*Taken from Politico.

Sen. Joe Lieberman was treated like an outcast back in 2008 when he broke from the Senate Democratic Caucus and openly opposed Barack Obama’s bid for the White House.

Asked last week if he’d back Obama in 2012, the Connecticut independent said, “I don’t know what I’m going to do.”

This time around, there may be more Liebermans.

A number of moderate Democrats like Texas Rep. Henry Cuellar and liberals like Sen. Bernie Sanders are declining to give their unqualified support for the president, saying they’re either too focused on their own races or are calling on the White House to cater to their agendas before they will offer an endorsement. Some up for reelection in red states or in swing districts fear that even showing up on stage with Obama will give their opponents an image to seize upon — much as Democrats did in 2008 when they repeatedly flashed shots of Sen. John McCain hugging President George W. Bush.

CONTINUED..

*Taken from the NY Times.

CONTINUED..

When people think about Homeland Security, they immediately think about 9/11, Al-Qaeda, the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, the terrorist attacks on American soil and George W. Bush. I think about tyranny, the police state and all the other bullshit people seem to adore more than freedom. The reality of the situation is that, although Bush and 9/11 were major factors in Homeland Security becoming a reality, this idea was not born from the Bush … Read More

via TheSwash.com

My Two Cents: Constitutional conservative my f’n ass. Yes, let’s go to Washington and balance the budget with more war, that’ll work! End Two Cents.

Senator Marco Rubio spoke to reporters on Capitol Hill on Wednesday about the abuses taking place in Syria. Appearing with Sens. Joe Lieberman, John McCain and Ben Cardin, he introduced a resolution with Sen. Lieberman that urges the President to act on this crisis.

*Taken from Prison Planet. Written by Paul Joseph Watson.

A new program being touted by the Obama administration as a solution to online identity theft actually increases the risk of identity theft while providing the government with a national ID system through the backdoor, paving the way for a world wide web in which users will need government permission to access the Internet.

The so-called “National Strategy for Trusted Identities in Cyberspace,” created by NIST under the auspices of the U.S. Commerce Department, purports to offer an “identity ecosystem” under which Americans will be able to protect their information not with passwords but with a “single credential” stored on a smart card, a cell phone, a keychain fob or some other kind of gadget. This will then be used to access a myriad of data, including tax returns, health information, bank accounts and more, amounting to a passport for your entire life.

Companies like Siemens developed credit card-sized gadgets years ago that enable fingerprints to be used to approve online transactions and the technology is already well established. A series of workshops are planned for June to September during which the government will nail down specifics with companies who are on board with the project and pilot projects will be launched next year.

The program bears more than a passing resemblance to a 2007 proposal by China that threatened to force bloggers to register their real identities and personal details via a single centralized ID system as a means for the Communist government to control information and punish dissenters.

That idea was scrapped for being too draconian, but the Obama administration is pushing ahead with its own Internet ID system in pursuit of a wider cybersecurity agenda that Senator Joe Lieberman has publicly stated is aimed at mimicking Chinese-style censorship of the world wide web, casting doubt on assertions in the government PR video for the program embedded above that claim, “there is no central database tracking your actions”.

The irony of the fact that the program will be managed by a government that has routinely stolen and lost personal information (including that related to personal health data) through both malevolence and incompetence is not addressed in the propaganda video. Remember cash for clunkers? This is the same government that openly admitted it had seized control of data on Americans’ computers who used the cars.gov website.

Although the program will initially be voluntary, its widespread adoption by numerous internet hub giants will eventually make its use necessary for conducting any kind of transaction, creating profiles or engaging in any interactive process on the web.

Moreover, should there be a major cyber attack that cripples the web and leaves sensitive information vulnerable, the Obama administration would have all the political capital it needs to turn the “voluntary” program into a compulsory requirement for anyone who wishes to use the Internet. Given the fact that the Stuxnet worm attack was admittedly launched by the United States and Israel, the culprits are likely to be closer to home than we think.

