Nobama arrests media reps for reporting the news

[amicus]

In what is described as the most secret and clandestine administration in American history and comparable to Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia, this administration has put a chill on legitimate reporting by having news reporters arrested and changed with crimes.

"

"Obama War on Journalism: Feds Raid Reporter, Seize Notes


What critics have described as the Obama administration’s “war on journalism” appears to have been taken to another level in recent months with a federal SWAT raid on a reporter’s home, which resulted in the seizure of her private notes and the likely unmasking of whistleblowers within government. Following revelations about lawless spying on reporters and even charges against a journalist of being a "conspirator" by the Justice Department, the explosive story about the raid unveiled last week is causing a fresh wave of outrage — and deep concern. A lawsuit is already in the pipeline to fight back against the latest attacks on rights guaranteed to everyone under the First and Fourth Amendments to the Constitution.

According to investigative reporter Audrey Hudson, an award-winning journalist who helped expose problems within the Department of Homeland Security in articles for the Washington Times, swarms of DHS agents and Maryland State Police officers descended on her home in a pre-dawn assault on August 6. Armed with full battle gear and a warrant authorizing a search for firearms (her husband was apparently convicted of “resisting arrest” almost three decades ago and so was supposedly not allowed to be near guns), the federal and state agents ended up seizing Hudson’s private notes, too...."

~~~

You will not hear or see reportage of this first amendment violation on any mainstream media outlet.

gee, I wonder why...

both a chilling effect on journalists, they are afraid to even ask questions at white house new briefings and any, 'anonymous source', at the white house will be persecuted...

do your own fucking research

amicus

 

[miles]

I don't call him The Fuhrer for nothing.

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

So I did my own research, and found myself wondering why the OP left out the following tidbit.

“During the course of the search, the CGIS agent discovered government documents labeled FOUO – For Official Use Only (FOUO) – and LES – Law Enforcement Sensitive. The files that contained these documents were cataloged on the search warrant inventory and taken from the premises,” Coast Guard spokesman Carlos Díaz said. “The documents were reviewed with the source agency and determined to be obtained properly through the Freedom of Information Act.”

In the course of a legal search, the authorities found documents that the reporter may not have been authorized to have and confiscated them. They were inventoried and after it was determined that she had obtained the documents properly through a FOIA request, they were returned to her.

Nowhere does it say that anything happened to her "sources" other than that they still work for the DHS.

I vote nontroversy, which stands to reason with "The Daily Caller" running the story.

 

[phrodeau]

(edited)

You will not hear or see reportage of this first amendment violation on any mainstream media outlet.

It was on Fox News back in October.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013...-dawn-raid-on-reporter-home-raises-questions/

Proving that Fox News is NOT a mainstream media outlet.

 

[RobDownSouth]

I don't call him The Fuhrer for nothing.

I'll ask you again....if President Obama really is "the Fuhrer" as you so often claim, why haven't you and your family been rendered down into soap yet?

 

[Boxlicker101]

So I did my own research, and found myself wondering why the OP left out the following tidbit.

“During the course of the search, the CGIS agent discovered government documents labeled FOUO – For Official Use Only (FOUO) – and LES – Law Enforcement Sensitive. The files that contained these documents were cataloged on the search warrant inventory and taken from the premises,” Coast Guard spokesman Carlos Díaz said. “The documents were reviewed with the source agency and determined to be obtained properly through the Freedom of Information Act.”

In the course of a legal search, the authorities found documents that the reporter may not have been authorized to have and confiscated them. They were inventoried and after it was determined that she had obtained the documents properly through a FOIA request, they were returned to her.

Nowhere does it say that anything happened to her "sources" other than that they still work for the DHS.

I vote nontroversy, which stands to reason with "The Daily Caller" running the story.

You didn't mention where you did your research. Was it Media Matters or some similar source? If the journalist had nothing she was not entitled to have, how was a search warrant issued? What was the probable cause for such a warrant?

 

[Boxlicker101]

You didn't mention where you did your research. Was it Media Matters or some similar source? If the journalist had nothing she was not entitled to have, how was a search warrant issued? What was the probable cause for such a warrant?

Ah, here's what it was. The cops etc. had a warrant for something entirely different. This was clearly a violation of Constitutional rights because there was no warrant to take or even look at personal papers. I think it's safe to assume they photocopied whatever documents were taken in the warrantless search.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news...ize-records-reporter-washington-tim/?page=all

 

[phrodeau]

Oh, why can't Obama only enforce the laws that the Right Wing likes?

 

[Boxlicker101]

Oh, why can't Obama only enforce the laws that the Right Wing likes?

Oh, why can't Obama refrain from violating Constitutional rights?

 

[phrodeau]

Oh, why can't Obama refrain from violating Constitutional rights?

Did he prevent the mainstream media from covering this story, so that only Fox News could report it?

 

[Boxlicker101]

Did he prevent the mainstream media from covering this story, so that only Fox News could report it?

Probably not. This was Obama's henchmen violating the First and Fourth Amendment rights of a journalists so most of the mainstream media would not touch it. Fox is gutsier than most although it was also covered by the Washington Times.

 

[phrodeau]

Probably not. This was Obama's henchmen violating the First and Fourth Amendment rights of a journalists so most of the mainstream media would not touch it. Fox is gutsier than most although it was also covered by the Washington Times.

Audrey Hudson writes for the Times, so that doesn't count.

 

[amicus]

The Honeymoon may be about over for Nobama as some thrity professional journalists expressed anger at the censorship of the press and the bullying by Nobama and his goons.

It is possible the mainstream news outlets, absent Fox News, will be switching horse to Hillary who is beginning to distance herself from this administration for her run at the white house...

You might hear more about this issue tucked in among the other controversies surrounding the Nobama Kingship...

amicus

 

[miles]

The Honeymoon may be about over for Nobama as some thrity professional journalists expressed anger at the censorship of the press and the bullying by Nobama and his goons.

It is possible the mainstream news outlets, absent Fox News, will be switching horse to Hillary who is beginning to distance herself from this administration for her run at the white house...

You might hear more about this issue tucked in among the other controversies surrounding the Nobama Kingship...

amicus

The Hildabeest will be the darling of the media.

 

[KingOrfeo]

You will not hear or see reportage of this first amendment violation on any mainstream media outlet.

Which is always grounds to doubt the story.

 

[Sean Renaud]

This is what? The thirty sixth time that things were about to turn for Obama?

 

[Dream59]

I am no Obama fan, but I did not know he was participating in law enforcement as well and President.

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

You didn't mention where you did your research. Was it Media Matters or some similar source? If the journalist had nothing she was not entitled to have, how was a search warrant issued? What was the probable cause for such a warrant?

Actually, my source was that ultra liberal site "The Blaze".

The search warrant was issued to look for firearms which her husband could not legally own. In the process of the search they found documents marked "for official use only" and "Law enforcement sensitive". Should the authorities ignore possible illegal action if they find it while searching for something else?

Also, the thread title is more than a little disingenuous, considering not a single "media rep" was arrested.

 

[Que]

Actually, my source was that ultra liberal site "The Blaze".

The search warrant was issued to look for firearms which her husband could not legally own. In the process of the search they found documents marked "for official use only" and "Law enforcement sensitive". Should the authorities ignore possible illegal action if they find it while searching for something else?

Also, the thread title is more than a little disingenuous, considering not a single "media rep" was arrested.

Tripped over them did they?

There is a reason that search warrants are limited in scope. In this case she wasn't the purported target of the "investigation" which never would have happened if the purported target didn't happen to live with a reporter whose house they wanted to rifle through.

You can twist your reasoning to accommodate any narrative, can't you?

 

[unregistered]

 

[Boxlicker101]

Actually, my source was that ultra liberal site "The Blaze".

The search warrant was issued to look for firearms which her husband could not legally own. In the process of the search they found documents marked "for official use only" and "Law enforcement sensitive". Should the authorities ignore possible illegal action if they find it while searching for something else?

Also, the thread title is more than a little disingenuous, considering not a single "media rep" was arrested.

Yes, they should. That's what search warrants are for. If they did not have those limitations, the cops could grab anything they wanted.

 

[nowisthetime]

So I did my own research, and found myself wondering why the OP left out the following tidbit.

“During the course of the search, the CGIS agent discovered government documents labeled FOUO – For Official Use Only (FOUO) – and LES – Law Enforcement Sensitive. The files that contained these documents were cataloged on the search warrant inventory and taken from the premises,” Coast Guard spokesman Carlos Díaz said. “The documents were reviewed with the source agency and determined to be obtained properly through the Freedom of Information Act.”

In the course of a legal search, the authorities found documents that the reporter may not have been authorized to have and confiscated them. They were inventoried and after it was determined that she had obtained the documents properly through a FOIA request, they were returned to her.

Nowhere does it say that anything happened to her "sources" other than that they still work for the DHS.

I vote nontroversy, which stands to reason with "The Daily Caller" running the story.

That's how they are....always leaving out the fine details so they can simmer in their hatred. It's convenient for them. They have to hate something to exist. Bet if he were a Republican they would turn the other way But anytime a Democrat dares to exercise power, they all of a sudden become fascist as if they fucking know what that definition means.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Yes, they should. That's what search warrants are for. If they did not have those limitations, the cops could grab anything they wanted.

Those documents would qualify as a crime in progress. We can debate over if the cops should have the right to snatch that kind of stuff but not if. They are clearly within their rights.

 

[Que]

Those documents would qualify as a crime in progress. We can debate over if the cops should have the right to snatch that kind of stuff but not if. They are clearly within their rights.

I believe you mean "exigent circumstances."

In any case if and only if her possessing them was a crime she already possessed them, had presumably read them, could have already copied them, reported on them or disseminated them in some way.

Taking 'her' papers that she evidently was not "secure " from search did not affect the fact that the papers were already out of a secure location.

According to your line of reasoning when a cop tosses any dwelling on the flimsiest of excuses, ANYTHING they find that points to ongoing criminal activity is fair game.

Except it isn't.

 

[Sean Renaud]

The Surpreme Court JUST finished finding , specifically, that Cell Phones are not in bounds. This is no different from a cop frisking you for a weapon and finding drugs.