"Senator Joe’s bill is nothing if not another example of totalitarian government on steroids. “The bill would give a newly-formed National Center for Cybersecurity and Communications the authority to monitor the ’security status’ of private websites, ISPs and other net-related business within the U.S. as well as critical internet components in other countries,” writes Andy Chalk. “Companies would be required to take part in ‘information sharing’ with the government and certify to the NCCC that they have implemented approved security measures. Furthermore, any company that ‘relies on’ the internet, telephone system or any other part of the U.S. ‘information infrastructure’ would also be ’subject to command’ by the NCCC under the proposed new law.”
Imagine if you can what sort of “security status” this website would merit.
“It is alarming that so many people have accepted the White House’s assertions about cyber-security as a key national security problem without demanding further evidence. Have we learned nothing from the WMD debacle? The administration’s claims could lead to policies with serious, long-term, troubling consequences for network openness and personal privacy,” writes Evgeny Morozov, a Belarus-born researcher and blogger who writes about the political effects of the internet.
Joe has called for government control and censorship of television, so we can assume his “cybersecurity” jihad will not stop with the government micromanaging network security. He has a keen interest in deciding what the plebs can watch and presumably read on the internet."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Could this be a more naked attack on 1st Amendment rights? If it passes it is only a matter of time before SST will be no more. pl
http://www.prisonplanet.com/lieberman-introduces-bill-targeting-internet-freedom.html
This is totally consistent with the establishment of a North American Command and the nullification of posse comitatus.
http://www.capitolhillblue.com/node/16487
Posted by: JohnH | 20 June 2010 at 04:23 PM
Senator Rockefeller isn't far behind 'iron-fist' Lieberman with his infamous "we would all be better off if the internet was never invented" remark.
Politicians hate when the light of scrutiny shines on their nefariousness/backroom-bedroom antics/espionage, etc.. Ergo they hate the internet as it gives the ordinary citizens access to such information and a way to voice their objections call for heads rolling.
Lieberman IMO is an anathema to everything our U.S. stands for, he's an enemy to our U.S. Constitution, our U.S. Bill of Rights, our U.S. Declaration of Independence. We would all be better served if Lieberman would resign his Senate seat, pack his bags and move to his beloved foreign postage stamp totalitarian state Israel.
Posted by: J | 20 June 2010 at 04:27 PM
Colonel,
Can you please make a phone call or two and lance this pompous deluded narcissistic boil on the arse of the American body politic? Thank you!
Posted by: Lord Curzon | 20 June 2010 at 04:32 PM
LC
I'll try. To my great shame I once thought of Joe as a friend. I contributed $1,000 to one of his re-election campaigns. I must have been insane. pl
Posted by: Patrick Lang | 20 June 2010 at 05:01 PM
The worst part about it is that it is not a sign of strength.
Somebody thinks they are losing their grip on the political reins in the United States.
They are, but they are not without resource.
What a horror show.
The third front is only a month or two away as the Harry Truman sails off the coast of Iran.
Posted by: arbogast | 20 June 2010 at 05:13 PM
Agree with you 100% Col. Lang.
Taken with Liebermans proposal to strip citizenship from anyone "involved with" a terrorist group, as defined by the State Department, Lieberman has a chillingly Orwellian mindset.
According to Lieberman, participants in the Gaza Aid Flotilla are providing material support for terrrorism, as is anyone who joins or donates to freegaza.org: "Support of Hamas and its aims is not the humanitarian path to peace, but rather enables continued violence and conflict. "
http://lieberman.senate.gov/index.cfm/news-events/news/2010/6/lieberman-statement-on-gaza-flotilla-incident
www.freegaza.org
I am also concerned that the powers that be, both here and in Israel, are increasingly concerned by their inability to control citizen generated media, as demonstrated again by the flotilla incident.
Given the proclivities already demonstrated by Netanyahu, I am sure that the Israelis have by now contemplated assassinating some of their more vociferous critics, that is if folk like Lieberman cannot silence them by legal means.
