Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community (https://thetfp.com/tfp/)
-   Tilted Politics (https://thetfp.com/tfp/tilted-politics/)
-   -   I think something bad is going to happen... (https://thetfp.com/tfp/tilted-politics/118193-i-think-something-bad-going-happen.html)

archetypal fool 05-21-2007 09:13 PM
I think something bad is going to happen...
 
Quote:
Bush To Be Dictator In A Catastrophic Emergency
05-19-2007
www.roguegovernment.com
Lee Rogers

The Bush administration has released a directive called the National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive. The directive released on May 9th, 2007 has gone almost unnoticed by the mainstream and alternative media. This is understandable considering the huge Ron Paul and immigration news but this story is equally as huge. In this directive, Bush declares that in the event of a “Catastrophic Emergency” the President will be entrusted with leading the activities to ensure constitutional government. The language in this directive would in effect make the President a dictator in the case of such an emergency.

The directive defines a “Catastrophic Emergency” as the following.

"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;

So what does this mean? This is entirely subjective and doesn’t provide any real concrete definition of what such an emergency would entail. Assuming that it means a disaster on the scale of the 9/11 attacks or Katrina, there is no question that the United States at some point in time will experience an emergency on par with either of those events. When one of those events takes place, the President will be a dictator in charge of ensuring a working constitutional government.

The language written in the directive is disturbing because it doesn’t say that the President will work with the other branches of government equally to ensure a constitutional government is protected. It says clearly that there will be a cooperative effort among the three branches that will be coordinated by the President. If the President is coordinating these efforts it effectively puts him in charge of every branch. The language in the directive is entirely Orwellian in nature making it seem that it is a cooperative effort between all three branches but than it says that the President is in charge of the cooperative effort.

The directive defines Enduring Constitutional Government as the following.

"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;

Further on in the document it states the following.

The President shall lead the activities of the Federal Government for ensuring constitutional government.

This directive on its face is unconstitutional because each branch of government the executive, legislative and judicial are supposed to be equal in power. By putting the President in charge of coordinating such an effort to ensure constitutional government over all three branches is effectively making the President a dictator allowing him to tell all branches of government what to do.

Even worse is the fact that the directive states that the Secretary of Homeland Security will serve as the lead for coordinating overall continuity operations. We already know that the Homeland Security department is not really working to secure the homeland. Instead the Homeland Security department is really working to enslave the homeland just like the Home Office over in the United Kingdom has made that country an Orwellian hell of closed-circuit TV spy cameras. If such an emergency is declared, we can only guess what sort of surprises the Homeland Enslavement department will have for us.

The directive itself recognizes that each branch is already responsible for directing their own continuity of government procedures. If that’s the case than why does the President need to coordinate these procedures for all of the branches? This is nothing more than a power grab that centralizes power and will make the President a dictator in the case of a so called “Catastrophic Emergency”.

It is insane that this directive claims that its purpose is to define procedures to protect a working constitutional government when the very language in the document destroys what a working constitutional government is supposed to be. A working constitutional government contains a separation of powers between three equally powerful branches and this directive states that the executive branch has the power to coordinate the activities of the other branches. This directive is a clear violation of constitutional separation of powers and there should be angry protests from our legislators about this anti-American garbage that came from the President.
Now, I'm normally not a conspiracy nut, but this plan literally sent shivers down my spine. In case you by-passed the reading, the problem is that now, if there is any sort of national disaster, Bush can declare himself dictator, once and for all. As if his wanton disregard for the constitution didn't make him feel big enough, now, if there is 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," then Bush will become the leader of the Federal Government.

This concerns me. A lot. Funny thing that this is written up right at the beginning of Hurricane season. If there is another hurricane of the magnitude of Katrina, Bush might take the initiative to make himself dictator there and then. And if there isn't, I wouldn't be too surprised if there were some terrorist attack withing the US soon after, as that's all it would take. All the republican candidates (except Ron Paul) are currently running with a message similar to "If you don't vote for us, you're not safe."

It's a shame to have to come to this, but I think the only thing which would force the country to wake the fuck up and smell the bullshit would be another terrorist attack, after which, so conveniently, Bush will decree himself the Supreme Overlord of the United States, and they'll realize what they've let happen.

What do you guys think? Should we all be worried about this, or is my conspiracy thingy just acting up?

host 05-21-2007 09:28 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by archetypal fool
.....What do you guys think? Should we all be worried about this, or is my conspiracy thingy just acting up?
Yeah....I am also very alarmed...the limited MSM and a credible DC legislative reporting outlet seem to support your citations in your OP:
Quote:
http://public.cq.com/public/20061201_homeland.html
CQ HOMELAND SECURITY – SpyTalk
Dec. 1, 2006 – 8:25 p.m.
<b>Fine Print in Defense Bill Opens Door to Martial Law</b>
By Jeff Stein, CQ National Security Editor

It’s amazing what you can find if you turn over a few rocks in the anti-terrorism legislation Congress approved during the election season.

Take, for example, the John W. Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2006, named for the longtime Armed Services Committee chairman from Virginia.

Signed by President Bush on Oct. 17, the law (PL 109-364) has a provocative provision called “Use of the Armed Forces in Major Public Emergencies.”

The thrust of it seems to be about giving the federal government a far stronger hand in coordinating responses to Katrina-like disasters.

But on closer inspection, its language also alters the two-centuries-old Insurrection Act, which Congress passed in 1807 to limit the president’s power to deploy troops within the United States.

That law has long allowed the president to mobilize troops only “to suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy.”

But the amended law takes the cuffs off.

Specifically, the new language adds “natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident” to the list of conditions permitting the President to take over local authority — particularly “if domestic violence has occurred to such an extent that the constituted authorities of the State or possession are incapable of maintaining public order.”

Since the administration broadened what constitutes “conspiracy” in its definition of enemy combatants — anyone who “has purposely and materially supported hostilities against the United States,” in the language of the Military Commissions Act (PL 109-366) — critics say it’s a formula for executive branch mischief.

Yet despite such a radical turn, the new law garnered little dissent, or even attention, on the Hill.

One of the few to complain, Sen. Patrick J. Leahy, D-Vt., warned that the measure virtually invites the White House to declare federal martial law.

It “subverts solid, longstanding posse comitatus statutes that limit the military’s involvement in law enforcement, thereby making it easier for the President to declare martial law,” he said in remarks submitted to the Congressional Record on Sept. 29.

“The changes to the Insurrection Act will allow the President to use the military, including the National Guard, to carry out law enforcement activities without the consent of a governor,” he said.

Moreover, he said, it breaks a long, fundamental tradition of federal restraint.

“Using the military for law enforcement goes against one of the founding tenets of our democracy.”

And he criticized the way it was rammed through Congress.

It “was just slipped in the defense bill as a rider with little study,” he fumed. “Other congressional committees with jurisdiction over these matters had no chance to comment, let alone hold hearings on, these proposals.”

No matter: Safely tucked into the $526 billion defense bill, it easily crossed the goal line on the last day of September.
Silence

The language doesn’t just brush aside a liberal Democrat slated to take over the Judiciary Committee come January. It also runs over the backs of the governors, 22 of whom are Republicans.

The governors had waved red flags about the measure on Aug. 1, sending letters of protest from their Washington office to the Republican chairs and ranking Democrats on the House and Senate Armed Services committees.

No response. So they petitioned the party heads on the Hill — Sens. Bill Frist, R-Tenn., and Harry Reid, D-Nev., Speaker of the House J. Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., and his Democratic opposite, Nancy Pelosi of California.

“This provision was drafted without consultation or input from governors,” said the Aug. 6 letter signed by every member of the National Governors Association, “and represents an unprecedented shift in authority from governors . . .to the federal government.”

“We urge you,” they said, “to drop provisions that would usurp governors’ authority over the National Guard during emergencies from the conference agreement on the National Defense Authorization Act.”

Again, no response from the leadership, said David Quam, the National Governors Association’s director of federal relations.

On Aug. 31, the governors sent another letter to the congressional party leaders, as well as to Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, who had met quietly with an NGA delegation back in February.

The bill “could encroach on our constitutional authority to protect the citizens of our states,” they protested, complaining again about how the provision had been dumped on a midnight express.

“Any issue that affects the mission of the Guard in the states must be addressed in consultation and coordination with governors,” they demanded.

“The role of the Guard in the states and to the nation as a whole is too important to have major policy decisions made without full debate and input from governors throughout the policy process.”

More silence.

“We did not know until the bill was printed where we stood,” Quam said.

That’s partly the governors’ own fault, said a Republican Senate aide.

“My understanding is that they sent form letters to offices,” she said. “If they really want a piece of legislation considered they should have called offices and pushed the matter. No office can handle the amount of form letters that come in each day.”

Quam disputed that.

“The letter was only the beginning of the conversation,” he said. “The NGA and the governors’ offices reached out across the Hill.”....
Quote:
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/02/...nion/edlaw.php

<b>Making martial law easier</b>

Monday, February 19, 2007

A disturbing recent phenomenon in Washington is that laws that strike to the heart of American democracy have been passed in the dead of night. So it was with a provision quietly tucked into the enormous defense budget bill at the Bush administration's behest that makes it easier for a president to override local control of law enforcement and declare martial law.

The provision, signed into law in October, weakens two obscure but important bulwarks of liberty. One is the doctrine that bars military forces, including a federalized National Guard, from engaging in law enforcement. Called posse comitatus, it was enshrined in law after the Civil War to preserve the line between civil government and the military. The other is the Insurrection Act of 1807, which provides the major exemptions to posse comitatus. It essentially limits a president's use of the military in law enforcement to putting down lawlessness, insurrection and rebellion, where a state is violating federal law or depriving people of constitutional rights.

The newly enacted provisions upset this careful balance. They shift the focus from making sure that federal laws are enforced to restoring public order.

Beyond cases of actual insurrection, the president may now use military troops as a domestic police force in response to a natural disaster, a disease outbreak, terrorist attack or to any "other condition."

Changes of this magnitude should be made only after a thorough public airing. But these new presidential powers were slipped into the law without hearings or public debate. The president made no mention of the changes when he signed the measure, and neither the White House nor Congress consulted in advance with the country's governors.

There is a bipartisan bill, introduced by Senators Patrick Leahy, Democrat of Vermont, and Christopher Bond, Republican of Missouri, and backed unanimously by the nation's governors, that would repeal the stealthy revisions. Congress should pass it. If changes of this kind are proposed in the future, they must get a full and open debate.

archetypal fool 05-21-2007 09:52 PM
How pitiful. Our own representatives don't give us the attention they said they would when we elected them, and they stupidly disregard the Constitution they swore they would uphold. I'm disgusted at this whole administration, and anyone who feels they are justified in their actions.

None of this is helped by an administration which values corporate incentives over individual liberties. I've never felt such discontent for a group of politicians. I try very hard not to hate anybody, but these crooks are destroying this fine country, and turning it into a neo-Nazi state.

Fascism, here we come!


p.s. from where did you get your signature? It's making my blood boil...

host 05-22-2007 01:06 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by archetypal fool
....None of this is helped by an administration which values corporate incentives over individual liberties. I've never felt such discontent for a group of politicians. I try very hard not to hate anybody, but these crooks are destroying this fine country, and turning it into a neo-Nazi state.

Fascism, here we come!


p.s. from where did you get your signature? It's making my blood boil...
The link to it....it's from last week's "presser", in the "Rose Garden", sharing the "stage" with Tony Blair, is available in this post:
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...6&postcount=19

....and to follow up my last post here....to his credit, as the governors did, Sen. Patrick Leahy protested, last September:
Quote:
http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200609/092906b.html
Remarks Of Sen. Patrick Leahy
National Defense Authorization Act For Fiscal Year 2007
Conference Report
Congressional Record
September 29, 2006

Mr. President, I rise to express my grave reservations about certain provisions of the Fiscal Year 2007 Defense Authorization Bill Conference Report. This legislation poorly handles key provisions related to the National Guard, which — as the events since September 11th have highlighted — is critical to our Nations’ defense. The final conference report drops the reforms known as the National Guard Empowerment Act, a bill that would have given the National Guard more bureaucratic muscle inside the Pentagon. It would have cleared away some of these administrative cobwebs and given the Guard the seat at the decision-making table that it needs and deserves. It also should concern us all that the Conference agreement includes language that subverts solid, longstanding posse comitatus statutes that limit the military’s involvement in law enforcement, thereby making it easier for the President to declare martial law. <b>There is good reason for the constructive friction in existing law when it comes to martial law declarations. .....

The Defense Authorization Conference:
Outcome, Argument Against, And Explanation</b>.....

....Not only does this Conference Report unfortunately drop the Empowerment amendment entirely, it adopts some incredible changes to the Insurrection Act, which would give the President more authority to declare martial law. Let me repeat: The National Guard Empowerment Act, which is designed to make it more likely for the National Guard to remain in State control, is dropped from this conference report in favor of provisions making it easier to usurp the Governors control and making it more likely that the President will take control of the Guard and the active military operating in the States.

The changes to the Insurrection Act will allow the President to use the military, including the National Guard, to carry out law enforcement activities without the consent of a governor. When the Insurrection Act is invoked posse comitatus does not apply. Using the military for law enforcement goes against one of the founding tenets of our democracy, and it is for that reason that the Insurrection Act has only been invoked on three — three — in recent history. The implications of changing the Act are enormous, but this change was just slipped in the defense bill as a rider with little study. Other congressional committees with jurisdiction over these matters had no chance to comment, let alone hold hearings on, these proposals.

While the Conference made hasty changes to the Insurrection Act, the Guard Empowerment Bill was kicked over for study to the Commission on the National Guard and Reserve, which was established only a year ago and whose recommendations have no real force of law. I would have never supported the creation of this panel — and I suspect my colleagues would agree with me — if I thought we would have to wait for the panel to finish its work before we passed new laws on the Guard and Reserve. In fact, we would get nothing done in Congress if we were to wait for every commission, study group, and research panel to finish its work. I have been around here over 30 years, and almost every Senator here knows the National Guard as well as any commission member. We don’t need to wait, and we don’t need to study the question of enhancing the Guard further. This is a terrible blow against rational defense policy-making and against the fabric of our democracy.....

.......Also, it seems <b>the changes to the Insurrection Act have survived the Conference because the Pentagon and the White House want it.</b> It is easy to see the attempts of the President and his advisors to avoid the debacle involving the National Guard after Hurricane Katrina, when Governor Blanco of Louisiana would not give control of the National Guard over to President and the federal chain of command. Governor Blanco rightfully insisted that she be closely consulted and remain largely in control of the military forces operating in the State during that emergency. This infuriated the White House, and now they are looking for some automatic triggers — natural disasters, terrorist attacks, or a disease epidemic — to avoid having to consult with the governors.

A Final Summary

And there you have it -- we are getting two horrible policy decisions out of this Conference because we are not willing to use our Constitutional powers to overcome leadership that ranges from the poor to the intemperate in the Pentagon and the White House. We cannot recognize the diverse ways that the Guard supports the Country, because the Department of Defense does not like it — simply does not like it.

Because of this rubberstamp Congress, these provisions of this conference report add up to the worst of all worlds. We fail the National Guard, which expects great things from us as much as we expect great things from them. And we fail our Constitution, neglecting the rights of the States, when we make it easier for the President to declare martial law and trample on local and state sovereignty.

Meridae'n 05-22-2007 04:20 AM
This shit has been around a long time. And it was Clinton who opened the "FEMA supercedes congress" barndoor.

pig 05-22-2007 05:13 AM
so what happens if we invade iran?

tecoyah 05-22-2007 06:46 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by pigglet
so what happens if we invade iran?

We lose.....Another war and our country as we know it.

ratbastid 05-22-2007 06:49 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Meridae'n
This shit has been around a long time. And it was Clinton who opened the "FEMA supercedes congress" barndoor.
Shakraned on post #5! That's GOT to be a record!

roachboy 05-22-2007 06:50 AM
ok so this is very strange.
it seems to rely entirely on one "official"--unnamed naturlich---and it is troubling in that...well...see for yourself:

Quote:
Iran's secret plan for summer offensive to force US out of Iraq


Simon Tisdall
Tuesday May 22, 2007
The Guardian

Iran is secretly forging ties with al-Qaida elements and Sunni Arab militias in Iraq in preparation for a summer showdown with coalition forces intended to tip a wavering US Congress into voting for full military withdrawal, US officials say.

"Iran is fighting a proxy war in Iraq and it's a very dangerous course for them to be following. They are already committing daily acts of war against US and British forces," a senior US official in Baghdad warned. "They [Iran] are behind a lot of high-profile attacks meant to undermine US will and British will, such as the rocket attacks on Basra palace and the Green Zone [in Baghdad]. The attacks are directed by the Revolutionary Guard who are connected right to the top [of the Iranian government]."

The official said US commanders were bracing for a nationwide, Iranian-orchestrated summer offensive, linking al-Qaida and Sunni insurgents to Tehran's Shia militia allies, that Iran hoped would trigger a political mutiny in Washington and a US retreat. "We expect that al-Qaida and Iran will both attempt to increase the propaganda and increase the violence prior to Petraeus's report in September [when the US commander General David Petraeus will report to Congress on President George Bush's controversial, six-month security "surge" of 30,000 troop reinforcements]," the official said.

"Certainly it [the violence] is going to pick up from their side. There is significant latent capability in Iraq, especially Iranian-sponsored capability. They can turn it up whenever they want. You can see that from the pre-positioning that's been going on and the huge stockpiles of Iranian weapons that we've turned up in the last couple of months. The relationships between Iran and groups like al-Qaida are very fluid," the official said.

"It often comes down to individuals, and people constantly move around. For instance, the Sunni Arab so-called resistance groups use Salafi jihadist ideology for their own purposes. But the whole Iran- al-Qaida linkup is very sinister."

Iran has maintained close links to Iraq's Shia political parties and militias but has previously eschewed collaboration with al-Qaida and Sunni insurgents.

US officials now say they have firm evidence that Tehran has switched tack as it senses a chance of victory in Iraq. In a parallel development, they say they also have proof that Iran has reversed its previous policy in Afghanistan and is now supporting and supplying the Taliban's campaign against US, British and other Nato forces.

Tehran's strategy to discredit the US surge and foment a decisive congressional revolt against Mr Bush is national in scope and not confined to the Shia south, its traditional sphere of influence, the senior official in Baghdad said. It included stepped-up coordination with Shia militias such as Moqtada al-Sadr's Jaish al-Mahdi as well as Syrian-backed Sunni Arab groups and al-Qaida in Mesopotamia, he added. Iran was also expanding contacts across the board with paramilitary forces and political groups, including Kurdish parties such as the PUK, a US ally.

"Their strategy takes into account all these various parties. Iran is playing all these different factions to maximise its future control and maximise US and British difficulties. Their co-conspirator is Syria which is allowing the takfirists [fundamentalist Salafi jihadis] to come across the border," the official said.

Any US decision to retaliate against Iran on its own territory could be taken only at the highest political level in Washington, the official said. But he indicated that American patience was wearing thin.

Warning that the US was "absolutely determined" to hit back hard wherever it was challenged by Iranian proxies or agents inside Iraq, he cited the case of five alleged members of the Revolutionary Guard's al-Quds force detained in Irbil in January. Despite strenuous protests from Tehran, which claims the men are diplomats, they have still not been released.

"Tehran is behaving like a racecourse gambler. They're betting on all the horses in the race, even on people they fundamentally don't trust," a senior administration official in Washington said. "They don't know what the outcome will be in Iraq. So they're hedging their bets."

The administration official also claimed that notwithstanding recent US and British overtures, Syria was still collaborating closely with Iran's strategy in Iraq.

"80% to 90%" of the foreign jihadis entering Iraq were doing so from Syrian territory, he said.

Despite recent diplomatic contacts, and an agreement to hold bilateral talks at ambassadorial level in Baghdad next week, US officials say there has been no let-up in hostile Iranian activities, including continuing support for violence, weapons smuggling and training.

"Iran is perpetuating the cycle of sectarian violence through support for extra-judicial killing and murder cells. They bring Iraqi militia members and insurgent groups into Iran for training and then help infiltrate them back into the country. We have plenty of evidence from a variety of sources. There's no argument about that. That's just a fact," the senior official in Baghdad said.

In trying to force an American retreat, Iran's hardline leadership also hoped to bring about a humiliating political and diplomatic defeat for the US that would reduce Washington's regional influence while increasing Tehran's own.

But if Iran succeeded in "prematurely" driving US and British forces out of Iraq, the likely result would be a "colossal humanitarian disaster" and possible regional war drawing in the Sunni Arab Gulf states, Syria and Turkey, he said.

Despite such concerns, or because of them, the US welcomed the chance to talk to Iran, the senior administration official said. "Our agenda starts with force protection in Iraq," he said. But there were many other Iraq-related issues to be discussed. Recent pressure had shown that Iran's behaviour could be modified, the official claimed: "Last winter they were literally getting away with murder."

But tougher action by security forces in Iraq against Iranian agents and networks, the dispatch of an additional aircraft carrier group to the Gulf and UN security council resolutions imposing sanctions had given Tehran pause, he said.

Washington analysts and commentators predict that Gen Petraeus's report to the White House and Congress in early September will be a pivotal moment in the history of the four-and-a-half-year war - and a decision to begin a troop drawdown or continue with the surge policy will hinge on the outcome. Most Democrats and many Republicans in Congress believe Iraq is in the grip of a civil war and that there is little that a continuing military presence can achieve. "Political will has already failed. It's over," a former Bush administration official said.

A senior adviser to Gen Petraeus reported this month that the surge had reduced violence, especially sectarian killings, in the Baghdad area and Sunni-dominated Anbar province. But the adviser admitted that much of the trouble had merely moved elsewhere, "resulting in spikes of activity in Diyala [to the north] and some areas to the south of the capital". "Overall violence is at about the same level [as when the surge began in February]."

Iranian officials flatly deny US and British allegations of involvement in internal violence in Iraq or in attacks on coalition forces. Interviewed in Tehran recently, Mohammad Reza Bagheri, deputy foreign minister for Arab affairs with primary responsibility for Iran's policy in Iraq, said: "We believe it would be to the benefit of both the occupiers and the Iraqi people that they [the coalition forces] withdraw immediately."
source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,2085192,00.html

so the unnamed "official" seems to connect the dots together and floats what amounts to a narrative from the administration itself.
the rhetoric is unreconstructed bushteam nonsense.

let's think about this for a minute:

1. *if* iran were supporting actions in iraq--IF they were--why the fuck would it be necessary for them to go through al-qeada?

well, because it fits with the administration's construction of "the insurgency" as an extension of the administration's fantasy of al-qeada----as if there is no possibility that the american occupation could be opposed by any number of groups within iraq for any number of reasons---this perhaps an explanation for the term "insurgency" as opposed to, say "resistance" in the ideological enframing of the debacle in iraq.

2. in keeping with this fantasy, it is necessary that the resistance be largely foreign (the Outside Elements, the Fifth Column) and that--within the brief space of this bizarre article--that Fifth Column simultaneously comes from syria/iran--or more generally Bad Places full of Bad People.

3. draped around this rickety frame of nonsequitors, you have the usual bush people discourse of the Political Will. the story here--AGAIN--juxtaposes the detumescent Will characteristic of elements within democratic process as over against the Singular Resoluteness of the Leader.
the Emergencies against which the Erect and Manly Leader Stands Against are, of course, Legion.
this scenario within the scenario is--again again again--straight carl schmitt: it *is* a theory of the Leader/Dictator who Stands Erect against the fragmentation and indecision of Democracy in the context of a State of Exception or Emergency.
the bush people use this logic alot--it is at the center of what i take to be their explicitly (neo)fascist tendencies--but it is strange to see it again at this particular time.

of course, the bush people have "proof" in the way that the bush people have "proof"....


i am a bit surprised that the guardian simply printed this. i really am: i do not understand what tisdall was thinking when he wrote it. but no matter.

but now you have the ducks in a row for one avenue of administration response to its own crisis of its own making, for which it can blame its own incompetence and nothing else.

there are two basic vectors that could play out over the next months that would be logical extensions of the administration's self-staging across narratives like the one that tisdall swallowed:

the bush people order an attack against iran.

i guess it's possible that the idiots behind the wheel could imagine that the problem lay in the ideological context and that another lunatic military action would change that.
but how would it work? would they have to present another shabby, reprehensible case publically?
i doubt it would fly.

or would this unfold as did the war in laos?
i think the administration would be pilloried if it came out that this was happening.

so what the hell are they doing?

shakran 05-22-2007 07:10 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ratbastid
Shakraned on post #5! That's GOT to be a record!

Ya know, the newbies are looking at this post and wondering what the hell you're on ;)

But you're right - even though we've tried to ridicule crap like this by calling it shakran's law, people still try to pull the pathetic "but Clinton!!!" defense. Let's put it on the table gang. It doesn't matter if Clinton was a serial killer while in office. That doesn't excuse what Bush is doing. Claiming that it's OK to be a criminal because someone else was a criminal doesn't fly anywhere - certainly not in the highest office in the nation.

Rekna 05-22-2007 07:27 AM
If Bush declares himself the dictator i hope i'm not alone in heading over to DK's house to get some guns and tear some shit up ;)

pan6467 05-22-2007 07:48 AM
I have stated for a VERY long time that I feared come 2008, Bush would not relinquish power and there would be a massive terroristic attack where he would stay in power.

Of course, many on here and in real life would tell me it couldn't happen, the people would revolt, Congress would do something, etc etc.

Well the OP shows, that the plan I predicted years ago, is now in place. We have a dirty bomb explosion, an epidemic, who knows what, and Bush can now claim full power.

The scariest thing I see isn't the power grab it is this nugget here from Host's addendum:

Quote:
Since the administration broadened what constitutes “conspiracy” in its definition of enemy combatants — anyone who “has purposely and materially supported hostilities against the United States,” in the language of the Military Commissions Act (PL 109-366) — critics say it’s a formula for executive branch mischief.
If true this could mean ANYONE who has publicly spoken against the war (and the Congressmen/women who voted for limiting funds and so on) could be held as enemies of the state. Bush and his minions are very happy and very clear to tell people that those who speak out against the war: are not in support of the troops, are aiding the enemy, are trying to sabotage our chances of winning, etc etc.

So scenario could be: 2008, a terrorist strike, an epidemic, even a hurrice/earthquake/flooding natural disaster type, could lead us to Bush using this power and taking control, then anyone speaking out against him or HAS spoken out against the war is imprisoned as traitors. (And as such, the sourts and Bush have already shown these people will be tried in a military court and have no rights. Basically ship them to Guatanamo or wherever.)

Sounds absurd, sounds paranoidal, delusional, and totally impossible.... but with Bush anything is possible.

Congress needs to make sure this cannot happen while they still can.... or I fear as improbable, insane and can't be done as all this sounds.... it will happen.

(Never been a gun advocate, but perhaps I should look into buying some and learning how to make my own rounds.)

shakran 05-22-2007 08:05 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by pan6467
So scenario could be: 2008, a terrorist strike, an epidemic, even a hurrice/earthquake/flooding natural disaster type, could lead us to Bush using this power and taking control,
Should that happen, I tell you right now, I will put down my camera, and pick up a gun. But I don't think that'll come about. The military, despite administration reports, is not overly happy with Bush. If Bush tries to usurp power and turn us into a dictatorship, there would be plenty who would move to stop it.

roachboy 05-22-2007 08:32 AM
i have been thinking that we are entering the period wherein the claims that those of us who have been trying to work out the logic of bushworld will see whether we have been right or not, and in what way.

the alteration of the legal framework within which fema functions, and the expansion of the notion of "state of emergency" dates from the reagan period. if the scenario that pan outlines were to happen--or anything like that--the legal justification for whatever followed would run along these lines.

an alternative scenario involves iran--and the outlining of the "logic" behind it is still unfolding, and is why i thought the tisdall piece above to be interesting. in another situation, it wouldnt have been: except maybe as yet another indication of how yet another journalist was chumped/used. which must be hard to avoid, given the nature of information control surrounding iraq and things related to it, which we tend to forget about, but which are still very much in place.

there is and has been an authoritarian logic to the politics of this administration. a neo-fascist style authoritarian logic that is made all the more problematic because the actors involved do not even acknowledge the lineage of their own positions, seemingly imagining that fascism is something that other people did to themselves, that we know about from wrold war 2 films, and is therefore a thing either of the past or of far-right uniform fetishists. and the political spectrum in america is such that neo-fascism does not get named as such--rather, it is part of conventional political discourse, associated with all the "values" for which neofascism stands, but with out the name.

the "way of thinking" is obvious, then.
what that could translate into is not.
my suspicion is that the appearance of legitimacy matters to these folk across their internal divisions--there is a more explicitly authoritarian element in the admin (cheney for example) and a more incoherent populist element (cowboy george)--so i am not sure that i see from this (politburo style analysis) anything that would lead me to think that the administration would move to violate the form of the present governmental arrangement. if they did, it would take the form of a coup d'etat--and so at the moment, i dont see it happening. the bush squad seems to enjoy the illusion that it moves with the People to some extent, and so was probably at its most dangerous in the phase directly after 9/11/2001.

so one possibility is that there would have to be something bad that would happen in the states in order to recreate something of that convergence of illusion of public support with the political aspirations of the bush squad.
at this point, i dont see anything that'd lead in this direction.
but who knows.

the other possibility is military action against iran--but in this, i dont see it working as desired because, well, the bush people have fucked up to such an extent that i dont think their narrative will fly. no narrative=no justification=no public support=exposure of any move they could make for what it is.

if the administration is therefore effectively boxed in my its own incompetence and the squandering of whatever capital it once enjoyed, then it could be the case that it is dead in the water and that thre is nothing they can do to change it.

i just dont see these people being willing to violate the form of the existing arrangement...i think they imagine themselves to be defending it in a bizarre extreme-rightwing kinda way, even as they undertake move after move to undermine or alter the legal parameters within that arrangement to their own partisan political advantage.

so i dont know. not yet anyway. but this is how it looks to me at the moment.

Walking Shadow 05-22-2007 09:36 AM
The Shrub as dictator thing will never happen, simply because at this point, Shrub is just hoping to ride out the last 18+ months of his term.

The only way that he could possibly pull this off, and I hasten to add that it wouldn't be successful, is if there were another series of 9/11 type events spread out across the country which in addition to killing thousands of people also managed to damage the infrastructure of the country in a major way, such as blowing up sections of I-10 or I-95. But even that wouldn't be very bad and wouldn't take very long to repair.

And the American people and Congress wouldn't stand for it.

pig 05-22-2007 09:42 AM
how long would he need to be a 'dictator' to make some serious moves? thinking about this...but i'm just wondering if its possible for the administration to effectively run on this policy for a short period of time following a military interaction or domestic disaster without the media, congress, or public to be aware that its happened, and then to cancel it before they can react. call it a necessary short term measure, have a white girl get kidnapped at disney world..voila! never happened.

archetypal fool 05-22-2007 09:58 AM
Well, the American people and congress are supposed to stand and protect the constitution, but, here we are...It all went to hell in what seemed like a blink of an eye.

However, as pigglet brought up, I really doubt they'd be able to completely redefine the country's leadership under the public radar like they have with some of our rights, especially since they will need large scale "attacks" and such to really pick up steam. It'll bring attention to what the administration is doing, and due to this attention, I really doubt they're be able to go martial-law on us without significant opposition. But then again, there could be another Michael Jackson trial or Paris might shave her head or Britney might start growing another boob, and then all the country's attention will be diverted once again, as it has been all this time.

Only time will tell, but I know if shit starts to roll, I've got the right (and the tools) to defend my family by any means necessary.

powerclown 05-22-2007 11:45 AM
Her name is eulalia santos, freaks.

dc_dux 05-22-2007 01:24 PM
The directive raises some serioius questions about the concentration of power in the event of a "national emergency" with mass casualties or "severe disruption" that Congress should investigate, but it also makes sense to have a plan to ensure the continuity of government.

I wont be losing any sleep worrying that "Bush will use it and not relinquish power" in Jan 09" (pan). I am confident that the checks and balances of government will prevail, even in such times as we have seen for the last 6 years.

aceventura3 05-22-2007 01:37 PM
Katrina illustrated how a catastrophy can result in civil chaos. The irony is that we complained that the federal government failed to provide an adequate response to what should of been handled by state and local government with aid from the Federal government. Should we have used the Federal government (military) to bring the situation after Katrina under control? I say no. However, if you want the Federal government to take the lead role, unchecked, then you have to give the Federal government the power. I think the potential for abuse is a problem.

pig 05-22-2007 01:44 PM
ace, i think you're putting up a false choice regarding katrina. to be concise, i don't think anyone would have wanted the federal government in there unchecked...except maybe some factions of the federal government. absolute power corrupts...

it would have been nice if they'd just, you know...been there. checked and all.

aceventura3 05-22-2007 02:01 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by pig
ace, i think you're putting up a false choice regarding katrina. to be concise, i don't think anyone would have wanted the federal government in there unchecked...except maybe some factions of the federal government. absolute power corrupts...

it would have been nice if they'd just, you know...been there. checked and all.
I don't present a false choice, i only point-out the reality of the criticism against the Federal government. How could the Federal government have handled the situation? They would have needed to take control from the begining, or even prior to the event. They would have needed to mobilize (an army) to handle security and logistics. I would prefer state and local governments handle initial relief and use the federal government as needed for support.

