Skip to main content

View Diary: Obama's leak freakout (148 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  so legal = good? (4+ / 0-)

    if there's no law against it then it's OK, no matter how detrimental or irresponsible?

    What are you doing to fight the dangerous and counterproductive error of treating dirtbag terrorist criminals as though they were comic book supervillains? I can't believe we still have to argue this shit, let alone on Daily Kos.

    by happymisanthropy on Wed May 22, 2013 at 04:28:24 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Yes, that's what 'nation of laws' MEANS. It may n (0+ / 0-)

      ot be wise, but that is not the same as 'good'.

      And more importantly, 'legal' in a nation of laws is proper.  It is absurd and counter-productive to claim an act authorized by the law is an 'abuse of power'.  You destroy the meaning of the term 'abuse' and the next time Watergate just becomes 'politics'.

      And that is exactly the way Thugs abused the special prosecutor and impeachment against Clinton so that when BushCo was properly called out for illegal wiretaps, lying us into war, covering up Rove and Cheney's treason, etc., pointing out these true abuses of power and even whipsering about redress was dismissed as 'just politics'.

      Oh and btw, I see no on disbutes how he falsely accused BO of complicity...

      •  Torquemada Gonzales argued (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Laconic Lib, Rick Aucoin, JVolvo

        that anything allowed under the patriot act is not an abuse of the patriot act, because it's legal.
        He also said that anything not allowed under the patriot act is not an abuse because the law specifically forbids that shit!  so see it's a good law and not responsible for those few bad apples who are violating it!

        thus, the patriot act had never been abused and thus does not need reforming.

        And more importantly, 'legal' in a nation of laws is proper.
        No, ridiculously improper things can be perfectly legal.  A nation of laws can still hold its public servants to a higher standard than merely not breaking any laws.
        It is absurd and counter-productive to claim an act authorized by the law is an 'abuse of power'.  You destroy the meaning of the term 'abuse' and the next time Watergate just becomes 'politics'.
        Bullshit.  The way to stop this behavior is to call it out regardless of which party is in power. The idea that Republicans get away with treason because civil libertarians are too consistent is just as idiotic as the idea that disaffected liberals caused the 2010 electoral fiasco.
        And that is exactly the way Thugs abused the special prosecutor and impeachment against Clinton so that when BushCo was properly called out for illegal wiretaps, lying us into war, covering up Rove and Cheney's treason, etc., pointing out these true abuses of power and even whipsering about redress was dismissed as 'just politics'.
        And now that many of these have been fully legalized, how do you get to call them abuses?  Lying us into a war is not a violation of statute, illegal wiretaps are now legal, so there is no abuse there as you define it.  Ditto phony terror alerts to boost Bush's poll numbers -- there's no law against that, so it's not an abuse.

        What are you doing to fight the dangerous and counterproductive error of treating dirtbag terrorist criminals as though they were comic book supervillains? I can't believe we still have to argue this shit, let alone on Daily Kos.

        by happymisanthropy on Wed May 22, 2013 at 05:27:48 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  So you get to break the law when u think its wrong (0+ / 0-)

          and you think you're entitled to escape consequences?  MLK would be very disappointed in you: civil disobedience requires accepting the punishment if you can't beat the rap or its just anarchy and counter-productive.

          I frankly don't care what Dumbya's valet said, he's not the courts.  But he's correct that doing what the Patriot Act said is not an abuse of power, unless it violates the Constitution (which getting a warrant and using subpoenas and other court process pretty much defines not violating) in which case that part of the Act wouldnot be the law and the act would not be legal.  And yes, its proper as long as its not prohibited. See, Necessary and Proper clause cases ['let the end be proper and the means not prohibited' and its Constitutional].  

          The Patriot Act may be unwise (and certain parts clearly are imo), but that is a different matter, as I've tried to explain - apparently falling on rotating deaf ears.  What you think is wise isn’t what Joe thinks is, which is why we don't criminalize being unwise or call it an 'abuse'.

          But legal acts taken for illegal purposes are also illegal, so just bc the Act says you can do something that alone doesn't answer whether it is legal and is abuse of power.  E.g., Nixon had direct power over IRS and could have directed they give special attention to legitimate targets - i.e., the Mob - but it was still illegal to direct it against his enemies, both bc of the IRS statutes and the Constitution.  Thus, the 2nd part of your syllogism is specious and the syllogism fails.

