FACT: Law did not require Rosen be given notice

[blastoff]

Eric's gonna look quite sporty with those bus tire tread marks all over his suit.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Notice is required to be given unless there is an exception. Holder said that Rosen was a flight risk which is the exception he used. This didn't work with the two prior judges Holder asked to issue the warrant, he kept looking and found a liberal and ideologically driven judge to issue the warrant.

Due process exists for a reason and judges are supposed to follow the law. Of course, we have dishonorable judges who legislate from the bench and tend to overlook things to push an agenda.

I think the law also requires that they have a valid reason to spy on people. I think they were just spying for their own purposes, which is why Holder had to judge shop till he found one willing to go along. Holder can't run from this considering the personal effort he put into it.

Holder has been caught in a lie on this and all the spinning and lame attempts at justifying his actions won't work.

Valid according to who? You? Or a judge?

 

[iamwhatiseem]

**** t r o l l a l e r t ******

Do you see what the law says at the top of this thread?

Does it matter to you?

Does it matter to you that a top-level government agency looked into the personal email and personal phone messages - and even the MAN'S PARENTS??? Over an insignificant news story out of North Korea?
Does it matter to you that, by law, the scope of the investigation of the press by the government is supposed to be held to the most minimum? Do you care that, by law, they are only supposed to invoke such an investigation if the information is a provable threat to American security?
No - I didn't think so.
Trolling trolling trolling

 

[NYcarbineer]

That's not rosen's fault for trying to pry information out of his source.

Right. Rosen's actions aren't Rosen's fault. Got it.

Kim is the one who took the oath involving classified secure information.

Rosen can only legally receive the information from someone who obtained it on his own; he cannot in any way have been a participant in obtaining it.

The government only needs probable cause to believe that Rosen may have illegally participated in order to legally investigate him.

 

[whitehall]

I could be wrong but I dont think that applies to the press. If it did it would hardly be a "free" press now would it.

Oh my fucking god you are stupid. Yes the LAW applies to the PRESS you fucking idiot.

Lots of anger out there. Can you put two words together without using the "F" word? The law may apply to members of the media who have committed crimes unrelated to their jobs but government has almost never established reasonable cause that a reporter has committed a crime related to a story.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

**** t r o l l a l e r t ******

Do you see what the law says at the top of this thread?

Does it matter to you?

Does it matter to you that a top-level government agency looked into the personal email and personal phone messages - and even the MAN'S PARENTS??? Over an insignificant news story out of North Korea?
Does it matter to you that, by law, the scope of the investigation of the press by the government is supposed to be held to the most minimum? Do you care that, by law, they are only supposed to invoke such an investigation if the information is a provable threat to American security?
No - I didn't think so.
Trolling trolling trolling

"Provable" to whom? FOX News or a judge? Can you actually cite any of the laws you claim were violated? Can you actually cite any laws? Have you ever actually seen one or do you just go with whatever Breitbart and FOX tell you?

 

[NYcarbineer]

**** t r o l l a l e r t ******

Do you see what the law says at the top of this thread?

Does it matter to you?

Does it matter to you that a top-level government agency looked into the personal email and personal phone messages - and even the MAN'S PARENTS??? Over an insignificant news story out of North Korea?
Does it matter to you that, by law, the scope of the investigation of the press by the government is supposed to be held to the most minimum? Do you care that, by law, they are only supposed to invoke such an investigation if the information is a provable threat to American security?
No - I didn't think so.
Trolling trolling trolling

What you said isn't true. You remain a troll.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Right. Rosen's actions aren't Rosen's fault. Got it.

Kim is the one who took the oath involving classified secure information.

Rosen can only legally receive the information from someone who obtained it on his own; he cannot in any way have been a participant in obtaining it.

The government only needs probable cause to believe that Rosen may have illegally participated in order to legally investigate him.

Under us law, it is not illegal to publish classified information. That fact, along with the 1st Amend's guarantee of press freedoms, is what has prevented the us government from ever prosecuting journalists for reporting on what the us government does in secret. The doj was mining in a thin seam when they had to dig the espionage act from the dead and then go shop it to several judges, to get a court order.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Kim is the one who took the oath involving classified secure information.

Rosen can only legally receive the information from someone who obtained it on his own; he cannot in any way have been a participant in obtaining it.

The government only needs probable cause to believe that Rosen may have illegally participated in order to legally investigate him.

Under us law, it is not illegal to publish classified information.

...the DOJ claimed no different.

 

[Contumacious]

FACT: Law did not require Rosen be given notice

It either a fact or a conclusion of law....not both.

What you are saying is that someone read te Constitution and the statute and concluded that it did not apply.

That's an opinion.

.

 

[OriginalShroom]

Read Title III of the wiretapping act.

 

[WillowTree]

The DOJ does not need to provide notice to Rosen for his emails if the emails are seized from the ISP and if they obtain a warrant.


