Quantcast
U.S. & World

'Unprecedented': Obama administration seizes many Associated Press phone records

Comments

Return To Article
  • peacemaker Provo, UT
    May 16, 2013 2:59 a.m.

    The first people to go, in the historical context of non democratic regimes worldwide, were the intellectuals, the religious leaders and representatives of the free press. Amazing how the national liberal media continue to dig at their own graves by protecting the very administration that would bury them. Perhaps this matter will be an eye opener. The responsibility of the liberal press to report to the American public such acts has been missing. We all need to have confidence that they will fulfill their responsibility. Perhaps, now, that they have now been victimized by the Obama administration, an awakening will occur.

  • m.g. scott clearfield, UT
    May 15, 2013 11:43 a.m.

    @ Bored

    If you read over the last few years the posters who don't like Obama, you'd realize that many of them are hardly cheerleaders for Bush either. Many of us seem to be more skeptical of administrations than a lot of journalists in D.C. are. And that's not good. The fourth estate is supposed to be the watchdog for everyone, not just one political POV.

  • happy2bhere clearfield, UT
    May 15, 2013 11:30 a.m.

    Re: Esquire

    Thanks for re-affirming that anytime anyone disagrees with President Obama, it is only because of hate and bigotry. I guess I forgot that for a while. Thanks for keeping my mind right. I should remember that I am a bad person because I don't agree with Obama.

  • LetsDebate PLEASANT GROVE, UT
    May 15, 2013 9:40 a.m.

    @Bored - I think those who were happy when Bush surveilled suspected terrorists have no problem with Obama surveilling suspected terrorists. I think it's highly entertaining that you think the standards for surveilling journalists should be the same as those for suspected terrorists.

    Not all are fools, but some are exposed by the ridiculous comparisons they make.

  • jsf Centerville, UT
    May 15, 2013 9:30 a.m.

    I have figured out why. The presidents intel did not provided him the info about Benghazi until the news the next day, he didn't know about the IRS until he learned about it in the news with the public, he has told us many times about issues he learns about from the news the same time as the public. The wiretap of the Associated Press, was just his attempt to find out anything before the public does.

  • Bored to the point of THIS! Ogden, UT
    May 15, 2013 8:09 a.m.

    I love reading these comments because there's the usual participants (myself included).

    We are all fools!

    I laugh because of how political most of 'us' are. I love it when 'you people' cry foul when an event is focused on the opposite party. Some of you (blasting Obama) were all for this when we were doing it to 'suspected terrorists' under Bush (following 911).

    Pure entertainment! Thank you!

  • worf Mcallen, TX
    May 14, 2013 6:43 p.m.

    Obama is upset because he doesn't know what he's doing:

    * didn't know what the IRS was doing
    * although the British took steps to save their people, Obama wasn't aware of any dangers in Benghazi.
    * doesn't know how American guns slipped to Mexican cartels.
    * didn't know the economy was this bad.
    * didn't know our country has fifty states.
    * thought a video caused the massacre at Benghazi.

    Donald Trump offered fifty million dollars for Obama's college transcripts. As the presidents employer, we should be able to see it.

  • LoveLife Riverton, UT
    May 14, 2013 5:11 p.m.

    Lost-
    That's because anything that happened under GWB was directly GWB's fault. Unlike now, where Obama can just say he didn't know about it and he is magically off the hook. Double standards are fine if you lean to the left.

    I'm also curious about Esquire's "hate" allegations, and would appreciate it if he/she would quote exactly what was hateful. Some sarcasm perhaps, but not hateful or even mean-spirited.

  • Tolstoy salt lake, UT
    May 14, 2013 4:50 p.m.

    Lots of dubious claims and no facts to support them JSF.

  • lost in DC West Jordan, UT
    May 14, 2013 4:32 p.m.

    Esquire,
    something I forgot to mention earlier - when the PATRIOT ACT first passed, the majority of DEMS in the house and senate voted FOR it, as well as the repubs.

    Your first comment blames everything on the repubs, then your 11:05 comment says all the conservative comments are "hate". I guess you refuse seeing your comments blaming the repubs as "hate". I sure am glad you talked about someone being hypocritical. Hope you have a good mirror.

  • jsf Centerville, UT
    May 14, 2013 2:29 p.m.

    No atl134 it is not legal, under the Patriot Act or any other Act. It is criminal actions. The question about Benghazi, gun running to drug cartels, targeting using the IRS, and the AP issue, all tie up to powers in the Administration. Deeper is the gun running to Syrian rebels in violation of international law. And if Bush is going to be the scapegoat then prosecute him also. Obama jokingly(?) threatened to use the IRS to go after his opponents early in his first term. With the likes of Nixon and the problems of this administration and the rest between, liberals tell us we are paranoid to distrust our government. Obama said he wished he didn't have the constraints of the constitution to keep him from getting what he wants to do. He threatened to go around congress to get the gun control he wanted.

    If you listen to a man long enough he will tell you who he is.

  • LoveLife Riverton, UT
    May 14, 2013 1:20 p.m.

    Esquire~

    Could you please direct me specifically where this is defended as being conducted under the Patriot Act? The article said, "The government would not say why it sought the records" so I don't really see how it is related.

    You'll find plenty of conservatives/Republicans who did not like or approve of the Patriot Act. Republicans have troubles getting elected and re-elected because of stuff like that.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    May 14, 2013 12:53 p.m.

    This is sadly probably totally legal. After all the Patriot Act and other similar bills allowed vast expanses of power in this area.

