Senator Lieberman Says NY Times Should Be Investigated For Publishing Wikileaks Documents

from the is-that-joe-mccarthy-or-joe-lieberman dept

Tue, Dec 7th 2010 11:47am — Mike Masnick

Senator Joe Lieberman continues to expand his desire to piss all over the First Amendment and the very concept of a free press. He's already been pressuring companies to stop working with Wikileaks and has already introduced an anti-Wikileaks bill that appears to be pure censorship, but he's now extending his lack of understanding of the First Amendment to the press: stating that the NY Times should be investigated for criminal activity in publishing the Wikileaks documents.

Beyond the blatantly troubling statement that appears to go against the very principles of a free press (which we thought Lieberman was supposed to be upholding), it would appear that the bill Lieberman himself introduced shows that he already knows the NY Times did not, in fact, violate any laws in publishing that info. That's because the bill would seek to add liability for such actions, and we all know that you can't violate a law before it's actually been turned into a law.

In the meantime, when did Joe Lieberman become the reincarnation of Joe McCarthy? It's amazingly depressing to see a US Senator so blatantly in favor of direct censorship of the press.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: free speech, freedom of the press, joe lieberman, publishing, wikileaks
Companies: ny times

80 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 7 Dec 2010 @ 11:55am

Well, at least he is being consistent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- RadialSkid (profile), 7 Dec 2010 @ 12:07pm
  
  Re:
  Same thing I was thinking. He's freaking nuts, but at least he's not a hypocrite like those who condemn Wikileaks but give the New York Times a pass.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Dec 2010 @ 11:57am

I'm jaded enough by American politicians that even this doesn't surprise me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
TDR, 7 Dec 2010 @ 11:59am

I wonder what is profile on opensecrets.com is like? Who his contributors are, and such? It's likely there are certain financial interests involved, aside from him just being the worst kind of deluded grandstanding politician.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Hephaestus (profile), 7 Dec 2010 @ 12:24pm
  
  Re:
  "I wonder what is profile on opensecrets.com is like? "
  
  Next time check first, and tell us what you find.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Dark Helmet (profile), 7 Dec 2010 @ 12:26pm
  
  Re:
  Two things to note about Lieberman:
  
  1st, grandstanding is his thing. Remember that he was the one that called out Marilyn Manson for being responsible for the Columbine Tragedy.
  
  2nd, Joe is a hardliner for the War on Terror. One thing that folks like that are REALLY not going to want is openess regarding communication between us and our Middle East interests. He once advised a preemptive strike on Yemen because a terrorist was trained there.
  
  In other words, he's a psycho....
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Hephaestus (profile), 7 Dec 2010 @ 12:31pm
    
    Re: Re:
    3rd this is a warning to the NY times about not publishing documents on the banking dump coming in early 2011.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - ac, 7 Dec 2010 @ 12:49pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      a warning that I hope they don't heed. I think the American public, if not the public at large, would benefit greatly from learning how the financial industry manipulates public policy from the shadows.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Hephaestus (profile), 7 Dec 2010 @ 12:33pm
    
    Re: Re:
    "In other words, he's a psycho...."
    
    The correct term is actually a sociopath
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Comboman (profile), 7 Dec 2010 @ 12:55pm
    
    Re: Re:
    The scary thing is, a few extra votes in Florida and a heart attack for Gore and Lieberman could have been president. As bad as Bush was, it could have been even worse.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 7 Dec 2010 @ 12:32pm
  
  Re:
  Looks like Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers each gave him enough money for a house in the suburbs. Citibank and UBS combined would give him a third, and slightly nicer house in the suburbs.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- no_need_to_wonder, 7 Dec 2010 @ 12:43pm
  
  Re:
  Joe Lieberman funding:
  
  http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cid=N00000616&cycle=2010
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 7 Dec 2010 @ 1:45pm
    
    Re: Re:
    omfg, he looks just like palpatine in that picture.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Jeremy7600 (profile), 7 Dec 2010 @ 3:01pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      omfg, he's not?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - BearGriz72 (profile), 8 Dec 2010 @ 3:52am
      
