Have you heard this? Bush a dictator in dictator in the event of a federal emergency?

[bac511]

Here's a story that should scare all Americans. Why the "liberal" press hasn't picked up on it is beyond me; the only place I found this story is in the local Palestine, Texas newspaper (to be fair, the newspapers in Brattleboro, VT, Montgomery, AL, and Indian newspaper in Tennessee, and of course, the San Francisco Chronicle have also ran stories on these new presidential executive orders; Michael Savage has also picked up the story, likely because he lives in San Fran). A few obscure websites & blogs are also talking it up. Here's an op-ed from the not-very-well-read Palestine (TX) Herald:

http://www.palestineherald.com/opinion/local_story_150113408.html?keyword=topstory

You should also know about the "detention" facilities being built by KBR (a subsidiary of Halliburton). The most comprehensive report of these facilities is found here:

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55923

[MonkeyFunk]

1. The directive is on the White House web site

so they're not exactly hiding it.

Can you show me the language of the directive that makes him dictator?

[eagler]

4. This is the scariest thing to come down the pike in a long time.

these powers are very naziesque in nature and are not unsimilar of what Putin is doing in Russia or Chavez in Venezuela. The Chinese also exhibit such power. This is clearly a threat to the constitution. “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.”

[MonkeyFunk]

5. can you show me the text

that makes him dictator?

[eagler]

10. Corsi :

Under this directive the president can assume control of every aspect of the country — here’s the scary part — including the private sector.

Another kicker to this executive order is it does not have to go through Congressional approval, which according to Corsi, negates the National Emergency Act that requires the president report to Congress any emergency proclamation so it can be published in the Federal Register.

Under the National Emergency Act the Congress would have the power to nullify any such declaration, but not so with the new executive order.

Corsi also noted that Homeland Security spokesman Russ Knocke confirmed the Homeland Security Department would implement the requirements of the order under the continuity coordinator’s direction.

[MonkeyFunk]

11. That's swiftboater Jerome Corsi

please quote the text from the directive itself, not some right-wing asshole's interpretation of it.

[Rick Myers]

2. I'd say this info is pretty clear...

(snip)

The new directive concentrates an unprecedented amount of emergency authority in the office of the president, specifying that the president now has the authority to direct "National Essential Functions" of all federal state, local, territorial and tribal governments, as well as private sector organizations in the event of a national emergency.

The directive loosely defines "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 functions."

(snip)

From the second linked article...

[no_hypocrisy]

3. All this aside, why aren't the dems in the House & Senate writing legislation

to nullify this directive?

[reprobate]

9. He would certainly vetoe any legislation they could write.

And unless they had a super majority he could sustain the veto.

What Congress needs to do is start shouting to the public about this. Raise awareness. Start the public debate.

So far, how many Democrats have you heard even mention this? Oh, that many? me neither.

Remember that Bush works under the principal that it's easier to explain later than ask permission first.

And unless someone in congress starts making some noise, we'll have a hurricane and he will declare a national emergency and declare martial law. And no one will stop him.

And there goes America.

[no_hypocrisy]

12. For something like this, being so draconian, I think you'd see some

republicans holding their noses, but crossing the aisle to override the veto. And it would only backfire on * politically and the republican party en masse if he did veto it.

[reprobate]

20. I'd hope you're right. But this slime has skated on so many illegalities already,

that I'll keep my fingers crossed.

Maybe this would be enough to IMPEACH! I hope, I hope, Ihope.

[AndyA]

6. I was told that this would never hold up.

A single person (even the President) does not have the power to grant themselves excessive and absolute powers under our Constitution, regardless of the situation. Congress would have to be involved for it to be so.

That is why there are emergency procedures in place to reconvene Congress if necessary.

Bush thinks he can do anything, and I suppose he can until Congress puts their foot down and puts a stop to it.

[NYCGirl]

7. I'm going to trust the ACLU on this, over "Swiftboater" Jerome Corsi in WorldNutDaily

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/003310.php

In fact, Mike German, the policy counsel to the ACLU’s Washington office told me that an executive continuity plan actually might “not be that bad of an idea.”

Executive power expert, NYU law professor David Golove, also sent me an email saying the directive didn’t appear to be a power grab.

National Security Presidential Directive 51 or Homeland Security Presidential Directive 20 is posted here. Have a look.

Presidential directives outlining how the executive branch will remain intact in the event of an emergency have been around since the Cold War. The directive posted this month is the first to be made public, to the best of German’s recollection. (A description of Clinton’s continuity directive is available here.) German called the release a positive sign, but said he urges the release of all previous directives so we can get a real sense of what has changed.

[Make7]

8. TPMmuckraker did an article about this.

 

Experts: Prez Directive Nothing New
By Laura McGann - May 29, 2007, 3:31 PM

When a presidential directive appeared on the White House’s Web site on May 9, seemingly expanding the president's powers after a catastrophic attack, readers began emailing us asking why there had been no uproar in the media or amongst civil liberties groups.

The consensus amongst experts seems to be that the directive, aimed at establishing "continuity of government" after a major disaster, is not new nor does the policy seem to expand executive power.

...

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/003310.php

- Make7

[snappyturtle]

13. My answer to that is if it's nothing new why did he do this...a new

presidential directive? Why did he take control of the National Guard? Why did his administration basically nullify posse commitatis(sp?) and habeas corpus? The Patriot Acts and the Military COmmissions Act? Why so MANY signing statements? I don't trust him as far as I could throw him!

[Make7]

15. "Enduring Constitutional Government and Continuity of Government Operations"

 

Presidential Decision Directive 67 (PDD 67), issued 21 October 1998, relates to enduring constitutional government, continuity of operations (COOP) planning, and continuity of government (COG) operations. The purpose of Enduring Constitutional Government (ECG), Continuity of Government (COG), and Continuity of Operations (COOP) is to ensure survival of a constitutional form of government and the continuity of essential Federal functions. Presidential Decision Directive 67 replaced the Bush Administration's NSD 69 "Enduring Constitutional Government" of 02 June 1992, which in turn succeeded NSD 37 "Enduring Constitutional Government" of 18 April 1990 and NSDD 55 "Enduring National Leadership" of 14 September 1982.

http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/pdd/pdd-67.htm

Seems like the last few Presidents have all issued similar directives to the one mentioned in the OP. Why did each of them in turn feel the need to change the prior Administration's directive on the continuity of government? And how is that different than this latest directive?

- Make7

[snappyturtle]

17. What's scary to me was addressed in an earlier reply:

"Under the National Emergency Act the Congress would have the power to nullify any such declaration, but not so with the new executive order."

No other president seemed to need to go this far. I am well aware that there have been Emergency
directives before this one just doesn't seem "right" especially with so few months left in his term.

[onenote]

18. that might be scary if it was true, but its not

I'll point to the part of the directive (paragraph 21) that states that "This directive..shall be implemented consistent with applicable law" meaning, of course, that it doesn't supersede or override the National Emergency Act.

YOur turn: cite to the part of the directive that overrides or supercedes the National Emergency Act.

[Bobbieo]

14. If this was Bill Clinton's or Robert Kennedy's Directive, I would feel differently about it

but I do not trust any move Bush or his administration makes. This coming from Bushco is scary!!!

[Make7]

16. Perhaps you could point out what you find so objectionable.

Here is what has been released:

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

- Make7

[Posteritatis]

19. The part that bugs me...

(Bearing in mind that I'm very much a layman legally, and more used to Canadian laws, that is), is the definition of "catastrophic emergency" under section 2(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;

The part that bugs me is the "regardless of location" part primarily, along with "disruption severely affecting the U.S. ... economy." (The lack of definition of "severely affecting" is another one, though I'll grant something like that would always be subjective.) A Katrina-esque disaster is one thing, but I'm rather curious as to whether something like a disaster in, oh, a major oil-producing country, or a more hypothetical one like China swapping its dollars for euros, would qualify under this sense. Either of those would severely disrupt the US economy, and the thing explicitly says that location is irrelevant.

As I said, I have no idea whether it's as good or as bad or as irrelevant as some people are saying; I don't have the legal background to be confident one way or another. I do fail to mind the existence of COG regulations in general; I was born (just) long enough ago to have taken the idea of nuclear war for granted as a kid, so I can appreciate the need to plan around government-ending disasters. I also know enough, though, to be disturbed at loophole-friendly language, and that particular part really feels like it. I'm reassured at stuff like section 5(c), but 2(b) really bothers me.

[Make7]

21. I agree that some of the wording seems vague at best.

Including section 2(b) which you quoted. However, my overall interpretation is that this gives the President authority over the Executive branch if the plans developed under this directive were to be implemented.

From the definitions (section 2):

(e) "Enduring Constitutional Government," or "ECG," means a cooperative effort among the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the Federal Government, 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 branches, to preserve the constitutional framework under which the Nation is governed and the capability of all three branches of government to execute constitutional responsibilities and provide for orderly succession, appropriate transition of leadership, and interoperability and support of the National Essential Functions during a catastrophic emergency;

Which is reiterated by the very first 'National Essential Function' listed in section 5:

5) The following NEFs are the foundation for all continuity programs and capabilities and represent the overarching responsibilities of the Federal Government to lead and sustain the Nation during a crisis, and therefore sustaining the following NEFs shall be the primary focus of the Federal Government leadership during and in the aftermath of an emergency that adversely affects the performance of Government Functions:

(a) Ensuring the continued functioning of our form of government under the Constitution, including the functioning of the three separate branches of government;

I am not a lawyer but I fail to see how, if the plans developed under this directive were enacted, the President would be given dictatorial powers. I think the purpose of this document is being greatly exaggerated by some people. Perhaps I am just missing something....

- Make7