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?
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.
Typical.. read the summary that is flat out wrong, and go ballistic... First it does not grant power over communications, as in all communications, it is for the governments own emergency communications.. second there is nothing about seizing anything... here it is read it for yourself.. http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/07/06/executive-order-assignment-national-security-and-emergency-preparedness-
waiting for ad.doubleclick.net
Please. This is supposed to be a post-race society, where they are simply helicopters, and it doesn't matter what color they are on the outside, or how big their rotors are, or whether they have sliding or swinging doors, or whether they like to mate with other helicopters of the same model or not... what matters is that they are all helicopters, valuable in their own right, and all equally capable of coming after you.
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
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?
Upon a careful reading of the actual executive order, I find, in my humble opinion, that the order does none of things that are being ranted about. First, the bulk of the order are instructions to DHS to develop policies and procedures to ensure that communications will survive in the event of a national emergency. Second, it does allude to ensuring that federal needs will have priority during emergencies, a privilege the government already enjoys. Third, it carefully notes that the authority of the FCC is not being superseded by the order, and that the FCC has control over any communications channels that have been assigned to the federal government, i.e. DHS does not. Frankly, it reads as a get your act together directive, not a sweeping grab of new federal powers.
-- Perhaps I see less than some, but more than many.
Maybe you should refresh yourself on executive orders - 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.
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.........
> 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.
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.
"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.
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.
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