ACLU goes after Obama

[Oldguy]

And you thought the ACLU was just another liberal butt-kisser.



From exposing torture at Abu Ghraib to the revelation of warrantless wiretapping under the Bush administration, members of the media help protect us all.

And this week we’ve learned about one of the most chilling, unprecedented assaults on our freedom of press in recent memory.

The Department of Justice (DOJ) secretly retrieved the records of over 20 telephone lines used by nearly 100 Associated Press reporters last year. It’s an unthinkable abuse of power designed to intimidate both reporters and potential whistleblowers from uncovering government corruption and illegality.

Now President Obama is feeling intense political pressure to do something. But though he's calling for a federal reporter shield law, he's failed to mention the role his administration already played in preventing a comprehensive shield bill from passing in 2009—which might have prevented this scandal altogether!

So we need to let President Obama know now, while the media and the public are demanding action in the face of this scandal, that talk is cheap and weak legislation is too little, too late.

Sign the petition to President Obama—urge him to push through a strong reporter shield law now that respects the freedom of press and our right to know.

The breadth of data the DOJ was able to collect—in the name of tracking down the single source of a government leak—and the secrecy with which they went about it, was truly unprecedented.

But with a reporter shield law in place, just like forty states around the nation already have, the DOJ might never have gotten away it. And it could have extended the same protections to phone companies, who are critical to the free flow of information to the media—unless we want to go back to the Watergate days of reporters meeting their sources in dimly lit garages.

When President Obama called for a reporter shield law a few years back, his administration stalled important progress on a comprehensive shield bill by carving out such a massively overbroad national security exception that it ceased to protect the press much at all.

So, we need to make sure we hold the president accountable to his promise by pushing for a strong and effective reporter shield law that doesn’t prioritize government power over our right to know.

Take action now. Tell President Obama you don’t want another AP subpoena scandal—you want strong reporter shield laws instead.

This wasn’t just an attack on journalists— it was an attack on all our freedom. Let’s stand together to keep the presses rolling, unfettered from outrageous government overreach.

I’ll be right there with you,
Anthony for the ACLU Action team


American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)

 

[OriginalShroom]

Where is the ACLU when the 2nd Amendment is under attack?

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Be happy the ACLU stands up for most rights OrgininalShroom. This is not a time to be divided, we'll have to work over our differences as rational adults.

United was succeed, divided we fail.

 

[Oldguy]

Where is the ACLU when the 2nd Amendment is under attack?

Right now, their position is being reviewed in light of the Supreme Court rulings that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right.

Second Amendment | American Civil Liberties Union

 

[healthmyths]

Be happy the ACLU stands up for most rights OrgininalShroom. This is not a time to be divided, we'll have to work over our differences as rational adults.

United was succeed, divided we fail.

Explain these practical realities to me.
If you donate to a political party isn't that a good indication you want that party to win?
Better yet if you are in a position to influence others and you've donated to a political part wouldn't you want to protect that donation, insure that party wins?

I don't think there is a person on this forum that will disagree with the above..i.e. no one would be stupid enough to donate to a party and then influence others not to vote for that party right?????

FACTS as much as many of you ignore but nevertheless common sense says:
1,160 ,85% of the Senior executives, on-air personalities, producers, reporters, editors, writers and other self-identifying employees of ABC, CBS and NBC contributed more than $1 million to Democratic candidates and campaign committees in 2008, according to an analysis by The Examiner of data compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics.
an average contribution of $880.
By contrast, only 193 of the employees contributed to Republican candidates and campaign committees, for a total of $142,863.
The average Republican contribution was $744.
Obama, Democrats got 88 percent of 2008 contributions by TV network execs, writers, reporters | The Daily Caller

Now would these same donors deliver 71% of their stories that are NEGATIVE for Obama or for Romney in the 2012 campaign?
7 out of 10 stories presented a negative image of Romney.
Study Finds Widespread Bias in Mainstream Media Coverage of Election | Women of Grace

So where is the honesty on the part of everyone on this forum when it comes to the above facts?
85% of the MSM donated to Democrats/Obama and wrote 7 out of 10 stories with a negative image of Romney?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The breadth of data the DOJ was able to collect—in the name of tracking down the single source of a government leak—and the secrecy with which they went about it, was truly unprecedented.

And that’s the problem: where to strike the balance between the citizens’ right to know and the government’s right to classify sensitive information.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Be happy the ACLU stands up for most rights OrgininalShroom. This is not a time to be divided, we'll have to work over our differences as rational adults.

United was succeed, divided we fail.

Explain these practical realities to me.
If you donate to a political party isn't that a good indication you want that party to win?
Better yet if you are in a position to influence others and you've donated to a political part wouldn't you want to protect that donation, insure that party wins?

I don't think there is a person on this forum that will disagree with the above..i.e. no one would be stupid enough to donate to a party and then influence others not to vote for that party right?????

FACTS as much as many of you ignore but nevertheless common sense says:
1,160 ,85% of the Senior executives, on-air personalities, producers, reporters, editors, writers and other self-identifying employees of ABC, CBS and NBC contributed more than $1 million to Democratic candidates and campaign committees in 2008, according to an analysis by The Examiner of data compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics.
an average contribution of $880.
By contrast, only 193 of the employees contributed to Republican candidates and campaign committees, for a total of $142,863.
The average Republican contribution was $744.
Obama, Democrats got 88 percent of 2008 contributions by TV network execs, writers, reporters | The Daily Caller

Now would these same donors deliver 71% of their stories that are NEGATIVE for Obama or for Romney in the 2012 campaign?
7 out of 10 stories presented a negative image of Romney.
Study Finds Widespread Bias in Mainstream Media Coverage of Election | Women of Grace

So where is the honesty on the part of everyone on this forum when it comes to the above facts?
85% of the MSM donated to Democrats/Obama and wrote 7 out of 10 stories with a negative image of Romney?

First, why do I have to explain them to you?

Second, I agree with you ... so ... lol?

 

[kiwiman127]

Be happy the ACLU stands up for most rights OrgininalShroom. This is not a time to be divided, we'll have to work over our differences as rational adults.

United was succeed, divided we fail.

Explain these practical realities to me.
If you donate to a political party isn't that a good indication you want that party to win?
Better yet if you are in a position to influence others and you've donated to a political part wouldn't you want to protect that donation, insure that party wins?

I don't think there is a person on this forum that will disagree with the above..i.e. no one would be stupid enough to donate to a party and then influence others not to vote for that party right?????

FACTS as much as many of you ignore but nevertheless common sense says:
1,160 ,85% of the Senior executives, on-air personalities, producers, reporters, editors, writers and other self-identifying employees of ABC, CBS and NBC contributed more than $1 million to Democratic candidates and campaign committees in 2008, according to an analysis by The Examiner of data compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics.
an average contribution of $880.
By contrast, only 193 of the employees contributed to Republican candidates and campaign committees, for a total of $142,863.
The average Republican contribution was $744.
Obama, Democrats got 88 percent of 2008 contributions by TV network execs, writers, reporters | The Daily Caller

Now would these same donors deliver 71% of their stories that are NEGATIVE for Obama or for Romney in the 2012 campaign?
7 out of 10 stories presented a negative image of Romney.
Study Finds Widespread Bias in Mainstream Media Coverage of Election | Women of Grace

So where is the honesty on the part of everyone on this forum when it comes to the above facts?
85% of the MSM donated to Democrats/Obama and wrote 7 out of 10 stories with a negative image of Romney?

I just love when the biggest liar this board has ever seen capitalizes the word FACT!

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The breadth of data the DOJ was able to collect—in the name of tracking down the single source of a government leak—and the secrecy with which they went about it, was truly unprecedented.

And that’s the problem: where to strike the balance between the citizens’ right to know and the government’s right to classify sensitive information.

The Pentagon Papers was a bigger leak, the problem here is that Obama is a control freak.

 

[Oldguy]

The breadth of data the DOJ was able to collect—in the name of tracking down the single source of a government leak—and the secrecy with which they went about it, was truly unprecedented.

And that’s the problem: where to strike the balance between the citizens’ right to know and the government’s right to classify sensitive information.

That's where the courts and groups like the ACLU come into play.

 

[editec]

Gotta love the ACLU.

They take no prisoners when defending the Constitution.

 

[blastoff]

Now and then the ACLU blind squirrels its way into something. Just a hazard of being blind I guess.

 

[eagle1462010]

And you thought the ACLU was just another liberal butt-kisser

They are a Liberal Org. What are they going to do, kiss their own butts?

The way to stop this is to have the DOJ prosecute those who did the wire taps and those who ordered the wire taps. Put them in jail....................OOPS............THEY'D HAVE TO PROSECUTE THEMSELVES. That's really going to happen, which is why Congress needs special prosecuters to INVESTIGATE cases like this or NOTHING WILL HAPPEN TO THOSE RESPONSIBLE.

Obama now wants to CREATE A NEW LAW TO FIX IT. Excuse me but the DOJ needs a court order to WIRE TAP SOMEONE OR THEY ARE IN VIOLATION OF THE LAW.

I.e. They BROKE THE LAW, and the only thing that will happen to those who committed the crimes will be SMOKE AND MIRRORS AS USUAL.

BTW. Old Aol message board poster here. An FNG (NEW GUY) to this forum.

 

[kiwiman127]

And you thought the ACLU was just another liberal butt-kisser

They are a Liberal Org. What are they going to do, kiss their own butts?

The way to stop this is to have the DOJ prosecute those who did the wire taps and those who ordered the wire taps. Put them in jail....................OOPS............THEY'D HAVE TO PROSECUTE THEMSELVES. That's really going to happen, which is why Congress needs special prosecuters to INVESTIGATE cases like this or NOTHING WILL HAPPEN TO THOSE RESPONSIBLE.

Obama now wants to CREATE A NEW LAW TO FIX IT. Excuse me but the DOJ needs a court order to WIRE TAP SOMEONE OR THEY ARE IN VIOLATION OF THE LAW.

I.e. They BROKE THE LAW, and the only thing that will happen to those who committed the crimes will be SMOKE AND MIRRORS AS USUAL.

BTW. Old Aol message board poster here. An FNG (NEW GUY) to this forum.

ACLU is only liberal when they go to court to protect the Constitution on issues that your ideology disagrees with in the Constitution.
ALCU have gone to court to protect gun rights and protect the rights of Rush Limbaugh, I bet you liked them then. Hypocrite!

 

[eagle1462010]

The "Wiretap Act" (the "Act") is a federal law that is aimed at protecting your privacy in your communications with other persons. Typically, when you think of a "wiretap," the first thing that comes to mind is someone listening to your telephone calls. But, the Act protects more than that.

Under the Act, it is illegal to:

Intentionally, or purposefully,
Intercept, disclose, or use the contents of
Any wire, oral, or electronic communication
Through the use of a "device"
The Act provides criminal and civil penalties for violations, and it has various exceptions to when interceptions and disclosures are not illegal.

Although the Act defines most of these terms, federal cases that interpret the Act play a large role in understanding their meaning and how they apply to any particular case or situation. In addition, most states have laws similar to or based on the Act.

What Is "Intentional" Wiretapping
"Intentional" means that you intercepted a communication deliberately or on purpose. A mistake of law or "ignorance of the law" will not be a defense. So, for example, if you misunderstand the Act and think that it's not illegal for you to intercept another person's telephone call, but the tap was in fact illegal, you can be liable under the Act because you intentionally intercepted the call.

 

[eagle1462010]

ACLU is only liberal when they go to court to protect the Constitution on issues that your ideology disagrees with the Constitution.
ALCU have gone to court to protect gun rights and protect the rights of Rush Limbaugh, I bet you liked them then. Hypocrite!

Unless it's the 2nd
Amendment, UHHH Unless they are busy attacking War memorials, i.e. the Cross. Or the Church.

Explaining it differently...............Put a Cross up in a Public park and the ACLU will go ape aldfjaldjflj . Yet if a Nudist Group wants to parade in the same park bare to the bone they have no problem with it.

For a Lib. Left is Right. Right is left. Up is down. and Down is up. Facts don't apply, only the outcome matters no matter how many lies have to back it up.

How's the trainwreck Obamacare going for ya lib.

 

[eagle1462010]

The Bottom Line is that the DOJ BROKE THE LAW

Who's gonna prosecute them?

Nobody............Unless a Special Prosecuter is called for by Congress.

 

[bendog]

Well, under the current law, DOJ does have authority to get phone records if there's a natl security leak and that's the only way to find the link.

Government Seizes AP Phone Records - Business Insider

That's not a defense of obama, but I don't think this is really new ground breaking stuff. If it turns out the records were not related to natl security, then that is a different story.

But as usual, the folks who just dislike Obaam can't really distinguish between scandal and their own political leanings. It's the IRS scandal that potentially really could lead to ..... dare I say the word ..... impeachment.

This Is No Ordinary Scandal - WSJ.com

 

[eagle1462010]

Well, under the current law, DOJ does have authority to get phone records if there's a natl security leak and that's the only way to find the link.

Government Seizes AP Phone Records - Business Insider

That's not a defense of obama, but I don't think this is really new ground breaking stuff. If it turns out the records were not related to natl security, then that is a different story.

But as usual, the folks who just dislike Obaam can't really distinguish between scandal and their own political leanings. It's the IRS scandal that potentially really could lead to ..... dare I say the word ..... impeachment.

This Is No Ordinary Scandal - WSJ.com

It's an Understatement on how I feel about Obama. I can't stand him and think he's a disgrace to the office he serves.

The DOJ can get Wire Tap Authority from the courts quickly within the realm of law. This has been proven within the Patriot Act. Only cases of National Security can wire taps be gotten WITHOUT A COURT ORDER. And then they are required to get the warrant within 48 hours after the Tap has been performed.

I'd have to look it up for the actual time requirement. But EVEN UNDER THE PATRIOT ACT THE WARRANT STILL HAS TO BE OBTAINED even AFTER THE FACT.

Has ANY WARRANT EVER BEEN OBTAINED HERE? No it hasn't .

 

[Oldguy]

And you thought the ACLU was just another liberal butt-kisser

They are a Liberal Org. What are they going to do, kiss their own butts?

The way to stop this is to have the DOJ prosecute those who did the wire taps and those who ordered the wire taps. Put them in jail....................OOPS............THEY'D HAVE TO PROSECUTE THEMSELVES. That's really going to happen, which is why Congress needs special prosecuters to INVESTIGATE cases like this or NOTHING WILL HAPPEN TO THOSE RESPONSIBLE.

Obama now wants to CREATE A NEW LAW TO FIX IT. Excuse me but the DOJ needs a court order to WIRE TAP SOMEONE OR THEY ARE IN VIOLATION OF THE LAW.

I.e. They BROKE THE LAW, and the only thing that will happen to those who committed the crimes will be SMOKE AND MIRRORS AS USUAL.

BTW. Old Aol message board poster here. An FNG (NEW GUY) to this forum.

How do you know they didn't have a warrant? I haven't seen anything to indicate they didn't, have you?