10 ms·

This is completely and utterly preposterous. If you are a citizen of Connecticut, or, hell, anywhere, please email Lieberman and tell him that his actions and

by joshes 16y ago

This is completely and utterly preposterous. If you are a citizen of Connecticut, or, hell, anywhere, please email Lieberman and tell him that his actions and comments are completely ludicrous and, in fact, anti-Democratic. http://lieberman.senate.gov/index.cfm/contact/email-me-about-an-issue http://lieberman.senate.gov/index.cfm/contact/email-me-about...

jrockway 16y ago
But these leaks might make him look bad, and that hurts the next re-election. Welcome to Amerika, where anyone who speaks out against you is branded a terrorist. (I have downmodded this exact comment a number of times, because I never thought it was really true. But this time, that's exactly what's happening! There is a well-established legal precedent in the US that you can publish anything that has been leaked, regardless of how you got that information. The person who leaked it gets in trouble, not the person who tells everyone about it. But now... we want to throw away our freedoms and call wikileaks a "terrorist organization". What the fuck? Terrorists fly airplanes full of people into buildings full of people. This is a collection of documents that say China hacked Google. NOT THE SAME AT ALL!) </rant>
- DanielBMarkham 16y ago
  I'll give you nice counter-rant. Downvote if you like, but somebody needs to put what you said in context, so I'll play American Joe Sixpack for that purpose. What did you expect? Did you honestly think you could dump years of State Department cables on the internet and what? Somebody would come give wikileaks an award? They'd win the Nobel Peace Prize? (yikes, that still might happen) This is not wikileaks reporting that the war is going badly, ie making a point that we are being lied to by showing the lies. This isn't honorable. If you'll remember, when the Pentagon Papers happened the leaker was fully willing to take whatever punishment came to him. As he should have. This isn't that, either. This is some asshole with a computer connection hooking up with somebody else with a grievance and destroying billions of dollars of my collective property. His stated mission is to destroy the structure of my country by making it impossible for various nodes of the country to communicate with each other. No amount of ranting is going to make an anarchist into a superhero. We need leaks for society to function, not crazy self-centered promoters bent on single-handedly redesigning our way of life. </rant> (wink) On a more serious note, I told you guys when this happened that there aren't actions without reactions. If Assange is just getting started? Well the other side is just getting started too. Expect more of this.
  - pavs 16y ago
    Wikileaks is putting the governments of the world naked under the scanner the same way most of us are being put under the scanner every time you take a flight. If we can't have any privacy, the government can't either.
    - DanielBMarkham 16y ago
      You guys keep hitting me over the head with what's fair or what's right or going on and on about some moral outrage and how wikileaks is needed. I keep telling you that none of that matters. Consent of the governed isn't about the best way of governing people, it's about the general agreement that things are working this way. Wikileaks has done nothing to change any of that. So it's just an attack on the government itself. Expect the government to react. That's all I saying. For every person you might convince that change is needed, you just created a hundred people wanting to throw the entire wikileaks bunch in jail. Honestly, I agree with you that individual freedoms are at an all-time low -- in all kinds of ways. It's a travesty and a horrible thing. I'm just telling you that the emotional argument about how screwed up things are isn't going to hold much say when pitted against the way groups of people work. To them, this is an attack and a crime. Hell, it's an attack and crime to me too, and I agree with it. (The two beliefs are not mutually exclusive) Yelling about being surprised at the response here doesn't make much sense to me. You can easily see where this all is headed, and it's not a new golden age of human freedom, as much as one is needed.
      - rbarooah 16y ago
        Since you agree with the general sentiment (about individual freedoms), but think that expressing outrage here is futile, can you suggest a response that is constructive instead?
        mattmanser 16y ago
        Go into politics yourself. There's no better response, it's stand up or shut up with this kind of issue. Far too complex for most people to understand, ramifications of great consequence that are hard to vocalise. Just don't forget what you were getting into power for when you get there.
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
jemfinch 16y ago
I loved how Lieberman actually described the issue: "No responsible company – whether American or foreign – should assist Wikileaks in its efforts to disseminate these stolen materials." Stolen materials? Every wrongfully classified document is stolen from the American public, the rightful owner of all information produced by the government we instituted.
- krschultz 16y ago
  WHAT? ARE YOU KIDDING ME? I'm sorry, I generally avoid snarky posts on HN, but that comment literally makes less sense to me than anything I've seen on HN is a long long time. Down vote me to -3000, I don't care, I can't let that one slide. Do you think the nuclear launch codes should be published? (of course not right? who would do that?) How about where are nuclear submarines are right at this very moment. (of course not, who would do that?) Do you think George Washington should have written in the paper he was crossing the Delaware river on Christmas? This country has had secrets since before its inception! Ok, I guess in your defense you emphasize the phrase wrongfully classified. Everyone agrees too many things are classified (though having a clearance, I was actually shocked how many things AREN'T classified that you would think should be). But lets say I agree on your premise that things that are wrongfully classified should be made available to the public. Who decides what is wrongfully classified? Wikileaks? The guy leaking it? You? I find it interesting that of the thousands of people who had access to these documents, over 99.9% of them thought they rightfully should remain hidden, and one guy disagreed and leaked them. This isn't 100,000 documents leaked by 50 people out of 80, it is 100,000 documents leaked by 1 guy out of thousands upon thousands. So lets go to the official definitions of classified material to see if they were "wrongfully classified" Top Secret (TS) The highest level of classification of material on a national level. Such material would cause "exceptionally grave damage" to national security if made publicly available. i.e. your launch codes, orders, locations of troops, capabilities of weapons (things you and the people we are fighting don't even know we can do) Secret Such material would cause "grave damage" to national security if it were publicly available. Confidential Such material would cause "damage" or be "prejudicial" to national security if publicly available. Restricted Such material would cause "undesirable effects" if publicly available. I feel like the fact that the state department has spent the last week running around trying to clean up the diplomatic brush fires that have been caused by this prove that they were right to be classified in the first place. Should the cables have been classified as Top Secret - of course not. And thats why none of them were. Should they be restricted (i.e. noforn or distro d or something similar that says they are not to be released)? I think they rightfully should be. Nothing in the cables were above Secret, and most were simply restricted. They're not wrongfully classified when the definition of restricted is that it impedes your ability to do the job of the state department if leaked, which clearly this leak is doing right now.
ohashi 16y ago
I don't think he will listen to anyone nor does he have a spine based on previous behavior. Better off hoping there is a leak about him to make him resign in utter shame.
- krschultz 16y ago
  (Off topic) If I remember correctly he currently has the lowest approval rating in his home state of any sitting senator (25% approve, 67% disapprove) and is up for reelection in 2012. Since he has pissed off both sides of the aisle, he won't be receiving national money and I can virtually assure you this is his last term. If that doesn't make him resign, nothing will.
ajays 16y ago
Where was Senator Lieberman when Dick Cheney leaked Valerie Plame's name to the press? This guy is such a two-faced liar and a hypocrite.
- SpikeGronim 16y ago
  Senator Lieberman called for an independent counsel to be appointed to avoid interference into the investigation by "the people under suspicion"[1]. I disagree with him about the Iraq war and censoring video games but let's avoid the ad hominem attacks. 1. http://www.slate.com/id/2089079/ http://www.slate.com/id/2089079/

