The Progressive notes that on May 9th, George Bush declared absolute emergency powers for the president:
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 that 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.”
This national security directive says that in the case of a catastrophic emergency (largely undefined) the President gets to take over all three branches of government for up to 90 days before Homeland Security has to file a plan to restore the balance of powers.
(6) The President shall lead the activities of the Federal Government for ensuring constitutional government. In order to advise and assist the President in that function, the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism (APHS/CT) is hereby designated as the National Continuity Coordinator. The National Continuity Coordinator, in coordination with the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs (APNSA), without exercising directive authority, shall coordinate the development and implementation of continuity policy for executive departments and agencies. The Continuity Policy Coordination Committee (CPCC), chaired by a Senior Director from the Homeland Security Council staff, designated by the National Continuity Coordinator, shall be the main day-to-day forum for such policy coordination.
(7) For continuity purposes, each executive department and agency is assigned to a category in accordance with the nature and characteristics of its national security roles and responsibilities in support of the Federal Government's ability to sustain the NEFs. The Secretary of Homeland Security shall serve as the President's lead agent for coordinating overall continuity operations and activities of executive departments and agencies, and in such role shall perform the responsibilities set forth for the Secretary in sections 10 and 16 of this directive.
(8) The National Continuity Coordinator, in consultation with the heads of appropriate executive departments and agencies, will lead the development of a National Continuity Implementation Plan (Plan), which shall include prioritized goals and objectives, a concept of operations, performance metrics by which to measure continuity readiness, procedures for continuity and incident management activities, and clear direction to executive department and agency continuity coordinators, as well as guidance to promote interoperability of Federal Government continuity programs and procedures with State, local, territorial, and tribal governments, and private sector owners and operators of critical infrastructure, as appropriate. The Plan shall be submitted to the President for approval not later than 90 days after the date of this directive.
One suspects that mainstream media hasn't picked up this story because the directive can be read two ways. Either Bush is responsible in case of catastrophic emergency for the proper functioning of constitutional government. Or, alternatively, Bush gets to direct all three branches until Homeland Security decides they get their autonomy back.
It's just an issue of trust on what the words mean, right?
[ Thanks to Woggie on LJ for the heads up! ]
--
Shava Nerad, News and Opinion Correspondent:
Shava’s column, Iconoclasm, published several times a week to Gather Essentials: Newsis an examination of the provocative ideas emerging in media and world culture behind the news.
Shava Nerad has been working on the Internet for twenty-five years, at the boundaries of Internet and social issues. She is executive director of The Tor Project as her day job. She lives in Somerville, MA with her teenage son, her fiance (a professional magician and fundraising coach), and a corgi/dachshund mutt named George.
Opinions here have nothing to do with Tor.
You can find all of Shava's Iconoclasm columns at http://Iconoclasm.gather.com
Keep up with Shava’s other postings and Gather activity by joining her Gather network -- just click here and select the orange “Connect” button on the left-hand side of the page (colleage connections only please, unless you know me on the street!)
You’ll find Shava and other News Correspondents, plus celebrity content and plenty of other News experts at News.gather.com
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 22
King George will never give up his throne.
He is a scary, scary man... That's the only thing I'm certain of about the government these days.
I personally don't think Mr. Bush is smart enough to do something like that, and I don't believe the military and armed forces will just blindly follow along.
If there were a multi-billion dollar company, you would never assume that the CEO was responsible for everything (although the courts recently certainly lay responsibility on the CEO to be responsible for all acts). The CEO of a company has an executive team (something like the cabinet), and a group of advisors (a board of directors not directly part of the company -- like Project for a New American Century, or various religious groups).
Frankly it almost doesn't matter if Bust is smart or not, that's not the issue. It's the cabal of folks who got him there and who, no doubt, write these directives and say "sign here."
If you focus on the man, you are paranoid and falling into this sort of American Idol celebrity cult model of politics, and that hurts everyone in the country. Vote on values, not on personality, please! :)
Have you read things like this? It's not the left, it's the disconnect between civic life and reality we have due to a media that only appeals to adrenaline.
For every issue you think that the Left is hysterical about, I can show you the same thing on the right. The problem is that for government to work, we need to engage in dialog, not throw monkey crap at one another.
And right now, the left won't allow their folks to engage in compromise any more than the right will allow their folks to.
It's a horrible mess, frankly.
Followed your above link & immediately got your point.
However:
Reading the entire security directive, I found it a benign statement simply spelling out the "chain of command" when the federal government must respond to a catastrophic event. Do I find it unreasonable the the President (ANY President, mind you) would take the "lead"? No. Do I think it spells out the end of our Constitution? No. Do I have more faith in our national bonds than the average citizen? I hope not.
Maybe I am tired of all this hyperventilating over every "revelation". It's been going on so long.
The only reason I don't believe Mr. Bush would succeed, even if he tried such a thing as is being discussed here, is that I don't believe much of the military and the citizens would go along with it, and there are an awful lot of gun nuts in this country. Then again, most of those are the ones who think Mr. Bush walks his dog on the Potomac every morning.
I also read the entire directive. What I found was that the President, instead of being merely our commander in chief, assumes complete control of insuring the government runs in accordance with applicable law. The applicable laws are so numerous and have been sprinkled from various documents, including the Patriot Act. Applicable law simply means the laws which are pertinent to the situation, and are on the books at the time of any such emergency.
Although our President during such a time is assumed to be visible and able to help coordinate the efforts to recover, the Constitution specifically states that Congress has the power "To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;" (usconstitution.net) This gives the power strictly to Congress, not the President. But the new Presidential Directive places this power upon the President. See the contradictions?
Another small tidbit to chew on Kate...
Let's say, for the sake of argument, that Hillary Clinton or John Edwards, or even, gulp, Al Gore, (if he ever runs), wins the election next year. Do YOU want any of THEM to have such sweeping powers? I would think a resounding "NO" would be your answer. Then why in the world would you want anyone to have such powers, it could go either way...
ps: Ron, (& Buddy) reported this yesterday...just to let everyone know. Also, the website was down, unsure of why, some said because the NSA put it down, others said because the Progressive site was down...again, no confirmation. Perhaps Ron could help us out!
Very nicely put and I'm curious what the response will be. More than likely a retraction of the law if a Democrat were President :^)
I doubt the NSA put it down. The NSA has some wonderful computers but they do not work and play well with others. Doing things publicly is not their style. We could ask some of Shava's friends about it. There is a nice repository of info not to far from her. With all that is going on now I sort of miss Sec. Haig.