This worries me more than just a little bit...

That job, as the document describes, 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.

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."

http://www.ww4report.com/node/3940


All I can say is, those of you who live outside the United States would be best off staying there.

Dino

I am working very hard at maintaining my calm.

    I would like to believe that the people between the president and the rest of us would refuse him, but they probably won't.

Man, that is some scary, scary stuff,

Hmmm...

A couple of weeks ago, he gave his Secratary of the treasury power to confiscate property at will.  http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/07/20070717-3.html

Last week, Congress extended the patriot act with a new provision:  The Attorney General now has power to circumvent the courts in any surveillance.

If they want to seize power, our government will be locked up, unable to do anything as they try to move it through the courts (stacked in the presidents favor).  Meanwhile, the leadership could do anything it pleases, including dismissal of congress.

The press has been publicly threatened for putting out real news.

The executive branch has actually hired its own news people to disseminate its version of the news.

Our democracy is hanging by a thread here.

Oh, it's just a temporary thing, people will tell you.  That's what they said about Hitler.  Remember that Hitler wasn't elected either.  He put himself in charge.  He took away the basic rights a little at a time.  And then when the opportunity was ripe, he knocked out the support timbers of Germany's democracy.  People could not do anything for fear of being arrested.  That devolved of course into fear for their very lives.

Please!  Write your representatives.  Nothing has been so important in our lifetimes as getting these directives and laws retracted.  If you don't do it now, while you still have the right to free speech, you may very well regret it.

Cindi

Oy, this administration is completely trashing what is left of the democracy. Grrrrrr.  They've committed numerous impeachable offenses, and everyone is more concerned with Paris Hilton's month in jail, or whatever the distraction of hte week is.

Z

i think you will find clauses like these in place everywhere, thier necesery, under a national emergency, its necesery to take direct, comand and control, contigency plans such as this, are to facilitate smooth recovery and management of disasters and incidents. it might seem like a loss of liberty, but you will thank them when it saves your complaining arses...
R

That's because we will sit around and complain a little... just like democracies of the past who lost all... and then go back to watching our reality shows.

How many of us have actually written our congress representatives voicing our concerns?

If you haven't done so, you deserve to lose your freedoms, you deserve to be arrested, you deserve to be lined up, sheared, and shot for the sheep that you are.

Wow.... did I actually write that?  Yup.

Cindi

i think its more a case of they want to act agast, and upset, and complain, and know they cant do anything, because govornment and leadership is something they dont get. Bush might be an arsehole, but hes still in charge
R

Rachael,

There is no situation where the checks and balances provided by the government should ever be suspended.  This is unconstitutional.  If that gets broken, we will lose our democracy.

Establishing a dictatorship to "protect" the constitution makes absolutely no sense to me.

Cindi

possibly, but sometimes direct action needs to be taken, and fannying around with comittees in a time of national threat will cause more loss of life. isnt a temporary loss of 'liberities' you arnt experienceing at the time anyway, better than death from inaction and hesitation?

R

There is never an excuse for the executive branch to skirt the laws.  We've seen the utter failure to act in more than one situation of national import in the past six years.  Martial law has not been required in a single instance to deal with these issues.  Need I enumerate?

The president is elected to be a leader.  Let him lead.

Great leaders don't need dictatorial powers.  They never have.

Weak men need dictatorial status to remain in power. Without the fear of the populace, they will lose their position.  Weak men can not lead without threat and fear.

Cindi

Quote from: Rachael on August 16, 2007, 01:57:05 PM
possibly, but sometimes direct action needs to be taken, and fannying around with comittees in a time of national threat will cause more loss of life. isnt a temporary loss of 'liberities' you arnt experienceing at the time anyway, better than death from inaction and hesitation?

R

Have you heard of the expression, "give me liberty or give me death".

Seeing that Bush is responsible for so many loss of lives already, do you think that giving him dictatorship power will actually save lives?

Quote from: Cindi Jones on August 16, 2007, 02:05:58 PM
There is never an excuse for the executive branch to skirt the laws.  We've seen the utter failure to act in more than one situation of national import in the past six years.  Martial law has not been required in a single instance to deal with these issues.  Need I enumerate?

The president is elected to be a leader.  Let him lead.

Great leaders don't need dictatorial powers.  They never have.

Weak men need dictatorial status to remain in power. Without the fear of the populace, they will lose their position.  Weak men can not lead without threat and fear.

Cindi

well, yes, because none of these situations have been as serious as what COULD potentially happen, trust me, the last 6 years has been nothing... yes, hes there to lead, so do. and its not to stay in power, these clauses often allow power for a period, and not entirely limitless, and are recalled after the requirement is passed. its not a nazi germany....

Quote from: Cindi Jones on August 16, 2007, 01:54:03 PM
There is no situation where the checks and balances provided by the government should ever be suspended.  This is unconstitutional.  If that gets broken, we will lose our democracy.

A small nuke in a major city would actually be a good reason to temporarily suspend a number of items. The real trick is making sure that the People reclaim their rights once the immediate crisis has passed.

This Executive Order basically realigns pre-existing infrastructure through a new office with the goal of making sure that there is someone directing what has to be done and that the basic infrastructure remains in place so that essential needs can be addressed. ideally with a good system in place, the federal government would continue to function and exist which would hopefully stop any attempts by other individuals to seize control of a state or other large land mass during a time of crisis (like in Jericho).

Why place it right next to the President? I once worked a job where I had 10 bosses. 10. Even though in theory I had only two to contend with there were times when I had to deal with all of them. To my surprise and horror they would manage to each have a different priority and each would give me something different to do. One day I changed my department around 4 times only to have someone from higher up (read: above my 10 bosses) come in and tell me to put it the way he wanted it (which is how I had arranged it originally). Now add a few hundred more to those bosses and imagine what it would be like to have that job. There should be an audit process of some sort to make sure that the office is not sitting around smoking cigars and drinking all day but I do not think that the position should report directly to Congress.

Can this be abused? Yes. Will it be abused? Eventually and it will be done so by a Politician. Said politician could be Democrat, Republican, or other.

The court should define catastrophic emergency, not the president.

courts take time, people die. action needs to be direct and swift. and ever heard the old saying 'too many cooks spoil the broth?'

R

Quote from: Rachael on August 16, 2007, 02:25:24 PM
courts take time, people die. action needs to be direct and swift. and ever heard the old saying 'too many cooks spoil the broth?'

R

Well, democracy takes time.

democracy yes, but sometimes it goes overboard, a disaster isnt the place for democracy. its a place for controling the situation, and dealing with it, so democracy as a system can be restored anyway. because with a naition in turmoil, theres nobody to elect a govornment!

R

Quotei think you will find clauses like these in place everywhere, thier necesery, under a national emergency, its necesery to take direct, comand and control, contigency plans such as this, are to facilitate smooth recovery and management of disasters and incidents. it might seem like a loss of liberty, but you will thank them when it saves your complaining arses...

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive.
CS Lewis

So long as the people do not care to exercise their freedom, those who wish to tyrannize will do so; for tyrants are active and ardent, and will devote themselves in the name of any number of gods, religious and otherwise, to put shackles upon sleeping men.
Voltaire

Quote from: Rachael on August 16, 2007, 01:48:45 PM
i think you will find clauses like these in place everywhere, thier necesery, under a national emergency, its necesery to take direct, comand and control, contigency plans such as this, are to facilitate smooth recovery and management of disasters and incidents. it might seem like a loss of liberty, but you will thank them when it saves your complaining arses...
R

    Americans don't need no central government.  Our local and state level people are very capable and states tend to work together.

Posted on: August 16, 2007, 03:33:37 PM

---

Quote from: Rachael on August 16, 2007, 01:52:10 PM
i think its more a case of they want to act agast, and upset, and complain, and know they cant do anything, because govornment and leadership is something they dont get. Bush might be an arsehole, but hes still in charge
R

The president of the United States is neither a king nor an Emperor.