11:19:36 AM , Rating: 2
This is what happens when Liberalism (socialism, state'ism, Collectivism) is allowed to thrive: Tyranny. It's happened everywhere else the ideology has taken root, and now it's happening here.

Correct. This behaviour is NOT isolated to USA. Here in Australia, the Left is in power with the first female Prime Minister named Julia Gillard. (Her historical background through her university years indicates she's a Socialist-Feminist in terms of political ideology).

In the last 18 months, her Govt has tried to:

* legally enforce politically correct speech through proposing a draft to expand Anti-Discrimination Laws. The goal was to make them broad so that one can be easily claim they "feel offended". The accused will then be PRESUMED GUILTY until proven innocent. The REAL objective was to shut down opposing political views that doesn't align with current Govt. They tried to disguise the move under the banner of "consolidating" existing laws to make it simpler!

This was fought against and won by a vocal group with the support of various reps with a strong legal reputation in some states. Her Attorney-General who tried to push this through even stepped down a week later!

* This was followed by "Media Reform". An attempt to rush through new rules to shut the media up. ie: They're blaming the media for their own failings as a Govt. This failed as well, as no one in Parliament would support it until more details were released. Since they couldn't provide details, they gave up!

You may think: how does Obama and Gillard relate?

* They follow the same political ideologies.
=> 2010 campaign slogan of Gillard: "Moving Forward"
=> 2012 campaign slogan of Obama: "Forward"

* They speak the same vocabulary and behave similarly.
=> Everyone should "pay their fair share". Especially the rich. (Class warfare).
=> They divide the nation through class, gender, race, etc.
=> Both have policies that stifle small business owners.
=> Both have strong union backers to keep them in power.
=> Both use the poor or disadvantaged to justify "social justice" policies. (Welfare benefits.)
=> Both hide behind political correctness. Obama has race. Gillard has gender. (If you oppose Obama, you are a RACIST. If you oppose Gillard, you are a MISOGYNIST!)
=> They don't stop excessive spending!
=> They "solve problems" by introducing more layers of red tape and it results in employment of more Govt workers!
=> Both hurt their respective countries economically. USA isn't doing well as it can, and Australia will be in deficit/debt for the next 4 yrs.

* You guys had your Election last year, and I noticed it was quite dirty in the sense that every pointless trivial thing was picked as a political issue. ie: Big Bird, Binders full of women, free Abortion pills, etc. (Everything else that supposed to matter to the Nation was quashed.)

We have our Election this year, Gillard is doing the same damn thing! She's trying to paint the Opposition (Conservative male) as a woman hater, etc because she has no record to run on after 3 years! (We're heading into deficit/debt for the next 4 yrs because of her!).

There's one thing these Left leaning Govts have most in common.
=> No humility. They will never admit they're wrong. They will NEVER be upfront or truthful to the people. Its always someone else or something else that is at fault. Excuses with lots of spinning. When the crapper hits the fan, they always distance themselves or have a sacrificial lamb to take the fall for them...Just hoping the public will have short memories and the problem will just fade away over time!

RE: Damage control
By FITCamaro on 5/16/2013 3:22:59 PM , Rating: 1
I'm incredibly against this. Journalists shouldn't be allowed to release classified information and get off scott free. Otherwise what's the point of classified information.

There's a difference between releasing classified info and blowing the whistle on illegal activity as well.

RE: Damage control
By FITCamaro on 5/16/2013 4:40:48 PM , Rating: 2
Let me also add that if they want to look at journalists phone records to see who's giving them classified or confidential information, they should need a warrant just like anything else.

RE: Damage control
By ven1ger on 5/16/2013 5:10:46 PM , Rating: 2
Agreed. Just wished they'd also get rid of the Patriot Act, should have been actually called the unPatriot Act, but easier to pass something that relies on the emotion instead of reason. All of these stupid things since 9/11.

RE: Damage control
By FITCamaro on 5/17/2013 5:34:23 AM , Rating: 3
The Patriot Act has good and bad like any bill.

But your level of intelligence was already displayed above so I'll let you just go on thinking that it alone is the source of nearly all our problems and Bush was this mastermind who desired war for money.

Funny how liberals make Bush out to be this mastermind who was so clever and devious but during his Presidency they also tried to say how stupid he was.

typical politicrap
By talikarni on 5/16/2013 2:44:40 PM , Rating: 2
So they use it to go after conservatives just like his puppets in the IRS.... great idea opening this up under a government whos only real talent is corruption...

