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."
Who needs "checks and balances"...
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.
We don't live in Shouldland.
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.
I have developed a truly marvelous proof of this comment, which this signature is too narrow to contain.
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!
He didn't. He correctly stated that if "their guy" (as GGP put it) lost, "his guy" would have done the exact same abusive shit.
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.