Skip to main content

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

Comment Preferences

  •  AP is not a source (9+ / 0-)

    neither is Rosin. They are journalists even if you don't like their brand of 'news'. This administration has crossed the line from leaks, whistleblower's to saying that AP and the reporter from fox are aiding and abetting the nebulous terrorist enemy of the state.  'Wanton release' ? lol. Like AP is doesn't ususally carry their bs propaganda water, disguised as a news wire. The first amendment is dead as a doornail and this so called Democratic administration has nailed down the coffin lid.

    Sensitive information in your mind means any info that shines a bad light on what the Spooks and our security state are up to. Sources should not be divulged especially at a time like this. We are no longer a democracy when their is no 4th estate that is not controlled by the state. Journalists and sources go hand in hand always have unless you live in an authoritarian state in which freedom of speech and the freedom to know what's going down is declared a crime.

    Have you no shame? Why are you a Democrat? A free press and information is essential for any democratic system. Lordy we're all supposed to just accept what ever these corrupt liars tell us is the truth?

    'The Law is King'  Thomas Paine

    Where's my freaking habeas corpus?      

    •  Good question! (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      shaharazade, 3goldens, JVolvo
      Where's my freaking habeas corpus?
      I realize SCOTUS allegedly declared that part of MCA '06 was unconstitutional, but I have seen no information that anyone is pushing to repeal, in its entirety, MCA '06 to officially give habeas corpus back to us.  I never did figure out why the f##k Obama saw fit to "update" that with MCA '09, and have less understanding for why our Cretinous Congress Critters passed yet another unconstitutional and illegal p.o.s. legislation.

      The more time passes with these "temporary" laws in effect - and, adding insult to injury, extensions added to them - the more people will think this state of affairs is normal and won't understand why us oldsters see all the more reason to "rush" to give us back our constitutional rights.  What legislator in her/his right mind passes "temporary" unconstitutional laws with expiration dates?!?!?  Those things were all wrong right from the get-go, and extending their expiration dates just adds insult to injury.  [Really, how stupid do our Cretinous Congress Critters think we are?!?]

      Needing instant and total repealing:  AUMF, Patriot Act, MCA '06, FISA fiasco '08, MCA '09, and throw in 'office of faith-based initiatives' for good measure since that violates the separation of church and state and its existence as a branch of the executive office means religions have a toehold in the door, and that's just all kinds of wrong.

      I'm sick of attempts to steer this nation from principles evolved in The Age of Reason to hallucinations derived from illiterate herdsmen. ~ Crashing Vor

      by NonnyO on Wed May 22, 2013 at 05:14:04 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Do you even know what you're talking about? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      jazzence

      Habeas Corpus involves arrest and charge with a crime and the right to a trial, not investigation.  In the case of Fox News and AP, NO REPORTERS were arrested or charged or forced to divulge their sources.  Their phone records were subpoenaed and investigated to find the leak, and their movement INSIDE A FEDERAL BUILDING were monitored.

      It has nothing to do with being in an authoritarian state or free press.

      Did the Justice Department censor AP?  Was any reporters silenced via intimidation or bogus charges?

      False equivalence is false equivalence, and it has nothing to do with being Dem or GOP.

    •  You would've defended the MSM reporting the (0+ / 0-)

      date of D-Day, I guess.  Or, at least you would've opposed diligent investigation to see who leaked it to the media.

      Look, nobody in the AP is being charged with anything.  The phone company was subpeoned for phone records (a very common law enforcement practice).  And the phone company decided to comply with the subpoena.  The phone company owns the phone records, not the AP.  The phone records were subpoenaed in order to try to find out who the leaker was.  If the leaker is found, then the leaker is the one facing prosecution or whatever, not the AP.

      In the Rosen case, I've barely read about it, but my understanding is that he outed our North Korea insider.  For absolutely no reason.  And a court granted a warrant to investigate Rosen (or his contacts, or whatever; as I said, I barely skimmed this story).  If so, then what's the problem?  A court granted the warrant.  Isn't that what civil libertarians demand, that DOJ should always seek warrants from courts?  Well that happened.  What, are you pissed that the court granted the warrant?  Are you pissed at the process (which was followed according to civil libertarian prescription) or pissed at the result, and so lash out at the president?

      And lastly, do you oppose getting to the bottom of the outing of our lone NK insider?  Do you not understand the seriousness of that leak?  Do you not understand that it had nothing to do with "whistle blowing" nor did it have anything to do with an urgent need for the public to know that we had an insider in the NK government?

      Put your ideology aside and look at the real world.  This isn't a freakin' game, it's real.  And a playing around with people's lives over some purist ideological stance is foolhardy, reckless, and selfish.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site