18 U.S.C. 2703(b)(1)

(b) Contents of Wire or Electronic Communications in a Remote Computing Service.—
(1) A governmental entity may require a provider of remote computing service to disclose the contents of any wire or electronic communication to which this paragraph is made applicable by paragraph (2) of this subsection—
(A) without required notice to the subscriber or customer, if the governmental entity obtains a warrant issued using the procedures described in the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure (or, in the case of a State court, issued using State warrant procedures) by a court of competent jurisdiction; or

18 USC § 2703 - Required disclosure of customer communications or records | Title 18 - Crimes and Criminal Procedure | U.S. Code | LII / Legal Information Institute

...and the rules of procedure only require they leave notice with the ISP, since the property was seized from the ISP's premises and not Rosen's premises:

(C) Receipt. The officer executing the warrant must give a copy of the warrant and a receipt for the property taken to the person from whom, or from whose premises, the property was taken or leave a copy of the warrant and receipt at the place where the officer took the property.

Note the word "or" - they may choose to notify Rosen OR the ISP.


Rule 41. Search and Seizure | Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure | LII / Legal Information Institute

So as you see, Chief Judge Lamberth was correct in his overruling of lower magistrates and granting the warrant. Its evident in the plain language of the law.

But facts don't matter, do they righties?

 

[bendog]

Just because the law doesn't disallow an action doesn't make it right. Do we really want ANY admin investigating the media? I don't. Now if they want to investigate govt officials who had access to see if they met with reporters .... have at it. But getting the phone records of people in the media ... over the line.

However, the rightwingers (as opposed to conservatives) will continue to shoot themselves in the foot. A majority probably doesn't think a reporter should be a target of an investigation, but the IRS story is the one with actual potential to have legs. I doubt even it will be some great conspiracy, but having the IRS target political opponents .... regardles of it simply being incompetence ... is very worrisome. At best, it shows an admin that is more intent on promoting its political agenda than leaving the republic stronger than when it began ... that is elitist and arrogant. Obama to a tee.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Rosen can only legally receive the information from someone who obtained it on his own; he cannot in any way have been a participant in obtaining it.

The government only needs probable cause to believe that Rosen may have illegally participated in order to legally investigate him.

Under us law, it is not illegal to publish classified information.

...the DOJ claimed no different.

The doj was trying to claim some new "solicitation" theory as a means for circumventing press freedoms. They knew they were wrong and were hoping the press wouldn't pick up on this. Gonzales tried this back in 2006, under Bush, when he tried to strong arm the nyt by saying that they could be prosecuted for revealing classified information that the nsa was eavesdropping on the communications of americans without warrants. The difference was that bush wasn't wiretapping these journalists or their familes. However, that's no feather in W's cap since he created the whole homeland security dept.

It was wrong then and it is wrong now.

 

[bendog]

Under us law, it is not illegal to publish classified information.

The doj was trying to claim some new "solicitation" theory as a means for circumventing press freedoms. They knew they were wrong and were hoping the press wouldn't pick up on this. Gonzales tried this back in 2006, under Bush, when he tried to strong arm the nyt by saying that they could be prosecuted for revealing classified information that the nsa was eavesdropping on the communications of americans without warrants. The difference was that bush wasn't wiretapping these journalists or their familes. However, that's no feather in W's cap since he created the whole homeland security dept.

It was wrong then and it is wrong now.

Exactly. If the media have a right (and perhaps duty) to report what it thinks is relevant to public debate and which is not knowingly false, how can the govt claim the media conspires to disclose natl security info?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Read Title III of the wiretapping act.

18 USC 2703 is an amendment to Title III of the same.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Just because the law doesn't disallow an action doesn't make it right. Do we really want ANY admin investigating the media? I don't.

Members of the press should have immunity from the law? Wow! I wanna be a journalist!

Now if they want to investigate govt officials who had access to see if they met with reporters .... have at it.

So reporters should have immunity from the law - but we should be suspicious of any government official who meets with a reporter. Got it!

But getting the phone records of people in the media ... over the line.

This thread is about the warrant to obtain Rosen's emails.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Exactly. If the media have a right (and perhaps duty) to report what it thinks is relevant to public debate and which is not knowingly false, how can the govt claim the media conspires to disclose natl security info?

Well - easy - if a member of the press conspires with someone who has clearance to have them violate their clearance agreement - they are a co-conspirator. If they obtain the information after the fact - they aren't.

 

[blackhawk]

Fact if this was done under Bush or any Republican President the OP would not be trying no matter how pathetically to defend the action.

 

[whitehall]

Funny how the radical left suddenly becomes fluent in federal law and then they resort to the "F" word instead of defending their position. Soros blogs ain't gonna bail you out. Once a low-information democrat, always a low information democrat.