Interesting piece; it'll be interesting to see some of the comments to come, I'm sure.

I'm not so sure Jones is himself a loony, so much as he's pandering directly to his specific audience segment to build (or maintain) market share.

He might believe it...or he might just be getting rich.

I agree, it is interesting although I don't believe it's necessary. Oddly, I view it in the same vein as writing a regulation regarding torture.

In the ridiculously contrived situation it would require to warrant the slapping around of a witness in order to save gobs of people it will be evident without a going to a manual. If there's a nuke going off in 45 minutes that'll kill you and everyone in downtown DC instantly you're not going to give a fuck what the manual says. If you think threatening to rip the conspirators balls off with a pair of pliers will extract the information you'll damn well do it.

Same goes for this order. If congress gets blown up by the above bomb I don't think 96% of the population would expect anything else but for the president to man the helm for awhile until government could legitimatately get up and running.

You don't need regulations about these things. Writing the regulations down make them too easy to abuse. These little backdoors, exceptions, and loopholes can be parsed by lawyers and judges and stretched to offer legal cover for bad behavior.

Not saying I agree at all with the analogy....but, a loophole similiar to this is what allowed Hitler to sieze total control of Germany. Let's not provide the legal framework for a future dictator, especially when it's completely unnecessary.

I'm not so sure Jones is himself a loony, so much as he's pandering directly to his specific audience segment to build (or maintain) market share.

I call Jones a 'loony' out of charity. His behavior could be excused by actually believing the crap he spouts. The alternative is that he is cynically manipulating his followers and spreading lies for his own enrichment or for other reasons which are potentially even more evil.

Dave

Dave you wouldn't know evil if it looked you square in the mirror bucko. More comments to follow soon, on an article written about Jones! I got a kick out of that Davey. hehehe

Note the adjectives "extraordinary" and "severely". They do have specific legal meanings...

where are these meanings laid out (particularly as they relate to word use in presidential directives) - ?

might a successful sarin/anthrax attack on lower Manhattan resulting in several thousand deaths and the disruption of the market meet the threshold requirements -?

Well, it wouldn't be a threat to the continuity of government, so it wouldn't meet the specific limitations of the directive. It would certainly require a response, but it would be local and financial and within the normal scope of government.

As for where the meanings are laid out, I suspect the justice department would have the first word on that, followed by the supreme court. But I think that in most circumstances the dividing line would be blatantly obvious.

Dave

Dave,

I had to take a peek at the conspiracy book you chose for this article. The book written by Christopher Hodapp, who is a 32° Freemason and a member of the Masonic order of the Knights Templar.

Almost as good of a choice as the Daniel (CFR) Pipes book that you used in another article several months ago. You are truly amazing Davey.

Pablo

You conveniently overlooked this section of the directive:

"Continuity of Government," or "COG," means a coordinated effort within the Federal Government's EXECUTIVE branch to ensure that NATIONAL ESSENTIAL FUNCTIONS continue to be performed during a Catastrophic Emergency.

Hmmm, so the EXECUTIVE branch(president) gets to take whatever actions necessary to ensure that "NATIONAL ESSENTIAL FUNCTIONS" continue....

Sounds pretty dictorial to me? I didn't read anything about Congress in there.

As for "enduring consitutional government," how hard would it really be to convince this nation of sheep that they still have their constitutional rights? I mean, most people still beleive they have those rights now but let them try and practice them. I can't even get on the subway in NY without my 4th ammendment being trampled. And free speech? Oh yeah, we do still have that, so long as it's in the "free speech zones" away from public eye. And do I even have to elaborate on the 2nd ammendment? Get educated before you put up your next disinformation blog.

"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."

Dave Nalle: "That hardly sounds like an every day situation, and it hardly sounds like conditions which are in effect right now."

Really? First off, who decides if an "incident" meets these criteria anyway?

Isn't the President capable of declaring a state of emergency, and triggering whatever Executive Orders or Presidential Decision Directives he deems fit? He doesn't legally require anyone elses approval to do this, does he Dave?

It's not like congress meets and votes on whether martial law or a state of emergency are to be declared.

In any case, your analysis sucks, because the directive might be triggered by something as simple as "...a disruption ...severely affecting...the U.S. economy OR government functions" - which could mean...

A bank failure, or a number of them

a stock market or bond market crash

an attack on Iran (excuse me, I meant "by Iran" of course - hahaha)

A hacker attack, like the one in San Fran, etc.

and many other potential things - all of which might conceivably happen someday, a few of which certainly might happen, and one or two of which are VERY LIKELY TO HAPPEN.

Yeah, nothing MIGHT happen, but you trust these mainstreamers Dave, because you're one of them, but I don't. History is on my side, not yours.

We've already HAD INTERNMENT CAMPS HERE, or have you forgotten that too?

Isn't the President capable of declaring a state of emergency, and triggering whatever Executive Orders or Presidential Decision Directives he deems fit? He doesn't legally require anyone elses approval to do this, does he Dave?

This is why we HAVE a president, Tom. You need someone who can make decisions in a crisis. That's what an executive is for. By rejecting this directive you are essentially rejecting the entire idea of executive authority. Do you want rule by Congress? We've seen what a great job they do. Or perhaps you'd like rule by national plebescite? That sure would be idiotic, but it fits right in with the anarchosocialist position you seem to believe in.

It's not like congress meets and votes on whether martial law or a state of emergency are to be declared.

Of course not. This directive is all about situations where that would be impossible.

In any case, your analysis sucks, because the directive might be triggered by something as simple as "...a disruption ...severely affecting...the U.S. economy OR government functions" - which could mean...

You had to put FOUR edits in the text to make it say what you wanted. That makes your premise utterly worthless.

A bank failure, or a number of them

a stock market or bond market crash

Neither of these would interrupt the normal functions of government so they would not qualify.

an attack on Iran (excuse me, I meant "by Iran" of course - hahaha)

Yes, the directive might kick in if Iran nuked Washington DC. And your objection to that is what, exactly?

A hacker attack, like the one in San Fran, etc.

I can't see how that would qualify under the directive. Why don't you explain it.

and many other potential things - all of which might conceivably happen someday, a few of which certainly might happen, and one or two of which are VERY LIKELY TO HAPPEN.

And most of which would not require the use of the directive.

Your problem here is that you assume that this directive which has not been used in 60 years would suddenly start being used inappropriately. You don't provide a reason why NOW all of a sudden it's going to be abused when it never has been before.

Yeah, nothing MIGHT happen, but you trust these mainstreamers Dave, because you're one of them, but I don't. History is on my side, not yours.

No. History is on my side. This directive has been in force for a very long time and has never been used. Why don't YOU provide an example of when executive power was abused under this order since 1947.

We've already HAD INTERNMENT CAMPS HERE, or have you forgotten that too?

And that was before the first version of this order was issued, so why does this order create any more of a threat?

You make no sense at all.

Dave

What Davey fails to mention in his hysterical attack on Alex Jones is that the COG (Continuity of Government) is an issue that is well over 20 years old. The star of the show at that time was Mr. Oliver North and company. A 2 minute video is referenced below. I only mention this to show how Mr. Nalle frequently leaves out the historical background of a particular political topic. This plan was known before as REX 84 and can be googled with ease. COG

This is precisely why I frequently refer to Mr. Nalle as being a shill. He is obviously intelligent, and has no problem communicating with the english language, yet he chooses not to include relevant information such as that cited above.

As to Mr. Jones, I being a frequent listener and admirer of his, will be the first to concede that frequently in his rants he occasionally overstates his case. That being said, I also find more often
than not, that his assertions are based on fact, usually backed up by the news sources from whence they came. Infowars.com also has an Alexa rating of 6000, thats a lot of traffic, as does his sister site prisonplanet.com.

The fact that Alex Jones rankles a person such as Dave, only confirms to me that he is on the right track, and I support Mr. Jones efforts to wake up the sheeple wholeheartedly. I am also frequently amused that when Dave chooses to use a book as a reference to why conspiracy theories are bunk, he seems to always choose someone who has obvious conflicts of interest, such as Daniel Pipes, or Christopher Hoddap.

Facial recognition cameras going up everywhere, each and every cell phone tracked with gps, 1,000,000 americans on no fly lists, The Military Commissions Act, government sponsored torture, shills being paid by the government (Armstong Williams for instance), the list goes on and on, and people such as Dave, although they may occasionally give lip service to a libertarian cause of choice are in my opinion nothing more than shills, that should no better, and that is why I think he is being paid for his constant patrol of each and every political story on here, and yes I do know from sore experience that he is the political editor, just ask him about 9/11 conspiracy stories on here. (He asked me to write one, I did, then I was chastised for it by his higher up, and told it was verboten.)

cheers Davey

Pablo

What Davey fails to mention in his hysterical attack on Alex Jones is that the COG (Continuity
of Government) is an issue that is well over 20
years old.

I do? Then the section I wrote which points out that it originated in 1947 must not exist?

I only mention this to show how Mr.Nalle frequently leaves out the historical background of a particular political topic.

Looks to me like you mention it because you're too lazy to actually read the article you're commenting on.

This is precisely why I frequently refer to Mr. Nalle as being a shill.

It makes sense. You refer to me as a shill because you're too careless to read what I write and therefore have no idea what you're talking about.

I am also frequently amused that when Dave chooses to use a book as a reference to why conspiracy theories are bunk, he seems to always choose someone who has obvious conflicts of interest, such as Daniel Pipes, or Christopher Hoddap.

You expose yourself again. When have I ever used a book as a source of reference? Provide one example. When have I eve referenced Hoddap? The one time I've ever mentioned Pipes was in passing in a comment.

although they may occasionally give lip service to a libertarian cause of choice

I oppose the conspiracy fringe because I think they are one of the greatest threats to the liberty I believe in. That you can't see the threat confirms a lot of my fears of the indoctrinated zombies who follow dangerous demagogues like Alex Jones.

are in my opinion nothing more than shills, that should no better, and that is why I think he is being paid for his constant
patrol of each and every political story on here

Damn, I wish I were being paid. Who do I talk to for that check?

and yes I do know from sore experience that he is
the political editor, just ask him about 9/11 conspiracy stories on here. (He asked me to write one, I did, then I was chastised for it by his higher up, and told it was verboten.)

I wasn't aware of the policy at the time I asked you to write the article, and 9/11 articles aren't forbidden, just those which use dubious source material, self-referential conspiracy sites and other unsupportable pseudoevidence. And as I recall we did publish a couple of your articles and another recent one from another conspiracy fan. The ban isn't absolute, we just have standards.

Dave

As usual Dave you twist my words to fit your feeble arguments. As to COG and REX84 I was referring to the CONTROVERSY about it, something that you did not mention in your article, and in so doing attempted to show that Jones was paranoid, when in point of fact this has been an ongoing political debate for decades, and THAT is what you failed to mention bubba.

As to your completely unprofessional approach to being the editor of blogcritics, and unapologetic response to mis-informing me about writing a 9/11 conspiracy article, IT WAS YOUR IDEA. You already knew that I do not believe in the official conspiracy theory, and urged me to write one, which I did, so don't now come and give me your gobbledygook about outlandish conspiracy theories bubba. I was not told by your higher up that the reason for non-publishing was due to my sources or lack thereof, but was in point of fact due to the decision NOT to publish articles on 9/11 conspiracies other than the one accepted by dolts, and YOU know that Davey, an apology is still forthcoming, but it will be a cold day in hell before I get one from the likes of you bubba.

As to the so-called "constitutional" succession of government, you as USUAL smear the document, which is hardly surprising.

I do find it highly amusing however that you chose to write an article on Jones, who's political acumen leaves you in the dust.

Oh and Davey?

This is a direct quote from your higher up bubba, regarding the 9/11 article, from Lisa McKay.

"We made an editorial decision some time ago not to publish any more 9/11 conspiracy articles."


That seems direct doesn't it Davey?

But you in your squirrley way say this:

"I wasn't aware of the policy at the time I asked you to write the article, and 9/11 articles aren't forbidden"

Gee 9/11 articles are not forbidden, how caucasian of you, you seem to have forgotten that lil word conspiracy bubba.You know the '9/11 conspiracy article that you asked me to write! You are so blatantly dishonest its a wonder you bother writing at all.

pablo, in your fight against dave, i'm usually going to be on your side. (not really on 9/11 though, sorry.)

but, "bubba, bubba, bubba" is just too much. once is enough, bubba.

see?

Ahh, Dave.

It's been a long time since I debated you on these here threads, and let me begin by saying that I think Alex Jones is hysterical and silly. But nonetheless there are very legitimate concerns about PDD51--those expressed by, for example, Jerome Corsi--and I'll try to make some points here.

Let's go back to your Comment 10, in which you took on Tom deSabla.

To his questions "Isn't the President capable of declaring a state of emergency, and triggering whatever Executive Orders or Presidential Decision Directives he deems fit? He doesn't legally require anyone elses approval to do this, does he Dave?"

You responded with:

This is why we HAVE a president, Tom. You need someone who can make decisions in a crisis. That's what an executive is for.

Which is incorrect. The executive's purpose is to execute (note the linguistic relationship) the legislation enacted by Congress, to act as Commander in Chief, and to administer the executive departments. Not to immediately take over the full function of government in the case of a catastrophic emergency.

By rejecting this directive you are essentially rejecting the entire idea of executive authority.

How so? Tom does not seem to be rejecting the notion that the executive has authority over the executive department or the military.

If you are suggesting that Tom is rejecting the idea that the executive holds (or should in any circumstance hold) authority over ALL government, then it's an idea that I would hope every American should reject.

Do you want rule by Congress?

It has always been my understanding that "rule," in any meaningful sense, is conducted by the people in this country. Your question implies that the executive branch rules instead--which, again, is a notion that all Americans should rightly reject as surely as they would reject "rule by Congress."

That said, the constitution's primary author James Madison stated in the Federalist Papers that "In republican government, the legislative authority necessarily predominates." Which would suggest that if ANY branch of the government were to attenuate dominance over the others, the Founders did indeed incline it toward the Congress.

To his next point,

"It's not like congress meets and votes on whether martial law or a state of emergency are to be declared."

You replied,

Of course not. This directive is all about situations where that would be impossible.

Impossible, that is, based upon the judgement of the President, with no consent or even half-hearted agreement with that assessment required. That is, in fact, a dangerous proposition and one that the Constitution was explicitly designed to avoid ever happening.

Tom then said that

"In any case, your analysis sucks, because the directive might be triggered by something as simple as '...a disruption ...severely affecting...the U.S. economy OR government functions' - which could mean..."

To which you disingenuously replied,

You had to put FOUR edits in the text to make it say what you wanted. That makes your premise utterly worthless.

In fact, his premise would have been completely valid if he had made no edits whatsoever. Like so:

"'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."

Tom's point was the use of the word "OR" as in "OR government functions." In other words, the directive does not give the President the authority to declare a state of Catastrophic Emergency if and only if the government cannot function. He can declare it in the event of severe disruption to the U.S. economy. Or infrastructure. Or environment. Any one of those things, or any combination thereof.

Thus his next point about bank failures or stock market crashes hold value. Your rebuttal,

Neither of these would interrupt the normal functions of government so they would not qualify

is in fact invalid, since the language of the directive establishes that the normal functions of government need not be interrupted for the President to declare Catastrophic Emergency.

TDS: "We've already HAD INTERNMENT CAMPS HERE, or have you forgotten that too?"

You've still got one. It's located on the edge of a picturesque Cuban beach - American soil, to all intents and purposes. If people are being held there virtually indefinitely without recourse to Habeas Corpus - forget the kangaroo courts, that ain't justice - it's an internment camp by anyone's definition.

It's a blot and a blight on any notion of American justice, regardless of how we all might feel about the calibre of some of the idiots locked up in there. Justice has to be seen to be done as well, and in this case it's not being seen. Make no mistake about it, your cousins across the seas find it it a disgusting state of affairs and something barely believable coming from the modern US, which while doing this stuff continues to crow about liberties and freedoms, and which once again look to be nothing but lip service much the way they have been at other times in the 200-plus-year history of the US.

It's our justice systems in the English-speaking countries that mark the most important point of difference between us and everyone else, and for the US to depart from that is IMO a criminal state of affairs, especially considering there has been no (legal) declaration of war. The geneva convention also requires the repatriation of PoWs after the formal cessation of hostilities.

Thus, there may be two rules for those in Guantanamo - one for al-Qaeda prisoners, who may not meet the required legal certification of enemy combatant and therefore under US law are entitled to be treated to all the normal protections of the US justice system, and the Taliban, who might actually be PoWs under the normal criteria and can be treated differently.

The US however is lumping them all together and is finding loopholes to get around this stuff, is removing people illegally from their own countries sometimes on very dubious evidence, and offers no guarantees that they will get any kind of swift trial, let alone a fair one.

Those removals, BTW, are kidnappings. They are being done without extradition warrants and without the formal due process normally required. The US can't continue to justify this. And if any Americans are wondering why people around the world hate them (I don't, BTW, and most Australians don't, but there are plenty elsewhere who do), the US practice of hypocritically twisting its own stated ideals - "the means justify the end" - while lecturing and admonishing others who do the same might have something to do with it.

I take a big step back, and am in genuine awe at the last several comments by STM, and West. I am not attempting to get on your good side STM, but I will call a spade a spade when I see it, and I could not agree more with your above several comments.

The comment by West I find compelling, extremely articulate, I also happen to agree with it.

Tom deSabla on what might trigger the provisions in the "directive"

"A bank failure, or a number of them

a stock market or bond market crash

Dave Nalle: Neither of these would interrupt the normal functions of government so they would not qualify."

The wording at issue is only what I quoted, and it doesn't insist that the normal functions of government need be interrupted, and in any case, whether they have been or not is in the eye of the beholder-in-chief, as you have already explained.

The simple fact is that those events listed above CERTAINLY COULD "result in disruption severely affecting the economy or government functions"

If you don't know how a bond market crash could severely affect the functioning of government, or how a stock crash could severely affect the economy, then you have reached new depths of ignorance - and that is really saying something.

***

Dave Nalle: "Yes, the directive might kick in if Iran nuked Washington DC. And your objection to that is what, exactly"

I object to martial law - period. All these PDD's and executive orders amount to are attempts to put some kind of official lipstick on the tyrannical pig of martial law. I don't think we've ever done good things during such periods, and I don't want it and don't need it.

We've never had a real state of emergency declared or martial law during my lifetime, and you're ready for it as soon as the Iran war starts? If so, then you may be one of Hannity's "great Americans" but you ain't one of mine.

***

Did you really have to ask me for an explanation on how a hacker attack on some or all federal government computer systems could severely affect government functions? You couldn't figure that out on your own?

***

As to this: "You don't provide a reason why NOW all of a sudden it's [the directive] going to be abused when it never has been before"

First off, I never said that "NOW all of a sudden it's going to be abused" or whatever. Maybe you're thinking of someone else. Maybe it won't be Dave, but that isn't good enough for me. Maybe that sentiment makes me an extremist to someone like you, but oh well.

The longer this government exists in its present form and on its current trajectory, and continues to craft these orders, the more likely that they will eventually be used.

Why, you ask? The fact that you need to ask is another piece of evidence that you don't get freedom at all.

Let me provide both reason and analogy for you. The reason is that government naturally grows, and power created or taken is quite naturally exercised. It's just what government does, and it's been doing it for hundreds of years.

For analogy, consider the Fed; when they first conducted open market operations, it was illegal, congress then made it legal retroactively. A year ago, they hadn't lent to non-banks since the depression - but they just started doing it, and now they're taking junk subprime mortgage paper - something they've NEVER DONE.

It's the same old story...remember how the smoking bans got started? Only on planes, they said.

The no-fly list just for terrorists? Nah, there's hundreds of thousands of names on that bad boy.

Ha ha ha.

Government is too big and it's failing in every conceivable way. I don't want them to even think they have the power to do 1/100th of the things they put down in their crazy rantings/orders/directives.

If they did declare any such emergency - it would be very bad for all of us, so I oppose even the possibility.

You sound like some kind of retard, demanding that someone show you when this particular directive or order has been abused, when there is already enough abuse by government going on all around us. You've been writing here for months now, and I don't recall you once highlighting any such abuses. Not once. You don't seem to think they exist. I have never heard you once demand that government stop doing ONE SINGLE THING.

The only thing you seem concerned with is attacking others who are fighting for freedom.

***

Dave Nalle: "You had to put FOUR edits in the text to make it say what you wanted. That makes your premise utterly worthless."

How stupid are you Dave?

I didn't "have to put FOUR edits" in the text. I simply showed one of the possible conditions contained in the quoted section. Necessarily, and properly, the text extraneous to those conditions was omitted.

When the whole wording is thus:

"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"

then EACH AND EVERY ONE of these possibilities stands on its own.

1. any incident that

results in extraordinary levels of mass casualties

OR

2. any incident that results in damage to


A. infrastructure,

OR

B. environment,

OR

C. economy,

OR

D. government functions

OR

3. any incident that results in disruption severely affecting

A. infrastructure,

OR

B. environment,

OR

C. economy,

OR

D. government functions

I simply gave the legal wording for possibilities 4C and 4D - that's all. Once again, you got it wrong. Are you really so ignorant of how laws are written and read, or was it just another unfounded attack? Another mindless, robotic smear?

Don't you ever get tired of it all? All the smears and deceptions and misrepresentations? Think of those who love you - one day they'll realize what trash propaganda you've been out here writing, they'll realize how truly, fundamentally wrong it was and they'll be sickened. I mean really sickened and disgusted.

Have you no shame? Why don't you stop the evil now, before things get any worse? It's never too late to do the right thing.

Bravo Tom!

Thank you Pablo.

My work is done here.

Tom,

One minor correction to your comment about the no fly list. It currently holds over 1 million americans on it, all done without due process, or adjudication.

My 16 year old nephew's on the no fly list - he considers it a badge of honor and brags about it at school.

Isnt that cute

I don't know about cute, but it's a pretty normal boy thing to do.

Uhhh Clavos,

The "cuteness" that I was referring to was YOUR comment on it. I take back what I said about common sense.

um, bravo, michael j. west?

damn, can you say "spank?"



"spank."

very well done, sir. applause all around. clap clap clap clap clap

clap clap
clap clap
clap clap

damn formatting.

anyway, this seems dangerous, and probably has to any american who has known about it for the past however many years.

powers such as this should not rest in the hands of one man.

especially not such a man as bush. why did this come up again? what sparked interest in this?

"The "cuteness" that I was referring to was YOUR comment on it."

I didn't make a comment on it, pablo. I just related what he thinks about it.

I object to martial law - period. All these PDD's and executive orders amount to are attempts to put some kind of official lipstick on the tyrannical pig of martial law. I don't think we've ever done good things during such periods, and I don't want it and don't need it.

I can't imagine anyone who would be FOR martial law. But when the alternative is anarchy then the temporary use of martial law or the implementation of a contingency plan like this is the proper response. And it is a GOOD thing to have the criteria and limitation laid out in a document like this Executive Order.

We've never had a real state of emergency declared or martial law during my lifetime, and you're ready for it as soon as the Iran war starts? If so, then you may be one of Hannity's "great Americans" but you ain't one of mine.

You think a war with Iran is going to start with some sort of massive attack on the US? That seems ridiculously improbable.

First off, I never said that "NOW all of a sudden it's going to be abused" or whatever. Maybe you're thinking of someone else. Maybe it won't be Dave, but that isn't good enough for me. Maybe that sentiment makes me an extremist to someone like you, but oh well.

You yourself pointed out that you've gone your entire lifetime without the implementation of martial law. Yet this directive or one like it has been in effect for more than 60 years. So the reality is that whatever power it gives has not been exercised in a very long time, so why do you expect it to be exercised in the future?

The longer this government exists in its present form and on its current trajectory, and continues to craft these orders, the more likely that they will eventually be used.

Well, it's been 60 years with the order basically similar throughout that time. It doesn't seem like we're hurtling towards oblivion.

Let me provide both reason and analogy for you. The reason is that government naturally grows, and power created or taken is quite naturally exercised. It's just what government does, and it's been doing it for hundreds of years.

By that argument, surely the power would have been exercised in the last 60 years. That's a long time to resist the temptation of all that power.

The truth is that although governments do acquire power, we have a government where power is circumscribed both by law and by practice. There are multiple checks and balances and any president who tried to exercise this extraordinary power frivolously would be held accountable.

Government is too big and it's failing in every conceivable way. I don't want them to even think they have the power to do 1/100th of the things they put down in their crazy rantings/orders/directives.

I don't disagree with you here, but by focusing on this directive you're totally misdirecting your effort. The problem is the growth of government, not the existence of this relatively justifiable contingency plan. As is so common with conspiracy fanatics, you attack the wrong part of the problem and ignore the real threat.

You sound like some kind of retard, demanding that someone show you when this particular directive or order has been abused, when there is already enough abuse by government going on all around us.

But that's the point. You ignore the REAL abuse and go after this fantasy instead. That's just nonsensical.

You've been writing here for months now, and I don't recall you once highlighting any such abuses. Not once. You don't seem to think they exist. I have never heard you once demand that government stop doing ONE SINGLE THING.

Then you haven't been reading my articles. I address real threats and real abuses of power rather than fantasies, but I have spent a lot of time writing about them. Look for my articles about cutting the budget or gun rights or REAL ID or the War on Drugs or on FISA or on GITMO or on any of the other issues where I've been critical of the government.

The only thing you seem concerned with is attacking others who are fighting for freedom.

But you're not fighting for freedom. You're promoting lies and hysteria which help to create an environment which makes tyrrany more possible.

***

Dave Nalle: "You had to put FOUR edits in the text to make it say what you wanted. That makes your premise utterly worthless."

How stupid are you Dave?

I don't know, but I can tell how to parse a sentence, and you've done it wrong in this example. The phrase 'extraordinary levels of' applies to each of the conditions individually the way the sentence is structured, which make your interpretation dead wrong. In fact, the disruption to each and every one of the subjects mentioned must be 'extraordinary' and that makes a significant difference.

Don't you ever get tired of it all? All the smears and deceptions and misrepresentations?

Of course I get tired of it. But someone has to stand up to you and your attempts to just repeat the same lies and bullshit on the assumption that those who defend the truth will get bored or tired or frustrated and go away.

Think of those who love you - one day they'll realize what trash propaganda you've been out here writing, they'll realize how truly, fundamentally wrong it was and they'll be sickened. I mean really sickened and disgusted.

You REALLY need to look in a mirror sometime.

Have you no shame? Why don't you stop the evil now, before things get any worse? It's never too late to do the right thing.

I have nothing to be ashamed of. Opposing those who are the modern equivalent of the nascent SS is something to be proud of.

Dave

ANY man, Zingzing. anyone. not just the texas shrub-monkey, it's just as dangerous in Al Gore's hands, or Barack Obama's. (of course, that's why the Dems didn't kill renewing the "Patriot" act when they had the chance-they want to use those provisions too...)

As for where the meanings [of "extraordinary" and "severely"] are laid out, I suspect the justice department would have the first word on that, followed by the supreme court.

so...we can determine whether or not an event that triggers an executive 'take over' meets the legal requirements only after the fact - when normal government is restored

not very reassuring

executive power has been increased significantly since these directives began - for example posse comitatus is comatose: the executive is authorized to us troops within the US at its discretion

Troll, that's the way it has always been. But the executive branch does have advice from the justice department before it makes this sort of decision, and they can usually predict pretty well how the courts will rule after the fact.

Let's be completely honest here. Despite what the conspiracy nuts say, this directive would never be used unless the situation were so dire that there wouldn't be any ambiguity. The executive branch can deal with normal crises like Katrina or a major earthquake perfectly well without invoking it.

Dave

dave... you're ignoring mike's very reasoned response and only talking to those that you can shout at. why?

Michael,

Excellent comment, #16.

Dave seems to have succumbed to the notion of Executive Omnipotence, as well as Omniscience. What could be next? Executive godliness? Or has Bush already taken that attribute with his Holy war? After all, he was appointed by g*d. So he claims.

Overall, I have to side with Dave on this one. I doubt that Bush or any future president would be able to pull off taking over as a de facto dictator given any likely (or unlikely) scenarios under PD51 or any other such directive I'm aware of.

However, I think it not unwise to be aware of some of the caveats noted above. If some catastrophic event occured that would put PD51 into action, things would likely happen very fast. Those at the helm would possibly be making their own interpretations and decisions in a fairly impromptu and perhaps not well considered manner. Things can turn to shit in a hurry when the system is under duress.

Once a certain level of power is taken, it could be difficult to wrest any of it away from whoever wields it. Words on a piece of paper may not carry much weight when the walls start shaking and the ceiling plaster starts crumbling.

I know what Dave was saying above when he wrote:

"The executive branch can deal with normal crises like Katrina or a major earthquake perfectly well..." as he meant it with regards to invoking the directive.

However, at another level, one must remember that the executive branch did NOT handle Katrina "perfectly well" as we all know. Just thought I'd get that little dig in for the sake of posterior - er - I mean, posterity.

B-tone

Sorry, Zing. I never saw Michael's comment. For some reason his comments consistently show up not at the end of the comments thread, but some comments back after I've already read past the point where they are inserted. Happens all the time and I have no idea why. Maybe it's his time zone.

Now that you've pointed out his comment I'll respond to it.

Michael wrote:

It's been a long time since I debated you on these here threads, and let me begin by saying that I think Alex Jones is hysterical and silly. But nonetheless there are very legitimate concerns about PDD51--those expressed by, for example, Jerome Corsi--and I'll try to make some points here.

I'm not a big fan of Corsi. He's a racist and a xenophobe and a dickhead. But he is at least less bombastic than Jones, but then so is Hugo Chavez.

This is why we HAVE a president, Tom. You need someone who can make decisions in a crisis. That's what an executive is for.

Which is incorrect. The executive's purpose is to execute (note the linguistic relationship) the legislation enacted by Congress, to act as Commander in Chief, and to administer the executive departments. Not to immediately take over the full function of government in the case of a catastrophic emergency.

The constitutional justification for this particular directive comes from the oath the president swears under the Constitution, which says:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Energy in the Executive is a leading character in the definition of good government. It is essential to the protection of the community against foreign attacks; it is not less essential to the steady administration of the laws; to the protection of property against those irregular and high-handed combinations which sometimes interrupt the ordinary course of justice; to the security of liberty against the enterprises and assaults of ambition, of faction, and of anarchy.

Guess he can't complain now. That's one monster of a response.

Wait a minute! Isn't there a bit of verbal trickery going on here?

Dave starts out with this:

"The constitutional justification for this particular directive comes from the oath the president swears under the Constitution, which says:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Then he asserts this:

"The justification is that in a time of extraordinary crisis the president must take direct control of the government in order to preserve the existence of government and of constitutional rule."

That's not a 'justification', that's an inference. It's a conclusion, reached by Dave, not something stated in the oath.

In fact, the oath is intended to circumscribe the presidents actions, as executive, to be within the Constitution, NOT as Dave seems to suggest, justify whatever rule under some Constitutional pretext.

Later, Dave drops his guard and reveals his true intent with this whopper:

"When the alternative is the failure of the law, then it is clearly the executive's responsibility to maintain the rule of law until the Congress can be convened to deal with the crisis."

Suddenly the key words have become 'law' and 'rule of law' and NO mention of Constitution. It has become the traditional excuse for a coup d' etat and usurpation by a dictator.

And, as we have seen, a dictator can maintain his reign forever by disallowing the convening of congress. He might, for example, ignore their email, a technique which now has a precedent in the Bush administration.

"He might, for example, ignore their email, a technique which now has a precedent in the Bush administration."

I guess Bush isn't answering bliffle's emails...poor baby!

"He might, for example, ignore their email, a technique which now has a precedent in the Bush administration."

That's actually funny. Didn't think you even knew what humor is, much less actually be funny.

It it were possible to get an entire country to simultaneously compose a mental picture of their head of state taking a dump, no would-be dictator would ever be taken seriously.

Weak, Bliffle. I realize you hate the idea that we have an executive at all. I'm sure you'll be much more positive about it in a few months.

The concept is very simple.

The oath and the various other references I gave make it clear that the president is responsible for the implementation of the laws which congress has passed.

If a crisis makes that impossible and makes the other requirements of the constitution impossible - like convening congress. Then it is the president's job to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution by keeping the laws in operation and running the country in the absence of other authority.

This isn't something I'm 'inferring' or 'concluding' or making up. It's the basic function of an executive as defined in common law, in the Constitution and in the writings of the founders.

If you don't acknowledge the basic functions of being an executive then we might as well abolish the presidency.

Dave

...certainly a step in the right direction

I'm sll for that. Let's go with a parliamentary system. It would just take one constitutional amendment and it would be the nail in the heart of this idiotic two party farce.

Would that include Presidential signing statements Davey? Also if the Congress were to hold Bush accountable for upholding the Constitution he would have been impeached a long time ago.

...I dunno Paul - the Executive Gang has managed to come up with gray areas and debatable code to maintain cover - playing the System and 'pushing the envelop' while (slowly and surly) centralizing power in the hands of the federal executive

presidential 'impeachment' is pretty much sop for the citizenry anyway: when actually advanced it has been purely partisan maneuvering with little connection to constitutional issues

...while I applaud Kucinich's efforts impeachment is a side show

keeping Madison in mind:

The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.

why should a federal government 'check' the excesses of its executive branch - each branch is engaged in its own efforts striving for excess and power to dictate how folks behave

imo the 'balance' that is upset is that between the various states and their citizens and the feds...the conflict is not between the branches of the federal government but rather between such a tyrannical government as a whole and the rest of us

"imo the 'balance' that is upset is that between the various states and their citizens and the feds...the conflict is not between the branches of the federal government but rather between such a tyrannical government as a whole and the rest of us"

Quoted for Truth.

Clavos is right about trolls last paragraph...never looked at it like that, but damn that's accurate! That really is the "us against them" that we deal with all the time.

Bliff: 'law' and 'rule of law' and NO mention of Constitution.

Come on Bliff, your argument is bollocks, and I'd suggest you know it. The constitution is rule of law. That's what the f..king thing's for.

If you are associating rule of law with dictators, perhaps you are mistaking the true meaning of rule of law.

Rule of law actually prevents that stuff from happening. Look at the UK ... they've had continuous representative government (free of interference - beyond foolish meddling - by monarchs stripped of power but forming part of the executive branch) since the late 1600s, and the US has had it since the late 1700s (even the Civil War seen as a true rebellion didn't disrupt continuous government within the United States).

We've had it down here for a fair while too without any dictatorships.

Now stack that record up against places Spain, Portugal, Germany, Russia, most of the South American countries, even France.

Nah, rule of law has nothing to do with dictators and everything to do with freedom.

Now, does that mean people like Bush or even the meddling late King George so hated by Americans didn't push the envelope a bit?

No, but it sadly goes with the turf, and at least we are able tell them where to get off next time we head to that other child of rule of law - the ballot box.

To you good folk over the other side of the big ditch - don't expect not to be able to do that any time soon, guys. I'll wager me house on it.

Since the expression 'rule of law' appears nowhere in the US constitution, I guess it's purely STMs personal conjecture that leads him to say:

"The constitution is rule of law. That's what the f..king thing's for."

Not at all. the constitution is about (in the body) how to MAKE laws, and the first ten exemplary amendments SO MADE are about citizens defense against the government. And the last couple in the "Bill Of Rights" say that this is NOT the end of the list of citizens rights, that there are MORE (contrary to Borks stunningly erroneous statement!).

The Founders were skeptical of government. They well knew that tyrants used 'rule of law' as pretext for their own arbirary rule and oppression of mere citizens. They knew, and discussed, the propensity of satraps to hire professional sophists to twist the laws to oppress people, and thence to send bullying police into society for enforcement.

They did not want to create a system where a ruthless tyrant could USE the law to oppress people, and the primary offense by tyrants is rigid enforcement of 'rule of law' and 'civil order' and 'stabilization', and even 'national defense' to suppress citizen opposition to a sitting government. Witness China, where we have new reports on the news today.

Bliffle, using the law to oppress people is not the "rule of law" it is the misrule of a tyrrant. That is what the Rule of Law is designed to prevent.

Here's what John Adams wrote on the subject:

"In the government of this commonwealth, the legislative department shall never exercise the executive and judicial powers or either of them: the executive shall never exercise the legislative and judicial powers, or either of them: the judicial shall never exercise the legislative and executive powers, or either of them: to the end it may be a government of laws and not of men."

No man could be punished or lawfully interfered with by the authorities except for breaches of law. In other words, all government actions must be authorised by law.

No man is above the law and everyone, regardless of rank, is subject to the ordinary laws of the land.

Bliff: "Not at all. the constitution is about (in the body) how to MAKE laws"

Which is what rule of law is. Before you give a smart-arse bollocking about "STM's conjecture", how about doing your homework Bliff and understanding a bit about it??

Rule of law is way different to coming up with laws designed to oppress. Like I say, we owe all our freedoms to rule of law.

People in dictatorships don't have rule of law. They have made up laws designed to oppress. There's a huge difference between what they have and what we have.

We don't have a US constitution in Australia nor a Bill of Rights, but the laws, freedoms and the way of life are virtually identical.

The reason: rule of law inherited from the civil and common law of England, much like yours as that's where the constitution largely comes from anyway.

But we DO put some men above the law, in particular GWB and cohorts. Witness Scooter Libbey. Their partisans are always prating that these High Persons are above the law.

Tyrants always justify their oppression of dissent as 'rule of law'. It becomes a parody, where the mere words are subverted to the opposite effect.

Yes, as Adams says, we struggle for and hope for a government of laws, not of men. But when we allow men in high places to, on the one hand flaunt the law, and on the other hand hold their personal enemies to a strict observance of the 'rule of law' we are lost.

And still no one can show me where 'rule of law' is used in the US Constitution. Yet it appears regularly in justifications for Presidential seizure of power.

We don't have a US constitution in Australia nor a Bill of Rights, but the laws, freedoms and the way of life are virtually identical.

I left off Dickey's third precept, which is that a Bill of Rights is not actually necessary, because the rule of law inherently provides for the protection of the rights of individuals, which is why the same basic legal concepts work in England and Australia even without our expressly codified Bill of Rights.

Dave

Bliff: "And still no one can show me where 'rule of law' is used in the US Constitution".

The constitution IS rule of law Bliff.

Show me in the constitution where it says you need to sh.t twice a day, get eight hours' sleep, be nice to your wife, work your arse off to give your kids an education and pay your bloody mortgage on time. Oh yes, it does say you have to pay your taxes.

Come on ... some of you Americans are exasperating when it comes to this stuff.

The constitution isn't some holy grail thing. It's a living, breathing and hopefully evolving document document written by ordinary men (or perhaps extraordinary men) hoping to found a free nation dedicated to rule of law. Read THEIR comments on it regarding this position, not mine, Bliff.

Read their comments about not getting everything absolutely right, too, which they suspected was the case and which they freely acknowledged. This is the problem with Americans who look both to the constitution and the thoughts of the founding fathers for guidance on these issues without seeing any area for flexibility. It's just not how it was meant to be in their eyes.

Beyond certain inalienable rights that were already taken to exist anyway, nothing was really set in stone in terms of the law (operating within the bounds of the law, which is rule of law), because they didn't want it to be, so in holding that position you are in fact supporting conflicting positions.

Dave: "I left off Dickey's third precept, which is that a Bill of Rights is not actually necessary because the rule of law inherently provides for the protection of the rights of individuals."

Dave, when the framers of our constitution were working up to the federation of the states, they looked both to America and Britain for inspiration. It is why our system is known colloquially as the "Washminster" system and why in form our system of governance is similarv to that of the US but in function similar to that of Britain.

So there are certain parts of our constitution that very obviously draw on the American experience.

But in discussing a Bill of Rights, they decided that all those freedoms codified in the US Bill of Rights already existed in the laws of this country, as they had also existed in England.

The High Court (equivalent of the US Supreme Court) has ruled that in view of that, these rights are implied in our constitution.

Example: A few weeks back, the NSW state government tried to enact a temporary law stopping protesters "annoying" pilgrims visiting Sydney for Catholic World Youth Day, their plan being to gather to shout slogans, hold placards, distribute leaflets and wear T-shirts urging the pilgrims for instance to "wear a condom", or suggesting "there is no God".

The High Court overturned the state's temporary laws, ruling that they were not conducive to free speech and illegal.

So at the federal level, the High Court has a great understanding of how rule of law works to keep our freedoms.

So Dickey was right ... where people are serious about rule of law, the freedoms are maintained.

Bliffle- I too will be glad of the day when George W HITLER and all his NAZI buddies like Conaskeeza Rice and Colon Power are brought before the Hague and then summarily shot. Up against the wall, Rummy!

But you're maybe all ass backward about Scooter Libby. He was arguably treated far more harshly than a common citizen, and a really petty prosecution was drummed up for him based on absolutely legal behavior. There was no underlying law broken, and the prosecutor already knew who the leaker was. The prosecutor went baiting perjury traps for no reason other than pushing Libby into stepping in it. He appears to have been treated largely as if he were in fact BENEATH rather than above the law.

Bliff, perhaps this will enlighten you as it particularly references the constitutions and laws of the US and the UK. Yes, I know it's Wikipedia, but still ... they explain it far better than I can.

It does point out that rule of law is regarded as the best way to stop despots. For all his faults, Bush can't be regarded as a despot under the usual criteria applied to the moniker, and under the same criteria the US is in no immediate danger of becoming a dictatorship.

You get to vote later this year, don't you, and I assume that as usual, it'll count towards something.

STM, some people here in the US take the Constitution and put it on a pedestal and assume that it is much more than it really is. It's a fine working document for the structure of the government, but it is NOT the sum total of the law or even the basis of much of the law. It includes in it the assumption that concepts from common law like the Rule of Law and the general definition of the function of an executive office, are understood and in place and don't need to be fully defined in the Constitution itself.

This causes problems when very literally minded people like Bliffle or Pablo come along and don't like the way things are going and then look to the constitution to explain things and don't find the explanation they are looking for there. They seem to be incapable of understanding that there is law which exists separate from the constitution with just as much legitimacy, and which in some cases is quite possibly more important than the constitution or even capable of overriding the constitution.

In some ways it makes me think that having a written constitution is a mistake, because it can lead to these kinds of false expectations if it is kept simple and functional, or going the other way (as with the EU constitution) it can bcome a disaster if the framers try to actually make it comprehensive and exhaustively detailed.

Dave

Dave,

The condescension oozing out of your reference to me in the above post I find quite amusing. Your the kind of guy, that can never leave well enough alone. As in Mr. Last Word. After all Dave, your the expert on all things political, and thats just the tip of the iceberg!

However your condescension makes you look like not only an effete snob, but more than likely very weak in the "expert" department, as a wise man who knows his stuff, would not resort to the pettiness of such snobbery.

That being said Davey boy, I will still respond to your above ignorance. This is the sentence that I would like to respond to.

"This causes problems when very literally minded people like Bliffle or Pablo come along and don't like the way things are going and then look to the constitution to explain things and don't find the explanation they are looking for there.

They seem to be incapable of understanding that there is law which exists separate from the constitution with just as much legitimacy, and which in some cases is quite possibly more important than the constitution or even capable of overriding the constitution."

I will be the first to admit that there are many aspects of the law that I am ignorant of, as I am not an lawyer by trade, and never went to law school. I do however have a very acute interest in it, and have been learning about it for the past twenty five years.

It is true that most of my studying about law has been of the constitution. I do not view this document as you call it as either divinely inspired, or the end all and be all of the law.
I am also quite familiar with Natural Law, the Common Law, Admiralty and Maritime Law, and am quite familiar with law and equity. I know such things as the Writ of Habeas Corps is a Writ, that is a court order.

I also know that the Supreme Court asserted itself in Marbury V Madison, saying that they had the right and the power to rule that an act of the legislature was abhorrent to the constitution and thus invalid.

I do not "look" to the constitution to solve any problems. I refer to it and study about it because it is the ONLY true constraint on the unfettered use of coercive force against the individual. In other words, those that are agents of the government swear an oath, to uphold,and defend the constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic.

What I see on a DAILY basis is this oath being violated in a criminal fashion by those in power that have sworn to uphold it.

I also am aware of John Locke's Second Treatise of Government: "That the individual can do anything but that which is forbidden by law, and the state may do nothing but that which is authorised by law."

I expect and DEMAND that our government representatives and employees uphold the Constitution that they swore to. I did not take such an oath by the way, nor am I PAID by the state to represent the interest of the people. THEY DID.

A literalist Davey? As in original intent buddy? Or what about the due process clause of the 14th amendment as applied to state law bucko?

Or what about the good faith exlusionary rule exception to the fourth amendment bubba?

Or how about former rejected Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork's referral to the 9th amendment as being an ink blot on the constitution as in him saying that nobody knows what it means!

No Davey, I do not put the constitution on a pedestal, I do however maintain that ANY executive order, act of congress, administrative rule or regulation by the government, or police acting under the color of law, MUST be constitutional for them to have any basis of legality, period.

Your snobbery is very unbecoming.

[Edited]

If you are going to disagree with me and say that I'm condescending to you, then writing something like this seems somewhat retarded:

I do not "look" to the constitution to solve any problems. I refer to it and study about it because it is the ONLY true constraint on the unfettered use of coercive force against the individual.

Did you not READ the prior thread? Did you not see the discussion of Dickey and common law and how those protections exist outside of the Constitution? You're like the guy who brings a knife to a gun fight.

I expect and DEMAND that our government representatives and employees uphold the Constitution that they swore to.

Well we're in agreement then that this executive order is a means for preserving the constitution in a time of crisis and all is well.

Yay!

Dave

You are so boring Dave.

I just don't feel the need to inject the world with fantasy to make it more exciting than it is.

Dave

Dave, it seems that fantasy is approaching reality. Please see my comment #4 in the thread on Chinese censorship.

Dan

I wouldn't describe Alex Jones as a Kook or a nut. He is basically like Matt Drudge. Most of his work is linking to mainstream news articles. His film "Masters of Terror" is 2 hours of him summarizing news articles from Fox News, CNN, AP, MSNBC, Houston Chronicle, Daily Mail and other mainstream outlets.

Hey Pablo,
So Daniel Pipes and Chris Hodapp are written off as having conflicts of interest (what are those conflicts, that Pipes is a Jew and Hodapp is a Mason?), but Alex Jones has no conflict of interest--other than his money-making empire that trades in hysteria and frothing invective?

Do you actually read those books you so quickly dismiss out of hand, or do you just get a synopsis faxed over from infowars?