RE: typical politicrap
By ven1ger on 5/16/2013 3:45:26 PM , Rating: 4
Guess it's fair as Bush used the DOJ to go after Democrats.

The underlying problem is that at least since 9/11, many of the protections that were put into place to prevent gov't overstepping itself, has been eroded in the name of national security.

RE: typical politicrap
By FITCamaro on 5/16/2013 3:56:58 PM , Rating: 2
Bush got rid of far left liberals at the DoJ. He didn't go after groups that were allied with Democrats solely because of that.

Obama has done the same thing and then some. Remember reading an article about how every attorney hired at the DoJ since Obama took office has been a far left type.

RE: typical politicrap
By ven1ger on 5/16/2013 4:18:52 PM , Rating: 2
That's what every administration has done it to some degree but that's not what I was referring to.

The DOJ was actively prosecuting Democrats instead of prosecuting fairly across the board. It was I believe more of a Karl Rove tactic, as it was more politically motivated.

RE: typical politicrap
By Ammohunt on 5/16/2013 9:03:40 PM , Rating: 2
I think you need to change your tinfoil hat.

RE: typical politicrap
By Reclaimer77 on 5/16/2013 4:43:20 PM , Rating: 1
lol you're so intellectually and morally bankrupt it's unbelievable. You expect someone to carry on a serious conversation with you when your only response is to parade out the tired old Bush scapegoat?

It's not even usable here. Bush sure as hell didn't empower the IRS's ability to target political adversaries did he?

So your argument is that Obama wouldn't have abused his power unless Bush, somehow, granted him those powers? Really, that's your angle!

I'm sorry but I thought in the adult world, you were ultimately responsible for the choices you made. Make all the excuses you want, Obama made decisions, and those decisions have consequences.

many of the protections that were put into place to prevent gov't overstepping itself, has been eroded in the name of national security.

Nice rhetoric until you get to the fact that everything Bush did came with built-in expiration dates. Fact is Obama was the one who extended the Patriot Act!

No matter how you slice it, Obama is singularly responsible for what's happening under his Administration right now today. Don't pretend that this would have gone a different way if Bush did things differently.

RE: typical politicrap
By ven1ger on 5/16/2013 5:19:38 PM , Rating: 2
Gods, you're an idiot nutcase.

All of this wouldn't have happened if it wasn't for Bush setting up for this sort of abuse to happen. Yes, Obama extended the stupid Patriot Act, but Bush put it in play, which allows for a lot of these abuses to happen because Bush laid the foundation. Got that. Blaming Obama for using what Bush has setup but not blaming Bush for laying the groundwork is just your idealogy showing through. If we never had a lot of these foundations laid out by Bush originally do you think that Obama could have done this? Drone strikes, warrantless wiretaps, TSA, etc., guess you were fine when Bush was doing it, but now that Obama is doing it you're all let's kill the liberals, we're heading to tyranny crap. It started with the previous administration.

RE: typical politicrap
By Reclaimer77 on 5/16/2013 5:41:56 PM , Rating: 1
lol that's all you have isn't it? You honestly don't see how bankrupt that line of thinking is?

Fine I'll play that game:

All of this wouldn't have happened if it wasn't for Bush setting up for this sort of abuse to happen.

Oh well Bush couldn't have set that all up if it wasn't for Clinton! So everything happening now, is REALLY Clinton's fault.

Are you tired of being THAT goddamned lame yet?

It started with the previous administration.


Yeah you are so right. President's were simply unable to abuse their position until that fucking George Bush came along and ruined it for all of us.

Dude are you THAT stupid?

RE: typical politicrap
By ven1ger on 5/16/2013 6:00:35 PM , Rating: 2
Guess you don't practice what you preach.

Thought you were done discussing Bush about 6 minutes ago...

Also wasn't it Clinton fault that 9/11 happened? Bush and his admin, kept saying that Clinton's admin, never saw it coming. Gee, and so guess the Clinton budget surplus he left behind is the cause of the severe recession under Bush and the lost of all those jobs.

Sorry, Reclaimer, guess logic fails you, maybe next time I'll just do like you and proclaim let's kill all the Right-Wing Nuts. Or like what a lot of Right-Wingers used to say, this is America, love it or leave it, don't let the door hit you in the backside.

