If you have "no place to go," come here!

Lieberman raising the stakes of his anti-leaks crusade: Suggests going after NYTimes

for publishing cables it received. Ol' Joe is nothing if not predictable.

Lieberman told Fox News:

To me the New York Times has committed at least an act of bad citizenship, but whether they have committed a crime is a matter of discussion for the justice department.

From The Guardian's running log:


Submitted by jawbone on

Wikileaks and Julian Assange. Compares to BushBoy era Weekly Standard and other calls from Repubs and conservatives to go after reporters who, well, report true facts.

I love his description of Dianne Feinstein: "the Surveillance-State-protectin. Iraq-War-supporting. defense- contractor-[;utocrat." Kinda fits Ol' Joe....

(3) Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein ran today to The Wall Street Journal Op-Ed page to call for the prosecution of Assange under the Espionage Act of 1917. Legal experts overwhelmingly believe that any such prosecution under that law would be extremely difficult and "extremely dangerous," but that's of no concern to the Surveillance-State-protecting, Iraq-War-supporting, defense-contractor-plutocrat: the "liberal" Democratic Senator from California. To argue this, she invokes the most tired and simple-minded platitude beloved by all those who want to curtail basic press and speech freedoms: "Just as the First Amendment is not a license to yell 'Fire!' in a crowded theater, it is also not a license to jeopardize national security."

Every line of pro-prosecution rationale cited by Feinstein applies equally to journalists -- including especially the newspapers from around the world which are publishing all of the same diplomatic cables as WikiLeaks is, and which are publishing them before WikiLeaks even does. How can it possibly be that WikiLeaks should be prosecuted for espionage, but not The New York Times, or The Guardian, or any other newspaper that publishes these cables?

In 2006, Alberto Gonzales threatened to prosecute The New York Times for revealing Bush's illegal NSA program, and The Weekly Standard ran numerous articles calling for the prosecution of NYT journalists and editors under the Espionage Act for having done so. Bill Bennett demanded the prosecution of The Washington Post's Dana Priest for revealing the CIA black sites. How can all the Good Democrats who condemned that mentality possibly not condemn Dianne Feinstein and those who think like her? What's the difference? (My emphasis)

Glenn's usual linky goodness at his site.

Submitted by JuliaWilliams on

the original Pravda, can legitimately excoriate our press and politicians, (in addition to a host of US"Intelligence" apparatchniks), you know our gov has jumped the shark:

Submitted by wlarip on

"You're travelling through another dimension. A dimension, not only of sight
and sound, but of mind. A journey into a wondrous land whose boundaries are that
of imagination. Next stop, The Twilight Zone."

Rod Serling

Submitted by Hugh on

This authoritarian gasbag is the man whom Al Gore chose as his running mate and whom Barack Obama admitted back into the fold with open arms despite his support of John McCain, leaving him in charge of the Homeland Security Committee which he has mismanaged from the getgo.

As for the Times, its bad citizenship is about its steadfast refusal to engage in good journalism. It says a lot about Lieberman that the toadying corporatist, neocon Times isn't obsequious enough for a sanctimonious, hypocritical little shit like him.