Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Bonobo

(29,257 posts)
Thu May 16, 2013, 01:07 AM May 2013

The thing about PARTISANS and the AP story.

If you defend the kind of secretive, blanket monitoring that was done on AP, including monitoring the professional and personal calls of hundreds of people... then you MUST be prepared to keep you mouth shut when it is done by a Republican in the future.

"They thought it was necessary and it was within the law." are words that WILL come back to haunt you because you can bet your ass that it will happen and the Obama Admins actions are surely setting a dark, dark precedent.

21 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
The thing about PARTISANS and the AP story. (Original Post) Bonobo May 2013 OP
The premise of national security is always suspect ... GeorgeGist May 2013 #1
... SidDithers May 2013 #2
More like Bonobo May 2013 #3
... SidDithers May 2013 #4
Thanks for the kicks. Bonobo May 2013 #5
Ridiculous... SidDithers May 2013 #6
The AP story is important. Bonobo May 2013 #7
... SidDithers May 2013 #8
I will alert if you keep disrupting my thread. Bonobo May 2013 #9
To quote some other DUer... SidDithers May 2013 #10
Yes. Bonobo May 2013 #13
The AP story does not involve monitoring calls, per se, but call records after the fact. Anansi1171 May 2013 #11
That's true. Bonobo May 2013 #12
Someone was saying sources may need to go to burner phones and meetings on park benches. dkf May 2013 #14
AP can reap what they sowed. nt DevonRex May 2013 #17
If AP loses thousands of leads because they chose to out the ONLY CIA asset in DevonRex May 2013 #16
How better can it be put? madokie May 2013 #21
But of course that's the real point limpyhobbler May 2013 #18
Ummm, no...NBC or FAUX News PURPOSEFULLY puts an agent and other Americans in danger there's uponit7771 May 2013 #15
future? where was the hue + cry when georgee tapped amerika? slippery slopes.... pansypoo53219 May 2013 #19
It was here. Bonobo May 2013 #20

Bonobo

(29,257 posts)
7. The AP story is important.
Thu May 16, 2013, 01:26 AM
May 2013

But you need to actually care about deep issues such as the relationship between the press and the government in order to see that.

When politics is just a game, like curling for instance, its hard to see that.

Anyway, keep the kicks coming!

Bonobo

(29,257 posts)
9. I will alert if you keep disrupting my thread.
Thu May 16, 2013, 01:32 AM
May 2013

It's really bad form.

Do you have anything to say about the OP itself?

If not, please stop the disruption.

SidDithers

(44,228 posts)
10. To quote some other DUer...
Thu May 16, 2013, 01:35 AM
May 2013

"I will do as I think proper."

I expressed exactly what I thought of your OP in my first reply.

Kick!

Sid

Anansi1171

(793 posts)
11. The AP story does not involve monitoring calls, per se, but call records after the fact.
Thu May 16, 2013, 01:49 AM
May 2013

As far as we know. Characterizing it as blanket monitoring is a bit misleading. A wide range of professional and personal call records is really what it was. The connected phone numbers, call time and duration. Nothing thus far indicates there were phone taps, wherein the government was "monitoring" the content of calls in progress or after the fact.

Proceed

Bonobo

(29,257 posts)
12. That's true.
Thu May 16, 2013, 01:54 AM
May 2013

But the chilling effect it will have on the press is undeniable. They will have reason to have fear when conducting their jobs, which are a vital part of the democracy we live in.

Furthermore their sources will likely dry up to a certain extent with the knowledge that they cannot be offered the anonymity expected.

What do you think this will do to prospective whistle-blowers?

 

dkf

(37,305 posts)
14. Someone was saying sources may need to go to burner phones and meetings on park benches.
Thu May 16, 2013, 02:33 AM
May 2013

Sad.

DevonRex

(22,541 posts)
16. If AP loses thousands of leads because they chose to out the ONLY CIA asset in
Thu May 16, 2013, 02:56 AM
May 2013

Al Qaeda they deserve to do so. If other news organizations are prevented from outing future CIA assets in Al Qaeda that's good, too. Those assets take years to get. Years to build up trust within the organization once they're in. And then some damned reporter wants to make a name for himself, and a Langley employee wants to sway an election, so they undo years worth of work and say hell with the security of the American people? Fuck them. And fuck anybody who thinks that's OK. Because it's not.

All AP had to do was NOT tell the CIA's role in uncovering the plot about the AQAP bomb on the Detroit airplane. But they CHOSE to run the story. They chose to run the story earlier than they had said they would. Maybe even BEFORE the agent and his family got out of Yemen and away from Al Qaeda. Do you understand that AP may have gotten the man and his wife and kids KILLED??

Do you understand they were British subjects? And thus it involves 3 governments, 3 intelligence agencies? Do you understand that there are relationships that probably cannot be repaired after this?

limpyhobbler

(8,244 posts)
18. But of course that's the real point
Thu May 16, 2013, 03:55 AM
May 2013

To scare potential whistle blowers and to intimidate reporters.

It's thought police.

uponit7771

(90,359 posts)
15. Ummm, no...NBC or FAUX News PURPOSEFULLY puts an agent and other Americans in danger there's
Thu May 16, 2013, 02:42 AM
May 2013

...no way they're going to hide behind 1st amendment for that crap no matter who the admin is

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»The thing about PARTISANS...