  • LetsDebate PLEASANT GROVE, UT
    May 14, 2013 11:48 a.m.

    Obama, probably like many other presidents, should have been given an alternate oath of office for his second term, particularly considering the pattern of his first term. After the phrase "...will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States," should be added "unless it violates my personal ideology."

    And thank you again, Esquire, for your contribution to the consistency of the comments.

  • Esquire Springville, UT
    May 14, 2013 11:05 a.m.

    Wow, no consistency in the comments except hate.

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    May 14, 2013 10:44 a.m.

    Re: " I don't want to hear one word of complaint from the right."

    Well, you'll just have to continue plugging your ears and shouting, "la, la, la," then.

    Otherwise, you'll hear lots of complaints, from both right and left, about this long and growing list of Obama regime outrages against its Nixonian enemies list.

  • Tolstoy salt lake, UT
    May 14, 2013 10:08 a.m.

    I understand the need to investigate disclosures of top secret information that could potentially place people in harm’s way but on the surface this seems very troubling. I would like to know how they justify and why they have cast what seems to be such a wide net.

  • JWB Kaysville, UT
    May 14, 2013 9:58 a.m.

    I still believe that this President studied Constitutional law for one purpose and that was to get around what the majority of people for 200 years believed the Constitution of the United States of America is and what it means.

    First amendment and second amendment. Sort of important? There won't be a deep throat in this process as he/she will be uncovered.

    The Press and Media have been very protective of this President for 5 years. Their area has now been violated and the government is becoming like the PRAVDA. The CIA and FBI will become the KGB or Secret Police and not the protectors for freedoms.

    What is inviolate? The ATF even suffered with the Fast and Furious. The IRS just used their process in 2011 to violate people's rights and maybe influence elections?

    Safety and health standards were to help employees and protect owners, also, by increasing productivity. Now, employers can hide behind the safety and health standards by self-reporting themselves.

    We have lowered our standards everyday by becoming complacent and let the government do everything for us. That even breeds people inside of political parties to do their own purification processes for people who think.

  • Tators Hyrum, UT
    May 14, 2013 9:57 a.m.

    Esquire:

    The true hypocrisy lies in the fact that every time Bush did anything at all you didn't agree with, you and others on the left felt totally free to criticize on these very pages. And now that Obama has got caught with his hand in the cookie jar, you want people on the right to give him a free pass and just forget about it. It's truly one of those "do as I say, not as I do" kind of things. You should be the last to now be preaching about hypocrisy.

  • LetsDebate PLEASANT GROVE, UT
    May 14, 2013 9:51 a.m.

    Of course, Esquire, all mistakes made by the GOP are the GOP's fault, and according to the repeated propaganda from the left, all mistakes by the Dems are the GOP's fault as well. The Dems appreciate your loyal support.

  • Esquire Springville, UT
    May 14, 2013 9:25 a.m.

    "lost", it still originated with your guys and your guys nearly unanimously reauthorized it. You seem to have missed the point that the GOP loves it, so no complaining about it necessary. That's where the hypocrisy is. You surely can figure this one out.

  • lost in DC West Jordan, UT
    May 14, 2013 8:54 a.m.

    Esquire,
    it was the DEM controlled house and senate during the first half BO's (D) first term that the Act you decry was set to expire. But the DEM controlled government extended it. Who is the hypocrit now?

    I think this is all getting blown out of proportion - I'm sure Holder was just making sure the AP was getting all the DNC talking points.

  • Esquire Springville, UT
    May 14, 2013 8:24 a.m.

    Just a week or two ago, Charles Krauthammer, the conservative Obama-hating columnist, wrote that one of the crowning achievements of the Bush Administration was the anti-terrorism system now in place. It is the result of the GOP's Patriot Act and related legislation. The fact that these laws led to this court approved action should be something that every conservative should welcome. I don't want to hear one word of complaint from the right. After all, they hate the main stream media anyway. So I guess we will see how deep runs the hypocrisy.

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    May 14, 2013 8:22 a.m.

    Some of us could see this coming 5 years ago. Don't blame me, I voted for Romney BECAUSE of these kinds of government power abuses! But never fear liberals, we still have Obama and Holder for nearly 4 more years. Imagine that!

  • DN Subscriber 2 SLC, UT
    May 14, 2013 8:01 a.m.

    Maybe this story should begin "First, the came for the Second Amendment, but I was a Journalist...."

    Nobody needs more than one telephone. There should be waiting periods before crazy journalists get access to phones.

    They didn't have telephones when the Constitution was adopted, so only quill pens and moveable type and hand presses are protected.

    Only a conspiracy nut would think that the Obama administration would take away any of your rights.

    The bottom line is that the Obama administration and Eric Holder's Justice Department can NOT be trusted, and will not obey the limits on their power clearly delineated in our Constitution. And, that does not even begin to consider the huge scandal over the political thuggery of the IRS!

    Journalists, welcome to the ranks of the oppressed.

  • Kralon HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA
    May 14, 2013 7:59 a.m.

    Wow, really? Who is the judge who approved this? Wouldn't it be interesting to see a few calls from the West Wing?

  • CynicJim Taylorsville, UT
    May 14, 2013 7:05 a.m.

    Years ago when the media forefronted the attack on the second Ammendment, I postulated that it was only a matter of time before the first Ammendment would come under attack. Let us now see if our Chavez-type media will continue under Obama's thumb.or if they will champion their own cause, And, if their defense will include religion as part of the First!