WOW, it looks like we have overarching gubment at all levels and/or who have the (dangerous) “power of subpoena” without any arrests already made.

Just, wow.

Now I know why I don’t use the Chrome browser, don’t engage in social networking, opted out of all e-mail lists, set my browsers and shopping lists to “private,” heavily control online “cookies,” opted out of junk snail mail, keep my nos updated on the “Do Not Call” registry and have always had an unlisted phone number.

What happened? Did Fourth Amendment rights fly out the window?

I don’t have any Big Brothers, don’t need any and don’t want any … for good reason.

[quote=bearishgurl]
I don’t have any Big Brothers, don’t need any and don’t want any … for good reason.[/quote]

That sound suspicious. You got something to hide?

[quote=all][quote=bearishgurl]
I don’t have any Big Brothers, don’t need any and don’t want any … for good reason.[/quote]

That sound suspicious. You got something to hide?[/quote]

No, craptcha.

I just believe that a law-abiding American citzen has a right to privacy.

I’m particularly disturbed about the journalists’ phone records being subpeonaed by the CIA in the absence of any arrests.

It looks like I’m not the only one.

If journalists had to be constantly worried about the confidentiality of their sources, the American public would never get any “truthful” information. We would have access only to the “propaganda” shown to the public in Communist countries or those countries with otherwise corrupt regimes.

I would be curious what kind of reaction to the IRS scandal the media would have had if the IRS was found to be targetting grassroots liberal groups as opposed to tea party .

[quote=SD Realtor]I would be curious what kind of reaction to the IRS scandal the media would have had if the IRS was found to be targetting grassroots liberal groups as opposed to tea party .[/quote]

Probably a louder response. But for the most part, there aren’t many defending the IRS on this one. I don’t think it’s scandal worthy. By all appearance, it was initiated at pretty low levels, and was a very serious mistake in judgment. (I don’t think the motivation was political, but it was horribly misguided.) I’m still a little unclear on the possible lying to congress, and who exactly knew what and when. If it happened, I’m all for firing anyone from the IRS involved in lying to congress.

[quote=bearishgurl][quote=all][quote=bearishgurl]I just believe that a law-abiding American citzen has a right to privacy.[/quote]Right. But how do we know you are a law-abiding citizen without investigating you?[/quote]

Well, craptcha, I doubt any of us have spent much time in communist countries. But we don’t have to to know what the (gubment-controlled) media tells their public (“measured,” of course) in those regimes.

In the US, a prospective employer cannot even “investigate” a job candidate (beyond easily-obtainable local public record) without a full release signed by the candidate. Even past employers of a candidate will say NOTHING beyond dates of tenure to a prospective employer without seeing (and comparing) the candidate’s signature on a release. If a job candidate has limited access to their social networking page, a prospective employer cannot see it without the owner’s consent, i.e. he/she has to “friend” them to grant them access.

[quote=all][quote=beearishgurl]I’m particularly disturbed about the journalists’ phone records being subpeonaed by the CIA in the absence of any arrests.
[/quote]Don’t be. The CIA did not subpoena AP journalists’ phone records, so it’s all good. ….[/quote]

craptcha, that’s not what it says here, posted a little over an hour ago:

http://news.yahoo.com/associated-press-says-u-government-seized-journalists-phone-001433899.html

Atty General Holder “recused himself” from the subpoena by fobbing the dirty job off onto one of his lackeys. He even tried to justify it to an outraged citizenry and Congress:

. . . “It put the American people at risk, and that is not hyperbole,” he said. “It put the American people at risk. And trying to determine who was responsible for that I think required very aggressive action.”

The AP has said it was informed last Friday that the Justice Department had gathered records for more than 20 phone lines assigned to the news agency and its reporters.

The records covered April and May of last year, and were obtained earlier this year, the AP said.

It described the seizures as a “massive and unprecedented intrusion” into news-gathering operations.

“There can be no possible justification for such an overbroad collection of the telephone communications of The Associated Press and its reporters,” Pruitt said in a letter sent to Holder on Monday.

Reid, the Senate’s top Democrat, told reporters at the Capitol, “I have trouble defending what the Justice Department did, in … looking at AP.”

“I don’t know who did it, why it was done, but it’s inexcusable, and there is no way to justify this,” Reid said.

White House spokesman Jay Carney said on Tuesday that President Barack Obama sought to balance support for a free press with the need to investigate leaks of classified information.

“The president believes that the press as a rule needs to have an unfettered ability to pursue investigative journalism,” Carney told a news briefing.

“He is also committed, as president and as a citizen, to the proposition that we cannot allow classified information, that can do harm to our national security interests or do harm to individuals, to be leaked,” Carney said.

Carney reiterated that the White House was not involved in the decision to seize the AP records.

(emphasis added)

The White House (Pres Obama) tried to appear to support the Fourth Amendment whilst straddling the fence.

[quote=all]And the article says CIA issued the subpoena?[/quote]

craptcha WHO do you think is the “subpeonaing body” for the “Justice Dept?” Might it be the US Attorney General? Isn’t the CIA part of the Justice Dept?? If not, which Department is it under and does the US Atty General work for them? Did you think the CIA had subpoena powers on their own? Isn’t that what Holder’s office is for?