      Re: Re: Re: (Senator Joseph 'Palpatine' Lieberman)
      "It is with great reluctance that I have agreed to this calling. I love democracy. I love the Republic. The powers you give me I will lay down when this crisis has been abated! My first act, with this new authority, is to create a Grand Army of the Republic, to counter the increasing threat of [Freedom of Speech & Freedom of The Press]."
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Designerfx (profile), 7 Dec 2010 @ 12:00pm

lieberman for corruption?
why is he going after the first amendment?

can or should someone be found guilty of violating it? I'm looking at Lieberman on that - maybe it's time we look into him for corruption and/or slander for implying that the times should be investigated?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Squid Lips, 7 Dec 2010 @ 12:21pm
  
  Re: lieberman for corruption?
  The most that's gonna happen to Lieberman is that he's going to get re-elected the next time he runs, and eventually get the censorship he's proposing passed. Next thing to happen, will be a massive surge of government funds derived from extorting the US citizens for "infringing activity." Thirdly, the senators (and friends) will spend the funds on sweet houses, and more control of the internet; leading ultimately to another fully censored and regulated medium of communication, a sweet house for themselves, and a bunch of pissed off nerds. It's possible that within their brand new sweet houses, they will have a trap door of some sort, of which they can simply press a button, and the floor drops from beneath the feet of an unwanted guest. If I was Lieberman, I would probably install something like that in my house ASAP, right before I shot myself in the face with my...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Joe Tailgunner, 7 Dec 2010 @ 12:30pm
  
  Re: lieberman for corruption?
  Are you now, or have you ever been, in favor of the First Amendment of the Constitution?
  
  Is it wrong to hope someone in power actually asks this question?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Paul Clark, 7 Dec 2010 @ 12:11pm

Re: Question to Ask Him
Someone should ask him in a public forum why he does not believe in the US constitution. "Freedom of Speech" and "Freedom of the Press" are both guaranteed.

I wonder if some political opponents are sitting in the wings waiting for the next election and are planning to make him choke on his own words and actions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
TheStupidOne, 7 Dec 2010 @ 12:13pm

Senator Lieberman should be investigated for harassment and abuse of his station
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Dec 2010 @ 12:14pm

Donate to McCarthy... err.. Lieberman
Connecticut is home to a number of financial institutions, investment companies and hedgefunds. This is an industry whose job is increasingly to make money on speculation.

Wikileaks claims to have info on financial institutions. So he wants to make sure he's on the record to ask for campaign contributions. ..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hephaestus (profile), 7 Dec 2010 @ 12:15pm

This bill is actually a good thing ...
If Liebermans bill were to pass it will lead to a quicker demise of the NewsPapers. They will be unduely hampered by the law. Making them less competative and less relevant. The next time a WikiLeaks type organization dumps information they will not be able to publish. People will go to other sources for their news. Then they will fail financially.

Good day for us, bad day for hot news.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- A Dan (profile), 7 Dec 2010 @ 12:39pm
  
  Re: This bill is actually a good thing ...
  The demise of the First Amendment would not be good for the online outlets, either.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Michael, 8 Dec 2010 @ 3:37am
    
    Re: Re: This bill is actually a good thing ...
    The first amendment does not apply to online outlets outside of the US. A bill like this would, at best, make US news outlets (online and offline) less competitive.
    
    Joe is no idiot, though. He grandstands on topics that are hard to disagree with. He is not about 'censorship', he is about 'protecting US interests' and against 'cyber-terrorism'. Someone asked if he was going to be asked about being against the first amendment - he may, but his response is likely to ask why the questioner wants to allow terrorists the tools to aid in their attacks.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
PRMan, 7 Dec 2010 @ 12:18pm

If it's all about money...
If it's all about money, then Lieberman can go after poor Wikileaks just fine, but he has no idea what he just started by going after the NY Times. They have money and clout and are friends of other powerful politicians.

