Kill Bill..Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act of 2010

Sorry Folks, that's the short title.  Now here is the Question

Could or would a president, if he had the authority, shut down the Internet under the guise of National Security for political reasons?

That's what the uproar over Senate Proposal  "S. 3480: Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act of 2010" is all about.  Generally the law is intended to update the Communications Act of 1934 to include cell phones and the Internet.  Communications have changed a great deal since then. 

America's attitudes have changed as well.  In 1934 Americans tended to trust a president to put the interests of the Country above his own.  They might hate the guy, but the Office, if not the man, was trusted.  Richard M. Nixon and Watergate changed that, and now we have approsal that would give the President a great deal of authority over how, or even if we communicate.

S 3480 Sponsors Senators Lieberman and Collins insist the law can't be used politically, because it says so.. But first let's look at what else it says.


SEC. 249. NATIONAL CYBER EMERGENCIES.



‘(a) Declaration-

‘(1) IN GENERAL- The President may issue a declaration of a national cyber emergency to covered critical infrastructure. Any declaration under this section shall specify the covered critical infrastructure subject to the national cyber emergency.

No one seems to know what the Law could or would do it it were to pass.  We have another case of  "You have to pass the law to find out what's in it". and You'd need two days to read it, and two lawyers to explain it". I can't afford the lawyers, but the ACLU can. They, in conjunction with the Lawyers Guild, sent Lieberman and Collins a letter expressing serious concerns about the Law.. Time Magazine's  article "What's Missing in the Internet Kill-Switch Debate" written by Adam Cohen put it this way;




"It is not hard to see why everyone is so worried. Imagine a President misusing this particular power: If the people are rising up against an unpopular Administration, the President could cool things down by shutting off a large swath of the Internet. He could target certain geographical regions ("We've heard enough from New York and California for a while"). Or he could single out particular websites.

The government certainly has a record of overusing authority it is given when national security is involved — we saw that, a few years ago, with the Bush Administration's domestic wiretapping program.


A little farther down in the article, Cohen continues:


But critics of the bill point out that it expands the President's power over the Internet in a key respect: the 1934 law only applies when there is war or a threat of war, while the new law would allow the President to act even when there is not a war or a threat of war. "All I can say is it gives him power to act where he wouldn't necessarily have the power to act" under existing law, says Lee Tien, a lawyer with the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

The bill authorizes the President to declare cyber emergencies, and what happens next is fairly unclear. He would be able to restrict parts of the Internet that relate to "critical infrastructure," but it is hard to know what exactly falls under the category of critical infrastructure and how far the President could go in closing it down.

Remember the clause that protects us from the law being used politically this is how it reads:

.
SEC. 103. PROHIBITION ON POLITICAL CAMPAIGNING

7323 ..B (except one appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate), may take an active part in political management or political campaigns
Read The Rest

Section 7323(b)(2)(B) of title 5, United States Code, is amended--


(1) in clause (i), by striking ‘or’ at the end;

(2) in clause (ii), by striking the period at the end and inserting ‘; or’; and

(3) by adding at the end the following:
‘(iii) notwithstanding the exception under subparagraph (A) (relating to an appointment made by the President, by and with"


"Except one appointed by the president", interesting exclusion I think, but I'm not a lawyer.   A little later if you read the entire text of the bill you find almost every line has references to other laws.. which in turn ........

The exception are the parts pertaining to setting up a brand new Government agency..  the paperwork requirements will cost us a forest of trees


Most of the liberals I know would have been screaming bloody murder if a Republican Congress under George Bush had even suggested such a thing.  Yet under the Obama Administration the subject has come up several times.  Early in the Obama Administration California Rep Linda Sanchez suggested the Government needed to be able to control Internet Content.  Senator John Rockefeller felt the Federal Government should have control as well.

On the Bright side, The Daily Kos and Red State Blogs have taken a similar position against the Law,  That pretty much unifies opposition across the entire spectrum of American Voters..

Would a president resort to shutting down the Internet for less than legitimate reasons?


Richard Nixon probably honestly believed a threat to his Presidency was a threat to the National Security.  In his mind the Watergate Break In was a countermeasure, to the left wing radials that were undermining the Viet Nam War effort.  If we'd had the Net then,   I believe he would have misused his authority,, regardless of the law.   J. Edgar Hover would have supported the move. 

Even though he'd still be getting accused of it, I believe Bush would have been hesitant to play politics with a law like this..

On several subjects Barack Obama has shown he doesn't care what Americans think.  His agenda is America's future whether we like it or not, if Congress won't pass the laws he wants he'll accomplish his goals via bureaucratic regulation.  That doesn't mean he'll use this law improperly, I have my opinion, what's yours?  Before you answer you might wat to at least look at;

S. 3480: Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act of 2010"