Posted by: Walrus | 20 June 2010 at 05:15 PM
"The Chinese govt has the power to shut down their internet, so should we"
Joe Lieberman
c'mon Joe, tell the truth, this is neither about China or the USA is it? Wolf Blitzer just can't stand those emails coming into CNN, yeah, the ones that don't praise Israel.
Posted by: BillWade | 20 June 2010 at 05:36 PM
Zionist stooge in all the worse possible connotations of the expression/description.
This is because AIPAC cannot get the same laws passed here that they have in Europe and Canada,
Posted by: MRW. | 20 June 2010 at 05:42 PM
Who know where the most effective place is to complain about this Bill?
Congress? WHite HOuse? FCC?
Where?
Posted by: MRW. | 20 June 2010 at 05:44 PM
Lieberman is a traitor to American principles.
Posted by: MRW. | 20 June 2010 at 05:45 PM
"Retired military officer with ties to a Syria threatens conspiracy to murder Senator Lieberman. Website shut down, questions raised about possible connection to Iran, the Taliban and Marvin the Martian. Government sources claim this highlights the need for a national cybersecurity strategy and increased domestic surveillance. Coming up next, Vice President Biden condemns Turkish flotilla crew for 'viciously and savagely assaulting Israeli bullets with their skulls' "
Posted by: Grimgrin | 20 June 2010 at 05:50 PM
All right then, I'm going to type this on the internet while I still can. I haven't been able to stand that sanctimonious prig Lieberman since he chidded Clinton over a blow job and lying. What a pompous ass! He ought to be representing another country not the U.S.
I never could understand why Gore choose him as his vice presidential running mate because he was a real liability. I think he hurt Gore more than the Supreme Court in 2000.
Since 9/11 he has become a scolding nag and neanderthal. I can't stand the look of his smug face and I hope the good citizens of Connecticut vote for a different senator when his time is up because they need better representation than he represents.
Posted by: Jackie | 20 June 2010 at 06:49 PM
Holy Joe is not only the Jewish equivalent of David Duke, who's profoundly prejudiced against Muslims, but he’s also a Israel-firster, who's as un-American as they come. So he oughta pack his bags and move to his beloved Israel where he and his fellow Jewish Supremacists can battle the Muslim World without any help from Uncle Sam.
Posted by: Cynthia | 20 June 2010 at 06:51 PM
The people to call or write would be our Senators and Reps, I think. A knowledgeable sounding call or letter might alert staffers and phone-answerers
that people are interested and opposed.
If someone is actually ready to vote against any politician who fails to vote against this, then it would make sense to say so or write so. I am assuming that politicians can smell an empty threat the way a dog smells fear, so unless one has really decided to vote against any failure to vote against this bill; there is no point in making the threat.
It might also be good to tell the various Democratic Party organizations that if the Democratic officeholders fail to get this bill defeated, then we may fail to get Democratic officeseekers elected. (The Republicans will support this bill to stop anyone internetting about future oil spills or core meltdowns or other bad-for-bussiness downers).
Perhaps Lieberman was friendworthy back in the past. Perhaps he has slowly
gone vicious since then?
Posted by: different clue | 20 June 2010 at 07:01 PM
DC
No. i think I was just a gullible fool. pl
Posted by: Patrick Lang | 20 June 2010 at 07:10 PM
"I was just a gullible fool." Yeah, I voted for him when I lived in CT. I thought he was the LESSER of two evils...
Posted by: JohnH | 20 June 2010 at 08:02 PM
Col.,
No, you weren't a gullible fool, at one time I actually liked the jerk.
Since my earlier rant against this pissy senator, I remembered his vilification of Hollywood. Apparently he has always had a fondness for censorship. Too bad we can't censor him.
DC is right. He has gone vicious since he was challenged by Lamont last time he ran.
Posted by: Jackie | 20 June 2010 at 08:04 PM
isn't this really about Israel and other matters such as suppressing dissent, and so on and on?
