Joe Lieberman Emulates Chinese Dictators
salon.com
salon.com
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/03/julian-assange-l...
WikiLeaks and other whistleblowers form an important part of modern society, but we should also be wary of single-spigot fountains of information that come via unverifiable channels. After all, the leaking of false information to promote an agenda is a time-honored tradition of statecraft.
100% this info was already sold to all other countries.
My main concern isn't that these secrets are getting exposed, its that they are getting exposed in a way that is easily editorialized by whoever is distributing them. Ordinarily US citizens wouldn't have access to our country's diplomatic cables (even though other countries might) - now we do have them, yet we have absolutely no way of verifying that we've gotten the unadulterated whole of them. That is what concerns me.
For one, there's whistleblower protections.
For another, it's legal to advocate fascism or any other unpopular ideology.
This isn't shouting fire in a crowded theatre. Unless it falls under espionage, it should be free speech.
There's some detail on the actual laws at http://whistleblowerlaws.com/
> Times v. United States is generally considered a victory for an extensive reading of the First Amendment, but as the Supreme Court ruled on whether the government had made a successful case for prior restraint, its decision did not void the Espionage Act or give the press unlimited freedom to publish classified documents. A majority of the justices ruled that the government could still prosecute the Times and the Post for violating the Espionage Act by publishing the documents. Ellsberg and Russo were not acquitted of violating the Espionage Act; they were freed due to a mistrial from irregularities in the government's case.
(from your wiki link)
There needs to be a more defined separation between what we might think we want to be the legal line and what the line actually is.
Recall how influential Lieberman was in helping Bush sell the Iraq war, etc.
http://www.amazon.com/Power-Nightmares-Various/dp/B001707D98
If your local library has a copy, I strongly recommend watching it.
Correct me if I am wrong but didn't Obama administration promise full transparency?
So the failure of Obama to publicly condemn Lieberman's petty campaign of censorship and crude threats against Amazon is not at all surprising.
1: http://articles.cnn.com/2009-01-22/politics/obama.interrogat...
2: http://articles.cnn.com/2009-01-22/politics/guantanamo.order...
These are not progressive measures.
Guantanamo is in a half-state because Congress invoked NIMBY with the attempts to prosecute detainees in the US. No other country wants to take them in.
And "trying to close Guantanamo"? Please. Do or do not, there is no try.
Perhaps most disappointing though is that much of the MSM coverage is focused on Wikileaks itself and not on the actual content of the cables. The NYT and other media outlets are doing their best to push the substantive issues, but that's not what is being discussed by our so-called leaders and politicians.
The cable leaks have highlighted - as if we didn't know it already - how reckless and out of touch many of our foreign officials and diplomats are. To name a few random acts: bargaining with Slovenia to take Guantanamo prisoners in exchange for a visit with President Obama; threatening Germany against investigating the unwarranted kidnapping (is any kidnapping warranted?) of one of its citizens by the CIA; collusion with British officials to illegally stock cluster bombs in the UK.
Perhaps if the mainstream media was focused on these issues, we may have a serious public debate about the quality and purpose of our state department and our foreign diplomats ... and maybe even improve them. Now that would be progress.
But no, that's just too difficult for the Senator Liebermans of the world to take on. Much easier for these politicians to beat their chests in disgust at Assange's actions. While that may be good for Lieberman in the short term - he gets his bully pulpit - we're all still left with the same crappy state department, and the same foreign officials in the same embassies still making the same out-of-touch recommendations that end up making the world a less safe place for all of us.
Where is the leadership? Where is the "change" that was promised two years ago? I want to see a commitment from Obama that he's going to look seriously at the issues raised by the cables, and fix our state department. Not holding my breath though.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/03/wikileaks-france...
At least somebody has a grasp of the separation of powers.
What's the logic behind this decision?
I hope the Government accepts this and I think the current administration does. I wouldn't be surprised if they figure out a way to use it to their advantage.
In WW2 purposely leaked information was used to confuse the Germans about the location of the beach landing on D-Day.
People say this a lot about politicians and I wonder how true it is. Lieberman in particular has never shown himself to be particularly smart. He mostly repeats the conventional "centrist" line and seems to contradict himself fairly regularly. I seem to remember that he drove the Gore campaign nuts in 2000 by spouting off whatever popped into his head.
Most politicians are not following a grand plan but are rather following a guideline of "What will Rush Limbaugh like?" (Conservatives) or "What will the editorial page of the Washington Post like?" (Centrists) or "What will my donors like?" (Pretty much everybody)
If you look around the world, most governments are taking a similar strategy.