Recent Posts

Recent Comments


Cop Land

« | Main | »

Obama Planning To Monitor The Internet

By Wyatt Earp | June 20, 2010

Sweet! Hey Obama, you want something to monitor, take a look to the left!

Actually, I’m surprised it took the administration this long . After all, being president is hard, much harder than being a community organizer.

Fighting homegrown terrorism by monitoring Internet communications is a civil liberties trade-off the U.S. government must make to beef up national security, the nation’s homeland security chief said Friday.

As terrorists increasingly recruit U.S. citizens, the government needs to constantly balance Americans’ civil rights and privacy with the need to keep people safe, said Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano.

“The First Amendment protects radical opinions, but we need the legal tools to do things like monitor the recruitment of terrorists via the Internet,” Napolitano told a gathering of the American Constitution Society for Law and Policy.

Okay here are my issues with this, and they may surprise you. First, I have no problem with the administration monitoring the net for terrorist recruitment and such. If, and that’s a big if, that is what they actually plan to do. I had no problem with the tenets of the Patriotic Act, so if I had issue with this, I would be a big-time hypocrite.

That being said, it will be interesting to see how the MSM and the pundits react to this story. They savaged and slammed George W. Bush – unfairly, in my opinion – for “infringing on people’s rights” with the Patriot Act. If they are the least bit consistent, they will do with same with Obama.


Topics: Politics | 22 Comments »

22 Responses to “Obama Planning To Monitor The Internet”

  1. Jon Brooks Says:
    June 20th, 2010 at 1:08 pm

    The MSM won’t cover it because it falls in the news cycle of suing Arizona for protecting our borders, and that must take all the free ink and air time to detail. Do you think the Ecuadorians will tell us the bills details?

  2. Wyatt Earp Says:
    June 20th, 2010 at 1:13 pm

    Jon – Yeah, Hillary probably already told them all about it.

  3. richard mcenroe Says:
    June 20th, 2010 at 1:30 pm

    Sheeeoot, I ain’t been worried about this since I signed my own ass up for

  4. Ingineer66 Says:
    June 20th, 2010 at 1:42 pm

    Pretty funny how the left vilified W. and AT&T for monitoring phone calls to Pakistan and Afghanistan but now it is OK to monitor the internet.

  5. Wyatt Earp Says:
    June 20th, 2010 at 2:04 pm

    Richard – Why worry? No one is manning the station, anyway. They’re all out golfing.

    Ingineer66 – The least the administration could do would be to offer some clarity into what they would be searching for. “Recruitment of terrorists” can mean different things to different people.

  6. Michael Says:
    June 20th, 2010 at 2:31 pm

    Why do I have a feeling that the Administration will just “incidentally” monitor conservative sites?

  7. Rides A Pale Horse Says:
    June 20th, 2010 at 2:44 pm

    Hey…….we have to monitor the internet for those people who would cause “man mad disasters” (don’t forget that terrorist/terrorism are SUCH ugly words) like returning vets, tea party activists, Fox News viewers, Republicans and anyone who doesn’t agree with the Messiah in Chief, his administration or Congress and their agenda as a whole.

    We know who you right wing, anti-government wackos are and we’re keeping an eye on you.

  8. proof Says:
    June 20th, 2010 at 2:45 pm

    “Recruitment of terrorists” can mean different things to different people

    Yeah. Didn’t Janet Napolitano tell people to be on the lookout for veterans, pro-lifers and tea partiers?

  9. Dixie Says:
    June 20th, 2010 at 7:06 pm

    Don’t worry, most of us have ham radios. Just remember, John has a long mustache.

  10. Rick Says:
    June 20th, 2010 at 10:40 pm

    Pi– on that clown

  11. Ingineer66 Says:
    June 20th, 2010 at 11:45 pm

    Dixie, The chair is against the wall.

  12. tjbbpgobIII Says:
    June 21st, 2010 at 4:13 am

    Those leftist sure changed their minds in a hurry , didn’t they.

  13. Randal Graves Says:
    June 21st, 2010 at 8:06 am

    Isn’t monitoring private phone calls and monitoring the public internet 2 completely different things?

    Who gives a shit if he monitors the internet. I hope they do; I’m tired of all of the shitty pr0n on the web.

  14. Sully Says:
    June 21st, 2010 at 8:37 am

    So let me get this straight…. They’re paying people to surf the net all day…? Where do I sign up?

  15. metoo Says:
    June 21st, 2010 at 9:58 am

    Brings to mind the old careful what you wish for. The White House will probably stumble across old love notes to the prez from Chris Matthews!

  16. Wyatt Earp Says:
    June 21st, 2010 at 12:59 pm

    Michael – Because they are in constant contact with the liberal sites.

    RAPH – Let him monitor this blog. He’ll get a chance to see a photo of some real women, instead of the hag he married.

    Proof – All the while ignoring illegals coming through her state.

    Dixie – I understand . . .

    Rick – I wouldn’t waste the salt.

    Ingineer66 – The monkey-wrench is in the fan belt.

    tjbbpgobIII – It’s a liberal’s prerogative.

    Randal – It all depends upon what they do with the information they receive. Are they going to start limiting access to sites they deem “improper?” The possibilities for abuse and misuse are endless.

    And if I may borrow (and rearrange) a phrase I always see on First In: “Obama does it = Good. Bush does it = Bad. Got it.”

    Sully – Just become a federal worker. The people who were supposed to be monitoring Deepwater Horizon were surfing pr0n on the job.

    MeToo – And the tingling sensation.

  17. Randal Graves Says:
    June 21st, 2010 at 8:36 pm

    No, if Obama or Bush monitor the internet: I don’t give a shit. If either of them start monitoring my personal phone calls: I give a shit. Got it?

  18. Wyatt Earp Says:
    June 21st, 2010 at 9:06 pm

    Randal – I got that you had nothing to worry about. Bush didn’t give a rat’s ass about our conversations about hockey finances. Obama doesn’t either.

  19. Bitter American Says:
    June 21st, 2010 at 11:18 pm

    I hope someone in the Obama administration starts watching me,…1) it’ll ensure my rants about him are heard, and 2) It might actually IMPROVE my hit count! ;-)

  20. Randal Graves Says:
    June 21st, 2010 at 11:48 pm

    EVERYONE cares about our hockey finances.

  21. Ross Wolf Says:
    June 22nd, 2010 at 5:46 am

    U.S. Spying Increasingly Target Americans, Not Terrorists To Arrest Citizens and Forfeit Their Property.

    The Obama administration intends to Fight Homegrown Terrorism by monitoring U.S. Citizens’ private Internet communications. But according to this article, Homeland security failed to mention whether the it proposed new monitoring law will trash the Fourth Amendment allowing government warrant-less searches and seizures? That would appear extremely important, Government can easily take an innocent person’s hastily written email, fax or phone call out of context to allege a crime or violation was committed to cause their arrest or Civil Asset Forfeiture of their property. Any information the government derives that does not involve terrorism should not be shared or allowed admissible in criminal and civil courts when their purpose of such surveillance was to trap terrorists.

    Despite (illegal wiretapping) being against the law, U.S. spy agencies, e.g. NSA appear to be have shared, warrant-less electronic surveillance of Americans with federal law enforcement agencies, state and local Police and private contractors employed by U.S. Government to cause the arrest of Americans and forfeiture of their property. In the U.S., private contractors and their operatives now work so closely with law enforcement to arrest Americans and forfeit their property—providing information, they appear to merge.

    There are over 200 U.S. laws and violations mentioned in the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000 and the Patriot Act that can subject property to civil asset forfeiture. Under federal civil forfeiture laws, a person or business need not be charged with crime for government to forfeit their property. Government is only required to show “A preponderance of Civil Evidence”, little more than hearsay. That low standard of evidence lends itself to corrupt police to using false testimony of paid or coerced informants, to cause the forfeiture of innocent person’s property.

    Rep. Henry Hyde’s bill HR 1658 passed, the “Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000” and effectively eliminated the “statue of limitations” for U.S. Government to civilly forfeit Property. The statute now runs five years from the date police allege they “learned” an asset became subject to forfeiture. With effectively no statute of limitations and the low standard of civil proof needed for government to forfeit property “A preponderance of civil Evidence”, it is problematic law enforcement and private government contractors—will increasingly want access to Citizens’ private electronic communications and’ private records. Under the USA Patriot Act, witnesses can be kept hidden while being paid part of the assets they cause to be forfeited. The Patriot Act specifically mentions using Title 18USC asset forfeiture laws; those laws include a provision in Rep. Henry Hyde’s 2000 bill HR 1658—for “retroactive civil asset forfeiture” of “assets already subject to government forfeiture”, meaning ” property already tainted by crime” provided “a property” was already part of or is “later connected” to a criminal investigation in progress” when HR.1658 passed in 2000. That can apply to more than two hundred federal laws and violations.

    Most U.S. property and business owners that defend their assets against Government Civil Forfeiture claim an “innocent owner defense.” This defense can become a criminal prosecution trap for both guilty and innocent property owners. Any fresh denial of guilt to the government when questioned about committing a crime “even when you did not do it” can “involuntarily waive” your right to assert in your defense—that the “Criminal Statute of Limitations” past for prosecution: any fresh denial of guild, even 30 years after a crime was committed may allow Government prosecutors to use old and new evidence, including information discovered during a Civil Asset Forfeiture Proceeding to launch a criminal prosecution. For that reason many innocent property and business owners are reluctant to defend their property and businesses against Government Civil Asset Forfeiture. Re: waiving Criminal Statute of Limitations: see USC18, Sec.1001, James Brogan V. United States. N0.96-1579.

    U.S. Government Spying Increasingly circumvents the Fourth Amendment in the name of national security to target U.S. Citizens, Not Terrorists to Arrest Americans and to forfeit their Property. Before Congress passes a law(s) that will allow warrant-less monitoring by Homeland Security of private Citizens’ communications, measures should be taken to ensure non-terrorist information, cannot be admitted in any American criminal or civil Court.

  22. Randal Graves Says:
    June 22nd, 2010 at 2:50 pm

    tl; dr