The basic model would seem to be Russia post- Red Revolution or perhaps Germany post '33...etc....totalitarian and fascist.
Posted by: clifford kiracofe | 20 June 2010 at 08:32 PM
Just 'imagine' how much U.S. Classified that has gone from Jo-E Lieberman's Senator lips onto the ears and in the hands of Mossad operatives. Just imagine all the 'damage' to U.S. National Security that Jo-E Lieberman has caused.
Lieberman wrote an oped article in the WSJ where he questioned 'Who is the enemy in the War On Terrorism'. The answer was stairing pitful Jo-E right in his own mirror- Jo-E Lieberman is the 'enemy'.
Lieberman's rant:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703509404575300420668558244.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEFTTopOpinion&mg=com-wsj
Posted by: J | 20 June 2010 at 09:31 PM
Just imagine if Gore had won (which many still to this day say that Gore won and his election was stolen by Bush & Co.) the Presidential election, Jo-E Lieberman would have had his residence at the Naval Observatory instead of Cheney and a heartbeat away from the Oval Office itself. Imagine all the carnage that Jo-E would have tried to stir up.
Posted by: J | 20 June 2010 at 10:06 PM
Computer security companies and also US government IT services are fully aware of the existing cyber threats and they know how to deal with them without creating a vast new bureaucracy. That is not what this is all about. It is partly about creating an enormous new entitlement group for beltway bandits (ca. $100 billion), but Lieberman is all about Israel, not the United States.
Why target the internet? Because it has broken the mainstream media monopoly on news and information about what is happening in the Middle East. For the first time, normal Americans can learn that Israel is not a splendid little democracy surrounded by Arab monsters. If you want to control the message you have to find a way to suppress the internet. This bill creates a way to do just that - all you have to do is declare a threat and you can shut down the internet parts that you find offensive. It's as simple as that. The Chinese and Iranians already do it and now Washington will join those proponents of liberty and free expression.
Posted by: Phil Giraldi | 20 June 2010 at 10:14 PM
I am amazed that the supreme court, the president and congress are willing to seize personal liberties, treat corporations as people and people as subjects.
I am amazed at how willing this generation is to surrender up civil liberties out of fear.
Posted by: Brian Hart | 20 June 2010 at 11:31 PM
Always remember: The whole reason Joe Lieberman's in the Senate is because prominent and well-heeled movement Republicans wanted payback for Watergate.
See, Connecticut used to have a principled Republican Senator, Lowell Weicker, back in the days when "principled Republican" was not yet a total oxymoron. Weicker actually pushed for Nixon's impeachment, thus earning the eternal hatred of Nixon's circle: Cheney, Rumsfeld, et al. (Yes, those guys got their starts with Tricky Dick.) They spent the next decade and a half looking for ways to topple Weicker, but couldn't as he was too personally popular.
Finally, in 1988, a group of Connecticut Republicans led by the Buckley family succeeded in getting enough Connecticut Republican voters to switch to Lieberman, precisely because Lieberman was more conservative than Weicker: http://www.nytimes.com/1988/08/16/nyregion/buckleys-are-backing-a-democrat.html?pagewanted=1?pagewanted=1
Posted by: Phoenix Woman | 21 June 2010 at 09:02 AM
"isn't this really about Israel and other matters such as suppressing dissent, and so on and on?"
If things keep going the way they are down in the gulf the Middle East, the Taliban and AQ will be the least of DC's worries.
Posted by: Fred | 21 June 2010 at 09:35 AM
Mr. Hart: here is one of the best run downs of how corporations were originally, and incorrectly, given legal personhood, but no liability back in the late 19th Century. It was from this error in Supreme Court reporting that all subsequent, and now successful, attempts to enshrine this in US foundational law are derived:
http://www.commondreams.org/views02/1211-01.htm
Posted by: Adam L. Silverman | 21 June 2010 at 01:15 PM