Jump to content

The Justice Department gets a search warrant for Fox News reporter James Rosen’s personal e-mails


autigeremt

Recommended Posts





Does anyone remember the time this administration tried to get FOX News removed from the White House pool reporters group?

No ?

<_<

But there's no targeting of conservatives, right Libs ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting that folks here assume that a Fox reporter couldn't be involved in a classified leak. BTW, the Bush justice department jailed reporters who wouldn't give up sources, remember?

Yeah, and wasn't this four years ago? The Republican Network just had to do its bit for the party and gin up some outrage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting that folks here assume that a Fox reporter couldn't be involved in a classified leak. BTW, the Bush justice department jailed reporters who wouldn't give up sources, remember?

Yeah, and wasn't this four years ago? The Republican Network just had to do its bit for the party and gin up some outrage.

Typical.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting that folks here assume that a Fox reporter couldn't be involved in a classified leak. BTW, the Bush justice department jailed reporters who wouldn't give up sources, remember?

Yeah, and wasn't this four years ago? The Republican Network just had to do its bit for the party and gin up some outrage.

Typical.

Your "typical" reply. Substance free.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting that folks here assume that a Fox reporter couldn't be involved in a classified leak. BTW, the Bush justice department jailed reporters who wouldn't give up sources, remember?

Yeah, and wasn't this four years ago? The Republican Network just had to do its bit for the party and gin up some outrage.

Ask reporters which admin is a bigger threat to the press. I doubt you'd like their answer.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting that folks here assume that a Fox reporter couldn't be involved in a classified leak. BTW, the Bush justice department jailed reporters who wouldn't give up sources, remember?

Yeah, and wasn't this four years ago? The Republican Network just had to do its bit for the party and gin up some outrage.

Ask reporters which admin is a bigger threat to the press. I doubt you'd like their answer.

Folks have short memories.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting that folks here assume that a Fox reporter couldn't be involved in a classified leak. BTW, the Bush justice department jailed reporters who wouldn't give up sources, remember?

Yeah, and wasn't this four years ago? The Republican Network just had to do its bit for the party and gin up some outrage.

Typical.

Your "typical" reply. Substance free.

Just for you, Texas! Consistency. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting that folks here assume that a Fox reporter couldn't be involved in a classified leak. BTW, the Bush justice department jailed reporters who wouldn't give up sources, remember?

Yeah, and wasn't this four years ago? The Republican Network just had to do its bit for the party and gin up some outrage.

Typical.

Your "typical" reply. Substance free.

I think maybe he just doesn't type very well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Will people's outrage at the justice department change if Rosen was involved in leaking classified info regarding North Korea as alleged? http://www.politico....359.html?hp=l14

If he leaked classified info, then he deserves the lawful punishment. And if I'm not mistaken, this search of his emails was done with a proper subpoena wasn't it? Not that shady PATRIOT Act type BS that doesn't involve a judge or probable cause? I could be mistaken on that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with Titan. If he broke the law, he should pay. However, I remember a time when Democrats were enraged at the GWB administration for the Patriot Act, yet warmed to it when President Obama kept it going. Interesting how those things work out, isn't it? ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with Titan. If he broke the law, he should pay. However, I remember a time when Democrats were enraged at the GWB administration for the Patriot Act, yet warmed to it when President Obama kept it going. Interesting how those things work out, isn't it? ;)

I have always been a fan of the patriot act. I just watched "Zero Dark Thirty" and now I support torturing terrorist detainees if they are KNOWN to be terrorists. I doubt there is any other way to get info. We just don't need to know about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with Titan. If he broke the law, he should pay. However, I remember a time when Democrats were enraged at the GWB administration for the Patriot Act, yet warmed to it when President Obama kept it going. Interesting how those things work out, isn't it? ;)

I have always been a fan of the patriot act. I just watched "Zero Dark Thirty" and now I support torturing terrorist detainees if they are KNOWN to be terrorists. I doubt there is any other way to get info. We just don't need to know about it.

Thinking this was sarcasm, but in case it isn't "Zero Dark Thirty" exaggerated the role of torture in capturing Bin Laden:

Zero Dark Thirty's torture scenes create the impression that these interrogations provided early clues as to the identity of Osama bin Laden's courier, who would ultimately lead the CIA to the man himself. This has outraged some US senators, including John McCain, who deny that in the strongest terms on the basis of their access to classified CIA material which is still not publicly available. The CIA document mentioned above says that: "The Agency's detention and interrogation of terrorists has provided intelligence that has enabled the identification and apprehension of other terrorists." This does not relate explicitly to the finding of Bin Laden, and not merely because the document was written before he was found. As war on terror expert Jane Mayer has pointed out, former CIA director Leon Panetta has stated that "we first learned about 'the facilitator/courier's nom de guerre' from a detainee not in the CIA's custody" and that "no detainee in CIA custody revealed the facilitator/courier's full true name or specific whereabouts".

Along with what the senators have said, and further evidence quoted by Mayer and others, this appears to corroborate the view that torture interrogations were irrelevant to finding Bin Laden. "Torture was, however, as we all know, employed in the early years of the hunt," Bigelow wrote. "That doesn't mean it was the key to finding Bin Laden. It means it is a part of the story we couldn't ignore." That depends on which story you're telling. Torture is part of the story of how the CIA operated in the early 2000s. Based on currently available evidence, though, there is a strong case to argue that torture is not part of the story of finding Bin Laden.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/filmblog/2013/jan/25/zero-dark-thirty-reel-history

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...