This is kinda long, but it is full of links and quotes and will scare the shit out of you, if you've been paying attention to what's been going on since 2004. I will sink to this plea: PLEASE RECOMMEND this diary, so as to keep it on the front page for a while!
By now, you've read about Directive 51 and how Bush wrote a directive that allows him, and him alone, to declare a take-over of our government. Oh, the act SAYS that the 3 branches are co-equal, but as I'll show you, that's just bullshit.
Combine Directive 51 with what happened in pre-election 2004, and you can't help but conclude that 'something wicked this way comes'.
On the flip, be prepared to flip (out).
The terror attacks in the past couple of days have brought an interesting view of our reaction to mind. There has been an attempted major bombing (although, how major is subject to debate, since the cars couldn't have really blown up, but that's a whole physics lecture), and a car-fire (not bomb) incident.
Our reaction? Did we up our alert level in view of these very real events? No. However, in the summer of 2004, we were upping the alert level based on intelligence <make me laugh> that was months old. Interesting.
Why is this so interesting? Because, in 2004, not only was the alert level going up and down like Bush on anti-depressants, but there was a lot of talk about delaying the elections, with Bush even asking for legal opinions from the DOJ on HOW this could be done.
As a result, sources tell NEWSWEEK, Ridge's department last week asked the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel to analyze what legal steps would be needed to permit the postponement of the election were an attack to take place. Justice was specifically asked to review a recent letter to Ridge from DeForest B. Soaries Jr., chairman of the newly created U.S. Election Assistance Commission. Soaries noted that, while a primary election in New York on September 11, 2001, was quickly suspended by that state's Board of Elections after the attacks that morning, "the federal government has no agency that has the statutory authority to cancel and reschedule a federal election." Soaries, a Bush appointee who two years ago was an unsuccessful GOP candidate for Congress, wants Ridge to seek emergency legislation from Congress empowering his agency to make such a call. Homeland officials say that as drastic as such proposals sound, they are taking them seriously—along with other possible contingency plans in the event of an election-eve or Election Day attack. "We are reviewing the issue to determine what steps need to be taken to secure the election," says Brian Roehrkasse, a Homeland spokesman.
SECURE the election? I believe they mean 'secure it from the voters'; ie. stop it. Since BushCo couldn't find any legal basis for doing something that not even the Civil War compelled anyone to think about, he wanted Congress to make it legal.
(meanwhile, BushCo was busy preparing to steal the elections, just in case the couldn't get the elections cancelled.
However, there is now Directive 51. This gives Bush all of the power he needs to cancel any election and to remain in power as long as he wants.
Directive 51 is called the National Continuity Policy. Ostensibly, if there is a national crisis, our government could be in danger of being decapitated, so we need to make sure that some kind of government survives.
Ok, I can buy that. This kind of survival policy was initiated with the Cold War and fears of a first strike.
So, what's so bad about Directive 51?
First, it says that Bush can declare the directive in force if:
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;
Sounds good, except upon closer examination.
Let's take a look at an example.
Let's say that terrorists crash 3 jetliners into oil refineries in Singapore. Why Singapore? Because, Singapore refines 25% of the aviation gas for THE WORLD. (as a side note, another 25% of the world's avgas is refined right here in Houston, at Shell Baytown) Well, you say, how could that cause Directive 51 to come into force? It could, because, first, even thought the airliner crashes could be defined as an 'attack', the directive states that only an 'incident' is required, not an 'attack', thus that part of the directive is well satisfied.
Second, that the 'incident' results in 'extraordinary levels' of casualties, damage or 'DISRUPTION' that 'severely' affect our population, infrastructure, environment, economy or government functions.
Most assuredly, these attacks would severely affect our economy, thus well satisfying the second criteria.
Note also that the attack doesn't have to take place in this country; it can take place anywhere
regardless of location
So, the 'incident' could actually be a stock market crash in Japan, a nuclear test by North Korea, a nightclub bombing in London, or anything that BushCo could declare as affecting us.
I'm wondering how an airliner attack in Singapore could cause our government to be in danger of being decapitated. Why, exactly, would we have to worry about our government leaders staying alive if an attack or 'incident' were to occur on another continent?? How could ANY 'incident' outside of our borders threaten the continuation of our government?
Ok, let's say that BushCo activates Directive 51; all branches are stated to be equal, so what's the big deal?
Just this:
(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.
If all branches are equal, how does the President 'coordinate' them? Does he 'coordinate' them now?
No. The only coordinator is the Constitution.
So, Bush (Cheney) would become not only The Decider and The Commander Guy, but now he (Cheney) would also be The Coordinator.
How equal does THAT sound?
To me, it sounds like the fascist take-over of our country being completed.
And lastly, should this happen (when this happens??), you should not protest, because you'll just be arrested and shuttled off to one of Halliburton's new internment camps, or to one of the camps that was mothballed after Rex84. Because, you see, anyone protesting, with a goal of influencing the government, is now defined as a terrorist under Patriot Act II.
Section 802 of the USA PATRIOT Act (Pub. L. No. 107-52) expanded the definition of terrorism to cover "domestic," as opposed to international, terrorism. A person engages in domestic terrorism if they do an act "dangerous to human life" that is a violation of the criminal laws of a state or the United States, if the act appears to be intended to: (i) intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination or kidnapping. Additionally, the acts have to occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States and if they do not, may be regarded as international terrorism.
Section 802 does not create a new crime of domestic terrorism. However, it does expand the type of conduct that the government can investigate when it is investigating "terrorism." The USA PATRIOT Act expanded governmental powers to investigate terrorism, and some of these powers are applicable to domestic terrorism.
The definition of domestic terrorism is broad enough to encompass the activities of several prominent activist campaigns and organizations. Greenpeace, Operation Rescue, Vieques Island and WTO protesters and the Environmental Liberation Front have all recently engaged in activities that could subject them to being investigated as engaging in domestic terrorism.
I would be a terrorist, under these guidelines, because I would protest, with a goal of influencing our government.
Here is the first diary I published; it may give you an idea of where I stand.