Slashdot Mirror
Executive Order Grants US Gov't New Powers Over Communication Systems
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."
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.
What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
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.
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!
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.
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.
What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
...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.
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?
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.
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?
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
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.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
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.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
"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.
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.
As a potential lottery winner, I totally support tax cuts for the wealthy
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.
Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.
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; 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.)
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.
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 and Romney's 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.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
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.