The End of Democracy? Ask Joe Lieberman And The US State Department

Back in this previous post, I discussed the outrageous and extremely dangerous bill pushed by Republican Senators John Ensign and Scott Brown, as well as Independent Senator Joe Lieberman, which would make it illegal to publish the names of informants serving the US military and intelligence community.

The problem (among so many) with such a bill is this:

The proposed bill reads "would make it illegal to publish the names of informants serving the US military and intelligence community".

So - no more whistleblowing (à la WikiLeaks).

And no more blogging and/or reporting about the detailed revelations brought forth by such whistleblowing activities.

Furthermore - the no-naming of "informants serving the US military and intelligence community" will perpetuate the already prevailing abuses of "anonymous" sources and quotes, abuses perpetrated by mainstream/corporate media stenographers in order to subserviently pass on propaganda from government agencies and the government itself.

Ergo: no more fact or truth reporting in any way whatsoever.

That Lieberman and Co. never called for such a bill following the outing of Valerie Plame not only speaks loudly of the self-serving hypocritical mendacity at work here on their part (because after all the Roves and Cheneys and subservient collaborating stenographers whom worked together in outing the CIA secret operative had to be protected/defended/excused since they represented/constituted Teh Establishment), but the very proposal of such a bill constitutes a clear, immediate and present danger to what is left of journalistic freedom.

Think about it:

- First, the mainstream/corporate media largely abdicates it raison d'être, i.e. reporting facts, the truth and keeping checks on the Powers-That-Be;

- Second, corporations collude with politicians not only to make policy, but to facilitate increased surveillance of citizens (typically without warrants - one more example here), in addition to being accomplices in stifling free speech (including on the internet);

- And third, now we have legislation to kill whatever remains of free journalism out there, in the world, including on the internet.

Case in point: let's not forget that Raw Story, The New York Times, the UK Guardian, Der Spiegel, Globe and Mail, etc. published the same info on their sites as WikiLeaks, in order to spread the information, facts and truth (i.e. what is still called reporting, journalism). Would such a bill apply to any news outlet? If so, then any leaked information that is published online clandestinally will nevermore be reported by any news outlet - because of this bill.

In other words: you not only kill the initial leaking act, you make sure that any reporting of the information leaked is likewise killed.

Ergo: you ensure to keep the public ignorant through the rule of law.

Well, I told you folks so, did I not (emphasis added):

Media outlets may be probed over WikiLeaks stories, Sen. Lieberman claims

Can the US government prosecute media outlets that reported on the WikiLeaks cables? According to Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT), the answer is maybe.

Following the release of thousands of documents by government watchdog WikiLeaks, Lieberman told the The New York Times that he wanted to use "all legal means" against the website.

Appearing on Fox News Tuesday afternoon, Lieberman added that the US Constitution's protection of free speech may not be enough to keep media outlets out of harm's way if they dedicated coverage to the WikiLeaks disclosures.

"Julian Assange has written an editorial that points out or characterizes his organization as an underdog in the media world," Lee noted. "He's saying he's a journalist, and he's just providing information out there for the world citizens to see. He mentions that organizations like The New York Times have published his information which you're classifying as state secrets. So, are other media outlets that have posted what WikiLeaks has put out there also culpable in this and could be charged with something?"

"I have said that I believe the question you're raising is a serious legal question that has to be answered," Lieberman replied.

"In other words, this is very sensitive stuff because it gets into the America's First Amendment. But if you go from the initial crime, Private Manning charged with the crime of stealing these classified documents, he gives them to WikiLeaks, I certainly believe that that's a -- WikiLeaks has violated the espionage act," he said.

"But then what about the news organizations, including the Times, that accepted it and distributed it? I know they say they deleted some of it, but I'm not here to make a final judgment on that," Lieberman continued.

"But to me New York Times has committed at least an act of bad citizenship. And whether they've committed a crime, I think that bears very intensive inquiry by the Justice Department."

Lieberman's position seems to be a slight change from last week, when he said the Times should not be prosecuted.

"I don't know if you can prosecute the Times under existing Supreme Court decisions," he told Fox Business News' Don Imus.

"But I'll tell you this, I wish the Times, just as an act of citizenship had said, 'No, we're not going to publish this stuff because it's going to do the country damage,'" he said

The Justice Department is investigating whether it can prosecute WikiLeaks and its founder Julian Assange.

Newspapers like Britain's Guardian and The New York Times have published much more information from the secret documents than WikiLeaks has. Only about one percent of the cables have been released so far.

In the meantime, let's hear it one more time from the US State Department:

(...) would (the) State (Department) look unfavorably upon a prospective employee who had written about the leaked cables on Facebook? "To talk about current events is one thing," (State Department spokeswoman Nicole Thompson) said. "Would talking about it make you ineligible for a job at the State Department? No. But to go into detail, and propagate information that was illegally obtained — I don't think that's a good move for anyone. Not Julian Assange, not WikiLeaks, and not any U.S. citizen."

So take it from Senator Joe Lieberman - being a good citizen is ignoring the truth and certainly not disseminate it ... or else.

And take it as well from the US State Department - look away, keep your head low, and continue on being a pliable and easily controllable sheep ... or else.

Whereby I reply: Q.E.D. once and for all.

Que sera, sera ...