+ + + 3 BRANDNEW NewsTickers for your Website! + + + easy configurable in less than 1 Minute + + + GET'EM NOW! + + +

   Home | Join | Submit News | MyShortNews | HighScores | FAQ'S | Forums 0 Users Online   
                 01/18/2018 06:52 AM  
  ShortNews Search
search all Channels
RSS feeds
  ShortNews User Poll
Are you excited about the holiday season?
  Latest Events
  3.845 Visits   3 Assessments  Show users who Rated this:
Quality: Good
Back to Overview  
08/29/2009 04:52 AM ID: 80444 Permalink   

US Government could control the internet


This spring many groups were alarmed at a bill that would give the White House the power to disconnect private computers from the internet. Democrats have spent months behind closed doors creating a new version of the bill and it has resurfaced.

This bill would allow the president to declare a "cybersecurity emegency" which would let the government shut down private servers. The Internet Security Alliance, which represents companies such as Verizon, expressed concern at the bill.

"I think the redraft, while improved, remains troubling with it vagueness, it is unclear what authority Sen. Rockerfeller thinks is necessary over the private sector," said the the president of the Internet Security Alliance.

    WebReporter: willyshawker Show Calling Card      
ASSESS this news: BLOCK this news. Reason:
  more at source  
sorry about the horrible submission at least it is IMO

This is scary and not needed much like Bushs patriot act. The government is looking for more and more control.

If you against the patriot act you have to be against this. I know I am. We need real change this is more of the same once again
  by: willyshawker     08/29/2009 04:58 AM     
did anyone not see this coming?

with more talk about bringing back something like the fairness doctrine, and other things like this limiting your freedoms.

And to think people who voted for obama and other dems thought this big change was coming, when infact it was MORE spending, MORE regulation, and MORE control.

so much for that hope and change for the people.
  by: cray0la     08/29/2009 05:05 AM     
  What is going on?  
This administration wants control over everything fast. My god they no sooner blow the stimulus,take over banks and car companies. Dictate what private people are allowed to make in salaries, then they want the health care. The FCC wants to silence us. Internet take over. We have been setup up for this for quite sometime by both our worthless parties. Government can take your property and sell it to another private party if it will generate more taxes.Tap phone calls,you know the play the list goes on.
I wonder when we as a people are going to wake up to the fact it doesn't matter what party is in, Dem or Rep, and realize it is not about us, it is about them. Maybe instead of mocking these tea parties and town hall meeting we should unite and become part of it so we can secure our children futures. Get back to the grass roots and take our country back. We do need serious change. I think people are starting to wake up and realize it's not the change we thought Obama had in mind.

Old man Bush was right when he said, Welcome to the new world order. Maybe we should start listening more to the independents before we wind up like the rest of the world.

I think this guy says it best.
  by: Hellblazer     08/29/2009 05:19 AM     
  Lets Be Fair  
The bill gives the president the authority to shut down domestic Internet traffic during a state of emergency.

Senators John Rockefeller (D-W. Va.) and Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) on Wednesday introduced a bill to establish the Office of the National Cybersecurity Advisor as an arm of the executive branch that would the power to monitor and control Internet traffic to protect against threats to critical cyber infrastructure.

I do not care for this either but it is sponsored and written by both sides of the isle.

Sorry to burst the partisan bubble.
  by: ichi     08/29/2009 05:21 AM     
you can bet if teh bill is vague, it will be abused every chance they get. write and demand it be trashed. they are working hard, but this is not russia yet!
  by: shannon853   08/29/2009 05:33 AM     
very true at least they are thinking together lol.

I dont see how any American can support this bill> Curious of what Ben thinks
  by: willyshawker     08/29/2009 05:45 AM     
  shannon853 willyshawker  
My little keyboard is going to work tonight to my congressional employees.

Tomorrow it will be phone call to add to their list.

The power of email and phone call is is in volume. If they get a large enough response they just might listen. At least we can try.
  by: ichi     08/29/2009 05:50 AM     
  Has no one....  
seen Die Hard 4...
  by: shiftyfarker   08/29/2009 05:52 AM     
I hope your not serious about that. A firesail which isnt even a official term will not happen.
  by: willyshawker     08/29/2009 05:54 AM     
  yet another of alex jones' rantings  
that has come to surface about a week later...

i was hearing about this last week on his radio show, truely disturbing.

esspecially since the internet is the one free and relatively uncontrolled place left in the world.

alex jones was commenting on what would be considered a "cybersecurity emergency" and asking, would it be like the viral transmisison of the obama-joker?, which has caused people to even call for his arrest and try to inact anti-free speech against the president laws...

this is facism guys... time to wake-up guys, before you find yourelf in hitler's wet dream.
  by: HAVOC666     08/29/2009 06:12 AM     
  I win the interwebs!  
with a perpetual state of emergency.
  by: luxfestinus     08/29/2009 06:13 AM     
It's fire sale, and what exactly is an official term any way?
btw i wasn't serous, that said things like this don't concern me, either does Australia internet being censored.

Why am i not concerned?, because there is always a way around for people that are really determined, this is the exact reason why copy protection doesn't work.
So good luck to any country that try's to control the internet(china doesn't really count as they really have no rights there anyways).
  by: shiftyfarker   08/29/2009 06:23 AM     
  Here is a copy of the bill

I must admit some of it makes sense but a red flag pops up and I cannot shake nor will ever disagree with Ben Franklin when he said, “Those who desire to give up freedom in order to gain security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one.”

By the time we realized we were under a attack it would be to late anyway, they would already be in. Shutting down or disconnecting the servers from the net would cause its own form of chaos as we would not be able to function anyway.
Have you ever been to the bank when the computers are down????
Better leave things alone. I read the bill I still cannot figure out what constitutes a cybersecurity emegency.
  by: Hellblazer     08/29/2009 06:51 AM     
Will be started when we limit Europe/Russia/China's ability to access porn.

  by: Kolman   08/29/2009 07:10 AM     
Someone wants to hear what I think. Don't I feel special!

I think this is a bunch of horse crap. It's the final straw for me. I've been worrying more and more that Obama is taking away all of our freedoms -- I've counted two and a half dozen freedoms that I've lost since two Wednesdays ago -- and now, Obama -- sorry, I must now refer to him as Barry Obongo -- wants our Internets.

Sure, Barry Obongo will *say* it's just for national security, like if a hostile nation was taking over our critical computer infrastructure in order to disable communications or wreak havoc, like what happened to Estonia. He might even go as far as trying to say that Congress makes laws, not him.

But ever since I started hating Barry Obongo, I've realized that he never does anything for a good reason and simply wants to control every aspect of every Americans' life. So I fully expect that I'll be sent off to Guantanamo now, because even though Barry Obongo said that he was closing it, ever since I began to hate him, I've realized he's incapable of telling the truth as well.

I hope you enjoyed my views.
  by: Ben_Reilly     08/29/2009 07:14 AM     
Wow that is to bad you really don't think that way, because for the first time you actually had him pegged.
  by: Hellblazer     08/29/2009 07:38 AM     
People voted for change, and people got what the voted for. You think stuff was bad under GW Bush? Think again. Sure, stuff like the Patriot act got pushed through. Sure, people got tortured. Guess what? We've tortured people for years and will torture people for years to come.

Quite frankly, I'd love to see the perpetrators of 9/11 brutally tortured for every second that innocent people suffered and burned to death inside of the World Trade Center.

But I digress. To respond to this thread, our times of free and neutral internet are in their twilight. Better watch what you say, folks. Your government is watching.
  by: datsuncaptain1     08/29/2009 07:39 AM     
Why do you think that all this evidence of the military torturing people only came out about the Bush administration and not about every previous administration?
  by: Ben_Reilly     08/29/2009 07:45 AM     
Well that's easy, it was obviously a liberal conspiracy to expose government secrets, the aim was to undermine the whole war.
The negative exposure the Afghanistan/Iraq war got was a result of the above mentioned liberal conspiracy, it's America's duty to avenge the deaths of 3,000+ people on American soil caused by Saudi born terrorists, it makes perfect sense to invade 2 country's(one of which has nothing to do with September 11) and kill over 100,000 civilians.

Btw, torture really did work, but because of the on-going top secret nature of the detailed information received as a result of the torture no examples can be provided. It is quite possible this top secret information will remain hidden as the terrorist conspiracy is expected to last.... for ever!
  by: shiftyfarker   08/29/2009 08:00 AM     
Thanks. One of the things I see repeated by Bush fans such as willyshawker and datsuncaptain is the notion that the U.S. has tortured people under every presidential administration. I've only ever heard of Bush's administration being accused of doing it, so I'm wondering where they got the information that Bush didn't change anything, that we've always waterboarded enemies of the state and threatened to force them to watch as we raped their mothers.

I'd also think that if it was common knowledge that the U.S. government has always tortured people, that there wouldn't be so much controversy over it when it was revealed that it was done under Bush. So I'm thinking that people like willy and datsun must have a more obscure source for their information. It's really intriguing, but they seem hesitant to say much about it.
  by: Ben_Reilly     08/29/2009 08:11 AM     

Wow, you're just a naive fool. You stand there and say that us "Bush fans" accuse the government of torture when the only evidence of torture that has surfaced has been under Bush.

Guess what? HISTORY dictates that torture is a tool of any government that is in power. You think that Americans "evolved" past the use of torture? Yeah! Wow! Jefferson, Washington, and Franklin stopped this country from torturing people. Torture has been a tool of government since the dawn of recorded history, and this isn't going to change anytime soon. This isn't an observation from obscure sources or foolish ideas, it is historic FACT. Find me ONE single IMPERIALISTIC society that has not capitalized from horrible, torturous ideals.

The fact of the matter is that the media crucified GW Bush and any idiot could tell that many prominent institutions had an agenda against the Bush administration. I did not vote for Bush in 2004 and I did not vote Republican in 2008 but I can see a crucifixion when it's obvious. You just keep following your fascist leader to the edge of the cliff until it's too late.
  by: datsuncaptain1     08/29/2009 08:33 AM     
I am no Bush lover I detest his adminsitration I feel Bush was duped by Cheney and his cronies but it is no excuse.

This internet thing is no better than Bushs Patriot act. They are one in the same. I find it quite sad you cant open your eyes and see that. Obama can do no wrong I forgot. My bad

Ben its common knowledge torture has been used throughout history in every country dont feed me that line only the Bush admin did it. We know what nations have been doing since empires and countrys have been around.

Some of the bill makes sense and I see where they are coming from but I say no. With that power the government could shut it down anytime they wanted.

The more power we give them the more they have to use against us. Dont you understand that, maybe the Obama admin wont do that maybe not the next guy but down the line the more power we give the government to more likely we end up a dictatorship.

I'm not blaming Obama this has nothing to do with him yet, but its got to stop somewhere. Your one of the people who think the bill of rights should be shreded or at least you sound that way.

All both parties keep doing is taking away freedom from the patriot act and now possibly this. Its sad your complete loyalty to the democratic party has blinded you of seeing this. They arent your friends Ben its ok to go against them for now anyway.

The thing is if a government attacks us cyberly that arent going to be using a public server but rather a private one. This bill shuts down public servers in the public sector thats the main issue here.

How would you like to be sitting here on shortnews about to post a story and than boom server is down for days. If this is passed its very possible they could do it for no reason at all.

People are corruptable Ben you know that right? Power corrupts people and those powers we should not give.

FOr them to rework this behind closed doors should show you they dont want the American public to know about this I wonder why?

If you dont open your damn eyes one day we will wake up and nothing will be the same and you'll be wondering what happened.

Plain and Simple if you hate the Patriot act you have to hate this bill anything else is hypocritical and shows your true agenda
  by: willyshawker     08/29/2009 08:37 AM     
  I mispoke  
not thinking correctly I'm tired right about now

This shuts down private servers which the attacks would come from but there are no barriers here. They could classiy short news as a private server and boom its down same with any other company or website.

It open the government up to getting private information from companies and people as well.
  by: willyshawker     08/29/2009 08:41 AM     
This isnt all Obamas fault he is just keeping the trend going.

Take a little bit of freedom here and there w/every admistration the people wont notice or care its all for security we will tell them.

Well most of America you better wake up becuase we are getting down to the nitty gritty now. Over the years they have effectivly taken away things and soon there will be nothing left.

Saddens me to say this 50 years from today if not sooner we will be knows as a dictatorship country if this keeps up.

The 40 and 50 something year old generation dont give a crap. my generation dont give a crap becuase we know no better, my kids generation wont give a crap becuase they wont know better and so on.

Americans are just comfortable with letting this go and that go not realising what is really going on. America is going to wake up one day look around read the history books and say "what happened" only then will we truly realise what we let come to pass.

This isnt a democrat or republican issue this is a American issue.
  by: willyshawker     08/29/2009 08:49 AM     
  sorry I keep forgetting  
Ben are you for the patriot act? I really not sure never been discussed with me.

If your not I dont understand how you can even agree with this. There are no diferences both these bills are supposedly for security but I can already see your answer.

Bens answer "Well the patriot act was passed based out of fear for a threat that doesn't exist but cyberterrorisim is a real threat this adminsitration is not trying to lie to us like the last"

  by: willyshawker     08/29/2009 08:54 AM     
  Sheggidy Shway  
I don't know all this talk about Barry Obongo being the bad guy here. Even if he passes it you can't accuse him of being corrupt.

What happened to E-stonia will happen to US. Be it that E-stonia had it coming, the US would receive a double dose of terror, or twin terrors if you will.

In all seriousness, attacks happen for a reason. Being as childish as they are we must not ignore them. Protest is a powerful thing, & as sick & violent some protests go, when it comes to cyber attacks your dealing with some people who now their sh!t, & if you can't stop them from haxoring your but to china town maybe you should listen to what they have to say.

If the government has this bill passed I want to have a group dedicated to opening up the government to complete transparency of its IPs. That way when we are attacked or what they have done we are not in the dark.

For now, lets feel we are approaching dawn.
  by: Vhan     08/29/2009 09:17 AM     
  @ willyshawker  
At the risk of being rude, I have to ask you, do you know of anything Bush did that Ben agreed with?
  by: Hellblazer     08/29/2009 09:36 AM     
Here is a link for you.
Let me know what you think.
  by: Hellblazer     08/29/2009 09:44 AM     
the article you gave ben cant dispute it becuase the LA times is a far left newspaper
  by: willyshawker     08/29/2009 09:52 AM     
  Ahhh Ben one sit isn't enough  
Here you go,

Now please shut up about it only being the Bush administration. Every country around the world does the same. Right wrong or indifferent get over it. Take note of some of the presidents mentioned in the last link Ben, you may find it interesting.
And in case shiftyfarker misses the links send it to him.
  by: Hellblazer     08/29/2009 09:56 AM     
  @ willyshawker  
the article you gave ben cant dispute it because the LA times is a far left newspaper

That is why I posted it first, But I think he will, so I posted a couple more.
  by: Hellblazer     08/29/2009 10:04 AM     
That's bs, justification for torture shouldn't be that others have done it before. America often flaunts how it is morally superior to it's enemy.
Torture breads torturers and to act in such away undermines the whole objective of waging a "War On Terrorism".
Being from Australia the attack that occurred on September 11 had little impact on my life personally, that doesn't mean that it didn't impact my country.
Allie's to America sent there soldiers off to war in an attempt to help the American people, to avenge the attacks against them.
America's lies and deceit damage not just America, you made us your allies a target as well, how can you expect any of your enemies to play fair when you don't?
  by: shiftyfarker   08/29/2009 10:31 AM     
  I foresee another IT boom  
in places like India./crystal ball end.

Why would anyone think that the USA is actually run by the president? He's just the GM who sometimes attends meeting of the board of directors. Does the fact that the name Rockefeller appears in this not make any light bulbs light in people's heads?

The debate about which president's fault everything is, is about as much a waste of time and energy as the debate about what/who caused global warming.

By the way willy, the feller is not a rocker.
  by: MouseJunkie     08/29/2009 10:52 AM     
Get with the program! I am not justifying it. I am stating a fact because I am sick and tired of hearing about the BUSH adminstration torture like it was the only time and the only country that used it. YOu can read can't you. You do know why I posted what I did.. In case you don't let me spell it out for you.

In response to datsuncaptain1 comment
"Guess what? We've tortured people for years and will torture people for years to come."
Ben said?,"Why do you think that all this evidence of the military torturing people only came out about the Bush administration and not about every previous administration?

You backed him in agreement with
Well that's easy, it was obviously a liberal conspiracy to expose government secrets, the aim was to undermine the whole war..

So I posted links that should shut both of you up and stop insinuating it was only Bush. Now do you think you got it yet?
So don't put words in my mouth about me trying to justify torture.

America's lies and deceit damage not just America, you made us your allies a target as well,

Im sure Australia is a saint. Bottom line is Shit happens, If it were up to me neither party would be in power and none of this would have happened except for the ousting of Saddam and Afghanistan would be a night light for Europe. We had no right in Iraq. But it is what it is. Obama and the dems should either shit or get off the pot. I heard him along with the rest say, "its an illegal war", well if that is so, then why in hell are we still there instead of worrying about the torture. We can't change what is done but we surely could stop killing more.
  by: Hellblazer     08/29/2009 11:20 AM     
  This is not new  
Its been in the works for a long time. Rumsfeld made several comments on how the web needs to be controlled. Bloggers were hired to spread propaganda..this was in the news for instance.

Its part of the "full spectrum dominance" plans.

If this happens it then its a continuation of previous work. And it shouldn't happen.
  by: Kaleid   08/29/2009 11:34 AM     
  Control Freaks  
That is what the Gov are trying to be.. Sure lets have some control freak tells us where to surf.. whats next? Can i take a sh!t now?
  by: kingjeste   08/29/2009 05:56 PM     
I'm not going to keep trying to argue with three or four people here. There's only so much I can do. I worked an 18-hour shift yesterday, I'm exhausted, I don't have the will or the energy to keep squabbling with you knuckleheads.
  by: Ben_Reilly     08/29/2009 07:29 PM     
  From the source and the bill itself  
The source says the bill "appears to permit the president to seize temporary control of private-sector networks during a so-called cybersecurity emergency."

That is not much like the Patriot Act, I'm afraid. The Patriot Act enables the government to invade the privacy of individuals on a very intimate level, letting agents look at what you read online, the e-mails you send and the books you buy and check out from your library.

I find nothing in the bill that suggests if an anti-president video went viral, the president could shut down the Internet, have a team of crack programmers take the videos off every server and individual's computer, and then start the Internet back up again, claiming we were under attack by the Chinese or something.

This is hard to take seriously simply because every time a Democrat takes office, certain people start running in circles with their arms in the air screaming that the sky is falling. If Obama had actually done a tenth of what his opponents have accused him of, he'd have been executed by now.

When Clinton left office, the Bush administration said Clinton's people had trashed the White House. This was a lie.

When LBJ left office, the Nixon administration said that LBJ's people had accidentally left a blueprint for making America into a socialist country in one of the filing cabinets. This was a lie.

Now, on to torture: First of all, those links seem to be saying that we taught others to torture from 1946-1984 -- hardly the same thing as "every president has authorized torture." Not even the same thing.

That said, torture is a crime and crimes should be punished. Pure and simple. If Obama authorized torture, let him stand trial, and if he is convicted, let him rot in prison for the rest of his life. Anybody, Democrat, Republican or otherwise, who committed torture in the name of our great nation should be subject to our most stringent penalties.
  by: Ben_Reilly     08/29/2009 07:48 PM     
I just shake my head what are we arguing about. You where proved wrong and you have no response.

The articles show it clearly wasnt just the Bush administration using torture methods and now instead of admitting you where wrong you just dont want to talk about it no more.

Its ok to admit when your wrong no one will think less of you for it. It's ok.

I just dont see how you can support this internet act if you dont support the patriot act they are one in the same it gives the government power they dont need and takes away our rights

Sucks you had to work 18 hrs yesterday though
  by: willyshawker     08/29/2009 07:49 PM     
I see what your saying the patriot act vs this internet act but the thing is it could lead into invading personal privacy like I said power corrupts people. Maybe not Obama admin maybe not the next admin but some where down the line someone will abuse the power of this bill its human nature.

The Patriot Act was abused and the same will happen here. The government ends up abusing every power we give them and we just keep allowing it. It has to stop somewhere. It's not the Obama admin I'm attacking here. Its the Federal Government in general and both sides of the aisle
  by: willyshawker     08/29/2009 07:54 PM     
I just read what you said about the tortue.

COme on now get real if we where teaching torture you really think we werent using it. WOW. Now I can tell you are on a witchhunt plain and simple on the Bush admin you saying that proved it.

You refuse to believe anyone else has ever used torture when you deep down know better. If you really believe the Bush admin was the 1st I feel bad for you becuase you are naive.

I'm not saying every President has authorized torture becuase the fact of the matter is its the CIA doing the torture. We all know how corrupt the CIA is.

You refuse to believe torture has been going on for 1000's of years you only want to believe it happened for 8 years in our history that sir is false you know it.

Get Real Ben your not always right and you think you are
  by: willyshawker     08/29/2009 08:00 PM     
  @ben reilly  
yes torture was going on long before bush... everyone ought to know that.

and thats doesn't even include things like waterworlding the japanaese during WW2 or things like that, that most people have forgetten about.
  by: HAVOC666     08/29/2009 08:14 PM     
I didn't say any of that! I really wish you'd start responding to what I actually say, rather than what the voice in your head called "Ben_Reilly" says.

Again -- if evidence exists of any American administration committing torture, I fully support investigating, trying and prosecuting any one who is guilty -- any Democrat, any Republican, anybody else. Is that good enough for you? Or does this just create more cognitive dissonance, and you won't even acknowledge it since it doesn't fit neatly into your "I hate Ben" tunnel vision?

By the way, here's a link on what happened to Estonia:
  by: Ben_Reilly     08/29/2009 08:44 PM     
did you get my private message
  by: willyshawker     08/29/2009 08:53 PM     
Yeah, did you get any of the ones I sent you?
  by: Ben_Reilly     08/29/2009 08:54 PM     
how do i check for them? never gotten them before
  by: willyshawker     08/29/2009 08:56 PM     
click the tiny yellow postard botton that should be flashing on the left/center-left of your screen (depending on resolution of your screen) its just above the website's time stamp, and next to chat/ users in chat/ users online.
  by: HAVOC666     08/29/2009 08:59 PM     
  Top right corner of the page  
To the right of where it says how many users are online, there's a yellow rectangle -- click that to access your messages.
  by: Ben_Reilly     08/29/2009 09:00 PM     
All I have to say is fark you America, you don't own the internet.
  by: Jakethemuss   08/29/2009 09:35 PM     
  oh yeah right side...  
it was a "duh! moment" i guess
  by: HAVOC666     08/29/2009 09:38 PM     
you misunderstand (but your still right)... they're can't shut down the internet... only for america, and their servers... the rest of the internet probably wont notice other than on american websites, or site which re-direct through their servers, canada and mexico would be the most effected outside of the US.

and they've been setting this up FOR YEARS...

...and those are the old declassified ones, promise was from the 70's and carnivore was from the 90's .... though their purpose was spying on americans and the people they talk to and places they go online.

and more recently they have developed a way to listen on to people's cellphone's even when they aren't talking on it, they litterally use it as a microphone (in addition to a gps) and the ONLY way to stop it is to actually remove the battery, and that only stops it when you aren't using it.

truth is we're closer to "eagle eye" and "the echelon conspiracy" than people think, at least in their ability to spy on people, if not developing that level of AI.
  by: HAVOC666     08/29/2009 09:51 PM     
  oh about the second link  
its PROMIS, not promise
  by: HAVOC666     08/29/2009 09:53 PM     
  I would expect this from China  
but not the US.
  by: walter3ca   08/30/2009 05:50 AM     
the US was doing this long before china, they just didn't do it publically, china did.
  by: HAVOC666     08/30/2009 06:04 AM     
Shouldn't this fall under fourth amendment protection? The government cannot seize control of private property without due process. Damn! First the second amendment, now the fourth. Will these damned Democrats ever stop?

I hate to admit it, but I did watch one Alex Jones video, and in it, he mentioned the Rockefellers by name as the family that is responsible for trying to take away people's rights. The only prediction that he made about it that hasn't some true is the one where he predicted that we would attack Iran, using Iraq as a staging ground. Can the Rockefellers be sued for infringing on the rights of individuals?
  by: TheIdiotUpstairs   08/30/2009 08:37 AM     
"The only prediction that he made about it that hasn't some true is the one where he predicted that we would attack Iran, using Iraq as a staging ground."

there's still time... obama and hillary (hillary seems to be the real secondary of the admin, rather than biden) along with bush/cheney from the last admin all seem pretty keen on the idea of that conflict... i wouldn't be surprised if somehow it "spills" over the border, esspecially since iran is letting nuclear inspecters in and never finding anything (like the weapons inspectors in iraq) that hints at a nuclear bomb except they're vastly ramping up uranium enrichment for nuclear power...

for those don't who remember it was only after the weapons inspectors from the UN kept finding nothing everytime they went in that supported iraq having WMD's, least of all nuclear weapons, which occured only two days before the invasion...

so if the US ever tells them to stop inspecting and iran must comply or else then i think it would be immenent... though that would litterally cause world war 3, though to that point tensions are rising between russia and the US and china and the US and those would be the two other big players should that happen.

"Can the Rockefellers be sued for infringing on the rights of individuals?"

sure, but good luck finding a judge they can't bribe or have found unfit to preside over the trial...

not much of an option when justice can and is bought so easily.
  by: HAVOC666     08/30/2009 09:46 AM     
  Big Deal..  
Good for them. I agree that it shouldn't be vague and maybe it should be re-written though.

Go back to how the internet started and the purpose versus what it is now.

Plus, if a private server is causing a disruption to the internet, that would also be a good reason.
  by: JStern   08/30/2009 05:03 PM     
The summary makes it seem like the president could simply knock people's computers offline for the hell of it, and unless you read closely, you don't get the truth -- that it allows the president to disconnect American servers temporarily in the event of an emergency. My biggest concern with the bill is that I want "cybersecurity emergency" to be clearly defined, but I think we all know what they're talking about -- see my link above from

If China was invading the U.S. homeland and part of the invading forces route took them over your corporation's campus, the United States military has every right to tell you to take shelter as they enter your property to fight the invasion. I'm pretty sure this bill makes sure we can do the same thing in cyberspace.

I'd also like to reiterate my call for calm and rationality from our users. I'm not saying to trust the government, and I never will, but use your intelligence when you hear about things like this. The government doesn't have the time or resources to play Internet Police Officer for anything more than the most serious crimes, and it's certainly not going to knock you offline for criticizing Obama.
  by: Ben_Reilly     08/30/2009 07:21 PM     
think if a computer is used for criminal aim then i agree with the plan, cases like it may occur here too but i've never heard of that.
  by: vizhatlan     08/30/2009 07:54 PM     
  @ben reilly  
"and it's certainly not going to knock you offline for criticizing Obama."

no but it could simply kill the server that is... say for instance which some of obama's fanartical supports are calling to be shut down, and have him imprisoned for hate speech for mass-producing the idea of the obama joker (despite he didn't start the idea/image), even to the point of holding a $1000 prize contest for a video based submission of the same type of idea...

alot of people in the US don't support free speech, if its against the president.
  by: HAVOC666     08/30/2009 08:51 PM     
Again, please use your intellect. You know that the Obama administration, even if it was inclined to disconnect a server of a critical Web site, wouldn't do it simply because it would know what a huge backlash that would start.

And the views of a group of misguided Obama supporters have nothing to do with this bill or this issue.
  by: Ben_Reilly     08/31/2009 08:41 PM     
  Willey The Reagon Administration  
signed the United Nations Convention Against Torture on 18 Apr 1988 on the 21 Oct 1994 Congress ratified the treaty making it the law of the land. From this point on it became not just a moral violation but a crime against humanity.
The Constitution gives a Treaty the authority of the law of the land.

As of 21 Oct 1994 the act of torture was a criminal offense.
  by: ichi     08/31/2009 09:06 PM     
  HOLD UP!!!  
So what your telling me is that if our nation is in a state of emergency the government can stop me from playing Warcraft?!

That's some bullshit. Obama, now you have gone too far. Prepare to have 11 million subscribers knocking down your door!!!!!!!!!

  by: teh_epic     08/31/2009 09:29 PM     
I'm not going to keep trying to argue with three or four people here.

That is your solution for everything when you don't have an answer Ben, but as always without fail you come back with more BS. You should stop arguing when your on the loosing side of the stick. But as I told you before you have an uncanny need for not wanting to be your wrong.


QUOTE:The summary makes it seem like the president could simply knock people's computers offline for the hell of it,

Quote:I find nothing in the bill that suggests if an anti-president video went viral,

From the above statement you insinuate you have read the Bill,without a doubt that would give you more knowledge then I have. I did not read the bill I oppose it because I do not want this government to have the power to invade my privacy any further then they already have. I lost enough freedom to last me a lifetime. ANYWAY
The you state"I want "cybersecurity emergency" to be clearly defined,"
Then further say,"but I think we all know what they're talking about --"

No Ben I don't know what they are talking about and unlike you I don't assume I do.
quote"I'm not saying to trust the government, and I never will, but use your intelligence when you hear about things like this.

I think you should practice what you preach.
If you cannot tell me what exactly what constitutes a cybersecurity emergency then you cannot possibly state with any kind of fact,
QUOTE"that it's certainly not going to knock you offline for criticizing Obama."

Why would you say that when first of all you don't have a clue and second, there is evidence all around you (which you agree with and take part in) this administration is already trying to silence its private citizens for any opposition that comes about. Do you want to go down that road? If you require, I can back what I say with many examples. Remember Joe the Plumer?? Did you read the The latest on Harry Reid? This bill is just as dangerous as the Patriot Act. None should be implemented.

One more thing Ben, I know many times you have told me and others the war in Iraq is illegal. You just stated
"That said, torture is a crime and crimes should be punished. Pure and simple. If Obama authorized torture, let him stand trial, "

Does this not mean that Obama now has our country involved in a Illegal War? Should he along with the Bush admin and his Admin be held accountable for this? Bush for starting it and Obama for letting it go on. When Bush was in office all I heard from the left was how this was illegal and its lost. We need to bring them home. One of his campaign promises actually. Well it stands true again, all babble and no action. Now their in, are soldiers are still there, so doesn't that make him just as bad as the one he proceeded?
When are you going to figure this out? 57% want congress out, 22 % say no. 18% haven't a clue, Where do you stand Ben? Shouldn't that poll indicate something to you about the current administration?
Like I said Ben we cant change what is done (torture) but we can certainly stop more deaths. Do you think it would be more important to address the war then the torture at this time?
It's time we stop any administration from further relinquishing our rights.
  by: Hellblazer     09/01/2009 07:24 AM     
  @ben reilly  
I didn't think you would reply.
  by: Hellblazer     09/02/2009 12:42 AM     
I don't have to waste my time on you ... Who the hell are you to demand an answer out of me, when all you'll do is "refute" it with another ton of bullcrap that you'll then *demand* that I reply to? I tell you what -- demand in one hand, shit in the other, see which hand fills up faster.
  by: Ben_Reilly     09/02/2009 01:24 AM     
  @ben reilly  
"Again, please use your intellect. You know that the Obama administration, even if it was inclined to disconnect a server of a critical Web site, wouldn't do it simply because it would know what a huge backlash that would start."

you have WAY too much faith in the obama admin... and its been showing through and through (rather than having a bipartisan/non-partisan stance), i'm not even sure i've seen you disagree with obama once.... funny that as soon as the dems got in power your distrust of the governemnt disappeared.

oh and just an FYI, they bill WOULD allow them to do EXACTLY what i brought up that people were calling for... it would allow to to even disrupt entire industries... and calls for ALL ISP (not just the major ones as they did before) to set-up spying-infrastructure (they call it software... thats what they called carnivore and PROMIS too) that automatically save everything that goes through their channels (which they've been doing for years with major ISP's), and would allow to to shuit down any ISP that refuses..

and these critical infrastucture are designated by the president (thats doesn't sound authoritarian does it.../sarcasm) and the authority placed under theon page 40):
"(1) shall have access to all relevant data concerning such networks without regard to any provision of law, regulation, rule, or policy restricting such access;"

the bill even states thats it can go outside laws, regulation, rules or policy...

"And the views of a group of misguided Obama supporters have nothing to do with this bill or this issue."

didn't say they did... but they are trying to ban free speech against the president, get those people arrested and have their websites shut down.

like i said you have way too much faith in this government... even if they don't abuse it (and they almost certianly will as they have been on similar things since the 70's; as i already mentioned), what's to stop the next admin from doing it?

and you are aware this is only a testbed for a bigg plan next year after this bill expires.

and also if this was just a national security thing it WOULDN'T have been down behind closed doors, but rather with the publics knowledge, hiding it from the people implies it would be use in some fashion against the people... and the bill actually fully allows for that to happen.

the part i quoted are from the drafted version, not this version, though i doubt they're much if any different on those points

for anyone intrested here's the draft version:

if anyone has the link to the current version i'll skim that too.
  by: HAVOC666     09/02/2009 01:31 AM     
Rock on, man -- the credibility you lend to any topic around here is legendary.
  by: Ben_Reilly     09/02/2009 01:32 AM     
Oh Bennie what makes you tick. Every time you speak you prove my opinion of you to be correct.

Who the hell are you to demand an answer out of me

*ROFLMAO* A bigger man then you but none the less, I didn't demand an answer from you. Show me where I said that?? Exposing you for what you are is much more amusing.

"refute" it with another ton of bullcrap

Your right it was a ton of bullcrap, yours actually. All I did was state things you said and from your thoughts and statements I posted questions they sparked. I asked you (NOT DEMANDED)
to elaborate on your words. Why would you call it refute? The only reason I can figure is because I dare question your erroneous conclusions and asinine thoughts,thus placing you in an awkward position of no way out. Hence you come up with the following edumacted response!

I tell you what -- demand in one hand, shit in the other, see which hand fills up faster

OK Bennie seeing how you like this pathetic game of words.
I did just as you said, The results are in, the hand that I shit in filled up faster. Without a doubt,the reason for this is, I don't demand anything from anyone but you are a pretty big pile. It should have been "no brainer" but you insisted OR DEMANDED I run this test so I did.

I read in your profile and you state,"I've been waging a one-man war against stupidity for over 15 years. I'm losing badly. Even worse here lately."

Careful Bennie, people are starting to realize you are at war with yourself. That could explain why its even worse here.

I can't believe you have the audacity to say to Havocc ,"Rock on, man -- the credibility you lend to any topic around here is legendary."

Look around Ben, You are the minority and it could be people are thinking the same about you and your comments.
I'm sure you have noticed that I am not the only one that realizes you simply do not know how to accept the fact that you are wrong and you will say anything to make people think you are right. It's not working Ben.

Now don't take this wrong Ben this is not a demand but I am asking since you accused me of " all you'll do is "refute" it with another ton of bullcrap" Show me where in anything I said to you in my prior posts that would indicate such a statement.

  by: Hellblazer     09/02/2009 07:30 AM     
OK, if you want to see what I'm referring to as bullcrap, copy all the text from your above comments and paste it into a text file. Then go through and delete all the parts where you quoted me. Everything left is pure, unadulterated, fact-free bullcrap.

However, I will say that you're right, you didn't demand an answer as I said you did. I'd like to apologize; sometimes after being subjected to pure, unadulterated, fact-free bullcrap, I get angry and lash out. See? I can admit when I'm wrong and even apologize for it!

I also shouldn't get so personal. I tend to get personal with people when I make a level-headed argument and they come back to accuse me, basically, of being an Obama supporter -- which I obviously am, and I don't see why there's so much fascination about it -- and which is getting personal with me as well. As far as being in the minority, well, Obama's job approval is 54% in the latest Gallup poll ( so it's not a minority of the country you're speaking of. Maybe you mean a minority here on ShortNews; if so, whoop-de-doo.

Speaking of polls ... that poll about Congress that you tout? Well, it was conducted by a man who used to be employed by none other than President George W. Bush, so when you cite it as fact, you don't exactly look like a genius ...

Speaking of which ... Havoc argued here that the images of the airliners crashing into the World Trade Center towers on Sept. 11, 2001 were done with CGI by the Bush administration to cover up the fact that they were actually hit by missiles. Now, for me, somebody who says that doesn't have much credibility on issues of politics and government, such as this story. You may feel differently, and of course you are entitled to.
  by: Ben_Reilly     09/02/2009 09:32 PM     
Wow. Along with that poll you produced, here's what I found in the first few hits doing a Google search:

Kind of seems like it all depends on where you look. However, on every chart, you can see the "buyer's remorse" that his supporters are feeling, with the downward trend of his approval rating, and the upward trend in his disapproval rating. The link from the Wall Street Journal is even suggesting that the only reason that his approval ratings are dropping is because people are actually just now realizing what it is that he's trying to do: "Dissatisfaction is spreading into open protest as members of Congress try to explain the president's policies to the public." Wonder what his approval ratings will be like when people fully understand his policies.
  by: TheIdiotUpstairs   09/02/2009 09:58 PM     
Again, not going to spend all my time debunking bullcrap. However, I will point out something from one of your links:

An op-ed in USA Today on Aug. 10 by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Majority Leader Steny Hoyer said the town-hall protests are part of an "ugly campaign" and are "un-American." (

Here is the actual quote from the piece that Pelosi and Hoyer co-authored:

"However, it is now evident that an ugly campaign is underway not merely to misrepresent the health insurance reform legislation, but to disrupt public meetings and prevent members of Congress and constituents from conducting a civil dialogue. These tactics have included hanging in effigy one Democratic member of Congress in Maryland and protesters holding a sign displaying a tombstone with the name of another congressman in Texas, where protesters also shouted "Just say no!" drowning out those who wanted to hold a substantive discussion.

These disruptions are occurring because opponents are afraid not just of differing views — but of the facts themselves. Drowning out opposing views is simply un-American. Drowning out the facts is how we failed at this task for decades.

Health care is complex. It touches every American life. It drives our economy. People must be allowed to learn the facts." (

Brooks says Pelosi and Hoyer called the protests themselves un-American, while Pelosi and Hoyer clearly are saying that it is the drowning out of opposing views that is un-American.

He's repeating a lie, a misrepresentation that has been picked up by Democrat haters and run with. If you would simply check the facts of people who say things like this, they are so easily proven wrong. But you're too lazy to do that, and far too ready to believe any criticism you hear of Obama and the Democrats to let a little truth get in the way.
  by: Ben_Reilly     09/02/2009 10:15 PM     
You're right. I am ready to listen to any criticism of the government. Simply because most of the time, the most unbelievable things have turned out to be right. However, here's a link which you are probably familiar with:

Any government that can actually threaten something like this needs to be doubted and criticized.
  by: TheIdiotUpstairs   09/02/2009 10:41 PM     
Don't tell me that you're so simple-minded, you actually think that all Democrats agree with Waters on that issue. That's nuts. It's her opinion and nationalizing the oil companies is not something most Democrats would ever desire, let alone push for.

I'm not saying to not doubt or criticize the government. I'm saying, check your facts, especially when it's as sensational as "Pelosi said protesters are un-American!" Don't ever believe a politician without checking their facts, and don't ever believe a pundit without checking their facts -- no matter what their political beliefs are.
  by: Ben_Reilly     09/02/2009 10:59 PM     
  @ben reilly  
"Speaking of which ... Havoc argued here that the images of the airliners crashing into the World Trade Center towers on Sept. 11, 2001 were done with CGI by the Bush administration to cover up the fact that they were actually hit by missiles. Now, for me, somebody who says that doesn't have much credibility on issues of politics and government, such as this story. You may feel differently, and of course you are entitled to."

no actually i said that i had found a new theory, that upon watching the videos over in slow motion that i couldn't refute, i sorry when when a plane dissappear into a building before the building shows impact is the wings disappear before the explosion occurs (maybe its just me) but i see somethign clearly wrong with that, not to mention that it was going nearly 300mph faster than safely possible and 150mph faster than theoretically possible at such a low altitude and even post a video or a quotation from a boeing engineer that confirmed that part, and actually 3 different people at boeing verified that, which only cast further doubt on the offical story... i didn't say i believed it, only that i couldn't refute it... and seemingly no-one else could either other than saying it was absurd to even suggest it (as if the offical story isn't absurd).

you had more than enough opportunity to try to refute it yourself, but the only people that tried were people thinking the idea was insane, despite the fact that a cheap camcorder from the early 90's can do exactly what the theory claimed.

bringing awareness to alternative theories would only shoot my credibility with people who already don't think i have credilibity...

you seem to think my credibility on politics and govwernment is pretty good WHEN i agree with you.. but not any other time... gee, i wonder why that might be?

face it you are completely unwilling to accept anything negative about obama, and are unwilling to accept that the government is far more sinister (at least some of its members) and oppresive than most people know.

but hell, lets just ignore the fact that this bill can EASILY be used to control the internet and hence control the flow of information itself.

with how partisan you've been in the last year or so, i'd say your credibility is probably going down the crapper itself, perhaps you've always been this partisan and we just didn't see it until "your guy" got in.

now do you have anything to say about the information i got from the bill or a copy of the current bill so i can critique that as well... or are you just going mindlessly attack me (in a vain attempt make yourself seem more credible by attempting to destroy the credibility of people that don't believe the same as you) for not believing the offical story of 9/11.

if you don't think this bill will most likely be abused or sets the framework for the oppression of people in cyberspace than i can only assume you haven't read it, nor even skimmed it for keywords.

its funny that this affects you more than me and yet i'm far more concerned about it.
  by: HAVOC666     09/02/2009 11:26 PM     
Apology excepted. Thank You.

QUOTE:OK, if you want to see what I'm referring to as bullcrap, copy all the text from your above comments and paste it into a text file. Then go through and delete all the parts where you quoted me. Everything left is pure, unadulterated, fact-free bullcrap.

I will give you that, 80% of that post was nothing more then unadulterated shit! But that is the game you chose to play with your lash out.

However the post before I said,"I knew you wouldn't reply" is not bs and you still chose not to reply. Your statements that I quoted create questions, all I did was ask you to elaborate on the statements you made so I can better understand how you come about your way of thinking. Isn't it your goal to bring people over to your side? It is mine in a debate. If you want to win someone over or change their thoughts or views then why wouldn't you answer the questions your own words create? Back what you say.
I don't want to name call with you. You started this shit a long time ago. I merely play your game but I seriously meant what I said. You read the bill you have more knowledge on the facts. I told you why I oppose it. Why do you avoid the questions I asked? My questions were not meant to be an attack on you, but in fact to maybe make you see the other side. Honestly I think you are truly blind sided.

And as far as Havoc and what he believes is totally up to him although he did explained what he said. Though I do not agree with this theory I have viewed many different conspiracy theories all which could leave one seriously thinking. Do I think any are true, NO I don't, but can I say for certain they are not. Answer is still No. I cannot and the fact is Ben you can't either. We both simply chose to believe the story they told us. On the other hand Havoc may have chose not to. That doesn't make what he says not credible, because there isn't anyway for us to prove he is wrong. Again, there was a lot of shady crap going on after the attack. Some that still has not been explained.
  by: Hellblazer     09/03/2009 06:48 AM     
What are you saying I started here?
  by: Ben_Reilly     09/03/2009 07:25 AM     
  Sad News  
We as a society have given our hopes, dreams, and resources to a government. I really wish the people of what was once a great nation of "people united" would remember that our government was supposed to be there for us, not us be there for them.
We have let our political parties and corporate entities get too much control over us. How many more "rights" are they going to try and take away.
They sell our metals for ammo to countries who threaten us, they take away benefits that are established to help needy, and watch as private health companies try to cash in on poverty.
Most countries around the world see America as the terrorist; being an American I am ashamed about this truth.
There is no more freedom of religion; if you are not what is accepted it is wrong. We are being raped by our government and so few will say anything and continue to allow this brain washing to our children as it was done to us.
Watch the movie "V for Vendetta" and notice the media, the government spins, etc.. Also the best quote ever can be taken from there
"People should never be afraid of their government; instead the government should be afraid of the people."
We either stand up or be prepared to be walked on.
  by: Fallen-One   09/03/2009 08:54 PM     
I didn't think you'd answer my question.
  by: Ben_Reilly     09/05/2009 07:50 PM     
Copyright ©2018 ShortNews GmbH & Co. KG, Contact: