• 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!

DOJ tracked movements, phone records of Fox News reporter

jonny5 said:
If that were the case, govt could simply make a law as a run around to abridging the freedom of the press.
Click to expand...
It is the case and they could (though I don't think they have). Such is the risk of having anyone in a position of authority and why we have checks and balances rather than relying on simple principals alone. No system is perfect though.

jonny5 said:
Except that its specifically prohibited by the constitution. And I dont see any conditions written in the first amendment.
Click to expand...
Do you really mean that there is no conditions to "freedom of the press"? You're basically saying that all journalists should have immunity from any federal investigation?
 
Henry David said:
I take your point, but this is not really about which media company was involved, this is about government crimes. Government violation of constitutional principles. Government secrecy, USSR style.

Obama and Holder are criminals, and that is old news. Their crimes are violation of constitutional principles and their oath of office.
Click to expand...
:roll:
 
HonestJoe said:
It is the case and they could (though I don't think they have). Such is the risk of having anyone in a position of authority and why we have checks and balances rather than relying on simple principals alone. No system is perfect though.

Do you really mean that there is no conditions to "freedom of the press"? You're basically saying that all journalists should have immunity from any federal investigation?
Click to expand...

Im repeating what the constitution says. Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of the press. If they make it a crime for the press to pursue information, that is unconstitutional.
 
clownboy said:
I'm a supporter of the PA, original and PA Part Deux. I have no problem with it if they got a legal warrant under the FISA requirement for such AND they were targetting the leak (and not the reporter or the news agency). The fellow they exposed should go down (Kim). However, the reporter was doing his constitutionally protected duty.
Click to expand...

So is it OK for the justice department to put in the application for the warrant that the reporter was engaged in a criminal conspiricy? That would mean he was protected by the constitution.
 
Sharyl Attkisson's computers compromised - POLITICO.com

Sharyl Attkisson, the Emmy-award winning CBS News investigative reporter, says that her personal and work computers have been compromised and are under investigation.

"I can confirm that an intrusion of my computers has been under some investigation on my end for some months but I'm not prepared to make an allegation against a specific entity today as I've been patient and methodical about this matter," Attkisson told POLITICO on Tuesday. "I need to check with my attorney and CBS to get their recommendations on info we make public."

(PHOTOS: Politicians and their iToys)

In an earlier interview with WPHT Philadelphia, Attkisson said that though she did not know the full details of the intrustion, "there could be some relationship between these things and what's happened to James [Rosen]," the Fox News reporter who became the subject of a Justice Dept. investigation after reporting on CIA intelligence about North Korea in 2009.

On Sunday, The Washington Post reported that the Justice Dept. had searched Rosen's personal e-mails and tracked his visits to the State Dept. The court affadavit described Rosen as “at the very least, either as an aider, abettor and/or co-conspirator" of his government source, presumably because he had solicited classified information from that source -- an argument that has been heavily criticized by other journalists.

(WATCH: Jay Carney on freedom of press)

Attkisson told WPHT that irregular activity on her computer was first identified in Feb. 2011, when she was reporting on the Fast and Furious gun-walking scandal and on the Obama administration's green energy spending, which she said "the administration was very sensitive about." Attkisson has also been a persistent investigator of the events surrounding last year's attack in Benghazi, and its aftermath.
Click to expand...

No one is safe.
 
jonny5 said:
I dont think that was the purpose of the Patriot Act, which is the comment I was responding to. So no, while people would support uses of the Patriot Act to catch terrorists, they would not support uses of the Patriot act to catch political leaking.
Click to expand...

Okay, if you want to argue the technical point, that's great -- my point is that the PATRIOT Act represents a vast expansion of government authority and a shrinkage of personal liberty, so if you're okay with that then you shouldn't be complaining about this.
 
jonny5 said:
Im repeating what the constitution says. Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of the press. If they make it a crime for the press to pursue information, that is unconstitutional.
Click to expand...
There is more to US law than the text of the Constitution though. It grants free speech but if you can't shout obscenities in the street at 3am. It grants freedom of religion but you can't sacrifice a virgin. And it grants freedom of the press but that doesn't give them an exception to all laws.

Constitutional restrictions about "making no law" are about laws specifically targeted (in word or practice) at the group involved. Laws aims at everyone, even if they restrict those groups too, don't count. For example, some religions permit polygamous marriage. It would be unconstitutional for a law to say "Mormons can't have more than one wife" but it is constitutional to say "Nobody can have more than one wife". Similarly, a general law against anyone conspiring to leak national secrets is not unconstitutional even though it limits journalists as well as everyone else.

Beyond that, there is practical flexibility in the criminal system which does give journalists more freedom, even where they technically break minor laws in direct pursuit of their job but that can and should only go so far.

Again, if a journalist broke in to your office and stole your computer, hacked your medical records and stalked your children, you wouldn't want them to get off because they said they were working on a story about you.
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
Okay, if you want to argue the technical point, that's great -- my point is that the PATRIOT Act represents a vast expansion of government authority and a shrinkage of personal liberty, so if you're okay with that then you shouldn't be complaining about this.
Click to expand...

And I say youre wrong. Apples and oranges.
 
HonestJoe said:
There is more to US law than the text of the Constitution though. It grants free speech but if you can't shout obscenities in the street at 3am. It grants freedom of religion but you can't sacrifice a virgin. And it grants freedom of the press but that doesn't give them an exception to all laws.

Constitutional restrictions about "making no law" are about laws specifically targeted (in word or practice) at the group involved. Laws aims at everyone, even if they restrict those groups too, don't count. For example, some religions permit polygamous marriage. It would be unconstitutional for a law to say "Mormons can't have more than one wife" but it is constitutional to say "Nobody can have more than one wife". Similarly, a general law against anyone conspiring to leak national secrets is not unconstitutional even though it limits journalists as well as everyone else.

Beyond that, there is practical flexibility in the criminal system which does give journalists more freedom, even where they technically break minor laws in direct pursuit of their job but that can and should only go so far.

Again, if a journalist broke in to your office and stole your computer, hacked your medical records and stalked your children, you wouldn't want them to get off because they said they were working on a story about you.
Click to expand...

Shouting obscenities at 3am is not federal law. Life is also protected in the constitution, and again, theres no exceptions in the first amendment. Breaking and entering is not federal law either, other than preventing govt from doing it.
 
jonny5 said:
And I say youre wrong. Apples and oranges.
Click to expand...

So, you're okay with a vast expansion of government authority and a shrinkage of personal liberty for the general population, but the violation of a specific sub-class's privacy (that of this reporter) is somehow more serious even though it too was done within the boundaries of the law?

Explain?
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
So, you're okay with a vast expansion of government authority and a shrinkage of personal liberty for the general population, but the violation of a specific sub-class's privacy (that of this reporter) is somehow more serious even though it too was done within the boundaries of the law?

Explain?
Click to expand...

I am ok with an expansion of authority with narrow intent and supervision (counter-terrorism). And that has nothing to do with freedom of the press.
 
jonny5 said:
I am ok with an expansion of authority with narrow intent and supervision (counter-terrorism). And that has nothing to do with freedom of the press.
Click to expand...

I know we were sold the PATRIOT Act by describing it as a tool to be used specifically against terrorists, but the powers granted by that law are far from specific. It granted law enforcement a great many powers which were very flexible and non-specific in nature. It even attempted to do an end-run around judicial review on a number of levels.

The investigation into James Rosen's movements, by contrast, was tightly focused and actually involved actual search warrants approved by actual judges. Additionally, the aim of the investigation wasn't stop Rosen from doing his job, but to determine if he broke the law when he did it.

This isn't about Rosen's First Amendment rights at all, and the investigation into his activities is far more specific and far more respectful of his rights than the PATRIOT Act ever was for the rest of us.
 
jonny5 said:
I am ok with an expansion of authority with narrow intent and supervision (counter-terrorism). And that has nothing to do with freedom of the press.
Click to expand...

You have bought into the sophistry of the Global War On Terror. Pity. :doh
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
I know we were sold the PATRIOT Act by describing it as a tool to be used specifically against terrorists, but the powers granted by that law are far from specific. It granted law enforcement a great many powers which were very flexible and non-specific in nature. It even attempted to do an end-run around judicial review on a number of levels.

The investigation into James Rosen's movements, by contrast, was tightly focused and actually involved actual search warrants approved by actual judges. Additionally, the aim of the investigation wasn't stop Rosen from doing his job, but to determine if he broke the law when he did it.

This isn't about Rosen's First Amendment rights at all, and the investigation into his activities is far more specific and far more respectful of his rights than the PATRIOT Act ever was for the rest of us.
Click to expand...

Then go argue that in some patriot act dead end thread.
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
Okay, if you want to argue the technical point, that's great -- my point is that the PATRIOT Act represents a vast expansion of government authority and a shrinkage of personal liberty, so if you're okay with that then you shouldn't be complaining about this.
Click to expand...

Actually no, it didn't. FISA already existed for a couple decades and we have no less rights under the PA than we did under FISA.

Btw, if this isn't just some political overreach on the part of this admin, where are the historical precedences? Why did neither Woodward nor Bernstein get the same treatment?
 
clownboy said:
Actually no, it didn't. FISA already existed for a couple decades and we have no less rights under the PA than we did under FISA.
Click to expand...

I can point out one example where you are 100% wrong -- National Security Letters. There are many more, and they're not hard to find.

clownboy said:
Btw, if this isn't just some political overreach on the part of this admin, where are the historical precedences?
Click to expand...

I'm sure there is plenty of precedent for the investigation of someone suspected of conspiring to acquire classified or otherwise sensitive government records.

