

Obama gives himself control of all communication systems in America - moondistance
http://rt.com/usa/news/obama-president-order-communications-770/

======
mpyne
I would recommend reading the actual executive order:
[http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-
office/2012/07/06/execut...](http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-
office/2012/07/06/executive-order-assignment-national-security-and-emergency-
preparedness-)

This looks to me just what it says on the tin: The Federal Government is to
develop a plan for ensuring comms during national crises. The only part that
hinted at "control" of systems is Sec 5.2(e) where the DHS is to be able to
satisfy priority communications requirements through _use of_ (not control of)
commercial, Government, and privately-owned resources.

So yes, the gov't could come in and use Aunt Tillie's landline phone _if no
other resources were available in a disaster_ , but that hardly equates to
"control of all communications systems" and is hardly different in degree to
the powers the Federal government already has in disaster response.

------
cjdavis
Here's the original Executive Order: [http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-
office/2012/07/06/execut...](http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-
office/2012/07/06/executive-order-assignment-national-security-and-emergency-
preparedness-)

I'm curious, how much does this really differ from the original Emergency
Broadcast System, or the current Emergency Alert System?

------
DamnYuppie
How is this not incredibly terrifying? They use security and safety as
justification for continually reducing our civil liberties and privacy. They
act as if the whole of the nation is criminal.

~~~
CWuestefeld
That's true, but it's not _just_ that. Their assumption is that for the
continued operation of our country, the most important thing -- in extreme,
the _only_ critical thing -- is the operation of the government.

I believe this is absolutely false. It's not our government that has made
America great. It's our people, our culture, our industry. Thanks to all of
this, we thrive _in spite of_ the government.

~~~
drharris
This is definitely the truth. Only recently in this country have people put
the government on this kind of pedestal; it smells of nationalism. For years,
we existed without any central government, and then for years with a
relatively weak one. If the government were to go, it might not actually be
the worst thing...

~~~
nirvana
Speaking of controlling communications-- this entire thread, which was #2 on
HN when I first saw it-- has been buried because it is not sufficiently pro-
obama.

Meanwhile the latest uneducated screed about how the banks caused the housing
crisis (false) and are EVIL!, will always stay way up on the first page of HN
for hours if not a day or so.

I can't stand this censorship on HN. Well, it wouldn't bother me if the HN
core audience weren't constantly saying "We're objective and open minded!"

~~~
CWuestefeld
Downvote:

1) You can't possibly make a factual statement like it "has been buried
because it is not sufficiently pro-obama". You can't know other people's
reasons for not up-voting.

2) HN is a private service that can feature whatever content it likes. If they
choose not to link to something, that's not censorship -- censorship is
something a government does to you.

3) You can't call someone's decision not to up-vote an article "censorship" in
any case.

------
portmanteaufu
As an aside regarding the title: if he was able to "give it to himself" then
he had to have it in the first place. If he didn't have it beforehand, he
couldn't give it to himself.

Weird turn of phrase.

------
gte910h
"If comms are out, we have power to turn them back on so we can talk to the
other parts of government" sounds like a really good idea. Not a power
overreach.

Shitty headline IMO.

------
tseabrooks
I'm one of the most conservative folks you're likely to meet... One of those
"Right Wing Nutjobs"... but this really feels like FUD to me.

In a state of emergency the US Gov will need to ensure that it has the ability
to communicate. Agreed. Hell, they'll need to ensure that _I_ have the ability
to communicate.

~~~
moondistance
I also thought that might be the case, before I read this part: "In explaining
the order, the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) writes that the
president has authorized the DHS "the authority to seize private facilities
when necessary, effectively shutting down or limiting civilian
communications.""

~~~
justinschuh
EPIC has a history of being pretty over the top with their statements and
demands. I wouldn't take anything they claim too seriously unless it's
corroborated by a more reliable source.

~~~
moondistance
Thanks, I wasn't aware of EPIC. Now that I've read more about EPIC and the
executive order referenced in this article, I regret posting this link. The
article does appear to significantly overstate the EO. But I appreciate all of
your comments - this has been enlightening :)

------
drharris
I can just feel the hope and change.

------
nirvana
For anyone who wants to let this slide, how would you have reacted[1] if the
headline had started "Bush gives himself..." and it had been published 6 years
ago?

Cause 6 years from now it might be someone you _don't_ like in office, but the
power will still be there.

Just as the PATRIOT ACT still is (expanded and extended by Obama), the TSA is
(now with porno-scanners!), the domestic spying that happened under Bush is
still going on (now retroactively "legal" and much more secret!), etc.

[1] In case my comment isn't obviously nonpartisan, I am equally offended at
this in both situations, and believe that Bush wanted this power too.

~~~
justinschuh
If it started with "Bush gives himself..." I think I'd be doing the same thing
I'm doing now. That is, sit here wondering how exactly anyone is interpreting
this executive order the way the headline frames it. The truthiness ranks
right up there with "death panels."

~~~
nirvana
There really are death panels in obamacare. I read the bill before it was made
secret, when this issue was brought out. The bill creates committees which
decide who gets health care and who is left to die. That's a plain fact.

The response to airing of this fact is that Obama, et al. started spinning it
as an objection to "end of life counseling". In other words, they lied about
what the criticism was about, and once they did it all the liberals started
acting like it was absurd to complain about "death panels".

There are people who I've met who bring up "Death panels" as an absurd
complaint who don't even know that the bill creates committees who regulate
who gets health care and who doen't. (not "is this treatment effective" but
"should retired people get this treatment since they are no longer paying
taxes?" with the stated political purpose of letting those who aren't paying
taxes die. The major objection brought up time and time again from the left
was that "society" was "wasting money on old people".)

So here's the tragedy: There are so many people who have heard such propaganda
that they won't even consider the fact that there are death panels because
they've been told it was a lie.

Even though it was right there in black and white for anyone to read in the
bill (before it was made secret until passage.)

~~~
justinschuh
I can't tell from your comment history if you're a pathological liar or just a
really persistent troll.

------
rsanchez1
He would take control of all communications in the event of a national
emergency. Then again, all he has to do is declare a national emergency, and
then who knows what happens. If it is a genuine national emergency, though,
like an enemy invasion (which is what this executive order seems to plan
against), then Obama seizing all communications in America seems like it will
be the least of our problems.

However, the presence of language like "Continuity of Government" does not
inspire much confidence that he is looking out for us.

