WikiLeaks

[tvashtarkatena]

 

While the faux-libertarians fall all over themselves defending Sno Klux Klansmen, not a peep about this...

 

Joe Lieberman emulates Chinese dictators

By Glenn Greenwald

 

The comparison of these two passages is so telling in so many ways:

 

The Washington Post, today:

 

Revelations by the organization WikiLeaks have received blanket coverage this week on television, in newspapers and on Web sites around the globe. But in parts of the world where the leaks have some of the greatest potential to sow controversy, they have barely caused a ripple.

 

Authoritarian governments and tightly controlled media in China and across the Arab Middle East have suppressed virtually all mention of the documents, avoiding the public backlash that could result from such candid portrayals of their leaders' views.

 

In China, the WikiLeaks site has been blocked by the government's "Great Firewall," and access to other sources for the documents has been restricted. Most Chinese are unable to read the contents of the diplomatic cables. . . .

 

The Guardian, yesterday:

 

WikiLeaks website pulled by Amazon after US political pressure

 

The US struck its first blow against WikiLeaks after Amazon.com pulled the plug on hosting the whistleblowing website in reaction to heavy political pressure.

 

The company announced it was cutting WikiLeaks off yesterday only 24 hours after being contacted by the staff of Joe Lieberman, chairman of the Senate's committee on homeland security. . . .

 

While freedom of speech is a sensitive issue in the US, scope for a full-blown row is limited, given that Democrats and Republicans will largely applaud Amazon's move. . . .

 

The question is whether he was acting on his own or pressed to do so by the Obama administration, and how much pressure was applied to Amazon. . . .

 

Lieberman said: "[Amazon's] decision to cut off WikiLeaks now is the right decision and should set the standard for other companies WikiLeaks is using to distribute its illegally seized material. I call on any other company or organisation that is hosting WikiLeaks to immediately terminate its relationship with them."

 

The department of homeland security confirmed Amazon's move, referring journalists to Lieberman's statement.

 

Talking Points Memo -- in an article headlined: "How Lieberman Got Amazon To Drop Wikileaks" -- detailed that Lieberman's "staffers . . . called Amazon to ask about it, and left questions with a press secretary including, 'Are there plans to take the site down?'" Shortly thereafter, "Amazon called them back . . . to say they had kicked Wikileaks off." Lieberman's spokeswoman said: "Sen. Lieberman hopes that the Amazon case will send the message to other companies that might host Wikileaks that it would be irresponsible to host the site."

 

That Joe Lieberman is abusing his position as Homeland Security Chairman to thuggishly dictate to private companies which websites they should and should not host -- and, more important, what you can and cannot read on the Internet -- is one of the most pernicious acts by a U.S. Senator in quite some time. Josh Marshall wrote yesterday: "When I'd heard that Amazon had agreed to host Wikileaks I was frankly surprised given all the fish a big corporation like Amazon has to fry with the federal government." That's true of all large corporations that own media outlets -- every one -- and that is one big reason why they're so servile to U.S. Government interests and easily manipulated by those in political power. That's precisely the dynamic Lieberman was exploiting with his menacing little phone call to Amazon (in essence: Hi, this is the Senate's Homeland Security Committee calling; you're going to be taking down that WikiLeaks site right away, right?). Amazon, of course, did what they were told.

 

Note that Lieberman here is desperate to prevent American citizens -- not The Terrorists -- from reading the WikiLeaks documents which shed light on what the U.S. Government is doing. His concern is domestic consumption. By his own account, he did this to "send a message to other companies that might host WikiLeaks" not to do so. No matter what you think of WikiLeaks, they have never been charged with, let alone convicted of, any crime; Lieberman literally wants to dictate -- unilaterally -- what you can and cannot read on the Internet, to prevent Americans from accessing documents that much of the rest of the world is freely reading.

 

The Internet, of course, is rendering decrepit would-be petty tyrants like Lieberman impotent and obsolete: WikiLeaks moved its website to a Swedish server and was accessible again within hours. But any attempt by political officials to start blocking Americans' access to political content on the Internet ought to provoke serious uproar and unrest. If the Tea Party movement and the Right generally were even minimally genuine in their ostensible beliefs, few things would trigger more intense objections than a political official trying to dictate to private actors which political content they should allow on the Internet (instead, you have Newt Gingrich demanding that Assange be declared an "enemy combatant" and Sarah Palin calling for his murder). Remember, though -- as The Post told us today -- it's "authoritarian governments and tightly controlled media in China and across the Arab Middle East" which are trying to prevent citizens from learning about the WikiLeaks documents.--more here.

 

But it's a CIA operation anyway, so who cares, right?

[prole]

Americans should have unimpeded access to materials leaked by the CIA.

[prole]

Kidding!

[tvashtarkatena]

Don't worry. Your apparent randomness hasn't eroded your credibility one bit.

[prole]

Be completely honest. Do you think it has, really?

[j_b]

The actual meaning/importance of the leaks is a separate issue from the way it is being dealt with by US pols and media.

 

I actually agree with journalists who say there isn't all that much that is breaking news, but I also agree with Greenwald that corporate media hasn't really reported on the basic stuff that is being divulged so it ought to be news for them. In fact, it is the crux of the matter insofar it shows how much isn't being reported even though they know about it. Omission is an essential part of the arsenal to manufacture consent, in fact it is likely much more prevalent than outright lies.

[prole]

CRICKETS!!!

[tvashtarkatena]

WikiLeaks have been fundamentally important in shaming a castrated, consolidated, corporate cock sucking media into, even in a reactionary way, once again doing its fucking job: real investigative journalism.

 

The shutting down of this resource should be extremely disturbing to anyone who pretends to give a shit about a free and open society.

 

 

[j_b]

Unfortunately, I don't see what could prevent it from being shut down. I hope I am wrong but isn't everybody that has any power going after Assange and his crew?

Edited December 3, 2010 by j_b

[tvashtarkatena]

Are you kidding me? All they need is a domain name and a hosting site and they're back up. Fuck Amazon.

[j_b]

Which country (and hosting company) do you see braving US 'displeasure' over this? Besides Venezuela, Iran and a hand full of others.

[tvashtarkatena]

The US has little to no substantial control over most of Europe. The problem is not cocksuckers like Lieberman - its the host government, which would also open itself up to leaks. Scandinavia and Holland come to mind as being far more open and transparent societies than ours.

[j_b]

That's why he went to Sweden but now they have issued a warrant for him due to those curious rape accusatioos. Conservatives are in power in the Netherlands so it's not likely. I don't know if Norway or other countries are more likely to do it. Somehow I doubt it.

Edited December 4, 2010 by j_b

[tvashtarkatena]

Bahamas!

Edited December 4, 2010 by tvashtarkatena

[Mal_Con]

The whole thing (especially the Swedish connection) reminds me of the trio of novels written by Stieg Larsson is there any chance that this guy is just a pseudonym of Lisbeth Salander?

[ivan]

my grandpa alwasy said reading ruins a man

[jmace]

The Czechs

 

http://www.wikileaks.ch/

[Crux]

Be completely honest. Do you think it has, really?

Why no, of course not, nobody here would view your bout of hysteria as an indication that you've fucking lost it. (Your credibility, that is.)

[tvashtarkatena]

The Czechs

 

http://www.wikileaks.ch/

 

Fucking awesome. Perfect host country for it.

 

US to Czechs: STFU

 

Czechs: Buzz off, pudgy. Come on back when you can out-hardman the Russkies.

[tvashtarkatena]

Welcome to the age of the internet, America.

[Crux]

Heard a guy today say that Wikileaks seemed to be cruising along somewhat comfortably, until Assange announced the next dump would be about the banks. Then all hell broke loose.

[LUCKY]

Next to come internet censorship in the name of national security

[Crux]

 

[video:youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FNNFVjBVEtQ&feature=player_embedded

[ivan]

Next to come internet censorship in the name of national security

maybe i'm hopelessly naive, but i dont' think so - our dedication to free speech, far more extrme than europes, portends good things, net-neutrality issues not withstanding

 

you can have my mouse when you pry it from my....

 

shit! does this mean the price of pilsner urquel is gonna go up?!!

[ivan]

i reckon the same logic is in effect now as when ellsberg was in danger - they'll be put through the gauntlet, and if enough people screech on wiki's side they'll be alright

 

3 can keep a secret if 2 are dead

 

the conundrum of modern tech continues - the state's ever increasing ability to oppress its people vs the same tech's ever increasing ability to keep folks aware and empowered to fight back in a democratic state - i ain't offering odds or putting up my cash, but w/ a belly full of beer n' pizza 2night i'm at least feeling hopeful...a shit ton of wind and cold and misery while in search of adventure 2morrow (not to metnion a houseful of kids on a sleepover tonight) oughta squash taht right soon.