

Joe Lieberman Emulates Chinese Dictators - ccoop
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/12/01/lieberman/index.html

======
martythemaniak
I don't know about others, but the reason why I am firmly on Wikileaks' side
can be clearly seen in that video. The media are a bunch of pliant, spineless,
brain-dead, PR sound bite regurgitating pussies. Think about it, when was the
last time you saw a media figure really dig into someone powerful and call
them out on their bullshit? Everything the powerful do and say is so scripted
and carefully managed that it loses any connection to reality.

~~~
javanix
Well, Jon Stewart for one, when he isn't being just a stand-up, does tend to
call out major journalistic and political figures for their inadequacies in
this regard.

~~~
gruseom
With extreme irregularity (i.e. when it suits him) and a disingenuous tendency
to hide behind "I'm just a comedian" as soon as anyone calls him on it.

~~~
javanix
Well, true, but I've always read that as him not wanting to become the same
sort of political lighting-rod that he hates. He was very careful to avoid any
overt political associations for his rally, for instance.

~~~
salemh
His long interview with Rachel Maddow shows his thoughts on this quite well.
(link is to an article breakdown with full-video linked)
[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/11/rachel-maddow-
jon-s...](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/11/rachel-maddow-jon-stewart-
interview_n_782538.html)

------
dtf
"You've played right into my hands, Lieberman. Mwahahahaha... " .. ok he
didn't quite say that. But Assange did just claim in a Guardian Q&A that
choosing Amazon was a deliberate ploy to test/highlight the deficits in US
commitment to free speech.

[http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/03/julian-
assange-l...](http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/03/julian-assange-live-
online-answers)

~~~
dolinsky
Free speech is not a blanket protection that allows you to say anything you
want at anytime. Whether or not what Wikileaks is doing falls under the
protection of the 1st Amendment is something I would love to see the Supreme
Court decide, but it isn't as simple as crying foul on free speech b/c Amazon
disabled their account.

~~~
jbooth
I'm pretty sure the Supreme Court has decided that what wikileaks is doing
falls under free speech in a number of cases.

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.

~~~
tptacek
Exactly what whistleblower protections were you thinking applied here?

~~~
jbooth
You're right, they're totally besides the point, because they apply to the
whistleblower and not the media. It was generally assumed (until this week
apparently) that it's always ok for the media to print things after they've
been leaked. Nobody went after the NYT's hosting, for example.

There's some detail on the actual laws at <http://whistleblowerlaws.com/>

------
grandalf
Not meaning to be trite, but it's amazing how Al Gore's desire to move toward
the right led him to select Lieberman as VP, and paved the way for the rise of
one of the most backward politicians ever in US history.

Recall how influential Lieberman was in helping Bush sell the Iraq war, etc.

~~~
Tangurena
It is worth watching a documentary titled "The Power of Nightmares" which will
give some insight into "why Iraq" and "why Israel." And the answers to "why
Israel" will explain why the choice of Lieberman (who is frequently titled
"the Senator for Israel") for Gore's running mate appeared to be the right
choice at that time.

<http://www.amazon.com/Power-Nightmares-Various/dp/B001707D98>

If your local library has a copy, I strongly recommend watching it.

~~~
tetsuo13
I also can't recommend the documentary enough. The Internet Archive has it
available for download/streaming, however:

<http://www.archive.org/details/ThePowerOfNightmares>

------
steakandfries
A little disappointed to see this behaviour from the American government.

Correct me if I am wrong but didn't Obama administration promise full
transparency?

~~~
olefoo
He also promised to take a principled stand against torture and to close
Guantanomo, and restore due process; before being elected. Since being
elected, none of those things have happened, and he has come out in favour of
assassinating US Citizens living abroad without any judicial process
whatsoever (The Al-Awliki case).

So the failure of Obama to publicly condemn Lieberman's petty campaign of
censorship and crude threats against Amazon is not at all surprising.

~~~
m0th87
Wait what? He standardized the Army field manual for interrogation [1] and has
been attempting to close Guantanamo [2].

1:
[http://articles.cnn.com/2009-01-22/politics/obama.interrogat...](http://articles.cnn.com/2009-01-22/politics/obama.interrogations_1_interrogation-
rules-cia-director-michael-hayden-cia-custody?_s=PM:POLITICS)

2:
[http://articles.cnn.com/2009-01-22/politics/guantanamo.order...](http://articles.cnn.com/2009-01-22/politics/guantanamo.order_1_detention-
guantanamo-bay-torture?_s=PM:POLITICS)

~~~
CWuestefeld
There is a difference between words and actions.

~~~
m0th87
Right, which is why they're executive orders :)

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.

------
xentronium
What's the point of disabling wikileaks when anyone can access them from the
biggest news sites?

What's the logic behind this decision?

~~~
nkassis
I'm wondering the same thing. Liebermann probably knows too. It's all a big
show right now. As the economist said in the past few days, things have
changed. You can store on a USB key the equivalent of truck loads(Stevenson
would be proud ;p) of documents. It's going to be harder and harder to keep
this information secure.

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.

~~~
jtbigwoo
_I'm wondering the same thing. Liebermann probably knows too._

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)

------
steveklabnik
Joe Lieberman has been a pro-censorship force for years. I'm not surprised
that he's continued here, though I'm still disappointed.

