NationStates Jolt Archive

Even better....WorldNetDaily are running this story...

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55825

LAW OF THE LAND
Bush grants presidency extraordinary powers
Directive for emergencies apparently gives authority without congressional oversight
Posted: May 23, 2007
1:00 a.m. Eastern


© 2007 WorldNetDaily.com


President Bush
President Bush has signed a directive granting extraordinary powers to the office of the president in the event of a declared national emergency, apparently without congressional approval or oversight.

The "National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive" was signed May 9, notes Jerome R. Corsi in a WND column.

It was issued with the dual designation of NSPD-51, as a National Security Presidential Directive, and HSPD-20, as a Homeland Security Presidential Directive.

The directive establishes under the office of the president a new national continuity coordinator whose job is to make plans for "National Essential Functions" of all federal, state, local, territorial and tribal governments, as well as private sector organizations to continue functioning under the president's directives in the event of a national emergency.

"Catastrophic emergency" is loosely defined as "any incident, regardless of location, that results in extraordinary levels of mass casualties, damage, or disruption severely affecting the U.S. population, infrastructure, environment, economy, or government functions."

Corsi says the president can assume the power to direct any and all government and business activities until the emergency is declared over.

The directive says the assistant to the president for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism, currently Frances Fragos Townsend, would be designated as the national continuity coordinator.

Corsi says the directive makes no attempt to reconcile the powers created for the national continuity coordinator with the National Emergency Act, which requires that such proclamation "shall immediately be transmitted to the Congress and published in the Federal Register."

A Congressional Research Service study notes the National Emergency Act sets up Congress as a balance empowered to "modify, rescind, or render dormant" such emergency authority if Congress believes the president has acted inappropriately.

But the new directive appears to supersede the National Emergency Act by creating the new position of national continuity coordinator without any specific act of Congress authorizing the position, Corsi says.

The directive also makes no reference to Congress and its language appears to negate any requirement that the president submit to Congress a determination that a national emergency exists.

It suggests instead that the powers of the directive can be implemented without any congressional approval or oversight.

Homeland Security spokesman Russ Knocke affirmed to Corsi the Homeland Security Department would implement the requirements of the order under Townsend's direction.

The White House declined to comment on the directive.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/05/20070509-12.html

Well now....what was that about the 2nd Amendment?

Even better....WorldNetDaily are running this story...

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55825



http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/05/20070509-12.html

Well now....what was that about the 2nd Amendment?

eh...shit happens

eh...shit happens

That is does...and in this case to the Conservatives who thought George was a good ol' boy...

I'ld like to compare it to the '98 version that it replaced. But that one wasn't released to the public.

If he is not impeached now I hope no current member of Congress is ever elected to any public office again. Preferably any business position too.

Hmmm, well I doubt he can get away with this...

He'll be gone in two years anywayz!

All Hail King Obama!

All Hail King Obama!

My biggest fear is that the dems won't do away with the infrastructure for absolutism that 43 built up.

I'ld like to compare it to the '98 version that it replaced. But that one wasn't released to the public.

Oh the 90's

Yuppies
Window's 95 & 98
Seinfeld
The Gulf War
Cell Phones become cheaper and smaller
The Ford Taurus
Sonic the hedgehog
NASCAR becomes popular
The halcyon days of the Simpsons
Grunge music

those were the days :(

Wouldn't it just be peachy if there was a national emergency sometime soon

Wouldn't it just be peachy if there was a national emergency sometime soon

You mean like a war, or the threat of Terrorism...oh...god...:(

Wouldn't it just be peachy if there was a national emergency sometime soon

I predict November 3rd, 2008.

If he enacts it unduly, I'd fully expect blowback, but it would seem to be a tool designed to respond to incidents where the legislature and large portions of the country are incapacitated due to a catastrophic event. Most likely a war with an intermediate nuclear power, such as the PRC, in which anywhere from twelve to thirty major American cities could be obliterated.

Yes, I don't like it, and I'd rather never see it enacted, but the ability for the government to be able to enact this power is at least somewhat justified.

That's it. I'm moving to Canada.

If he enacts it unduly, I'd fully expect blowback, but it would seem to be a tool designed to respond to incidents where the legislature and large portions of the country are incapacitated due to a catastrophic event. Most likely a war with an intermediate nuclear power, such as the PRC, in which anywhere from twelve to thirty major American cities could be obliterated.

And there was no such planning during the cold war?

That's it. I'm moving to Canada.

Don't leave its your country to, you can stay and make it better or...we could start a revolution...ah the hell with it see you later hoosier ;)

And there was no such planning during the cold war?

The planning during the Cold War revolved around evacuating the Congress at the same time as the Presidency to the facilities at Mt. Weather or Ravens Rock, but developments in weapons power and accuracy have made those facilities nearly entirely obsolete, and as a result they have been shut down.

In recent years, the US has replaced most of these fortified bunkers with the National Airborne Operations Center, which is a E4-B designed for airborne refueling, and nearly indefinite airborne operations, but not unlimited personnel capacity. It is certain that Congress could not be evacuated on board NAOC, and if it were eliminated in a nuclear strike, or the ability to meet quorom were, then Presidency would need to be able to act independently of the Congress.

I dislike the decision to prepare for such an event, and would prefer alternatives that would possibly provide the Congress with the ability for airborne activity, but implementation would be extremely difficult.

And as Keci made mention of earlier, Clinton developed a similar program in the nineties, he just kept it secret. If Bush had wanted to implement such a program he would have done it a long time ago, just with the Congressional alteration.

So the President can now declare martial law without consulting Congress. In a truly dire situation, that might be critical.

And if he uses that to try and impose a dictatorship, he'll be on the recieving end of another revolution.

This is why we have the Second Amendment, people. So we can revolt if we have to.

Hmmm... let's see.

We have Corny, Kimchi, Myrmi, Freedonia, FAG... anyone know 16 more NationStates Busheviks so they can celebrate this latest piece of Shrubbery with a 21-Cum salute?

:gundge::gundge::gundge::gundge::gundge::gundge::gundge:

So the President can now declare martial law without consulting Congress. In a truly dire situation, that might be critical.

And if he uses that to try and impose a dictatorship, he'll be on the recieving end of another revolution.



That depends on how many people support a revolution, because some citizens might welcome their new
"Defender of American Freedoms King President"
Because I for one welcome our new...ah...I better not :)

Well, if a revolution is involved, I guess I'll stick around.
And I haven't left for Canada yet, so don't call me a hoosier.

so don't call me a hoosier.

;) All in good fun mate no worries

Dammit, a Revolution is one of the very kinds of emergency scenarios that would call these measures into effect! >_<;;

Well, if a revolution is involved, I guess I'll stick around.
And I haven't left for Canada yet, so don't call me a hoosier.

If implemented under the planned conditions, I doubt there would be much of the country left to carry out a revolution.

Dammit, a Revolution is one of the very kinds of emergency scenarios that would call these measures into effect! >_<;;

we mean after such measures are placed into effect IF they ever are under unreasonable circumstances...of course that would depend on one's definition of unreasonable...

The planning during the Cold War revolved around evacuating the Congress at the same time as the Presidency to the facilities at Mt. Weather or Ravens Rock, but developments in weapons power and accuracy have made those facilities nearly entirely obsolete, and as a result they have been shut down.

In recent years, the US has replaced most of these fortified bunkers with the National Airborne Operations Center, which is a E4-B designed for airborne refueling, and nearly indefinite airborne operations, but not unlimited personnel capacity. It is certain that Congress could not be evacuated on board NAOC, and if it were eliminated in a nuclear strike, or the ability to meet quorom were, then Presidency would need to be able to act independently of the Congress.

I dislike the decision to prepare for such an event, and would prefer alternatives that would possibly provide the Congress with the ability for airborne activity, but implementation would be extremely difficult.

And as Keci made mention of earlier, Clinton developed a similar program in the nineties, he just kept it secret. If Bush had wanted to implement such a program he would have done it a long time ago, just with the Congressional alteration.

Yeah...only problem was getting Congress to move swiftly enough with those ICBMs heading over the Arctic...

That is simply hilarious in its ludicrousness, but it's yet another US mockery of the principles of rule of law.

"Enjoy your dictatorship! It couldn't happen to nicer people." ;)

I kid in that last part, of course, but for serious, it's Caesarianly Machiavellian. Indefensible, but I wager we'll see the regular crowd defend it nevertheless.

If this was just to deal with a catastrophic emergency along the lines of nuclear armageddon, then I wonder why it is worded so that any event occuring anywhere in the world that disrupts the economy is sufficient to trigger the provisions.

This is why we have the Second Amendment, people. So we can revolt if we have to.

The reason you have the second amendment is because the NRA have the majority of your government in their pocket.
An organised coup in the US ? Not realistically feasible. Its like having a coup in China

How sad. Do please put that Leader of yours behind bars before he puts all of you behind bars. Well, more of you behind bars, anyway. Isn't it amazing just how powerful one man elected by the narrowest of margins can be? Guess you're getting that sinking feeling... I know I'd be feeling it...

The USA became a nation because of the senile King George III of England.
Look what you get now, a senile GW Bush aka King George I of America.

Yeah...only problem was getting Congress to move swiftly enough with those ICBMs heading over the Arctic...

The program to remove the Congress to Mt. Weather or Ravens Rock was pretty rough. The program that existed during the Cold War was that the Army would round up the members of Congress and evacuate them to Raven Rock, Mount Weather or the Greenbrier Hotel in the event of a nuclear exchange with the Soviet Union. Upon reaching the facility, they would be separated from their families, stripped of their personal belongings, sanitized and issued new clothes and moved deep underground into a barracks that would make the bunking on a World War II submarine seem comfortable.

Short of a direct hit with a multi-megaton device these facilities would be able to survive a nuclear war, but during the nineteen eighties and nineteen nineties the Soviet Union, and later Russia, developed highly accurate MIRVed weapons that could deliver multi-meg devices with sufficient accuracy to bust the roof. This led to a change of thinking in within the government of what the appropriate actions for high ranking officials should be, and developed the NEACP, which has since evolved into the NAOC.

The reason you have the second amendment is because the NRA have the majority of your government in their pocket.
An organised coup in the US ? Not realistically feasible. Its like having a coup in China

Actually it would be far more difficult in the United States than in the PRC, because of how how decentralized the American government it, especially in comparison to how centralized the PRC government is.

Actually it would be far more difficult in the United States than in the PRC, because of how how decentralized the American government it, especially in comparison to how centralized the PRC government is.

Well I don't agree as the restriction of media in China and the fact that the ruling class in china (Han) controls with an iron fist and the fact that there is a bilion of them. Anyway I didin't say which would be more difficult I just said it wouldn't happen

If this was just to deal with a catastrophic emergency along the lines of nuclear armageddon, then I wonder why it is worded so that any event occuring anywhere in the world that disrupts the economy is sufficient to trigger the provisions.

Where do you get that from the directive?

Well I don't agree as the restriction of media in China and the fact that the ruling class in china (Han) controls with an iron fist and the fact that there is a bilion of them. Anyway I didin't say which would be more difficult I just said it wouldn't happen

I dunno, especially if the military is in the coup.

Where do you get that from the directive?

Likely here:

(b) "Catastrophic Emergency" means any incident, regardless of location, that results in extraordinary levels of mass casualties, damage, or disruption severely affecting the U.S. population, infrastructure, environment, economy, or government functions;

From the directive, here (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/05/20070509-12.html)

The USA became a nation because of the senile King George III of England.
Look what you get now, a senile GW Bush aka King George I of America.

I said years ago, the American Public missed the point of the Revolutionary War, which was to free people from the whimsical rules of a King George and nobody listened then. They won't listen to you now my friend.

They'll only listen when the Muslims are being sent to Allahschwitz, when the gays are being sent to Asschwitz, and the "Liberals" are being sent to AlFrankenschwitz.

I dunno, especially if the military is in the coup.

Military again being run by run by Han Chinese I doubt it.

Where do you get that from the directive?
From the WorldNetDaily story (quoted and linked to in the OP).

"Catastrophic emergency" is loosely defined as "any incident, regardless of location, that results in extraordinary levels of mass casualties, damage, or disruption severely affecting the U.S. population, infrastructure, environment, economy, or government functions."

Uh oh. It's Rome all over again!

Now, I am of two minds on this:

On one hand, it makes perfect sense. In time of war with an intermediate nuclear power, such as, say, China, there is the potential for Congress to be wiped out or otherwise harmed, and as such the President would need the authority to act without having to consult Congress, as there would be no Congress to consult. A similiar plan was developed in secret by President Clinton.

On the other hand, it makes me incredibly angry to think that such power could be handed over to the President in time of a "national emergency," which is not defined very well. As a firm supporter of the 2nd Amendment on the basis of defending oneself against a government that may become oppressive, this scares me. Of course, common sense and reason comes into play: if Bush truly wanted to do something insane like this he would have done so before, and if he tried it now he probably wouldn't get anywhere near as far as some might fear, but still....the potential for abuse is certainly there. And I do not trust ANYONE who goes into the office of the President and does not remove this, or at least rewrites it to define national emergency in a way that prevents this from being abused.

Sadly, I doubt whoever goes into office, be they Democrat, Republican, or what have you, will do so.

From the WorldNetDaily story (quoted and linked to in the OP).

"Catastrophic emergency" is loosely defined as "any incident, regardless of location, that results in extraordinary levels of mass casualties, damage, or disruption severely affecting the U.S. population, infrastructure, environment, economy, or government functions."

I'd argue that you are misinterpereting it, and that such a disaster to not be met with resistance it would need to be more than merely an economic collapse.

On the other hand, it makes me incredibly angry to think that such power could be handed over to the President in time of a "national emergency," which is not defined very well. As a firm supporter of the 2nd Amendment on the basis of defending oneself against a government that may become oppressive, this scares me. Of course, common sense and reason comes into play: if Bush truly wanted to do something insane like this he would have done so before, and if he tried it now he probably wouldn't get anywhere near as far as some might fear, but still....the potential for abuse is certainly there. And I do not trust ANYONE who goes into the office of the President and does not remove this, or at least rewrites it to define national emergency in a way that prevents this from being abused.


I also doubt that if Bush were planning to undertake these sorts of actions, he would let us know ahead of time by publishing something like this.

I remember the days when people were beheaded for cake, stabbed forty times (once in the groin) for quelling a civil war that had been plaguing Rome on and off since the last King was thrown out, and forced to choke down Hemlok for possibly being the most brilliant man alive. Alas, those days are gone :(.

Even better....WorldNetDaily are running this story...

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55825



http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/05/20070509-12.html

Well now....what was that about the 2nd Amendment?

MMMM....Hurricane Season will be here in 9 days (minus the A storm). Does that mean he can use it in the region? I mean, there would be massive disruption and casualties.

That's it. I'm moving to Canada.
Stay away from Toronto, we're full.

So is it just me or is this kinda like the emergency powers for Palpatine in Star Wars Episode II?

I'd argue that you are misinterpereting it, and that such a disaster to not be met with resistance it would need to be more than merely an economic collapse.
So, IF this really happened, you would be looking for a legal interpretation THEN? :p

So is it just me or is this kinda like the emergency powers for Palpatine in Star Wars Episode II?

How can you say Dick Cheney is the Dark Side! Err, he is ...

So is it just me or is this kinda like the emergency powers for Palpatine in Star Wars Episode II?

Where's the pope at in all of this? :p

So is it just me or is this kinda like the emergency powers for Palpatine in Star Wars Episode II?

Except Palpatine was a brilliant and devious Sith Lord who plotted every move like a chess grandmaster.

Dubya would show off his Sith powers as cheap party tricks.

"Hey everahone, look! I'mma bug zappur!" BZZZZZZZZZT!!

Except Palpatine was a brilliant and devious Sith Lord who plotted every move like a chess grandmaster.

Dubya would show off his Sith powers as cheap party tricks.

"Hey everahone, look! I'mma bug zappur!" BZZZZZZZZZT!!

See, the problem is that we're not accusing Bush of being the brillant, devious Sith Lord. Cheney/Rove, on the other hand...

Edit:

*glances at post below me*

<_<

>_>

Interesting quote... maybe I should rethink this conclusion... but I need to cross-reference the quote first...

So is it just me or is this kinda like the emergency powers for Palpatine in Star Wars Episode II?

http://humor.beecy.net/politics/bushisms/dictator/bush-dictator.jpg

So, IF this really happened, you would be looking for a legal interpretation THEN? :p

Well, knowing that the administration made this measure public goes a ways to allaying my fears that they are planning something nefarious.

Further, I suspect there would be a popular response to such a declaration, probably from the governments of the many states.

Oh HOLY.... One more attack and he'll be the ****ing dictator for life.

I predict November 3rd, 2008.
I wouldn't be suprised.

Oh HOLY.... One more attack and he'll be the ****ing dictator for life.


I wouldn't be suprised.

From what I am seeing, Bill Clinton had something similar though he kept his private. Bush released his at least.

I actually see Bush as more of a Vader, Cheney is the Emperor. I mean he even looks like him.

I'd argue that you are misinterpereting it, and that such a disaster to not be met with resistance it would need to be more than merely an economic collapse.
Would you?
It's there in plain English Andaluciae.
"Catastrophic emergency" is loosely defined as "any incident, regardless of location, that results in extraordinary levels of mass casualties, damage, or disruption severely affecting the U.S. population, infrastructure, environment, economy, or government functions."
You see it gives a list of sufficient causes, and amongst them is damage or disruption to a disjunctive list of things, one of which is the economy. It's there is plain English text Andaluciae so I'm not sure how you expect to convince me I've misinterpreted, even if you had bothered to accompany your statement that you'd argue otherwise, with a compelling argument (or even an argument at all for that matter).

Well, knowing that the administration made this measure public goes a ways to allaying my fears that they are planning something nefarious.

So either you trust every future government even though you've no way to ascertain who the people in control of it will be, or you are very short-sighted. Hopefully this will not be the last administration to hold the Whitehouse....

Further, I suspect there would be a popular response to such a declaration, probably from the governments of the many states.
Even if it were sufficient to prevent the government being illegally subverted into a dictatorship, it's still not likely to be pretty.

To be honest, when push comes to shove, it's surprising how much local populices and the governments of other states will tolerate when opposition is the more difficult of paths presented to those accustomed to ease. It's not like this generation is burning with a passion to retain liberty and freedom. It's a nice slogan when one wants to invade elsewhere, but when it comes down to it, in the US at least, you can start a war on provably false pretences, put laws in place that let you monitor your citizens' library habits, illegally wire tap and have it publically known, and still have the authority pass the directive we're discussing.

For the most part, the modern Westernised world is hardly a populice that is set on protecting the gifts their ancestors fought and died for. Heck for the most part, it's a populice that leaves the front door open because burglery 'wont happen to me' while wrapping themselves head to toe in rubber to avoid lightening strikes.

Good luck with those governments of other states...like they're going to interfere with whoever has authority over the US military.

I actually see Bush as more of a Vader, Cheney is the Emperor. I mean he even looks like him.

I've said it so many times and I'll say it again. Comparing Bush to Vader is giving Bush too much credit and insulting Vader.

Bush is Jar-Jar Binks. A goofy-eyed, floppy-eared clueless hick with a speech impediment who was somehow elected to high enough office where he then brought the True Evil to power.

You know, this might not be a bad thing... if only to see Gauthiers head explode.

And there was no such planning during the cold war?

Of course there was and still is. Most of the information never made it out into public domain.

I have no problem with the government making plans for the worst case scenarios. For this type of situation to exist that would mean something very drastic. A president couldn't just do it on a whim. Even an event such as 9-11 or major disaster such as Katrina wouldn't even come close to what it would be needed for such a measure. I'm thinking a massive plague or nuclear war, Yellowstone erupting or a large meteor hitting somewhere near the US.

Of course there was and still is. Most of the information never made it out into public domain.

I have no problem with the government making plans for the worst case scenarios. For this type of situation to exist that would mean something very drastic. A president couldn't just do it on a whim. Even an event such as 9-11 or major disaster such as Katrina wouldn't even come close to what it would be needed for such a measure. I'm thinking a massive plague or nuclear war, Yellowstone erupting or a large meteor hitting somewhere near the US.

Well thats the thing. It seems he (and Clinton...from what some posters have said) bypassed Congress in setting this up.

Surely that in itself is not a good thing?

Of course there are plans (as I have discussed with Andalucia) in place but these were rather well known. This particulair situation is odd (to me) as it seems to be far too open ended.

Extra-ordinary casualties....well some say that the tragic deaths in the WTC were extraordinary, the deaths in Okalahoma were extraordinary...

I like this line:

(6) The President shall lead the activities of the Federal Government for ensuring constitutional government.

In other words, continuing constitutional government by...suspending it!

Well they will soon be creating the incident necessary for this to go into effect, no doubt...

I'ld like to compare it to the '98 version that it replaced. But that one wasn't released to the public.

No doubt it was better than the '95 model but probably still bloatware ;) .

Wouldn't it just be peachy if there was a national emergency sometime soon

You mean like a war, or the threat of Terrorism...oh...god...:(

Or an 'Iranian' strike!

That's it. I'm moving to Canada.

The first act to preserve the borders against the U.S would be annexation of Canada!

And if he uses that to try and impose a dictatorship, he'll be on the recieving end of another revolution.

This is why we have the Second Amendment, people. So we can revolt if we have to.

With pistols and bulky hunting/shot guns? That'll be a crappy revolution.

If implemented under the planned conditions, I doubt there would be much of the country left to carry out a revolution.

I suppose the good thing is that if he (and by he I mean cheney prodding GWB) ever tried to do they would screw it up.

see you later hoosier ;)

*cough*

Hoo·sier /hōō'zhər/
- noun
Used as a nickname for a native or resident of Indiana.

hos·er /ˈhoʊzər/
–noun Canadian Slang.
a person who is considered unintelligent or uncouth, esp. a beer-drinking man.

I think you're a little confused.

Well I don't agree as the restriction of media in China and the fact that the ruling class in china (Han) controls with an iron fist and the fact that there is a bilion of them. Anyway I didin't say which would be more difficult I just said it wouldn't happen

Don't the Han Chinese make up most of the Chinese?

With pistols and bulky hunting/shot guns? That'll be a crappy revolution.
Especially when up against a National Guard armed with things like tanks, aircraft, etc.

Military again being run by run by Han Chinese I doubt it.

"The party controls the gun, the gun must never control the party"

Especially when up against a National Guard armed with things like tanks, aircraft, etc.

It should be noted, however, that the National Guard belongs to the states during peacetime and swear oaths to defend the Constitution of the state as well. There is a good chance that a number of Guard units would join in on some hypothetical rebellion against a totalitarian government.

It should be noted, however, that the National Guard belongs to the states during peacetime and swear oaths to defend the Constitution of the state as well. There is a good chance that a number of Guard units would join in on some hypothetical rebellion against a totalitarian government.

But the new technologies of the Military, combined with more training, would result in the easy demise of the national guard assuming every military unit went along with a new US totalitarian government rising to power. I think this hypothetical government would find a lot more resistance than they are thinking, perhaps.

Especially when up against a National Guard armed with things like tanks, aircraft, etc.

I thought those guys were underfunded...

It should be noted, however, that the National Guard belongs to the states during peacetime and swear oaths to defend the Constitution of the state as well. There is a good chance that a number of Guard units would join in on some hypothetical rebellion against a totalitarian government.

There is certainly a good chance that would happen. Only problem is that not only is the actual national military much better funded with better quality equipment (as the national guard seems to have the phased out obsolete equipment from the national military) but the national military has a clear numerical advantage and all of the stategic planning talent, along with the access to all of the various federal state apparatues, including all of the spy equpiment.

There would probably be, at best, a 50% desertion rate from the national guard and a 30% from the national military. If the unelected lot are rather harsh you could expect a higher rate (though the national military would still have a much lower desertion rate). Then you get onto the problem that most of the equipment would not go with the deserters...

What any kind of intelligent future dictator-president would do would be to try to increase the indoctrination of the military, along with selectively recruiting from certain locations (so that certain areas of the country could be 'made an example of').

Especially when up against a National Guard armed with things like tanks, aircraft, etc.

Sounds about as bad as the situation for the Iraqi insurgency, doesn't it?

Oh wait...they're kicking our asses in Iraq.

Don't underestimate the ability of a revolutionary force to get around the might of a military, especially when said military is as strained as it is now.

What any kind of intelligent future dictator-president would do would be to try to increase the indoctrination of the military, along with selectively recruiting from certain locations (so that certain areas of the country could be 'made an example of').

I see Homeland Security and subtle moves as the major instrument of purpose for any future dictator, a consolidated intelligence agency though there will definitely be some false created disaster so Presidential Directives like the above and laws can be enacted to reduce freedoms.

Very interesting, I am not sure I agree with the desertion rates without this indoctrination as the idea of our US freedoms are deeply ingrained in every one of us, and I know soldiers who feel the same way too most likely. I

United States citizens may not pay attention enough to losing our freedoms through government, but when it comes to things actually affecting people's lives and freedoms from a first person standpoint there would be quiet a bit of rebellion I imagine. I twould have to be subtle.

I see Homeland Security and subtle moves as the major instrument of purpose for any future dictator, a consolidated intelligence agency though there will definitely be some false created disaster so Presidential Directives like the above and laws can be enacted to reduce freedoms.

Well the best thing would to have a reason for most of the population to want you as dictator.

Very interesting, I am not sure I agree with the desertion rates without this indoctrination as the idea of our US freedoms are deeply ingrained in every one of us, and I know soldiers who feel the same way too most likely.

I was guessing the desertion rate. I do think that the indoctrination is good enough to keep the majority of the military and most of the national guard would go along with a change just because they wouldn't really care that much (though this is based in the new 'leader' not doing anything drastic).

United States citizens may not pay attention enough to losing our freedoms through government, but when it comes to things actually affecting people's lives and freedoms from a first person standpoint there would be quiet a bit of rebellion I imagine. I twould have to be subtle.

I'd like a non-violent mass resistance. As long as the near absolute majority (say, 90%) didn't do anything the new lot wouldn't be able to do anything beyond a few weeks (barring a mass immigration of people who wouldn't care as much).

With pistols and bulky hunting/shot guns? That'll be a crappy revolution.


200 million of those types of weapons, though.

There is certainly a good chance that would happen. Only problem is that not only is the actual national military much better funded with better quality equipment (as the national guard seems to have the phased out obsolete equipment from the national military) but the national military has a clear numerical advantage and all of the stategic planning talent, along with the access to all of the various federal state apparatues, including all of the spy equpiment.

Actually, the Guard is equipped quite similarly to their Regular Army counterparts. I served four years in the Regular Army and worked with Guard units on several occasions. Some Guard units were inferior to active ones, some equal, depending on the quality of that unit's leadership. As for equipment, the Guard is currently experiencing a severe shortage (http://www.stateline.org/live/details/story?contentId=206843), but I'd imagine there's probably more Guard equipment in the continental US right now than Regular Army. There's also the question of concentration, in that Guard units are scattered in company and battalion sized units all over the country while Regular Army units are concentrated in a few large bases.

I will agree that the Federal government would have the advantage with strategic elements, but the question is whether or not they could make good use of them against such a rebellion. Of course, this speculation on both our parts is rather idle since the nature of the incident would define who would be on who's side.


What any kind of intelligent future dictator-president would do would be to try to increase the indoctrination of the military, along with selectively recruiting from certain locations (so that certain areas of the country could be 'made an example of').

He would have to change the indoctrination completely. As of now US soldiers are taught that their duty is to the Constitution of the United States, not the President, and I think changing that would cause quite a bit of alarm.

200 million of those types of weapons, though.

Not to mention a black market rich in the more warfare-intended weaponry, especially when it comes to obtaining explosive material.

Let's face it, any revolution in the United States will be well-armed and well capable of taking back this nation if proper guerilla tactics are used. That's the whole bloody point to the 2nd Amendment peeps. You don't want someone like Bush taking control? Let us have our guns.

Let's face it, any revolution in the United States will be well-armed and well capable of taking back this nation if proper guerilla tactics are used. That's the whole bloody point to the 2nd Amendment peeps. You don't want someone like Bush taking control? Let us have our guns.

I don't know. Are current Americans as capable of withstanding hardship and deprivation while conducting combat on their homeland as most war torn people are?

Further, the administrations announcement of this policy is the best part about it. The policy formulated in 1998 by Clinton was kept in secret and in the dark, whilst this new policy is open to public criticism. It's not often that the Bush administration takes the prudent step of increasing transparency, but this would seem to be just such a step.

Further, the administrations announcement of this policy is the best part about it. The policy formulated in 1998 by Clinton was kept in secret and in the dark, whilst this new policy is open to public criticism. It's not often that the Bush administration takes the prudent step of increasing transparency, but this would seem to be just such a step.
Do you have a link to the policy that was "formulated in 1998 by Clinton"?

If it was "kept in secret and in the dark", then how do you know about it?

Do you have a link to the policy that was "formulated in 1998 by Clinton"?

If it was "kept in secret and in the dark", then how do you know about it?

It was leaked. Ya' know, kinda like how Valerie Plame's name was leaked?

http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/pdd/pdd-67.htm is a summary which discusses using FEMA in a similar fashion to how Bush is using his Homeland Security adviser.

Do you have a link to the policy that was "formulated in 1998 by Clinton"?

If it was "kept in secret and in the dark", then how do you know about it?

The new directive specifically revoked it by name.

Oh, and what Andaluciae said, too.

I like this line:



In other words, continuing constitutional government by...suspending it!

What if there is no Congress left? What would the President (ANY president) supposed to do? call new elections? What if there is so much chaos that new elections are impracticle?

It was issued with the dual designation of NSPD-51, as a National Security Presidential Directive,

National Security PresidentiAl Directive =NSDAP . ;)

(NSDAP was the acronym of Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei, aka the Nazi party).

National Security PresidentiAl Directive =NSDAP . ;)

(NSDAP was the acronym of Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei, aka the Nazi party).

Feelin' like a clever one today, aren't you?

What if there is no Congress left? What would the President (ANY president) supposed to do? call new elections? What if there is so much chaos that new elections are impracticle?

Especially in the type of environment that would exist following an intermediate sized nuclear war.

Especially in the type of environment that would exist following an intermediate sized nuclear war.

*shudders just thinking about it*

*shudders just thinking about it*

God, I hate nuclear weapons.

What about nuclear thermal rockets?

God, I hate nuclear weapons.

Damn Germans for splitting it.

Damn Germans for splitting it.

Eh?

God, I hate nuclear weapons.

Ditto!

It was leaked. Ya' know, kinda like how Valerie Plame's name was leaked?

http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/pdd/pdd-67.htm is a summary which discusses using FEMA in a similar fashion to how Bush is using his Homeland Security adviser.
Major differences?

With the reduced threat to this country of nuclear attack by the former Soviet Union and its successor nations, Enduring Constitutional Government programs (the former Continuity of Government programs) were scaled back in the early 1990s. Most of the resources of the National Preparedness Directorate of the Federal Emergency Management Agency [FEMA] were spent on ensuring the continuation of civilian government in the event of a nuclear war, through what are known as the Enduring Constitutional Government programs. The directorate also supports ongoing studies through war gaming, computer modeling, and other methods.
The April 1999 "Federal Response Plan" [FEMA 9230.1-PL] required te head of each Federal Department and agency shall ensure the continuity of essential functions in any national security emergency by providing for: succession to office and emergency delegation of authority in accordance with applicable law; safekeeping of essential resources, facilities, and records; and establishment of emergency operating capabilities.

The text of PDD-67 has not been released, and there is no White House Factsheet summarizing its provisions.

Major differences?

I use the FAS source because it is generally the most well regarded source available on the matter.

The Clinton Continuity of Government Plan of 1998, though, was never publicly released, as I have said before, and most of what we really know about it comes from unofficial sources within FEMA, especially after September Eleventh. As personal policy, I don't link to blogs or post quotations from workplace materials, so you'll have to look at them yourself.

But, for example, the applicable laws that the FAS article cites refer specifically to succession should the President or members of the cabinet be incapacitated, not how the government should act domestically in the event of a national emergency.

You also realize that American soldiers are not mindless drones, and would probably respond to an immoral order like "Shoot that dissident's family!" by shooting the officer who gave the order.

And as for proper guerilla tactics, we've shown before (the Revolution) that Americans are very good at guerilla warfare.

Basically, a dictatorship in America? Not going to live.

You also realize that American soldiers are not mindless drones, and would probably respond to an immoral order like "Shoot that dissident's family!" by shooting the officer who gave the order.

And as for proper guerilla tactics, we've shown before (the Revolution) that Americans are very good at guerilla warfare.

Basically, a dictatorship in America? Not going to live.

Pretty much, American south would be able to destroy the invaders themselves XD.

And after 231 years of democracy, the American public would reject and rebel against a dictatorship in a heartbeat.

Pretty much, American south would be able to destroy the invaders themselves XD.

And after 231 years of democracy, the American public would reject and rebel against a dictatorship in a heartbeat.

More than likely though the last southern rebellion was thoroughly defeated in 1865.

Bush kinda reminds me of a rogue troll who somehow got moderator powers on a forum, only to find he'll loose them for abuse, so he randomly bans people, trolls and the like till he's finally ip banned by admin.

Even better....WorldNetDaily are running this story...

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55825



http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/05/20070509-12.html

Well now....what was that about the 2nd Amendment?

That is does...and in this case to the Conservatives who thought George was a good ol' boy...

I agree with you! This just proves that, really, when you get right down to it, there IS no 'Constitution' anymore. Just George W. Bush's power to declare a 'national emergency' if he so desires. Or worse (at least for white males), HILLARY CLINTON's power to do so, or BARACK OBAMA's.

Hmmm, well I doubt he can get away with this...

He'll be gone in two years anywayz!

All Hail King Obama!

My biggest fear is that the dems won't do away with the infrastructure for absolutism that 43 built up.

Bush kinda reminds me of a rogue troll who somehow got moderator powers on a forum, only to find he'll loose them for abuse, so he randomly bans people, trolls and the like till he's finally ip banned by admin.

Ill be damned...

Thats a GREAT analogy.

You also realize that American soldiers are not mindless drones, and would probably respond to an immoral order like "Shoot that dissident's family!" by shooting the officer who gave the order. Then Bush will simply find the biggest collection of psychoes in the military and send them in, AKA like China did in Tiananmen Square.


And as for proper guerilla tactics, we've shown before (the Revolution) that Americans are very good at guerilla warfare. But the next season of American Idol is on!!!! US Apathy is pathetic these days. Until they openly censor the TV no one will care.


Basically, a dictatorship in America? Not going to live. It shouldn't have gotten this far along to begin with!

It shouldn't have gotten this far along to begin with!

How far have we gone towards dictatorship? I am not a Bush supporter but if you are refering to this, I happen to agree with the assessment stated. However, if he used it for anything other than this, then he WILL have problems. This is not a step towards dictatorship, it is a step to preserving America. A step towards dictatorship would be him being allowed to do what this directive is saying for whatever reason.

How far have we gone towards dictatorship? Lets see, Illegal imprisonment, spying on fellow countrymen, fear mongering, ignoring checks and balances...

I am not a Bush supporter I don't know, you kind of jump around.

but if you are refering to this, I happen to agree with the assessment stated. However, if he used it for anything other than this, then he WILL have problems. Be too late then!

This is not a step towards dictatorship, it is a step to preserving America. By giving one person absolute power if something bad happens... Micromanagement doesn't work, one person cannot make all the decisions without someone to tell them it's stupid.

A step towards dictatorship would be him being allowed to do what this directive is saying for whatever reason. It's so vague that ANYTHING bad could be the reason. Heck Gas going up to 5$ could be really bad as well, do you want him to takeover everything because of that?


Bush kinda reminds me of a rogue troll who somehow got moderator powers on a forum, only to find he'll loose them for abuse, so he randomly bans people, trolls and the like till he's finally ip banned by admin.
I'd have to agree, maybe that's another reason I don't like him.

I knew a mod like that once, he was a huge the self-rightous ***tard that thought he knew the way the forum SHOULD be, god forbid someone not obey him, Luckily he couldn't ban anyone but he could make their forum life hell. I constantly got on his nerves intentionally because I so hated how he abused his status. He gave up modship eventually when someone proved one of his main ideas... was complete bull, destroying his creditablity.

Of course then his largest follower became the next one and I had to go after her as well. She got bored when everyone stopped listening to her status-quo demands and quit eventually.

You also realize that American soldiers are not mindless drones, and would probably respond to an immoral order like "Shoot that dissident's family!" by shooting the officer who gave the order.

And as for proper guerilla tactics, we've shown before (the Revolution) that Americans are very good at guerilla warfare.

Basically, a dictatorship in America? Not going to live.

So your good at being guerrillas but not at combating them?

I don't think the American Revolution was so much about tyranny not working or even about tremendous guerrilla skills, it was more about the logistical impossibility of occupying a so widely dispersed hostile population.

So your good at being guerrillas but not at combating them?

I think it's the hypothetical 'what if' in a crisis situation. You know, the kind where people would say they'd get up and fight and what not when they'd most likely hide under their tables?

I think it isn't a stretch to say that most Americans suck at being guerrillas. At least skilled guerrillas.

*snip*

So tell what is a President supposed to do if the Congress is annilihated? This is what it is pretty much talking about. Tell me. What is a President supposed to do if Congress is gone and actions requiring Congressional approval cannot be done?

I asked this once and got no response so now I am asking you!

So tell what is a President supposed to do if the Congress is annilihated? This is what it is pretty much talking about. Tell me. What is a President supposed to do if Congress is gone and actions requiring Congressional approval cannot be done?

So you're telling me during the height of the Cold War, nobody had any kind of legislation in mind that dealt with at war situations or if Congress was rendered incapable of being put in touch with?

So you're telling me during the height of the Cold War, nobody had any kind of legislation in mind that dealt with at war situations or if Congress was rendered incapable of being put in touch with?

How much would one like to bet that they were all executive orders and not through the legislative branch? US Law code is complex and it will take time to go through it.

However, that does not answer my question.

However, that does not answer my question.

Well I think you have a valid and interesting question there.

I would assume that whoever you get on board from Congress would be enough to make a quorum....? If not Congressional then the states (not sure that would work...given Congress is Federal...)?

I really don't know....but I am sure that there is a plan/policy already existant...

Well I think you have a valid and interesting question there.

I would assume that whoever you get on board from Congress would be enough to make a quorum....? If not Congressional then the states (not sure that would work...given Congress is Federal...)?

I really don't know....but I am sure that there is a plan/policy already existant...

I do not know if there is a policy already. From my understanding, each president has had their own "plan of action" in case of a national emergency. I just hope it never has to be used because if it is used, then we would be totally screwed.

I do not know if there is a policy already. From my understanding, each president has had their own "plan of action" in case of a national emergency. I just hope it never has to be used because if it is used, then we would be totally screwed.

A quick Google search on the various referenced bills (including the never publicly released '98 version) suggests that this is fairly standard boiler-plate.

A quick Google search on the various referenced bills (including the never publicly released '98 version) suggests that this is fairly standard boiler-plate.

Now that we have established that, why is everyone screaming about it? Oh yea...I forgot it was issued by Bush and thus...:rolleyes:

A quick Google search on the various referenced bills (including the never publicly released '98 version) suggests that this is fairly standard boiler-plate.

Bills?

Now that we have established that, why is everyone screaming about it? Oh yea...I forgot it was issued by Bush and thus...:rolleyes:

Seems to me that this one goes an awful lot further than previous Presidents...

Bills?



Seems to me that this one goes an awful lot further than previous Presidents...

Bills, declarations, whatever you want to call them.. There's numerous references in the linked Whitehouse press release.

Since nobody ever noticed this:

Presidential Decision Directive 67 of October 21, 1998

which was never released to the public, there's really no recent comparable reference.

Bills?



Seems to me that this one goes an awful lot further than previous Presidents...

Now can you prove that this goes further than previous Presidents?

Bills, declarations, whatever you want to call them.. There's numerous references in the linked Whitehouse press release.

Since nobody ever noticed this:

Presidential Decision Directive 67 of October 21, 1998

which was never released to the public, there's really no recent comparable reference.

Well it is important to understand the difference between a bill and a directive yes?

Well I think you have a valid and interesting question there.

I would assume that whoever you get on board from Congress would be enough to make a quorum....? If not Congressional then the states (not sure that would work...given Congress is Federal...)?

I really don't know....but I am sure that there is a plan/policy already existant...

Quorum is Constitutionally defined as half of the body.

Each House shall be the judge of the elections, returns and qualifications of its own members, and a majority of each shall constitute a quorum to do business; but a smaller number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the attendance of absent members, in such manner, and under such penalties as each House may provide.

So tell what is a President supposed to do if the Congress is annilihated? This is what it is pretty much talking about. Tell me. What is a President supposed to do if Congress is gone and actions requiring Congressional approval cannot be done?

I asked this once and got no response so now I am asking you!

Have a bill/directive that specifically restricts the action to circumstances such as that, rather than effectively whenever he feels like it.

Have a bill/directive that specifically restricts the action to circumstances such as that, rather than effectively whenever he feels like it.

I see you never read the whole thing.

Quorum is Constitutionally defined as half of the body.

Ahhh thanks!

So what are your thoughts on Lancaster County's question regarding a lack of Congressional personnel? I would guess that the highest ranking official/pol would take control and play the situation by ear?