obama would not shut off internet to ISIS, but had no problem shutting off Assange’s internet

By 16 Comments 1,242 views

assange-censored

 

Seems pretty simple, doesn’t it?

ISIS recruits new members in no small part via the internet. So why don’t we simply just shut off the internet to ISIS? No, we can’t do that, says obama’s FCC:

“Isn’t there something we can do under existing law to shut those Internet sites down?” Barton asked. “And I know they pop up like weeds, but once they do pop up, shut them down and turn the Internet addresses over to the appropriate law enforcement agencies to try and track them down.”

“We cannot underestimate the challenge,” FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler responded. “I’m not sure our authority extends to [shut down the websites], but I do think there are specific things we can do.”

Wheeler similarly told Rep. Bobby Rush (D-Ill.) that the commission does not have the authority to target the social media accounts of gang leaders in the United States that are contributing to urban violence.

“We do not have jurisdiction over Facebook and all the other edge providers. We do not intend to assert jurisdiction over them,” Wheeler said.

But the chairman said he can use the FCC’s bully pulpit to press tech CEOs on the issue, such as Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg.

“I will call Mark Zuckerberg this afternoon to raise the issue you’ve raised and the issue Mr. Barton raised. And I’m sure he is concerned as well and he’ll have some thoughts,” Wheeler said.

Many major social media companies have abuse policies that prohibit and remove accounts that are flagged for promoting terrorism or violence.

Wheeler offered other areas where the commission could take action. He specifically mentioned the rash of vandalism to fiberoptic cables in the California Bay Area.

Local news outlets have reported on cuts to private fiberoptic cables owned by major telecom companies such as AT&T that provide the backbone of Internet service. AT&T has offered a quarter million dollar reward for information about the attacks.

While law enforcement has the authority to investigate the crimes, the FCC maintains a confidential reporting system that requires various telecommunications carriers to report outages around the country.

No, obama won’t shut off the internet to the ISIS stronghold of Raqqa because they have “rights”:

“Taking out the Internet” isn’t a straightforward operation, Atkin replied. The Islamic State and other guerrilla/terrorist forces often rely on civilian infrastructure, so shutting down their Internet service provider also cuts off legitimate civilian users in a wide area. “How that effect occurs has greater impact than just against the adversary and we have to weigh that into all our operations,” he said, “whether that’s a kinetic or a cyber operation.”

After some additional back and forth — ending with an awkward silence from the administration witnesses — Thornberry reserved further questions for the classified hearing. “Okay, well, we’ll talk more about it,” he said, “but, again, I am not yet reassured.”

The administration’s position is that cyber operations must follow the same laws of war as physical combat, and that cyber attacks require the same kind of review as kinetic strikes. That includes such considerations as collateral damage — e.g. in shutting down the terrorists’ Internet access, do you take it out for innocent civilians as well? — and proportionality — is the damage to civilians excessive for the military gain?

“Our operations in cyberspace are subject to the same rules as every operation, so we’re constrained by the laws of armed conflict and other limitations,” said Lt. Gen. Kevin McLaughlin, deputy commander of CYBERCOM. “We feel like we have the authorities and flexibility we need.

 

Yet obama has no problem taking away Assange’s “rights” without his being convicted of anything. Assange has been deprived access to the internet  while a refugee (notice how some refugees get treated better than others?) Ecuador has taken responsibility for the shutoff:

Ecuador’s Foreign Ministry published a statement on Tuesday saying it “exercised its right” to “temporarily restrict access to some of (WikiLeaks’) private communications network within its Embassy in the United Kingdom.”

The statement says the temporary restriction would not prevent WikiLeaks from “carrying out its journalistic activities.
The statement mentions the “wealth of documents” published by WikiLeaks that have impacted the US election campaign, and that the government of Ecuador “does not interfere in external electoral processes, nor does it favor any particular candidate.”

Both the US and Ecuador denied that they conspired to silence Assange :

The statement, in which Ecuador stressed that it “does not yield to pressure from other states”, followed claims by WikiLeaks that John Kerry, the US secretary of state, had requested a private meeting with Ecuador last month – during a visit to Colombia to show support for a peace deal with leftwing rebels – specifically to ask the country to block Assange.

The one thing you can bet your life on is that once obama denies the US had a hand in this it is absolutely true. He’s gotten to the point that he knows the left will swallow anything he says without question. He has become dependent on their stupidity and they do not let him down. You will believe the US had nothing to do with silencing Assange if you were stupid enough to believe you could keep your plan and your doctor no matter what.

It’s lucky for Assange he’s not taking refuge in Afghanistan or Iraq. Obama would not have simply deprived him of his free speech, He would have killed him already in a drone strike.

There is no shortage of irony here either. obama blathers on about the Russians trying to interfere with US elections but obama felt fno qualms about  interfering with Israel’s elections.

 

 

DrJohn has been a health care professional for more than 30 years. In addition to clinical practice he has done extensive research and has published widely with over 70 original articles and abstracts in the peer-reviewed literature. DrJohn is well known in his field and has lectured on every continent except for Antarctica. He has been married to the same wonderful lady for over 30 years and has three kids- two sons, both of whom are attorneys and one daughter on her way into the field of education. DrJohn was brought up with the concept that one can do well if one is prepared to work hard but nothing in life is guaranteed. Except for liberals being foolish.

16 Responses to “obama would not shut off internet to ISIS, but had no problem shutting off Assange’s internet”

  1. 3

    FAITH7

    The Russian ‘thing’ is a set-up now for maneuver’s on a strawman ‘blame-game’ later on…

    Obama is, and always will be a hypocrite, Marxist puke. Of COURSE he would try to shut down those who try to show the true colors of the Despicable Democrat Party…as if ‘Hillary’s America’ didn’t show enough…

    Obama is a puppet…just like Communist Hillary.

    Wiki leaks showed us Hillary’s ‘prepared speeches’ that ‘someone else’ writes for her…nothing she says in public is her own…her handlers ‘cringe’ if she goes off script and spills some beans…like our Nuclear Strike Timing…(nice going Hillary).

    Obama has contempt for the White race. He even says so himself. He is a self-hater and even has contempt for ‘his own people’. He ‘thinks’ things he dare not say in public.

    On a visit to his Village in Africa…to bring with him ‘the white mans magic’ he is frustrated with the village’s lack of wanting to ‘move ahead’ to be innovative, movers and Shakers. He is frustrated with their governance within the village…

    Obama is a vindictive, narcissistic and spiteful little man. Always is looking for approval…even if he has to do it himself…

    He cannot be gone soon enough…into the dustbin of forgotten history…

  2. 4

    Greg

    Assange is hiding out in Ecuador’s embassy to avoid prosecution for rape and molestation in Sweden. That’s probably sufficiently embarrassing for Ecuador in and of itself, without aiding and abetting him in the theft and release of stolen documents. What he’s doing actually is criminal activity; he’s doing it in an effort to sabotage a U.S. presidential candidate, and he’s likely doing it with the blessing and assistance of a foreign state that wants that candidate’s opponent in the White House to remove an obstacle to their own geopolitical ambitions.

    Most likely all Ecuador had to do to cut off Assange’s internet access was change an embassy WiFi password. How, exactly, is Obama supposed to “shut off internet to ISIS?”

  3. 6

    Greg

    Julian Assange is performing a service for Vladimir Putin. He has become a tool of a hostile foreign power. What do you not understand about this? What do you not understand about Vladimir Putin? When did people on the right lose their minds?

  4. 7

    Pete

    Leftist attacks against Assange for alleged rape axcusations ring hollow given their continued defense of Bill Clinton despite much more believable charges.

    In addition, Assange has been wikileaking all sorts of stuff for well over a year, but no effort was made to shut off his internet access until his leaking of emails highlighting the corruption of Hillary hatchetboy Podesta – drawing particular attention to Podesta (and Clinton’s) involvement in in the Russian uranium deal – started having an impact on Hillary’s campaign. How very convenient.

    Just another example in a long string of leftist deceitful hypocrisy.

  5. 9

    July 4th American

    @Greg:

    All efforts to rig the upcoming election have been directed against the Democratic Party’s candidate.

    Really, all efforts are against the democrat? That statement files in the face of reality. Are we to believe the lame stream media favors the republican over the democrat? On what planet?

    To say this yet alone perhaps to believe this position defines you as delusional. Sadly, a recommendation may be to seek help…..

  6. 10

    Pete

    @Greg:

    Your lying propaganda is refuted by Veritas videos of Creamer and his errand thug admitting to fomenting violence at Trump rallies, and illegal collusion with the Hillary campaign.

    And they were both fired for their self-admitted crimes.

  7. 11

    Greg

    @July 4th American, #9:

    That statement files in the face of reality.

    The right seems to have only a passing acquaintance with reality these days, and the same can be said for logic.

    What do you think electronic document thefts and Wikileaks releases targeting only the Democratic Party and Hillary Clinton implies? Do you think the GOP and elected republicans engage in no similar insider communications that could be stolen and released?

    What we have here is an ongoing criminal activity conducted by foreign actors, with the specific intention of disrupting a U.S. presidential election and putting Donald Trump in the White House. That’s exactly what it is, and the right is completely OK with it because they also want to put the fool in the White House. They don’t really care how it’s done.

    Then they make claims that the election is rigged against Donald Trump. It must be true because he told them so.

  8. 12

    Pete

    @Greg:

    Implies? Really?

    So…what does Hillary’s illegal server, the destruction of said server, and deletion of at least 30 thousand emails IMPLY?

    What does Hillary’s IT guy for said illegal server pleading the 5th Amendment under oath over 90 times IMPLY?

    What does Creamer’s firing after video shows him bragging about illegal collusion with Hillary’s campaign IMPLY?

    What does MacAuliffe’s over $500,000 donation to the political campaign of the wife of the #2 guy at the FBI in charge of investigating Hillary’s illegal server IMPLY?

  9. 13

    Greg

    Clinton was formally investigated. There wasn’t sufficient evidence to support charging her with anything.

    What does MacAuliffe’s over $500,000 donation to the political campaign of the wife of the #2 guy at the FBI in charge of investigating Hillary’s illegal server IMPLY?

    It most likely indicates that the political action committee that supported the election of democrat Gov. MacAuliffe also supported the Senate campaign of democrat Dr. Jill McCabe, who happens to be an FBI deputy director’s wife.

    Jill McCabe’s unsuccessful Senate campaign ended in 2015, the year before her husband became an FBI deputy director. His FBI job prior to that was involved with counter terrorism. I don’t know how any sort of quid pro quo could have been involved, unless someone consulted a fortune teller.

  10. 14

    Pete

    @Greg:

    Are you really going to imply that Hillary’s illegal server wasn’t an issue back in 2015, and that the Clinton crime family wasn’t preparing for the eventual white wash they got from Comey?

    Your fingers must touch each other as you jam them so far into your skull through your ears trying laughably to deny the intrinsic corruption that is Hillary.

    And you must believe Hillary was an investment wiz from turning a $1000 investment in cattle futures into $100,000 on her first foray into such endeavors, right?

    Honestly…you take self-beclownment to fantastic levels never before seen outside a Trigglypuff support group.

  11. 15

    Greg

    For me, this election isn’t about Hillary Clinton. It concerns Donald Trump, and the things about him I believe would make him an existential threat to the safety of the nation if he were ever to become Commander in Chief.

    The man is so clueless that he has no real understanding of how much he doesn’t know. He believes he can simply Trump his way through any situation. People claim he would surround himself with highly knowledgeable experts and advisers, but the fact is that he can’t even follow good advice and council in the matter of keeping his presidential campaign on track. Any provocation sends him off the rails.

    In business he has dealt with failures by simply writing them off and moving on to the next project. That’s just not how things work, when what’s at stake is the future of a nation rather than the future of a disposable corporation. He has sold people on an attitude, not on a body of clearly defined policies with clear plans how they can be realized in the real world. He shows contempt for the processes and institutions of the federal government, as if he would somehow be able to function apart from them as a president. He’s also temperamentally unsuited to the job. He’s far too impulsive and easily provoked.

    So, there’s Clinton. She’s highly knowledgeable about the job she’s bidding for, having seen what’s involved close up. She’s well respected by the foreign governments that are allied with us, and not wanted by those that oppose our interests; I consider that last part a clear indication that she’s considered to be a serious opponent. I know what her intentions are, because she’s stated them clearly and held to them consistently for years.

    Given the choice between Clinton and Trump, there’s really not that much for me to think about. In my view, Trump isn’t a serious alternative to Clinton. There were republicans who might have been, but Trump was never one of them.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *