Executive Order Grants US Gov't New Powers Over Communication Systems 513
An anonymous reader writes "President Obama has issued a new executive order: 'Assignment of National Security and Emergency Preparedness Communications Functions.' EPIC reports: 'The Executive Order grants new powers to the Department of Homeland Security, including the ability to collect certain public communications information. Under the Executive Order the White House has also granted the Department the authority to seize private facilities when necessary, effectively shutting down or limiting civilian communications.' A few key excerpts from the exec order: 'The views of all levels of government, the private and nonprofit sectors, and the public must inform the development of national security and emergency preparedness (NS/EP) [National Security/Emergency Preparedness] communications policies, programs, and capabilities. ... Sec. 5.2. The Secretary of Homeland Security shall: (a) oversee the development, testing, implementation, and sustainment of NS/EP communications, including: communications that support Continuity of Government; Federal, State, local, territorial, and tribal emergency preparedness and response communications; non-military executive branch communications systems; critical infrastructure protection networks; and non-military communications networks, particularly with respect to prioritization and restoration; .... (e) satisfy priority communications requirements through the use of commercial, Government, and privately owned communications resources, when appropriate."
When Egypt or Libya does it, it's bad, of course (Score:5, Insightful)
has also granted the Department the authority to seize private facilities when necessary, effectively shutting down or limiting civilian communications
When the U.S. President does it, it's to make your kids safer.
Not to sound cranky and old... (Score:4, Insightful)
Because I'm not cranky or old, but the forefathers would've absolutely despised a measure such as this. It's more or less a Quartering Act on the communication network, giving them the right to seize for their own purposes in the state of an emergency.
Re:When Egypt or Libya does it, it's bad, of cours (Score:4, Insightful)
has also granted the Department the authority to seize private facilities when necessary, effectively shutting down or limiting civilian communications
When the U.S. President does it, it's to make your kids safer.
So how does "satisfy[ing] priority communications requirements through the use of commercial, Government, and privately owned communications resources, when appropriate." turn into "seizure of private facilities when necessary, effectively shutting down or limiting civilian communications"?
Have you heard of QoS? Do you get that there are ways to achieve the stated goal without seizure of a TV station or undersea cable or the like? And that this is already something implemented in the regional and nationwide EBS? Shit, you go nuts when the government has two departments with the same name (what a waste, fire them all!) but when they try to put something important like EBS under one roof, you have a conspiracy fit? Makes me glad I am not a politician. You know why they don't give a shit about what you think? It's because most of you (especially the vocal ones) are fucking nuts!
Re:Why is this an executive order? (Score:5, Insightful)
Because the summary is bullshit.
This is basically doling out to different departments who has responsibility for the government's communications in emergencies. The Defense Department is responsible for the President and VP's communications while Homeland Security is responsible for other levels of government. There is nothing about new powers in the executive order.
Re:Extremely misleading (Score:2, Insightful)
Read the Exec, Order. This is not about monitoring specific communication, it's about maintaining the integrity of the communication network so that in the event of an emergency communication doesn't go down.
For those of us in NYC, we should remember core telephone, pager, and cellular infrastructure going down back on 9/11...circuit congestion was through the fucking roof, and someone is turning a "must make communications possible" into "BB is watching you."
The spin is disgusting, and the brainless will never actually read the executive order and understand it anyway. Da govment gona take my phone! Dey do this in E-jupt and Ly-bia. Fucking retards, the lot of you.
You forgot to quote the part where they are empowered to seize civilian facilities. I'm guessing that was just an oversight or you didn't want to mention it. Whatever the reason. That sent a chill in the air. Sounds a lot LIKE other countries during THEIR instances of 'maintaining the integrity of the communication network' doesn't it.
Re:you were warned... (Score:5, Insightful)
Are you fucking high? He's just continuing the particular policies of George W. Bush and the general policies of every President since Reagan. The worst part about Obama is that he HASN'T changed anything.
In b4... (Score:5, Insightful)
...what? A conspiracy theory as the first comment? Well damn.
I always love coming in to these threads and seeing the internet tough-guy Libertarian/Survivalist bravado and lack of reading comprehension.
This order mostly pertains to emergency management and is directing the DHS to consolidate disaster communications and to appropriate civilian and commercial assets when necessary. You know, like during an emergency.
Which they already have the power to do.
Which isn't a conspiracy, because this is exactly the sort of thing that government does when force majeure is at work.
But hey, don't let me rain on your parade. The frothing at the mouth end-is-nigh rants are precious, as are the "Don't Tread On Me" breathless defenses of your individual liberties, which only seem to be important when Democrats are in office.
Re:When Egypt or Libya does it, it's bad, of cours (Score:4, Insightful)
As if Mitt Romney or any other Republican in government wouldn't do the same fucking thing...
Where did the Patriot Act come from again?
Re:When Egypt or Libya does it, it's bad, of cours (Score:5, Insightful)
False dichotomy is false. Stop playing this like it is my team vs their team. There is one team there. You don't get a say, you don't get to play.
every government will always do it (Score:4, Insightful)
the question is WHEN and WHY do they do it. and the job for you is to base your opinion on those whens and whys, not base on your opinion on the fact that they can do this
for example, china will do it just to crush political dissent. invalid
the usa will do it to crush kiddie porn. valid. the usa might also do it to crush piracy. invalid. so THAT'S where oyu want to focus your criticism
but right now, your opinion just makes you look naive and ridiculous, you are not commenting intelligently on the issue. the basis for your opinion, a common invalid opinion, unfortunately, is that just because the government has this power, something is wrong. except that the government, any government, will always have this power. so that is why your opinion is invalid
you need to focus less on the fact that the police man has a gun at his side, and focus more on the procedures of his police department that say when it is valid for that police man to pick up his gun and shoot you
what you don't get, and never will get, is a police force who don't have guns
(this is not the time to point out the police forces in the world that don't actually carry guns. it's just an analogy, you don't dispel the usefulness of an analogy by being overly literal about it)
Re:When Egypt or Libya does it, it's bad, of cours (Score:5, Insightful)
Geez...and people were seriously worried about Bush Jr. trying to 'go imperial', grab power and stay president past his term.
Even he didn't go for a power grab THIS broad.
Seriously...the govt can take over private sector machines? What constitutes an emergency to trigger this takeover....emp? China cyber attack? Bad election returns?
Re:When Egypt or Libya does it, it's bad, of cours (Score:5, Insightful)
Where did the Patriot Act come from again?
John Kerry wrote a significant amount of the Partriot Act, perhaps the majority of it. Things have changed over the past 30 years. In the 70s and into the 80s, the Republicans were the party that wanted government to tell you how to live your life, but these days it seems to be the democrats telling me what light bulb or shower head I can buy, trying to ban violent video games, outlawing toys in happy meals, and in general trying to force me to live a virtuous and sinless life.
I don't care which party is the bigger asshole this generation: take away all the power and budget we can from the federal government, and it won't matter nearly so much.
Re:Free Speech (Score:5, Insightful)
They're right. You can only push people so far before they lash out, and people who are already screaming about how the government is oppressing them are far more likely to be the first ones to cross that threshold. This is just common sense.
Ultimately, the only difference between a patriot/freedom fighter and a terrorist, ultimately, is which side won. Taken to extremes, those who would fight to defend their rights are more likely than nearly any other domestic group (other than complete lunatics) to commit acts of violence against their government. If that government still exists at the end of the day, those acts would be considered terrorist acts. The more stable people in those groups are a long way away from that point and will keep finding ways around the DHS's bullshit; because the government is more of a nuisance than a serious problem for them, they will allow themselves to be pushed for decades more before they snap and start blowing up federal buildings. The least stable people in those groups already did it seventeen years ago in Oklahoma City. The remaining people who value freedom lie in a continuum between those extremes.
The thing is, by repeatedly taking actions to erode our civil liberties, the DHS are largely responsible for fomenting that domestic terrorism, should it ever occur. They are driving people ever closer to the point where they feel that they have nothing to lose. Thus, the best thing we can do to prevent domestic terrorism is to cut off Homeland Security's balls, metaphorically speaking—in particular, dismantling groups like the TSA that provide material aid to terrorism by sowing the seeds of tyranny and eroding the roots of our democracy.
More to the point, we need to do it now, before domestic terrorism starts to become a serious problem. Once it does, it is too late. The reaction to a sufficient amount of domestic terrorism will cause everyone to become extremely scared, which will lead to more and more draconian laws that erode liberty and push more and more "freedom fighters" over the edge, leading to a rapidly decaying avalanche of tyranny, until one day we look outside and realize that the U.S. has become a third-world country run by militant warlords.
You cannot prevent terrorism by restricting the public. Doing so can only lead to eventual societal collapse. There is exactly one way to prevent terrorism, and that is to deny it battle—provide care for the poor and homeless, provide medical care for all (and in particular, mental health care), provide safety nets to ensure that no one ever gets into a situation where they feel that they have nothing to lose, and absolutely and completely refuse to allow such horrible acts to change the way we live our lives. Indeed, this can prevent or dramatically reduce the incidence of nearly all forms of crime, not just terrorism.
And this is why the Republicans must not be allowed to succeed in their goals. The Democrats may not always be on the right side of some issues, but nearly every plank of the Republicans' current campaign platform is detrimental to the stability of society—dismantling health care reform, scaling back Social Security and Medicare, scaling back Medicaid and food stamps, and increasing the budget for law enforcement and incarceration, etc. We desperately need a better choice than either party, but given what we have, the future safety and stability of this nation hinges upon ensuring that the Republicans' power is drastically curtailed, and soon. Otherwise, in just a few decades, we will live in a police state.
Re:When Egypt or Libya does it, it's bad, of cours (Score:1, Insightful)
as bad as O is, it would be worse with republicans in charge.
I truly do believe that.
both parties are evil incarnate but one is a little (just a little) less evil than the other and in vastly different ways.
I personally think we have MORE religion than we need in this country. repubs think just the opposite.
on that, alone, I will never ever vote R. those scumbags would do whatever they can to make this an american taliban country.
no matter what the D's do, they are not hell bent (heh) on turning us into a 'christian nation'. again, that, alone, is enough to keep me from supporting any R. and once you get people who think they have a god connection giving them permission to fuck you, OH BOY will they fuck you (and I'm not just talking about catholics and little boys...)
Re:When Egypt or Libya does it, it's bad, of cours (Score:5, Insightful)
"as bad as O is, it would be worse with republicans in charge. I truly do believe that."
I don't doubt you do believe that. The problem is it's 'O' that's done it... not a "republican". There's been more shenanigans from the "D"s (because they had total control for two years) with regards to both executive and legislative maneuvering than I can recall ever.
Is it because the Dems are bad? No. It's because they had total and supra majority control.
My vote for president as a rule of thumb is for the candidate who is of the OPPOSITE party of whoever controls congress. Some of our best and most productive years as a nation have been when the two branches are in opposite party control.
Re:When Egypt or Libya does it, it's bad, of cours (Score:5, Insightful)
You are arguing now that mccain and sarah palin would have run the USA better. That is what you are arguing, just so we are clear.
Re:When Egypt or Libya does it, it's bad, of cours (Score:2, Insightful)
as bad as O is, it would be worse with republicans in charge.
I truly do believe that.
Then I truly believe you are narrow minded.
I truly believe that any president, R or D would do this. You're forgetting that in the public light they bash each other and act like enemies but behind closed doors they all work together to fill each others bank accounts.
I still laugh at the so called occupier idiots that protest the rich CEO's (well unless it's Steve Jobs/Apple) and banks. They should really be marching in Washington.
Re:When Egypt or Libya does it, it's bad, of cours (Score:3, Insightful)
No let's instead pretend that since it has happened before, we should downplay its current significance by citing the past.
Re:When Egypt or Libya does it, it's bad, of cours (Score:4, Insightful)
Congress. Signed by a President. Not yet overruled by the SCOTUS
THIS is different. It is an Executive Order. Do you really not know the difference? Or are you so blinded by (D) good (R) bad ideology that you will simply make any excuse for this?
The Patriot Act was bad, but both parties voted pretty much lockstep with each other to do it. Blame the (D) and the (R) for that one. (313 yea in the house 98 yea in the senate). So quit blaming GWB for that, it was practically EVERYONE ;)
Can you see the difference now?
Re:When Egypt or Libya does it, it's bad, of cours (Score:4, Insightful)
Pretty sure he's not a liberal...
Re:When Egypt or Libya does it, it's bad, of cours (Score:5, Insightful)
take away all the power and budget we can from the federal government, and it won't matter nearly so much.
If I only had mod points.
The problem isn't with which party is in charge, it's with how much whoever is in charge can do. I'm not calling for anarchy, but an awful lot of our problems stem from too much centralized control, not too little.
For those of you cheering the health care act's penalty, just think what you would say if the other side had exercised such power. For all of these executive orders, what if it were the other side? Just a hypothetical for you: now that Obama has successfully issued an executive order to DHS to not process certain illegal aliens, and that executive order has been defended by a large number of partisans, will those same partisans defend a Romney executive order that directs the IRS to simply not collect any penalties levied by the ACA? How about a Republican "tax" on abortion procedures? Would you be ok with that since you recognize the Supreme Court's decision to uphold the individual mandate as a tax under the taxing power of Congress? Would those pundits who cheered the decision still feel the same when its precedent is used on a subject contrary to their ideology? What about an individual mandate to purchase a gun or pay a penalty if you don't? After all, crime costs us just as much as those free riders at the emergency room. If you're worried about guns being used irresponsibly, we'll just create a mandate for all employers to provide safe gun ownership training and one hour a month at the shooting range. Feeling better about those ACA precedents yet?
Regardless of sides, the last 8 years have seen an unprecedented consolidation of power that can and will be abused by either side. The only fix is to get involved in your local politics and start getting people into office who will vote to cut back federal (and state) powers. The more demand there is for that kind of politician, the more of that kind of politician we will see. If you disagree with the Tea Party (who is for smaller government, but maybe not the parts you would like to see shrink), then get out and start your own movement (no, Occupy doesn't count - it's a failure as a political movement). No matter what, the future of America rests in its ability to walk back these power grabs and reestablish a constrained government with narrowly defined powers.
Re:When Egypt or Libya does it, it's bad, of cours (Score:4, Insightful)
Meh. Every President at least as far back as JFK has issued Executive Orders like this, giving the President broad powers to seize all sorts of stuff should there ever be a "national emergency."
Eh, "every president at least as far back as JFK" was a president after the two great advances of hyperfederalism, i.e. reconstruction and the new deal. Nobody's pretending it's a new trend, but it's damn infuriating when every damn president, despite claiming to support either "small government" or "social liberties", marches right in line with his predecessor, pushing federal power an inch further. Obama is perhaps the most frustrating to today's youth, since he ran one of the more populist, throw-the-bums-out, real-change campaigns in recent memory. And of course, since it happened today, not 4 years ago.
It's unclear whether they are Constitutional or whether anyone would follow orders to enforce them.
The former may be unclear, but the latter is completely clear.
There's certainly little constitutional need for them, as anything the executive has the power to authorize in advance, he has the power to authorize when needed. And while one might think that, by declaring his presumed powers beforehand, the President opens them to scrutiny that could result in them being declared unconstitutional and illegal (thus, that unchallenged E.O.s would be confirmed within the President's lawful power), this is just not the case -- until some act is taken pursuant to them which harms some state or citizen, nobody has standing to file suit, thus the courts cannot rule on it.
Regarding obedience, see Milgram's famous experiment on the subject [wikipedia.org]; orders pursuant to these E.O.s will be obeyed by federal agents, exactly as any other orders (or the same orders, in the absence of the E.O.) would be, and nobody at your local ISP will stop the men in body armor and guns when they come through the door. (Note that obedience depends principally on the authority's immediacy, which is a huge part of why we have such long chains of command and so many layers of bureaucracy -- so each person is receiving an order from an immediate authority, not a voice from Washington. They will obey.)
Re:When Egypt or Libya does it, it's bad, of cours (Score:5, Insightful)
As a Dem, I can say we _know_ Obama sucks and we aren't expecting any difference after the election.
We vote for him because Romney means we'd lose everything; the middle class would cease to exist and businesses would take over every aspect of our lives. So Obama is the lesser of two evils.
It's not the definition of insanity, as you put it, it's picking how you want to get screwed the least. I hate that Obama is doing all this Bush-esque stuff, but I know Romney would do it much worse.
Re:When Egypt or Libya does it, it's bad, of cours (Score:5, Insightful)
I truly believe that any president, R or D would do this. You're forgetting that in the public light they bash each other and act like enemies but behind closed doors they all work together to fill each others bank accounts.
Indeed; a cursory glance at who is financing Obama [opensecrets.org] and Romney's [opensecrets.org] campaigns shows who really runs this country: Namely, Goldman motherfucking Sachs and J.P. Morgan.
More amazing is how this information is publicly available, yet the masses still trend towards eschewing reality in favor of the nonsense-topic-of-the-day.
I still laugh at the so called occupier idiots that protest the rich CEO's (well unless it's Steve Jobs/Apple) and banks. They should really be marching in Washington.
Again, considering that Wall Street banks are the de facto, shadow rulers of America, their protest was targeted at the right group, albeit by a highly misguided group of college dropouts with too much free time.
If you want to kill a serpent, cut off the head.
Re:When Egypt or Libya does it, it's bad, of cours (Score:5, Insightful)
We vote for him because Romney means we'd lose everything; the middle class would cease to exist and businesses would take over every aspect of our lives. So Obama is the lesser of two evils.
Or.. put another way ... I think Obama will help to strengthen the middle class (i.e. restore the wealth of the middle 30% or so of the populace) and thus give us the means to power to reclaim the rest.
Step by step.
Cpt. Obvious... (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't particularly care if the guy in the oval office today is the most benevolant, magnanimous and righteous person to have ever graced this Earth (and I dont believe that for a second). Its his duty to understand that the office may not always be occupied by such an angelic human being, and granting that future President the ability to have dominion over the populace is grossly irresponsible at best, and in conflict with the oath he took to protect and defend the Constitution.
Re:When Egypt or Libya does it, it's bad, of cours (Score:4, Insightful)
Very true point. Clinton's Presidency was vastly improved by Newt.
Re:When Egypt or Libya does it, it's bad, of cours (Score:4, Insightful)
In interviews, Jesse Ventura compares politics, specifically Republicans vs Democrats, as a lot like his former pro wrestling days. On stage they pretend to hate each other and they fight, but it's all choreographed for maximum entertainment (or, for politics, to make people think they have a say) and at the end of the night, they change back into their civilian clothes and go out drinking together.
In the US, I'm coming to think that speech is "free speech" because it has no value, and that countries that squash speech do so because it's still powerful. After all, if voting could change anything, it'd be illegal.
Re:When Egypt or Libya does it, it's bad, of cours (Score:4, Insightful)
And exactly what has he done so far to promote the middle class? Hmm....I see he's wanting to cut the Bush tax cuts for those over $250K....but that isn't going to boost the middle class (in fact, if said couple is running a small business, and it is set up to have business income, etc fall through on personal taxes...it will likely hit them worse).
So far, I've not seen numbers that show Obamacare will help the middle class any...if anything in a few years it might hit them again.
I hear Obama extolling the virtues of raising the middle class...but I see very little action and no specific ideas being put forth. Please enlighten me on all the things he has done and has specifically laid out that will raise the middle class.
These days...I keep thinking he confuses the middle class with the poverty/welfare class....
Re:When Egypt or Libya does it, it's bad, of cours (Score:4, Insightful)
We vote for him because Romney means we'd lose everything; the middle class would cease to exist and businesses would take over every aspect of our lives. So Obama is the lesser of two evils.
Or.. put another way ... I think Obama will help to strengthen the middle class (i.e. restore the wealth of the middle 30% or so of the populace) and thus give us the means to power to reclaim the rest.
Step by step.
Would you like to put forth a scrap of proof of this assertion or are we to merely accept it as fact? Given he's done exactly nothing to help the middle class and lots to do drastic harm to them, your position is extremely weak.
To wit: Deficits and debt on a scale the world has never seen with no end in sight, exploding entitlement programs with never ending commitments and nothing but a desire to further expand them. Exactly how does that help the "middle class"? Who do you think is going to be paying for this or are you just assuming that we'll just soak the rich for all of it?
Hope and Change my ass.