“Although the White House is describing the NSTIC plan as “voluntary,” federal agencies could begin to require it for IRS e-filing, applying for Social Security or veterans’ benefits, renewing passports online, requesting federal licenses (including ham radio and pilot’s licenses), and so on. Then obtaining one of these ID would become all but mandatory for most Americans,” writes CNet’s Declan McCullagh.

“Taken to its logical conclusion, the program, “Could become the virtual equivalent of a national ID card,” he adds.

Despite government assurances that the “conspiracy theory set” are wrong in highlighting privacy concerns, critics have labeled the plan an effort to impose a national ID card via the backdoor.

Writing for Network World, Mark Gibbs slammed the proposal as, “A totally ridiculous idea. A great example of rampant, over-reaching, ignorant, and ill-conceived political foolishness.”

Gibbs highlights the fact that both the IRS and Homeland Security have recently been caught abusing and mismanaging online identity systems.

“In short, the government, at the heart of its most sensitive public and administrative services, is incompetent on a biblical scale. And now they propose to provide what is, in essence, the management of a single sign-on system that would impact tens of millions of its citizens,” he writes.

In addition, the centralized nature of the system will not protect identity theft, the entire raison d’être behind the program, but will instead make identity theft far more prevalent and easier for criminals.

“It remains unclear whether the White House proposal will solve this problem or create new problems,” said Marc Rotenberg, president of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, warning that if the system was compromised it would be like losing your whole wallet, not just your keys or credit card. “There is the real risk that consolidated identity schemes will lead to ‘hyper’ identity theft.”

*Taken from Reason. Written by Steve Chapman.

The civil war in Libya was barely underway before some American politicians were insisting the United States crash the party. We have been fighting in Afghanistan for nine years and Iraq for eight, but the typical Washington hawk views wars the way Hugh Hefner views buxom blondes: You can never have too many.

The current craze is for a no-fly zone to help remove Moammar Gadhafi. It’s been endorsed by Republicans John McCain, Newt Gingrich, and Tim Pawlenty, as well as Independent Joe Lieberman and Democrat John Kerry. Defense Secretary Robert Gates has thrown cold water on the idea, but the president has not ruled out military intervention.

Why would that be a mistake? Plenty of reasons:

Safe, limited measures may not be either. The war party assumes that keeping Libya’s air force on the ground—or destroying it should it take flight—will be quick, simple, and painless. But Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen says a no-fly zone would be “an extraordinarily complex operation to set up.” It would add costs to a federal budget that is already excessive.

Such operations can lead to American casualties, if our planes are shot down. Errant bombs can kill innocent bystanders, as happens often in Afghanistan. At that point, things suddenly get a lot messier.

Getting in is the easy part. Even perfectly executed operations may fail to turn the tide. Suppose we establish our no-fly zone and Gadhafi’s forces proceed to rout the rebels. Do we slink away? Or do we up the ante? Once we start the fight, we may not be able to control when and how it ends. If things go wrong, we will be left with only bad choices.

We would be adding burdens to a military that is already overstretched. If the ongoing wars elsewhere have put unprecedented strain on our volunteer forces, do we really want to demand even more of them?

“The American military,” reports The New York Times with dry understatement, “is privately skeptical of humanitarian gestures that put the lives of troops at risk for the cause of the moment, while being of only tenuous national interest.” No kidding.

We don’t know what we’re doing. Most of the people endorsing an attack know less about Libya than they do about playing the oboe. Yet this group is willing to shoot first and ask questions later, forgetting that ignorance usually trumps good intentions.

The United States had plenty of direct experience dealing with Iraq before the 2003 invasion. The Bush administration had more than a year to analyze and prepare for what awaited. But once we had toppled Saddam Hussein, we were hit with one nasty surprise after another.

In Libya, the unknown unknowns are legion. We could be helping to bring to power a government even worse than Gadhafi’s or creating a new haven for Islamic terrorists. One option is shipping weapons to the rebels—kind of like what we did in Afghanistan following the 1979 Soviet invasion.

Those weapons, as fate would have it, helped bring the Taliban to power.

We will inflame greater suspicion in the Arab world. Conservatives like to credit George W. Bush’s Iraq crusade for spawning democratic movements in Arab nations. But most Arabs don’t share that flattering opinion.

Following the Iraq war, Zogby International polls found that by 2006, only 12 percent of Arabs in six countries had a favorable attitude toward the U.S. Two out of three said democracy was not a genuine American goal in the Middle East.

We may harm the cause of those we want to help. One reason these new democratic movements have generated such broad enthusiasm is that they are homegrown—not fostered by Washington at the point of a gun.

“Right now, it’s not about us, and I don’t want it to be about us,” says Christopher Preble, director of foreign policy studies at the libertarian Cato Institute. Once the U.S. attacks, many Arabs will see it as a fight between an Arab leader and the American imperialists bent on subjugating Muslims, not a heroic struggle by the Libyan people against a dictator.

The United States has had an eventful decade in the realm of military and foreign policy. During that time, we have discovered, at a dear cost, the limits to America’s power to transform the world. But we can always learn that lesson again.

My Two Cents: Captain Fartknocker as a Senator? Hahahahahahahaha… Hahahahah.. *cough *cough Hahahahhahahahahahahahahahaha.. okay, okay.. Hahahahaha.. wait.. *cough Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha. End Two Cents.

*Taken from The Hill.

Liberals want Keith Olbermann to run for retiring Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman’s (I-Conn.) seat.

The ploy to coax the former MSNBC host into the Democratic Senate primary was hatched by activists attending a conference in Pennsylvania over the weekend.

Facebook and Twitter pages are already active and a website is expected to go up in the coming days.

“We’re using our full set of campaign tools but they won’t go active until we get a little downtime while we’re in D.C.,” a blogger by the name of Stranded Wind wrote on the liberal website Daily Kos.

Olbermann left his show “Countdown” on Friday. He revealed over the weekend that he would return to his blog on MLB.com, Baseball Nerd, but has remained quiet about any other plans.

Should Olbermann decide to forgo a return to television, he could be eligible to run for Lieberman’s seat, Stranded Wind notes. “He used to live in Connecticut and could easily return and establish residency.”

Olbermann was suspended from his job for two days after the 2010 election for making donations to Arizona Democrats Reps. Raul Grijalva and Gabrielle Giffords, and to Kentucky Senate candidate Jack Conway (D).

Lieberman announced last Wednesday he would not see reelection in 2012. Rep. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) has already entered the race for the Democratic nomination.

*Taken from Gizmodo.

Wikileaks is a flawed endeavor represented publicly by a smug egotist. But it deserves the respect and support of anyone who prioritizes the privacy of individuals over that of governments.

You don’t have to like it or Assange in order to value the counterpoint they represent to the modern high-technology security state. Instead, it is best to assess the major issues hiding in the rhetoric on their merits, and realize as a result that the conversation America is currently having with the world about transparency is ultimately the most valuable achievement of this peculiar organization.

The contents of the leaks are not the main issue; in fact, they are at most an interesting bonus and occasionally a dangerous distraction. No less a personage than Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, no admirer of Wikileaks, has stated that the practical impact of the leaks in terms of security and compromised diplomacy is negligible. He goes on to make the point that countries don’t do business with the US on the basis of ideals but rather as a result of self interest. Your mileage may vary, but I believe it’s safe to take his word as an intelligence veteran charged directly with national defense over the flatulent posturing of elected leaders whose need for a good target to harangue often takes precedence over the facts of the matter.

