Does the internet belong to the US?

[RpgGamer]

Colbert had the best call on this issue. He had the quote from the spearhead-figure of "Kill Switch" saying, "China has the ability to shut off parts of its internet in case of emergency"

 

To which Colbert said [and I paraphrase]

 

"Is it over stepping our consitutional bounderies to take control of the internet? Well China did it! It must be okay!"

[DerekZoolandah]

Didn't read the bill, but it could lead to censorship. President doesn't like the *nasty* rumors on the internet going on about him, turns on the kill switch because of some terrific threat from abroad (made up, by the way).

 

The president didn't even introduce the bill - a senator did. AFAIK the president didn't even endorse it.

 

As well, any attempt by the president to "shut off" the internet would be met by instant outrage. The bill is essentially useless, as even if it passed, there seems to be an extremely marginal scenario where the president could use it without being met by domestic and world-wide protesting, etc.

[Alg]

Didn't read the bill, but it could lead to censorship. President doesn't like the *nasty* rumors on the internet going on about him, turns on the kill switch because of some terrific threat from abroad (made up, by the way).

 

The president didn't even introduce the bill - a senator did. AFAIK the president didn't even endorse it.

 

As well, any attempt by the president to "shut off" the internet would be met by instant outrage. The bill is essentially useless, as even if it passed, there seems to be an extremely marginal scenario where the president could use it without being met by domestic and world-wide protesting, etc.

Anonymous with Iran a while back, but in the US instead, then.

 

Cracked did a very funny worst-case scenario on this. Would post it but there's pretty harsh language. In short, all those XBOX Live kids, acting that way in reality. [cabbage] got serious.

[Guy]

The USA has a majority of servers, and hosts a majority of websites. They of course, could turn them off if they so pleased (the government, that is), but I believe it would be largely selfish and it would entail no respect for any other country.

 

I do not claim to be any expert on US politics, but it seems to me that the current administration seems to be rather power hungry and looking for world domination. But eh. what do I know?

 

Instead of attacking the internet, why not make better defenses? :roll:

Yeah. I don't understand that either.. :???:

[sees_all1]

Didn't read the bill, but it could lead to censorship. President doesn't like the *nasty* rumors on the internet going on about him, turns on the kill switch because of some terrific threat from abroad (made up, by the way).

 

The president didn't even introduce the bill - a senator did. AFAIK the president didn't even endorse it.

 

As well, any attempt by the president to "shut off" the internet would be met by instant outrage. The bill is essentially useless, as even if it passed, there seems to be an extremely marginal scenario where the president could use it without being met by domestic and world-wide protesting, etc.

To the best of my knowledge, no president in the history of America has ever introduced a bill to the Congress while in office. It doesn't matter if he supports the bill; if its signed into law it makes the executive branch a bit more powerful. Doesn't matter if the current administration never uses it; it'll be there for every idiot in the future.

[Giordano]

 

Instead of attacking the internet, why not make better defenses? :roll:

Yeah. I don't understand that either.. :???:

The "stuff" hackers need to break through, make that better instead of [bleep]ing around with the internet.

[DerekZoolandah]

Didn't read the bill, but it could lead to censorship. President doesn't like the *nasty* rumors on the internet going on about him, turns on the kill switch because of some terrific threat from abroad (made up, by the way).

 

The president didn't even introduce the bill - a senator did. AFAIK the president didn't even endorse it.

 

As well, any attempt by the president to "shut off" the internet would be met by instant outrage. The bill is essentially useless, as even if it passed, there seems to be an extremely marginal scenario where the president could use it without being met by domestic and world-wide protesting, etc.

To the best of my knowledge, no president in the history of America has ever introduced a bill to the Congress while in office. It doesn't matter if he supports the bill; if its signed into law it makes the executive branch a bit more powerful. Doesn't matter if the current administration never uses it; it'll be there for every idiot in the future.

Ah true, my knowledge of the US political system isn't as sharp as it used to be :P. My point however was that regardless of what happened, there really is no way the president could ever ennact that power.

[obfuscator]

Didn't read the bill, but it could lead to censorship. President doesn't like the *nasty* rumors on the internet going on about him, turns on the kill switch because of some terrific threat from abroad (made up, by the way).

 

The president didn't even introduce the bill - a senator did. AFAIK the president didn't even endorse it.

 

As well, any attempt by the president to "shut off" the internet would be met by instant outrage. The bill is essentially useless, as even if it passed, there seems to be an extremely marginal scenario where the president could use it without being met by domestic and world-wide protesting, etc.

To the best of my knowledge, no president in the history of America has ever introduced a bill to the Congress while in office. It doesn't matter if he supports the bill; if its signed into law it makes the executive branch a bit more powerful. Doesn't matter if the current administration never uses it; it'll be there for every idiot in the future.

Ah true, my knowledge of the US political system isn't as sharp as it used to be :P. My point however was that regardless of what happened, there really is no way the president could ever ennact that power.

And even if he did, it's a temporary fix at best. In the interest of self-preservation shutting down all the servers in the states could protect the states, but as soon as this bill was passed people would start moving their servers elsewhere.

[Faux]

the US thinks everything belongs to them. just take a look what they're doing in the arctic

[das1330]

Oh hai:

 

http://washingtonind...-bungles-bagram

 

U.S. District Court Judge John D. Bates April 2 ruling that three detainees two from Yemen, one from Tunisia, all held by the U.S. military at the Bagram air base in Afghanistan without charge for more than six years have a right to challenge their detention in U.S. courts was crafted narrowly on purpose. The Obama administration did not have to appeal it and open itself up to the charge that it was making the same arguments that the Bush administration did that prisoners in the war on terror can be held indefinitely with no constitutional rights whatsoever.

 

Yet on Friday, the Obama Justice Department did just that, filing documents with the federal court indicating that it plans to appeal the judges ruling, because allowing these three men to challenge their detention would impose serious practical burdens on, and potential harm to, the Government and its efforts to prosecute the war in Afghanistan.

 

Bagram is in a theater of war where the Nations troops are in harms way, wrote Justice Department lawyers, and responding to a possible deluge of future petitions from prisoners at Bagram would divert the militarys attention and resources at a critical time for operations in Afghanistan, potentially requiring accommodation and protection of counsel and onerous discovery. This would cause significant and irreparable burdens that would risk injury to the public interest.

 

In other words, it would be really inconvenient right now for the U.S. military to have to defend holding prisoners for years without charge or trial, and it has more important things to do, like fight a war on terror.

 

Doesnt that sound eerily familiar? Isnt that the same argument the Bush administration used when it said that prisoners at Guantanamo Bay didnt have habeas rights? And wasnt it President Obama who said that he rejects a false choice between fighting terrorism and respecting habeas corpus? So where did that guy go?

 

It's not some conspiracy theory, Snipersas.

 

Your original assertion remains a crazy conspiracy theory, I'm afraid. It is longstanding convention that prisoners of war fall under two classifications - enemy combatants and illegal enemy combatants. This difference was codified in the Geneva Conventions and established long before the war on terror ever occurred. As foreign fighters captured on a foreign battlefield in direct combat with the United States military, these people are not protected by the constitution but rather the Geneva conventions. This difference has been noted by numerous courts in several different cases, so I have highlighted the pertinent parts of your previous post for clarity. As these men fall under all three of the necessary classifications, they are not criminals under the constitution. The question then becomes whether they are legal or illegal enemy combatants. Since they wear no uniforms, engage in terrorist tactics and specifically target noncombatants, these men are legally classified as illegal enemy combatants, and thus technically subject to summary execution. As a result the United States actually treats them significantly better then legally necessarily - repatriation and/or charges are only required at the end of the conflict. Thus unless you can find a real example of an actual constitutional violation there is no argument to the contrary.

 

 

I know how much of a right-wing hack that you are, and how much you love authority (except when it comes to guns, amirite?), but please, spare me the inanity.

 

Avoid personal attacks. They are not productive and not appreciated.

 

 

Not to mention that Joe Lieberman also introduced legislation that takes this even further, with his good 'ol buddy John McCain:

 

A bill sponsored by Sen. John McCain and Sen. Joe Lieberman -- a bill that could well pass in the spineless, simpering Congress we have -- would encode into law President Bush's assertion that he could arrest and imprison even American citizens in a military prison indefinitely without charges or any kind of trial. Read the bill here (PDF). Then read Marc Armbinder's comments about it.

 

Why is the national security community treating the "Enemy Belligerent, Interrogation, Detention, and Prosecution Act of 2010," introduced by Sens. John McCain and Joseph Lieberman on Thursday as a standard proposal, as a simple response to the administration's choices in the aftermath of the Christmas Day bombing attempt? A close reading of the bill suggests it would allow the U.S. military to detain U.S. citizens without trial indefinitely in the U.S. based on suspected activity.

And he's right. Here's the key fact:

 

According to the summary, the bill sets out a comprehensive policy for the detention, interrogation and trial of suspected enemy belligerents who are believed to have engaged in hostilities against the United States by requiring these individuals to be held in military custody, interrogated for their intelligence value and not provided with a Miranda warning.

(There is no distinction between U.S. persons--visa holders or citizens--and non-U.S. persons.)

 

Remember, the Supreme Court ruled in Boumediene that even foreign nationals cannot be held forever without some sort of hearing with adequate due process to determine whether the detention is justified. It ruled even more clearly in the case of Jose Padilla that the president certainly does not have the authority to suspend habeas corpus for individual citizens and hold them indefinitely.

 

It's difficult to even imagine something more blatantly unconstitutional. The 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th amendments all set out the forms of due process required of anyone detained by the government, especially citizens.

 

http://scienceblogs....ll_destroys.php

 

The key fact here that you seem to ignore is that your journalist reads one possible interpretation - one biased interpretation as unconstitutional. As the author already established no specific provision of the bill specifies anything unconstitutional and actually applying the bill in such a manner would be quickly overturned by the courts. Rather then chasing ghosts I suggest seeking specific real examples of problems before crying wolf.

[Mirror]

For the life of me, I can't figure out why so many people accept the government restrictions on newspapers, mail, TV, radio...etc..and then think that the internet should not be controlled by the government.

The internet does have regulations put in by governments (at least for the US there are some that are passed and regulated by the FCC). I think the difficulty in lining this up is that the Internet is so free while the other Mass Media outlets are highly regulated by individuals. There are sources, information gathers, gatekeepers, reporters, etc. A whole line for information to pass through just to get it out to the masses. Internet on the other hand, I can jump on my website and edit it as I see fit, just like I can say something to my brother in the same room as me. I think this is where we are running into the problem in how easily something is accessible to the masses...

 

Oh well, I could see with a few more changes with that of the internet and government roles but this is not what I had imagined.

[scn64]

I read another article that talks about this same bill. It says the bill would only give the president the power to shut down parts of the Internet hosted in the US. You can read it here:

 

http://insidetech.monster.com/news/articles/8693-new-bill-would-give-us-president-power-to-kill-some-or-all-of-the-internet

[Furah]

the US thinks everything belongs to them. just take a look what they're doing in the arctic

[obfuscator]

I read another article that talks about this same bill. It says the bill would only give the president the power to shut down parts of the Internet hosted in the US. You can read it here:

 

http://insidetech.monster.com/news/articles/8693-new-bill-would-give-us-president-power-to-kill-some-or-all-of-the-internet

Well obviously. The point most people are bringing up here is that, while significant, wouldn't be very effective even if it were implemented.

[The_Gabe]

the US thinks everything belongs to them. just take a look what they're doing in the arctic

 

Agreed. Also I heard a reporter on TV in the U.S call it "the only world's superpower"

 

Bullcrap. U.S, stop acting so mighty, and realize the rest of the world hates you.

[Furah]

the US thinks everything belongs to them. just take a look what they're doing in the arctic

 

Agreed. Also I heard a reporter on TV in the U.S call it "the only world's superpower"

 

Bullcrap. U.S, stop acting so mighty, and realize the rest of the world hates you.

Technically it is. However, Brazil, China, the EU, India and Russia all have potential to become superpowers in the near future.

 

A superpower is a state with a leading position in the international system which has the ability to influence events and its own interests and project power on a worldwide scale to protect those interests. A superpower is traditionally considered to be one step higher than a great power.

[scn64]

I read another article that talks about this same bill. It says the bill would only give the president the power to shut down parts of the Internet hosted in the US. You can read it here:

 

http://insidetech.monster.com/news/articles/8693-new-bill-would-give-us-president-power-to-kill-some-or-all-of-the-internet

Well obviously. The point most people are bringing up here is that, while significant, wouldn't be very effective even if it were implemented.

 

Some people here seemed to be interpreting the bill as giving the president power to shut down all content hosted around the world, whether it's even possible or not.

[obfuscator]

the US thinks everything belongs to them. just take a look what they're doing in the arctic

 

Agreed. Also I heard a reporter on TV in the U.S call it "the only world's superpower"

 

Bullcrap. U.S, stop acting so mighty, and realize the rest of the world hates you.

Not everyone hates the States ;) If they did they'd have nowhere near the power they (the states) holds now.

 

And they are "the only world superpower".

[michel555555]

the US thinks everything belongs to them. just take a look what they're doing in the arctic

 

Agreed. Also I heard a reporter on TV in the U.S call it "the only world's superpower"

 

Bullcrap. U.S, stop acting so mighty, and realize the rest of the world hates you.

Not everyone hates the States ;) If they did they'd have nowhere near the power they (the states) holds now.

 

And they are "the only world superpower".

 

I forget, how much of the US does china and other foreign governments own again?

 

The national debt ist still at 13 b trillion right?

 

whens the last time you've seen a made in the US sticker on something besides a missle?

 

ot-

 

How is satalite net effected by this? Can the US stop signals from getting through or force international companies to stop covering areas inside the US?

[Furah]

How is satalite net effected by this? Can the US stop signals from getting through or force international companies to stop covering areas inside the US?

It'll need some form of relay, deactivate this and the satellite will continue doing what it does whilst not reaching the US.

[obfuscator]

 

I forget, how much of the US does china and other foreign governments own again?

 

The national debt ist still at 13 b trillion right?

 

whens the last time you've seen a made in the US sticker on something besides a missle?

 

 

The fact that the US has debt doesn't change the fact that they are a world superpower. The fact that they don't manufacture as much as China doesn't matter anyway.

 

Does China have their armed forces in a large number of countries around the world? Is China considered the most important government to have on your side if you want to make any important foreign policy changes?

 

The US has far more clout than China, or any other country. The fact that they have debt does little to nullify that.

 

In the future, this may change. The fact that they have this debt could be detrimental in the future(towards them keeping superpower status) and countries like China and India hold more and more clout on the world stage. This doesn't mean they are currently superpowers with anything near the power held by the States.

[Furah]

 

I forget, how much of the US does china and other foreign governments own again?

 

The national debt ist still at 13 b trillion right?

 

whens the last time you've seen a made in the US sticker on something besides a missle?

 

 

The fact that the US has debt doesn't change the fact that they are a world superpower. The fact that they don't manufacture as much as China doesn't matter anyway.

 

Does China have their armed forces in a large number of countries around the world? Is China considered the most important government to have on your side if you want to make any important foreign policy changes?

 

The US has far more clout than China, or any other country. The fact that they have debt does little to nullify that.

 

In the future, this may change. The fact that they have this debt could be detrimental in the future(towards them keeping superpower status) and countries like China and India hold more and more clout on the world stage. This doesn't mean they are currently superpowers with anything near the power held by the States.

What he's trying to get at is that through the US's national debt, coupled with the fact that some countries are producing things most of the western world would struggle without, they're on a course to becoming superpowers too.

[obfuscator]

On course? Absolutely. Just not quite there yet :P

[Dexek]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f99PcP0aFNE

 

'nuff said

 

How do I translate this from Porky Pig into something more intelligible?

[indy500fan]

 

I forget, how much of the US does china and other foreign governments own again?

 

The national debt ist still at 13 b trillion right?

 

whens the last time you've seen a made in the US sticker on something besides a missle?

 

 

The fact that the US has debt doesn't change the fact that they are a world superpower. The fact that they don't manufacture as much as China doesn't matter anyway.

 

Wow, those posts are completely wrong. Just because it seems like a lot of stuff comes from China doesn't mean that China produces more than the US. In fact the US still is the number one producer in the world, and is roughly equal to the next two combined (China and Japan).

 

Also to answer the first question, how much debt do foreign governments own, the answer is around 28%. China has the most of that 28%, but just barely. Japan is right behind. ($790billion and $758billion). The plurality of US debt is owned by the US Federal Reserve and US intragovernmental holdings.

 

And while our debt is obviously the highest of any country, it is not nearly the highest compared to how much we manufacture which is a much, much more relevant number. On that list we are 42nd, meaning 41 countries have worse debt than us. This includes most Western European countries, including Norway which could easily pay off all their debt if they wanted, they just don't because it isn't a huge, huge deal yet.