Kill patch

Via Crooks and Liars (whom has the video):

"We need this capacity in a time of war. We need the capacity for the president to say, internet service provider, we've got to disconnect the American internet from all traffic coming in from another foreign country, or we have to put a patch on this part of it," Lieberman told CNN's Candy Crowley Sunday.

"So I say to my friends on the internet, relax. Take a look at the bill. And this is something that we need to protect our country. Right now China, the government, can disconnect parts of its internet in case of war and we need to have that here too," he said.

Of course, we have been "in a time of war" now for almost 9 years. And into the forseeable future, we will be in this "time of war" status, now that the President's, both Republican & Democratic, pretty much run amok with war power granted under a "war on terror" status without end.

What this is designed for is things like shutting down wikileaks, or content coming in from countries that have their own propoganda/truth; a government run by the likes of Lieberman, or China, want to have that power.

 

Tags: (all tags)

Comments

20 Comments

Why the term MODERATE has no meaning

Just because a guy is neither left wing nor right wing, it doesn't mean a guy can't be extremist. Lieberman is such a guy.

by Pravin 2010-06-21 10:15AM | 0 recs
RE: Why the term MODERATE has no meaning

Yes, there is a bipartisan consensus on many issues, between crazy conservatives who spout anti-government conspiracy theories on the one side, and gullible liberals who believe them on the other side.

It's not impressive for people who have not even read the bill to go around proclaiming that this will allow the President to censor the Internet like China, or whatever.  One man's brilliant cynic is another man's tiresome know-nothing.

by Steve M 2010-06-21 11:22AM | 0 recs
nonsensical comment?

Are you calling Joe Lieberman a liar, or saying he hasn't read the bill?

by Jerome Armstrong 2010-06-21 11:28AM | 0 recs
RE: nonsensical comment?

I am saying it is pretty silly of you to claim this bill is about "shutting down wikileaks" or whatever.  You obviously haven't read the bill, and you're trying to deflect this fairly important fact by saying "I have this difficult-to-parse statement Joe Lieberman gave during a TV interview, so there's no need for me to read the bill."  You're spreading disinformation here.

by Steve M 2010-06-21 09:16PM | 0 recs
RE: nonsensical comment?

Ah, this is Joe Lieberman:

"So I say to my friends on the internet, relax. Take a look at the bill. And this is something that we need to protect our country. Right now China, the government, can disconnect parts of its internet in case of war and we need to have that here too,"

If you want to be a Lieberman waterboy, that's fine, but what exactly don't you understand about what he is claiming, and how is shutting down wikilinks not an example of what he is claiming?

by Jerome Armstrong 2010-06-22 06:41AM | 0 recs
RE: nonsensical comment?

Because the bill does not say that any time there is a "war" the government has unlimited authority to shut down "parts of the Internet."  You would have to read it to know that, however.  You're trying to do a word-by-word parse of an unscripted interview answer where the guy is trying to offer a common-sense explanation of what's in the bill.

It's pretty childish of you to call me a "Lieberman waterboy" because I'm trying to correct your misinterpretation, but that's par for the course, sadly.  I remember there used to be commentors at Daily Kos who would insist that Bush just signed an executive order which authorized him to declare martial law and cancel the elections and blah blah blah, and when I would point out they were referencing a totally innocuous executive order that didn't say any of that stuff, they'd call me a Bush lackey.  The thing is that those people were clowns, but at least they didn't have front-page privileges.

by Steve M 2010-06-22 09:18AM | 0 recs
RE: nonsensical comment?

So, your point is that Lieberman is full of it, and pulling it out of thin air, and doesn't even know what's in his bill.... you couldn't have just said that to begin with?

by Jerome Armstrong 2010-06-22 12:20PM | 0 recs
RE: nonsensical comment?

My point is that you're being ridiculous by parsing a quick interview answer like it's statutory language, and you're being about 10 times as ridiculous when you claim that this bill is "designed for things like shutting down wikileaks."

Not just that it might incidentally give the President that type of power through unnecessarily broad language, mind you, but that the motivating reason for the bill is "things like shutting down wikileaks."  It's non-falsifiable, I guess, but it's also typical tin-foil stuff where bad people like Joe Lieberman are always assumed to have the most evil of intentions and only a waterboy would disagree.

I don't know if Lieberman knows what's in his bill.  I'm very confident that you don't, though.

by Steve M 2010-06-22 01:47PM | 0 recs
RE: nonsensical comment?

So, to sum it up, you don't know if Lieberman knows whats in his bill, but you do know that I can't take Lieberman at his word for whats in the bill?

by Jerome Armstrong 2010-06-22 03:38PM | 0 recs
RE: nonsensical comment?

To sum it up, you made an uninformed post about the bill, and now you're trying to cover up your ignorance by arguing that this post is really about the fact that Joe Lieberman doesn't know what's in the bill.

by Steve M 2010-06-22 03:57PM | 0 recs
more water i see

Whatever, hopefully the hoopla killed the crappy bill.

In my mind, its funny as anything that Lieberman is so idiotic that he doesn't even know whats in the bill (almost as funny is to see you try and place fault on this blog post for taking his word and pointing out its fascist qualities).

by Jerome Armstrong 2010-06-22 04:21PM | 0 recs
Oh, noes!

 The internets has become an essential requirement of life, like food, water, shelter, and clothing. If the next President (Palin, presumably) finds a compelling reason to shut it down (like maybe a war against porn), then it's almost certain that she will hit the kill switch.

 I'm selling my holdings in Starbucks, Google, Cisco, and Netflix stocks.

by QTG 2010-06-21 04:15PM | 0 recs
This story is a myth and has been debunked (link)......

I despise Lieberman, but his bill doesn't do what Jerome & others claim it does.  Talking Points Memo explained it:

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/06/joe-lieberman-and-the-myth-of-the-internet-kill-switch.php?ref=fpblg

Bottom line:  the President NOW has authority to kill the internet, and this bill would scale back those powers.

by DCCyclone 2010-06-21 05:27PM | 0 recs
RE: This story is a myth and has been debunked (link)......

Seems to be a big disconnect. You realize the above is a direct quote from Lieberman, right?  He's on the video saying exactly what the bill does. This isn't what "Jerome & others" claim, it's what Joe Lieberman claims!

So this, by Megan Carpentier, makes no sense, or else, as I said above, Joe Lieberman is a liar or hasn't read the bill (which?):

 CNET chief political correspondent Declan McCullagh wrote that Lieberman intended to give the President the power of an "Internet kill switch" in the event of a national emergency -- and sparked an uproar.

But, surprising it was -- especially to Lieberman and his staff on the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs. 

by Jerome Armstrong 2010-06-21 06:21PM | 0 recs
I trust TPM a lot more than the McCullagh piece, especially since...

...TPM actually quotes current law and has a committee staffer explain the matter.  It's well-reported.  They're a liberal outfit and a web-only publication, it's not like they have incentive to defend a bill that would shut down their business!

It's not hard for me to think that the CNET reporter was writing about something he knew nothing about.  This is obscure stuff.

TPM is a reported blog, not reactionary (in the literal sense, not the political sense) in their postings.  So I trust them more than Crooks & Liars, too, and the CNN video report doesn't contradict anything TPM reported.

by DCCyclone 2010-06-21 10:06PM | 0 recs
RE: I trust TPM

What nonsense. What is "I trust TPM" supposed to mean?  What's bizzare is the double-speak thats coming from you, and the dual-reality that Megan Carpentier is presenting. 


As i posted above, this is simple, its not some "CNN video" its Joe Lieberman:

"So I say to my friends on the internet, relax. Take a look at the bill. And this is something that we need to protect our country. Right now China, the government, can disconnect parts of its internet in case of war and we need to have that here too,"

So, I couldn't care less what TPM is saying through Carpentier talking with Lieberman staffers. Evan Carpentier, ("Lieberman's people seem to be correct") puts in the 'buyer beware" with the "seems" here to cover the fact that she might be getting a whitewash job by his staffers.

Like I said above, Joe Lieberman is either a liar about the bill, or doesn't know whats in it/hasn't read it himself. But its his claim.

by Jerome Armstrong 2010-06-22 06:46AM | 0 recs
Jerome, instead of popping off, read current law and the bill......

Just read the damn things.  They're linked to the TPM story I linked.  This bill does not do what you think it does.

by DCCyclone 2010-06-22 08:56AM | 0 recs
RE: Jerome, instead of popping off, read current law and the bill......

You mean the bill doesn't do what Joe Lieberman thinks it does?

by Jerome Armstrong 2010-06-22 12:21PM | 0 recs
Huh?

No one has to read the bill to understand that Jerome is correct--Lieberman said what he said.  It isn't about TPM, it's about Liebermans statement.

And whether we should be so eager to eumulate the government of a totalitarian state. 

This isn't hard to understand.

zak822

 

by zak822 2010-06-22 11:03AM | 0 recs
zak, yes you have to read the bill, and also the CURRENT law!......

The current law, quoted verbatim in the TPM story, makes clear the President already can kill the internet at will right now with little limitation.

The point of the bill is to scale back that power.

I don't give a damn what a news clip says, that doesn't matter.  What matters is the current law and the text of the bill.

by DCCyclone 2010-06-22 12:14PM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads