The Secret Service contacted The Associated Press on Wednesday and asked for copies of the leaked e-mails, which circulated widely on the Internet. The AP did not comply.Then if you know they're withholding evidence to a crime, start preparing search and arrest warrants. Protection of sources does not extend to that.
I am so sick and tired of the subversive "Authorized Journalists" at the AP, and if political operatives are allowed to hack into private email accounts and then make their contents public, we are no longer free. This cannot be tolerated. They need to be outed and punished.
What should be telling is how many on left wing forums are gloating over this, which just proves their fundamental indecency and what to expect when such as they get power. Typical lying hypocrites, they talk "right to privacy" only when it suits their agenda, and accuse RKBA activists of only caring about the Second Amendment to the exclusion of all other freedoms.
I would be just as outraged if someone did this to Joe Biden. Or to you or me.
30 comments:
What? These tyrants assault our well being everyday, threaten us with violence and steal what little money we have, and you equate them to us? They are the slave masters David, they laugh at our suffering. Those who refuse to recognize and respect the natural rights of other have to claim to theirs while they continue to do so. I hope a hacker takes a big dump on each one of their pillows.
I'm not equating them with "us," or at least with me.
I don't steal, I don't trespass and I don't invade. That neomarxist agitators, be they free agent or directed, and their media co-conspirators do in order to attack their political enemies is something you condone and endorse at all our peril.
This is the moral equivalent of initiation of force. A civilized and free society cannot condone it. If it's fair to do it to them, it's fair to do it to you if you become a big enough threat to discredit and neutralize. Is that really what you want?
I was reading on a "libertarian" website where the author seemed to be gloating over this as well. I commented that I do not support OBAMcCAIN or Palin, but crap like this would almost make me vote for them. Almost, but not quite.
Wrong is wrong, no matter who the target is.
I'm going to predict that by the last week of October, this race will be so filthy, that anyone decent will stay home, and let the Obamination slip in, in November by default. If Obama called for Republicans to be arrested, like Gerafalo did, AP would be trumpeting it like a cavalry call. As they sometimes say in Ireland, "We're Fooked".
Anonymous does what they do. I just find it interesting that though they broke in, they could not find any of the e-mails that were supposedly damning.
Honestly, I can't hate them too much for their campaign against Scientology.
I have no idea what Governor Palin's position is on government spying on people, or whether she's ordered such spying as Governor, so I can't comment on the morality.
It sure was ineffective, though. Anyone who's familiar with computer security can tell you that spying on email is a trivial exercise, so all the hacker(s) involved here did was make themselves look silly for boasting about it. It's the online equivalent of tp'ing someone's house.
It may be "TP'ing someone's house" but it is America's house they are TP'ing. Given the opportunity, they will do worse.
Wait, some of those emails to her "private" email account were very obviously related to public business. Public business should NEVER be protected by personal privacy laws. (The only privacy of public business that should exist is in a very small number of state interests issues, such as plans to defend from attack, etc.)
Palin was obviously trying to hide behind personal privacy laws to hide public business, which becomes a crime when doing so to hide information from an elected judge's order for discovery in criminal/civil cases. Or in denying a citizens FOIA, (Freedom of Information Act), request based on personal privacy laws.
Was the possible crime discovered through illegal activity? Yes. Does that make it inadmissible in our court system? No. If investigators were not involved in the crime which uncovers evidence of another crime, it is accepted and practiced that both crimes are prosecuted.
"Obviously trying to hide"...?
"Denying FOIA"...?
Please give us the complete text of one of the illegally obtained and disclosed emails where it is clear she is doing this, so that we can see and evaluate the scope and nature of the information you say she is hiding for ourselves.
""Obviously trying to hide"...?
"Denying FOIA"...?
Please give us the complete text of one of the illegally obtained and disclosed emails where it is clear she is doing this, so that we can see and evaluate the scope and nature of the information you say she is hiding for ourselves."
...cue the crickets...
From Michelle Malkin,, from the purported hacker:
Earlier it was just some prank to me, I really wanted to get something incriminating which I was sure there would be, just like all of you anon out there that you think there was some missed opportunity of glory, well there WAS NOTHING, I read everything, every little blackberry confirmation… all the pictures, and there was nothing...
anon@3:30pm: I'm trying to give you the opportunity to give us more than Daily Kos/Huffpo talking points here--not that that alters one bit the absolute scumminess of the initial act of privacy invasion, as if there is any mitigating circumstance or excuse to make that OK or even understandable.
Cue crickets? Even if I went away, it wouldn't change the underlining issues. And don't even attempt to accuse me of using talking points David. You've done this before, and you once again have no idea who I am. If that is your form of discussion you are severely lacking in edict and decorum.
The behavior by politicians to use personal email accounts to discuss public business to avoid discovery and FOIA requests has a long standing history. And no one can truthfully say how common the practice is, but there are few other reasons to discuss public business on private, and quite unsecured personal email accounts. The mere discussion of public business isn't illegal, but if FOIA or discovery has been raised on any of the public issues discussed in the personal email accounts it would become a crime not to turn them over. If I was in law enforcement in Alaska and not a state worshiping goon I might even find a judge who would agree there is probable cause to start an investigation to see of wrong doing. Just because she is on "our side" doesn't mean I give her a pass.
Or do you think public disclosure laws are a hindrance to getting business done, as long as it is "our side" doing the sneaking around?
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/14/us/politics/14palin.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
Quote, "...The governor and her top officials sometimes use personal e-mail accounts for state business; dozens of e-mail messages obtained by The New York Times show that her staff members studied whether that could allow them to circumvent subpoenas seeking public records.
Rick Steiner, a University of Alaska professor, sought the e-mail messages of state scientists who had examined the effect of global warming on polar bears. (Ms. Palin said the scientists had found no ill effects, and she has sued the federal government to block the listing of the bears as endangered.) An administration official told Mr. Steiner that his request would cost $468,784 to process.
When Mr. Steiner finally obtained the e-mail messages — through a federal records request — he discovered that state scientists had in fact agreed that the bears were in danger, records show.
“Their secrecy is off the charts,” Mr. Steiner said.
"They have been doing it and doing it to us for some time, only difference is screenshots were posted. Don't remember carnivore or echelon?? Look it up, its real and santy claws is watching you.
Here is one of my Daily Kos/Huffpo talking heads discussing the issue and article.
http://www.theagitator.com/2008/09/14/troubling-new-palin-revelations/
Errr, wait, I thought Radley Balko was on "our side". Damn, David, all I wanna say is go screw yourself. But, responding to your childish behavior only seems to bring more of it out in you. So, what I will say is, have a nice day! And I'll still be hitting up your ads tomorrow too.
I thought this blog was about self defense...why is it wrong to fight back against your aggressors? Palin is the lead 'only one' of her nationally defined political subdivision - how many people are in cages for gun crimes in Alaska? She could easily lead the way to restore government respect for natural rights but she chooses to oppress instead. Yes it probably was a neomarxist scum bag that did this, but I encourage resistance against those who would otherwise be spending their time figuring out new and vile ways to steal from us or make us more obedient to their edicts. I hope these idiots are endlessly harassed so they can't harass us.
And David, they do steal and trespass. They are the commanders of institutionalized aggression against the sovereign American people. A political enemy is an enemy whether they are on the blue team or red team of the same game.
Yup, it's just me again repeating Daily Kos talking points. This time found in the Juneau Empire paper.
http://www.juneauempire.com/stories/091608/sta_333013278.shtml
Quote, "....Even before the McCain campaign plucked Palin from Alaska, a controversy was brewing over e-mails in the governor's office. Was the administration trying to get around the public records law through broad exemptions or private e-mail accounts?"
"....Some experts on open government say officials around the country escape scrutiny by either quickly deleting e-mails or using private accounts, as Palin has done.
"Where you've got a governor apparently using a Yahoo account for state business, that's kind of a complete inversion of what ought to be happening in terms of public records," said Charles Davis, executive director of the National Freedom of Information Coalition and a Missouri journalism associate professor."
If governors have no right to privacy in their emails, then cops have no right to bear arms while on the job.
They have no right to use those arms for the purpose of aggression to violate the natural rights of citizens, and the governors don't have the right to privacy while using it to harm the people they preside over. You are partially right Kent ;)
Bravely Anonymous says:
Even if I went away, it wouldn't change the underlining issues.
"Underlining issues"--I see we're dealing with a true genius here.
You've done much better with your comments in previous threads, 45superman.
Although, if it has now reached the time for David's cheering section to stand up, I will be bowing out. But if you actually have something to add to this discussion, welcome. Otherwise, I will just start assuming everything you write is the equivalent of "Rah, Rah, Go David!"
You are better than that 45.
Here's the way debate works, guys--you raise points, I address them and raise my own. You need to then address mine before I go chasing after new objections of yours.
Anon--you haven't provided what I asked you to--an email showing she had some kind of extra special secret government business that was purposefully avoiding discovery. And you've utterly ignored the presumptive hacker who said he found nothing.
As for who you are, why does it matter if we're arguing the argument instead of apparently taking things personally?
In re the Kos/Huffpo talking points, I should say Kos himself has rightfully condemned the hacking, although comments on both sides are damn near identical to the ones you make. If Balko agrees with you, fine--but I don't see the proof I asked for at the link you provided, either.
I would not be surprised to find that almost all politicians have private email accounts and sometimes as a matter of convenience the two will intermingle. There does not need to always be the evil intent that you are so convinced of as the only explanation. If Palin broke any laws there are ways pursue that without destroying due process, and without breaking the law to do it.
"Go screw yourself" followed by an accusation of me being childish is pretty ironic, to say the least. As for the ads, thanks--I'm up to $2.52 today, so if you want me to agree with you, you'll have to do better than that.
HardCorps: If you encourage privacy invasion, what other rights will you arbitrarily take away from all people in public office, and why would I want to live in a society where anyone can decide to deprive anyone else of theirs without due process? From what you've given me in this thread, that world scares me even more than this one.
I can't argue with people who won't admit the fundamental truth that what happened was dead wrong. I'm willing to learn, but I haven't been persuaded by anything I've read from you so far. If you want to attribute the fault to me, so be it.
You guys can go ahead and have the last word if you want--I can either mire myself in these comments or go on with my agenda or stall myself out in yours.
So go ahead and convince me. If you can do it without the anger I'm inferring, it would be a lot more compelling.
You are better than that 45.
Sounds as if you're overestimating me. Don't feel bad--you're far from the first.
There's very little that I am "better than," and I make it a point to sink a little lower every day.
The bottom line, though, is that whatever one thinks of Palin, her right to privacy and due process is no less than that of anyone else.
If she is guilty of wrongdoing, there are mechanisms for dealing with that--mechanisms that don't involve a mob's witch hunt.
You want evidence of "some kind of extra special secret government business" discussed in one her private email account and proof she did that to avoid discovery or FOIA requests. Well, with those standards you have nothing to worry about being convinced otherwise on this matter. While your standards are rather arbitrary that is your personal choice. And no, I can't met those standards. As for citing what may or may not have been the hacker saying he didn't find the smoking gun means absolutely nothing. The emails would have to be compared to what the governor was legally required to provide as public records. I don't have that comparison either, but that still would likely never met your standards. Still, using the word of the possible hacker to make your point has severely lowered my opinion of how you come up with your points.
As for due process standards, which ones are you talking about? The ones they currently use against us or the ones they would like reserved for themselves? The FBI can now begin snooping against private citizens without "probably cause" or even "reasonable suspicion". Those are the due process standards WE are now being investigated under. Or would you like a higher standard for elected officials?
Either way, I think we all would like to rely on the state to uphold due process standards, not a criminal "hacker". If a burglar uncovers a sweatshop/slave labor operation, both crimes are investigated, (and, as the courts have upheld, that scenario does not infringe on either citizens due process).
Let me get this straight:
You make accusations, I ask you for proof of them and you dismiss that as my "arbitrary standard"?
I cite a statement by the purported hacker and my doing that "has severely lowered [your] opinion of how [I] come up with [my] points," even though currently, every major news agency on the planet is also reporting on this because it's the best information available at this time?
And then, in spite of a documented record of years of advocacy to the contrary, you accuse me of favoring special treatment for "Only Ones"?
OK, I know when I'm licked. You win. I give up. You're right and I'm wrong.
You are taking the side of her losing her due process rights, which is just not the case. The government was not the one snooping around her email account, some idiot criminal "hacker" was. But, the truth is our government currently has taken the power to snoop on any of us at will, without any form of what was once our "due process" rights.
And yes, your standard of evidence, "some kind of extra special secret government business" is quite arbitrary. It doesn't matter if it is super secret or not. It matters if it is government dealings that are required by law to be in the open public record.
The purported hacker is some nobody college kid with some time on his hand. The intelligence required to to commit this crime is minimal. I explained exactly why his looking and not finding evidence of a crime in the emails is meaningless. It requires comparisons to public record laws in Alaska, FOIA requests and orders for discovery. This is where I could reasonable see an investigation start.
Of course I don't think you want special treatment for "only ones", but this situation doesn't include even the hint of a violation of her due process rights. The college "hacker" was not an employee or directed by the state to commit this crime against her. Funny thing is, if he was, it would likely have made the invasion of her privacy perfectly legal in the eyes of our current "justice" system. War on Terror and all that crap.
"If you encourage privacy invasion, what other rights will you arbitrarily take away from all people in public office, and why would I want to live in a society where anyone can decide to deprive anyone else of theirs without due process?"
I encourage the stripping of any rights that are used to deprive the rights of the American people. Because she is the head of an organization that actively deprives the Americans living in Alaska many of their rights, and if she tries to use secrecy to further those ends, the information and communication used should not have the protection of privacy. If she is actively scheming to break the law or hide information or whatever, she loses the right to privately negotiate those matters.
In addition, anyone who wants to hold the sword to our throats deserves no leniency and should fairly lose many many rights. I want to know everything about you. We the people cede our God-given social powers to politicians, and they better be ready to prove they are worthy by full disclosure. I want medical records, piss tests, psych records, names of every girlfriend and wife, names of business partners, names of every person they've met with in an official capacity and while in office. E-mail, letters, text messages, phone calls, video surveillance, tax records, pay stubs, investment disclosures, any any information that could be used to identify when you or those you know benefit from your actions financially.
By 'due process' I am humiliated when I want to travel by airplane throughout the country. I have to disarm by threat of jail or death, and potentially have a finger shoved up my ass or have naked x-ray pictures of me viewed by a high school drop out whom McDonalds rejected for employment.
I agree with you about 99.999% of the time and I have read your blog daily for over a year straight, and one of the theme you write about is the misnomer of 'due process.' There is no 'due process' when violating human rights - only aggressors can do such. 'Due process' would have exonerated Fincher and Olofson. What is arbitrary are the standards that the 'only ones' hold for us, they they are the only ones who can determine guilt or innocence. We are the victims who recognize our oppression, and we shall hold them to the standard of if they have nothing to hide, then why worry?
This is similar to your concern with the cops suing the family of a deranged son who killed and maimed officers responding to a call. 1st, there was no negligence on behalf of the parents; their son was an adult. A case I know of happened when an officer responded to a call and wasn't told the perp kid had any weapons or was violent by dispatch, who did know those facts. The officer was injured and then sued his employer for the fault, and rightly so. But to continue, the police actively accept the dangers of the situation, and we know by precedent they don't have to show up at all. If they want to press charges, that is what criminal court is for an reparations can be entered by judgment. Back to the commander of Alaska, she willingly and knowing accepted the risks in hopes that the financial and political rewards would be greater.
I know you're a smart man and I think upon further time and reflection you may see the merit of my argument, and boy have I been in that position before. I used to want to be a Cop - I condemned you and others when you used the Osbrink's tragedy as an example. But I know that he was wrong - and it hurts me to think that, but it is the truth and I seek it always.
I want medical records, piss tests, psych records, names of every girlfriend and wife, names of business partners, names of every person they've met with in an official capacity and while in office. E-mail, letters, text messages, phone calls, video surveillance, tax records, pay stubs, investment disclosures, any any information that could be used to identify when you or those you know benefit from your actions financially.
Would you vote for anyone so desperate for political power, so without pride, as to be willing to subject himself to all that?
I know I wouldn't--doing so seems like a good way to ensure the continuation of our "leadership" by the kinds of power whores who have brought the country to the situation it is now in.
"some kind of extra special secret government business" is quite arbitrary. It doesn't matter if it is super secret or not. It matters if it is government dealings that are required by law to be in the open public record.
That's exactly what I meant and all I asked for. Show us the damning email.
The "due process" reflects me trying to respond to you and Hard Corps at the same time--he appears to endorse carte blanche.
If a public official has done something bad enough that they deserve having their personal email broken into, then they have done enough to deserve the lamppost. I don't think breaking into email counts as self-defense.
I will admit that this is a sensitive area for me as I have been a victim of that a few times.
Same old shit, just a different favorite ox being gored.
Funny how after all the absolute damning accusations, made with complete confidence, not one scintilla of evidence supporting those accusations has been forwarded.
If you lame-brains can't show me what convinced you, how the Hell do you expect to convince anyone else?
You have been asked a fair question. Show the evidence upon which your statements are based. That's all, not hard, no need to argue about it. Nobody denied you had reasons, just asked to see them. You get pissy. At that point I must say I suspect you may not be reasonable.
Post a Comment