BAD CITIZENSHIP MAY BE A CRIME
By RANDELL A. MONACO, Esq.
December 8, 2010
Does restricting access to the Internet infringe upon freedoms of speech? Certainly not in the eyes of United States Senator Joe Lieberman, chair of the Homeland Security Committee, who has now taken credit for getting Amazon.com to kick Wikileaks off its servers. Amazon continues to deny that their decision had anything to do with Lieberman despite that he has warned other tech firms not to host the site either.
Joe Lieberman suggested on Fox News today that the four media outlets that have publicized the Wikileaks cables should be investigated. "To me, the New York Times has committed at least an act of bad citizenship," Lieberman said. "Whether they've committed a crime, I think that bears very intensive inquiry by the Justice Department.”
Has access to the internet become a basic human right? Certainly not in the United States where access seemingly belongs to PayPal, eBay and Amazon to plunder the nickels and pennies that still trickle down to the shrinking middle class. Does anyone think that Lieberman might now be indebted to these companies for their cooperation?
Does restricting access to the Internet infringe upon our fundamental constitutional rights to freedoms of speech and press? The legal analysis of this question requires a “strict scrutiny” test which simply stated requires a judicial determination of whether there is any other possible less restrictive way to avoid the harm threatened. Off the top of my head, it seems obvious that competent security of State Department Cables would be a much less restrictive manner presuming that diplomatic inconvenience is actually a threatened “harm” which outweighs the rights guaranteed Americans. This analysis seems to close the circle bringing us back to the issue of competence.
Apparently Joe Lieberman a former state attorney general, has little regard for our freedom of the press stating to Fox News that, “I think that bears a very intensive inquiry by the Justice Department” referring to whether the New York Times had committed a crime by publishing the diplomatic cables. How is the “publishing” by Wikileaks or the republishing by the New York Times different? The fact is that neither of them stole or conspired to steal the diplomatic cables that were downloaded by U.S. Army PFC Bradley Manning while serving abroad who then brought them home to Boston and, while on leave, sent them off to WikiLeaks.
Despite the absence of discussion, you might be interested to know that PFC Manning has not been formally charged, but is in custody. This raises the issue of why? If there is a genuine threat of “harm” and not mere diplomatic embarrassment or inconvenience then why hasn’t he been charged with treason? My guess is that the facts may still be cooking and that PFC Manning might be needed to testify should the Justice Department come up with a recipe to charge Julian Assange.
Julian Assange, I believe has, the same fundamental right that supposedly we each have which is to publish statements others make if they are true and accurate. He has a right to speak and the question that factually continues to elude discussion is, how does an Australian citizen publishing diplomatic cables from a foreign country commit an act of treason or some other crime? Without a discussion of jurisdiction, a “crime” of any sort requires the unity of a mental state and, as in this case, an act, presumably publishing.
I personally find these suggestions coming from a U.S. Senator UN-AMERICAN! After all these are the fundamental freedoms that our ancestors left their homes, fought and shed their blood to win for us. America, it appears Joe Lieberman and other senior government officials have deemed inconvenience, embarrassment and concealing truth more important.
Again, to my way of thinking, there is something seriously wrong when in this “digital age of enlightenment” one person like Joe Lieberman can cut our people off from global consciousness? The term for this, had Lieberman properly sought a Judicial Order to enlist the cooperation of PayPal, Amazon and eBay, is prior restraint. Knowingly, Joe Lieberman has violated the rights of every American with his admitted end run on our judicial processes by either, intimidating, bullying or bartering with PayPal, Amazon and eBay and intimidating other American tech companies not to host WikiLeaks.
In the end these unjust restrictive efforts and attempts to censor internet content, I expect, will strengthen the resolve of those who seek to and have a voice and disobey Joe Lieberman?
Last week, The New York Times and four other news organizations began carrying articles based on an archive of a quarter-million confidential State Department cables obtained by WikiLeaks making them available to their readers. Does America think that is a crime? I’m betting no!
In this holiday season, I urge American’s to show eBay, PayPal and Amazon that there is no place for their services here in the United States.
