News Article: Gov't obtains wide ap phone records in probe

chanson78 said:

Technically, Bush was blamed for the exact same thing that Obama has been blamed with regards to Benghazi. Slow ineffectual response even after information available dictated a more active response (sending buses, national guard etc).

Again I am not saying that I think Bush could have technically done anything better, just pointing out that he was skewered for the exact same thing.

Click to expand...

Call me crazy here, but there were buses available, locally, that were not used. There is an active google search term for "flooded buses in new orleans". Go have a look at the school bus facility snapped from a helicopter by Phil Coale the day after Katrina. I stopped counting at 100 unused buses sitting there flooded. And I didn't know the President mobilized the National Guard for natural disasters. Silly me, I always thought that was a power held by the governor.

So the majority of the buses in the immediate area (meaning closest to the problem) were not used. Those would be local buses. As in New Orleans Regional Transit Authority buses, New Orleans Public School buses, and so on. Public entities under local control of local officials. And the National Guard was not called out earlier, a power held by the state governor.

What else do you have?

lazlohollyfeld said:

What else do you have?

Click to expand...

For some reason you seem to think that I personally think Bush is to blame for Katrina. I don't know what else I have to do. Hmm let me try this.

I DO NOT THINK BUSH IS TO BLAME FOR KATRINA!

The point I am trying to make is that the scandals always seem worse and more inflated to those on the opposite end of the political spectrum. Whether this is due to confirmation bias related to the news programs that people choose to watch or the information they selectively digest, I am no social scientist so I can not give an authoritative reason for why this seems to be.

Bamabuzzard said:

I think what you're really saying is you're choosing to not make it a big deal (though it really is) because you voted for and have openly defended this administration. The IRS scandal by itself should be enough to cause outrage from ANYBODY!!! No matter what party lines. And yes. It is extremely egregious. If you don't call that "egregious" then you don't care too much about citizens rights compared to government's "authority". Good lord.

Click to expand...

You wonder why no one on the left chimes in, this is the reason.

I agree with you on the IRS and for some reason you seem to want to label me as someone who is blindly following what this administration and openly defends them. I have not once defended the administration on Benghazi or the IRS issue. There is a large difference between defending someone for an action and pointing out information (re: Benghazi) that shows everyone in a position of power (ex: 3 past Sec Def) acknowledges that once something started going wrong, it was by then too late to fix.

Oh screw it. I love Obama and think hes the best president since George Washington. I hope that they repeal the 22nd amendment so that he can be the president forever. Does anyone know where I can get a life size picture of him to have silk screened onto a body length pillow so I can feel warm and comforted that he is keeping me safe every night even in my bed?

Does that help your narrative?

I don't think you hate him, it is just that you said he should have done A and B in a more timely manner, and he had no direct control over A and B, and more precisely had no authority to do B. So if those are your two big points about the Katrina response then you need to find out who was in charge of A and B.

lazlohollyfeld said:

I don't think you hate him, it is just that you said he should have done A and B in a more timely manner, and he had no direct control over A and B, and more precisely had no authority to do B. So if those are your two big points about the Katrina response then you need to find out who was in charge of A and B.

Click to expand...

me said:

Technically, Bush was blamed for the exact same thing that Obama has been blamed with regards to Benghazi. Slow ineffectual response even after information available dictated a more active response (sending buses, national guard etc).


Again I am not saying that I think Bush could have technically done anything better, just pointing out that he was skewered for the exact same thing.

Click to expand...

What part of the above says that I said I blamed him for not having done those things? I was pointing out that the media and the left skewered Bush for what they thought he could have done better, the main two talking points being buses and national guard. Again just to be perfectly clear, I do not think that he had control over those, yet that is what he was vilified for. I believe this is similar to Benghazi in that Obama is getting raked over the coals for not sending troops, when information has been provided that the closest military resources that would have made a difference were 3 hours away. Should he have just sent them to keep people from getting riled up even though three secretaries of defense have said they would not have sent forces in?

Maybe I should start putting a disclaimer at the top of my posts that I don't actually agree with everything that I use as examples. I am honestly trying to be objective here and point out that both sides are screwed up, and to draw allegories with regards to how the media is stirring up issues to fan the flames of their content consumers. (Just to caveat, this is not me using the "The other guys did it, whaaaa!" This is just trying to ensure that people realize that if you hear the same story over and over with manufactured facts and opinion, and questions designed to stir emotion people often overlook the truth and information available. Katrina is a perfect example. Bush doesn't control a state's poor infrastructure or emergency plans, yet he was hammered for not fixing it because a lot of people saw pictures of people in the superdome.)

Bamabuzzard said:

Well, you're the one in your last paragraph of your narrative that said those on the left don't see "these" things (you made no distinction) as "egregious" as those on the right. So I was just using your own words. Maybe you need to clarify yourself a bit. What did you mean by "these"? It seemed it was including the IRS scandal.

Just for the record. Do you think the IRS scandal is being overblown?

Click to expand...

You are correct regarding my ambiguity. I assumed you had read my prior post you quoted where I said:

me said:

4. The IRS discrimination

Indefensible.

Click to expand...

I have taken my lesson in context and ambiguity to heart. Unfortunately it will likely make my already long winded posts even longer now

chanson78 said:

What part of the above says that I said I blamed him for not having done those things? I was pointing out that the media and the left skewered Bush for what they thought he could have done better, the main two talking points being buses and national guard. Again just to be perfectly clear, I do not think that he had control over those, yet that is what he was vilified for. I believe this is similar to Benghazi in that Obama is getting raked over the coals for not sending troops, when information has been provided that the closest military resources that would have made a difference were 3 hours away. Should he have just sent them to keep people from getting riled up even though three secretaries of defense have said they would not have sent forces in?

Maybe I should start putting a disclaimer at the top of my posts that I don't actually agree with everything that I use as examples. I am honestly trying to be objective here and point out that both sides are screwed up, and to draw allegories with regards to how the media is stirring up issues to fan the flames of their content consumers. (Just to caveat, this is not me using the "The other guys did it, whaaaa!" This is just trying to ensure that people realize that if you hear the same story over and over with manufactured facts and opinion, and questions designed to stir emotion people often overlook the truth and information available. Katrina is a perfect example. Bush doesn't control a state's poor infrastructure or emergency plans, yet he was hammered for not fixing it because a lot of people saw pictures of people in the superdome.)

Click to expand...

I think the greater issue is that we are 8 months past Benghazi and we still really don't know a lot about what happened and that is why the Administration is being raked over the coals. Oh, and what the Administration originally gave as reasoning for the attack was made up. And then they maintained that reasoning through the middle of a national election.

Displaced Bama Fan said:

You are comparing apples to oranges. Diplomats are an extension of the state department and are knowingly put in harmful situations and should be afforded protection while serving our country. Katrina was at first, the fault of Louisiana and their DEMOCRATIC governor and DEMOCRATIC mayor, who failed to ask for help in a timely manner, which caused delays in allocating resources. In addition, as mentioned earlier, folks were given several days worth of warnings and chose not to leave. As a result, there should be no great effort expended to "rescue" them from their own stupidity.

Click to expand...

As a Louisiana resident, I tell you it was worse than that. I remember watching a couple of days before Katrina hit the news reports from New Orleans. Mayor Nagin and his officials seemed highly offended because others had tried to persuade them to order a mandatory evacuation. They had a "quit acting like we're a bunch of dummies" chip on their collective shoulder; the arrogance on television interviews was astounding. Nagin finally ordered a mandatory evacuation the day before Katrina hit, when it was far too late. Arrogance, with an added dash of corruption. That's Nagin.

Blanco,... Well, here's a link and here's another. Incompetence, thy name is Blanco.

