Is Congress Asleep At the Switch Or What?
In early 2007 Bush issued National Security Presidential Directive 51 which he claims is to ensure “continuity of government” in the event of a “catastrophic emergency.” It is one of the most alarming things he has done.
This document gives the President the authority to decide what constitutes a “catastrophic emergency” leaving it so vaguely defined that even a big earthquake or hurricane could qualify. And once such an emergency is declared, the president then has the authority to do whatever he thinks is necessary to guarantee the continuity of government.
Under this directive, he can suspend the Constitution – not just habeas corpus, but the entire Constitution; he can cancel upcoming elections; he can even launch a nuclear attack. And he can do all this without input or oversight from the legislative or judicial branches of government. The President’s hubris doesn’t stop there. Apparently there are several clauses in this document that he refuses to disclose on grounds of, yep, you guessed it, “national security concerns.”
Have you heard anything about this Presidential Directive on the news? Have you heard of any congressional oversight committee holding hearings on it? Neither have I and it is impossible to understand why.
Since when, in America, does a President have the power to declare himself King if he and he alone, decides there is an emergency. Isn’t that what President Musharraf just did in Pakistan? Isn’t that what all dictators do when they take over an elected government? Unless I am mistaken, it is called a coup and unless that is what Bush has in mind, why does he need to issue such a power grabbing directive?
Where is your oversight, Congress?
Comments
Yes I had seen this Trish, and put it to the back of my mind for some reason, perhaps because we are being inundated with so much inane insanity from this Executive one goes on overload. Maybe that is their purpose. Shotgun all kinds of preposterous stuff, and sneak in a really big one from time to time. And, of course, you are correct in asking the questions “Have you heard anything about this Presidential Directive on the news? Have you heard of any congressional oversight committee holding hearings on it?” I’m so glad you have brought it forward in this blog.
For those interested you can see it here http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/05/20070509-12.html Read it and weep.
It might even be acceptable, though probably not, if it had been instigated by an FDR or Abraham Lincoln, but certainly not by the present Idiot in Chief and the rest of the stooges. At least there was something to trust about those two former presidents. Now, in my opinion, we have three branches of government, all of which are suspect.
You ask, “where is the oversight in Congress?” I’ve been asking that particular question for quite a long time now. As bad as the Executive Branch is, it is only as bad as the Legislative Branch has enabled it to be. And the other question that has been on my mind for a long time is why? The Congress is a separate and equal branch of government; why is it relinquishing its authority to this Administration? If that isn’t the $64,000 question, there is no such thing.
Partisanship aside, I don’t get it. In 2006 a loud message was sent to this Congress. The Democrats gained as many seats as the Republicans lost, and it switched the control in both houses. Now, with the elections of 2008 approaching and many right wing candidates distancing themselves as far as they can from this president, the Republicans in Congress and a few Democrat enablers are still allowing this now petulant president to get his way, at the expense of our nation, our people, and form of government.
What’s going on? I can only think of four possibilities thus far
Maybe Kucinich and Carter and 42 million other Americans have seen UFOs!
Posted by: Stephen | November 5, 2007 09:26 PM
i have seen stories on this from informationclearinghouse.info and a few other sites but nothing in the mainstream media! everything is set-up for martial law, and we know about the secret or "shadow" govt waiting in the wings in case of an "emergency", a govt not elected and with no oversight. Many think this is the reason why cheney is so against turning over any papers. this needs to be a major issue but nobody with a national voice raises it. i don't expect the dems to raise it as an issue as they are too busy capitulating to a president at 24% approval. perhaps a number of emails to Olbermann? we seem to only have 1 branch of govt left... the corporate branch.
Posted by: heartfood | November 5, 2007 10:14 PM
As a local government employee, we were trained on a similar plan at the local level (much less alarming), and the structure and lanuage seemed similar. I think the main idea is that the emergency director (in this case homeland security director, again, a little different) be moved up to a top coordination role.
While I think it's more than fair to analyze what this temporary alternative structure could do in the wrong hands, my understanding is that it's more of an emergency management tool that is intended to keep tight order in an emergency, in this case a national one. Here in our city it puts the emergency manager as an incident commander, who sets direction on which emergency channels to use, keeps track of where staff have been dispatched and what the status is of individual situations, and manages communications. Here, it makes sense, and our understanding is that it is a bureaucratic response to how to have better control during a hurricane katrina type event. This may be why we're not hearing a lot of analysis in the media.
But I do think you explore an important point in asking how this directive, in the hands of a tyrant-like president, could further support actions that bystep our democratic government.
Posted by: mariah | November 12, 2007 07:39 AM
You make a good point, Mariah. But it seems to me that it is one thing for the local government to take control in an area devastated by an earthquake or hurricane, and quite another for the President to use that devastation as an excuse for declaring a state of emergency that would include the entire country. The vagueness in the Presidential Directive about what would constitute an emergency severe enough for the President to take over as ruler-in-chief seems to make that possible.
What is of even greater concern in this directive is that it seems to give the President the power to take control of the legislative and judicial branches of the government - something no President should ever be authorized to do. And the catch-22 is that this same president gets to decide, without concurrence from the legislature or the judiciary, when an emergency is great enough to warrant such action.
Most local government officials seem concerned about the welfare of the area in which they serve and do not evidence king-like tendencies. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said of our current president.
Posted by: Trish | November 12, 2007 09:20 AM