Guess Who Wants to Kill the Internet?

It would be hard to think of anyone who has done more to undermine American freedoms than Joseph Lieberman.

Since 9/11, the Independent senator from Connecticut has introduced a raft of legislation in the name of the “global war on terror” which has steadily eroded constitutional rights. If the United States looks increasingly like a police state, Senator Lieberman has to take much of the credit for it.

On October 11, 2001, exactly one month after 9/11, Lieberman introduced S. 1534, a bill to establish a Department of Homeland Security. Since then, he has been the main mover behind such draconian legislation as the Protect America Act of 2007, the Enemy Belligerent, Interrogation, Detention, and Prosecution Act of 2010, and the proposed Terrorist Expatriation Act, which would revoke the citizenship of Americans suspected of terrorism. And now the senator from Connecticut wants to kill the Internet.

According to the bill he recently proposed in the Senate, the entire global internet is to be claimed as a “national asset” of the United States. If Congress passes the bill, the US President would be given the power to “kill” the internet in the event of a “national cyber-emergency.” Supporters of the legislation say this is necessary to prevent a “cyber 9/11” – yet another myth from the fearmongers who brought us tales of “Iraqi WMD” and “Iranian nukes.”

Lieberman’s concerns about the internet are not new. The United States Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, which Lieberman chairs, released a report in 2008 titled “Violent Islamist Extremism, The Internet, and the Homegrown Terrorist Threat.” The report claimed that groups like al-Qaeda use the internet to indoctrinate and recruit members, and to communicate with each other.

Immediately after the report was published, Lieberman asked Google, the parent company of You Tube, to “immediately remove content produced by Islamist terrorist organizations.” That might sound like a reasonable request. However, as far as Lieberman is concerned, Hamas, Hezbollah and even the Iranian Revolutionary Guard are terrorist organizations.

It’s hardly surprising that Lieberman’s views on what constitute terrorism parallel those of Tel Aviv. As Mark Vogel, chairman of the largest pro-Israel Political Action Committee (PAC) in the United States, once said: “Joe Lieberman, without exception, no conditions … is the No. 1 pro-Israel advocate and leader in Congress. There is nobody who does more on behalf of Israel than Joe Lieberman.”

Lieberman has been well-rewarded for his patriotism – to another country. In the past six years, he has been the Senate’s top recipient of political contributions from pro-Israel PACs with a staggering $1,226,956.

But what is it that bothers Lieberman so much about the internet? Could it be that it allows ordinary Americans access to facts which reveal exactly what kind of “friend” Israel has been to its overgenerous benefactor? Facts which they have been denied by the pro-Israel mainstream media.

How much faith would American voters have in the likes of Lieberman, who claims that the Jewish state is their greatest ally, if they knew that Israeli agents planted firebombs in American installations in Egypt in 1954 in an attempt to undermine relations between Nasser and the United States; that Israel murdered 34 American servicemen in a deliberate attack on the USS Liberty on June 8, 1967; that Israeli espionage, most notably Jonathan Pollard’s spying, has done tremendous damage to American interests; that five Mossad agents were filming and celebrating as the Twin Towers collapsed on September 11, 2001; that Tel Aviv and its accomplices in Washington were the source of the false pre-war intelligence on Iraq; and about countless other examples of treachery?

In his latest attempt to censor the internet, does Lieberman really want to protect the American people from imaginary cyber-terrorists? Or is he just trying to protect his treasonous cronies from the American people?

Maidhc Ó Cathail writes extensively on U.S. foreign policy and the Middle East. Read other articles by Maidhc, or visit Maidhc's website.

6 comments on this article so far ...

Comments RSS feed

  1. Don Hawkins said on June 30th, 2010 at 9:42am #

    Lieberman a 100% blubber mouth. Very sure his soul is for sale to the highest bidder among others. One voice loud and clear as the climate bill no longer the climate bill is a joke on the human race and dear old Lieberman will be using that blubber mouth very soon. Remember we tell them they don’t tell us. Calm at peace use the Force for knowledge and defense, never for attack. Oh my thoughts on Lieberman among others knowledge and defense.

  2. MichaelKenny said on June 30th, 2010 at 10:52am #

    Nothing could annoy the rest of the world more than something like this. Other countries are already angry at the extent to which the US controls the internet and its refusal to share that control via an international organisation. If the Israel Lobby want to shoot itself in the foot (yet again!), then more power to their elbows! The Lobby is obviously in total panic! That is still more good news for the Palestinians.

  3. bozh said on June 30th, 2010 at 2:34pm #

    With recent approval of US system of governance and structure of society by 98% of americans, the master class doesn’t have to fret ab internet.
    And from the sites i visited, 90% of posters are asocialistic; i.e., for inequality, US wars [if are winable and affordable]
    On DV, the ruling class sends also demonizers of a few posters who dare tell the truth; while editors let them do that.

    Other sites ‘moderate’ comments. Moderated=not publicized. The demonization has only one purpose and very useful to master class: drive the commenter out.
    Etiquete barring even insults let alone demonization is there, but editors do not delete the demonizations! tnx

  4. BartFargo said on June 30th, 2010 at 8:22pm #

    @bozh: If site admins want to ban certain posters for flaming, that’s their right, but you don’t get a free pass from being criticized (or “demonized” as you put it) just because you’re convinced you’re the only one “who dares tell the truth”. Amazing how you plead for free speech on the web in one breath and then immediately contradict yourself by disallowing “demonization” which you find upsetting. If you’re so offended by what strangers say about you over the internet, I advise you to log off completely until you grow a thicker skin.

  5. bozh said on July 1st, 2010 at 7:33am #

    There are several fantacies: fantacy island, american dream [with a bit of american nightmare], ‘jewish’ dream or ‘jewish’ fantacy, and fantacy basement.
    The fantacy basement is by far more realistic and pleasing.

    But fantacy america may come to pass. Jewish fantacy to take over all banks on behalf of US fantacy or dream, also may come about.
    I know, i know, there is actually no money in the banks; so, why am i talking ab ‘jweish’ dream?
    Well, i am hoping james petras, max shields, or deadbeat wld explain the riddle of an empty building full of ‘jews’.

    So what if american fantacy fails? Well, one enjoys it while it lasts! And the prize is just too priceless not to dream ab having it.
    And it costs the dreamers not a penny. And all their duaghters and sons safe in the fantacy basement or on fantacy island.
    And only ‘lowlife’ paying for all of their wars: bodily and monily!

    Now u know why the A ilk of people of america cannot ever give their centennial dream.
    But u know that i wld love to be an A ilk of {even tho an old and toothless now} man and that’s why y’am complaining and not because of any desirable dictum or teaching.
    If they wld just fix my teeth, i wld love to become a spokeghost for US fantacy. I understand Nietzsche, the german Sorb {serb} was s’mwhat duplicitous.tnx

  6. Markgm said on July 1st, 2010 at 9:46pm #

    As a systems engineer, I do get bothered when I see the lay-hype over computers not being secure against the evil hackers of the world. I think it gets rediculous. In fact, there are modern encryption schemes and security protocols that prevent well implemented systems from being hacked. But I watched on the Katie Couric news a few weeks ago where their “expert” said that no computer in the world was safe.

    The US federal govt is not safe. Swiss banks are not safe. A professor from princton with a bowtie can say that no computer is ultimately secure, which is a philosophical statement, but to also omit the corresponding reality – that no thing on earth is absolutely safe, which cuold also be said when applying the same philosophy. They don’t tell the layperson that. They only use scare tactics.

    Th best hackers in the world are in Intel, period. The US govt wants Intel, or perhaps Intel prods the govt, to give them access to key points within the overall infrastructure, such as within the ISPs, and at their doors, and in places where they may make well-secured systems vulnerable to attacks by them – by the Intel community itself. Call it NSA, CIA or Mossad or MI6, whatever you like, but these are the biggest threats to the security of enterprise systems.

    Just my two cents – Mark