US Pres Will Have the Right To Shut Down Internet

[Sunshine]

One cannot help but note how quickly something that truly does deserve our attention becomes nothing but right wing cranks' vacuous bickering about Obama, and viciously attacking anyone who seriously tries to discuss this issue.

The question before us is: What powers ought we give our government as it regards the internet?

Clearly the net is now so important to this society that we need to protect it from cyber attacks and criminals.

The question isn't should we do this, rather it is HOW BEST DO WE DO THAT?


This is a serious social issue, but sadly the anti-Obaman partisans here use it as a platform to cast aspirsions of the current POTUS.

The answer to that question lies in the definition of the internet, IMO. WHAT exactly IS the internet? Is it a news source, which the government is forbidden from altering? Is it free speech, which the government is likewise forbidden from interfering with? Is it merely an advertising medium? Is it an educational resource? What is the scope of the internet? Just WHAT is the internet? In the definition of the internet, I believe, will come the answer to the question of whether it is Constitutional to give the president free reign to shut her down.

A few years back when I was in law school there was a case involving the internet. Wish I could recall which one. One point in the case was that the SCOTUS had not yet been able to decide exactly WHAT the internet is. I am fairly sure they still haven't. At the point which the president is given dominion over the internet, I am sure someone will challenge it and a salient definition from the SCOTUS will be forthcoming.

 

[jillian]

so...libs will still vote for obama....

not like any alternative has been offered.

and last time i checked, congress enacts legislation, not the president. does he support this?

if 52% of the country are libs, than perhaps folk need to stop saying the country is 'right of center'.

In the minds of liberals America is 52% liberal, did I mention liberals have a twisted mental state of being?

actually, i've seen some of your posts. the twisted mental state of being seems to belong to you. that said, what percentage of the vote did obama get? 52% yes? according to the rightwingnut ODS, 'ihopehefails' crowd, anyone who voted for the president is a left wing, commie, socialist, fascist, muslim, terrorist supporter'.

you following yet?

 

[jillian]

so...libs will still vote for obama....

not like any alternative has been offered.

They had a choice between Hillary and Obama. They chose Obama.

i voted for hillary in the primaries.

i was talking about on election day. and on election day, your guys had no game.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

not like any alternative has been offered.

and last time i checked, congress enacts legislation, not the president. does he support this?

if 52% of the country are libs, than perhaps folk need to stop saying the country is 'right of center'.

In the minds of liberals America is 52% liberal, did I mention liberals have a twisted mental state of being?

actually, i've seen some of your posts. the twisted mental state of being seems to belong to you. that said, what percentage of the vote did obama get? 52% yes? according to the rightwingnut ODS, 'ihopehefails' crowd, anyone who voted for the president is a left wing, commie, socialist, fascist, muslim, terrorist supporter'.

you following yet?

Yes they are. I agree. If you support obama you support the destruction of this country. Now who has the twisted mind .

 

[rightwinger]

Nuke the internet!

 

[MaggieMae]

Great!

Obama internet 'kill switch' proposed

Great!

Obama internet 'kill switch' proposed

This was discussed at length in another recent thread. If there were a cyber threat big enough to shut down The Pentagon, our electrical grid, blow up chemical plants, etc., I think it makes sense to ask the public, just like in the movies, to GET OFF THE LINE!!

And in case you think such threats don't already exist, read this, which will scare the crap out of you.

The "Conficker" virus is already hidden on thousands of computers. It's lying in wait for just the right moment to launch, with a single command that will shut down communications operations by the thousands.

The Enemy Within - Magazine - The Atlantic

 

[MaggieMae]

Speaking of Losers, has Obama ever done anything you disagree with?

Plenty.

Before you ask, no, I am not going humor you and list any or all of the things I disagree with the Administration about.

And yet we can see how you fall all over yourself to defend Obama and his policies every time they are brought up. I wonder why that is?

Maybe it's because he's not down for the count yet. You idiots keep on trying, though. Why should it bother you so much? For me, it wouldn't matter which Democrat had won the presidency, I knew what direction they were going and I was behind it all the way. You people had your chance, and you'll probably have another chance. Will you be beside yourself when you get the same type of criticism for supporting a new Republican president? After all, the "new right" has shown zero interest in bipartisanship, which means the "new left" (post-Obama) will have zero interest in partnering with you, either. Tit for tat power. It's apparently what interests the American people most. And it's pathetic.

 

[MaggieMae]

Obongo can come in personally try to take it from me. He will get the ass kicking of his mother fucking life too. Fucking commie bastard.

 

[MaggieMae]

One cannot help but note how quickly something that truly does deserve our attention becomes nothing but right wing cranks' vacuous bickering about Obama, and viciously attacking anyone who seriously tries to discuss this issue.

The question before us is: What powers ought we give our government as it regards the internet?

Clearly the net is now so important to this society that we need to protect it from cyber attacks and criminals.

The question isn't should we do this, rather it is HOW BEST DO WE DO THAT?


This is a serious social issue, but sadly the anti-Obaman partisans here use it as a platform to cast aspirsions of the current POTUS.

I hope CNN airs this program again. It was a mock response to a cyber attack, the scenario devised by former CIA director, Michael Hayden (proving once and for all that the threat of cyber attacks are real, and are most certainly not politically partisan).

Mock cyber attack shows US unpreparedness

... and the faux attack began with malware masquerading as a free March Madness application for smartphones. Once activated, it spread fast and first incapacitated cellphone networks, then landlines, the Internet, and finally - aided by mock bombs exploding in a couple of gas pipelines and power stations and a hurricane hitting the Gulf Coast - brought the entire East Coast electrical power grid to its knees. Air traffic was thrown into disorder and commerce came to a standstill.

 

[MaggieMae]

Make you wonder what was in the book that Chavez presented to Obama. Dictatorship 101

Obama didn't suggest it.. I guess someone didn't read the article.

OR, of course, the 197-page bill itself linked in the article.

 

[MaggieMae]

so...libs will still vote for obama....

not like any alternative has been offered.

and last time i checked, congress enacts legislation, not the president. does he support this?

if 52% of the country are libs, than perhaps folk need to stop saying the country is 'right of center'.

In the minds of liberals America is 52% liberal, did I mention liberals have a twisted mental state of being?

Oh...well...it must be true if YOU say so.

 

[MaggieMae]

One cannot help but note how quickly something that truly does deserve our attention becomes nothing but right wing cranks' vacuous bickering about Obama, and viciously attacking anyone who seriously tries to discuss this issue.

The question before us is: What powers ought we give our government as it regards the internet?

Clearly the net is now so important to this society that we need to protect it from cyber attacks and criminals.

The question isn't should we do this, rather it is HOW BEST DO WE DO THAT?


This is a serious social issue, but sadly the anti-Obaman partisans here use it as a platform to cast aspirsions of the current POTUS.

The answer to that question lies in the definition of the internet, IMO. WHAT exactly IS the internet? Is it a news source, which the government is forbidden from altering? Is it free speech, which the government is likewise forbidden from interfering with? Is it merely an advertising medium? Is it an educational resource? What is the scope of the internet? Just WHAT is the internet? In the definition of the internet, I believe, will come the answer to the question of whether it is Constitutional to give the president free reign to shut her down.

A few years back when I was in law school there was a case involving the internet. Wish I could recall which one. One point in the case was that the SCOTUS had not yet been able to decide exactly WHAT the internet is. I am fairly sure they still haven't. At the point which the president is given dominion over the internet, I am sure someone will challenge it and a salient definition from the SCOTUS will be forthcoming.

It's exactly how it was described before ever being launched: The Information Highway.

 

[MaggieMae]

not like any alternative has been offered.

They had a choice between Hillary and Obama. They chose Obama.

i voted for hillary in the primaries.

i was talking about on election day. and on election day, your guys had no game.

They still don't, as far as I can see.

 

[Sunshine]

One cannot help but note how quickly something that truly does deserve our attention becomes nothing but right wing cranks' vacuous bickering about Obama, and viciously attacking anyone who seriously tries to discuss this issue.

The question before us is: What powers ought we give our government as it regards the internet?

Clearly the net is now so important to this society that we need to protect it from cyber attacks and criminals.

The question isn't should we do this, rather it is HOW BEST DO WE DO THAT?


This is a serious social issue, but sadly the anti-Obaman partisans here use it as a platform to cast aspirsions of the current POTUS.

The answer to that question lies in the definition of the internet, IMO. WHAT exactly IS the internet? Is it a news source, which the government is forbidden from altering? Is it free speech, which the government is likewise forbidden from interfering with? Is it merely an advertising medium? Is it an educational resource? What is the scope of the internet? Just WHAT is the internet? In the definition of the internet, I believe, will come the answer to the question of whether it is Constitutional to give the president free reign to shut her down.

A few years back when I was in law school there was a case involving the internet. Wish I could recall which one. One point in the case was that the SCOTUS had not yet been able to decide exactly WHAT the internet is. I am fairly sure they still haven't. At the point which the president is given dominion over the internet, I am sure someone will challenge it and a salient definition from the SCOTUS will be forthcoming.

It's exactly how it was described before ever being launched: The Information Highway.

Which means absolutely nothing in terms of definity exactly WHAT the internet is and how giving the executive branch of our government the ability to shut it off is or is not legal. It's NOT a highway at all. That is just a figure of speech which was used to sell the idea to the masses.

Certainly the internet is a media tool as well as an interstate commerce mechanism. Another component of it is advertising, but it isn't JUST about advertising. Right there are two constitutional challenges to any one person or branch of government having the ability to shut it down - freedom of the press and interstate commerce.

Unless there is a description of the internet in terms of exactly what it is to its entire depth and breadth, and to the extent that the definition lays out exactly what the internet is, then there is no way to challenge this. As I see it, there are Constitutional challenges. But the definition has to be better than some oblique description such as 'a highway.'

 

[peter]

I wonder if it is possible to shut down Internet. Would you shut down every internet provider in order to achieve this? Huh?

 

[elvis]

so...libs will still vote for obama....

not like any alternative has been offered.

They had a choice between Hillary and Obama. They chose Obama.

did they? I thought Hillary won the popular vote.

 

[WillowTree]

Plenty.

Before you ask, no, I am not going humor you and list any or all of the things I disagree with the Administration about.

And yet we can see how you fall all over yourself to defend Obama and his policies every time they are brought up. I wonder why that is?

Now you are making shit up..
Why don't you quit while you are ahead.

He is ahead, score 4 for him and zero for you and a.

 

[MaggieMae]

The answer to that question lies in the definition of the internet, IMO. WHAT exactly IS the internet? Is it a news source, which the government is forbidden from altering? Is it free speech, which the government is likewise forbidden from interfering with? Is it merely an advertising medium? Is it an educational resource? What is the scope of the internet? Just WHAT is the internet? In the definition of the internet, I believe, will come the answer to the question of whether it is Constitutional to give the president free reign to shut her down.

A few years back when I was in law school there was a case involving the internet. Wish I could recall which one. One point in the case was that the SCOTUS had not yet been able to decide exactly WHAT the internet is. I am fairly sure they still haven't. At the point which the president is given dominion over the internet, I am sure someone will challenge it and a salient definition from the SCOTUS will be forthcoming.

It's exactly how it was described before ever being launched: The Information Highway.

Which means absolutely nothing in terms of definity exactly WHAT the internet is and how giving the executive branch of our government the ability to shut it off is or is not legal. It's NOT a highway at all. That is just a figure of speech which was used to sell the idea to the masses.

Certainly the internet is a media tool as well as an interstate commerce mechanism. Another component of it is advertising, but it isn't JUST about advertising. Right there are two constitutional challenges to any one person or branch of government having the ability to shut it down - freedom of the press and interstate commerce.

Unless there is a description of the internet in terms of exactly what it is to its entire depth and breadth, and to the extent that the definition lays out exactly what the internet is, then there is no way to challenge this. As I see it, there are Constitutional challenges. But the definition has to be better than some oblique description such as 'a highway.'

In the event of an attack that threatens our national security (militarily or by a cyber worm), the President of the United States has the power to shut down just about anything he wants. Ironically, the new millenium event which (although not a threat by an enemy), was cause for creation of Executive Order 1219, is still in effect. That was further expanded of course by the USA Patriot Act and the federal powers allotted thereunder.

You can sit around arguing constitutional challenges while the world sits idle if such a cyber attack were to happen, but I don't think most people intend to be that stupid.

Millennium Ark: Executive Order 12919

 

[MaggieMae]

The answer to that question lies in the definition of the internet, IMO. WHAT exactly IS the internet? Is it a news source, which the government is forbidden from altering? Is it free speech, which the government is likewise forbidden from interfering with? Is it merely an advertising medium? Is it an educational resource? What is the scope of the internet? Just WHAT is the internet? In the definition of the internet, I believe, will come the answer to the question of whether it is Constitutional to give the president free reign to shut her down.

A few years back when I was in law school there was a case involving the internet. Wish I could recall which one. One point in the case was that the SCOTUS had not yet been able to decide exactly WHAT the internet is. I am fairly sure they still haven't. At the point which the president is given dominion over the internet, I am sure someone will challenge it and a salient definition from the SCOTUS will be forthcoming.

It's exactly how it was described before ever being launched: The Information Highway.

Which means absolutely nothing in terms of definity exactly WHAT the internet is and how giving the executive branch of our government the ability to shut it off is or is not legal. It's NOT a highway at all. That is just a figure of speech which was used to sell the idea to the masses.

Certainly the internet is a media tool as well as an interstate commerce mechanism. Another component of it is advertising, but it isn't JUST about advertising. Right there are two constitutional challenges to any one person or branch of government having the ability to shut it down - freedom of the press and interstate commerce.

Unless there is a description of the internet in terms of exactly what it is to its entire depth and breadth, and to the extent that the definition lays out exactly what the internet is, then there is no way to challenge this. As I see it, there are Constitutional challenges. But the definition has to be better than some oblique description such as 'a highway.'

Well of course a "definition" if one were ever to be argued before the Supreme Court would need to include everything the Internet provides access to. I'm simply giving it a name other than "the Internet." In a formal suit before the USSC, I'm sure everything you describe would be covered, including words such as "...but not limited to any other access not described herein but which can be communicated over the Internet" and then it might for simplicity's sake, simply say, "Hereafter referred to collectively as "The Information (or Internet) Highway." Better?

 

[RadiomanATL]

Oh bullshit. This would never ha---++++++***CARRIER LOST***+++++----