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.
Re:When Egypt or Libya does it, it's bad, of cours (Score:5, Interesting)
Who needs "checks and balances"...
Re: (Score:2)
Well, I could sure use a few more checks...
Re: (Score:3)
won'd do you much good if you don't have a positive balance in your account...
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, Informative)
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." It's unclear whether they are Constitutional or whether anyone would follow orders to enforce them.
I'm not thrilled with Obama doing it, but let's not pretend this is some novel, new thing that previous Presidents wouldn't have dared.
Re: (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)
Pretty sure he's not a liberal...
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:4, Informative)
Yeah, especially since the summary turned out to be a lot of baseless hysteria, and the EO is actually about protecting our communications systems in the event of an emergency--not the government "seizing" them.
Re: (Score:3)
From the EO:
Re: (Score:3)
There in lies the problem. While one would like to believe that the military is always at the top of their game when it comes to disseminating illegal orders, in the case of a major event, would they still have the wherewithal to adequately consider the ramifications of their actions? Remember, authoritarians always seek to expand their power base during moments of conflict, and once achieved, they rarely give it up.
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:4, Interesting)
I have to agree. I am pretty solidly Conservative/Libertarian, but I have to admit that Clinton was a pretty good President.
In hindsight, Hillary would have been better than Obama.
Also in hindsight EVERY SINGLE WORD of Obama's stellar speech at the Democratic National Convention in 2004 has turned out to be a LIE.
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: (Score:3)
That being equal....while I can't stand what McCain became on that run (I did like him somewhat against Bush)...no, I cannot see him doing any worse, and likely we'd not be in the messes and have the power grabs we're currently seeing from the current administration.
McCain circa 2001, who was against invading Iraq, against the P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act, against torture, etc... yea, that guy I would have been honored to vote for.
That was not the McCain who ran for President.
2x levels of bad really....I don't like either one of them, but at this point, Obama is a PROVEN bad, where McCain presidency is only a hypothetical level of bad. With those two....yeah, I'd take McCain.
Ahh, the fallacy of buyers' remorse: What I got isn't what I expected, so what I didn't get must have been the better choice!
6 words to fix that flawed method:
"Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran..."
I believe they call that being "hoisted by his own petard;" He scuttled his own campaign the moment he decide
Re: (Score:3)
You'd think people would have longer memories.
Re:When Egypt or Libya does it, it's bad, of cours (Score:5, Informative)
I dunno. I mean, we're seeing time, and time again how Obama is pushing for more Federal (and presidential) power concentration, and erosion of citizens'/states' rights and privacy.
He swapped his vote/position on the Telecommunications act awhile back...has shown nothing but support for Patriot act renewals, and now this.
Again, it bear saying: The definition of "Insanity" is doing the same thing over and over and over again...and expecting a different outcome.
I'm not a huge Romney fan....but while he is pretty much an unknown when it comes to these issues....we downright positively know how Obama and his administration treats and supports these issues.
I don't really see them repealing or even easing up on these types of issues and legislation on a 2nd term unrestricted by the need for re-election...do you?
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)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
How would Obama help to strengthen the middle class? And why? A strong middle class erodes any political group's power base, but the Democrats have set themselves up to be particularly susceptible. Growing entitlements effectively taxes and inflates the middle class into extinction. Furthermore, there is no logical path to get from "all-powerful central government" to "people who are empowered." How can an agenda that dissolves individual sovereignty bring power back to the people? It's a fallacy.
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: (Score:3)
These days...I keep thinking he confuses the middle class with the poverty/welfare class....
Well, I can understand his confusion. They are becoming increasingly difficult to tell apart.
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
This is why I tell my friends I think the Democrats and Republicans are working together. The goal is for the Republicans to look so outrageous and scary that Obama can do outrageous and scary things and still look like the better option. McCain and Palin played their role well, making Obama look like a hero while he signed off on everything the rich and powerful wanted. Now Romney is playing his role well, and Obama continues to sign off on everything the rich and powerful want.
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: (Score:3)
as bad as O is, it would be worse with republicans in charge. I truly do believe that.
That is quite a strong belief system you have with no solid proof to back it up.
I personally think we have MORE religion than we need in this country.
Hmmmm.....
Re:When Egypt or Libya does it, it's bad, of cours (Score:5, Informative)
as bad as O is, it would be worse with republicans in charge. I truly do believe that.
That is quite a strong belief system you have with no solid proof to back it up.
I personally think we have MORE religion than we need in this country.
Hmmmm.....
I don't know. 8 Years of GW Bush was proof enough for me.
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.
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, Informative)
You believe they are actually on different teams?
Have you seen "The Obama Deception" on youtube? I was going to type a long ass rant, but will save the trouble. Just watch that movie please.
Read this wonderful 2 thousand year old story [ship.edu]. Then ask yourself why a majority of American's know more about Celebrities and Sports than they do about Politics. It is not a new story mind you, through history we have seen the same thing repeated over and over. It never ends well for the majority that get shammed by people in power.
There are so many indicators that we are in deep shit, yet very few will talk about them. These types of executive orders dismantling the constitution are not new, but recently they have been quite drastic. Corporate controlled media will not talk about them. I watch and listen to the "News", but can assure you that there is very little "News" to be found.
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:4, Funny)
Politicians need checks from lobbyists to increase their balances.
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.
Re: (Score:3)
Effectively through an extension of drug law powers previously made constitutional by the massive expansion of government power granted the to government during FDR's threatening of the Court during his New Deal.
Re: (Score:3)
Effectively through an extension of drug law powers previously made constitutional by the massive expansion of government power granted the to government during FDR's threatening of the Court during his New Deal.
Uhm, what now? The only significant piece of drug policy I could find that came out of the FDR administration, The Marijuana Tax Act, was actually ruled UNconstitutional, despite being an exercise in taxing authority rather than drug law per se. [wikipedia.org]
The Controlled Substances Act of 1970 [wikipedia.org], the existing carte blanche for drug prohibition currently wielded by the federal government, was signed into law by President Nixon.
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: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: (Score:3)
Eberyone would eliminate evrything but the program they like, naturally, which is why we get nowhere. We can't cut the "service the debt" portion of the budget. If we cut everything else by half, we'd barely have a balanced budget. It pretty much has to be everything, or eventual collapse. Yes, even that one program you really like.
Re: (Score:3)
Kerry wrote NONE of the PATRIOT act.
Funny, he claimed that he wrote several sections on his 2004 election campaign website, and was proud of that fact: no "soft on terrorism" candidate, no siree.
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)
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:When Egypt or Libya does it, it's bad, of cours (Score:4, Interesting)
I see your niave good intentions, and raise you a commerce clause.
As if there would be any doubt whatsoever about this being abused! Hah!
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: (Score:3)
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.
I just re-read section 5.2 (which deals with DHS) for the *third* time. I don't see that anywhere in the order. This is astroturfing, and not a very good example of it either.
Geez! The US government is already doing enough stupid/illegal/unethical things already. No need to fake up any more. Unless, of course, the goal is to discredit the Obama administration in advance of the election. I mean, it's one thing to say the the gov't is spying on *everyone*, killing civilians, wiping their asses with the
Re: (Score:3)
So, is your suggestion to make the government less like Libya by letting it do whatever it damn well pleases, answering to no law or democracy?
Re:When Egypt or Libya does it, it's bad, of cours (Score:5, Informative)
Executive Order != legislation. The President cannot enact legislation. All an order can do is give certain organizations power that the President already holds. If he doesn't hold them already, he cannot designate them to another body, which means TFA is probably wildly exaggerating what the order actually means.
Re:When Egypt or Libya does it, it's bad, of cours (Score:5, Informative)
Maybe you should refresh yourself on executive orders [wikipedia.org] - they are by definition law, and therefore are legislation without representation. They bypass congress. They have essentially unlimited power. They can only be overturned by the court system and the courts don't have to be informed about them if they are classified as national security. The only people that have to be informed about executive order in this case is the national security council. Oh, and yes, it is a given right to the President in the Constitution.
Re: (Score:3)
This is mostly incorrect. Executive orders only allow the executive to exercise powers conferred upon it by some other source, such as directly by the constitution (such as in some situations involving national defense and commanding the military) or by laws passed by the legislature. Typically they allow the president to order federal agencies (which are [generally] part of the executive branch) to alter the manner in which they carry out the laws congress has asked them to execute. Congress may give the e
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:Not to sound cranky and old... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Not to sound cranky and old... (Score:4, Informative)
And most everyone was against that. In fact, the next several Presidents were on the side of the political fence opposite John Adams. The people and most founders were like "WTF?!"
But you are correct that Hamilton and John Adams would be perfectly fine with the use of these Executive Orders (which only seemed to really be abused since Nixon)
Extremely misleading (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Re: (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:Extremely misleading (Score:5, Informative)
> You forgot to quote the part where they are empowered to seize civilian facilities.
The summary is a gross lie.
Go read the actual executive order. There is no such place where empowerment to seize civilian facilities is described. In fact the order is just a directive to establish an emergency communications plan.
Slashdot can be really bad at times. This was one of the worst examples I've seen.
Re: (Score:2)
The main difference here is that they have to delegate the power to the Director of HS, since that position didn't exist when the original order allowing this came into being. All this is saying is that the government can use civilian means to communicate with people in the event of an emergency. We need to put a 50% tax on tin foil hats and pay down the debt.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
I read the Executive Order. Here is the section that I think people are getting riled about. Emphasis added is mine.
Sec. 5.6. The Federal Communications Commission performs such functions as are required by law, including: (a) with respect to all entities licensed or regulated by the Federal Communications Commission: the extension, discontinuance, or reduction of common carrier facilities or services; the control of common carrier rates, charges, practices, and classifications; the construction, authorization, activation, deactivation, or closing of radio stations, services, and facilities; the assignment of radio frequencies to Federal Communications Commission licensees; the investigation of violations of pertinent law; and the assessment of communications service provider emergency needs and resources; and
(b) supporting the continuous operation and restoration of critical communications systems and services by assisting the Secretary of Homeland Security with infrastructure damage assessment and restoration, and by providing the Secretary of Homeland Security with information collected by the Federal Communications Commission on communications infrastructure, service outages, and restoration, as appropriate.
So...if I understand the /. summary right, it states the DHS can shutdown portions of the communications network (not specified, most likely the Internet augmented by other more traditional means, perhaps shortwave radio). What I have pasted here directly from the order states nothing of the sort. It says the FCC has that power provided it is within current laws.
Granted, there is a LOT I d
Why is this an executive order? (Score:5, Interesting)
My civics may be a bit rusty but my understanding of executive orders is that they are used to further describe legislation that has been passed (i.e. laws) and outlines what federal officers (in the broad sense, not LEOs) are to do to execute the law.
From just the summary, this doesn't seem like this is the case. This seems like a sweeping "I want the ability to do this but not willing to pass it through congress."
Can anyone with more civics experience clarify this? Don't get me wrong: both sides have done this. But want to know how things "should" be.
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: (Score:2)
Mod up please!
Re: (Score:3)
Because, as others have pointed out, the summary and linked "article" are complete and utter bullshit. All the Executive Order actually does is designate to whom and how the government should go about maintaining communications in an emergency, i.e. it delegates powers the President already holds either through legislation or through the Constitution itself. On other words, it cannot delegate unconstitutional power because the President doesn't have such power (in theory, in practice it may differ, but that
Re: (Score:2)
No, they can't be used to ignore laws already on the books. They can be used to prevent enforcement of laws already on the books. That's a subtle, but important difference. The government has to obey the law, but the government is under no obligation to enforce it against others.
Re: (Score:2)
Wake up people... ALL POLITICIANS IN WASHINGTON are destroying our society. [url-redacted]-washingtons-blatant-disregard-for-the-constitution-is-appalling/
There. FTFY.
ECOMCON (Score:2)
The first thing that came to mind was a classic Cold War movie called Seven Days in May (1964) [imdb.com]. There was a shadowy group within the Pentagon called ECOMCON. Watched the movie and see if any parallels jump out at you.
Re: (Score:2)
Free Speech (Score:2)
The amendment prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances.
Does giving the Department of Homeland Security affect this, by being able to collect information on it's citizens? Are people still able to pe
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.
President does what he wants! (Score:2)
Is this new? (Score:3)
I thought the Federal government already had the power to pre-empt normal communications infrastructure in a time of national emergency. For example, pretty much every radio or TV station, as well as all cable systems, must be able to be activated to broadcast a message from the President. It's part of the EAS that's usually used for severe weather warnings. I thought that the government also had the authority to "commandeer" those facilities if necessary for communications
Isn't this more-or-less extending that same power to the internet? Talking about "continuity of government" sounds like "when we've been hit by a nuclear bomb, we're going to make sure we can communicate by whatever means necessary". You know, the cold-war era thinking about second strike capability and command and control [wikipedia.org] and so on.
Notice the "Perception management" lies (Score:2)
Yahoo is currently running this Reuters article [yahoo.com], in which we are told quite the assortment of lies about US spy agency operations. The spokesman expresses acute concern about respecting the privacy of US Citizens, and claims that US Spy Agencies do not spy on US Citizens except as absolutely needed for anti-terrorism operations. Wow, what a pack of lies!
I wish to, once again, remind readers about ECHELON [wikipedia.org], the UK/USA global signals intelligence system. We already know, from numerous leaks that have occ
Re: (Score:2)
absolutely needed for anti-terrorism operations.
Which would be just fine if the FEDs used the same definitions for "absolutely" and "needed" the rest of us do.
Hitler would have been proud (Score:2)
Political Death (Score:2)
Obama is signing his own political death warrant.
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: (Score:3)
Thanks, Obama! (Score:2)
The Usurper [penny-arcade.com]
"empowered to seize civilian facilities" (Score:2)
Leave Obama alone!!! (Score:2)
He's doing a great job protecting us! I hope he uses the internet to hunt down each and everyone of you racist haters and turn you into the IRS! Or send you to Gitmo! Or just fuck you up!
Due to the EAS test failure? (Score:2)
a careful reading of the actual executive order (Score:5, Informative)
Huh. (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
That dichotomy you sense is because the summary is complete baloney.
This is just a routine directive regarding emergency communications facilities run by the US government.
Ignore the summary and EPIC article, and go read the actual executive order. It is a routine band piece of administrative boredom.
Re:I support Dictator Obama (Score:5, Funny)
Why does it always have to be black helicopters coming to get you?
We prefer the term African American helicopters, thank you very much.
Re:I support Dictator Obama (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
No, they're Italian-American. That's why they make a wop wop wop noise.
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, Mr. O. - we can see your "transparent" government now :-(
It is transparent, in a way. At least they're telling you "hey we're going to spy on everything you do and shut you down if we don't like it" whereas previous administrations have just done it and not told you or anyone else. It's still a despicable practice though.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree with the past four or five administrations' policies. Anything that results in the collapse of New Rome can only be a good thing, for all but the uber-rich-uber-useless fascist elite. Good for the common American, good for everyone else on this planet who is sick of wars for profit and the negative-value media endemic to U.S. corporate lobbying.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If we are talking about real, water-based showers for cleaning people, I think that there are more than a few Internet denizens who would die of fright at the prospect.
Re: (Score:2)
Hey you leftists; just because you may agree with the current administrations policies, wait until we get a conservative in office.
Yeah, they'll fuck us even more! Great message, there. Guess we'd better continue supporting the devil we know, huh?
Re: (Score:3)
Hey you leftists; just because you may agree with the current administrations policies, wait until we get a conservative in office.
No leftist agrees with this administration's policies. Obama is a crony capitalist just like the rest.
Re:Dear President Obama, (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Dear President Obama, (Score:4, Interesting)
The country right now is full of people who don't actually know what the President has done, but are perfectly happy to listen to Fox News or otherwise make up their own stories about what he's done, and then hold him accountable for it. Look at the healthcare law - if you poll Republicans about the specific provisions of it , they're hugely in favor of it, but then when you ask them what they think of the President's healthcare law they're vehemently against it.
Re: (Score:3)
(e) satisfy priority communications requirements through the use of commercial, Government, and privately owned communications resources, when appropriate; How is that not "seizing" private resources?
First off, the government has *always* had the ability to pre-empt communications in the event of an emergency. Have you ever heard of "The Emergency Broadcast System?" This is nothing new. The order says nothing about seizing or shutting down communications. It talks about being able to marshal resources in the case of an interruption in government communications. Have you taken your halo-peridol today?
Re: (Score:2)
Dear President Obama,
Fuck You.
Boy are you going to be surprised when you read the rest of the stuff in the National Emergencies Act and the International Emergency Economic Powers Act
I suggest you start handing out "Fuck You"s to Richard Nixon
(his abuse of the law is the reason our first Emergencies Act was passed)
and then work you way up through Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush Sr, Clinton, and Bush Jr.
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)