Perhaps, you are trying to re-write history regarding the crticism leveled at the federal government.

roachboy 05-22-2007 02:26 PM
the more i think about it, the more i am persuaded that the bush people are dead in the water. they have no options, they have no credibility, they have nowhere to go and nothing to do. the best they can hope for is some disaster. the worst thing that could happen to them is a disaster that they did not plan. and if they plan one, i am pretty sure they'd fuck it up. they are dead in the water--but that doesnt mean that the story is over, that they cannot continue to do damage.

and this mess we live in is of their own making. there is no=one and nothing else to blame for it.

that they are dead in the water has nothing to do with the system's checks and balances--fact is that if these people were not such unbelievable incompetents, there would be no checks on them: the situation is already such that these"checks" have been disabled. they HAVE BEEN disabled for the past 6 years, particularly in the period after 9/11/2001. if they hadnt BEEN disabled, the united states would not be in iraq. period. the iraq war is bloody proof that the system itself is not some bizarrely animate abstraction that runs the show behind the backs of the very fallible people who actually do things within it. the war in iraq only was possible because, for a period, the system DID NOT WORK. and that it now presents all of us with the degree of incoherence that it does, and that there remains such paralysis on the subject, shows that the systems STILL does not work.

it is not a grim a situation now as it was a couple years ago.
but it is still pretty thoroughly fucked up--and there seems to be nothing to be done to be rid of these incompetents until their miserable tenure dribbles to its conclusion.
i am sure the body count in iraq will be even more appallingly high by then.
i am sure that the body count in gaza and south lebanon will be even more appallingly high then.
i am sure that the body count in afghanistan will be even more appallingly high then.

best we can hope for is that these people do not do anything REALLY stupid in the interim--like invade iran.

yeah, its' a great system---it has worked like a charm.

Charlatan 05-22-2007 02:43 PM
Given Bush's current levels of popularity he would never be able to pull off a successful grab at a dictatorship.

pig 05-22-2007 02:57 PM
ace, i'm not getting off on katrina as anything more than an example; therefore if you want to follow up the history of it, perhaps returning to an older thread on katrina would be more useful.

i'm simply saying there are ways for the federal government to get involvded in domestic tragedies without having unilateral executive dictatorial control. i understand your position, as i believe you hail from a perspective somewhere near libertarianism. i disagree with the notion that it is all one way or the other.

i agree in the main with you roach; anything else i say about this i think will just be conjecture in terms of probability for them to pull something like that off.

dksuddeth 05-22-2007 04:00 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rekna
If Bush declares himself the dictator i hope i'm not alone in heading over to DK's house to get some guns and tear some shit up ;)
you'll have to get your own. I'll be putting all of mine to use. :thumbsup:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Walking Shadow
And the American people and Congress wouldn't stand for it.
history should tell us that congress will do near absolutely nothing considered even remotely illegal against a sitting president, whether that presidents actions are unconstitutional or not. It will fall to us and us alone.

aceventura3 05-22-2007 04:16 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by pig
ace, i'm not getting off on katrina as anything more than an example; therefore if you want to follow up the history of it, perhaps returning to an older thread on katrina would be more useful.

i'm simply saying there are ways for the federal government to get involvded in domestic tragedies without having unilateral executive dictatorial control. i understand your position, as i believe you hail from a perspective somewhere near libertarianism. i disagree with the notion that it is all one way or the other.

i agree in the main with you roach; anything else i say about this i think will just be conjecture in terms of probability for them to pull something like that off.
I don't want to adress the Katrina issue either. The general question is, what should the Federal government be responsible for and what should the Federal government be held accountable for? When we answer that question then we can understand if the Directive is reasonable.

I do come from a libertarian point of view on this issue, and generally feel more power should be concentrated at the state and local levels.

Willravel 05-22-2007 05:28 PM
Sorry, I protect my Constitution before I protect my president. If he overrides the legally ratified Twenty Second Amendment, he'll be removed quickly and probably without a shot fired. If Bush was able to successfully able to hold office after the end of his second term, I'd push for secession of California ad the immediate push for peace talks with allies of California (I'm guessing Japan and Germany would jump on board as allies to CA).

powerclown 05-22-2007 06:37 PM
On second thought, I'm going to erase my mock-post above, but I remain bewildered that people in America, circa 2007, live in fear of their own government. I can't fathom it. I, for example, and most people I know, go about their day as they have for years, without fear of governmental reprisal of any sort. I can go to any restaraunt I want. I can travel anywhere I want, whenever I want. If I were a good enough writer, I could pick my subject, have it published, and make money from it. I could start my own business. I can buy all the booze I could ever want. I can watch just about any movie thats ever been put to film, same with listening to music. I can speak out against my government in public, without fear of death, if I so chose to. I can get a job whenever I needed one. I have all the food, clothing and shelter I'll ever need, right down the street. I have the worlds greatest amusement parks, art museums, and sporting events ever devised by human imagination for diversion. I have free and unfettered access to public libraries, the internet, videogames, rice cookers, porn, guns, dental floss, drugs, beano, educational subsidies, car washes, jewelery, on and on and on. Compared to someone in, say, Mexico or Uzbekistan, I would feel embarrased and ridiculous to whine about the government to the extent we do here. What has America come to? Are we even the same species that discovered and created this great country 200+ years ago?

That's a rhetorical question.

Willravel 05-22-2007 06:40 PM
I'm talking about secession because my government no longer was representing it's people....how is that different than the species that discovered and created this great country 200+ years ago?

Baraka_Guru 05-22-2007 07:08 PM
I don't think it will be Bush doing any of this. But the signs are out there... America is gearing up for a Puritan Reformation.

dksuddeth 05-22-2007 07:26 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by powerclown
On second thought, I'm going to erase my mock-post above, but I remain bewildered that people in America, circa 2007, live in fear of their own government. I can't fathom it.
What has America come to? Are we even the same species that discovered and created this great country 200+ years ago?

That's a rhetorical question.
A short list of people who feared and mistrusted government...

1. James Madison
2. Alexander Hamilton
3. George Washington
4. Thomas Jefferson
5. Ben Franklin
6. George Mason
7. Patrick Henry


I consider myself to be in some pretty good company.

archetypal fool 05-22-2007 07:35 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by powerclown
On second thought, I'm going to erase my mock-post above, but I remain bewildered that people in America, circa 2007, live in fear of their own government. I can't fathom it. I, for example, and most people I know, go about their day as they have for years, without fear of governmental reprisal of any sort. I can go to any restaraunt I want. I can travel anywhere I want, whenever I want. If I were a good enough writer, I could pick my subject, have it published, and make money from it. I could start my own business. I can buy all the booze I could ever want. I can watch just about any movie thats ever been put to film, same with listening to music. I can speak out against my government in public, without fear of death, if I so chose to. I can get a job whenever I needed one. I have all the food, clothing and shelter I'll ever need, right down the street. I have the worlds greatest amusement parks, art museums, and sporting events ever devised by human imagination for diversion. I have free and unfettered access to public libraries, the internet, videogames, rice cookers, porn, guns, dental floss, drugs, beano, educational subsidies, car washes, jewelery, on and on and on. Compared to someone in, say, Mexico or Uzbekistan, I would feel embarrased and ridiculous to whine about the government to the extent we do here. What has America come to? Are we even the same species that discovered and created this great country 200+ years ago?

That's a rhetorical question.
I understand what you're saying, but all these little happy things you get to enjoy without fearing your government are starting to disintegrate. For example, from your quote, if you were to go to public and speak out against the government, and if you got a few more friends to come along, or if you publish work critiquing the administration, there's a good change you'll be put on the No Fly List, and so you won't be able to fly where ever you want. People are being flagged as possible terrorists and being denied flight, merely because they opposed the government.

Take the case of Walter F. Murphy, denied flight because he was in the terrorist watch list, despite being a retired Marine Colonel, and a Princeton Professor Emeritus. Why? Because of his opposition and critiques of the Bush administration. So now he's a domestic terrorist. Don't you see the problem here? Doesn't this bother you?

[^^edited for incorrect information^^]

Quote:
Sunday, April 08, 2007

Another Enemy of the People?

Mark Graber

Link

I am posting the below with the permission of Professor Walter F. Murphy, emeritus of Princeton University. For those who do not know, Professor Murphy is easily the most distinguished scholar of public law in political science. His works on both constitutional theory and judicial behavior are classics in the field. Bluntly, legal scholarship that does not engage many themes in his book, briefly noted below, Constitutional Democracy, may be legal, but cannot be said to be scholarship. As interesting, for present purposes, readers of the book will discover that Murphy is hardly a conventional political or legal liberal. While he holds some opinions, most notably on welfare, similar to opinions held on the political left, he is a sharp critic of ROE V. WADE, and supported the Alito nomination. Apparently these credentials and others noted below are no longer sufficient to prevent one from becoming an enemy of the people.

"On 1 March 07, I was scheduled to fly on American Airlines to Newark, NJ, to attend an academic conference at Princeton University, designed to focus on my latest scholarly book, Constitutional Democracy, published by Johns Hopkins University Press this past Thanksgiving."

"When I tried to use the curb-side check in at the Sunport, I was denied a boarding pass because I was on the Terrorist Watch list. I was instructed to go inside and talk to a clerk. At this point, I should note that I am not only the McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence (emeritus) but also a retired Marine colonel. I fought in the Korean War as a young lieutenant, was wounded, and decorated for heroism. I remained a professional soldier for more than five years and then accepted a commission as a reserve office, serving for an additional 19 years."

"I presented my credentials from the Marine Corps to a very polite clerk for American Airlines. One of the two people to whom I talked asked a question and offered a frightening comment: "Have you been in any peace marches? We ban a lot of people from flying because of that." I explained that I had not so marched but had, in September, 2006, given a lecture at Princeton, televised and put on the Web, highly critical of George Bush for his many violations of the Constitution. "That'll do it," the man said. "

"After carefully examining my credentials, the clerk asked if he could take them to TSA officials. I agreed. He returned about ten minutes later and said I could have a boarding pass, but added: "I must warn you, they=re going to ransack your luggage." On my return flight, I had no problem with obtaining a boarding pass, but my luggage was "lost." Airlines do lose a lot of luggage and this "loss" could have been a mere coincidence. In light of previous events, however, I'm a tad skeptical."

