|
Post by dixie56 on May 23, 2007 21:19:20 GMT -5
www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55824 Bush makes power grab -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Posted: May 23, 2007 1:00 a.m. Eastern President Bush, without so much as issuing a press statement, on May 9 signed a directive that granted near dictatorial powers to the office of the president in the event of a national emergency declared by the president. The "National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive," with the dual designation of NSPD-51, as a National Security Presidential Directive, and HSPD-20, as a Homeland Security Presidential Directive, establishes under the office of president a new National Continuity Coordinator. That job, as the document describes, is to make plans for "National Essential Functions" of all federal, state, local, territorial, and tribal governments, as well as private sector organizations to continue functioning under the president's directives in the event of a national emergency. The directive loosely defines "catastrophic emergency" as "any incident, regardless of location, that results in extraordinary levels of mass casualties, damage, or disruption severely affecting the U.S. population, infrastructure, environment, economy, or government functions." When the president determines a catastrophic emergency has occurred, the president can take over all government functions and direct all private sector activities to ensure we will emerge from the emergency with an "enduring constitutional government." Translated into layman's terms, when the president determines a national emergency has occurred, the president can declare to the office of the presidency powers usually assumed by dictators to direct any and all government and business activities until the emergency is declared over. Ironically, the directive sees no contradiction in the assumption of dictatorial powers by the president with the goal of maintaining constitutional continuity through an emergency. The directive specifies that the assistant to the president for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism will be designated as the National Continuity Coordinator. Further established is a Continuity Policy Coordination Committee, chaired by a senior director from the Homeland Security Council staff, designated by the National Continuity Coordinator, to be "the main day-to-day forum for such policy coordination." Currently, the assistant to the president for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism is Frances Fragos Townsend. Townsend spent 13 years at the Justice Department before moving to the U.S. Coast Guard where she served as assistant commandant for intelligence. She is a White House staff member in the executive office of the president who also chairs the Homeland Security Council, which as a counterpart to the National Security Council reports directly to the president. The directive issued May 9 makes no attempt to reconcile the powers created there for the National Continuity Coordinator with the National Emergency Act. As specified by U.S. Code Title 50, Chapter 34, Subchapter II, Section 1621, the National Emergency Act allows that the president may declare a national emergency but requires that such proclamation "shall immediately be transmitted to the Congress and published in the Federal Register." A Congressional Research Service study notes that under the National Emergency Act, the president "may seize property, organize and control the means of production, seize commodities, assign military forces abroad, institute martial law, seize and control all transportation and communication, regulate the operation of private enterprise, restrict travel, and, in a variety of ways, control the lives of United States citizens." The CRS study notes that the National Emergency Act sets up congress as a balance empowered to "modify, rescind, or render dormant such delegated emergency authority," if Congress believes the president has acted inappropriately. NSPD-51/ HSPD-20 appears to supersede the National Emergency Act by creating the new position of National Continuity Coordinator without any specific act of Congress authorizing the position. NSPD-51/ HSPD-20 also makes no reference whatsoever to Congress. The language of the May 9 directive appears to negate any a requirement that the president submit to Congress a determination that a national emergency exists, suggesting instead that the powers of the executive order can be implemented without any congressional approval or oversight. Homeland Security spokesperson Russ Knocke affirmed that the Homeland Security Department will be implementing the requirements of NSPD-51/ HSPD-20 under Townsend's direction. The White House had no comment.
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on May 23, 2007 21:29:37 GMT -5
In other words, the President can declare Martial Law in the event of a catastrophic national emergency.
In other news, the sky is blue and the sun rose in the east.
|
|
|
Post by dixie56 on May 23, 2007 21:37:55 GMT -5
W.O.M.I., Read the 2006 Military Commission Act and let me know what you think.
|
|
|
Post by billt on May 23, 2007 21:44:44 GMT -5
dixie56 thank you for your efforts but they are in vain....asking womi to "think" having read many posts there is no thought involved...spewing repub neocon BS is ALL that is ever posted.
the founding fathers are spinning in their graves.
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on May 23, 2007 21:47:09 GMT -5
dixie- Done! en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Commissions_Act_of_2006So SCOTUS required in their Hamdan decision that Bush and Congress get together to codify a military tribunal proceedure in order to evaluate and, if necessary, try under military rules (UCMJ) "enemy combatants" and the MCA of 2006 does exactly that. I think the most telling portion of the Wikipedia article is near the end: Court challenge On December 13, 2006, Salim Ahmed Hamdan tried to challenge the MCA's declination of habeas corpus to "alien unlawful enemy combatants" in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. Judge James Robertson, who ruled in favor of Hamdan in the Hamdan v. Rumsfeld case, refused to rule in favor of Hamdan in this case regarding habeas corpus, writing:
"The Constitution does not provide alien enemy combatants detained at Guantanamo Bay with the constitutional right to file a petition for habeas corpus in our civilian courts, and thus Congress may regulate those combatants' access to the courts". [44] So if the same judge that originally had a problem with the way enemy combatants were treated before the passage of the MCA of 2006 no longer has such concerns post-passage, I'd think the case closed. The only people who have a problem with the MCA are the ones who want to extend US Constitutional priviledges to EVERYONE, citizen or not. For what reason, I can't fathom.
|
|
|
Post by billt on May 23, 2007 21:51:44 GMT -5
the US constitution recognizes that ALL people are born with natural rights, and indeed it applies to visitors in this country regardless of them being a citizen or NOT.
the document uses the wording PEOPLE when discussing rights, not the word "citizen".
the FF saw ALL people as sovreign entities endowed with natural rights.
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on May 23, 2007 22:06:11 GMT -5
Since when is the Guantanamo Bay a part of the United States? Are the prisoners there, visiting the United States?
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on May 23, 2007 22:15:17 GMT -5
Instead of reading the WorldNet daily's take on it...we should read what the directive actually states. My emphasis in bold.
(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.
........
(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.
Send Chicken Little back to the coop...no Dictator powers revealed.
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on May 24, 2007 15:19:10 GMT -5
the US constitution recognizes that ALL people are born with natural rights, and indeed it applies to visitors in this country regardless of them being a citizen or NOT. the document uses the wording PEOPLE when discussing rights, not the word "citizen". the FF saw ALL people as sovreign entities endowed with natural rights. Don't look now...but bill seems to be supporting the One Worlders. They're the folks who are advocating no borders, no national sovreignty, no individual rights- that we are all "citizens of the world" rather than individual nations. If the Founders really intended the rights ennumerated in the Constitution be afforded to ALL peoples, whether citizens of the US or not, why then weren't Paris, London, Brussels, Berlin et. al. invited to send delegates and sign the documents? bill, the UN needs more people who think like you do. I'd send them an application straightaway.
|
|
|
Post by billt on May 24, 2007 15:45:24 GMT -5
amazing how some folks spin...how does the FF writing into the document that ALL people have natural rights equate to one world government?
they MEANT that our nation recognizes that reality and affords its visitors that same recognition of THEIR natural rights when visiting here.
to claim that is some way they intended for our constitution to be a world wide governing document is beyond SILLY!
YES if the other nations want to emulate the USA they would be wise to do so and over time FREEDOM could spread over the entire globe.....the globalist/one world gov types want NOTHING even remotely like our constitution, that is WHY they are trying so hard to devalue it here by chipping away at it bit by bit.
womi, you are reaching a point of making your posts unworth reading.
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on May 24, 2007 15:52:51 GMT -5
Again....
Since when is the Guantanamo Bay a part of the United States? Are the prisoners there, visiting the United States?
|
|
|
Post by billt on May 24, 2007 16:02:59 GMT -5
NO, corny it is in cuba, BUT the LAWS of the USA apply to its military wherever they are around the world!
torture is torture no matter what geogrpahic location it happens to be done.
torture is "cruel and unusual punishment" and our constitution addresses that concept!
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on May 24, 2007 16:14:08 GMT -5
wrong old dude. The military has military laws..and does not go by the civilian laws.
"cruel and unusual punishment" has nothing to do with information extraction in the constituition but deals with the punishment of convicted civilians in a civil court.
The constituition of the United States does not apply to people outside of the United States. Other laws are in effect.
|
|
|
Post by billt on May 24, 2007 16:22:35 GMT -5
WRONG corny, military service is subject to the UCMJ uniform code of military justice, AND ALL THE LAWS OF THE USA!
the UCMJ is OVER and above the other laws and people agree to abide by them when they sign their enlistment contract!
imagine some GI driving drunk around panama city then when stopped by police trying to claim those laws dont apply to me, because I am active duty military!
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on May 24, 2007 16:38:08 GMT -5
wrong aging dude, when in the scope of performing military duties, they are under military law and go to military courts for breaking military law. Your claim that the prisoners at club Gitmo are under the U.S. Constituition is false.
|
|
|
Post by billt on May 24, 2007 16:43:37 GMT -5
i didnt claim the prisoners are under our constitution i did claim our soldiers ARE and they ARE.
corny, i was in japan, and when a GI got caught drunk driving off base they went to JAPANESE jail.
IF you harmed a japanese person you were subject to their laws....just like here IF a soldier drives drunk and kills a person they indeed will be dealt with by the military AND the civilian courts as well!
for a bad enough offense dishonorable discharge right away and turned over to the civilian courts!
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on May 24, 2007 16:56:39 GMT -5
"i didnt claim the prisoners are under our constitution i did claim our soldiers ARE and they ARE."
Ok bones, the text and discussion was in regards to the rights of the enemy combatants..that is what I thought your constituitional remarks were about.
I will however still stand by the fact that in regards to the application of interrogation techniques...it is subject to military law and not civilian law. The domestic police are under certain laws for interrogation of prisoners, which differs from the military.
|
|
|
Post by solomon on May 24, 2007 17:59:42 GMT -5
the US constitution recognizes that ALL people are born with natural rights, and indeed it applies to visitors in this country regardless of them being a citizen or NOT. the document uses the wording PEOPLE when discussing rights, not the word "citizen". the FF saw ALL people as sovreign entities endowed with natural rights. Don't look now...but bill seems to be supporting the One Worlders. They're the folks who are advocating no borders, no national sovreignty, no individual rights- that we are all "citizens of the world" rather than individual nations. If the Founders really intended the rights ennumerated in the Constitution be afforded to ALL peoples, whether citizens of the US or not, why then weren't Paris, London, Brussels, Berlin et. al. invited to send delegates and sign the documents? bill, the UN needs more people who think like you do. I'd send them an application straightaway. In academy and current case law implies that even illegal aliens are afforded the the rights of the constitution. In academy we were taught that th 4th amendment applied to illegals...we can't just yank them out of their cars and houses and search and seize without out a warrant or PC. They are also suppose to have 1st amendment rights.....There is only one personal amendment they are not supposed to have...THE 2ND AMENDMENT..... DOES ANYONE BELIEVE THEY WILL ATTAIN OUR LEVEL OF FREEDOM OR WILL WE BE REDUCED TO THEIR LEVEL OF "CITIZENSHIP"? I have my own beliefs of what will take place.. Reference BillT supporting One worlders I'd say he is a true patriot and people like you WOMI and your idol Bush are the one worlders....Look at your avatar...Bush saving someone's a double s? ? Open Borders, NAU, NAFTA SUPERHIGHWAY, Patriot Act, Homeland security, No child left behind, "War on Terror", The constitution is just a ------ piece of paper (if you don't believe he said it his actions prove he believes that!). IF THAT IS SAVING MY A DOUBLE S THEN I WOULD HATE FOR HIM TO DEFEAT ME!BillT a one worlder...try again. WOMI your "professions" of conservatism clearly don't match the religious ferver you use to defend neoconservatism ideas. Are you a mole? Be honest. Are you really one of us???
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on May 24, 2007 19:06:01 GMT -5
solomon-
Bill is hell-bent in giving US Constitutional protections to everyone, regardless of whether they are a US citizen or not?
What else would you call someone who thinks that way but a One Worlder?
Again with the NAU, North American Highway, etc. Just add in the Freemasons, Bohemian Grove, Skull & Bones Society, Knights Templar, Hasty Pudding, Federalist Society, Opus Dei, Art Bell, Area 51, Infowars. Flat Earth Society and all the other whack-job conspiracies you want to believe are really running things. Your credibility will be so low it can play handball against a curb.
The bottom line: NO terrorist attack on American soil in five and a half years.
That sound you hear? It's your ass being saved by George W. Bush.
|
|
|
Post by killer on May 24, 2007 19:08:05 GMT -5
Welcome to the party, Solomon. There are (at least) a couple of moles here. They are party waterboys.
|
|
lawman
Apprentice Cog
Posts: 237
|
Post by lawman on May 24, 2007 19:17:04 GMT -5
solomon- The bottom line: NO terrorist attack on American soil in five and a half years. That sound you hear? It's your ass being saved by George W. Bush. You know, W.O.M.I., I wonder if Almighty God doesn't really resent your statement?
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on May 24, 2007 19:49:37 GMT -5
Law-
I'll render unto God that which is God's and render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's.
It's the Constitutional thing to do, you know.
|
|
|
Post by solomon on May 24, 2007 22:11:47 GMT -5
The bottom line: NO terrorist attack on American soil in five and a half years. That sound you hear? It's your ass being saved by George W. Bush. How many terror attacks occured on American soil from 96-01? Was Slick Willie saving my butt also? That sounds like some tortured logic. Bush attacking countries that had nothing to do with 9/11 and declaring and even bigger war against the Constitution. Bush has been the worst President in my time. I thought Clinton would be a tough one to top but Bush surpassed him.
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on May 25, 2007 11:42:41 GMT -5
In the days and weeks after 9/11, didn't you think that it was inevitable that we'd be hit again and soon?
I'd bet you that 95% of Americans thought we wouldn't go six weeks- much less six years- without being attacked again.
Yet your side choses to totally ignore the fact that we haven't been hit again and doubly refuses to give Bush and his Administration any credit whatsoever for keeping us safe.
As for Clinton, he dropped the ball.
Had he been pro-active- or pre-emptive if you prefer- in dealing with terrorism, 9/11 almost certainly would not have happened, we'd've had no need to go into Afghanistant or Iraq. Yet Clinton almost completely ignored the real threat that Jihadists presented (aside from lobbing a cruise missile or three on the eve of Monica Lewinski's testimony) and focus instead on places like Bosnia, Haiti and Somalia which held NO national interest for us at all. But because the Clinton Administration did everything only after careful polling and wars tend to poll poorly, Clinton abdicated his role as Commander In Chief in favor of Prevaricator In Chief (his natural calling).
|
|
|
Post by solomon on May 26, 2007 8:58:41 GMT -5
The bottom line: NO terrorist attack on American soil in five and a half years.
|
|
|
Post by deovindice on May 27, 2007 7:18:39 GMT -5
Uh.......not quite accurate. Military personnel committing crimes in a civilian jurisdiction are subject to punishment under civilian law as well as military law. Double jeopardy? Not quite. Assume a soldier is convicted of DUI in a civilian jurisdiction. He serves a stint in the county jail and pays a fine. He is then likely disciplined under the UCMJ for tangential infractions such as conduct unbecoming and infractions such as failure to repair, AWOL, etc., for time missed on duty. The soldier is indeed in a unique position. Careful! Yes and no. We can't draw such a strict line of delineation here. Remember that the Founders were mostly of military backgrounds. Men of honor. Gentlemen bound by a code that recognized humanitarian rules of war. Wouldn't one think that their stand on cruel and unusual punishment as applies to civilians would carry over, at least in part, to enemy combatants as well? Look at what Montesquieu said in the Spirit of Laws: "Desertion in our days has grown to a very great height; in consequence of which it was judged proper to punish those delinquents with death; and yet their number did not diminish. The reason is very natural: a soldier accustomed to venture his life, despises, or affects to despise, the danger of losing it. He is habituated to the fear of shame; it would have been therefore much better to have continued a punishment which branded him with infamy for life; the penalty was pretended to be increased, while it really diminished."No doves being released here. I'm not lock, stock, and barrel opposed to what some define as "torture" in certain instances. Yet look at it this way. Among Jihadists, torture would seem to be the least effective. Anyone who is so ready to give his life in the name of Allah would likely give false information even under severe torture. He cares not if he dies for the cause. That is his goal. Agreed. Additionally, the Constitution doesn't even apply, at least as concerns the spirit of the law, to all WITHIN the United States. The notion that anchor babies assume citizenship is a perversion of the law. They were born here under illegal circumstances, and that they can be viewed as citizens suggests that illegality can breed legality. Absurd.
|
|
|
Post by deovindice on May 27, 2007 7:33:58 GMT -5
That we weren't suggests one of two things: 1. The terrorists blew their wad with one attack, thus revealing limited capabilities. 2. The attack may have been contrived. That we haven't been attacked for so long suggests one of two things:............................................ I am far to busy comdemning Bush for getting us involved in a quagmire in Iraq. And, again, as for the borders.................. Did he ever really have the ball? We didn't need to go into Iraq in any event. Those places held just as much in the way of national interest as Iraq. ZERO. Agreed, but it seems that Bush has abdicated at least some of his role in appointing a "war czar". Absurd.
|
|
lawman
Apprentice Cog
Posts: 237
|
Post by lawman on May 27, 2007 7:43:12 GMT -5
Would it be a 'stretch' to discover that W.O.M.I. is actually George Herbert Walker Bush? Not Laura, not her style! But Barbara.....hmmm........
|
|
|
Post by deovindice on May 27, 2007 7:44:25 GMT -5
In other words, the President can declare Martial Law in the event of a catastrophic national emergency. In other news, the sky is blue and the sun rose in the east. In the Federalist, Hamilton makes it clear that most of the aims of the directives in question are indeed within the scope of the Executive branch of government in times of adversity. The author of the WND article, Jerome Corsi, could spin "Dick and Jane" into a conspiracy theorist's delight. While I enjoy his take on many subjects, and indeed find him mostly credible, he does, as do others, take some artistic license in some of his musings. What I do find troubling with these directives is the abdication of authority to the Department of Homeland Security in these matters. Such as this is far too important to be delegated. This is a hands-on must for the President and the President alone. It's akin to the "war czar" thing. Stupid.
|
|
|
Post by solinvictus on May 27, 2007 9:23:51 GMT -5
First, I hate El Presidente. Second, I agree w/ WMOI here: ever since the Soviets split the atom, every president has either initiated or added plans to insure the continuation of government and the chain of command. You are quibbling over Bush when REX 84 occurred under Reagan and was FAR MORE insidious than this plan.
|
|