PLEASE READ: Info about 5/9 Presidential Directive

I know word of Bush's Homeland Security directive issued on May 9 has been making the rounds on the 'nets and the radio, but I don't think it's being talked about enough.  Word needs to be spread to everyone you know. I'm sure there must have been some discussion about it here already, but I probably missed it, and I think it's important enough to repeat.  We must get the word out about this.  No one in the MSM is covering it (I'm shocked, I tell you, just shocked!).  

Tonight a friend sent me these two links (and she sent the info to Countdown):

Link to presidential directive: http://www.whitehouse.gov/...

Link to WorldNetDaily article: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/...

Now, I know that WorldNetDaily is a right-wing outlet, but this article is a pretty good summary of the directive without having to wade through the actual document.  Below are some excerpts:

Bush makes power grab
Jerome Corsi
WorldNetDaily
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.

<snip>

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.

<snip>

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.

Please, please, please read the full text of the article, if not the full text of the directive itself.  This is the scariest thing I've ever read and sets the stage for a total takeover of the country.  I know this sounds like I'm a tinfoil-hat-wearing conspiracy theorist, but nothing these guys do surprises me anymore and I wouldn't be surprised if they're planning something so that they can declare an emergency and put this into effect.

•  Rec'd

  because it is important. But trust me that people are talking about it.

  by Stand Strong on Wed May 30, 2007 at 07:09:20 PM PDT

  •  Thank you

    I had missed the earlier diaries.  I don't care what TPM and the ACLU say.  This overrides the National Emergency Act and takes Congress totally out of the equation.  It can't possibly be SOP.

    If it's as scary as it sounds, it can't be repeated too often.  If it turns out not to be, oh, well, so be it.  I'd rather be overly cautious about this than just let it ride and let the chips fall where they may.  There's just too much at stake and nothing thse guys do would surprise me.

    by SharonRB on Wed May 30, 2007 at 07:41:19 PM PDT

    •  All of the diaries about this are

      at the new first tag on your diary ;–)

      by Halcyon on Wed May 30, 2007 at 07:46:32 PM PDT

    •  When you take the word of WorldNetDaily over TPM

      or the ACLU, then you might want to step back and re-examine the evidence.

      Our... constitutional heritage rebels at the thought of giving government the power to control men's minds. Thurgood Marshall

      by bronte17 on Wed May 30, 2007 at 08:07:18 PM PDT

    •  It should be noted

      that the TPM entry, which says the Bush directive is no big deal, doesn't make a lot of sense.

      The consensus amongst experts seems to be that the directive, aimed at establishing "continuity of government" after a major disaster, is not new nor does the policy seem to expand executive power.

      It is true that COG provisions are not new.  And that fact makes the very next paragraph very hard to understand:

      In fact, Mike German, the policy counsel to the ACLU’s Washington office told me that an executive continuity plan actually might "not be that bad of an idea."

      Is German an idiot?  COG provisions have been around forvever and he says, of this new one, that it might "not be that bad an idea"?  

      I assume that Mr. German is not an idiot, and therefore I assume the author of the blog entry wrote it very sloppily.

      Presidential directives outlining how the executive branch will remain intact in the event of an emergency have been around since the Cold War. The directive posted this month is the first to be made public

      Given this, how can German, or anyone else, determine if this one is not more expansive than previous ones?  We've never seen previous ones.  Well, he can't:

      , to the best of German’s recollection. (A description of Clinton’s continuity directive is available here.) German called the release a positive sign, but said he urges the release of all previous directives so we can get a real sense of what has changed.

      Anyway,

      The concept of continuity of government applies to all branches of government. Christopher Kelleye, a presidency expert and political science professor at Miami University Ohio told me in an email that he didn’t see any new powers listed in the directive, but wondered why Congress hasn’t done the same thing.

      New powers?  Does that mean: "powers not listed in previous COG directives"?  No, it can't mean that, because, again, no one has seen previous COG directives.  

      As for, "wondered why Congress hasn't done the same thing . . . uhg.  That makes it look like either Kelleye or the interviewer is getting two seperate Clinton documents mixed-up.

      Here are the two Clinton documents I think someone is getting mixed-up:

      (1) PDD-NSC-67: Enduring Constitutional Government
      and Continuity of Government Operations (U)
      21 October 1998.

      This is the document no one has seen.  Here is a link to a descriptive summary of it.  I encourage anyone interested to read the descriptive summary of PDD-NSC-67 and see if it seems less expansive than Bush's NSPD 51, which is the subject of this diary.

      (2) FPC 65: FEDERAL PREPAREDNESS CIRCULAR

      This document is the Federal Emergency Management Agency flyer, sent to Federal agencies to brief them on PDD-NSC-67.  TPM competely incorrectly cites it as a description of PDD-NSC-67 . . . it is not.  Look:

      1. PURPOSE: This Federal Preparedness Circular (FPC) provides guidance to Federal Executive Branch departments and agencies for use in developing viable and executable contingency plans for the continuity of operations (COOP). COOP planning facilitates the performance of department/agency essential functions during any emergency or situation that may disrupt normal operations.

      The FEMA circular was meant to explain Clinton's PDD to Executive Branch agencies . . . but the PDD applied to more than just Executive Branch agencies.  The FEMA circular was not meant to describe everything in the PDD.  No one has seen the rest of it.

      But, very interestingly, the sketch description of the PDD itself, the descriptive summary linked in (1), does say this:

      With the reduced threat to this country of nuclear attack by the former Soviet Union and its successor nations, Enduring Constitutional Government programs (the former Continuity of Government programs) were scaled back in the early 1990s. Most of the resources of the National Preparedness Directorate of the Federal Emergency Management Agency [FEMA] were spent on ensuring the continuation of civilian government in the event of a nuclear war, through what are known as the Enduring Constitutional Government programs. The directorate also supports ongoing studies through war gaming, computer modeling, and other methods.

      Remember, this is Clinton's directive.

      Bush's directive, PD-51, explicitly cites the change in the world situation as Bushco sees it:

      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.

      This indicates that a change was made from Clinton to Bush.  We can't assess how large the change was, because we haven't seen Clinton's PDD.  But the Bush PDD explicitly cites the changed environment and resultant changes in COG provisions.

      This is not nothing . . . the TPM post is just sloppy, in my opinion, reporting irrelevant documents (the FEMA document, for example) and quoting experts as saying things, I assume, out of context and in any case hard to interpret.  (Since the expert quotes are mutually contradictory, for example.)

      by LithiumCola on Wed May 30, 2007 at 08:22:27 PM PDT

      •  they ask for an inch and take a mile.

        The present Regime is full of power-hungry opportunists who will take anything they can get and then some.  

        If there's any way that the language in that thing could be used to give themselves the keys to the kingdom, they'll use it.  It would not surprise me if some minor grammatical construction or ambiguity was deliberately put in there for that purpose, by which I mean something that none of us has noticed so far.

        Their own incompetence increases the likelihood of an emergency.  For example first they turn Iraq into a terrorist incubator, then they start taking in Iraqi refugees (50,000 when last I saw numbers) and next they loosen up immigration, creating two routes by which Al Qaedas can sneak into the US.    

        by G2geek on Wed May 30, 2007 at 11:58:20 PM PDT

        •  Exactly!

          by SharonRB on Thu May 31, 2007 at 05:51:34 AM PDT

    •  Ok, so you'd rather believe Jerome Corsi?

      Than the ACLU? Do you even have a clue who Jerome Corsi IS? He's the guy who wrote the swift-boat book. He was a consultant to Ken "Katherine Harris" Blackwell's gubernatorial campaign in Ohio last year and helped write his odious book. He's beyond a wingnut.

      Sure, it "sounds" scary. A lot of things "sound" scary. That doesn't mean there's any real basis for them, and I can't believe someone here would cite Jerome Corsi as a valid source for ANYTHING.

      by anastasia p on Wed May 30, 2007 at 11:21:19 PM PDT

      •  I know exactly who Corsi is

        His article just happened to be the one that was sent to me by a friend, who is very politically savvy and knowledgeable, along with a link to the directive.  She asked me to spread it around.  I put a caveat in my original diary that I knew who the source was and that I had wished I had a better one.  The ACLU isn't always right, although I agree with them most of the time.  I think the jury is still out on this, but it's worth investigating and getting into the media -- better safe than sorry.  Thom Hartmann, as well as others, was talking about it two weeks ago on his show.

        by SharonRB on Thu May 31, 2007 at 05:51:05 AM PDT

•  False Alarm

  This is much ado about nothing.

  by pontificator on Wed May 30, 2007 at 07:10:02 PM PDT

  •  Must've missed that

    thnx.

    by Stand Strong on Wed May 30, 2007 at 07:15:22 PM PDT

  •  how many Breaking diaries

    have there been on this? I know of at least 3 for sure. one even went to the top o' the pops.

    by Elvis meets Nixon on Wed May 30, 2007 at 07:26:47 PM PDT

  •  Thanx for putting the breaks on this

    by groggy on Wed May 30, 2007 at 08:12:48 PM PDT

  •  I heard Thom Hartmann

    talking about this so I read it and I must say I couldn't see any unusual language that jumped out at me.  It seemed like powers that would normally be accorded to the president in the event of a disaster.  Defining disaster might be the weak link but I don't know how one would get around that.

    by hairspray on Wed May 30, 2007 at 09:24:57 PM PDT

    •  It's easy to define disaster

      Hell, in the contracts I've signed to sell screenplays, they do a pretty good job of defining disasters in the force majeure section.  Bush's directive, however, says that the disaster can happen anywhere, even outside of the country, and that it can simply be something that they believe is about to happen.  In other words, they can pretty much decide there's a national catastrophe any time.  They can make one up.  

      by theyrereal on Wed May 30, 2007 at 09:46:07 PM PDT

  •  Ha! Sez you.

    Others get a very different impression.  

    by theyrereal on Wed May 30, 2007 at 09:43:16 PM PDT

  •  I should be allowed near matches.

    I start fires in the town square.

    by pinche tejano on Wed May 30, 2007 at 10:04:46 PM PDT

  •  Well, it's the crowd around the matches that

    are of concern.

    The directive may not be that unusual or cause for concern, it's how Bushco may use or misuse it that makes everyone on high alert. Code Orange.

    by doinaheckuvanutjob on Wed May 30, 2007 at 10:27:34 PM PDT

    •  That's true of everything,

      including the Constitution.

      by Mother of Zeus on Thu May 31, 2007 at 06:36:50 AM PDT

  •  THANK YOU

    I just slogged my way through the Order, feeling that I really had some duty to do so due to the number of diaries and posts that sounded the alarms of hysteria.  I'll admit I can barely stay awake when reading statutes and administrative orders, but I was having a REALLY hard time finding the scary part of this.  It revokes a 1998 continuity order.  It might be useful to contrast the two closely to see if there are changes that appear to be inexplicable on the basis of security needs.  But otherwise, I don't really get the hysteria.

    I guess the one "suspicious" factor is that the WH issued on press release.  You'd expect them to highlight this as an effort to be better prepared for events like Katrina, etc.

    by Mother of Zeus on Thu May 31, 2007 at 06:35:09 AM PDT

•  God I'm sick of this shit

  More electrons have been wasted on this stupid directive than anything in recent memory. Even Josh Marshall debunks these ill-conceived fears over at TPM. It's continuity of government provision, that's all, not a takeover. I don't care who's reading it, left or right, anyone reading "coup d'etat" into this is just nucking futs.

  Good lord this gives us a bad name -- I'll be greatly relieved when this cycle ends.

  by N0MAN1968 on Wed May 30, 2007 at 07:18:01 PM PDT

  •  I cant imagine....

    why folks would trust Bush so little on a thing like this.

    by Immigrant Punk on Wed May 30, 2007 at 08:50:32 PM PDT

    •  Bush deserves no trust

      But he's violated so many laws, he doesn't need to be clever, and he'd have to be very very clever, intergalactic Brainiac clever, to use this EO to take over the government. It does nothing, nor does he need it to commit his crimes. This document is simply the business of government.

      by N0MAN1968 on Thu May 31, 2007 at 03:04:30 AM PDT

•  Corsi

  Isn't he a Swift Boat Liar? He'll change his tune when the next paycheck from Rove shows up.

  by keirdubois on Wed May 30, 2007 at 07:20:00 PM PDT

  •  Yes, that's exactly who he is

    He co-wrote "Unfit for Command." He was a major force behind the swift-boat liars. Sure, I'll believe anything HE says. NOT.

    by anastasia p on Wed May 30, 2007 at 11:24:16 PM PDT

•  The best reason,

  and probably the only reason, to believe that Bush would never pull a hard coup (i.e. one with tanks in the streets and martial law) is that a hard coup would be bad for business.  Wall Street would crash big time; capital is, after all, notoriously timid.

  by corvo on Wed May 30, 2007 at 07:23:12 PM PDT

  •  And how good for business would

    bombing Iran be? OK, it'd be great for the oil bidness and the MIC, all Bush cronies. But how about the rest of business?

    by Halcyon on Wed May 30, 2007 at 07:47:57 PM PDT

    •  Military contractors?

      I'm sure they love the idea.

      by Immigrant Punk on Wed May 30, 2007 at 08:51:42 PM PDT

    •  If you answer your own question,

      nobody else really has to.

      by corvo on Thu May 31, 2007 at 06:34:17 AM PDT

•  Thank you

  I had missed the earlier diaries.  I don't care what TPM and the ACLU say.  This overrides the National Emergency Act and takes Congress totally out of the equation.  It can't possibly be SOP.

  If it's as scary as it sounds, it can't be repeated too often.  If it turns out not to be, oh, well, so be it.  I'd rather be overly cautious about this than just let it ride and let the chips fall where they may.  There's just too much at stake and nothing thse guys do would surprise me.

  by SharonRB on Wed May 30, 2007 at 07:38:17 PM PDT

  •  This is in the wrong place

    I'm repeating it where it belongs.

    by SharonRB on Wed May 30, 2007 at 07:40:48 PM PDT

  •  The ACLU's assessment...

    does carry weight with me, because unlike Bush, I trust them.

    by Immigrant Punk on Wed May 30, 2007 at 08:53:24 PM PDT

    •  Well, don't trust the ACLU too much.

      They were slow off the ball on the Patriot Act, and computerized voting. They were strongly for computerized voting (to help the blind, primarily) until a membership rebellion changed their position and even the composition of the board of directors.

      They may be right in this case, but they aren't always quick to assess a problem correctly.

      by doinaheckuvanutjob on Wed May 30, 2007 at 10:25:12 PM PDT

      •  Fair enough.

        Guess we'll have to keep at this critical thinking thing...

        by Immigrant Punk on Wed May 30, 2007 at 11:46:31 PM PDT

•  Tip jar

  by SharonRB on Wed May 30, 2007 at 07:39:08 PM PDT

•  I think Reynold's Wrap works best....

  Annex B... Classified

  The President of the US (POTUS) has designated that Brownie is in charge if the shit hits the fan

  Classified

  by captainlaser on Wed May 30, 2007 at 07:42:13 PM PDT

•  Keith Olbermann where are you???

  by betson08 on Wed May 30, 2007 at 08:51:57 PM PDT

  •  It's been sent to Olbermann

    and to Conyers and his chief of staff.

    by SharonRB on Thu May 31, 2007 at 05:55:10 AM PDT

•  These are acts of desperation

  but no less scary.

  Where have our Congress people been on this?

  Nancy Pelosi where are you?

  Reid, where are you?

  Kuchinch, my favorite, where are you????

  by betson08 on Wed May 30, 2007 at 08:53:09 PM PDT

•  You missed the Big Diary on this

  http://www.dailykos.com/...

  869 comments and counting.  I feel bad because I can't read that many comments on my computer (I wrote the diary).  

  It also spawned a diary saying that there's absolutely no reason to worry about any of this.  And another.

  But my diary covers the history behind the directive, which is some highly scary shit.  

  I agree with you, Bush and the people before him during the Reagan administration including Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Oliver North, have laid the groundwork so that if they want to, they can simply and legally suspend the Constitution.  All they have to do is declare a "crisis" or "national catastrphophe" and it doesn't even have to happen here, but anywhere.  It doesn't even have to happen, they can just SAY they KNOW it's ABOUT to happen.  Sound familiar?

  But many people are confident they'll do the right thing and resist this temptation.  After all, they always do, don't they?

  I hope they don't, of course.  But the fact that they have managed to give themselves this power is pretty damn frightening.  

  by theyrereal on Wed May 30, 2007 at 09:41:58 PM PDT

  •  I don't think it's a matter of resisting

    temptation. I'd be a lot more concerned if Bush hadn't bought the ranch in Paraguay. For me, this shows that once his Presidency is over, he hasn't the slightest interest in what goes on in America short of its sending armed force after him.

    Bush is going to make a lot more money if he leaves in an orderly fashion (including one jump ahead of people giving him a summons ordering him to appear at his impeachment) than if he declares a "national emergency" and martial law.

    IMO, he's going to loot as much of the Treasury for his crony capitalists (mostly already accomplished) as possible in exchange for a cut of the loot (Swiss or Cayman Islands bank accounts?) and bail.

    Remember how much unaccounted money has gone into the Iraq war effort and "reconstruction". I believe that somewhere, that money is accounted for.

    National emergency and martial law would disrupt business, either shut the stock market down or send it tumbling.

    While I think he wants and expects this (probably correctly) to happen so he and his friends can buy portable high-value assets at fire-sale prices, I think he wants to be out of the USA first.

    The "loot and bail" thing has happened before, but never here.

    Not to say that a careful eye doesn't have to be kept on him. Bush having power and not abusing it would be something of a radical departure from usual practice, and the people who say "Bush would never do a thing like that" generally wind up with egg-covered faces.

    And my perception of what's to his advantage and his could well be very different.

    by alizard on Thu May 31, 2007 at 02:48:58 AM PDT

    •  what's just so wrong

      is that he has the power to do all of these things.

      Whether he chooses what's behind door number 1, 2, or 3, he comes out laughing all the way to the Cayman Island Bank.

      Unless somebody brings him to justice.  But THAT'S sure not gonna happen now.  The Democrats have shown us beyond a shadow of a doubt that they have chosen to be impotent in this regard.  

      It's like somebody left the bank unlocked, the vault opened, all the safe deposit boxes open, and nobody around to guard the place.  And Bush and Cheney and all his buddies are in there just partying their brains out.  Nobody stops them.  

      It's sick.

      by theyrereal on Thu May 31, 2007 at 10:25:46 AM PDT

      •  I think a

        "coalition of the victims" will get him in the end. There are plenty of Iraqi expats with money and deadly personal grudges against Bush, and even after fleecing the taxpayers, I don't think he can afford the military presence required to stop them all. They only have to get lucky once.

        I don't think a President of either party is going to be willing to send several thousand troops anywhere to get Bush's ass out of a crack.

        by alizard on Thu May 31, 2007 at 02:33:13 PM PDT

•  Does Mike German have more to say

  to detail why exactly he thinks the directive is "not so bad an idea"? This sounds like an off-the-cuff hunch. Maybe TCM/Joh Marshall can follow up with an in-depth interview with Mr. German to explain what he means and how this thing really works.

  Sure, any mother can tell you it's a good idea to have a contingency plan but this one appears to mean the Executive Branch subsumes the other two branches -- supposedly to protect them as in fox-and-hen-house protection -- to "preserve our democracy?" With no feedback or input from Congress or Judiciary? As a unilateral 'unitary executive' edict? Huh? We know already what a miserable job the Bush regime does on anything they touch, so how can we assume they can be trusted to "preserve our democracy" without input from other two branches? What is such a good idea about that? Huh? I don't get it.

  Instead of accusing Kossacks of paranoia for asking obvious questions about the Directive, why not examine the paranoia behind the directive?  

  Only last October Bush weakened posse comitatus, making martial law easier. Given the history of the Bush regime thus far how could any sane person not ask where is all this going? We're not hysterical but we would be naive not to keep our eyes open. We would be irresponsible.

  I'm not for going berserk on this thing but geez, how about some simple diligence? Not "paranoia" but diligence.

  The fierce opposition to those who are concerned about the Executive Directive, accusing them of paranoia and "tin foil" for asking questions, makes me wonder if the fear of tinfoolery needs examination on Daily Kos so as not to dull the edge of our critical thinking -- the "rule of reason" as Al Gore calls it.   Hurling the "tin foil" charge without arguing the logic of why the Directive is perfectly fine and should not be questioned -- not to assume a coup d'etat, just carefully questioned --  accentuates fear and is like an assault on reason Gore details in his book.

  by wardlow on Thu May 31, 2007 at 02:21:53 AM PDT

  •  IIRC, election fraud was considered tinfoil

    and verboten until RFK Jr posted a diary about it. I guess Markos figured that if he banned RFK Jr on the basis of lunacy, his own credibility would go up in flames.

    But a subject, even if controversial, should stand or fall on its merits and verifiable information, not what major Democratic celebrities think about it.

    I don't see what is known about "continuity of government" now as all that different as it was back during the Clinton for for that matter, Carter Administrations. It was intended to give the President wide-reaching emergency powers... a nuclear war isn't going to necessarily wait for Congress to decide on it.

    All that's different now is that this potential power is in the hands of a President who's abused his power more egregiously and more often than all of his predecessors combined.

    And people start foaming at the mouth about tinfoil when I say this.

    My reasoning as to why it would be to Bush's disadvantage to do this is in a post above.

    It could well be that the Directive getting publicized is a deliberate distraction. From what? Interesting question.

    by alizard on Thu May 31, 2007 at 03:00:49 AM PDT

  •  Thank you.

    by SharonRB on Thu May 31, 2007 at 05:53:08 AM PDT

•  This will work for Bush and whoever he appoints

  to succeed him!

  by Temmoku on Thu May 31, 2007 at 05:06:44 AM PDT

•  Is Martial Law Coming?

  http://www.progressive.org/...
  A note of caution since I wrote about Bush’s plans to anoint himself the insurer of constitutional government in the event of emergency.

  I decided to see what the American Civil Liberties Union thought of the May 9 release of the National Security Presidential Directive, and to my surprise, the ACLU did not seem that concerned about it.

  "These presidential directives on the continuity of government have existed for a long time," says Mike German, ACLU policy counsel. "All it does is establish that they should have a policy and coordinate that policy with legislative and judiciary. It doesn’t change the order of succession, or anything like that."

  by michaelthemenshevik on Thu May 31, 2007 at 05:18:47 AM PDT

•  Here's another article from a better source

  http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/...

  by SharonRB on Thu May 31, 2007 at 07:58:20 AM PDT