Time to end the "Judgeless" warrants to tap into journalist activity

[iamwhatiseem]

Title says it all...

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Title says it all...

Would it alter the whining from the right?

Nope. A judge approved the Rosen warrant. Still whining!


Records of who you called are legitimate business records that belong to your phone company. If they want to share that information with the government they are free to. If you don't like it, take personal responsibility, use the free market, and choose another provider.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Title says it all...

Would it alter the whining from the right?

Nope. A judge approved the Rosen warrant. Still whining!


Records of who you called are legitimate business records that belong to your phone company. If they want to share that information with the government they are free to. If you don't like it, take personal responsibility, use the free market, and choose another provider.

Got it...so you fall into the "What is DOJ" column...

 

[ClosedCaption]

Title says it all...

Would it alter the whining from the right?

Nope. A judge approved the Rosen warrant. Still whining!


Records of who you called are legitimate business records that belong to your phone company. If they want to share that information with the government they are free to. If you don't like it, take personal responsibility, use the free market, and choose another provider.

Srsly?

Btw...Join the left. Been against warrantless wiretapping since 2005. Welcome!

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Title says it all...

Would it alter the whining from the right?

Nope. A judge approved the Rosen warrant. Still whining!


Records of who you called are legitimate business records that belong to your phone company. If they want to share that information with the government they are free to. If you don't like it, take personal responsibility, use the free market, and choose another provider.

Srsly?

Btw...Join the left. Been against warrantless wiretapping since 2005. Welcome!

The fault of this policy was trusting the government...something the left are not at all known for you know.

 

[g5000]

The UnConservatives who allege themselves to be right wing were completely silent when the Bush Administration searched the phone records of tens of millions of Americans without a warrant.

And they were silent again when the Republican Congress granted the phone companies retroactive immunity for turning over those records.


And they didn't mind the witch hunt for journalists during the Valeria Plame affair at all.


So this whining they are making today smacks of unadulterated hypocritical bullshit, not any real concern over the Constitutional rights of Americans.

Time to end this practice?!?! Yeah, ABOUT TEN YEARS AGO, you fricking brainless gerbils.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Title says it all...

Would it alter the whining from the right?

Nope. A judge approved the Rosen warrant. Still whining!


Records of who you called are legitimate business records that belong to your phone company. If they want to share that information with the government they are free to. If you don't like it, take personal responsibility, use the free market, and choose another provider.

Srsly?

Btw...Join the left. Been against warrantless wiretapping since 2005. Welcome!

But there wasn't any warrantless wiretapping.
A wiretap of a phone is when the actual conversation is monitored. Wiretapping is not what happened in the case of the AP. Records of what numbers were called, when, and for how long were obtained with the permission of the company that owns those records - but the content of the conversation was not. That's a huge distinction that seems to have passed you by. Were the DOJ to seek a warrant, they would have been asking for a warrant to seize the records of the phone company, but since the phone company was willing to voluntarily surrender those records, no warrant was needed.

 

[g5000]

Would it alter the whining from the right?

Nope. A judge approved the Rosen warrant. Still whining!


Records of who you called are legitimate business records that belong to your phone company. If they want to share that information with the government they are free to. If you don't like it, take personal responsibility, use the free market, and choose another provider.

Srsly?

Btw...Join the left. Been against warrantless wiretapping since 2005. Welcome!

But there wasn't any warrantless wiretapping.
A wiretap of a phone is when the actual conversation is monitored. That is not what happened in the case of the AP. Records of what numbers were called, when, and for how long were obtained with the permission of the company that owns those records - but the content of the conversation was not. That's a huge distinction that seems to have passed you by.

My post was right on point, though. The Bush administration demanded and received the phone call records of tens of millions of Americans without a warrant. And then the GOP Congress obligingly granted the phone companies retroactive immunity for doing so.

And I would bet a majority of the hypocrites whining about this latest incident have completely blank memories of these facts.

They are just mindless programmed gerbils.

And then there was the Valerie Plame affair, which they had to have hit themselves a few dozen times on their pointy heads to forget.

 

[Truthseeker420]

Government should have a warrant to spy on someone.

 

[theHawk]

Would it alter the whining from the right?

Nope. A judge approved the Rosen warrant. Still whining!


Records of who you called are legitimate business records that belong to your phone company. If they want to share that information with the government they are free to. If you don't like it, take personal responsibility, use the free market, and choose another provider.

Srsly?

Btw...Join the left. Been against warrantless wiretapping since 2005. Welcome!

But there wasn't any warrantless wiretapping.
A wiretap of a phone is when the actual conversation is monitored. Wiretapping is not what happened in the case of the AP. Records of what numbers were called, when, and for how long were obtained with the permission of the company that owns those records - but the content of the conversation was not. That's a huge distinction that seems to have passed you by. Were the DOJ to seek a warrant, they would have been asking for a warrant to seize the records of the phone company, but since the phone company was willing to voluntarily surrender those records, no warrant was needed.

