sildenafil

Shockwaver referred to this in a comment thread but I’ve decided to elevate to a main post, mainly because I want to get people’s takes on it.

From Hotair.com

In a case that raises questions about online journalism and privacy rights, the U.S. Department of Justice sent a formal request to an independent news site ordering it to provide details of all reader visits on a certain day.

The grand jury subpoena also required the Philadelphia-based Indymedia.us Web site “not to disclose the existence of this request” unless authorized by the Justice Department, a gag order that presents an unusual quandary for any news organization.

Go and read the whole thing and let me know what you think because I’m at a loss. The only thing I can think of is that this happened 3 days into Obama’s Presidency, perhaps it’s a test action to see how a process works. But that doesn’t make a whole lot of sense as it was before Eric Holder took office as the Attorney General in charge of the department.

Any thoughts

Bookmark and Share

Comments

11 Responses to “What Do You Make Of This”

  1. Ronnie on November 10th, 2009 6:00 pm

    This kind of thing must always be opposed, without exception.

    My God, next they’ll be telling us what we should write about on our blogs!

  2. Conservative Cabbie on November 10th, 2009 6:06 pm

    My God, next they’ll be telling us what we should write about on our blogs!

    :-)

    I’m always open to special requests.

    This kind of thing must always be opposed, without exception.

    I’m trying to understand the motivation. Government flexing it’s muscles? The thing I find most bothersome is the gag order. They obviously knew what they were doing, if not wrong, could be interpreted in the wrong way.

  3. Ronnie on November 10th, 2009 6:19 pm

    They want to spy on us and not let us know they are doing it. Doesn’t sound much like change we can believe in.

    I would like to know what happened on that ‘certain day’ and why government would be interested in it.

  4. Morgan on November 10th, 2009 6:28 pm

    Ronnie:

    If I understand this correctly, and I need to go back for a more careful reading, this subpoena was issued through a sitting Grand Jury.

    My first thought, given the nature of the site, is that they were looking for a specific occurrence for a date specific…but why include requests for SS#s , etc. Items that would not be collected in this sites normal course of business.

    And then a withdrawal and gag order..a gag order that they would have a hard time enforcing in any court.

    It sounds like an attorney using an subpoena for a fishing expedition…and a rather frantic attempt at backtracking.

    Ominous in its implications…though I’m not sure how widespread this sort of request would be.

  5. Morgan on November 10th, 2009 6:30 pm

    Ronnie…I don’t think we know enough to attribute this to any party..at least not at the moment.

    I believe the acting A.G. was a conservative. Obama’s selection hadn’t been appointed yet.

  6. Ronnie on November 10th, 2009 6:36 pm

    Morgan.

    I never regard this as a party thing, some will be surprised to learn. It’s a government thing. Parties may come and go but government is always there, cultivating some pretty bad habits.

  7. Morgan on November 10th, 2009 6:39 pm

    “…cultivating some pretty bad habits.”

    Well said.

  8. Original Tony on November 10th, 2009 7:50 pm

    It’s the hegelian dialectic being rehearsed. Just a rehearsal for the NWO coming to USA.

    Watch a pc neighbourhood near you!

  9. Morgan on November 11th, 2009 12:43 am

    Cabbie:

    This story seems to be gaining legs:

    http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/11/09/taking_liberties/entry5595506.shtml?tag=mncol;txt

    Found that link on Drudge’s page.

    Perhaps we may be obtaining more specifics.

  10. Morgan on November 11th, 2009 12:47 am

    Cabbie:

    The closing update on that link is rather intruiging. Though I’m hesitant to speak in absolutes about this situation my personal observation is that if a U.S. Attorney stepped outside of protocal on this issue it might get a tad painful

  11. Original Tony on November 11th, 2009 9:13 am

    I guess someone had proof the O is a Kenyan :)

Leave a Reply