Yes and no. While determining if the DOJ followed their guidelines/rules is pertinent, the real question is whether the incredibly broad nature of the records gathered is/was justified. I don't think that question is hard to answer, but plenty of folks are already twisting themselves into knots to rationalize.
I agree... and it's a very sad statement of American's change over the last fifteen years that I don't want to post much more about the options, literally out of fear of ideas landing me on some sort of stupid watch list, if I'm not already on one.
It is expanding quickly and a vast majority simply do not care. Look at this situation in Boston, we had literal martial law for 24 hours and no one batted an eye. Look at ALL of it... I do not agree with the Republicans on many issues, but they are right that the government want sheep.
Well, according the US Senate (both parties, but mostly R) findign the leakers of the Spring 2012 Airline bombing-foiling operation was a matter of paramount national security importance: First off, as far as the subpoena being overbroad - all document subpoenae are overbroad as a general matter. That's the nature of the beast. As for the specific question of the guidelines, I believe in order to obtain these records (without notice) the DOJ has to have exhausted other avenues to get them and also reasonably believe that it's a risk to give notice - why do you think the Washington DC US Atty's office is acting in bad faith here? Mind you, it very well could be, but this isn't really as black and white an area as it may seem IMO.
^^^It's sad that is where all this has led, but it wasn't hard to see as it was happening... it was just too hard to get anyone on board with making sure it didn't happen while everyone was screaming "patriotism!" Sadly, kids today won't even know what it was like before this all started happening. Luckily, though, we're all extra safe now. O'reilly was on GMA and seemed to indicate the records were evidently obtained with warrants and that this would then be a non-issue, but I agree questions remain about the reasoning of them being sought in the first place. You'd think getting the warrants would take specifics, but these days, who knows?
Skeptical cat is skeptical. But you hit the nail on the head as to why this development is actually disconcerting...it's the next phase of The Most Transparent Adminstration Ever's war against whistleblowers and leakers.
Don't you think somebody leaking an actual ongoing CIA operation to capture an airplane bomber before it's completed is probably something the government should investigate and/or prosecute? In the abstract it doesn't seem to me that that's an objectionable goal. I don't think it's a Bradley Manning situation.
Twas not my impression We could probably argue pointlessly about the merits of catching this particular leaker all day but I have no intention of wasting my time in such a fashion. It's ancillary.
That's the same impression - AP obtained the info before the operation was complete, held it till after it was complete. I guess kudos to them for not jeopardizign the op - but it doesn't change the fact that the government has something to take a look at. I just don't thik your baseline assumption to default to "must be government overreach" is necessarily true here; surely there's some form of leak that you think probalby should be investigated.
Significant government intrusion into what is no doubt a broad array of material being discussed/investigated at a major news organization is absolutely government overreach. I expect you more than capable of discerning why.
Turns out that numerous congressmen were calling for an investigation into an AP story and how they got certain classified information before the DOJ went after their phone records. Holder himself was being interviewed as a potential leak and recused himself from the investigation. There were over 500 interviews before the phone records were requested. Another fake scandal goes down in flames. <object width="420" height="245" id="msnbc4e3680" classid="clsid27CDB6E-AE6D-11cf-96B8-444553540000" codebase="http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=10,0,0,0"><param name="movie" value="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32545640" /><param name="FlashVars" value="launch=51885132&width=420&height=245" /><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always" /><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /><param name="wmode" value="transparent" /><embed name="msnbc4e3680" src="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32545640" width="420" height="245" FlashVars="launch=51885132&width=420&height=245" allowscriptaccess="always" allowFullScreen="true" wmode="transparent" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" pluginspage="http://www.adobe.com/shockwave/download/download.cgi?P1_Prod_Version=ShockwaveFlash"></embed></object><p style="font-size:11px; font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; color: #999; margin-top: 5px; background: transparent; text-align: center; width: 420px;">Visit NBCNews.com for <a style="text-decoration:none !important; border-bottom: 1px dotted #999 !important; font-weight:normal !important; height: 13px; color:#5799DB !important;" href="http://www.nbcnews.com">breaking news</a>, <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032507" style="text-decoration:none !important; border-bottom: 1px dotted #999 !important; font-weight:normal !important; height: 13px; color:#5799DB !important;">world news</a>, and <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032072" style="text-decoration:none !important; border-bottom: 1px dotted #999 !important; font-weight:normal !important; height: 13px; color:#5799DB !important;">news about the economy</a></p>
fake scandals? which one? pick one. pick two.. hell pick the last 4 scandals in couple weeks.. with the EPA one coming out today. Which one is faked? Holder "recused" himself. Excuse oneself from a case because of a possible conflict of interest or lack of impartiality. He is being investigated so he stepped out of the investigation. Not sure how that interprets into "fake scandal" Benghazi? Hicks, second in command to Amb. Stevens plus numerous other whistleblowers stating that the admin. tried to suppress information and changed talking points multiple times. 4 people died as a result of politics or ineptness. What difference does it make right? AP? 20 reporters, 2 months of cellphone and landline records. If it is fake.. then someone forgot to tell the AP reporters since they had no idea and now it's turning into a criminal investigation. Regardless if the dear leader is involved (sure he is).. this is an egregious offense that should upset any side. If he did know, it's an impeachable offense. Personally AP made that bed and dont feel sorry for them.. but it's wrong and now they finally see the truth for what it is. IRS? So come out and say it's a couple of rogue agents.. that news is already fuked up. Now it's reported that it happened all over the US. Including IRS offices in Washington. So while he's out campaigning, IRS is helping him by fighting the opposition so he can win the second term. Nixon was forced out of office for much less. Yeah The IRS scandal will actually be bigger then the other "fake" scandals as it would be the most impeachable offense.. especially for a "fake" president.
