Sen. Lieberman doubts Wikileaks is a terrorist organization

[harvey007]

Source: The Hill

The leader of the Senate Homeland Security Committee on Monday expressed doubts about designating Wikileaks as a terrorist organization.

Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.) questioned a proposal from his incoming House counterpart, Rep. Pete King (R-N.Y.), that the U.S. should label the website a terrorist group to ease the government's ability to go after the group following its release of classified diplomatic cables that revealed sensitive conversations about foreign governments and the war on terror.

---
Whether or not Wikileaks is designated as a terrorist organization, the site should still be shut down, Lieberman said.

"It's a terrible thing that they --- that Wikileaks did," he said. "I hope we are doing everything we can to take down their website."

Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/130879-sen-lieberman-doubts-wikileaks-is-a-terrorist-organization

[glinda]

1. Dangerous territory. Conservatives could start labeling any group a terrorist when they publish.

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[RaleighNCDUer]

8. As if they don't already. nt

[lunasun]

21. Well do not forget... you are either with them....

...or you are against them
and the fad now is to label those not in step as terrorist!

[dipsydoodle]

2. take down their website ?

That's why they had the sense to distribute it.

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MineralMan]

5. Uff da! It's a wonder you stay here, then.

Over the top, IMO.

[blackspade]

6. No, Wikileaks is not a terrorist operation.

Since when are whistle-blowers terrorists?
Oh, I forgot, when they reveal innconvient truths.

Lieberman and King can both FTHO!

[Bodhi BloodWave]

7. sorry to say it but a fair amount of the latest release was NOT whistle-blowing

Last i checked whistle-blowers were people who informed about crimes, corruption or other illegal activities, a large amount of the info released was not relevant to any crimes and such(as such I will not consider the release of that information to be whistle-blowing )

[RaleighNCDUer]

9. IMO, government secrecy IS a crime.

I want to know what is being done in my name.

[Bodhi BloodWave]

11. i'm curious, do you consider yourself to have the right to speak to your superior

confidentially without everybody else needing to know what you and your boss discussed?

If you don't have one, rephrase it to me asking if people have a right to speak to their superior.


And I disagree that government secrecy is a crime, *Some* secrecy is needed unless you think the us should always play with an open hand while more hostile countries the US deals with keeps their hand hidden and can more or less dictate things since they know exactly where the us stands, what they want accomplished etc. etc.

Keep in mind, most the world is not inhabited by people wanting the best for everbody.

[RaleighNCDUer]

12. Actually, most of the world IS inhabited by people wanting the best for everybody -

it's just that criminals rise to the top of their societies by exploiting secrets.

The fewer secrets we have, the fewer hostile countries we will have to deal with.

[Bodhi BloodWave]

14. why do you assume things would be more peacefull with less diplomacy?

[RaleighNCDUer]

16. Not less diplomacy - more honesty.

And less imperialism.

[blackspade]

10. Some may not be 'crimes, corruption, or other illegal activities'

But they were secret non-the-less. Why?
Do I not have the right to know what my governemnt is up too?

[Bodhi BloodWave]

13. in my opinion, no you don't

At least not *everything* you want to know.

You elect somebody to be your president(or congressman), they (are supposed to) do what their constituents wants(for the most part).

That's more or less how things work, you elect people to represent you for a set period of time, you don't like what they are doing then replace them, if you want more information then you have access to due to being sensitive et al then run for office yourself and try getting a position as a diplomat.

Do tell me tho, why exactly should you have the right to read what a diplomat tells his superior in regards to how he views the leaders of a country he is appointed to?(would you mind if i were to drop by where you work and start querying your boss about what you and he has been speaking about privately?)

[FinGovi]

15. I think your analogy

falls apart when the notion of boss or superior is considered as a citizens right to know what their duly elected reps are doing. The USGov is the servant of the people, in theory, so they have an obligation to answer the citizenry when queried. The boss or superior is "we, the people". It seems that the cart is being put before the horse. Government is a representative of the people, the nation, it is NOT a sovereign entity that rules by fiat. Accountability is essential when power is being granted to do such dubious things as extra-judicial assassinations. "In my name" enfranchises me, makes me, us, party to the actions committed. We have a right to know. I respectfully reject your analogy for these reasons.

[RufusTFirefly]

17. Bingo! Spot on, FinGovi. Welcome!

The boss or superior is "we, the people."

Amen!!

A basic truth that has been lost somewhere along the line.

I'm alarmed by the increasing tendency to view democracy through the framework of business, which is most definitely not democratic.

[onenote]

20. so do you think it was just fine for Valerie Plame to be outed?

How do you distinguish?

[cascadiance]

18. The lesson learned should be that we NEED those we can trust in power!

That will look after our needs and do something about it when wrongdoing is exposed. There has been so many cases that have been trying to see the light of day that would have exposed wrongdoing that have been shut down when whistleblowers have followed proper channels (Sibel Edmonds, etc.) that had not the state secrets privilege been abused to in effect stop ALL lawsuits from even being heard in court, I think these whistleblowers like Assange would have been more inclined to follow proper means of getting information or providing it to congress, etc. to do something about.

From what many of us have seen, pretty much BOTH parties have been complicit in keeping some deep and very troubling secrets from seeing the light of day, and consequently some very dangerous people still run free and are wielding power that they shouldn't be allowed to (Karl Rove, Marc Grossman, etc.).

In that climate without a way of constructively fixing problems in government to weed out such wrongdoing, inevitably it will happen that a Wikileaks style leak will happen. It just will happen as long as we have a semblance of a democracy now. It might have been avoided, had someone in government been doing their job to bring some of these criminals to justice when afforded the right opportunity to do so.

Some have critiqued the releases of some of the documents as not pointing directly to criminal activity. But when the system itself is broken and no investigatory actions are happening, or likely to happen as long as it stays broken, the only way to do outside investigations is to publish a lot of information that some might not view as necessary, but for some out there with additional information, might provide the tools to link different abuses together, etc.

For example, I'd even like to see if there were documented communications between Joe Wilson and Marc Grossman, who were college classmates and also worked in similar positions in nearby countries at the same time, and of course arguably Grossman screwed Wilson's wife royally (not literally of course) by outing the Brewster Jennings group she worked with in the CIA, that probably lead to those like Armitage and Libby thinking she was "Fair Game" down the road (but which they can't talk about without exposing the deeper conspiracy). These communications might themselves not show any criminal activity, but it could help clarify what relationship they had if any during the Brewster Jennings and Valerie Plame outings.

[Hissyspit]

19. Well, isn't he special?