• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Govt obtains wide AP phone records in probe

jmotivator said:
The Liberally used Logical Fallacy of the Day: No True Scotsman.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but the Huff-Po piece.....was a Weeee Bit of gold and some Lucky Charm, at that end of the Rainbow. :lol:
 
PeteEU said:
Hmm double post.. strange
Click to expand...

It happens to all of us...you double click because your computer doesn't respond right or your connection just acts a little funny.
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
No, the Patriot Act allows the government to search business records. So where is the illegality?
Click to expand...
No, the Patriot Act does not permit the government to search whatever business records it chooses.
 
MMC said:
Yeah, but the Huff-Po piece.....was a Weeee Bit of gold and some Lucky Charm, at that end of the Rainbow. :lol:
Click to expand...

I just like the way the left wing posters here have tried to use this to argue that the press isn't liberal.... because, apparently, liberals wouldn't be opposed to gross incompetence in Benghazi, or criminal misconduct at the IRS, or a direct attack on the 1st Amendment.

I remember reading a story a while ago about yet another study that showed the psychological differences in liberals and conservatives that many liberals posted as proof they are smarter. The study showed Liberals were, in general, very skilled at holding two naturally contradictory beliefs at the same time. They argued then that this was just proof that Liberals are great at compromising. In reality I think the study was spot on, but that ability really just manifests itself in threads like this were liberal posters can argue the evil slippery slope of the Patriot Act AND defend Obama for treating it like a slip-n-slide.
 
SheWolf said:
The Bush Admin did stuff like this too, so it's really just a matter of both sides getting away with it now. That's how I see it, and that's the scary part.

The Patriot Act needs to be repealed and unwarranted wire taps should be considered an abuse of our constitutional rights.

It's big government nobody will defend except the politicians playing politics in DC.
Click to expand...
I don't believe there's any evidence yet that they did actual wiretapping, but in either case, neither is protected by the Patriot Act.
 
Taylor said:
No, the Patriot Act does not permit the government to search whatever business records it chooses.
Click to expand...

Of course it does as long as it's under the umbrella of counter-terrorism. This is what the right wanted. Now they've got it. Seems like poetic justice to me. The whining from the right over Obama Justice Department using the laws they passed is just the icing on the cake.
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
Of course it does as long as it's under the umbrella of counter-terrorism. This is what the right wanted. Now they've got it. Seems like poetic justice to me. The whining from the right over Obama Justice Department using the laws they passed is just the icing on the cake.
Click to expand...
LOL - this is a new one. And what sort of terrorist activity do you think the AP was involved in? Do you think their reporters were planning some sort of attack?
 
jmotivator said:
I just like the way the left wing posters here have tried to use this to argue that the press isn't liberal.... because, apparently, liberals wouldn't be opposed to gross incompetence in Benghazi, or criminal misconduct at the IRS, or a direct attack on the 1st Amendment.

I remember reading a story a while ago about yet another study that showed the psychological differences in liberals and conservatives that many liberals posted as proof they are smarter. The study showed Liberals were, in general, very skilled at holding two naturally contradictory beliefs at the same time. They argued then that this was just proof that Liberals are great at compromising. In reality I think the study was spot on, but that ability really just manifests itself in threads like this were liberal posters can argue the evil slippery slope of the Patriot Act AND defend Obama for treating it like a slip-n-slide.
Click to expand...

Yeah, kinda like when rightwing WorldNetDaily exposed Bush for using tax audits for political purposes. It's just like that, right?
 
Taylor said:
LOL - this is a new one. And what sort of terrorist activity do you think the AP was involved in? Do you think their reporters were planning some sort of attack?
Click to expand...
It wasn't the press the government was after -- it was their sources who had alleged ties to terrorism.
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
It wasn't the press the government was after -- it was their sources who had alleged ties to terrorism.
Click to expand...
There is no evidence whatsoever of which I'm aware that their "sources had alleged ties to terrorism" - quite the opposite actually.
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
It wasn't the press the government was after -- it was their sources who had alleged ties to terrorism.
Click to expand...
Snarf! Excuse me. So, the government was after terrorists? Huh. It's odd then, that the terrorists that killed four Americans in Libya, the one's we have on film and have identified, run freely and openly in the region to this day. As Carney said, eight months is a long time ago. Yet, they've done nothing. Instead, they're focused on possible terrorist sources possibly used by reporters at AP? You're not straining credibility here at all, are you?
 
Taylor said:
There is no evidence whatsoever of which I'm aware that their "sources had alleged ties to terrorism" - quite the opposite actually.
Click to expand...

I wasn't aware that the government was obliged to share their evidence, under the Patriot Act, with you? At any rate, I find it wholly ironic that the right now complains about the Patriot Act after all the years they championed it. What changed?
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
I wasn't aware that the government was obliged to share their evidence, under the Patriot Act, with you? At any rate, I find it wholly ironic that the right now complains about the Patriot Act after all the years they championed it. What changed?
Click to expand...

Doesn't appear that this power originated with the Patriot Act. All it requires is AG approval.

USAM 9-7.000 Electronic Surveillance
 
humbolt said:
Snarf! Excuse me. So, the government was after terrorists? Huh. It's odd then, that the terrorists that killed four Americans in Libya, the one's we have on film and have identified, run freely and openly in the region to this day. As Carney said, eight months is a long time ago. Yet, they've done nothing. Instead, they're focused on possible terrorist sources possibly used by reporters at AP? You're not straining credibility here at all, are you?
Click to expand...
LOL - you never know, maybe these "terrorist sources" used by the AP said the word "Constitution" at some point - or mentioned that they like to drink tea. In either case that could have raised a major red flag for the Obama admin.
 
There is nothing more spiteful and vengeful than a liberal scorned. Let's see how America reacts.
 
Samhain said:
Doesn't appear that this power originated with the Patriot Act. All it requires is AG approval.

USAM 9-7.000 Electronic Surveillance
Click to expand...

I believe you're barking up the wrong tree here. That's about wiretaps. The justice department seized phone records. That's not the same thing as a wiretap. Seizing records from a business without a court order was made legal under provisions of the Patriot Act.

Now don't get me wrong, I don't like this either, but the right can't have it both ways. You can't be in favor of laws only when a Republican is in power; but then against the very same laws when it's a Democrat in office.

You made your bed.......
 
Samhain said:
Doesn't appear that this power originated with the Patriot Act. All it requires is AG approval.

USAM 9-7.000 Electronic Surveillance
Click to expand...
Yeah, doesn't have anything to do with the Patriot Act. I don't think any wiretapping occurred - they subpoenaed phone records under USAM 9-13.400:

http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm00299.pdf

What they did seems to go beyond what's supposed to be "narrowly fashioned to obtain the necessary information in a minimally intrusive and burdensome manner." I'd also like to see the "explanation as to how the information sought to be subpoenaed is essential to the investigation or prosecution."

We do know for sure that this had to be authorized by Eric Holder.
 
Taylor said:
LOL - you never know, maybe these "terrorist sources" used by the AP said the word "Constitution" at some point - or mentioned that they like to drink tea. In either case that could have raised a major red flag for the Obama admin.
Click to expand...
Absolutely. The Tea Party Taliban are a major threat. They're trying to establish a 1950's style theocracy. Everybody gets an Edsel and the only thing on TV is Jimmy Swaggart.
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
I believe you're barking up the wrong tree here. That's about wiretaps. The justice department seized phone records. That's not the same thing as a wiretap. Seizing records from a business without a court order was made legal under provisions of the Patriot Act.

Now don't get me wrong, I don't like this either, but the right can't have it both ways. You can't be in favor of laws only when a Republican is in power; but then against the very same laws when it's a Democrat in office.

You made your bed.......
Click to expand...

Why are you typing in blue? Do you know how annoying that is?
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
I believe you're barking up the wrong tree here. That's about wiretaps. The justice department seized phone records. That's not the same thing as a wiretap. Seizing records from a business without a court order was made legal under provisions of the Patriot Act.

Now don't get me wrong, I don't like this either, but the right can't have it both ways. You can't be in favor of laws only when a Republican is in power; but then against the very same laws when it's a Democrat in office.

You made your bed.......
Click to expand...

Ah, thought it was wiretaps, my bad.

Here is the law for Subpoenas of news organizations. 28 C.F.R. § 50.10 Put on the books in 1980, and no changes since.

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2010-title28-vol2/pdf/CFR-2010-title28-vol2-sec50-10.pdf

Link to relevant DOJ rules that reference the law

USAM 9-13.000 Obtaining Evidence
 
jonny5 said:
Why are you typing in blue? Do you know how annoying that is?
Click to expand...

A better question is why do you do things which annoy you? If it annoys you -- don't read my posts. I assure you, I won't be upset.
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
Seizing records from a business without a court order was made legal under provisions of the Patriot Act.
Click to expand...
No, not in this case. Even if it were legal and they had actually done this under the Patriot Act we wouldn't be talking about it because we wouldn't know about it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom