President's designation of vital Internet systems "shall not be subject to judicial review."

[seafan]

The cat is out of the bag, Mr. Lieberman.


Senators decry link between Egypt, 'kill switch' bill

February 2, 2011

Three U.S. senators who want to give the president emergency powers over the Internet are protesting comparisons with the "kill switch" highlighted by Egypt's Net disconnection.

In a statement yesterday, the politicians said their intent was to allow the president "to protect the U.S. from external cyber attacks," not to shut down the Internet, and announced that they would revise their legislation to explicitly prohibit that from happening.

"Some have suggested that our legislation would empower the president to deny U.S. citizens access to the Internet," said the statement from Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.), Susan Collins (R-Maine), and Senator Tom Carper, (D-Del.). "Nothing could be further from the truth." Lieberman, an independent who caucuses with Democrats, is chairman of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee.

.....

If the president declares a "cyber emergency," according to a summary prepared by Lieberman's committee, the Department of Homeland Security could "issue mandatory emergency measures necessary to preserve the reliable operation of covered critical infrastructure." Although the term "kill switch" appears nowhere in the legislation, those "mandatory" measures could include ordering "critical" computers, networks, or Web sites disconnected from the Internet.

It also includes controversial new language--which did not appear in the initial version introduced last summer--saying that the federal government's designation of vital Internet or other computer systems "shall not be subject to judicial review."

Perhaps more than any other section of the legislation, that part has drawn significant criticism from industry representatives and civil libertarians.

.....

"....shall not be subject to judicial review."



Imagine what Bush/Cheney would have done with this bright, shiny new weapon against the people of America.


Thus far, it looks like Egypt is the grand experiment.



The power to assassinate anyone in the world; the power to commit indefinite detention against prisoners; the power to torture; the power to imprison without charges; the power to designate anyone as a terrorist and arrest and imprison that person...

Do we now want to allow the Executive unbridled power to proclaim certain people or groups as "cyberterrorists", and to summarily shut down Internet communication among the people?

[WinkyDink]

1. I've tried posting about this. Thanks for your attempt!

It's ONLY a MAJOR THREAT TO OUR DEMOCRACY.

[Drale]

2. If they are so worried about a "cyber attack"

why not make it so places that would be attacked, I.E. the pentagon, the white house, could turn off the internet just in those buildings thus stopping said attack? This is about more than a "cyber attack"
"

[mcollins]

3. maybe those are not the places they are worried about.

...maybe an outside attack isn't what the Administration is concerned with?

Could it be that the Administration is more concerned with the People than an outside attack?

[WinkyDink]

4. Perzakly. Just like, IMO, an "Internet ID" won't be because we "have so many passwords to remember."

[Enthusiast]

13. My take as well. nt

[seafan]

10. Indeed, they are worried about "us".

This will be the final frontier for Empire if they paralyze the Internet in an attempt to stop people from communicating with each other.


Rage will erupt, the likes of which they have never seen.

[JuniperLea]

5. Fastest way to start a revolution and get people off their fat asses...

Is to close down the InterTubes.

[librechik]

6. Lieberman is a fascist*

*Librechik has called Lieberman a fascist 173 times

[Enthusiast]

14. You must stop saying that!

:spank:

[dixiegrrrrl]

7. So, how many here have sent an email to their Congress person about this?

Better yet, to our President?

[snot]

8. K&R'd

[DCKit]

9. Wireless, peer to peer internet. nt

[1monster]

11. Lieberman's committee has forgotten that Congress cannot, under the Constitution, prevent

the Supreme Court from reviewing any and all laws passed by both Houses of the Congress and signed into law by the President.

Simply putting that condition into the proposed law makes the law unconstitutional.

A major part of the Court's reason for existing is to determine the Constitutional viability of laws passed by Congress and signed by the President.

They've tried this before and have always been shut down by the Supreme Court. The Supremes might be in favor of an Internet Kill Switch, but won't be in favor of limiting the Supreme Court's power.

[Octafish]

12. Internet represents the way for people to unite in opposition to their governments.

It puts the First Amendment into global practice. That is a real threat for those who prefer authoritarian forms of governance.

Thank you for a most important OP and thread, seafan.

So, whatever happened to separation of powers? Don't recall hearing about that on the tee vee.