I'm pretty sure people were complaining about Clinton doing the same thing wth FEMA. Nothing new under the sun.
Proof please? There was some whining when he put FEMA in the Cabinet, but that was completely different. There was no directive giving him personal authority over the whole government in the event of an emergency.
Nothing new under the sun?!! Okay, there have been continuity directives since the cold war, so that's not new. The new thing here is the extremely loose definition of "catastrophic emergency" and the vestment of power in a single person.
"Hey Dick, why don't you invite some of the Democratic members of Congress on a hunting trip? Then you can accidentally shoot some of them and declare a catastrophe!"
"That's a great idea Mr. President but don't you think they might figure something is up?"
"Good point Dick, How about if I offer to drive some of them around the ranch without their seat belts on? Where is that State Trooper from Jersey? You know, the one that nearly killed Thorazine?"
"I think you mean Corzine Mr. President. I hear he's been 'taken care of' by Corzine. Something about listening in on important cell phone conversations while driving."
"Damn it Dick, how are we going to pull off this government take over if we can't declare an emergency catastrophe?"
"I think you mean Catastrophic Emergency Mr. President."
"What if we rig the American Idol show so that guy with the funny hair wins?"
"That show is over now Mr. President."
"How can that be? My Tivo still shows me new episodes."
"Mr. President, a Tivo is just a fancy VCR."
"VCR? It can't be a VCR because I don't see any flashing 12:00 on the front of it."
Last week (7/17/2007) the White House quietly announced an Executive Order titled "Blocking Property of Certain Persons Who Threaten Stabilization Efforts in Iraq." Among other things, it gives GWB the power to "block" the property of people in the US found to "pose a significant risk of committing" an act of violence which might undermine "political reform in Iraq." No on had any notice of this. No one voted on this. He just did it.
The terms "significant threat" and "act of violence" are unclear. If you attend a demonstration against Bush's definition of "political reform in Iraq" would that count? How about writing an angry letter to the editor?
The vague language also includes outlawing "the making of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services by, to, or for the benefit of any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order." What if you donate to an anti-war group which, outside of your knowledge, has been blacklisted by the government? Does that mean that your property can be "blocked"? What if you bought a T-shirt from MoveOn.org? What if you ran against a republican for elected office?
More importantly, what could you do to get your property back if it was "blocked"? Under the Order, he could take your house, your bank account, your credit, pretty much anything. Some people call it a financial death penalty.
You might think this is Chicken Little stuff, but consider: The Executive Order gives GWB the authority to decide for himself who poses "a significant risk of committing" an act of violence which might undermine "political reform in Iraq." There is no provision for fair notice or hearing (due process), and there is no provision for appeal.
Are we comfortable with this? Or are we going to play Pokemon and hope it doesn't affect us? The National Presidential Security Directive and the Homeland Security Directive was signed just 69 days ago. Is this beginning to sound fishy to anyone else, or is it just me?
People on Digg are losing their shit over this as well. It's not fishy. It is designed to freeze the assets of those who fund and sponsor terrorism. I think the worst cases you might see are against groups like CAIR (Council for American/Islamic Relations) which has ties to Hamas. People went crazy about Cindy Sheehan getting arrested this week saying "GWB has started already!" No, she's a nutbag who was trespassing in a congressman's office. Standard arrest for protesting in the wrong place to get attention.
The President does not have the power to remove the 4th amendment. If things get too far, or if someone is targeted by mistake, the courts have jurisdiction and can declare the order unconstitutional.
The President does not have the power to remove the 4th amendment. If things get too far, or if someone is targeted by mistake, the courts have jurisdiction and can declare the order unconstitutional.
The 4th Amendment is concerned with search and seizure. The 5th Amendment is concerned with government takings of property and due process. At any rate, until last week people would have said the President doesn't have the power to prevent former employees from answering congressional subpoenas. He's saying in this Order that, no, he doesn't have to recognize the 5th Amendment if he decides he doesn't want to.
Which court would have jurisdiction? An administrative board? Your state circuit court? Your state's Federal District Court? The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia? The Supreme Court? A military tribunal? See, the Order doesn't specify who would have jurisdiction. How many years would you be without your house or your bank account while just that issue was worked out? How would you pay for an attorney? Even if you had some gold squirelled away, no one would take it from you, because then they could have their property taken away as well.
People on Digg are losing their shit over this as well. It's not fishy. It is designed to freeze the assets of those who fund and sponsor terrorism.
And you're willing to trust that it will be used soberly and justly? Sparky, our top law enforcement officer is going to be investigated for perjury. That's not one of the signs of a trustworthy government. Any trust this government had to act normally and rationally was squandered long ago. Look at the definitions of "significant threat" and "act of violence". You can't find them, can you? They can mean anything GWB wants them to mean.
When there is so much potential for abuse, affecting an air of nonchalant indifference is inviting trouble. Powerful statutes are often misused and abused, like these examples with the Patriot Act. Here are some more. The Order we're talking about here is begging to be abused.
I'll only be worried about this if the Democrats take the Executive branch in 2008. All I see in their eyes in vengeance toward their perceived enemies in this country.
This might be a tangent but I have picked up something about what people mean when they say "support the troops".
Liberal - Bring them home because if they are in a war zone they might get hurt. I support the troops by bringing them home
Conservative - Give them the tools they need to do their job and stop emboldening their enemies with withdrawal time tables. All you are doing is saying that the enemy has already won because we are leaving.
(Note I used lib/con rather than rep/dem)
It seems to me that the libs support the troops the way a mother supports her children. She tries to keep them out of harms way because she does not want to see them hurt.
Conservatives support the troops the way they would support a brother. They want to see them succeed and if they get bruised a little bit in the process so be it.
Both are supportive but I would much rather have someone who supports me in a way that helps me meet my goals rather someone who is trying to shelter me because they do not believe my goals can be reached.
What if one of your goals was to come back home in one piece? Like some 26,953 people who didn't? Maybe one of your goals is get back home alive, like some 3,645 people who didn't.
Give them the tools they need? I've seen/heard/read many, many more "liberals" asking for money for specific things like body armor than "conservatives". I've seen/heard/read many, many things about the troops lack of things they need countered by the administration's claims of "You go into war with the army you have, not the army you wish to have".
Time tables? Conservatives are beginning to talk about time tables.
You're more concerned with Democrats having this type of power? Kinda silly reason. This group of Democrats haven't done nearly as much to make me distrust them as the Republicans. But this raises a great point: What goes around comes around. Unless GWB really does declare himself king, there'll be a Democrat in the White House in 2009. And then when Republicans whine about all the nasty things the President does, I'll be the first to remind them that the President is the Commander in Chief.
Finally, don't EVEN talk about conservatives being concerned with what the troops need when Walter Reed and the VA hospitals being in the shape they are.
Referring to the original few posts: Does catastrophes include ones initiated by the US government as that could technically count for whichever country America attacks next.
Conservatives support the troops the way they would support a brother. They want to see them succeed and if they get bruised a little bit in the process so be it.
If I had to pick one reason why the US has retained political stability for so long is because we always have a peaceful transfer of executive power. Every president just left the White House peacefully when their time came. I agree that if this trend ceases, we are in for some bad times. Until it does though, I see no reason to believe it won't continue, no matter how bad the current administration.
Such things have become a necessary evil. Under our current system the loss of Congress would result in a paralyzing of our government.
Look up Article 48 of the constitution of the Weimar Republic and the role it played on the way to the 3rd Reich. *Then* do a risks/benefits evaluation of such things.
If I had to pick one reason why the US has retained political stability for so long is because we always have a peaceful transfer of executive power. Every president just left the White House peacefully when their time came. I agree that if this trend ceases, we are in for some bad times. Until it does though, I see no reason to believe it won't continue, no matter how bad the current administration.
Yeah, it can't happen here. We're special.
Meanwhile, House Resolution 1955 has passed the House and is on its way to the Senate. If it becomes law, we'll see people face criminal sanctions for speech the government decides is dangerous.
Comments
Nothing new under the sun?!! Okay, there have been continuity directives since the cold war, so that's not new. The new thing here is the extremely loose definition of "catastrophic emergency" and the vestment of power in a single person.
"Hey Dick, why don't you invite some of the Democratic members of Congress on a hunting trip? Then you can accidentally shoot some of them and declare a catastrophe!"
"That's a great idea Mr. President but don't you think they might figure something is up?"
"Good point Dick, How about if I offer to drive some of them around the ranch without their seat belts on? Where is that State Trooper from Jersey? You know, the one that nearly killed Thorazine?"
"I think you mean Corzine Mr. President. I hear he's been 'taken care of' by Corzine. Something about listening in on important cell phone conversations while driving."
"Damn it Dick, how are we going to pull off this government take over if we can't declare an emergency catastrophe?"
"I think you mean Catastrophic Emergency Mr. President."
"What if we rig the American Idol show so that guy with the funny hair wins?"
"That show is over now Mr. President."
"How can that be? My Tivo still shows me new episodes."
"Mr. President, a Tivo is just a fancy VCR."
"VCR? It can't be a VCR because I don't see any flashing 12:00 on the front of it."
feel better now Joe?
Also, I think I have the super-TB. *cough*
Uhh . . . it's a good sign when you cough up blood . . . isn't it?
The terms "significant threat" and "act of violence" are unclear. If you attend a demonstration against Bush's definition of "political reform in Iraq" would that count? How about writing an angry letter to the editor?
The vague language also includes outlawing "the making of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services by, to, or for the benefit of any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order." What if you donate to an anti-war group which, outside of your knowledge, has been blacklisted by the government? Does that mean that your property can be "blocked"? What if you bought a T-shirt from MoveOn.org? What if you ran against a republican for elected office?
More importantly, what could you do to get your property back if it was "blocked"? Under the Order, he could take your house, your bank account, your credit, pretty much anything. Some people call it a financial death penalty.
You might think this is Chicken Little stuff, but consider: The Executive Order gives GWB the authority to decide for himself who poses "a significant risk of committing" an act of violence which might undermine "political reform in Iraq." There is no provision for fair notice or hearing (due process), and there is no provision for appeal.
Are we comfortable with this? Or are we going to play Pokemon and hope it doesn't affect us? The National Presidential Security Directive and the Homeland Security Directive was signed just 69 days ago. Is this beginning to sound fishy to anyone else, or is it just me?
The President does not have the power to remove the 4th amendment. If things get too far, or if someone is targeted by mistake, the courts have jurisdiction and can declare the order unconstitutional.
Which court would have jurisdiction? An administrative board? Your state circuit court? Your state's Federal District Court? The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia? The Supreme Court? A military tribunal? See, the Order doesn't specify who would have jurisdiction. How many years would you be without your house or your bank account while just that issue was worked out? How would you pay for an attorney? Even if you had some gold squirelled away, no one would take it from you, because then they could have their property taken away as well. And you're willing to trust that it will be used soberly and justly? Sparky, our top law enforcement officer is going to be investigated for perjury. That's not one of the signs of a trustworthy government. Any trust this government had to act normally and rationally was squandered long ago. Look at the definitions of "significant threat" and "act of violence". You can't find them, can you? They can mean anything GWB wants them to mean.
When there is so much potential for abuse, affecting an air of nonchalant indifference is inviting trouble. Powerful statutes are often misused and abused, like these examples with the Patriot Act. Here are some more. The Order we're talking about here is begging to be abused.
This might be a tangent but I have picked up something about what people mean when they say "support the troops".
Liberal - Bring them home because if they are in a war zone they might get hurt. I support the troops by bringing them home
Conservative - Give them the tools they need to do their job and stop emboldening their enemies with withdrawal time tables. All you are doing is saying that the enemy has already won because we are leaving.
(Note I used lib/con rather than rep/dem)
It seems to me that the libs support the troops the way a mother supports her children. She tries to keep them out of harms way because she does not want to see them hurt.
Conservatives support the troops the way they would support a brother. They want to see them succeed and if they get bruised a little bit in the process so be it.
Both are supportive but I would much rather have someone who supports me in a way that helps me meet my goals rather someone who is trying to shelter me because they do not believe my goals can be reached.
Give them the tools they need? I've seen/heard/read many, many more "liberals" asking for money for specific things like body armor than "conservatives". I've seen/heard/read many, many things about the troops lack of things they need countered by the administration's claims of "You go into war with the army you have, not the army you wish to have".
Time tables? Conservatives are beginning to talk about time tables.
You're more concerned with Democrats having this type of power? Kinda silly reason. This group of Democrats haven't done nearly as much to make me distrust them as the Republicans. But this raises a great point: What goes around comes around. Unless GWB really does declare himself king, there'll be a Democrat in the White House in 2009. And then when Republicans whine about all the nasty things the President does, I'll be the first to remind them that the President is the Commander in Chief.
Finally, don't EVEN talk about conservatives being concerned with what the troops need when Walter Reed and the VA hospitals being in the shape they are.
Meanwhile, GWB says, "Meh."
Meanwhile, House Resolution 1955 has passed the House and is on its way to the Senate. If it becomes law, we'll see people face criminal sanctions for speech the government decides is dangerous.
Yeah, it can't happen here.