You are right, it had a warrant. That's the real outrage, why is the DOJ naming a reporter as a "co-conspirator" for a "leak"? Just so it can legally get a warrant. Its a gross abuse of power, and holder should be held accountable. Of course he won't, because liberals just don't care about the rule of law.

 

[BreezeWood]

Time to end the "Judgeless" warrants to tap into journalist activity


they can always find a "Judge" to fit their needs ... there should be a review board with the full spectrum of public input represented to oversee their activity.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

You are right, it had a warrant. That's the real outrage, why is the DOJ naming a reporter as a "co-conspirator" for a "leak"?

Probably because he had means, motive, and opportunity to co-conspire, and he was on the phone with the alleged co-conspirator at the time the alleged co-conspirator was actually committing the crime.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Time to end the "Judgeless" warrants to tap into journalist activity


they can always find a "Judge" to fit their needs ... there should be a review board with the full spectrum of public input represented to oversee their activity.

A review board, for the courts? Like ... a "supreme" court ?

 

[theHawk]

You are right, it had a warrant. That's the real outrage, why is the DOJ naming a reporter as a "co-conspirator" for a "leak"?

Probably because he had means, motive, and opportunity to co-conspire, and he was on the phone with the alleged co-conspirator at the time the alleged co-conspirator was actually committing the crime.

Commit what crime? He is a reporter, he is allowed to report whatever information he finds out.

If the Hussein administration is too incompetent to find out who is leaking information, that gives them the right to infringe on a reporter's rights?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

You are right, it had a warrant. That's the real outrage, why is the DOJ naming a reporter as a "co-conspirator" for a "leak"?

Probably because he had means, motive, and opportunity to co-conspire, and he was on the phone with the alleged co-conspirator at the time the alleged co-conspirator was actually committing the crime.

Commit what crime? He is a reporter, he is allowed to report whatever information he finds out.

He isn't allowed to violate 18 U.S.C. § 793(d) no matter what he does for a living.

If the Hussein administration is too incompetent to find out who is leaking information, that gives them the right to infringe on a reporter's rights?

No rights were violated. The Constitution provides that a persons private records may be seized if a warrant is obtained. A warrant was obtained. There's nothing in the Constitution that says anything to the effect of "no person shall be searched even with a warrant if Teabaggers disagree with the judge's approval of the warrant", does it?

 

[theHawk]

Probably because he had means, motive, and opportunity to co-conspire, and he was on the phone with the alleged co-conspirator at the time the alleged co-conspirator was actually committing the crime.

Commit what crime? He is a reporter, he is allowed to report whatever information he finds out.

He isn't allowed to violate 18 U.S.C. § 793(d) no matter what he does for a living.

If the Hussein administration is too incompetent to find out who is leaking information, that gives them the right to infringe on a reporter's rights?

No rights were violated. The Constitution provides that a persons private records may be seized if a warrant is obtained. A warrant was obtained. There's nothing in the Constitution that says anything to the effect of "no person shall be searched even with a warrant if Teabaggers disagree with the judge's approval of the warrant", does it?

I see, so as long as political opponents are labed "co-conspirators" for a leak caused by the administration itself, is A-OK to get a warrant for seizure of private property.

It's amazing to see what lengths liberals will go to in order to defend government overreaching and abusing its power.

 

[theHawk]

So OopaDope-head,

Why is the DOJ going to "re-evaluate" the policies regarding seizure of the media?

Nevertheless, said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, Holder “understands the concerns that have been raised by the media and has initiated a re-evaluation of existing department policies and procedures.” The official said the department must strike “the appropriate balance” between preventing leaks of classified information and “First Amendment rights,”adding that passage of a new media shield law “and appropriate updates to the department”s internal guidelines” will help achieve that.

DOJ confirms Holder OK'd search warrant for Fox News reporter's emails - Open Channel

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Commit what crime? He is a reporter, he is allowed to report whatever information he finds out.

He isn't allowed to violate 18 U.S.C. § 793(d) no matter what he does for a living.

If the Hussein administration is too incompetent to find out who is leaking information, that gives them the right to infringe on a reporter's rights?

No rights were violated. The Constitution provides that a persons private records may be seized if a warrant is obtained. A warrant was obtained. There's nothing in the Constitution that says anything to the effect of "no person shall be searched even with a warrant if Teabaggers disagree with the judge's approval of the warrant", does it?

I see, so as long as political opponents are labed "co-conspirators" for a leak caused by the administration itself, is A-OK to get a warrant for seizure of private property.

Its only OK if a judge agrees with the DOJ's reasoning and approves the warrant, in accordance with the Constitution. In this case that's exactly what happened.

It's amazing to see what lengths liberals will go to in order to defend government overreaching and abusing its power.

There's not any evidence that power was abused. The Constitution was followed to the letter.