phreddy wrote:

This has ignited a bit of a firestorm.  Seems the AP always considered themselves "friends" of the administration.  This is the treatment which should be reserved for Fox or Rush or conservative non-profits, not loyal drinkers of the Anointed One's kool-aid.

I'm not sure if your news sources are reporting all the details on this and the IRS scandal, but it appears the retribution dealt out by this administration and its agents has been pretty broad and very heavy handed.

I think you are over-reading the IRS bit, it seems to be more of a case of local idiots who drink "Obama Flavor-aid" than an organized effort from on high, particularly as nothing came of it.  This, like Benghazi, has become the Tea Party Caucus' latest excuse to avoid doing their fucking jobs.

This AP thing could be interesting however cabinet level involvement would be a surprise.  Holder has already recused himself so it's not a cover up, it is however a strange situation as this sort of info is requested and gathered on a fairly normal basis so I'm a bit confused as to the point of the exercise.  I'm sure we'll learn more in the coming weeks, however I doubt we'll ever hear the truth from either side.  I have to correct you on the AP bit, they consider themselves above the fray and not prejudiced in either direction - you must be thinking of CNN/Fox.

**Just to remind you - Bush was "Anointed" by SCOTUS in a bizarre maneuver and should be referred to as the "Anointed One"; Obama was "Elected" by both popular and electoral vote and should be referred to in the future as the "Elected One".

Last edited by Emmeran (2013-05-14 17:25:43)

I don't know if it's just me, or does anyone else get the feeling that Obama is just not happy with us as a country, no matter what we do to try to please him? Like we are all trying really hard to get a small token of his affection, but we know it will never be forthcoming?

This suddenly seems appropriate. Disturbing in that it was the opinion of the Supreme Court in Clapper v. Amnesty International just 2 months ago. While one hand was dismissing such surveillance as speculative, the other hand was engaged in just such a search.

Yes I know the SOCA case deals with the 2008 FISA law and this AP search falls under different law. The same issues applly. Most unnerving may be that the move away from allowing review by any branch of government becomes more complete.

It will be interesting if the US attorney even allows for court review of their surveillance. Now that the AP has standing will any call for court review just be shut down as state secrets doctrine or officials’ immunity from suit.

Writing for the majority, Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. said that the journalists, lawyers and human rights advocates who challenged the constitutionality of the law could not show they had been harmed by it and so lacked standing to sue. The plaintiffs’ fear that they would be subject to surveillance in the future was too speculative to establish standing, he wrote.

Justice Alito also rejected arguments based on the steps the plaintiffs had taken to escape surveillance, including traveling to meet sources and clients in person rather than talking to them over the phone or sending e-mails. “They cannot manufacture standing by incurring costs in anticipation of nonimminent harms,” he wrote of the plaintiffs.

It is of no moment, Justice Alito wrote, that only the government knows for sure whether the plaintiffs’ communications have been intercepted. It is the plaintiffs’ burden, he wrote, to prove they have standing “by pointing to specific facts, not the government’s burden to disprove standing by revealing details of its surveillance priorities.”

In dissent, Justice Stephen G. Breyer wrote that the harm claimed by the plaintiffs was not speculative. “Indeed,” he wrote, “it is as likely to take place as are most future events that common-sense inference and ordinary knowledge of human nature tell us will happen.”