This is what Republicans sound like to me this week:
“OK, what happened was, I was raping in the living room…but I _wasn’t_really_raping_, OK? Because I remember how you said I wasn’t as’posed to rape in the living room anymore, right? So, when I was PLAYING in the living room, I was just moving my penis back-and-forth real fast in the air, and she was passed out at the exact same spot! It wasn’t my fault! Can’t she be fined for not labeling a dangerous gap?”
Hillary, quit playing Kissinger.
“That’s a script that they roll out every time there’s a leak of any sort,” he said.
It is not leaks, but “silences and lies” that put people’s lives in danger, he believes.
And he’s right. Wikileaks is the samizdat of the present 21st century world.
Jeff Jarvis gets it while everyone else plays the role they were handed while walking on set:
The same kind of attacks on publishing that the U.S. (even unto Hillary Clinton) has repeatedly condemned China, Russia (and the former U.S.S.R.), and many others for launching. The behavior of many Wikileaks detractors and defamers defines hypocrisy.
Do we stand against tyranny, or WHAT?
This is what happens when you trust your clever bullshit to the Libyan government. All you internet geniuses should have known better and seen this coming. Your whole “let’s one up tinyurl.com for no fucking good reason” cuteness has been under Sharia Law since you started.
Anyone else starting to see a parallel between “Newspeak” and “140 characters max”? It appears that Twitter, as the major force in making bit.ly what it is today, might actually be, in a word, EVIL. Or at least an adversary of real communication, the most positive evidence of humanity’s continued cognition and cogitation.
Score one for totalitarianism, with a major assist from the internet. Not exactly the “route around the problem” profile we were all sold on, is it?
Obama. Seriously. Is this how a so-called Constitutional Scholar runs shop?
From Glenn Greenwald:
But whatever anyone thinks of those issues, it should offend every American that the Government purports to have the power to ban lawyers from representing citizens without its permission, which (as it’s doing here) it can withhold without explanation and in its sole discretion. Does any American want the Government to have that power with respect to citizens: to bar lawyers, under the threat of criminal prosecution, from representing you if the Government calls you a Terrorist? That’s the power the Obama administration is asserting and, in this case, actively wielding. A court will now decide if it has the legal authority to do that, and if not, the next step will be a lawsuit brought on behalf of Awlaki contesting Obama’s right to order American citizens killed without criminal charges or due process. The Democratic Party should be very proud of itself.
Wait, let me guess. You skipped that whole “due process” part?
