Not content with having GW being the last president who walked all over the Constitution, a bill in Congress would give President Obama the power to shut down the Internet.
This is truly scary! So much for the First Amendment.
I don't think this is as troubling as you do. Government occasionally stakes out the right to intrude on private property in order to preserve national or local security or public well-being. I understand the concern that what Congress is doing is permitting the executive branch the ability to shut down an avenue of public discourse, but if the bill sets a time limit (temporary, etc.) and other conditions, I don't see this as a government power grab or an attempt to shut down speech.
I see it for what its intent seems to be: to allow government agencies to shut down private networks (i.e., to go onto private property) if it becomes apprent that we are under cyber attack and shut down the means of greater damage.
I see it for what its intent seems to be: to allow government agencies to shut down private networks (i.e., to go onto private property) if it becomes apprent that we are under cyber attack and shut down the means of greater damage.
You've gotta be joking. I should've known the Obama apologists wouldn't oppose this. Had his predecessor supported this, you'd be all over Bush's ass. I didn't like Bush's attempts to run roughshod over the Constitution in the name of "national security," I don't like Obama's attempts (or more accurately, congressional Democrats--Obama simply supports them until the bill reaches his desk).
QUOTE
I just talked to Jena Longo, deputy communications director for the Senate Commerce committee, on the phone. She sent me e-mail with this statement:
The president of the United States has always had the constitutional authority, and duty, to protect the American people and direct the national response to any emergency that threatens the security and safety of the United States. The Rockefeller-Snowe Cybersecurity bill makes it clear that the president's authority includes securing our national cyber infrastructure from attack. The section of the bill that addresses this issue, applies specifically to the national response to a severe attack or natural disaster. This particular legislative language is based on longstanding statutory authorities for wartime use of communications networks. To be very clear, the Rockefeller-Snowe bill will not empower a "government shutdown or takeover of the Internet" and any suggestion otherwise is misleading and false. The purpose of this language is to clarify how the president directs the public-private response to a crisis, secure our economy and safeguard our financial networks, protect the American people, their privacy and civil liberties, and coordinate the government's response.
The president of the United States has always had the constitutional authority, and duty, to protect the American people and direct the national response to any emergency that threatens the security and safety of the United States. The Rockefeller-Snowe Cybersecurity bill makes it clear that the president's authority includes securing our national cyber infrastructure from attack. The section of the bill that addresses this issue, applies specifically to the national response to a severe attack or natural disaster. This particular legislative language is based on longstanding statutory authorities for wartime use of communications networks. To be very clear, the Rockefeller-Snowe bill will not empower a "government shutdown or takeover of the Internet" and any suggestion otherwise is misleading and false. The purpose of this language is to clarify how the president directs the public-private response to a crisis, secure our economy and safeguard our financial networks, protect the American people, their privacy and civil liberties, and coordinate the government's response.
QUOTE
I should've known the Obama apologists wouldn't oppose this. Had his predecessor supported this, you'd be all over Bush's ass.
Not sure anyone who doesn't have a problem with this legislation is automatically an "Obama apologist", so you might consider having that hair-trigger checked in the interest of adult discourse.
I didn't have a problem with GWB shutting down all air traffic on 9/11, so I guess I'm a Bush apologist. I didn't consider it a violation of the airlines' constitutional rights.
This seems to be common sense legislation to me. We are, for the most part, cyber-dependent, so attacks on such a vital part of our infrastucture would be crippling. It has bi-partisan sponsors.
I would hope that no one would be that naïve as to believe the government would do this in the alleged interest of "national security." Once you give the government an inch, they'll take a mile. I personally choose not to surrender "some" rights "just to be safe."
QUOTE(Crew Chief @ Aug 29 2009, 03:38 AM) 
You've gotta be joking. I should've known the Obama apologists wouldn't oppose this. Had his predecessor supported this, you'd be all over Bush's ass. I didn't like Bush's attempts to run roughshod over the Constitution in the name of "national security," I don't like Obama's attempts (or more accurately, congressional Democrats--Obama simply supports them until the bill reaches his desk).
Crew Chief, are you turning into a right-wing Republican? I ask because you are blaming the "congressional Democrats," when the bill was co-sponsored by Maine Republican Senator Olympia J. Snowe. Did you just miss that part?
QUOTE
When Rockefeller, the chairman of the Senate Commerce committee, and Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) introduced the original bill in April, they claimed it was vital to protect national cybersecurity. "We must protect our critical infrastructure at all costs--from our water to our electricity, to banking, traffic lights and electronic health records," Rockefeller said.
And again:
QUOTE
The president of the United States has always had the constitutional authority, and duty, to protect the American people and direct the national response to any emergency that threatens the security and safety of the United States. The Rockefeller-Snowe Cybersecurity bill makes it clear that the president's authority includes securing our national cyber infrastructure from attack. The section of the bill that addresses this issue, applies specifically to the national response to a severe attack or natural disaster. This particular legislative language is based on longstanding statutory authorities for wartime use of communications networks. To be very clear, the Rockefeller-Snowe bill will not empower a "government shutdown or takeover of the Internet" and any suggestion otherwise is misleading and false. The purpose of this language is to clarify how the president directs the public-private response to a crisis, secure our economy and safeguard our financial networks, protect the American people, their privacy and civil liberties, and coordinate the government's response.
That said, I don't agree with the Congress arrogating to the Executive branch any new powers unless they can be fully justified, and even then, it's dangerous. This bill sounds like it aims to formalize a power that the president already potentially has, but there should be strong caveats in it that prevent her or him from going too far.
BTW, I'm still waiting on at least ONE Republican Senator to speak out about the gross abuse of illegal wiretapping that occurred from 2001-2008. I don't seem to remember a single one speaking out about, even though it was a gross violation of the U.S. Constitution. Have you heard of one doing so? If so, please let us know.
Oh dude, Snowe's not a REAL Republican, she's one-a them RINOs -- she doesn't count.
QUOTE
I would hope that no one would be that naïve
You just cannot help yourself, can you? Or is this one of your "devil's advocate" ploys? Save the labels and make your points. Just because one doesn't agree with you in total, does not make them an "apologist" or "naïve" or whatever other labels you will eventually spew as if there is only one right answer on any issue (your's).
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.