"I confess to having been furious that any American citizen would be singled out for governmental harassment because he or she criticized any elected official, Democrat or Republican. That harassment is, in and of itself, a flagrant violation not only of the First Amendment but also of our entire scheme of constitutional government. This effort to punish a critic states my lecture's argument far more eloquently and forcefully than I ever could. Further, that an administration headed by two men who had "had other priorities" than to risk their own lives when their turn to fight for their country came up, should brand as a threat to the United States a person who did not run away but stood up and fought for his country and was wounded in battle, goes beyond the outrageous. Although less lethal, it is of the same evil ilk as punishing Ambassador Joseph Wilson for criticizing Bush's false claims by "outing" his wife, Valerie Plaime, thereby putting at risk her life as well as the lives of many people with whom she had had contact as an agent of the CIA. ..."

"I have a personal stake here, but so do all Americans who take their political system seriously. Thus I hope you and your colleagues will take some positive action to bring the Administration's conduct to the attention of a far larger, and more influential, audience than I could hope to reach. "
I won't even get into the illegal detention of immigrants AND American citizens.

All these things happening around you may not concern you and your friends, because you haven't been affected by them; but others needlessly have, attacked because of their political opposition to the administration, a right given to us by the Constitution. But who cares, right? Shame on us for being critical of our wonderful administration, after all they've done for us (never mind the fact that none of these things you and your friends enjoy was provided to you by Bush & Co.). After all, they're the ones who are giving you safety; all you have to do is give up a little freedom. Just a little, they promise. It hasn't affected you and your friends, so, obviously, there isn't a problem.

Yet.

dc_dux 05-22-2007 07:54 PM
archetypal....I agree that the excesses such as you describe should not be tolerated, but that does not suggest we should live in fear of the government.

The fact that the new Congress has targeted such practices for oversight and remedial action demonstrates how the government can respond to the concerns of the people in light of such abuses of power by a President and how our system of checks and balances can work to prevent such abuse in the future.

It was Jefferson who said: When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

archetypal fool 05-22-2007 08:03 PM
I wasn't trying to reinforce the notion that we should fear our government because it's doing things which are radical. I was responding to powerclown's apparent disregard for the issue and what's happening. I wasn't trying to convince him to be scared; rather, I was trying to point out why he shouldn't "feel embarrased and ridiculous to whine about the government to the extent we do here," when there's plenty to be mad about.

powerclown 05-22-2007 08:40 PM
Ok archetypal fool, I get the point, and it is a valid one I do agree. BUT, I am reserving final judgement on the state of America until after Bush is long gone, and we are well into the next 1 or 2 administrations. Whether Bush overreacted to 9/11, or was the catalyst to the creation of a wiser America (how would that be for irony...) remains to be seen. I believe that the heightened state of vigilance on the part of this administration was justified and understandable. There has been an equal and opposite reaction from the American political left which I guess was, overall, a healthy and positive thing for this country long term (as obnoxious as it gets now)...I think this period of time will be a tremendous learning experience for the next American generation. In the meantime though, all this goddamn screeching about fascism, police state, nazism, etc etc etc, gets annoying, you know?

archetypal fool 05-22-2007 08:44 PM
Fine, I may have overreacted. I'll tone it down a bit. :)

Willravel 05-22-2007 08:53 PM
PC, it wasn't a matter of overreacting to 9/11. I can forgive that to a degree. Elements of the administration used 9/11 as an excuse to pursue a non-9/11 related foreign policy/agenda that ultimately is leading us towards another 9/11 type of attack instead away from one (considering that global terrorism is up as a direct result of the invasion of Iraq). And I can't help but wonder if Bush might welcome an attack. After 9/11, Bush's dropping approval rating and popularity suddenly soared above the clouds. He was given free reigns of the country and allowed to do whatever in the name of security. It's a horrible, circular possibility of events (read: strategy).

powerclown 05-22-2007 09:00 PM
I know, I know..."tone it down" is akin to dying 10,000 deaths a coward to the more outspoken of the left. Only in America.

Willravel 05-22-2007 09:04 PM
I was responding to this:
Quote:
Originally Posted by powerclown
Whether Bush overreacted to 9/11, or was the catalyst to the creation of a wiser America (how would that be for irony...) remains to be seen.
...not the 'tone it down' thing. I think the results of Bush's reaction to 9/11 are clear right now, that's all.

powerclown 05-22-2007 09:07 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by willravel
He was given free reigns of the country and allowed to do whatever in the name of security.
In America, nothing is irreversible. We're talking about a place where Arnold Schwarzenegger can become governor of California.

Willravel 05-22-2007 09:25 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by powerclown
In America, nothing is irreversible.
Case in point: Twenty Second Amendment

Walking Shadow 05-25-2007 07:41 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by pig
how long would he need to be a 'dictator' to make some serious moves? thinking about this...but i'm just wondering if its possible for the administration to effectively run on this policy for a short period of time following a military interaction or domestic disaster without the media, congress, or public to be aware that its happened, and then to cancel it before they can react. call it a necessary short term measure, have a white girl get kidnapped at disney world..voila! never happened.
Bwahuh??!!

What does a white girl being kidnapped at Disney World have to do with the rest of your incoherent post, let alone with Shrub declaring martial law over the entire country?

But to tease out the only part of your post that I can even vaguely comprehend, no it isn't possible in this day and age of 24 hour news networks for Shrub and his cronies to establish a short term dictatorship without ANY media personnel noticing and not reporting it.

Wouldn't happen.

Even FAUXNews would report it, even if they were just gloating about it.

Anyway, there is no such thing as a limited or short term dictatorship, the very idea of a dictatorship is that it lasts a long, long, long time.

pan6467 05-25-2007 10:22 AM
Here is the full "law" signed by ...... well.... what ever you want to call him, I personally after this refuse to call him my President.



Quote:
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
May 9, 2007

National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive



White House News


NATIONAL SECURITY PRESIDENTIAL DIRECTIVE/NSPD 51

HOMELAND SECURITY PRESIDENTIAL DIRECTIVE/HSPD-20

Subject: National Continuity Policy

Purpose

(1) This directive establishes a comprehensive national policy on the continuity of Federal Government structures and operations and a single National Continuity Coordinator responsible for coordinating the development and implementation of Federal continuity policies. This policy establishes "National Essential Functions," prescribes continuity requirements for all executive departments and agencies, and provides guidance for State, local, territorial, and tribal governments, and private sector organizations in order to ensure a comprehensive and integrated national continuity program that will enhance the credibility of our national security posture and enable a more rapid and effective response to and recovery from a national emergency.

Definitions

(2) In this directive:

(a) "Category" refers to the categories of executive departments and agencies listed in Annex A to this directive;

(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;

(c) "Continuity of Government," or "COG," means a coordinated effort within the Federal Government's executive branch to ensure that National Essential Functions continue to be performed during a Catastrophic Emergency;

(d) "Continuity of Operations," or "COOP," means an effort within individual executive departments and agencies to ensure that Primary Mission-Essential Functions continue to be performed during a wide range of emergencies, including localized acts of nature, accidents, and technological or attack-related emergencies;

(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;

(f) "Executive Departments and Agencies" means the executive departments enumerated in 5 U.S.C. 101, independent establishments as defined by 5 U.S.C. 104(1), Government corporations as defined by 5 U.S.C. 103(1), and the United States Postal Service;

(g) "Government Functions" means the collective functions of the heads of executive departments and agencies as defined by statute, regulation, presidential direction, or other legal authority, and the functions of the legislative and judicial branches;

(h) "National Essential Functions," or "NEFs," means that subset of Government Functions that are necessary to lead and sustain the Nation during a catastrophic emergency and that, therefore, must be supported through COOP and COG capabilities; and

(i) "Primary Mission Essential Functions," or "PMEFs," means those Government Functions that must be performed in order to support or implement the performance of NEFs before, during, and in the aftermath of an emergency.

Policy

(3) It is the policy of the United States to maintain a comprehensive and effective continuity capability composed of Continuity of Operations and Continuity of Government programs in order to ensure the preservation of our form of government under the Constitution and the continuing performance of National Essential Functions under all conditions.

Implementation Actions

(4) Continuity requirements shall be incorporated into daily operations of all executive departments and agencies. 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. Emphasis will be placed upon geographic dispersion of leadership, staff, and infrastructure in order to increase survivability and maintain uninterrupted Government Functions. Risk management principles shall be applied to ensure that appropriate operational readiness decisions are based on the probability of an attack or other incident and its consequences.

(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;

(b) Providing leadership visible to the Nation and the world and maintaining the trust and confidence of the American people;

(c) Defending the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and preventing or interdicting attacks against the United States or its people, property, or interests;

(d) Maintaining and fostering effective relationships with foreign nations;

(e) Protecting against threats to the homeland and bringing to justice perpetrators of crimes or attacks against the United States or its people, property, or interests;

(f) Providing rapid and effective response to and recovery from the domestic consequences of an attack or other incident;

(g) Protecting and stabilizing the Nation's economy and ensuring public confidence in its financial systems; and

(h) Providing for critical Federal Government services that address the national health, safety, and welfare needs of the United States.

(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.

(9) Recognizing that each branch of the Federal Government is responsible for its own continuity programs, an official designated by the Chief of Staff to the President shall ensure that the executive branch's COOP and COG policies in support of ECG efforts are appropriately coordinated with those of the legislative and judicial branches in order to ensure interoperability and allocate national assets efficiently to maintain a functioning Federal Government.

(10) Federal Government COOP, COG, and ECG plans and operations shall be appropriately integrated with the emergency plans and capabilities of State, local, territorial, and tribal governments, and private sector owners and operators of critical infrastructure, as appropriate, in order to promote interoperability and to prevent redundancies and conflicting lines of authority. The Secretary of Homeland Security shall coordinate the integration of Federal continuity plans and operations with State, local, territorial, and tribal governments, and private sector owners and operators of critical infrastructure, as appropriate, in order to provide for the delivery of essential services during an emergency.

(11) Continuity requirements for the Executive Office of the President (EOP) and executive departments and agencies shall include the following:

(a) The continuation of the performance of PMEFs during any emergency must be for a period up to 30 days or until normal operations can be resumed, and the capability to be fully operational at alternate sites as soon as possible after the occurrence of an emergency, but not later than 12 hours after COOP activation;

(b) Succession orders and pre-planned devolution of authorities that ensure the emergency delegation of authority must be planned and documented in advance in accordance with applicable law;

(c) Vital resources, facilities, and records must be safeguarded, and official access to them must be provided;

(d) Provision must be made for the acquisition of the resources necessary for continuity operations on an emergency basis;

(e) Provision must be made for the availability and redundancy of critical communications capabilities at alternate sites in order to support connectivity between and among key government leadership, internal elements, other executive departments and agencies, critical partners, and the public;

(f) Provision must be made for reconstitution capabilities that allow for recovery from a catastrophic emergency and resumption of normal operations; and

(g) Provision must be made for the identification, training, and preparedness of personnel capable of relocating to alternate facilities to support the continuation of the performance of PMEFs.

(12) In order to provide a coordinated response to escalating threat levels or actual emergencies, the Continuity of Government Readiness Conditions (COGCON) system establishes executive branch continuity program readiness levels, focusing on possible threats to the National Capital Region. The President will determine and issue the COGCON Level. Executive departments and agencies shall comply with the requirements and assigned responsibilities under the COGCON program. During COOP activation, executive departments and agencies shall report their readiness status to the Secretary of Homeland Security or the Secretary's designee.

(13) The Director of the Office of Management and Budget shall:

(a) Conduct an annual assessment of executive department and agency continuity funding requests and performance data that are submitted by executive departments and agencies as part of the annual budget request process, in order to monitor progress in the implementation of the Plan and the execution of continuity budgets;

(b) In coordination with the National Continuity Coordinator, issue annual continuity planning guidance for the development of continuity budget requests; and

(c) Ensure that heads of executive departments and agencies prioritize budget resources for continuity capabilities, consistent with this directive.

(14) The Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy shall:

(a) Define and issue minimum requirements for continuity communications for executive departments and agencies, in consultation with the APHS/CT, the APNSA, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, and the Chief of Staff to the President;

(b) Establish requirements for, and monitor the development, implementation, and maintenance of, a comprehensive communications architecture to integrate continuity components, in consultation with the APHS/CT, the APNSA, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, and the Chief of Staff to the President; and

(c) Review quarterly and annual assessments of continuity communications capabilities, as prepared pursuant to section 16(d) of this directive or otherwise, and report the results and recommended remedial actions to the National Continuity Coordinator.

(15) An official designated by the Chief of Staff to the President shall:

(a) Advise the President, the Chief of Staff to the President, the APHS/CT, and the APNSA on COGCON operational execution options; and

(b) Consult with the Secretary of Homeland Security in order to ensure synchronization and integration of continuity activities among the four categories of executive departments and agencies.

(16) The Secretary of Homeland Security shall:

(a) Coordinate the implementation, execution, and assessment of continuity operations and activities;

(b) Develop and promulgate Federal Continuity Directives in order to establish continuity planning requirements for executive departments and agencies;

(c) Conduct biennial assessments of individual department and agency continuity capabilities as prescribed by the Plan and report the results to the President through the APHS/CT;

(d) Conduct quarterly and annual assessments of continuity communications capabilities in consultation with an official designated by the Chief of Staff to the President;

(e) Develop, lead, and conduct a Federal continuity training and exercise program, which shall be incorporated into the National Exercise Program developed pursuant to Homeland Security Presidential Directive-8 of December 17, 2003 ("National Preparedness"), in consultation with an official designated by the Chief of Staff to the President;

(f) Develop and promulgate continuity planning guidance to State, local, territorial, and tribal governments, and private sector critical infrastructure owners and operators;

(g) Make available continuity planning and exercise funding, in the form of grants as provided by law, to State, local, territorial, and tribal governments, and private sector critical infrastructure owners and operators; and

(h) As Executive Agent of the National Communications System, develop, implement, and maintain a comprehensive continuity communications architecture.

(17) The Director of National Intelligence, in coordination with the Attorney General and the Secretary of Homeland Security, shall produce a biennial assessment of the foreign and domestic threats to the Nation's continuity of government.

(18) The Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the Secretary of Homeland Security, shall provide secure, integrated, Continuity of Government communications to the President, the Vice President, and, at a minimum, Category I executive departments and agencies.

(19) Heads of executive departments and agencies shall execute their respective department or agency COOP plans in response to a localized emergency and shall:

(a) Appoint a senior accountable official, at the Assistant Secretary level, as the Continuity Coordinator for the department or agency;

(b) Identify and submit to the National Continuity Coordinator the list of PMEFs for the department or agency and develop continuity plans in support of the NEFs and the continuation of essential functions under all conditions;

(c) Plan, program, and budget for continuity capabilities consistent with this directive;

(d) Plan, conduct, and support annual tests and training, in consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security, in order to evaluate program readiness and ensure adequacy and viability of continuity plans and communications systems; and

(e) Support other continuity requirements, as assigned by category, in accordance with the nature and characteristics of its national security roles and responsibilities

General Provisions

(20) This directive shall be implemented in a manner that is consistent with, and facilitates effective implementation of, provisions of the Constitution concerning succession to the Presidency or the exercise of its powers, and the Presidential Succession Act of 1947 (3 U.S.C. 19), with consultation of the Vice President and, as appropriate, others involved. Heads of executive departments and agencies shall ensure that appropriate support is available to the Vice President and others involved as necessary to be prepared at all times to implement those provisions.

(21) This directive:

(a) Shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and the authorities of agencies, or heads of agencies, vested by law, and subject to the availability of appropriations;

(b) Shall not be construed to impair or otherwise affect (i) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budget, administrative, and legislative proposals, or (ii) the authority of the Secretary of Defense over the Department of Defense, including the chain of command for military forces from the President, to the Secretary of Defense, to the commander of military forces, or military command and control procedures; and

(c) Is not intended to, and does not, create any rights or benefits, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by a party against the United States, its agencies, instrumentalities, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

(22) Revocation. Presidential Decision Directive 67 of October 21, 1998 ("Enduring Constitutional Government and Continuity of Government Operations"), including all Annexes thereto, is hereby revoked.

(23) Annex A and the classified Continuity Annexes, attached hereto, are hereby incorporated into and made a part of this directive.

(24) Security. This directive and the information contained herein shall be protected from unauthorized disclosure, provided that, except for Annex A, the Annexes attached to this directive are classified and shall be accorded appropriate handling, consistent with applicable Executive Orders.

GEORGE W. BUSH

# # #


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Return to this article at:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...070509-12.html

host 05-25-2007 07:54 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by pan6467
Here is the full "law" signed by ...... well.... what ever you want to call him, I personally after this refuse to call him my President.
Quote:
http://lastwordblog.blogspot.com/200...ower-grab.html
So let me get this straight... el presidente can now have a little tissy fit freak out and take over all power levels of government under his sole discretion? Let's see what Webster has to say:

1 a : a person granted absolute emergency power; especially : one appointed by the senate of ancient Rome b : one holding complete autocratic control c : one ruling absolutely and often oppressively

See: Hitler, Mussolini, Caesar, Stalin, Tse-Tung, Kai-shek, Lenin, Pol Pot, Hideki, Khan, Tito, Ceausescu....
...anyone disagree that that this is now a possibility....unless this "presidential directive" is successfully challenged?

Sen. Leahy is.....at least...... trying to roll back <a href="http://kutv.com/topstories/local_story_145124155.html">"birdshit cuff's"</a> new "authority", described in this thread's post #2:
Quote:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:s.00513:

S.513
Title: A bill to amend title 10, United States Code, to revive previous authority on the use of the Armed Forces and the militia to address interference with State or Federal law, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Sen Leahy, Patrick J. [VT] (introduced 2/7/2007) Cosponsors (10)
Related Bills: H.R.869
Latest Major Action: 4/24/2007 Senate committee/subcommittee actions. Status: Committee on the Judiciary. Hearings held.
Vietnam, Watergate, and the 9/11 attacks are beginning to seem trivial, compared to this lonnnnnggggggg thug infestation, in the executive branch, and in the congressional minority.......

Telluride 05-25-2007 08:01 PM
America has been on the slow-but-sure path to socialist dictatorship for quite some time. Might as well make it official, assuming this is actually true.

Baraka_Guru 05-25-2007 08:04 PM
After contemplating this for a while, it seems to me that America isn't ready for the new millennium. Is this progressing into a new kind of isolationism? Is globalization to America what the barbarians were to Rome?

Nationalism is dead. America is looking a little old-fashioned these days. It's amazing what is up for debate there... many of which would be scandalous in places like Canada.

Telluride 05-26-2007 11:17 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru
After contemplating this for a while, it seems to me that America isn't ready for the new millennium. Is this progressing into a new kind of isolationism? Is globalization to America what the barbarians were to Rome?

Nationalism is dead. America is looking a little old-fashioned these days. It's amazing what is up for debate there... many of which would be scandalous in places like Canada.
I don't think that nationalism is dead, nor would I consider America to be nationalist. Although I do think that ethnic/racial politics are becoming more common than nationalism.

Anyway; I think non-interventionism is the right way to go (and isn't the same thing as isolationism or nationalism). Thomas Jefferson had the right idea when he said, "Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations – entangling alliances with none." Our role as the world's policeman hasn't done much for Americans except cost us lives and money.

Baraka_Guru 05-26-2007 01:42 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Telluride
I don't think that nationalism is dead, nor would I consider America to be nationalist. Although I do think that ethnic/racial politics are becoming more common than nationalism.
The fact that there is such a term as "Un-American" and that it is well known, even outside of America, suggests to me that America has at least a nationalist leaning. This could, of course, be an understatement.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Telluride
Anyway; I think non-interventionism is the right way to go (and isn't the same thing as isolationism or nationalism). Thomas Jefferson had the right idea when he said, "Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations – entangling alliances with none." Our role as the world's policeman hasn't done much for Americans except cost us lives and money.
This would be the wrong way to go, considering the United States has been mucking up existing alliances already. They've also been pushing the definitions of "intervention" and "self-defense" into political and philosophical grey areas for years. Would an example of your "non-interventionism" include a "go it alone" strategy into Iran?

Telluride 05-26-2007 03:41 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru
The fact that there is such a term as "Un-American" and that it is well known, even outside of America, suggests to me that America has at least a nationalist leaning. This could, of course, be an understatement.
And it could, of course, be an overstatement. One could refer to something as "un-Christian" without being a Bible-thumping theocrat. I've done it, and I'm not even a Christian much less an evangelical, extremist Christian.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru
This would be the wrong way to go, considering the United States has been mucking up existing alliances already.
I'd say it's more like "friendships", for lack of a better term, than alliances. And we probably wouldn't be screwing up so many of these "friendships" if we minded our own business more often.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru
They've also been pushing the definitions of "intervention" and "self-defense" into political and philosophical grey areas for years.
I agree that such a policy would have to be based on rational, objective definitions of terms like "intervention" and "self defense". But I think this can be done.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru
Would an example of your "non-interventionism" include a "go it alone" strategy into Iran?
I'm not convinced that it's necessary to invade or otherwise attack Iran at this point. But if it became necessary from the standpoint of self defense, I'd "go it alone" if we had to. If our choices were to fight alone or do nothing while being attacked, it would be foolish to do nothing.

Baraka_Guru 05-26-2007 05:02 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Telluride
And it could, of course, be an overstatement. One could refer to something as "un-Christian" without being a Bible-thumping theocrat. I've done it, and I'm not even a Christian much less an evangelical, extremist Christian.
I don't think I've actually heard the term "un-Christian" before. "Un-American," on the other hand, seems to have entered common parlance in the American media. And sure enough, Google searches will turn up hundreds of thousands more hits of the latter term than they will the former. Moreover, I can't think of another country off the top of my head where they have a similar use of such a term. (i.e. "un-Canadian," "un-British," "un-French" (non-Francaise?), "un-Iraqi," you get the point.)

While I agree that it could be an overstatement, I doubt it's the case. I would be a bit surprised to find someone I know who would disagree with me if I told them that I think America is a nationalist country.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Telluride
I'm not convinced that it's necessary to invade or otherwise attack Iran at this point. But if it became necessary from the standpoint of self defense, I'd "go it alone" if we had to. If our choices were to fight alone or do nothing while being attacked, it would be foolish to do nothing.
Just like how Iraq was going to attack?

Of course it's only natural to fight while being attacked, but this pre-emptive, with-you-or-without-you, with-us-or-against-us mode of handling things smacks of nationalism.

Telluride 05-27-2007 09:15 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru
I don't think I've actually heard the term "un-Christian" before.
I don't know how long that term has been around or who invented it, but searching for "unchristian" on Google gave me about 346,000 hits.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru
"Un-American," on the other hand, seems to have entered common parlance in the American media. And sure enough, Google searches will turn up hundreds of thousands more hits of the latter term than they will the former. Moreover, I can't think of another country off the top of my head where they have a similar use of such a term. (i.e. "un-Canadian," "un-British," "un-French" (non-Francaise?), "un-Iraqi," you get the point.)
When someone is accused of being "un-American" it's usually because the accuser believes the accused is acting against American interests or values. I'm pretty sure that such a concept exists in some other countries, even if it doesn't go by the name of "un-[insert name of country here]".

Quote:
Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru
While I agree that it could be an overstatement, I doubt it's the case. I would be a bit surprised to find someone I know who would disagree with me if I told them that I think America is a nationalist country.
If true, that could say as much (or more) about the political views of the people you know as it does about the current political climate in America.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru
Just like how Iraq was going to attack?
No. More like how Japan did attack on December 7th, 1941.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru
Of course it's only natural to fight while being attacked, but this pre-emptive, with-you-or-without-you, with-us-or-against-us mode of handling things smacks of nationalism.
It's more like unilateralism, which isn't necessarily a bad thing and isn't synonymous with nationalism. If somebody is attacking a nation or making credible threats to attack, it's silly to expect that nation to wait until others give the thumbs up before it defends itself.

Baraka_Guru 05-27-2007 02:38 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Telluride
I don't know how long that term has been around or who invented it, but searching for "unchristian" on Google gave me about 346,000 hits.
Yes, but "un-American" is much more prevalent. "Un-Christian" is, perhaps, related to "un-American" in that it seems to make the assumption that the object of it is at fault if they do not act within the boundaries of the characteristics of the identity concerned. For example, to call one "un-Christian" assumes that things would be made right if this person would only act Christian. The same goes for one who is being "un-American." Again, this smacks of nationalism, and, in the case of "un-Christian," zealotry.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Telluride
When someone is accused of being "un-American" it's usually because the accuser believes the accused is acting against American interests or values. I'm pretty sure that such a concept exists in some other countries, even if it doesn't go by the name of "un-[insert name of country here]".
I'm sure it does. But in many cases, there isn't a direct comparison. For example, it would be nearly impossible for anyone to get away with calling a Canadian "un-Canadian." There are several reasons for this: first, there are more than one "Canadas." Second, it is fair game to express your ideas whether they be from the left or the right, from national to international interests. At worst, one might be accused of "not thinking in the best interests of Canadians." This is a far cry from being labelled "un-Canadian" because in Canada, we respect the concept of the idea, even if the ideas are bad. This is the process by which we determine what is a good idea and what is bad. It's not only called a discussion, or a debate, it's also considered a healthy environment by which they can be exercised.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Telluride
If true, that could say as much (or more) about the political views of the people you know as it does about the current political climate in America.
Yes, what it tells me is that I know some observant people, open to understanding what is happening and willing to discuss it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Telluride
No. More like how Japan did attack on December 7th, 1941.
This would be an acceptable answer except that such a scenario is unlikely. The way wars are waged changed permanently after August 6, 1945.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Telluride
It's more like unilateralism, which isn't necessarily a bad thing and isn't synonymous with nationalism. If somebody is attacking a nation or making credible threats to attack, it's silly to expect that nation to wait until others give the thumbs up before it defends itself.
This is an oversimplification. For starters, unilateralism and nationalism easily go hand in hand, just as fascism and collectivism do. Neither of these pairs are considered synonymous, but they do work well together. They are enabling, as it were. I call your argument an oversimplification because it assumes a traditional view of being attacked. For example, there would be no need for unilateralism if Russian soldiers marched an invasion into Finland. I'm certain Finland wouldn't have to go it alone.

Also, you use an all-too-quaint word: credible. You will need to expand on this before we can continue.

Telluride 05-30-2007 05:34 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru
Yes, but "un-American" is much more prevalent. "Un-Christian" is, perhaps, related to "un-American" in that it seems to make the assumption that the object of it is at fault if they do not act within the boundaries of the characteristics of the identity concerned. For example, to call one "un-Christian" assumes that things would be made right if this person would only act Christian. The same goes for one who is being "un-American." Again, this smacks of nationalism, and, in the case of "un-Christian," zealotry.
It can be a sign of nationalism to call someone un-American, but it isn't necessarily so.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru
I'm sure it does. But in many cases, there isn't a direct comparison.
If the concept exists, then it seems that there's a direct comparison.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru
Second, it is fair game to express your ideas whether they be from the left or the right, from national to international interests.
It's fair game to express your ideas in America, too. Sometimes it results in being called names, though (un-American, racist, socialist, xenophobe, homophobe, anti-semite, Zionist, selfish, etc.). I have a hard time believing that this never, ever happens in Canada.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru
At worst, one might be accused of "not thinking in the best interests of Canadians." This is a far cry from being labelled "un-Canadian" because in Canada, we respect the concept of the idea, even if the ideas are bad.
I don't see much difference between calling someone "un-Canadian" because their views allegedly aren't in the best interests of Canadians and simply saying their views aren't in the best interests of Canadians. If they mean the same thing, then it's nothing but semantics.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru
Yes, what it tells me is that I know some observant people, open to understanding what is happening and willing to discuss it.
That's one possibility.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru
This would be an acceptable answer except that such a scenario is unlikely. The way wars are waged changed permanently after August 6, 1945.
No country ever attacks another?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru
This is an oversimplification. For starters, unilateralism and nationalism easily go hand in hand, just as fascism and collectivism do. Neither of these pairs are considered synonymous, but they do work well together. They are enabling, as it were.
Just because things supposedly "work well together" doesn't mean that one will necessarily lead to the other. Taking a unilateral approach to a specific problem, in and of itself, doesn't automatically result in nationalism any more than public education, in and of itself, automatically results in fascism.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru
I call your argument an oversimplification because it assumes a traditional view of being attacked. For example, there would be no need for unilateralism if Russian soldiers marched an invasion into Finland. I'm certain Finland wouldn't have to go it alone.
If the Russians marched into Finland, the Finns would be acting UNILATERALLY if they immediately began defending themselves without first asking for approval from the global community. That doesn't mean that other nations wouldn't offer to help, but a decision by Finland to immediatly mobilize its troops and defend itself would be a unilateral one.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru
Also, you use an all-too-quaint word: credible. You will need to expand on this before we can continue.
A credible threat is one from an entity that is able and, as far as we know, willing to commit an attack.

Baraka_Guru 05-31-2007 04:32 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Telluride
It can be a sign of nationalism to call someone un-American, but it isn't necessarily so. [...] If the concept exists, then it seems that there's a direct comparison. [...] It's fair game to express your ideas in America, too. Sometimes it results in being called names, though (un-American, racist, socialist, xenophobe, homophobe, anti-semite, Zionist, selfish, etc.). I have a hard time believing that this never, ever happens in Canada. [...] I don't see much difference between calling someone "un-Canadian" because their views allegedly aren't in the best interests of Canadians and simply saying their views aren't in the best interests of Canadians. If they mean the same thing, then it's nothing but semantics.
Calling someone un-American is inherently nationalistic. What else could it be? Assuming that you may only call one who is an American un-American, such an act uses the very idea of nation as its basis of attack. It suggests that you aren't of and/or for the nation. What else can it mean?

And in reference to the expression of ideas, I was referring to it being done in the media or in the political arena. So if you consider those, then racist, xenophobic, and homophobic ideas aren't tolerated very well, especially in Canada. And there is a difference between calling a Canadian un-Canadian and accusing the same Canadian of not acting in the best interests of Canadians. The latter argues that there is a need for a change of perspective or action, and the former fallaciously claims that you aren't a member of the nation. And I would refrain from bringing up semantics unless you know something about it. (Your idea that something can be "nothing but semantics" sounds unintentionally ironic.)


Quote:
Originally Posted by Telluride
No country ever attacks another?
I didn't write that countries didn't attack one another, I wrote that the way wars are waged has changed. An attack on America wouldn't likely come in the form of F-16 air superiority. The example you used of Japan's conventional attack is too dated.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Telluride
Just because things supposedly "work well together" doesn't mean that one will necessarily lead to the other. Taking a unilateral approach to a specific problem, in and of itself, doesn't automatically result in nationalism any more than public education, in and of itself, automatically results in fascism.
No, it doesn't automatically result in nationalism, but political unilateral approaches often disregard the opinion of others--as in those outside of the nation. In these cases, it is based on nationalism. By enabling, I mean that a strongly nationalistic society will find a mode such as unilateralism appealing, if not essential to carrying out their aims. You used a poor comparison here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Telluride
If the Russians marched into Finland, the Finns would be acting UNILATERALLY if they immediately began defending themselves without first asking for approval from the global community. That doesn't mean that other nations wouldn't offer to help, but a decision by Finland to immediately mobilize its troops and defend itself would be a unilateral one.
Actually, no, they would be acting multilaterally because Finland's allies would be of the opinion that it would need to defend itself from the Russian threat. A marching army doesn't come out of nowhere; there would be enough advance notice that the global community would be aware of a Russian mobilization. Finland's allies would offer all reasonable support in the matter. That's how conventional warfare works, but warfare isn't so conventional anymore. This is why such a traditional view of being attacked is an oversimplification of the issue at hand. Consider the concept of pre-emptive invasions. Unilateralism is justified as a way to carry out such an invasion in response to a perceived threat in the form of a deadly (and possibly unconventional) attack. Even when no standing armies are mobilizing, the pre-emptive strike is considered. It is a complex issue, especially if you consider Afghanistan and Iraq.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Telluride
A credible threat is one from an entity that is able and, as far as we know, willing to commit an attack.
You've further revealed its quaintness. Do you realize how many entities fit this criteria in some capacity?

Telluride 06-01-2007 08:03 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru
Calling someone un-American is inherently nationalistic. What else could it be? Assuming that you may only call one who is an American un-American, such an act uses the very idea of nation as its basis of attack. It suggests that you aren't of and/or for the nation. What else can it mean?
I guess here is where we differ. I don't think you have to be an American to support something that might be labelled "un-American" any more than you have to be American to promote something considered "pro-American". And the same goes for other countries. I'm not Canadian, for example, but I can think of some political policies that I would consider harmful to Canada's national interests - or "un-Canadian" if you will - regardless of who is championing them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru
And in reference to the expression of ideas, I was referring to it being done in the media or in the political arena. So if you consider those, then racist, xenophobic, and homophobic ideas aren't tolerated very well, especially in Canada.
Then I guess it wasn't very accurate when you said, "...because in Canada, we respect the concept of the idea, even if the ideas are bad. This is the process by which we determine what is a good idea and what is bad. It's not only called a discussion, or a debate, it's also considered a healthy environment by which they can be exercised."

Quote:
Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru
And there is a difference between calling a Canadian un-Canadian and accusing the same Canadian of not acting in the best interests of Canadians. The latter argues that there is a need for a change of perspective or action, and the former fallaciously claims that you aren't a member of the nation.
Wrong. Calling someone "un-Canadian" doesn't mean they aren't a member of the nation. That would be "non-Canadian".

Now that that's cleared up, please explain why accusing someone of opposing the interests of his or her nation is okay (or less bad, at least), but referring to someone with a term used to describe one who opposes the interests of his or her nation is bad.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru
I didn't write that countries didn't attack one another, I wrote that the way wars are waged has changed. An attack on America wouldn't likely come in the form of F-16 air superiority. The example you used of Japan's conventional attack is too dated.
An attack on America probably wouldn't come in the form of fighter jet superiority or an actual invading army...for now. Who knows what things will be like in the future? And I think that an attack in any form can result in the potential for unilateralism.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru
No, it doesn't automatically result in nationalism, but political unilateral approaches often disregard the opinion of others--as in those outside of the nation. In these cases, it is based on nationalism. By enabling, I mean that a strongly nationalistic society will find a mode such as unilateralism appealing, if not essential to carrying out their aims. You used a poor comparison here.
Disregarding the opinions of other nations isn't necessarily wrong. I don't think America should thumb its nose at other nations just for the sake of doing it, but we shouldn't refuse to "go it alone" if it becomes necessary to do so. I think this is a sign of sovereignty, not nationalism.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru
Actually, no, they would be acting multilaterally because Finland's allies would be of the opinion that it would need to defend itself from the Russian threat. A marching army doesn't come out of nowhere; there would be enough advance notice that the global community would be aware of a Russian mobilization. Finland's allies would offer all reasonable support in the matter.
If Finland was the first to learn of the invasion (maybe even finding out ahead of time by using spies), they would certainly begin preparing to defend itself rather than waiting for the thumbs-up from other nations. That doesn't mean that the situation wouldn't become multilateral - perhaps very quickly - but the potential for unilateral action would be present. And there's nothing wrong with that, in my opinion.

And, if it helps, think of the attack by Russia against Finland as something other than a marching army. It could be an attack with fighter jets. It could be a nuclear submarine. Or anything that would give the Finns less time to prepare/react.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru
This is why such a traditional view of being attacked is an oversimplification of the issue at hand. Consider the concept of pre-emptive invasions. Unilateralism is justified as a way to carry out such an invasion in response to a perceived threat in the form of a deadly (and possibly unconventional) attack. Even when no standing armies are mobilizing, the pre-emptive strike is considered. It is a complex issue, especially if you consider Afghanistan and Iraq.
I'm not a huge fan of pre-emptive strikes, either. But, in fairness, I wouldn't completely rule out the possibility of using them in certain situations. And keep in mind that my position on unilateralism has never been that it's always right, but just that it's not always wrong.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru
You've further revealed its quaintness. Do you realize how many entities fit this criteria in some capacity?
How many entities fit truly fit this criteria in BOTH capacities? I can't think of too many nations that want to attack us AND are capable of posing a real threat at this point in time.

Baraka_Guru 06-01-2007 02:55 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Telluride
I guess here is where we differ. I don't think you have to be an American to support something that might be labelled "un-American" any more than you have to be American to promote something considered "pro-American". And the same goes for other countries. I'm not Canadian, for example, but I can think of some political policies that I would consider harmful to Canada's national interests - or "un-Canadian" if you will - regardless of who is championing them.
In the context of our earlier conversations, I was referring to Americans who call others un-American. Even so, as a Canadian, my calling an American un-American would be nationalistic of me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Telluride
Then I guess it wasn't very accurate when you said, "...because in Canada, we respect the concept of the idea, even if the ideas are bad. This is the process by which we determine what is a good idea and what is bad. It's not only called a discussion, or a debate, it's also considered a healthy environment by which they can be exercised."
How do you mean?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Telluride
Wrong. Calling someone "un-Canadian" doesn't mean they aren't a member of the nation. That would be "non-Canadian".

Now that that's cleared up, please explain why accusing someone of opposing the interests of his or her nation is okay (or less bad, at least), but referring to someone with a term used to describe one who opposes the interests of his or her nation is bad.
"Un-Canadian" and "non-Canadian" mean the same thing. In either case, it means "not Canadian." So since that is cleared up, there is little need for an explanation other than that I believe there are better ways of conversing with others you disagree with. To oppose the status quo within society should not inspire someone to suggest you are not a part of that society.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Telluride
An attack on America probably wouldn't come in the form of fighter jet superiority or an actual invading army...for now. Who knows what things will be like in the future? And I think that an attack in any form can result in the potential for unilateralism.
You're missing the point. This example was meant to illustrate that your idea of "war" seemed dated (i.e. you have yet to convince me otherwise).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Telluride
Disregarding the opinions of other nations isn't necessarily wrong. I don't think America should thumb its nose at other nations just for the sake of doing it, but we shouldn't refuse to "go it alone" if it becomes necessary to do so. I think this is a sign of sovereignty, not nationalism.
Although it is a sign of sovereignty, a blatant disregard of international opinion, especially when its nearly unanimous, is a dangerous thing. When millions (or billions) disagree with you, there is often good reason--usually moral and/or political. To go it alone and think it necessary isn't necessarily nationalistic, but to do so when it is evident that the intentions are selfish or immoral is another story.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Telluride
If Finland was the first to learn of the invasion (maybe even finding out ahead of time by using spies), they would certainly begin preparing to defend itself rather than waiting for the thumbs-up from other nations. That doesn't mean that the situation wouldn't become multilateral - perhaps very quickly - but the potential for unilateral action would be present. And there's nothing wrong with that, in my opinion.

And, if it helps, think of the attack by Russia against Finland as something other than a marching army. It could be an attack with fighter jets. It could be a nuclear submarine. Or anything that would give the Finns less time to prepare/react.
In this case, Finland defending itself would not be a unilateral decision, it would be multilateral. This is because many others would expect it and even support it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Telluride
I'm not a huge fan of pre-emptive strikes, either. But, in fairness, I wouldn't completely rule out the possibility of using them in certain situations. And keep in mind that my position on unilateralism has never been that it's always right, but just that it's not always wrong.
Don't worry, I never assumed that about you. However, the problem with pre-emptive strikes is that they can easily be carried out under questionable circumstances. I wouldn't rule out the possibility of pre-emptiven strategies either, but unilateral pre-emptive strikes are dangerous in a number of ways.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Telluride
How many entities truly fit this criteria in BOTH capacities? I can't think of too many nations that want to attack us AND are capable of posing a real threat at this point in time.
This wasn't exclusively attributed to nations. Militant groups, as we know, pose as threats to varying degrees.

Telluride 06-01-2007 06:11 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru
In the context of our earlier conversations, I was referring to Americans who call others un-American. Even so, as a Canadian, my calling an American un-American would be nationalistic of me.
How would it be nationalist?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru
How do you mean?
I mean that Canada is hardly the land of respect for ideas if certain ideas aren't tolerated.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru
"Un-Canadian" and "non-Canadian" mean the same thing. In either case, it means "not Canadian." So since that is cleared up, there is little need for an explanation other than that I believe there are better ways of conversing with others you disagree with. To oppose the status quo within society should not inspire someone to suggest you are not a part of that society.
That's not quite how I meant it. I mean that there's a difference between calling someone's ideas "un-American/Canadian/etc." and saying that person isn't even a citizen of that country.

One thing I think is worth mentioning: for every person I've seen accused of being "un-American" I've seen someone on the other side of the political spectrum accused of being a "fascist". I guess it goes both ways.

Anyway; I agree that there are better ways to debate issues than with name-calling.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru
You're missing the point. This example was meant to illustrate that your idea of "war" seemed dated (i.e. you have yet to convince me otherwise).
I think you may be missing the point. Here is how that part of the conversation played out:

Me: "Anyway; I think non-interventionism is the right way to go (and isn't the same thing as isolationism or nationalism). Thomas Jefferson had the right idea when he said, "Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations – entangling alliances with none." Our role as the world's policeman hasn't done much for Americans except cost us lives and money."

You: "This would be the wrong way to go, considering the United States has been mucking up existing alliances already. They've also been pushing the definitions of "intervention" and "self-defense" into political and philosophical grey areas for years. Would an example of your "non-interventionism" include a "go it alone" strategy into Iran?"

Me: "I'm not convinced that it's necessary to invade or otherwise attack Iran at this point. But if it became necessary from the standpoint of self defense, I'd "go it alone" if we had to. If our choices were to fight alone or do nothing while being attacked, it would be foolish to do nothing."

You: "Just like how Iraq was going to attack?"

Me: "No. More like how Japan did attack on December 7th, 1941."

You used an extreme example. I responded with one of my own. I'm well aware that war often isn't as clear-cut as the attack on Pearl Harbor, nor is it always as screwed up and possibly corrupt as the war in Iraq.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru
Although it is a sign of sovereignty, a blatant disregard of international opinion, especially when its nearly unanimous, is a dangerous thing.
Agreed. Though I would point out that being "dangerous" isn't necessarily the same thing as being "wrong".

Quote:
Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru
When millions (or billions) disagree with you, there is often good reason--usually moral and/or political. To go it alone and think it necessary isn't necessarily nationalistic, but to do so when it is evident that the intentions are selfish or immoral is another story.
Agreed...with a "but". Just because something is unpopular for political reasons doesn't mean it's wrong. And it would hard to make the argument on moral grounds since not all people go by the same code of ethics.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru
In this case, Finland defending itself would not be a unilateral decision, it would be multilateral. This is because many others would expect it and even support it.
It would only be multilateral after the other nations of the world were made aware of the situation, all its details, and were able to make a decision on it. Anything Finland did before that - and I'm fairly certain they would be preparing/mobilizing/responding - would be very unilateral.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru
Don't worry, I never assumed that about you. However, the problem with pre-emptive strikes is that they can easily be carried out under questionable circumstances. I wouldn't rule out the possibility of pre-emptiven strategies either, but unilateral pre-emptive strikes are dangerous in a number of ways.
Pre-emptive strikes are risky, period. Unilateral or not. There's always the possibility that you're wrong. Having allies just means you dragged others into your mistake.

I'd also like to mention multilateral agreements to do nothing in the face of danger are also risky, as with the attempts to appease Hitler before WWII. I believe that sometimes action is necessary, even if you have to "go it alone" (as was the case with Hitler). Other times action is wrong, even if you have allies (as was the case with Iraq).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru
This wasn't exclusively attributed to nations. Militant groups, as we know, pose as threats to varying degrees.
Nor was attributed to entities that "fit this criteria in some capacity", as you stated. It applies to entities that fit both criteria, period.

mr_alleycat 06-03-2007 09:22 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Meridae'n
This shit has been around a long time. And it was Clinton who opened the "FEMA supercedes congress" barndoor.
Actually it was Nixon that started the ball rolling, and every pres since has add another brick or two.


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 07:50 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
© 2002-2012 Tilted Forum Project


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360