The main issue is the meta-discussion about the balance between public oversight and national security. Evgeny Morozov nailed it succinctly via a twitter comment early on, and it is precisely that which needs to be on the center stage. The Pentagon Papers are a logical point of comparison: they were every bit as far-reaching and classified (technically moreso, since they were top secret) and have been exonerated both legally and historically by their clear role in serving the public interest. Daniel Ellsberg, the leaker in that instance, has his points of divergence from Assange but has no problem connecting the two leaks.

The difference between the two has to do with their targets: the Papers being released clearly constituted a criticism of Vietnam strategy and government dishonesty. The Wikileaks cables have less to do with individual decisions than with the broader approach the United States has accelerated since 9/11 towards aggressively invading the privacy of its citizens and foreign nationals, all the while shielding even its most mundane government functions from scrutiny under the aegis of national security. Uncomfortably for Assange, if he succeeds in his mission to any significant degree he is unlikely to match his hyperbole in damaging the US, and far more likely to drive it to renew its institutions into a more palatable and competent upgrade of the status quo. That’s not a clear victory for anyone, but it’s better than the current alternative and a goal that many Americans should be able to get behind.

That said, the leaks are fascinating and clearly in the public interest once made available. Andrew Napolitano at Fox explains it in legal terms to Newt Gingrich, who’s in fine form atop his pedestal of bullshit (via LibertarianChristian), and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton has no problem seeing the upside despite her broader reservations in terms of allowing a window into a professional bureaucracy that is usually denied the ability to defend its competence when attacked thanks to the nature of its work. One significant caveat is that the alleged source of the leak is in very dangerous territory legally; whileprecedents have been set in the past for whistleblowers operating on a similar scale, Bradely Manning’s status as an active duty member of the military means that he can easily be held to a different legal standard and fried accordingly. Another worthwhile note would be that it is likely that Wikileaks and its partner newspapers will fail to vet more sensitive items to everyone’s satisfaction, such as the recent “sensitive locations” item that has triggered discomfort even within the ranks of its supporters. It’s bound to get worse as both sides up the ante, and it’s important to focus on whether something is materially dangerous (so far unproven) or simply creates a convincing impression of danger from a distance.

Finally, the reaction of governments to these leaks should scare the hell out of you. The seemingly inevitable arrest (via Reddit) of Julian Assange by British authorities on Swedish sexual assault charges as encouraged by the American government likely represents a 21st century remix of the classic honeypot, and the willingness to use it on such a high profile individual should be worrisome irrespective of the veracity of the charges. It’s just the tip of the iceberg, though. Apart from Facebook’s notably understated position, the ease and rapidity with which corporations across the US and the world were reminded of where the fishes sleep should be of tremendous concern. If Amazon, credit card companies, Paypal, and Swiss banks are the big stories with their reliance on technicalities to wriggle out of their responsibilities in obvious response to government pressure, it is EveryDNS being brazenly strongarmed into abdicating its role as a neutral gatekeeper that should set the tone for future conversations about net neutrality.

The potential for Comcast or Verizon abusing their place in the food chain pales in comparison to an overt example of governments colluding to silence what they can’t defeat in court with intimidation and technological warfare. Naturally, some will point to the “hacktivist” response (apologies if that’s your first exposure to that term) as an equal and opposite reaction: while possibly emotionally gratifying, in the end it has the same outcome of discouraging corporate work with transparency organizations since dealing with governments is not as easy to opt out of. As Senator Joseph Lieberman makes clear (via Cory), it’s easy for unscrupulous advocates of censorship to view this as an opportunity, a watershed that brings together their traditional loathing of old media with contemporary technology.

The Chinese were criticized by the US for attacking Google, despite it not really being inconsistent with their stated policy priorities even with the Wikileaks bonus intel. It’s now the United States’ turn to reflect on what the last decade of enhanced government privacy has brought citizens of our nation as well as the world generally, and to do so in terms of the marginal benefits it has brought a tiny minority of bureaucrats, elected officials, and corporations relative to the general public. To paraphrase Machiavelli’s views on the Roman republic into the American situation, it was when they were willing to learn from mistakes rather than simply condemn the messenger that institutions could be renewed in a manner that best maintained a balance between a functional government and individual liberty for citizens.

*Taken from Infowars. Written by Paul Joseph Watson.

Senator Joe Lieberman, the man behind legislation to give President Obama a kill switch for the Internet in the move towards a Chinese-style government controlled world wide web, now has the power to shut down websites with a mere phone call, as was underscored yesterday when Amazon axed Wikileaks from its servers after being pressured to do so by Lieberman’s Senate Homeland Security Committee.

The revelation that Amazon had killed Wikileaks after the controversial whistle blower organization moved over its servers to Amazon’s cloud network came directly from Lieberman himself, stating that the, “Decision to cut off Wikileaks now is the right decision and should set the standard for other companies Wikileaks is using to distribute its illegally seized material.”

The decision was made after Lieberman’s staffers called Amazon to pressure the company to axe Wikileaks. “Committee staff had seen news reports yesterday that Wikileaks was being hosted on Amazon’s servers,” reports TPM. “Staffers then, according to the spokeswoman, Leslie Phillips, called Amazon to ask about it, and left questions with a press secretary including, “Are there plans to take the site down?”

Amazon later called back Lieberman’s office to tell them that they had taken down the website. Amazon claimed the take down was because Wikileaks had violated its terms of service, but as TPM’s Rachel Slajda points out, this was a somewhat nebulous reason.

“(Amazon’s) terms of acceptable use include a ban on illegal activities (it’s not yet clear whether Wikileaks has broken any laws) and content “that may be harmful to our users, operations, or reputation.” It also prohibits using Amazon’s servers “to violate the security or integrity of any network, computer or communications system,” although Wikileaks obviously obtained the cables long before hopping on Amazon’s servers.”

“Funny how Amazon spent days loudly refusing to delete a pedophile guidebook on free speech grounds, but this happened behind the scenes and the company is refusing to comment,” writes Rob Beschizza.

Wikileaks also responded to the shut down by slamming Amazon for its apparent disdain for free speech, tweeting, “If Amazon are so uncomfortable with the first amendment, they should get out of the business of selling books.”

The London Guardian notes that the website was pulled after “US political pressure”.

Electronic Frontier Foundation senior staff attorney Kevin Bankston labeled Amazon’s decision to kill the website “disappointing,” adding that “pressure” from Lieberman’s office or any other authority serves to “limit the materials the American public has a First Amendment right to access.”

The fact that Lieberman has concentrated such power within the purview of Homeland Security and now wields it by intimidating hosting companies to take down websites with no due course or legal process is particularly alarming given his recent odious public statements concerning free speech and the web.

As we have documented, Lieberman’s vision for the Internet is less of an information superhighway and more of a government-controlled sanitized clone of cable television, where the web is purged entirely of dissent in a system even more draconian than that employed by the Communist Chinese.

The Senator has been vehemently pushing efforts to provide President Barack Obama the power to shut down the Internet with a figurative flick of a switch, and has made it clear that his Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act is about big government deciding who can say what on the web.

“Right now China, the government, can disconnect parts of its Internet in case of war and we need to have that here too,” Lieberman told CNN’s Candy Crowley earlier this year.

However, China’s “war” is not against foreign terrorists or hackers, it’s against people who dare to use the Internet to express dissent against government atrocities or corruption. China’s system of Internet policing is about crushing freedom of speech and has nothing to do with legitimate security concerns as Lieberman well knows. It’s a system concentrated around state oppression of any individual or group that seeks to use the Internet to draw attention to political causes frowned upon by the authorities.

China has exercised its power to shut down the Internet, something that Lieberman wants to introduce in the U.S., at politically sensitive times in order to stem the flow of information about government abuse of its citizens.

This is what Lieberman envisions for the future of the Internet in the United States, a highly regulated, state-controlled forum where the government can shut down websites it disapproves of on a whim, as isalready being done by Homeland Security without court order in dozens of cases this week alone.