by joshes 16y ago

jrockway 16y ago

But these leaks might make him look bad, and that hurts the next re-election. Welcome to Amerika, where anyone who speaks out against you is branded a terrorist. (I have downmodded this exact comment a number of times, because I never thought it was really true. But this time, that's exactly what's happening! There is a well-established legal precedent in the US that you can publish anything that has been leaked, regardless of how you got that information. The person who leaked it gets in trouble, not the person who tells everyone about it. But now... we want to throw away our freedoms and call wikileaks a "terrorist organization". What the fuck? Terrorists fly airplanes full of people into buildings full of people. This is a collection of documents that say China hacked Google. NOT THE SAME AT ALL!) </rant>

DanielBMarkham 16y ago
I'll give you nice counter-rant. Downvote if you like, but somebody needs to put what you said in context, so I'll play American Joe Sixpack for that purpose. What did you expect? Did you honestly think you could dump years of State Department cables on the internet and what? Somebody would come give wikileaks an award? They'd win the Nobel Peace Prize? (yikes, that still might happen) This is not wikileaks reporting that the war is going badly, ie making a point that we are being lied to by showing the lies. This isn't honorable. If you'll remember, when the Pentagon Papers happened the leaker was fully willing to take whatever punishment came to him. As he should have. This isn't that, either. This is some asshole with a computer connection hooking up with somebody else with a grievance and destroying billions of dollars of my collective property. His stated mission is to destroy the structure of my country by making it impossible for various nodes of the country to communicate with each other. No amount of ranting is going to make an anarchist into a superhero. We need leaks for society to function, not crazy self-centered promoters bent on single-handedly redesigning our way of life. </rant> (wink) On a more serious note, I told you guys when this happened that there aren't actions without reactions. If Assange is just getting started? Well the other side is just getting started too. Expect more of this.
- pavs 16y ago
  Wikileaks is putting the governments of the world naked under the scanner the same way most of us are being put under the scanner every time you take a flight. If we can't have any privacy, the government can't either.
  - DanielBMarkham 16y ago
    You guys keep hitting me over the head with what's fair or what's right or going on and on about some moral outrage and how wikileaks is needed. I keep telling you that none of that matters. Consent of the governed isn't about the best way of governing people, it's about the general agreement that things are working this way. Wikileaks has done nothing to change any of that. So it's just an attack on the government itself. Expect the government to react. That's all I saying. For every person you might convince that change is needed, you just created a hundred people wanting to throw the entire wikileaks bunch in jail. Honestly, I agree with you that individual freedoms are at an all-time low -- in all kinds of ways. It's a travesty and a horrible thing. I'm just telling you that the emotional argument about how screwed up things are isn't going to hold much say when pitted against the way groups of people work. To them, this is an attack and a crime. Hell, it's an attack and crime to me too, and I agree with it. (The two beliefs are not mutually exclusive) Yelling about being surprised at the response here doesn't make much sense to me. You can easily see where this all is headed, and it's not a new golden age of human freedom, as much as one is needed.
    - rbarooah 16y ago
      Since you agree with the general sentiment (about individual freedoms), but think that expressing outrage here is futile, can you suggest a response that is constructive instead?
      - mattmanser 16y ago
        Go into politics yourself. There's no better response, it's stand up or shut up with this kind of issue. Far too complex for most people to understand, ramifications of great consequence that are hard to vocalise. Just don't forget what you were getting into power for when you get there.

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

jemfinch 16y ago

I loved how Lieberman actually described the issue: "No responsible company – whether American or foreign – should assist Wikileaks in its efforts to disseminate these stolen materials." Stolen materials? Every wrongfully classified document is stolen from the American public, the rightful owner of all information produced by the government we instituted.

krschultz 16y ago
WHAT? ARE YOU KIDDING ME? I'm sorry, I generally avoid snarky posts on HN, but that comment literally makes less sense to me than anything I've seen on HN is a long long time. Down vote me to -3000, I don't care, I can't let that one slide. Do you think the nuclear launch codes should be published? (of course not right? who would do that?) How about where are nuclear submarines are right at this very moment. (of course not, who would do that?) Do you think George Washington should have written in the paper he was crossing the Delaware river on Christmas? This country has had secrets since before its inception! Ok, I guess in your defense you emphasize the phrase wrongfully classified. Everyone agrees too many things are classified (though having a clearance, I was actually shocked how many things AREN'T classified that you would think should be). But lets say I agree on your premise that things that are wrongfully classified should be made available to the public. Who decides what is wrongfully classified? Wikileaks? The guy leaking it? You? I find it interesting that of the thousands of people who had access to these documents, over 99.9% of them thought they rightfully should remain hidden, and one guy disagreed and leaked them. This isn't 100,000 documents leaked by 50 people out of 80, it is 100,000 documents leaked by 1 guy out of thousands upon thousands. So lets go to the official definitions of classified material to see if they were "wrongfully classified" Top Secret (TS) The highest level of classification of material on a national level. Such material would cause "exceptionally grave damage" to national security if made publicly available. i.e. your launch codes, orders, locations of troops, capabilities of weapons (things you and the people we are fighting don't even know we can do) Secret Such material would cause "grave damage" to national security if it were publicly available. Confidential Such material would cause "damage" or be "prejudicial" to national security if publicly available. Restricted Such material would cause "undesirable effects" if publicly available. I feel like the fact that the state department has spent the last week running around trying to clean up the diplomatic brush fires that have been caused by this prove that they were right to be classified in the first place. Should the cables have been classified as Top Secret - of course not. And thats why none of them were. Should they be restricted (i.e. noforn or distro d or something similar that says they are not to be released)? I think they rightfully should be. Nothing in the cables were above Secret, and most were simply restricted. They're not wrongfully classified when the definition of restricted is that it impedes your ability to do the job of the state department if leaked, which clearly this leak is doing right now.

ohashi 16y ago

I don't think he will listen to anyone nor does he have a spine based on previous behavior. Better off hoping there is a leak about him to make him resign in utter shame.

krschultz 16y ago
(Off topic) If I remember correctly he currently has the lowest approval rating in his home state of any sitting senator (25% approve, 67% disapprove) and is up for reelection in 2012. Since he has pissed off both sides of the aisle, he won't be receiving national money and I can virtually assure you this is his last term. If that doesn't make him resign, nothing will.

ajays 16y ago

Where was Senator Lieberman when Dick Cheney leaked Valerie Plame's name to the press? This guy is such a two-faced liar and a hypocrite.

SpikeGronim 16y ago
Senator Lieberman called for an independent counsel to be appointed to avoid interference into the investigation by "the people under suspicion"[1]. I disagree with him about the Iraq war and censoring video games but let's avoid the ad hominem attacks. 1. http://www.slate.com/id/2089079/ http://www.slate.com/id/2089079/