RE: typical politicrap
By Reclaimer77 on 5/16/2013 5:50:44 PM , Rating: 2
lol man I AM such an idiot, you're right.

I've finally figured out this phenomenon. Deep down inside, you guys are upset at Obama. You really believed he was "the one". You believed in "Hope and Change". You were caught up in the almost orgasmic utopian fantasies that Obama would transform this sickened nation, tainted by Bush, into something you could be proud of.

And when that didn't happen, when it became clear Obama wasn't the special magical unicorn you believed him to be, you couldn't handle it. He didn't stop the wars, he didn't close Guantanamo, he didn't raise taxes, hell he barely met a single campaign promise. You were lied to! Sold snake oil!

You HAVE to blame Bush because you can't bring yourselves to blame yourself for supporting this jackass, and you sure as hell can't blame him for failing to live up to your expectations. Because deep down, you want to believe.

You have my pity.

RE: typical politicrap
By FITCamaro on 5/17/2013 5:39:14 AM , Rating: 2
Man by your logic if I build a bridge and you blow it up then I am the one responsible for the deaths of people on that bridge.

You definitely are young. Because you lack the comprehension of this concept called being responsible for your own actions. Something much of today's youth doesn't understand since they've been raised to believe no one is responsible for their actions, its always someone else's fault.

I don't excuse Bush for the bad things he did. But that doesn't excuse Obama either which is EXACTLY what YOU are doing.

Simpler solutions
By tfk11 on 5/16/2013 4:28:29 PM , Rating: 2
The responsibility of keeping confidential material confidential falls on the AP. Many methods of secure communication exist and are not that difficult to implement.

Why doesn't AP just go download the Ostel source and setup their own secure voice network?

RE: Simpler solutions
By Fujikoma on 5/16/2013 5:34:17 PM , Rating: 2
I'd say that confidential information is the responsibility of the agency that has it to start with. If their security is so poor that they have leaks, then there needs to be an internal investigation long before laying blame on the media. There are many instances where things are classified when they shouldn't be and the media does have the responsibility to call the government out on it.

RE: Simpler solutions
By wookie1 on 5/18/2013 2:11:56 PM , Rating: 2
The gov't didn't need to know what was said in the phone calls, just who the AP was calling to determine who might be leaking. So the gov't just set up a dragnet on the AP to find out.

Limbaugh Theorem
By Arsynic on 5/16/2013 3:03:53 PM , Rating: 1
Limbaugh is right:

Obama is doing everything in his power to appear like he's an outsider trying to "fight the power" in Washington. He's never responsible for anything.

Anything except killing Bin Laden, saving General Motors, having a terrorist "kill list" and killing the Somalian pirates. "Coincidentally" those happen to be the things he has control over. But the negative stuff? It's either the fault of Republicans or some "rogue" elements of his administration.

RE: Limbaugh Theorem
By althaz on 5/16/2013 11:04:26 PM , Rating: 2
If you are going to elect politicians into office, you shouldn't be surprised when it turns out they act like politicians.

A master of media manipulation.
By 91TTZ on 5/17/2013 9:50:33 AM , Rating: 3
I've got to give it to Obama- he's a master when it comes to manipulating the media. The man can just do no wrong in their eyes.

He's the kind of guy that will lie to your face and you'll believe him. And if you happen to find out that he lied to your face, you'll believe him when he says it'll never happen again. And when he does it again, the same excuse will work once again.

America is the battered wife and Obama is the abusive husband- "Don't worry, baby, I only beat you because I love you and it'll never happen again. I promise."

I love this
By Ammohunt on 5/16/2013 2:06:38 PM , Rating: 2
Obama Administration: "Hey AP we bent you over the fence now we want to pass a law that says we can't bend you over the fence in the future."


"I cannot resist"
By wookie1 on 5/18/2013 2:13:57 PM , Rating: 2
Why doesn't Obama just come out and say "Without a law against spying on the press, I can't resist doing it. Please pass a law so that I can prevent my administration from continuing such abuses, as I have no control over my branch of government."

"Intel is investing heavily (think gazillions of dollars and bazillions of engineering man hours) in resources to create an Intel host controllers spec in order to speed time to market of the USB 3.0 technology." -- Intel blogger Nick Knupffer

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki