CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › We are on our way to a dictatorship.....
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

We are on our way to a dictatorship.....

post #1 of 33
Thread Starter 
I've been saying he'd do this for 4 years. Stupid fucking people who voted for him I just wanna say thanks alot!


Bush Anoints Himself as the Insurer of Constitutional Government in Emergency

http://www.progressive.org/mag_wx051807



May 18, 2007

With scarcely a mention in the mainstream media, President Bush has ordered up a plan for responding to a catastrophic attack.
In a new National Security Presidential Directive, Bush lays out his plans for dealing with a “catastrophic emergency.”

Under the plan, he entrusts himself with leading the entire federal government, not just the Executive Branch. And he gives himself the responsibility “for ensuring constitutional government.”

He laid this all out in a document entitled “National Security Presidential Directive/NSPD 51” and “Homeland Security Presidential Directive/HSPD-20.”

The White House released it on May 9.

Other than a discussion on Daily Kos led off by a posting by Leo Fender, and a pro-forma notice in a couple of mainstream newspapers, this document has gone unremarked upon.

The subject of the document is entitled “National Continuity Policy.”

It defines a “catastrophic emergency” 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 function.”

This could mean another 9/11, or another Katrina, or a major earthquake in California, I imagine, since it says it would include “localized acts of nature, accidents, and technological or attack-related emergencies.”

The document emphasizes the need to ensure “the continued function of our form of government under the Constitution, including the functioning of the three separate branches of government,” it states.

But it says flat out: “The President shall lead the activities of the Federal Government for ensuring constitutional government.”

The document waves at the need to work closely with the other two branches, saying there will be “a cooperative effort among the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the Federal Government.” But this effort will be “coordinated by the President, as a matter of comity with respect to the legislative and judicial
branches and with proper respect for the constitutional separation of powers.”

Among the efforts coordinated by the President would ensuring the capability of the three branches of government to “provide for orderly succession” and “appropriate transition of leadership.”

The document designates a National Continuity Coordinator, who would be the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism.

Currently holding that post is Frances Fragos Townsend.

She is required to develop a National Continuity Implementation Plan and submit it within 90 days.

As part of that plan, she is not only to devise procedures for the Executive Branch but also give guidance to “state, local, territorial, and tribal governments, and private sector owners and operators of critical infrastructure.”

The secretary of Homeland Security is also directed to develop planning guidance for “private sector critical infrastructure owners and operators,” as well as state, local, territorial, and tribal governments.

The document gives the Vice President a role in implementing the provisions of the contingency plans.

“This directive shall be implanted in a manner that is consistent with, and facilitates effective implementation of, provisions of the Constitution concerning succession to the Presidency or the exercise of its powers, and the Presidential Succession Act of 1947 (3 USC 19), with the consultation of the Vice President and, as appropriate, others involved.”

The document also contains “classified Continuity Annexes"
post #2 of 33
Soon the Nothing will affect Fantasia and all hope will rest in the hands of one young, unlikely alliterated boy.
post #3 of 33
All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others.

Oh god, can we just keep the official pen of the POTUS away from George Bush? That way he can't sign shit.
post #4 of 33
DarthSidious is pissed off because Bush is stealing pages from his playbook.
post #5 of 33
The worst part is that in the midst a national emergency, most people would ALLOW Bush to get away with this.
post #6 of 33
Thread Starter 
This country needs a revolution.
post #7 of 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by DarthSidious
This country needs a revolution.
In case you hadn't noticed, we're in the middle of one, politically speaking.
post #8 of 33
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jesse Custer
In case you hadn't noticed, we're in the middle of one, politically speaking.


Bullshit.........the Dems are full of shit to. I really think they are in on the plan. Bill Clinton who I used to love until a few months ago is a little too close to Bush Sr. I think if Jr doesnt stay in office past his term to become dictator that Hillary will surely be president to continue the new world order. Her being president will also calm down the population since everyone will say "wow democracy works we have a women" FUCK IT ALL!
post #9 of 33
Yeah, I figure if there's one thing neocons and shrill liberals can agree on, it's the New World Order.

Seriously though, I fully expect Scott Hall and Kevin Nash to seize power by '09. La Parka is a shoo-in to be the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. See what I did there?
post #10 of 33
This is the small-government Conservatism I've heard so much about, is it?
post #11 of 33
Well, I definitely won't be surprised when we, after years of silence, just happen to have another "attack" shortly before the election next year.
post #12 of 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doc Happenin
Well, I definitely won't be surprised when we, after years of silence, just happen to have another "attack" shortly before the election next year.
Hence: these directives. Time to break out the sequel to My Pet Goat.

It's like when you read a dystopic science fiction novel, and someone is quickly recounting the backstory of all the horrible things that led to the end of the world, except in novels these events take place over decades, not accelerated Bush-style into a handful of years.
post #13 of 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seabass Inna Bun
This is the small-government Conservatism I've heard so much about, is it?
Well, you have to admit giving one guy all the power makes for a very small government.
post #14 of 33
Eh, he'll be out of office in 20 months. Let him have his fun before the history books tear him to shreds.
post #15 of 33
I'm just worried what will happen if a future president abuses this. For all the supposed red state-blue state antagonism it really seems like Presidents all belong to this little chummy club where they help each other exploit the country to maximum effect. It's also why you don't usually see presidents opening the books on prior administrations, or new laws coming down the pipe to constrain the president's powers. No matter who the specific person in charge is, most people who actually have a whiff of power don't bother to rock the boat.
post #16 of 33
Whoa, whoa, whoa. So W came up with this (insanely terrifying) plan. That doesn't mean it automatically goes into effect. Wouldn't the House and the Senate have to approve it first?
post #17 of 33
This isn't real. ??? Something like this could happen at some point a little farther along maybe, but just because president wrote something and called it a document doesn't mean it takes effect. It seems blatantly unconstitutional. Congress would have to pass this first. duh
post #18 of 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel Strange
Whoa, whoa, whoa. So W came up with this (insanely terrifying) plan. That doesn't mean it automatically goes into effect. Wouldn't the House and the Senate have to approve it first?
Maybe Bush did it with Executive Order or something.

If it has to be approved by Congress, though, no way in hell it'll be passed.
post #19 of 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anger Management
Maybe Bush did it with Executive Order or something.
A Steven Segal movie?
post #20 of 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by stump
A Steven Segal movie?
That would be EXECUTIVE DECISION. Sorry, had to clear that up before Moltisanti's ears perked up.
post #21 of 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anger Management
Maybe Bush did it with Executive Order or something.
SCREECH! I just went and looked it up, As far as I can tell, a Presidential Directive is the same thing as an Executive Order. UT-OH.

Time to move to New Zealand.
post #22 of 33
This really isn't a big surprise. If you want access to this administration's playbook, buy a few of Carl Schmitt's book (Schmitt was the leading political philosopher in Germany during the Weimar Republic and Nazi periods of that country's history). Bush's declaration that he is "The Decider" and his basic political philosophy can be traced back directly to that man's work. (Nixon and Bush's political philosophy mirror each other--the Imperial Presidency aspects--in certain respects because both were influenced by Schmitt and both sources of that influence can be found in the person of Henry Kissinger.) Just take a peek at Political Theology and tell me if you think Schmitt's definition of the sovereign seems familiar to you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by stump
This isn't real. ??? Something like this could happen at some point a little farther along maybe, but just because president wrote something and called it a document doesn't mean it takes effect. It seems blatantly unconstitutional. Congress would have to pass this first. duh
I certianly hope that you are right. However, if the current political scandals are anything to go by, very few people are aware of how much oversight the previous congress gave up in the name of party solidarity. Nearly six years after it became law, it was still a newsworthy item that this administration's anti-terrorism legislation significantly altered the rules for replacing a US Attorney.
post #23 of 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by DarthSidious
Bullshit.........the Dems are full of shit to. I really think they are in on the plan. Bill Clinton who I used to love until a few months ago is a little too close to Bush Sr. I think if Jr doesnt stay in office past his term to become dictator that Hillary will surely be president to continue the new world order. Her being president will also calm down the population since everyone will say "wow democracy works we have a women" FUCK IT ALL!
Who said anything about the Dems?

The theories of Executive Power this administration are openly embracing are Revolutionary (yes, with a capital R). They are, essentially, antithetical to democratic principles, and yet we're seeing those theories aggressively and mostly-successfully argued for out in the open.

As Prankster notes, its not GW that's really the problem here - its the way in which GW has altered the fundamental positioning of the executive branch. Future presidents, both dem and republican, can now arguably lay claim to the profoundly un-American argument that the president is, in essence, a King.

Most significantly, while the legislature continues to grumble about the various abuses propogated by the current administration, none of them are really DOING anything about it - despite the emails, phone calls, letters and demonstrations from and by Americans like myself, who are very, very concerned about all of this.

If that's not a political revolution, I don't know what is. The difference is, it isn't a people's revolution. It's the government, reinventing itself, without our input or approval.

And as some have noted, Congress doesn't need to approve this. The president can simply opt to go around the law. That's established precedent at this point. See: the ongoing FISA debacle and attorney general scandal.

The REAL issue here is not Bush, or the dems, or the republicans, or any one scandal or story. It's that as of this moment in our nation's history, the president is literally Above the Law. And unlike a Seagal flick, you can no longer just flip a proverbial switch and turn this off.
post #24 of 33
"I love democracy; I love the Republic."

Fuck, grow some balls, Democrats, and impeach this asshole.
post #25 of 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paulpatine
"I love democracy; I love the Republic."

Fuck, grow some balls, AMERICAN PEOPLE, and impeach this asshole.
Amended to promote accuracy.

Congress doesn't read the Chud message boards. And while it can be argued that Congress doesn't read your mail either, it's still the hallmark of a democracy to contact your representatives and demand action from them.


Have you done that?
post #26 of 33
Has anyone even bothered to read the directive or are you just going off of the personal interpretation of the editor of TheProgressive.com? Here's the full text.

It's stated purpose is to effect a policy that insures that in the event of a catastrophic emergency, government keeps operating under Constitutional principles and that each of the three branches remains independent. In fact, this directive deals primarily (and almost solely) with the executive branch:

Quote:
This policy establishes "National Essential Functions," prescribes continuity requirements for all executive departments and agencies, and provides guidance for State, local, territorial, and tribal governments, and private sector organizations in order to ensure a comprehensive and integrated national continuity program that will enhance the credibility of our national security posture and enable a more rapid and effective response to and recovery from a national emergency.
"Requirements" for the executive. "Guidance", not requirements, for state and local governments and the private sector. Nothing about requirements for the other two branches of the federal government either. The purpose is to ensure the continuity of essential "governmental functions". The directive defines that term:

Quote:
(2) In this directive:
(g) "Government Functions" means the collective functions of the heads of executive departments and agencies as defined by statute, regulation, presidential direction, or other legal authority, and the functions of the legislative and judicial branches;
Again, only referring to the executive branch that the president leads. And I see more than lip service to the independence of the three branches of government:

Quote:
(9) Recognizing that each branch of the Federal Government is responsible for its own continuity programs, an official designated by the Chief of Staff to the President shall ensure that the executive branch's COOP and COG policies in support of ECG efforts are appropriately coordinated with those of the legislative and judicial branches in order to ensure interoperability and allocate national assets efficiently to maintain a functioning Federal Government.
In other words, the three branches form their own plans to ensure continuity of government in an emergency. The official from the executive branch then ensures that its own plan is appropriately coordinated with the plans of the other two branches. Nothing here gives the executive power to override or change the plans of the other branches. Given these clear statements in the directive regarding the separation of powers, I am fairly certain that few, if any, judges would interpret the statement, "The President shall lead the activities of the Federal Government for ensuring constitutional government" as being intended to usurp powers specifically granted in the Constitution to the other two branches.

As for the role of the vice president addressed in paragraph 20, it states that this directive is not intended to override Constitutional or statutory law in regards to presidential succession. In other words, if the president is taken out, the vice president or the next in line needs to be brought up to speed and given the power to implement the provisions of the directive.

There's a reason why the mainstream media ignored this directive. There is nothing particularly revolutionary or alarming about it. It's the head of the executive branch explaining how the executive branch's various departments will function during a catastrophic emergency.
post #27 of 33
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jesse Custer
Who said anything about the Dems?

The theories of Executive Power this administration are openly embracing are Revolutionary (yes, with a capital R). They are, essentially, antithetical to democratic principles, and yet we're seeing those theories aggressively and mostly-successfully argued for out in the open.

As Prankster notes, its not GW that's really the problem here - its the way in which GW has altered the fundamental positioning of the executive branch. Future presidents, both dem and republican, can now arguably lay claim to the profoundly un-American argument that the president is, in essence, a King.

Most significantly, while the legislature continues to grumble about the various abuses propogated by the current administration, none of them are really DOING anything about it - despite the emails, phone calls, letters and demonstrations from and by Americans like myself, who are very, very concerned about all of this.

If that's not a political revolution, I don't know what is. The difference is, it isn't a people's revolution. It's the government, reinventing itself, without our input or approval.

And as some have noted, Congress doesn't need to approve this. The president can simply opt to go around the law. That's established precedent at this point. See: the ongoing FISA debacle and attorney general scandal.

The REAL issue here is not Bush, or the dems, or the republicans, or any one scandal or story. It's that as of this moment in our nation's history, the president is literally Above the Law. And unlike a Seagal flick, you can no longer just flip a proverbial switch and turn this off.


I couldn't agree more.
post #28 of 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by stump
...but just because president wrote something and called it a document doesn't mean it takes effect. It seems blatantly unconstitutional. Congress would have to pass this first. duh
Wrong.

Directives that regulate the activities of the executive branch, including Presidential Executive Orders, are enforceable by law. It doesn't have to be passed by Congress. The only effective counter to this is a Supreme Court ruling, but then again, the executive branch can always choose to ignore them, too.

Having "the power of the sword" has its advantages.
post #29 of 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gio Angles
Wrong.

Directives that regulate the activities of the executive branch, including Presidential Executive Orders, are enforceable by law. It doesn't have to be passed by Congress. The only effective counter to this is a Supreme Court ruling, but then again, the executive branch can always choose to ignore them, too.

Having "the power of the sword" has its advantages.
Can the executive branch write a directive that violates standing laws?
post #30 of 33
Eisenhower did it in the 50's when he signed an executive order to desegregate public schools. Granted, this happened after the Brown v Board of Education ruling, but it still overrode the state and local Jim Crow laws.

I think this administration has shied away from overtly controversial executive orders in favor of those dreaded "signing statements". He stamps his own interpretation of the law (which is sometimes very different from what Congress intended), and uses his "Constitutional right" to enforce the law as he wishes.
post #31 of 33
ok, far out. I dig your explanation and I see where I erred. Cool.
post #32 of 33
Here's a somewhat frightening adjunct to this. Then again, maybe I'm just paranoid.

Quote:
Contingencies for nuclear terrorist attack
Government working up plan to prevent chaos in wake of bombing of major city

James Sterngold, Chronicle Staff Writer

Friday, May 11, 2007

As concerns grow that terrorists might attack a major American city with a nuclear bomb, a high-level group of government and military officials has been quietly preparing an emergency survival program that would include the building of bomb shelters, steps to prevent panicked evacuations and the possible suspension of some civil liberties.

Many experts say the likelihood of al Qaeda or some other terrorist group producing a working nuclear weapon with illicitly obtained weapons-grade fuel is not large, but such a strike would be far more lethal, frightening and disruptive than the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. Not only could the numbers killed and wounded be far higher, but the explosion could, experts say, ignite widespread fires, shut down most transportation, halt much economic activity and cause a possible disintegration of government order.

The efforts to prepare a detailed blueprint for survival took a step forward last month when senior government and military officials and other experts, organized by a joint Stanford-Harvard program called the Preventive Defense Project, met behind closed doors in Washington for a day-long workshop.

The session, called "The Day After," was premised on the idea that efforts focusing on preventing such a strike were no longer enough, and that the prospect of a collapse of government order was so great if there were an attack that the country needed to begin preparing an emergency program.

One of the participants, retired Vice Adm. Roger Rufe, is a senior official at the Department of Homeland Security who is currently designing the government's nuclear attack response plan.

The organizers of the nonpartisan project, Stanford's William Perry, a secretary of defense in the Clinton administration, and Harvard's Ashton Carter, a senior Defense Department official during the Clinton years, assumed the detonation of a bomb similar in size to the weapon that destroyed Hiroshima in World War II.

Such a weapon, with a force of around 10 to 15 kilotons, is small compared with most Cold War-era warheads, but is roughly the yield of a relatively simple bomb. That would be considerably more powerful and lethal than a so-called dirty bomb, which is a conventional explosive packed with some dangerous radioactive material that would be dispersed by the explosion.

The 41 participants -- including the directors of the country's two nuclear weapons laboratories, Homeland Security officials, a number of top military commanders and former government officials -- discussed how all levels of government ought to respond to protect the country from a second nuclear attack, to limit health problems from the radioactive fallout and to restore civil order. Comments inside the session were confidential, but a number of the participants described their views and the ideas exchanged.

A paper the organizers are writing, summarizing their recommendations, urges local governments and individuals to build underground bomb shelters, much as people did in the early days of the Cold War; encourages authorities who survive to prevent evacuation of at least some of the areas attacked for three days to avoid roadway paralysis and damage from exposure to radioactive fallout; and proposes suspending regulations on radiation exposure so that first responders would be able to act, even if that caused higher cancer rates.

"The public at large will expect that their government had thought through this possibility and to have planned for it," Carter said in an interview. "This kind of an event would be unprecedented. We have had glimpses of something like this with Hiroshima, and glimpses with 9/11 and with Katrina. But those are only glimpses."

Perhaps the most sobering issue discussed was the possibility of a chaotic, long-term crisis triggered by fears that the attackers might have more bombs. Such uncertainty could sow panic nationwide.
The rest is here
post #33 of 33
El Presidente for life, well thanks for that scary fucking image in my head.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Political Discourse
CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › We are on our way to a dictatorship.....