• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Bush makes secret changes to Dictator Plans

Skeptic Ginger

Nasty Woman
Skeptic Ginger
Joined
Feb 14, 2005
Messages
96,955
Thought that might get your attention. :D

Without much attention by the news media, Bush signed some kind of secret directive which outlines the special powers he plans to grant himself should there be another 9/11 type incident.

National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive

Apparently there was some preexisting directive (I have yet to read what was in that one) in effect since Reagan. Bush felt the need to change it. And of course, we the people have no right to see just what Bush has in mind. That's bad enough. The fact there has been no news coverage is just as bothersome.

Source Watch Summary
According to the Federation of American Scientists, the "text of PDD-67 has not been released, and there is no White House Factsheet summarizing its provisions." [1] A summary can be found here and here.
Click to expand...
(see link for links)

Bush Anoints Himself as the Insurer of Constitutional Government in Emergency; May 18, 2007 By Matthew Rothschild; The Progressive
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.”

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.
Click to expand...

The Daily Kos - The mechanisim to end democracy? by leo fender; Thu May 10, 2007
So I'm admittedly conspiracy minded when it comes to this administration, but with that said, I read something just now that makes my blood chill.

Seems that there has been a plan since the Regan administration to maintain a distributed "shadow" government that would set itself up in the event of a "decapacitating" attack on Washington, i.e., a nuclear attack.

Follow me to the flip and I'll tell you how I think this plan is being reworked to provide the mechanism to end democracy in the United States . . .
Click to expand...
 
While acknowledging my dismay over many of the actions of this administration, I'm not sure "my blood chills" at the thought of contingency planning for a major emergency (e.g. nuclear explosion in DC). I would hope that there is a clearly defined plan for the continuation of government in such an event. I can't imagine similiar plans weren't already available as far back as the Cuban Missile Crisis or even much earlier. As for the president running all of the branches, your link seems to indicate:

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

But I haven't read it all. Is there something later that countermands this?
 
For years kooks pointed to wording that would seem to give FEMA broad ranging powers in an emergency.
 
It'll all start with Jar-Jar suggesting the granting of emergency powers. Then it'll be all down to robots, a particularly unconvincing love story, and then "Nooooooo!" and eight bucks wasted.
 
skeptigirl said:
National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive

Apparently there was some preexisting directive (I have yet to read what was in that one) in effect since Reagan. Bush felt the need to change it. And of course, we the people have no right to see just what Bush has in mind. That's bad enough. The fact there has been no news coverage is just as bothersome.
Click to expand...

Did the fact that this document is being hosted in the news release section of the Whitehouse's web page give you even the slightest pause before you wrote that we supposedly have no right to see what Bush has in mind?

Lay off the Kos Koolaid. It's bad for the brain.
 
MWare said:
While acknowledging my dismay over many of the actions of this administration, I'm not sure "my blood chills" at the thought of contingency planning for a major emergency (e.g. nuclear explosion in DC). I would hope that there is a clearly defined plan for the continuation of government in such an event. I can't imagine similiar plans weren't already available as far back as the Cuban Missile Crisis or even much earlier. As for the president running all of the branches, your link seems to indicate:

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

But I haven't read it all. Is there something later that countermands this?
Click to expand...

I would agree with this except for two things. I don't trust Bush and friends and the text is secret which while maybe there are parts of the plan that need to be secret, surely all of it doesn't.
 
Ziggurat said:
Did the fact that this document is being hosted in the news release section of the Whitehouse's web page give you even the slightest pause before you wrote that we supposedly have no right to see what Bush has in mind?

Lay off the Kos Koolaid. It's bad for the brain.
Click to expand...
Any idea what was wrong with the Reagan version that so badly needed correcting?
 
skeptigirl said:
Any idea what was wrong with the Reagan version that so badly needed correcting?
Click to expand...

It's a presidential directive, not a law. There doesn't need to be any badly needed change for a change to be worth making. Hell, given that this is the federal government, it's possible that this is nothing more than someone drafting a directive for the president to sign so that that person can justify their sallary. But what I suspect it mainly involves is the fact that there was no department of homeland security back in 1998, and so the continuity plan should be updated to reflect that change in the federal government's security bureaucracy.

In addition, the fact that it's a presidential directive also means that nothing about this directive allows anyone to do anything that Bush couldn't just have them do anyways, under non-"catastrophic emergency" conditions, so the entire notion that this could constitute a power grab is silly.

Oh, and as for the classification stuff: well, this is largely a document about security precautions. I would EXPECT many of the details of what those plans are to be secret. In fact, it would be blinding incompetence if that were not the case.
 
So what it's on the White House web site. The actual contents of this directive are not public. Only the fact something was signed modifying the previous directive initiated by Reagan. I can't find something similar signed by Reagan. Perhaps someone else has a source. I did find the following:

Executive Orders and National Emergencies: How Presidents Have Come to "Run the Country" by Usurping Legislative Power; by William J. Olson and Alan Woll; 1999; CATO Institute
William J. Olson heads a McLean, Virginia, law firm that focuses on constitutional, administrative, and civil litigation. Alan Woll is an attorney in Blevins, Arkansas.

Executive Summary

During the recent presidential scandals, concluding with the impeachment of President Clinton, many people were heard to say that the investigations should end so that the president could get back to "the business of running the country." Under a constitution dedicated to individual liberty and limited government--which divides, separates, and limits power--how did we get to a point where so many Americans think of government as embodied in the president and then liken him to a man running a business?

The answer rests in part with the growth of presidential rule through executive orders and national emergencies. Unfortunately, the Constitution defines presidential powers very generally; and nowhere does it define, much less limit, the power of a president to rule by executive order--except by reference to that general language and the larger structure and function of the Constitution. The issue is especially acute when presidents use executive orders to legislate, for then they usurp the powers of Congress or the states, raising fundamental concerns about the separation and division of powers.

The problem of presidential usurpation of legislative power has been with us from the beginning, but it has grown exponentially with the expansion of government in the 20th century. In enacting program after program, Congress has delegated more and more power to the executive branch. Thus, Congress has not only failed to check but has actually abetted the expansion of presidential power. And the courts have been all but absent in restraining presidential lawmaking.

Nevertheless, the courts have acted in two cases--in 1952 and 1996--laying down the principles of the matter; the nation's governors have just forced President Clinton to rewrite a federalism executive order; and now there are two proposals in Congress that seek to limit presidential lawmaking. Those developments offer hope that constitutional limits--and the separation and division of powers, in particular--may eventually be restored.
Click to expand...


You have to wonder what the Heritage Foundation has to say about GW Bush's executive orders. Here, they were certainly critical of Clinton's.

Here we have Reagan's Reign of Secrecy Shortchanging the Public on Information; by Ralph Nader; 1986.

Who knows? This could be nothing more than some routine procedure, or it could be Bush's plan to invade Iran and suspend the '08 elections. Some of my friends thought Nixon was going to declare Martial Law. I thought they were wrong, and they were. But this crowd is even more unscrupulous than Nixon. I am not saying this is TEOTWAWKI. I'm only saying, the news missed this, it's secret, I don't trust these guys and anyone who does trust them is ignoring the last 6 years of their history.
 
Last edited:
The Painter said:
Skeptigirl, are you defending Reagan? I’m in shock. I loved Reagan too. We need him now.
Click to expand...
Surely you gest? Sorry, but I went to Central America after college and imprinted much disgust for the US intervention there. Instead of terrorists under Reagan's bed it was the commies.

We are all paying for the last 100 years of US bullying and corporate greed. Had they just felt labor unions and decent human conditions were more important than protecting corporate investments, the world would be a better place today. But they didn't and it isn't.

Reagan was one of the worst human rights offenders in our history. He may have believed he was doing the right thing, but I saw first hand he wasn't.

What I meant by my comment, "what was so bad with Reagan's version", was, wasn't Reagan's directive dictatorial enough? Bush needed even more power?
 
Last edited:
skeptigirl said:
We are all paying for the last 100 years of US bullying and corporate greed. Had they just felt labor unions and decent human conditions were more important than protecting corporate investments, the world would be a better place today. But they didn't and it isn't.
Click to expand...
Can you tell us what the maximum profit (as a percentage of sales) a corporation is allowed before they can be accused of "corporate greed"? Also, define "decent human conditions".
 
steverino said:
She was a very nice girl and her folks had a swimming pool and a tennis court in the back yard that I don't recall ever being invited to use, but I think it was because we dated in the winter but not sure.
Click to expand...
"The pond would be good for you." -=Ty Webb=- ;)

DR
 
skeptigirl said:
Who knows? This could be nothing more than some routine procedure, or it could be Bush's plan to invade Iran and suspend the '08 elections. Some of my friends thought Nixon was going to declare Martial Law. I thought they were wrong, and they were. But this crowd is even more unscrupulous than Nixon. I am not saying this is TEOTWAWKI. I'm only saying, the news missed this, it's secret, I don't trust these guys and anyone who does trust them is ignoring the last 6 years of their history.
Click to expand...
Trust and scruples don't enter into it. Let's say that Bush is actually planning to invade Iran and suspend the elections. OK Congress won't give him an authorisation of force, so he declares it an emergency and appoints himself dictator. Congress votes to impeach him. Bush orders the armed forces to disband Congress. The armed forces say "no". Bush is arrested. Moreover Bush almost certainly knows this, so even if he was inclined to try to become dictator he would not try because he knew it wouldn't work.
 
Bush makes secret changes to Dictator Plans :jaw-dropp
skeptigirl said:
Thought that might get your attention. :D
Click to expand...
Thanks, I had not yet gotten my morning dose of hyperbole. It went well with the coffee. ;)

Embedded assumptions for fifty, Alice. Of somewhat greater concern is the Gonzo Chronicles, the Immigration Reform Farce, the Deficit, and some of the inane rhetoric in DC, yet again, about Iran.

Question for you: do you hold the recent GOP presidential debates to be a smoke screen, covering for a behind the scenes attempt to suspend the elections in 2008? From your "dictator" line, it would seem to follow, yet if the executive were to be strengthened by statute, any executive -- Dem, GOP, or, God willing but unlikely, a third party -- would be likewise further empowered. (Not a fan of that, personally.) If you do not think the GOP process is a fraud (for all that it was a bit of a farce) then "your" party would benefit from a strengthened Pres if Al Gore, Barak, Hillary, John, or Dennis were to be elected.

I find the combination of your positions inconsistent, and thus puzzling.

DR
 
WildCat said:
Can you tell us what the maximum profit (as a percentage of sales) a corporation is allowed before they can be accused of "corporate greed"? Also, define "decent human conditions".
Click to expand...
The percentage of profit is not the issue. Supporting oppressive dictators to maintain cheap labor pools and mine other nation's resources without regard to environmental damage is the definition of excess greed.

Decent human conditions include but are not limited to, the right to organize labor without being murdered by government sponsored right wing death squads, the right to not have soldiers holding up tourists (me) with a rifle asking for money, the right to not have your 5 yr old child have his hand hacked off by a machete wielding soldier as the child desperately seeks water from a creek when the government surrounds an entire town of Masaya in Nicaragua and cuts off the town's water supplies in a siege to prevent political protests (personally witnessed by my friend's 14 yr old American born twins visiting their grandparents as they had done every summer before), and the right to not have my government pay to support and even train the military of the government which did these very things.

Then there is that little thing about finding beheaded bodies in the street every morning and a few other incidents where a few thousand people were slaughtered, men, women and children, again by the same governments the US paid for and trained the armies of in that lovely School of the Americas which still exists today.

Despite the fact some people on this board like to brush off my tales as some ignorant uninformed observation of necessary evil, that is bull. What is ignorant and uninformed were the observations of the Americans who got their version of events from the propaganda called TV news and in the safety of their fat arm chairs.

Governments of poor countries need capital to utilize untapped natural resources. Corporations invested in the infrastructure. But, and here's where the greed part comes in, in the interest of profit, those same corporations are all too happy to pay labor the barest minimum, pollute without consequence, not return any profit to the community in the way of reinvestment, and support some corrupt government officials and a few wealthy members of the society to maintain that status quo. When that poverty stricken labor force and local residents suffering from the environmental degradation then turn to organizers promising to overturn the government and share the wealth, people like Reagan only saw the "communist threat" part of the equation.

To Reagan, all would be fine if communists just weren't there instigating unrest. Apparently it never dawned on him (or it did and he didn't give a $h!+) that if he simply pressured those corporations to improve the lives of the people who were turning to rebellion in desperation, there would not have been a need to "fight communism" by propping up every brutal dictator in a position to keep those corporate profits excessively high.

So how does that compare to your view from that fat armchair looking at the world through the distortions of American TV news?

Or do you have some of your own personal experiences to share?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom