Renewed Push to Give Obama an Internet "Kill Switch"

CBS News ^ | January 24, 2011 10:12 AM | Posted by Declan McCullagh

[Mier]

We all know the power hungry left would love to shut down Fox News, Conservative Talk Radio and the internet, where most people are getting their news. Shutting down the internet is just another piece of their socialist puzzle. I think these kind of stories should be brought up before the next election to shine the light on these rats, so we can get rid of them! Will they wait on an cyber emergency or create one and not let it go to waste to have an excuse to shut it down?

[grobdriver]

No power given to Obarry. None!

[Leftism is Mentally Deranged]

Another example of this administration taking a power that it does not legally have.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

If he gets to have one that kills the Internet, it's only fair that the Internet gets one that kills him.

It's the Fairness Doctrine at work.

[Lazamataz]

Renewed Push to Give Obama an Internet "Kill Switch" A controversial bill handing President Obama power over privately owned computer systems during a "national cyberemergency," and prohibiting any review by the court system, will return this year.

OH MY F***ING GOD.

That's it. I'm bailing. Gotta be a better country than this fascist piece of s**t country.

[ReneeLynn]

He wants the kill switch on granny.

[Nat Turner]

Internet companies should not be alarmed by the legislation, first introduced last summer by Sens. Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.) and Susan Collins (R-Maine), a Senate aide said last week.

Anything by Elmer Fudd and the rino is a warning and alarm enough..

[GeronL]

Yep, that is the proper reaction.

[Lazamataz]

You know what? I guarantee the Repubs will hand the switch over to Obama, too. AND they will make it a felony to question it.

[MichaelCorleone]

This is exactly the type of thing that Tea Party folks will be watching out for and will NOT tolerate.

Message to the new crop of Republicans: under no circumstances do we want this enacted. Not in any way, shape or form.

Got it? We want a return to us being the land of the free and home of the brave, so grow a pair.

[Osage Orange]

Nobody in America should have that power! Period.

Don't care if it's a Donkey or an Elephant.

[TheBattman]

Exactly what sort of “Cyber-emergency” could possibly warrant such heavy-handed power here in the US? This proposal sounds more like an act of Red China or the old Soviet Politburo...

And with the death of print media, and even a lot of the old broadcast media - the internet becomes the defacto “press”... Which fully explains the power-grab.

[DannyTN]

Never give this kind of authority unchecked by a court review.

If they can’t convince a judge of the merits of their cause, they don’t have a cause.

[GeronL]

The GOP loves to cave and compromise.

[Lazamataz]

If something drastic doesn't happen, we will have total fascism, including roundups, within 2-5 years.

If the Pubs don't start rolling back some stuff, I will be convinced that there is ONE PARTY, with two flavors.

[Tublecane]

“prohibiting any review by the court system”

I’ve commented on this before, but the idea that any other branch of the government could arbitrarily decide that the courts are prohibited from reviewing them is absurd. That’s for the court to decide. Just like it’s for Congress to decide to impeach a justice, for instance. Or for Congress, the states, or the people to overturn the courts by amending the Constitution.

Killing the internet is not unreviewable just because Congress or the president says so. If nothing else, their claim that judicial review doesn’t apply could itself be subject to review.

[Marty62]

UH NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

No POWER to ZERO period.

[GeronL]

The roundups will be pretexted on things like Tucson, they’ll just be rounding up law abiding conservatives instead of insane leftists.

[Tublecane]

“Exactly what sort of ‘Cyber-emergency’ could possibly warrant such heavy-handed power here in the US? This proposal sounds more like an act of Red China or the old Soviet Politburo...”

Um...uh...the one in the last Die Hard movie?

[lastchance]

“Instead, Milhorn said at a conference in Washington, D.C., the point of the proposal is to assert governmental control only over those ‘crucial components that form our nation’s critical infrastructure.’”

Just who decides what that is? I’m thinking not the legislature but some regulatory agency. That is what scares me because then you end up with a definition to suit political ends. This gives way too much leeway in determining the definition.