          Now, saying it is proper and not an abuse is not the same as 'ethical' or even 'moral'.  But just bc you think something is unwise, unethical or immoral does not mean it is improper in the legal or Constitutional sense.  

          And no, "many of these have" not "been fully legalized", regardless your impression or belief.   'Lying us into a war' violates the Constitutional required oath to "faithfully execute the Office". See, Nixon impeachment.  The same for terror alerts.
          Further, 'lying into a war' actually is 'a violation of statute', via the War Powers Act reporting requirement and provisions as well as false statement criminal statutes (of which POTUS is not immune). (That was expressly one the WPA's justifications.)  Certain wiretaps then illegal are indeed now putatively legal (tho not necessarily as SCOTUS has ducked the issue repeatedly, but imo it violates the 4th A if construed to allow searches without warrants or exigent circumstances, as McNeely re-affirmed a couple months ago is what the 4th A has long been held to mean).  But the law did not make Bush's illegal wiretapping legal - it immunized for the illegality.  I know its a subtle difference, but it is the same as a pardon and did change the illegal nature of the acts before the law passed in '05.  And some of what Bush did in this regard is still illegal even under the new (imo unconstitutional) law.

          Finally, 'call[ing] it out" and 'being consistent' means nothing if your definition of 'abuse of power' is really just 'what I think is wrong'.  Which is all you are left with if you abandon the law.  That's the whole meaning of 'a nation of laws and not men.'  

          You will no doubt claim you are not doing that: but then you must specify exactly what your standard is and it damn well better be objective and universal or every political disagreement becomes 'abuse of power'.  

          Personally, I don't think you can.  A 'higher standard' is not a standard.  It is solipsistic: what you think is higher ain't what the T-baggers think.

          •  asdf (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            JVolvo
            So you get to break the law when u think its wrong (0+ / 0-)and you think you're entitled to escape consequences?
            Please cite where I said that.
            MLK would be very disappointed in you: civil disobedience requires accepting the punishment if you can't beat the rap or its just anarchy and counter-productive.
            Strawman.  See above.
            But he's correct that doing what the Patriot Act said is not an abuse of power, unless it violates the Constitution (which getting a warrant and using subpoenas and other court process pretty much defines not violating) in which case that part of the Act wouldnot be the law and the act would not be legal.  And yes, its proper as long as its not prohibited. See, Necessary and Proper clause cases ['let the end be proper and the means not prohibited' and its Constitutional].
            How is this not trying to insert a legal judgement in the place of what can only be a moral or ethical judgement?  I feel the need to pluck off the tentacles of legalism when they reach into orifices where they are not wanted.
            The Patriot Act may be unwise (and certain parts clearly are imo), but that is a different matter, as I've tried to explain - apparently falling on rotating deaf ears.  What you think is wise isn’t what Joe thinks is, which is why we don't criminalize being unwise or call it an 'abuse'.
            If abuse has a specific legal definition, cite it and be done.  I can probably find a synonym to serve in its place.
            But legal acts taken for illegal purposes are also illegal, so just bc the Act says you can do something that alone doesn't answer whether it is legal and is abuse of power.  E.g., Nixon had direct power over IRS and could have directed they give special attention to legitimate targets - i.e., the Mob - but it was still illegal to direct it against his enemies, both bc of the IRS statutes and the Constitution.  Thus, the 2nd part of your syllogism is specious and the syllogism fails...
            And no, "many of these have" not "been fully legalized", regardless your impression or belief.   'Lying us into a war' violates the Constitutional required oath to "faithfully execute the Office". See, Nixon impeachment.  The same for terror alerts.
            Nixon was not impeached for lying us into a war.  The only lying mentioned in the impeachment articles was part of the obstruction of justice charge.

            In fact, a high court recently ruled that President Bush lying to the American people was part of his official job duties and thus covered under sovereign immunity.  Not only is it legal it's given special legal protection.

            Now, saying it is proper and not an abuse is not the same as 'ethical' or even 'moral'.  But just bc you think something is unwise, unethical or immoral does not mean it is improper in the legal or Constitutional sense.

            Link to where I said otherwise?

            Finally, 'call[ing] it out" and 'being consistent' means nothing if your definition of 'abuse of power' is really just 'what I think is wrong'.  Which is all you are left with if you abandon the law.  That's the whole meaning of 'a nation of laws and not men.'  
            No. Bullshit.
            If you run a convenience store, and you hire a manager, you want her to not violate the law while she's on the premises running your shop.
            Is that all you would expect from her?  You wouldn't expect her to be polite to customers, respect the privacy of teenagers buying condoms, make sure everything is running in good order and that the customers are not getting E. coli from the fried chicken?

            Asking our employees to not only obey the letter of the law but the spirit of the constitution as well does not mean we are "abandon[ing] the law."  

            You will no doubt claim you are not doing that: but then you must specify exactly what your standard is and it damn well better be objective and universal or every political disagreement becomes 'abuse of power'.  
            Why?
            The cult of objectivity makes no sense to me.  Clearly you think this should go without saying, but I don't understand it at all.
            Of course every political disagreement will be portrayed as "abuse of power" by one side or the other, or both.  Certainly Nixon thought that Congress was abusing its impeachment power.  Because even the law is subjective.  It always was.  It always will be.  The only thing you can achieve by purging subjectivity from a human system is to make it so arcane and technical that it bears no relationship to the needs of the human population that it was supposedly created to serve.  An objective welfare administrator who has never met a poor person, for example.  Some people would see that as a good thing.
            Personally, I don't think you can.  A 'higher standard' is not a standard.  It is solipsistic: what you think is higher ain't what the T-baggers think.
            But that's no reason.  What I think is the law is not what the teabaggers think.  Even if I'm objectively correct they won't agree with me.  So what good (in this context) is objectivity?

            Why should I care whether teabaggers agree with me?  They'll never agree with you, but you won't let that stop you.

            The days when Republicans agreed to hold a Republican president accountable are never going to come back, and fantasies about "objectivity" won't change that.

            What are you doing to fight the dangerous and counterproductive error of treating dirtbag terrorist criminals as though they were comic book supervillains? I can't believe we still have to argue this shit, let alone on Daily Kos.

            by happymisanthropy on Wed May 22, 2013 at 10:44:58 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Since the subject of the cartoon was how BO was (0+ / 0-)

              supposedly 'stifling the 1st A' and getting Holder to 'abuse his power', and those are legal and Constitutional (which is to say also legal) issues, then yes the issue here is legal and legal is sufficient.

              You want to criticize him for not being aPlatonic Gaurdian of Wisdom, go for it.  But don't pretend you're making anything other than a merely ethical argument.

              And the thing about ethics is: a lot of very serious thinkers have disagreed stongly with each other over the millenia, often to the point of mutual exclusivity, on what is and is not moral.  IOW, it values and yours may not be mine, or even a majorities... or more imporantly objectively correct.

              If you want to say 'he's not living up the values I want in a President', say it.  But don't hide behind legal phrases with a long, hard-fought meaning and history and then wave every legal argument away as 'just legal argument', which is what you are doing.  

              And do not pretend that you are doing anything more than judging him by your peculiar and personal standards.

              And btw, the reason we speak of 'legal' and don't say 'abuse of power' where they don't meet what our little minority thinks is 'the spirit of the Constitution' is bc it is a minority, while the Constitution - from which his authority to do anything derives - is a contract to agree with what the majority makes law, except when it violates what the majority (or supermajority) thinks is too important to leave to transient majorites (e.g., the Bill of Rghts).

              The Constitution is in short not some moral or aspirational declaration.  It is a LAW.  It is in fact the Supreme Law of the US.  POTUS is not a King, he is a man temporarily empowered by The Law to do certain things in the name of the majority of The People (bc he is elected by majority, or supposed to be).  It has nothing to do with 'subjectivity' or 'objectivity'.  It has everything to do with the fundamental idea that political power only justly derives from "the consent of the governed', i.e., majority rule.  

              The reason you should care what a T-bagger thinks is bc you are supposed to have a right to demand they abide by the Law, its actual terms.  That means, e.g., they accept that Obama - and Ds - won the majority and by not doing so they are profoundly, fundamentally unAmerican.  

              And yes, that means you go to jail if you break the law even if you think the law offends your personal view of 'the hgiher law' bc you respect the right of all of your fellow humans to rule themselves.  

              Even if they are wrong.

              Especially if they are wrong.

              Otherwise, its all just a game.

              And this whole democratic self-governing thing is not a fucking game.  Certainly not this weekend of all.

              The fact you won't - or can't - understand that the whole point the Constitution was to enshire the Law as sovereign rather than a King - and thus yes, bc it is legal it is Constitutionally correct and thus not an 'abuse - is distressing and depressing.

              •  so what? (0+ / 0-)

                you think that your subjective values are objective.  You are wrong.

                Every person who killed in a crusade believed that their religion was objectively correct.  They were killing in the name of what they considered to be objectivity.  Their concept of objectivity was no more wrong than your wrong concept of objectivity.

                What are you doing to fight the dangerous and counterproductive error of treating dirtbag terrorist criminals as though they were comic book supervillains? I can't believe we still have to argue this shit, let alone on Daily Kos.

                by happymisanthropy on Thu May 23, 2013 at 05:13:19 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  I'm done here. (0+ / 0-)

                  I tried to answer the questions you asked.

                  I keep trying to explain to you that neither the proper parameters of this debate about the amdin's actions, nor my arguments, are 'ethical arguments'.  They are not based on my 'values', or yours.  They are not based on objectivism or subjectivism.  They are based on how things work under the Constitution and why the Framers set it up that way.  

                  That seems entirely appropo to me as this is a US political blog, discussing a US political controversy, involving whether by these specific acts POTUS 'abused' the power given his office under the law (statue and Constitution).

                  You don't want to deal with that.  Fine.

                  You want to instead pretend I'm talking about the morality or wisdom of the act.  Fine.

                  Whatever floats your boat.

    •  legal = legal (0+ / 0-)

      'good' is utterly subjective and thus not a point of law

      If you sign legally binding agreements you have no right to be surprised when they are enforced.

      In the time that I have been given,
      I am what I am

      by duhban on Wed May 22, 2013 at 05:03:22 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  what legally binding agreement did the AP sign? (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Laconic Lib, JVolvo

        also, I sure as hell expect more from government than just "legal."  Better, even.  Yes, I know it's subjective.

        What are you doing to fight the dangerous and counterproductive error of treating dirtbag terrorist criminals as though they were comic book supervillains? I can't believe we still have to argue this shit, let alone on Daily Kos.

        by happymisanthropy on Wed May 22, 2013 at 05:33:28 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  seriously? (0+ / 0-)

          you can't be that dense we are talking about the people illegally leaking information and that gives the government the right to conduct an investigation including lawfully and properly looking at the AP's phone records.

          And you know what? I expect the law from the government not some subjective bullshit because it's just as possible that the subjective bullshit is things I will not like as it is that it will be things I will like.

          The law exists to make sure everyone is treated equally and yes that's not pefectly executed but the imperfect system we have is far better then what you seem to be proposing.

          In the time that I have been given,
          I am what I am

          by duhban on Wed May 22, 2013 at 05:43:42 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Seriously. (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Rick Aucoin, JVolvo

            it may be legal for the government to issue subpoenas without a judge's approval but that sure as fuck doesn't mean it isn't an abuse.

            And you know what? I expect the law from the government not some subjective bullshit because it's just as possible that the subjective bullshit is things I will not like as it is that it will be things I will like.
            "Follow the law" is a good minimum standard for the government or for anyone else.  It is however never enough from the government or from anyone else.

            For example, if a person has been duly tried and convicted, it's perfectly legal for the president and/or governor to have the person executed even if the executive happens to know that the person is absolutely innocent.  There is no legal requirement for the president to pardon an innocent person, in fact it's a violation of traditional norms to pardon a person who hasn't acknowledged guilt.

            Should a president pardon an absolutely guilty convict facing execution?  Fuck yes.  But it's perfectly legal not to.

            What are you doing to fight the dangerous and counterproductive error of treating dirtbag terrorist criminals as though they were comic book supervillains? I can't believe we still have to argue this shit, let alone on Daily Kos.

            by happymisanthropy on Wed May 22, 2013 at 06:02:32 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  oh please (0+ / 0-)

              this is an utterly juvenile argument

              What's next? You gonna yell you can't make me some?

              If you want to discuss the law fine let's discuss this but it's utterly dishonest to pretend that this was anything but a legal investigation of people breaking the law and the agreements they have signed.

              We are never going to agree about your subjective views because you don't seem to understand the inherent danger of subjectivity.

              In the time that I have been given,
              I am what I am

              by duhban on Wed May 22, 2013 at 06:22:06 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  If good is subjective (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Rick Aucoin, JVolvo

                then you can never achieve good through objectivity.  Should government abandon the idea of being good?

                Other subjective ideas:
                --Justice
                --Compassion
                --Competence
                --Objectivity

                What are you doing to fight the dangerous and counterproductive error of treating dirtbag terrorist criminals as though they were comic book supervillains? I can't believe we still have to argue this shit, let alone on Daily Kos.

                by happymisanthropy on Wed May 22, 2013 at 06:52:22 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  you can play semantics all you want (0+ / 0-)

                  But Objectivity is not subjective neither is competence nor justice and while you might have a point on compassion it really doesn't matter because all of that is entirely a strawman.

                  And give me objectivity any day over zealots convinced that 'their way' is the only way. It makes no difference to me whether it's you or the pro right or anyone else more evil has been done in the name of 'good' then just about anything else except 'god' (and even then I'd argue that those two are linked anyways)

                  In the time that I have been given,
                  I am what I am

                  by duhban on Wed May 22, 2013 at 07:27:50 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Einstein: (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    JVolvo
                    As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality.
                    Objectivity itself is only objective if we first agree what we should be measuring, which of course we don't.

                    If justice were objective then every country in the world would have the same concept of justice, which they don't.  Plus, every supreme court justice would agree except the corrupt ones.  They don't.

                    Competence is the most subjective of the lot.  I think you're an incompetent ethicist.  But your competence certainly depends on who is evaluating it and for what purpose.  If you are not an airline pilot, then your ability to land a 747 does not improve your competence.  If you work in a dangerous job, then your diligence in keeping your coworkers safe is seen as competence by your peers.  It may be seen as incompetence by your boss, who perceives it as unnecessary delay.  The right wingers consider Obama incompetent because he hasn't invaded any countries that didn't attack us, which is precisely the biggest argument some of us can see for his competence.

                    I want a government that is competent, and there is no objective standard for what competence means in government.

                    You:

                    And give me objectivity any day over zealots convinced that 'their way' is the only way.
                    Unless we agree on what the purpose of government is, and the yardsticks used to measure progress in that regard (both of which are extremely subjective matters), then it's totally useless to talk about objectivity in government.

                    What are you doing to fight the dangerous and counterproductive error of treating dirtbag terrorist criminals as though they were comic book supervillains? I can't believe we still have to argue this shit, let alone on Daily Kos.

                    by happymisanthropy on Wed May 22, 2013 at 09:02:10 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  you really shouldn't bring Einstien into this (0+ / 0-)

                      as you will get yourself embarrased.

                      Further that's still off topic we're not talking math here bud. Are you incapable of dealing with the topic? I gotta ask because you are pushing these strawmen awefully hard.

                      As to the rest of your ramblings,

                      Objectivity is by definition not subjective thus you only look like a fool for claiming otherwise. If you want to redefine objectivity be my guest but be prepared to be looked at as stranged as soemone that wants to say the color blue is actually red.

                      Competence is entirely subjective either you are or you are not by a set of criteria. Once again you demonstrate you don't have a flying clue what you are talking about. You may not like my arguments but that doesn't make them incompetent. That you would have to prove which is the exact opposite of subjectivity.

                      And I agree that this is likely useless because you sound like one of those relativists and frankly it's hard to take those types all that seriously.

                      In the time that I have been given,
                      I am what I am

                      by duhban on Wed May 22, 2013 at 09:15:21 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  asdf (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        dRefractor, DeadHead
                        If you want to redefine objectivity be my guest but be prepared to be looked at as stranged as soemone that wants to say the color blue is actually red.
                        Ok, fine.

                        The question of what "objective" means in any given context outside of pure mathematics or theoretical physics is subjective. Otherwise,

                        1. Only facts are objective.
                        2. The question of whether any particular objective fact is relevant to any particular policy discussion is NEVER objective.

                        Thus, there is no such thing as objectivity in any meaningful discussion of politics.

                        Is that better?
                        Or to mangle Einstein, "To the extent that facts are objective, they are not objectively relevant to politics, and to the extent they are objectively relevant to politics, they are not objective."

                        Competence is entirely subjective either you are or you are not by a set of criteria.
                        ...and who gets to write the criteria?
                        You may not like my arguments but that doesn't make them incompetent.
                        I didn't say they were incompetent.  I will say they are incompetent from a subjective philosophical standpoint... but I confess that that's subjective.
                        That you would have to prove which is the exact opposite of subjectivity.
                        Only if I tried to prove them wrong from every point of view!
                        And I agree that this is likely useless because you sound like one of those relativists and frankly it's hard to take those types all that seriously.
                        Is that meant as an insult?  Well, you sound like one of those legalists who think that the legality of an act is more important than the morality.

                        And I have to take those types very seriously, because they're fucking scary.

                        What are you doing to fight the dangerous and counterproductive error of treating dirtbag terrorist criminals as though they were comic book supervillains? I can't believe we still have to argue this shit, let alone on Daily Kos.

                        by happymisanthropy on Wed May 22, 2013 at 11:06:52 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  if you want to play that game (0+ / 0-)

                          then apparently chemistry is not objective according to you either then which is a shock to me as a chemist. I must go tell my profs that all those reactions only really work cause we want them to.

                          See this is the problem with relativists, you think yourself so clever and yet leave massive gaps in your logic. But then again I bet you will tell me logic isn't objective either.

                          And you are seriously trying to move the goal posts here mister would be philospher this is about a legal investigation into leaks not politics. So even if you had a point it would still not be on topic here.

                          I am not going to have a debate with you on the merits of relativistic ethics/philosphy not only is it utterly off topic I am not convinced you even understand the topic. I will say this, nothing I have said was meant as an insult to you personally it is however hard to take most relativists seriously as they are so busy trying to 'prove'  that there is no objectivity they miss the irony in their actions.

                          I really don't care what label you stick on me I stand by my point that 'good' is an utterly stupid way to approach most matters, especially government. Because 'good' is so utterly subjective that it could literally be anything. I'd rather have the government covered objectively by the law and have a debate on said law then your way.

                          More over that is how it is anyways right now so for you to be 'outraged' that the goverment doesn't function by your subjective notions is as strange as ranting at the rain because it dares to do as it wishes.

                          PS yes you indeed passive aggressively called my argument incomptent, at least own your words

                          In the time that I have been given,
                          I am what I am

                          by duhban on Wed May 22, 2013 at 11:50:11 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

        •  And guess what... (0+ / 0-)

          AP is not being prosecuted.

          False Equivalence is False Equivalence.

          •  AP is being harmed (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Rick Aucoin, JVolvo

            regardless of whether they're actually facing prosecution.

            What are you doing to fight the dangerous and counterproductive error of treating dirtbag terrorist criminals as though they were comic book supervillains? I can't believe we still have to argue this shit, let alone on Daily Kos.

            by happymisanthropy on Wed May 22, 2013 at 06:03:17 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  How is it being harmed. (0+ / 0-)

              Care to explain?  Or did you just pull it out of your rear end?

              •  because (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                JVolvo

                Confidentiality of sources?

                What are you doing to fight the dangerous and counterproductive error of treating dirtbag terrorist criminals as though they were comic book supervillains? I can't believe we still have to argue this shit, let alone on Daily Kos.

                by happymisanthropy on Wed May 22, 2013 at 06:15:29 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  confidentiality of sources (0+ / 0-)

                  means that the government cannot force the journalist to name sources. That's what a shield law does.

                  It has fuckall to do with anyone (including the government) using other legal means to determine the source.

                  47 is the new 51!

                  by nickrud on Wed May 22, 2013 at 06:18:37 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Focus, nickrud. (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    JVolvo

                    You asked what the harm was.  When I showed you what the harm was, you moved the goalposts and argued something else entirely.

                    Exposing all of the AP's sources, which is what happened here, is a big deal.  Governments shouldn't do that even if it is legal.

                    What are you doing to fight the dangerous and counterproductive error of treating dirtbag terrorist criminals as though they were comic book supervillains? I can't believe we still have to argue this shit, let alone on Daily Kos.

                    by happymisanthropy on Wed May 22, 2013 at 06:40:05 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  no, you're the one (0+ / 0-)

                      that brought up confidentiality of sources. It has a particular meaning. You can't change the definition. Being a source to a reporters story isn't a get out of jail free card, which is what you seem to want to define it as.

                      47 is the new 51!

                      by nickrud on Wed May 22, 2013 at 07:23:33 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Ok, fine (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        dRefractor, JVolvo

                        your semantics is bullshit, but if we're going to play that way the harm suffered by AP is that many of their sources know that they are now subject to special scrutiny from the government, and even if they have done nothing wrong that can and will be used against them.  Also, it we harder for every investigative reporter in the country to find unauthorized sources willing to talk to them.

                        That's what I meant by confidentiality of sources. Anyone who talked about anything, legal or otherwise, is open to reprisals now.

                        Authorized sources, of course, have nothing to worry about.  So the powers that be will have even more of a monopoly on the public discourse than they do now.

                        What are you doing to fight the dangerous and counterproductive error of treating dirtbag terrorist criminals as though they were comic book supervillains? I can't believe we still have to argue this shit, let alone on Daily Kos.

                        by happymisanthropy on Wed May 22, 2013 at 08:23:42 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  AP is not subject to (0+ / 0-)

                          'special scrutiny' - the investigation of the fox reporter disproves that specious argument. As well as the multitude of laws protecting journalists that have been passed over the decades.

                          Oh, and 'reprisals now'? Your historical horizon seems to be pretty short. Plame ring a bell?

                          47 is the new 51!

                          by nickrud on Thu May 23, 2013 at 09:17:30 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  Plame was burned (0+ / 0-)

                            because her husband spoke openly, not confidentially.  Now  EVERYONE who spoke to AP is similarly exposed, even if they thought they were speaking confidentially.

                            Honestly, don't you see how giving government the power to do that on a whim is dangerous?

                            What are you doing to fight the dangerous and counterproductive error of treating dirtbag terrorist criminals as though they were comic book supervillains? I can't believe we still have to argue this shit, let alone on Daily Kos.

                            by happymisanthropy on Thu May 23, 2013 at 05:19:55 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                •  AP's fault (0+ / 0-)

                  If the AP hadn't started a shitstorm over the phone records, no one would know that they were possibly unable to keep their sources secret. Any harm done to the AP was 100% the fault of the AP.

                  •  you think (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    JVolvo

                    that can be kept secret forever?  NOTHING should EVER be kept secret forever.  No exceptions.

                    What are you doing to fight the dangerous and counterproductive error of treating dirtbag terrorist criminals as though they were comic book supervillains? I can't believe we still have to argue this shit, let alone on Daily Kos.

                    by happymisanthropy on Wed May 22, 2013 at 08:29:46 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                •  That ball has dropped (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  3goldens

                  Back when Patrick Fitzgerald locked Judy Miller's ass up.

                  BTW, Confidentiality of sources has nothing to do with the government's ability to investigate a leak.  The reporter can keep their sources confidential all they want, but if a crime was committed, the government has the power and responsibility to investigate.

                  •  whuuuuuh? (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    JVolvo
                    That ball has dropped (1+ / 0-)
                    Back when Patrick Fitzgerald locked Judy Miller's ass up.
                    That was a REAL subpoena, authorized by a judge at the request of a grand jury.  Not a fishing license to spy on a hundred reporters carried out by the executive branch alone with no judicial oversight.

                    You know, the whole separation of powers thing?  Probable cause?  Sound familiar?

                    BTW, Confidentiality of sources has nothing to do with the government's ability to investigate a leak.  The reporter can keep their sources confidential all they want, but if a crime was committed, the government has the power and responsibility to investigate.
                    Government can investigate a reporter's sources (or in this case, numerous reporters' sources).  If it does, then their confidentiality is very much in danger.

                    Thus, harm.  That was my point, regardless of whether you want to play semantic games about what "confidentiality of sources" means.

                    What are you doing to fight the dangerous and counterproductive error of treating dirtbag terrorist criminals as though they were comic book supervillains? I can't believe we still have to argue this shit, let alone on Daily Kos.

                    by happymisanthropy on Wed May 22, 2013 at 08:38:22 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

    •  Yep. Just like Wall St. It's all good... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      quagmiremonkey

      The GOP says you have to have an ID to vote, but $ Millionaire donors should remain anonymous?

      by JVolvo on Thu May 23, 2013 at 10:01:37 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site