Being a reporter doesn't give the guy a special protection when it comes to breaking the law.

clownboy said:
Why did neither Woodward nor Bernstein get the same treatment?
Click to expand...

I have no idea. Really, I don't, that was before my time and I haven't done the research. Were they brought sensitive data by someone who had access to it, or did they conspire with their source to receive it?
 
jonny5 said:
Then go argue that in some patriot act dead end thread.
Click to expand...

I'm not arguing it. What I've said about the PATRIOT Act is demonstrable fact. I brought it up here because I firmly believe that anybody who is cool with the PATRIOT Act shouldn't be upset by this investigation.
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
I can point out one example where you are 100% wrong -- National Security Letters. There are many more, and they're not hard to find.



I'm sure there is plenty of precedent for the investigation of someone suspected of conspiring to acquire classified or otherwise sensitive government records.

Being a reporter doesn't give the guy a special protection when it comes to breaking the law.



I have no idea. Really, I don't, that was before my time and I haven't done the research. Were they brought sensitive data by someone who had access to it, or did they conspire with their source to receive it?
Click to expand...

Google Deep Throat (you may want to wiki that otherwise the results will be more than interesting :mrgreen:).

We have no less rights under the National Security Letters provision than we had before the PA passed. The gag order provision was struck by the SCOTUS and all this info was available by FISA warrant before the PA. The PA is just a modernization of the already existing FISA adding in provisions specific to foreign terrorism.
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
I'm not arguing it. What I've said about the PATRIOT Act is demonstrable fact. I brought it up here because I firmly believe that anybody who is cool with the PATRIOT Act shouldn't be upset by this investigation.
Click to expand...

And I explained how its not. Are we done?
 
Speaking of the DOJ, I keep hearing from the White House that it would improper for them to be informed on what the DOJ is doing, who its investigating and why. So I went and reread the constitution. I know. People just don't do that.

Art 2 Section. 2.

The President...may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices...
Click to expand...

Which sure sounds like he not only has the power, but the founders intended him to do so. The DOJ is an executive dept. The AG is the principle officer. The President is supposed to be making sure the law is executed, that the officers are doing their jobs. So why isn't Obama informed on the DOJ investigating reporters, why isn't he informed on the IG investigating the IRS? Who is captaining the ship exactly?
 
jonny5 said:
Should it be illegal for the press to seek classified info from the govt?
Click to expand...

The First Amendment was not written so the press could compromise our national security. There was a journalist who tagged along for the duration of the Manhattan Project and he didn't run around blabbing classified information. These days, journalists don't have those ethics and the major media outlets, in their ratings race, don't care. We've wound up with morons like Geraldo Rivera, who was broadcasting our troop locations and movements during the invasion of Iraq. It IS legal for the press to seek classified information; its called a Freedom of Information Act Request. It should not be, and I doubt it is, legal for the press to obtain it by encouraging or coercing others to commit a Federal crime; that constitutes a conspiracy to commit a crime.
 
Napoleon said:
It should not be, and I doubt it is, legal for the press to obtain it by encouraging or coercing others to commit a Federal crime; that constitutes a conspiracy to commit a crime.
Click to expand...
More like a conspiracy to commit journalism - Jake Tapper. On something like the Manhattan project it is clearly illlegal and there are laws that specifically address nuclear technology, identity of covert agents, cryptography, and other extremely sensitive matters. By and large though, it has never been illegal for reporters to seek classified information.
 
Napoleon said:
The First Amendment was not written so the press could compromise our national security. There was a journalist who tagged along for the duration of the Manhattan Project and he didn't run around blabbing classified information. These days, journalists don't have those ethics and the major media outlets, in their ratings race, don't care. We've wound up with morons like Geraldo Rivera, who was broadcasting our troop locations and movements during the invasion of Iraq. It IS legal for the press to seek classified information; its called a Freedom of Information Act Request. It should not be, and I doubt it is, legal for the press to obtain it by encouraging or coercing others to commit a Federal crime; that constitutes a conspiracy to commit a crime.
Click to expand...

Except that the freedom of the press is in the constitution, wheras there is nothing in the constitution allowing the govt to classify information, except indirectly.
 
clownboy said:
Actually no, it didn't. FISA already existed for a couple decades and we have no less rights under the PA than we did under FISA.

Btw, if this isn't just some political overreach on the part of this admin, where are the historical precedences? Why did neither Woodward nor Bernstein get the same treatment?
Click to expand...

We the People possess rights, and by way of the US Constitution, we the people GRANTED certain powers to the new government. As a lawyer friend of mine used to be fond of saying, "liberty grants power, NOT power grants liberty."

So the point is that rights are one thing, power is another. They are not the same.

The unpatriot act was a usurpation of power by the government. It "granted" itself the power to disregard the Fourth Amendment, and that is an illegitimate and illegal move. Yet you seem to be happy with it.

FISA worked fine for years, but Dubya broke it, and happily admitted it in public.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom