Welcome to ASFN Fan Forums! We're glad to have you here. Please feel free to browse the forum. We'd like to invite you to join our community; doing so will enable you to view additional forums and post with our other members.
Registered Members don't see these ads. Register now it's free!
WASHINGTON -- The Bush administration is writing a new plan to maintain governmental control in the wake of an apocalyptic terrorist attack or overwhelming natural disaster, moving such doomsday planning for the first time from the Federal Emergency Management Agency to officials inside the White House.
The policy requires all government agencies to have clear lines of succession if top officials are killed and be prepared to operate from a new headquarters within 12 hours of a catastrophe. They must be prepared "to lead and sustain the nation during a crisis" -- a charge ranging from "providing leadership visible to the nation and the world" to "bringing to justice perpetrators of crimes or attacks."
The policy replaces a Clinton-era "continuity in government" post-disaster plan. The old plan is classified, but security specialists and administration officials said the new policy centralizes control of such planning in the White House and puts a greater emphasis on terrorism spurring the catastrophe.
Bush quietly signed the new policy on May 4. The unclassified portion of his "homeland security-national security presidential directive" -- a special kind of executive order that can be kept secret -- was also posted on the White House website on May 9, without any further announcement or press briefings.
The new policy focuses on a worst-case scenario in which a terrorist nuclear bomb explodes without warning and wipes out much of the nation's top leadership. Older plans were instead premised on a Cold War-era long-range missile attack, presuming it would be detected in enough time to evacuate the president and other top government officials.
"As a result of the asymmetric threat environment, adequate warning of potential emergencies that could pose a significant risk to the homeland might not be available, and therefore all continuity planning shall be based on the assumption that no such warning will be received," the new policy states. "Emphasis will be placed upon geographic dispersion of leadership, staff, and infrastructure in order to increase survivability and maintain uninterrupted government functions."
The unexpected arrival of the new policy has received little attention in the mainstream media, but it has prompted discussion among legal specialists, homeland security experts and Internet commentators -- including concerns that the policy may be written in such a way that makes it too easy to invoke emergency presidential powers such as martial law.
Specifically, the policy creates a new "National Continuity Coordinator" inside the White House who is charged with ensuring all executive agencies have a plan by Aug. 4 to keep functioning if their leadership perishes in an attack. The coordinator is also directed to help Congress, the Supreme Court, and state and local leaders prepare for a worst-case scenario.
The policy designates the president's top adviser for homeland security and counterterrorism -- currently Frances Townsend -- as the national continuity director. It also directs Townsend to consult National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley and Vice President Dick Cheney.
The public portion of the new "National Continuity Policy" contains few details about how surviving officials would invoke emergency powers, or when emergency powers should be deemed to be no longer necessary so that the elected democracy can resume. The answers to such questions may be contained in a classified appendix which has not been made public.
The unanswered questions have provoked anxiety across ideological lines. The conservative commentator Jerome Corsi , for example, wrote in a much-linked online column that the directive looked like a recipe for allowing the office of the presidency to seize "dictatorial powers" because the policy does not discuss consulting Congress about when to invoke emergency powers -- or when to turn them off.
In addition, specialists at both the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think-tank, and the American Civil Liberties Union said they have taken calls and e-mails from people who are worried about what the new policy may portend.
James Carafano , a homeland security specialist at Heritage, criticized the administration for failing to inform the public that the new policy was coming, and why it was changing.
He said the White House did not recognize that discussion of emergency governmental powers is "a very sensitive issue for a lot of people," adding that the lack of explanation is "appalling."
But White House spokesman Gordon Johndroe said that because of the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, the American public needs no explanation of such plans.
"It's well known that the vice president was in a secure, undisclosed location for a period of time for continuity-of-government reasons, so these considerations are not unknown to the American people in a post-9/11 world," he said.
Some homeland security and legal specialists say that anxieties about the new plan may be exaggerated. The government has had versions of a doomsday response plan dating back to the Cold War, although this is apparently the first time the White House has made a portion of the plan public.
"Any time any leaders are talking about the destruction of our government and the disruption of traditional ideas of representative government, that is something we all have to be concerned about and it should be discussed," said Michael German , ACLU policy counsel. "And that is one reason why I appreciate that this document has been made public."
The Bush administration in general "is very secretive," he added, "so I don't think we should be entirely critical of what's in [the plan] because I think we want to encourage them to release information like this."
Nevertheless, some legal specialists say that the White House should be more specific about its worst-case scenario plans, pointing out two unanswered questions: what circumstances would trigger implementation of the plan and what legal limits the White House recognizes on its own emergency powers.
The policy broadly defines a "catastrophic emergency" -- the triggering event for the plan -- 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."
Sharon Bradford Franklin , the senior counsel at the Constitution Project, a bipartisan think-tank that promotes constitutional safeguards, said the policy's definition "is so broad that it raises serious concerns about when and how this might be used to authorize unchecked executive action."
But Johndroe said it was necessary for a loosely-worded definition because the goverment can't be sure what kind of emergency might arise.
"I don't think you want to have anything in the directive that would tie the president's hands from being able to implement emergency action," he said.
The policy also does not contain a direct reference to statutes in which Congress has imposed checks and balances on the president's power to impose martial law or other extraordinary measures.
For example, the policy does not explicitly acknowledge the National Emergencies Act, a post-Watergate law that gives Congress the right to override the president's determination that a national emergency still exists, activating the president's emergency powers.
The policy says that it "shall be implemented consistent with applicable law," but it does not say which laws are "applicable." Because the Bush legal team has pushed a controversial theory that the Constitution gives the president an unwritten power to disobey laws at his own discretion to protect national security, some specialists said that the vagueness of the policy is troubling.
This has already been discussed. Apparently, it's no big deal and we're all just over-reacting because nobody would use this type of legislation out of line - at least W wouldn't. Just fall back in line, trust your government and be a good Ger... uh, American....
This has already been discussed. Apparently, it's no big deal and we're all just over-reacting because nobody would use this type of legislation out of line - at least W wouldn't. Just fall back in line, trust your government and be a good Ger... uh, American....
Actually I hear Bill Clinton was pissed that his dictatorial powers through his own executive order Continuity of Operations Plan got trumped up...but I imagine Truman, JFK, Carter, Reagan, H.W. Bush each had there moments of anguish.
That's the funny thing about Executive Orders - you can read them under a purple light and they become viewed as some sort of attempt of a dictatorship.
Kinda humorous to see some of the edicts covering the takeover of food resources, farms, farm equipment and the mobilization of all civilians into work brigades under the government’s supervision...all under the JFK administration.
Actually I hear Bill Clinton was pissed that his dictatorial powers through his own executive order Continuity of Operations Plan got trumped up...but I imagine Truman, JFK, Carter, Reagan, H.W. Bush each had there moments of anguish.
That's the funny thing about Executive Orders - you can read them under a purple light and they become viewed as some sort of attempt of a dictatorship.
Kinda humorous to see some of the edicts covering the takeover of food resources, farms, farm equipment and the mobilization of all civilians into work brigades under the government’s supervision...all under the JFK administration.
The Unitary King George
Homeland Security Presidential Directive: an Unconstitutional Bombshell
by Prof. Marjorie Cohn
Global Research, June 1, 2007
As the nation focused on whether Congress would exercise its constitutional duty to cut funding for the war, Bush quietly issued an unconstitutional bombshell that went virtually unnoticed by the corporate media.
The National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive, signed on May 9, 2007, would place all governmental power in the hands of the President and effectively abolish the checks and balances in the Constitution.
If a "catastrophic emergency" - which could include a terrorist attack or a natural disaster - occurs, Bush's new directive says: "The President shall lead the activities of the Federal Government for ensuring constitutional government."
What about the other two co-equal branches of government? The directive throws them a bone by speaking of a "cooperative effort" among the three branches, "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." The Vice-President would help to implement the plans.
"Comity," however, means courtesy, and the President would decide what kind of respect for the other two branches of government would be "proper." This Presidential Directive is a blatant power grab by Bush to institutionalize "the unitary executive."
A seemingly innocuous phrase, the unitary executive theory actually represents a radical, ultra rightwing interpretation of the powers of the presidency. Championed by the conservative Federalist Society, the unitary executive doctrine gathers all power in the hands of the President and insulates him from any oversight by the congressional or judicial branches.
In a November 2000 speech to the Federalist Society, then Judge Samuel Alito said the Constitution "makes the president the head of the executive branch, but it does more than that. The president has not just some executive powers, but the executive power -- the whole thing."
These "unitarians" claim that all federal agencies, even those constitutionally created by Congress, are beholden to the Chief Executive, that is, the President. This means that Bush could disband agencies like the Federal Communications Commission, the Food and Drug Administration, the Federal Reserve Board, etc., if they weren't to his liking.
Indeed, Bush signed an executive order stating that each federal agency must have a regulatory policy office run by a political appointee. Consumer advocates were concerned that this directive was aimed at weakening the Environmental Protection Agency and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. The unitary executive dogma represents audacious presidential overreaching into the constitutional province of the other two branches of government.
This doctrine took shape within the Bush administration shortly after 9/11. On September 25, 2001, former deputy assistant attorney general John Yoo used the words "unitary executive" in a memo he wrote for the White House: "The centralization of authority in the president alone is particularly crucial in matters of national defense, war, and foreign policy, where a unitary executive can evaluate threats, consider policy choices, and mobilize national resources with a speed and energy that is far superior to any other branch." Six weeks later, Bush began using that phrase in his signing statements.
As of December 22, 2006, Bush had used the words "unitary executive" 145 times in his signing statements and executive orders. Yoo, one of the chief architects of Bush's doctrine of unfettered executive power, wrote memoranda advising Bush that because he was commander in chief, he could make war any time he thought there was a threat, and he didn't have to comply with the Geneva Conventions.
In a 2005 debate with Notre Dame professor Doug Cassel, Yoo argued there is no law that could prevent the President from ordering that a young child of a suspect in custody be tortured, even by crushing the child's testicles.
The unitary executive theory has already cropped up in Supreme Court opinions. In his lone dissent in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, Justice Clarence Thomas cited "the structural advantages of a unitary Executive." He disagreed with the Court that due process demands an American citizen held in the United States as an enemy combatant be given a meaningful opportunity to contest the factual basis for that detention before a neutral decision maker. Thomas wrote, "Congress, to be sure, has a substantial and essential role in both foreign affairs and national security. But it is crucial to recognize that judicial interference in these domains destroys the purpose of vesting primary responsibility in a unitary Executive."
Justice Thomas's theory fails to recognize why our Constitution provides for three co-equal branches of government.
In 1926, Justice Louis Brandeis explained the constitutional role of the separation of powers. He wrote, "The doctrine of the separation of powers was adopted by the convention of 1787 not to promote efficiency but to preclude the exercise of arbitrary power. The purpose was not to avoid friction, but, by means of the inevitable friction incident to the distribution of the governmental powers among three departments, to save the people from autocracy."
Eighty years later, noted conservative Grover Norquist, describing the unitary executive theory, echoed Brandeis's sentiment. Norquist said, "you don't have a constitution; you have a king."
One wonders what Bush & Co. are setting up with the new Presidential Directive. What if, heaven forbid, some sort of catastrophic event were to occur just before the 2008 election? Bush could use this directive to suspend the election. This administration has gone to great lengths to remain in Iraq . It has built huge permanent military bases and pushed to privatize Iraq 's oil. Bush and Cheney may be unwilling to relinquish power to a successor administration.
Marjorie Cohn is a professor at Thomas Jefferson School of Law and president of the National Lawyers Guild. Her new book, Cowboy Republic: Six Ways the Bush Gang Has Defied the Law, will be published in July. See http://www.marjoriecohn.com.
Cohn is a jerk, but does anyone here really trust Dick Cheney with setting up an appropriate emergency plan?
Certainly 'worst-case scenarios' need to be anticipated -- heck, just look at "24" -- but so do many lesser gradations of emergency. The parts that should be made public, I think, and always should have been, are
Quote:
two unanswered questions: what circumstances would trigger implementation of the plan and what legal limits the White House recognizes on its own emergency powers.
I especially want to know the last part, since we understand that once power becomes concentrated, it is almost impossible to get it redistributed. Most addictive thing in the world.
__________________ When the body has a cancer - even a very small one - physicians use every means at their disposal to eradicate it. There is no talk of proportionality. Healthy tissue may suffer the treatments, but radiation, chemotherapy and anything else that works is sent into the battle when dealing with a disease that will, sooner or later, snuff out life.
Well, in truth I'm actually not a total hawk, but I'm not a dove either -- I'm more like an angry pigeon flying over the political arena after a really big meal. -Abba Gav
Hi, I'm from the Federal government and I'm here to help.
RUN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
__________________
At what point then is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it ever reach us, it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide.
Actually I hear Bill Clinton was pissed that his dictatorial powers through his own executive order Continuity of Operations Plan got trumped up...but I imagine Truman, JFK, Carter, Reagan, H.W. Bush each had there moments of anguish.
That's the funny thing about Executive Orders - you can read them under a purple light and they become viewed as some sort of attempt of a dictatorship.
Kinda humorous to see some of the edicts covering the takeover of food resources, farms, farm equipment and the mobilization of all civilians into work brigades under the government’s supervision...all under the JFK administration.
Are you suggesting that each President made these orders with the same intent? That because others did it, Bush has no ill intent? I don't know what his reasons are, but he has proven untrustworthy and therefore any actions he takes can not be assumed innocent.
82 can laugh all he wants, folks like him have no problem handing powers to government as he seems to blindly trust anyone with an (R) next to their name... encouraging bigger government all the while claiming to be for less.
Congressman Denied Access To Post-Attack Continuity Plans
By JEFF KOSSEFF
c.2007 Newhouse News Service
WASHINGTON — Constituents called Rep. Peter DeFazio's office, worried there was a conspiracy buried in the classified portion of a White House plan for operating the government after a terrorist attack.
As a member of the House Committee on Homeland Security, DeFazio, D-Ore., is permitted to enter a secure "bubbleroom'' in the Capitol and examine classified material. So he asked the White House to see the secret documents.
On Wednesday, DeFazio got his answer: DENIED.
"I just can't believe they're going to deny a member of Congress the right of reviewing how they plan to conduct the government of the United States after a significant terrorist attack,'' DeFazio said.
Homeland Security Committee staffers told his office that the White House initially approved his request, but it was later quashed. DeFazio doesn't know who did it or why.
"We're talking about the continuity of the government of the United States of America,'' DeFazio said. "I would think that would be relevant to any member of Congress, let alone a member of the Homeland Security Committee.''
Bush administration spokesman Trey Bohn declined to say why DeFazio was denied access: "We do not comment through the press on the process that this access entails. It is important to keep in mind that much of the information related to the continuity of government is highly sensitive.''
Norm Ornstein, a legal scholar who studies government continuity at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, said he ``cannot think of one good reason'' to deny access to a member of Congress who serves on the Homeland Security Committee.
"I find it inexplicable and probably reflective of the usual knee-jerk overextension of executive power that we see from this White House,'' Ornstein said.
This is the first time DeFazio has been denied access to documents. DeFazio has asked Homeland Security Committee Chairman Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., to help him access the documents.
"Maybe the people who think there's a conspiracy out there are right,'' DeFazio said.
(Jeff Kosseff can be contacted at jeff.kosseff(at)newhouse.com)
Cosmic Defender Champion!
Linear Mode