Even in a corrupt system, this is the wrong move...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- btr1701 (profile), 7 Dec 2010 @ 12:43pm
  
  Re: If it's all about money...
  > he has no idea what he just started by going
  > after the NY Times. They have money
  
  Not really. Not like they used to. They've been laying people off and cutting departments just like every other newspaper.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
BBT, 7 Dec 2010 @ 12:27pm

Blatantly blatant bleating blamed on blatantly belated blading
Mike, I say this as a fan and not trying to troll. But you really, really need to examine how much you are overusing the word "blatant" and its derivatives.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
crazywater, 7 Dec 2010 @ 12:33pm

Free press does imply free to break the laws of our country and risk the lives of many Americans and our allies around the world. Unless of course you would rather piss all over the dead bodies of people just trying to protect your pathetic right to spew your ignorant clap trap on websites like TechDirt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Dark Helmet (profile), 7 Dec 2010 @ 12:37pm
  
  Re:
  God I love your unintentionally correct typo....
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - A Dan (profile), 7 Dec 2010 @ 12:41pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Maybe he tried to use triangle brackets and got snagged by the HTML formatting?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 7 Dec 2010 @ 12:38pm
  
  Re:
  And protecting your right to spew ignorant rhetoric like this.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 7 Dec 2010 @ 12:43pm
    
    Re: Re:
    I hope someone doesn't try to predator drone him! That would be wrong.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Gabriel Tane (profile), 7 Dec 2010 @ 12:41pm
  
  Re:
  Did you mean "does not imply"?
  
  And I'd argue that since most of the noise we hear about the war on terror is that our soldiers are fighting 'for our freedom', it would be pissing on all those dead bodies NOT to argue for the freedoms they're 'fighting and dying for'.
  
  Sorry everyone, I had a coupon for troll food.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Jay (profile), 7 Dec 2010 @ 1:47pm
    
    Re: Re:
    But... But...
    
    The soldiers a fighting to get molested when they get home. What about the children?
    
    Oh, wait...
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- RadialSkid (profile), 7 Dec 2010 @ 12:50pm
  
  Re:
  Publishing information that's already been leaked is not against the law, no matter how much certain Congressmen may want it to be. Assange has done nothing wrong.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous, 7 Dec 2010 @ 12:55pm
  
  Re:
  Would be so kind as to point out which laws exactly were broken? Can you also please provide some quotes from the raw material that would put people in mortal peril?
  
  I am going to assume that you are you are referring to soldiers in Iraq with your last sentence. Would you mind explaining to me how exactly Iraq is/was a threat to the constitution?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Johnny, 7 Dec 2010 @ 12:59pm
  
  Re:
  Except that people's lives are more at risk if governments can't be held accountable for their actions. In order to be held accountable their actions must also be exposed.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- interval (profile), 7 Dec 2010 @ 1:45pm
  
  I'm torn
  On one hand, I agree; if Wikileaks has published anything that puts US GIs in jeopardy that's bad. But the US Government doesn't seem to have any problems putting its own citizens under its microscope, its nice to see it getting some of that back. And Assange, as far as the leaked memos go, more power to him.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - ChrisB (profile), 7 Dec 2010 @ 2:31pm
    
    Re: I'm torn
    > if Wikileaks has published anything that puts US GIs in
    > jeopardy that's bad
    
    If only Wikileaks was around during Bush's run-up to Iraq. I'm sure a hundred thousand dead Iraqi civilians wish it was.
    
    In anycase, I thought the cables might only expose Iraqi informants, not GIs.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 7 Dec 2010 @ 9:21pm
  
  Re:
  Keep parroting that.
  Good God you are just like that fanatic family that keep going to soldiers funeral to say "God hate gays".
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Steve R. (profile), 7 Dec 2010 @ 12:40pm

McCarthyism Resurrected
Will we soon see the reconstitution of the "House Senate Committee on Un-American Activities"?????
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Steve R. (profile), 7 Dec 2010 @ 12:42pm
  
  Re: McCarthyism Resurrected
  Guess the strike out code did not work. Oh well, the new name "Senate Committee on Un-American Activities" since Lieberman is a Senator.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Dec 2010 @ 12:45pm

Obviously this guy isn't getting paid enough.
The current salary (2010) for rank-and-file members of the House and Senate is $174,000 per year.

Maybe Congress critters should recieve 100% of their paycheck from campaign contributions by companies over the course of a year.

$174,000 in salary vs $20M in campaign contributions.... Kinda difficult to make a decision, huh Lieberman.

Think of all the money we could save.

http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cid=N00000616&cycle=2008
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Dec 2010 @ 12:55pm

The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
-Thomas Jefferson
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Gabriel Tane (profile), 7 Dec 2010 @ 1:08pm
  
  Re:
  I like the full quote:
  
  "God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. ...And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
  It is its natural manure."
  
  That first line is looking quite scary under these headlines, isn't it? Sounds like Jefferson would say that we need to revolt... 'cause damn are we overdue!
  
  Truthfully, when we look at the facts (as we have them) of the Wikileaks fiasco... it sounds like the government wants to keep more people misinformed... it's almost like they WANT us to revolt.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Dec 2010 @ 1:05pm

Hey, just thought I would put a different spin on things. Yes, we have the freedom of press, but that doesn't mean all information is free to post at will. Would you like it if they posted all the detailed plans on how to make a nuclear bomb all around the world? For that matter, how about we just give everyone all of our military technology while we are at it? Freedom of press was created to make sure the gov is feeding us a bunch of bull, but that doesn't mean it extends to the gov not having secrets.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- The Invisible Hand (profile), 7 Dec 2010 @ 1:22pm
  
  Re:
  "Would you like it if they posted all the detailed plans on how to make a nuclear bomb all around the world?"
  
  Dude, the first Atomic bomb was a uranium core surrounded by TNT. Any dope with access to Uranium can make one. The problem is that NO SANE PERSON is going to give you weapons grade Uranium.
  
  Also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bomb
  
  "For that matter, how about we just give everyone all of our military technology while we are at it"
  
  What? Your guns, stealth fighters and cruise missiles? Heck, if I can't get them HERE, I'll gt them over there. You think you are so special or that your "military technology" is so advanced or secret? Most of your technology was developed in the 70s and hasn't suffered a major upgrade since. Also, this isn't Civilizations kid. You can't have more "tech" that the guy next door.
  
  "Freedom of press was created to make sure the gov is feeding us a bunch of bull, but that doesn't mean it extends to the gov not having secrets."
  
  And why does a government need to have secrets? What is so important that the government must hide from the common man? The only reason I see is if it is something EXCEPTIONALLY critical, not some day-to-day diplomacy crap.
  
  The only reason I see for a government to hide stuff and lie is if they are doing something terribly wrong, which, apparently, they were.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 8 Dec 2010 @ 12:11am
    
    Re: Re:
    Wow, really? You mean all these new, sleek and powerful designs coming out in the past decade don't really exist? Or do you mean you don't know jack about the military?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - The Invisible Hand (profile), 8 Dec 2010 @ 1:26am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      What sleek designs? Those re-hashes/upgrades of old technology? Heck, your best fighter is still the F-15 (the F-22 was a total flop if you ask me). Your standard rifle is still the M4 and the M16. Your standard tank is still the M1.
      
      Pay attention kid: your "new" technology is just an improvement on the old, with better guiding systems, bigger payloads or better performance.
      
      Give me one example of something truly new your military have invented in the past decade.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - The Invisible Hand (profile), 8 Dec 2010 @ 1:34am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        And besides, even if you do have "new" technology, how long do you think someone else skilled in the area would take to copy it, even if you just gave them a general description of what it is meant to do?
        
        US: "Oh, we've invented this new shiny rifle that shoots missiles. It's pretty high-tech".
        
        Someone else: "Dang...I've never though on that...gimme 10 minutes".
        
        10 Minutes later:
        
        Someone else: "Here, I've made one that shoots bullets, missiles, grenades, kittens and peas. What to look at it?"
        
        Homer: "Doh"
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        nasch (profile), 8 Dec 2010 @ 7:34am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I'm going to go with "don't know jack about the military".
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Jay (profile), 7 Dec 2010 @ 1:57pm
  
  Re:
  Invisible Hand pulls up some great points and I'll expand a little.
  
  " Would you like it if they posted all the detailed plans on how to make a nuclear bomb all around the world?"
  
  There's ways to make "dirty bombs" that are home engineered. But the hazards of the radiation going through your body make it a really, REALLY bad idea.
  
  Remember what happened to Marie Curie as a result of her experiments.
  
  "For that matter, how about we just give everyone all of our military technology while we are at it?"
  
  HAHAHAH! Do you realize the surplus of AK-47s all over the world (except the US) is because of the fall of communism? Are you really going to try to blame the fact that someone can get a gun from me or Joe Schmo of the Czech Repub. because I don't want to give up my "military secrets?" Quite frankly, if it's used against someone else, it's no longer a secret. While the US blows up downed drones among other things, I'm sure that a few have been reverse engineered to have Iran, Iraq or other places capable of building them, if they had the resources to do so.
  
  But there is more to it than JUST giving someone knowledge of a technology.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
LT, 7 Dec 2010 @ 1:10pm

Where is the first amendment at here?
Classified documents and the publishing there of are not protected by the first amendment you boobs
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 7 Dec 2010 @ 1:21pm
  
  Re: Where is the first amendment at here?
  Says who?
  
  Quote the constitution, you rube.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Gabriel Tane (profile), 7 Dec 2010 @ 1:28pm
  
  Re: Where is the first amendment at here?
  Yeah... remember that award Wikileaks earned for outing the Kenya assasinations? If that was us doing that (and don't be naive and say 'we'd never do that!'), those actions would be classified. So... that's the classified documents you'd want to protect?
  
  http://blog.marsgroupkenya.org/?p=870
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Jay (profile), 7 Dec 2010 @ 2:03pm
    
    Re: Re: Where is the first amendment at here?
    We have done that thanks to the CIA lying to Congress
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- RadialSkid (profile), 8 Dec 2010 @ 4:57am
  
  Re: Where is the first amendment at here?
  The published documents are no longer classified, since they've been leaked. Documents, once leaked, cannot be classified any longer, by definition. The government can wish to the contrary all they want to, but everyone is free to report something once it's been leaked.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - nasch (profile), 8 Dec 2010 @ 10:57am
    
    Re: Re: Where is the first amendment at here?
    While it's true that publishing a classified leak is protected (though actually leaking the information is not), the government defines what is classified and what is not. And by their definition, it's still classified even after it's been published. You may think this is stupid, but that's how the rules are currently.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - RadialSkid (profile), 8 Dec 2010 @ 11:39am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Where is the first amendment at here?
      Regardless of what the government claims, it's not a secret anymore if everyone knows it.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Dec 2010 @ 1:17pm

So if it's classified, does that mean that someone just had to open their yapper?
After reading some of these so called "secrets" I have to say I was quite bummed. It was mostly similar to things you'd hear on elementary school playgrounds.

It's just interesting to see that a lot of decisions made at the political level are based on a sort of cargo cult science without much regard for scientific inquiry. It shows a gaping hole of academic research made and disregard for downstream implications. Perhaps there needs to be a requirement from the Congressional Research Service, who would study implications of moronic bills, and a requirement of a bill prior to voting, similar to a Congressional Budget Office request.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Dec 2010 @ 1:24pm

for the millionth time, leaking classified documents is illegal, but publishing classified documents IS NOT illegal and is very much protected by the first amendment. you boob.

also:

"But the way to make a government responsible is not simply to enlist the services of responsible men and women, or to sign laws that ensure that they never stray. The way to make government responsible is to hold it accountable. And the way to make government accountable is make it transparent so that the American people can know exactly what decisions are being made, how they're being made, and whether their interests are being well served."
-Pres. Obama

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/remarks-president-welcoming-senior-staff-and-cab inet-secretaries-white-house
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- LTs, 7 Dec 2010 @ 1:33pm
  
  Re:
  no the publishing of classified doc's is not protected thats just insane. So your saying that if a report gets a copy of say the names of all of our spies and publishes this list its legal are you insane and stupid? apparently so. Just because you think you can read does not mean that you know what your reading. Take a logic pill at sometime don't just drink the cool aid and assume you know because your educated in the public schools and some professor said its true.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Gabriel Tane (profile), 7 Dec 2010 @ 1:42pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Please refrain from posting until you've taken a punctuation pill. Seriously.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Lts, 7 Dec 2010 @ 2:26pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Says the guys who has Seriously as a sentence. That's the best you have is to attack my punctuation?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Gabriel Tane (profile), 7 Dec 2010 @ 3:20pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        no... But I can't rebuke your points if you don't make them clearly... and honestly, no offense, your opinion is not worth the headache of deciphering horrible sentence structure. Me? I just added a word to the end for emphasis.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Jay (profile), 7 Dec 2010 @ 2:04pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Classified documents are no longer classified if they're out in the open.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 7 Dec 2010 @ 2:16pm
    
    Re: Re:
    no the publishing of classified doc's is not protected thats just insane. So your saying that if a report gets a copy of say the names of all of our spies and publishes this list its legal are you insane and stupid? apparently so. Just because you think you can read does not mean that you know what your reading. Take a logic pill at sometime don't just drink the cool aid and assume you know because your educated in the public schools and some professor said its true.
    
    So, to you, there is no difference between whistle-blowing and spying? We should just trust our government to do what is right, with no public oversight? With no real incentive to do the right thing? They're just doing what's right for all of us because they're the government and that's what they do? Or is it possible that our government is actually made up of individual persons who can make mistakes, bad decisions, or even selfish decisions?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Steven (profile), 7 Dec 2010 @ 2:17pm
    
    Re: Re:
    First, we're not talking about the names of 'OMG all r spies'.
    
    Second if a reporter is able to get his hands on a list of all our spies I would assume that others also have that at which time the reporting of them becomes moot. I would hope the reporter would contact the necessary agency to alert them of the security breach.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - nasch (profile), 7 Dec 2010 @ 3:34pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Yeah, remember how Robert Novak got put in the slammer for publishing Valerie Plame's identity? Oh wait, no he didn't. I guess you're full of it.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
David, 7 Dec 2010 @ 3:45pm

Maybe I should be investigated...
... for downloading and absorbing information from the Wikileaks site. And I think I heard my boss's wife use the term "Wikileaks" the other day. They should probably investigate her too. =(

Actually, you know what? Maybe we should all just turn ourselves in...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
tracker1 (profile), 7 Dec 2010 @ 4:19pm

Just left amazon, going to work on aborting Visa/MC
Well, when it was just Amazon, I could accept it *might* be a business decision. Now, I've let Amazon know they won't be a customer of me personally (https://www.amazon.com/gp/help/contact-us/general-questions.html) and I'll be working to rework all client applications I have running on their servers. I would encourage others to do the same... I'd been a happy "Prime" customer for several years. Goodbye amazon.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Dec 2010 @ 5:37pm

+1 for NWO.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Tom Landry (profile), 7 Dec 2010 @ 6:30pm

My God man, when will this old bastard die?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
abc gum, 7 Dec 2010 @ 6:33pm

I'm suprised no one has posted this yet ...

Ex post facto laws are expressly forbidden by the United States Constitution.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 8 Dec 2010 @ 8:50am
  
  Re:
  As if the Constitution matters to the USG anymore.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Daemon_ZOGG (profile), 7 Dec 2010 @ 6:53pm

"Senator Lieberman Says NY Times Should Be Investigated For Publishing Wikileaks Documents"
Er, Uh... "Pentagon Papers" anyone? History repeating itself. AGAIN. NY Times will come out on top as usual. I hate Lieberman. His over-due shelf-life is really creating a stench. ]:P
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Dec 2010 @ 9:12pm

What I want to know is who is voting this clown into office?

Joe Lieberman the face of irresponsible governments everywhere.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- The eejit (profile), 8 Dec 2010 @ 7:10am
  
  Re:
  Considering that Lieberman's main contributors are:
  
  1) Big Pharma;
  2) Big Finance; and
  3) Big Music
  
  Colour me unsurprised.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonimooty, 9 Dec 2010 @ 4:42am

Is he completely off his rockers? I hope people from his district start some shiatzu up!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Proffer (profile), 9 Dec 2010 @ 5:08am

hmm
Maybe Lieberman should be investigated by the general public, his extreme defensive stance against Wikileaks makes me very suspicious there's some very bad stuff in there somewhere, with his name attached.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]