I'm not a Bush fan and I've many problems with his policies (Patriot Act, Iraq, etc.), but Katrina had far more to do with Nagin and Blanco than Bush.

edit - I don't blame chanson for Benghazi either. :wink:

Bamabuzzard said:

I think what you're really saying is you're choosing to not make it a big deal (though it really is) because you voted for and have openly defended this administration. The IRS scandal by itself should be enough to cause outrage from ANYBODY!!! No matter what party lines. And yes. It is extremely egregious. If you don't call that "egregious" then you don't care too much about citizens rights compared to government's "authority". Good lord.

Click to expand...

using your logic, he would also have chosen not to care about the IRS issue.

chanson78 said:

Again, while you think the AP probe is a gross abuse of power, my issue with the fact that he is only utilizing powers given to the government by the peoples apathy towards their own privacy. This isn't like the administration hired some private detective team to tap phones. They used available laws to gather information to build a case upon people who leaked information to the press in a case that had national security implications. Why are people upset that the administration used legal avenues available to them as a result of the apathy of the American citizenry giving up their rights to privacy under the guise of being protected from terror.

I am not sure what more I can say to make this clearer. What the administration has done with regards to the AP investigation has all been legal according to the laws of the land currently. Shady and completely against what the founders of the constitution intended, but nonetheless legal. Regarding the 4th amendment, this isn't applicable as I said before, the justice department is using tools made available by the laws of the land. If you don't like the government overlord world that we now live in then get those rules changed.

When was the last time you wrote your congressman or senator regarding any of these things? Every time a digital privacy law comes up on the books I ensure that I write mine to make sure that they know where I stand. Granted my congressman and senators are nigh worthless and always vote away my privacy but at least I am active and can say I tried.

Click to expand...

You keep saying over and over that the AP wiretaps were legal according to the laws of the land. That is a contentious issue. There certainly is a law, but the question beyond the Constitutional question is "did DOJ even follow the law"? Probably not. And if the motivation in not following the law was to silence the press through intimidation then that would make this one of the worst types of criminal actions the administration could commit.

NationalTitles15 said:

You keep saying over and over that the AP wiretaps were legal according to the laws of the land. That is a contentious issue. There certainly is a law, but the question beyond the Constitutional question is "did DOJ even follow the law"? Probably not. And if the motivation in not following the law was to silence the press through intimidation then that would make this one of the worst types of criminal actions the administration could commit.

Click to expand...

Just to be sure we are talking about the same thing, there is currently a stir regarding the media probes regarding three reporters at the AP and one at Fox. If there are more i am currently unaware so what I have been speaking about is with regards to those four reporters.

I only know what has been reported in the press. If there were additional unlawful means through which the DOJ obtained information relative to the leak then I will be the first to stand up and join the crowd screaming watergate (well maybe a little less adamantly until they can prove that Obama directed the probe and not just Holder, which I think due to the way this administration plays the isolation game will be very difficult to prove.)

So back to the DOJ probe. Regarding the AP reporters, here is a quote from the Washington Post. Article linked here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/local...c473de-be5e-11e2-97d4-a479289a31f9_story.html

Washington Post said:

The Justice Department said in a statement that in both cases it had abided by “all applicable laws, regulations, and longstanding Department of Justice policies intended to safeguard the First Amendment interests of the press in reporting the news and the public in receiving it.”

Click to expand...

That is a pretty unequivocal statement regarding how they obtained that information. Agencies usually do not state something so strongly unless they know it to be the truth or they know there is no chance of being caught in a lie.

As for the Fox guy, according to this article from Fox News linked here: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...cerned-government-too-aggressive-in-tracking/

Fox News said:

The seizure was ordered in addition to a court-approved search warrant for Fox News correspondent James Rosen's personal emails. In the affidavit seeking that warrant, an FBI agent called Rosen a likely criminal "co-conspirator," citing a wartime law called the Espionage Act.

...snip...

The government began to push back Wednesday on some of the information circulating about the case. The office of U.S. Attorney Ronald Machen Jr., who is prosecuting the case, stressed in a statement Wednesday that his office "did not wiretap the phones of any reporter or news organization" or "monitor or track the phone calls of any reporter's parents."


"We take seriously our obligations to follow all applicable laws, federal regulations, and Department of Justice policies when grand jury subpoenas are issued for phone records of media organizations, and strive to strike the proper balance between the public's interest in the free flow of information and the public's interest in the protection of national security and the effective enforcement of our criminal laws," the statement said.

Click to expand...

So in reports of both incidents there is a fairly strong statement regarding the DOJ adhering to laws. In both articles judge or grand jury subpoenas are mentioned.

Is the DOJ going after the press in an unprecedented manner? yes. Is it illegal? Only if a judge overturns the espionage and wiretapping laws and even then it won't be able to retroactively make the two investigations illegal. At the worst for the administration their DOJ will be forever remembered as the organization that got some of our draconian Gestapolike laws amended or taken off the books.

Very good explanation Chanson. The illegality is a long way from being proven.

chanson78 said:

Just to be sure we are talking about the same thing, there is currently a stir regarding the media probes regarding three reporters at the AP and one at Fox. If there are more i am currently unaware so what I have been speaking about is with regards to those four reporters.

I only know what has been reported in the press. If there were additional unlawful means through which the DOJ obtained information relative to the leak then I will be the first to stand up and join the crowd screaming watergate (well maybe a little less adamantly until they can prove that Obama directed the probe and not just Holder, which I think due to the way this administration plays the isolation game will be very difficult to prove.)

So back to the DOJ probe. Regarding the AP reporters, here is a quote from the Washington Post. Article linked here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/local...c473de-be5e-11e2-97d4-a479289a31f9_story.html



That is a pretty unequivocal statement regarding how they obtained that information. Agencies usually do not state something so strongly unless they know it to be the truth or they know there is no chance of being caught in a lie.

As for the Fox guy, according to this article from Fox News linked here: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...cerned-government-too-aggressive-in-tracking/



So in reports of both incidents there is a fairly strong statement regarding the DOJ adhering to laws. In both articles judge or grand jury subpoenas are mentioned.

Is the DOJ going after the press in an unprecedented manner? yes. Is it illegal? Only if a judge overturns the espionage and wiretapping laws and even then it won't be able to retroactively make the two investigations illegal. At the worst for the administration their DOJ will be forever remembered as the organization that got some of our draconian Gestapolike laws amended or taken off the books.

Click to expand...

I'm afraid you are ill informed on this issue, Chanson78. More than 100 reporters use the phones that were tapped in the House of Rep press gallery. The broad nature of these taps breaks even the DOJ's own rules regarding the law, which is Constitutionally questionable to begin with. Keep in mind that no law can override the Constitution other than an amendment to the document itself, so unconstitutional is unconstitutional - even if there is a law. I like different opinions, but before you go defending the administration in a knee-jerk fashion you may want to seek out some more information on this issue. See link below. I also think you should read up a little more on Nixon. He and his minions denies outright they had done any wrong. They were outraged! OUTRAGED! that anyone would make accusations of criminal activity against them. Does "I am not a crook!" ring a bell for you? Deny, deny, deny. It's the thing to do even after you're caught red-handed. Obama can cry all day he's not a crook, but he still is a crook. He and his allies in Congress created the environment for this to happen. It was his appointee who oversaw this mess. No need for a smoking gun for me, but I do understand the faithful will require more than is currently available to change their views. Some will cling on regardless. I'm easy to convince because I've been following this jerk from afar for 9 years now (since his 2004 speech at the DNC). That began with "This guy sounds great! Let me find out if he's the kind of guy I'd vote for." Within a short while it turned into "No way!" And that was long before Fox News and others were on the case. I admit a strong bias here, but the AP can hardly be accused of the same; and the AP is pretty upset about this whole deal.

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/govt-obtains-wide-ap-phone-records-probe

seebell said:

Very good explanation Chanson. The illegality is a long way from being proven.

Click to expand...

Sometimes I worry about you Seebell.