• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Sen. Lieberman Urges President Obama to Take Over The Internet

24107

24107

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 6, 2010
Messages
2,809
Reaction score
825
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
 

Attachments

  • joe.webp
    joe.webp
    9.2 KB · Views: 98
I'm not sure how a US President could "take over the internet", 24107.

I did find this, though:

In the wake of news that terror suspect Jose Pimentel was operating a jihadist Blogger site, Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) is urging Google to implement a system that bans terrorist material.

Last week, Lieberman sent a letter to Google CEO Larry Page on behalf of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs that called on Google to ramp up its efforts against terrorist material on the Blogger platform.
Click to expand...

Lieberman To Google: Ban Terrorist Content « CBS Connecticut

This article is almost a year old, and I don't know whether Google ever did as asked.
 
I'm not sure how a US President could "take over the internet", 24107.
Click to expand...
by signing an executive order.
 
24107 said:
by signing an executive order.
Click to expand...

Isn't Liebermann retiring? Either way I don't like it. If he is retiring.....then he shouldn't be worrying about writing any bills. I would also be concerned about an EP order.
 
Pinkie said:
Which would order who to do what?
Click to expand...

If you click the link and read the full article, you will get a better understanding.

Or you can read Samsmarts post.
 
MMC said:
Isn't Liebermann retiring? Either way I don't like it. If he is retiring.....then he shouldn't be worrying about writing any bills. I would also be concerned about an EP order.
Click to expand...

You have to look a little bit deeper to see why he would care so much at this point in his career.
 
24107 said:
If you click the link and read the full article, you will get a better understanding.

Or you can read Samsmarts post.
Click to expand...

You and Samsmart both link the same blog entry. I did read it, and I'm not seeing any explanation.

There is no available means by which any government could "take over the internet", not that I can see. A government could order that no server on its land contain a certain catagorey of information, I suppose, but I don't see how they'd enforce that and I don't see what good it'd do, since off-shore servers would still have it.

Or, like Australia is now trying, a government could order all the ISPs that serve its residents from carrying any blacklisted site, but obviously, this would be very hard to police and wouldn't prevent the "bad information" from reaching its residents by another site.

Internet Censorship Plan Approved In Australia | Stephen Conroy

So, mechanically, I don't see how it could be done. Constitutionally, I don't see how Lieberman's plan would work unless Google volunteers to implement it, as this "terrorist" speech is nonetheless protected unless and until it rises to the level of a criminal conspiracy.

I think you've allowed a hysteric in the blogosphere to "warn" you about a nonexistant threat.

 
First off.

Obama has been consistent in his warnings that he will veto any bill that encroaches upon internet freedom. Fortunately, he was never called on that promise since no bill that does so passed. SOPA and PIPA.

Second of all... lieberman should be hanged for stupidity. Not because of this thing... he is stupid in general. he should be hung by an angry mob.
 
Rainman05 said:
First off.

Obama has been consistent in his warnings that he will veto any bill that encroaches upon internet freedom. Fortunately, he was never called on that promise since no bill that does so passed. SOPA and PIPA.

Second of all... lieberman should be hanged for stupidity. Not because of this thing... he is stupid in general. he should be hung by an angry mob.
Click to expand...

I rather liked Lieberman in 2007/2008. What's he done that you find so annoying?
 
Pinkie said:
I rather liked Lieberman in 2007/2008. What's he done that you find so annoying?
Click to expand...



He is a massive supporter of both wars in Iraq and Afghanistan... and now encourages and wants war with Iran.

He is also a puppet for a foreign power, Israel. If I were a congressman, I would consider that treason. His loyalty to Israel is seen in his numerous awards and activities he includes himself in that are pro-Israel to the maximum. It makes no difference in my book if he is loyal to Israel, Iran or Switzerland. Loyalty to a foreign power is treason.

He condemns the Catholic Church consistently but takes sides with Christians when they are pro-Israel.

He is also a man who supports all forms of censorship, especially internet censorship. I remember seeing him arguing that he wants to censor the internet and form a kill switch for it because China and N. Korea have it. Way to go democratic congressman...

And there are many other things besides this. In short, a man this stupid, traitorous and inept deserves to be hanged by a mob of angry people... angry because they care about their liberties and freedoms and this guy is an opponent of that.

The only good thing about lieberman from a political standpoint is that he isn't ultra partisan, like many other democrats... and like many other republicans.
 
Pinkie said:
You and Samsmart both link the same blog entry. I did read it, and I'm not seeing any explanation.

There is no available means by which any government could "take over the internet", not that I can see. A government could order that no server on its land contain a certain catagorey of information, I suppose, but I don't see how they'd enforce that and I don't see what good it'd do, since off-shore servers would still have it.

Or, like Australia is now trying, a government could order all the ISPs that serve its residents from carrying any blacklisted site, but obviously, this would be very hard to police and wouldn't prevent the "bad information" from reaching its residents by another site.

Internet Censorship Plan Approved In Australia | Stephen Conroy

So, mechanically, I don't see how it could be done. Constitutionally, I don't see how Lieberman's plan would work unless Google volunteers to implement it, as this "terrorist" speech is nonetheless protected unless and until it rises to the level of a criminal conspiracy.

I think you've allowed a hysteric in the blogosphere to "warn" you about a nonexistant threat.
Click to expand...

In 1917, President Woodrow Wilson, during his second term in office, joined in the Great War on the side of Great Britain and France. This despite the fact that Wilson won re-election by campaigning that he kept the United States out of the war in Europe when it started in 1914.

Now this isn't taught very much in history classes, but while the 50's had what is known as the Red Scare, it was not the first. Rather, the First Red Scare occurred from 1919-1920. This is because in the decade previous, socialist, communist, and anarchist political agitators from Europe were exiled and made their way to the United States. This was how Marxist ideology traveled from Europe to the United States.

One of the aspects of Marxism and it's children philosophies is that warfare is a corrupt practice that exploits the people so that government and corporate elites can profit. That is that government leaders use nationalism to create false difference between the common people of different nations. In this way, leaders use fear to exploit the masses and maintain control. Corporations use military force to take over natural resources from others and exploit them themselves for their own profits.

Socialists, communists, and anarchists in the United States protested against the Great War on these grounds. One of these was Helen Keller, the woman who grew up blind, deaf, and mute. She was a socialist to agitate for worker rights, as most of the disabled at the time were so because of occupational accidents.

Another notable socialist at this time was Eugene V. Debs. In fact, he ran for President 4 times as the candidate for the Socialist Party of America in 1904, 1908, 1912, and 1920. In fact, he ran his last campaign from prison.

In order to deal with all these protests at entering the Great War, Congress passed the Espionage Act of 1917. It originally prohibited any attempt to interfere with military operations, to support U.S. enemies during wartime, to promote insubordination in the military, or to interfere with military recruitment.

Many socialists, communists, and anarchists in the United States were arrested under this law. They were arrested for protesting the Great War and for writing, publishing, and distributing pamphlets denouncing U.S. entrance into the war in Europe.

Eugene V. Debs was arrested under this law as well for a speech he made in Canton, Ohio, in June of 1918 in which he urged people to resist the military draft. He was convicted and sentenced to serve 10 years in prison. During his appeal, the Supreme Court upheld Debs' conviction because his urging of people to resist the military draft was an interference with military recruitment.

In December of 1921, President Warren G. Harding commuted Debs' sentence to time served, citing Debs' elderly age and poor health as the reason why.

So Debs was a political figure imprisoned for speaking out against the government and the military, and this nearly a century ago.

And this law is still on the books.

So if it happened once it can happen again. Especially in the age of our Eternal War on Global Terror. And especially when a terrorist can be labeled as such simply because he was a bystander killed in a drone strike that targeted a suspect - not a convict but a suspect - and was retroactively labeled as such so the paperwork doesn't list any collateral damage.
 
Even if I agree that freedom of speech could be restricted in this manner, samsmart, I STILL don't see how, mechanically, any government could "take over the internet".

BTW, from a history standpoint, that was a terrific post.
 
Pinkie said:
Even if I agree that freedom of speech could be restricted in this manner, samsmart, I STILL don't see how, mechanically, any government could "take over the internet".

BTW, from a history standpoint, that was a terrific post.
Click to expand...

Thank you.

Well, what they could do is seize control of all the internet infrastructure, my guess is by using eminent domain on national security grounds.

So all the technology that private ISPs use will be managed by the government civil service instead of employees of private corporations.

And considering that the government can do so through force of arms via the military, which ISPs don't have, the government can enforce such seizure through deadly force.

To be honest, I don't think such a direct seizure will happen very soon. This is because Congressmen and Senators get too much money in contributions from too many companies that deal in the internet to allow a majority of Congress to do this.

But, then again, that's why Lieberman wants to use an executive order - to bypass Congress in this case when corruption actually works out for the people.
 
samsmart said:
Thank you.

Well, what they could do is seize control of all the internet infrastructure, my guess is by using eminent domain on national security grounds.

So all the technology that private ISPs use will be managed by the government civil service instead of employees of private corporations.

And considering that the government can do so through force of arms via the military, which ISPs don't have, the government can enforce such seizure through deadly force.

To be honest, I don't think such a direct seizure will happen very soon. This is because Congressmen and Senators get too much money in contributions from too many companies that deal in the internet to allow a majority of Congress to do this.

But, then again, that's why Lieberman wants to use an executive order - to bypass Congress in this case when corruption actually works out for the people.
Click to expand...

Nationalize the ISPs? This is something you actually believe Lieberman proposed in the EO he requested?
 
Pinkie said:
Nationalize the ISPs? This is something you actually believe Lieberman proposed in the EO he requested?
Click to expand...

I have no hard evidence that he did. However, if he did, those means, I think, would be the justifications for being able to do so.
 
samsmart said:
In 1917, President Woodrow Wilson, during his second term in office, joined in the Great War on the side of Great Britain and France. This despite the fact that Wilson won re-election by campaigning that he kept the United States out of the war in Europe when it started in 1914.

Now this isn't taught very much in history classes, but while the 50's had what is known as the Red Scare, it was not the first. Rather, the First Red Scare occurred from 1919-1920. This is because in the decade previous, socialist, communist, and anarchist political agitators from Europe were exiled and made their way to the United States. This was how Marxist ideology traveled from Europe to the United States.

One of the aspects of Marxism and it's children philosophies is that warfare is a corrupt practice that exploits the people so that government and corporate elites can profit. That is that government leaders use nationalism to create false difference between the common people of different nations. In this way, leaders use fear to exploit the masses and maintain control. Corporations use military force to take over natural resources from others and exploit them themselves for their own profits.

Socialists, communists, and anarchists in the United States protested against the Great War on these grounds. One of these was Helen Keller, the woman who grew up blind, deaf, and mute. She was a socialist to agitate for worker rights, as most of the disabled at the time were so because of occupational accidents.

Another notable socialist at this time was Eugene V. Debs. In fact, he ran for President 4 times as the candidate for the Socialist Party of America in 1904, 1908, 1912, and 1920. In fact, he ran his last campaign from prison.

In order to deal with all these protests at entering the Great War, Congress passed the Espionage Act of 1917. It originally prohibited any attempt to interfere with military operations, to support U.S. enemies during wartime, to promote insubordination in the military, or to interfere with military recruitment.

Many socialists, communists, and anarchists in the United States were arrested under this law. They were arrested for protesting the Great War and for writing, publishing, and distributing pamphlets denouncing U.S. entrance into the war in Europe.

Eugene V. Debs was arrested under this law as well for a speech he made in Canton, Ohio, in June of 1918 in which he urged people to resist the military draft. He was convicted and sentenced to serve 10 years in prison. During his appeal, the Supreme Court upheld Debs' conviction because his urging of people to resist the military draft was an interference with military recruitment.

In December of 1921, President Warren G. Harding commuted Debs' sentence to time served, citing Debs' elderly age and poor health as the reason why.

So Debs was a political figure imprisoned for speaking out against the government and the military, and this nearly a century ago.

And this law is still on the books.

So if it happened once it can happen again. Especially in the age of our Eternal War on Global Terror. And especially when a terrorist can be labeled as such simply because he was a bystander killed in a drone strike that targeted a suspect - not a convict but a suspect - and was retroactively labeled as such so the paperwork doesn't list any collateral damage.
Click to expand...

Another on that list was Frank Marshall Davis, known communist and Obama mentor!


Information from Davis's 601 page FBI file reveals that Davis (born 1905) became interested in the Communist Party as far back as 1931.

Certainly from the mid/late '30s to the early '40s Davis was involved in several Communist Party fronts including the the National Negro Congress, the League of American Writers, the National Federation for Constitutional Liberties and the Civil Rights Congress

The FBI first began tracking Davis in 1944 when they identified him as member of the Communist Party's Dorie Miller Club in Chicago. "Frank Marshall Davis was a pro-Soviet, pro-Red China, card-carrying member of Communist Party (CPUSA). His Communist Party card number was 47544."

Davis taught courses at the party controlled Abraham Lincoln School in Chicago and attended meetings of the party's Cultural Club until he left for Hawaii in 1948.

In Hawaii Davis became a columnist for a union financed, Communist controlled newspaper, the Honolulu Record.

(more at link)
http://www.theobamafile.com/_associa...shallDavis.htm
 
Pinkie said:
Even if I agree that freedom of speech could be restricted in this manner, samsmart, I STILL don't see how, mechanically, any government could "take over the internet".

BTW, from a history standpoint, that was a terrific post.
Click to expand...
See 'China'. They cant control 'the internet'...just what goes on within their borders.
 
VanceMack said:
See 'China'. They cant control 'the internet'...just what goes on within their borders.
Click to expand...

How many Chinese people have you seen around here? Given there's a billion+ of them, you'd think we'd have 1 if they had any kind of internet freedom. See 'North Korea'.

Anyway, congress is not "taking over the internet". What, do people think we live in Iran?
 
ecofarm said:
How many Chinese people have you seen around here? Given there's a billion+ of them, you'd think we'd have 1 if they had any kind of internet freedom. See 'North Korea'.

Anyway, congress is not "taking over the internet". What, do people think we live in Iran?
Click to expand...
I agree that congress wont be allowed to take over the internet. I do suspect they will continue to monitor the internet and emails and will increasingly use those as a means of fighting terrorism. Not sure how I feel about that. Regardless...the current administration has demonstrated they care less about personal freedoms than the previous and have OPENLY declared their right and intent to monitor everything from emails to cell phones without requirement of court orders.
 
VanceMack said:
Regardless...the current administration has demonstrated they care less about personal freedoms than the previous and have OPENLY declared their right and intent to monitor everything from emails to cell phones without requirement of court orders.
Click to expand...

I'm not so sure that's true, but if it was it would be due to the opposition dropping off the earth. In this way, repubs should thank dems. Wiretapping, striking, supplying and paying for wars has become A-OK. When I look at Libya, training/funding Syrians and the about to be whupin' ass on Iran - I gotta say, I'm pretty ok with Hillary.

Syrian delegate Radwan Ziadeh, spokesman for the opposition Coalition for a Democratic Syria. “Unfortunately, the White House is waiting until after the (U.S. presidential) election before touching this. We ask for support and training for the Free Syrian Army and they tell us, blah blah blah, nonlethal assistance.”

Clinton offers $45 million to Syrian rebels, who want more support | McClatchy
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, Hillary will not be there after the election. I'm not so sure what US policy will look like after that. All bowing and apologizing would probably be the suck.
 
ecofarm said:
How many Chinese people have you seen around here? Given there's a billion+ of them, you'd think we'd have 1 if they had any kind of internet freedom. See 'North Korea'.

Anyway, congress is not "taking over the internet". What, do people think we live in Iran?
Click to expand...

Also isnt there like an Undergorund with the Net anyways. Not to mention an Internet 2 so to Speak? Another question I would have is if the Country did Officially Declare War on Someone. Would they try and take it then under Marshal Law?
 
24107 said:
You have to look a little bit deeper to see why he would care so much at this point in his career.
Click to expand...

Because he's a Jew?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom