um, what?

[griftadan]

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/05/20070509-12.html

NATIONAL SECURITY PRESIDENTIAL DIRECTIVE/NSPD 51

HOMELAND SECURITY PRESIDENTIAL DIRECTIVE/HSPD-20

Subject: National Continuity Policy

Purpose

(1) This directive establishes a comprehensive national policy on the continuity of Federal Government structures and operations and a single National Continuity Coordinator responsible for coordinating the development and implementation of Federal continuity policies. This policy establishes "National Essential Functions," prescribes continuity requirements for all executive departments and agencies, and provides guidance for State, local, territorial, and tribal governments, and private sector organizations in order to ensure a comprehensive and integrated national continuity program that will enhance the credibility of our national security posture and enable a more rapid and effective response to and recovery from a national emergency.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jatpX6kuxHQ

[ringworm]

wow, that could just be an over reaction, but it still seems a tad scary

And why did we elect the Dems into office last year
it seems everyone is failing us
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tis8QWRMLg4&mode=related&search=

[griftadan]

i'd say anything like this is unlikely but still why the hell isn't anyoen talking about this?

[Mister_Che]

So this just came up, out of the blue, seemingly without provocation, and without Senate approval?

[gregulus]

So this just came up, out of the blue, seemingly without provocation, and without Senate approval?

presidential directives and executive orders don't require senate approval.

this is absolutely ridiculous. why aren't people talking about this?

[AmericanWeiner]

anyone care for laymans?

[Mr. Ron]

Hooray for police states.

[Hababi]

Oh come now. I don't see the objection to this.

[Mr. Ron]

Of course you wouldn't Steve.

[Hababi]

Of course you wouldn't Steve.

Ok well you explain how it's objectionable. plz dont cite Noam Chomsky in the process:smash:

[Mr. Ron]

Ok well you explain how it's objectionable. plz dont cite Noam Chomsky in the process:smash:

Whats with you thinking I worship Noam Chomsky? I have a few of his books and happen to like some of his views, stop being stupid.


Well, seeing as how these acts are COMPLETELY UNCONSTITUTIONAL, that's where the problem is.

[Hababi]

Whats with you thinking I worship Noam Chomsky? I have a few of his books and happen to like some of his views, stop being stupid.


Do you like his defense of the Khmar Rouge? Or the lies he told about Clinton's military action in Sudan? Or support of violence against Israel?


Well, seeing as how these acts are COMPLETELY UNCONSTITUTIONAL, that's where the problem is.

What harm is there in the action?

[Mr. Ron]

Do you like his defense of the Khmar Rouge? Or the lies he told about Clinton's military action in Sudan? Or support of violence against Israel?



What harm is there in the action?

I haven't read anything on his positions of those things yet I'll get back to you. But I hardly think he supports violence against anyone.


Oh I don't know, pissing on the foundation of our country and violating private citizen's rights? You seem to love authoritarian moves.

[Hababi]

Oh I don't know, pissing on the foundation of our country and violating private citizen's rights?

How?

[Mr. Ron]

How?

Seizing control of PRIVATE institutions.

[Hababi]

Seizing control of PRIVATE institutions.

No, guiding them in the event of a terrorist attack. Don't be ridiculous.

[griftadan]

What harm is there in the action?

it removes seperation of powers on the presidents terms with little check, as well as giving the ability to control private institutions. this is some hugo chavez **** right here

[Mr. Ron]

No, guiding them in the event of a terrorist attack. Don't be ridiculous.

"Guiding" is pretty much legalese for controlling.

[Hababi]

it removes seperation of powers on the presidents terms with little check, as well as giving the ability to control private institutions. this is some hugo chavez **** right here

I think that's quite an overreaction to it. This is a measure of narrow scope and specific purpose and its results will be positive. In the event of a terrorist attack, the federal government should have measures in place to direct everything it needs to in order to restore order.

"Guiding" is pretty much legalese for controlling.

So you find it objectionable that government health experts would provide guidance to private hospitals in the event of a terrorist attack?

[Mr. Ron]

I think that's quite an overreaction to it. This is a measure of narrow scope and specific purpose and its results will be positive. In the event of a terrorist attack, the federal government should have measures in place to direct everything it needs to in order to restore order.



So you find it objectionable that government health experts would provide guidance to private hospitals in the event of a terrorist attack?

The government has no right to interfere with private organizations unless the private citizens of that organization ask for help or say its ok for them to help.

[Hababi]

The government has no right to interfere with private organizations unless the private citizens of that organization ask for help or say its ok for them to help.

So, say a private hospital was being unethical and slowing down treatment of patients to render better profits following a terrorist attack...the government has no right to step in?

For that matter, do you then not support work regulation laws?

[Mr. Ron]

So, say a private hospital was being unethical and slowing down treatment of patients to render better profits following a terrorist attack...the government has no right to step in?

For that matter, do you then not support work regulation laws?

It would be ok for the government to step in if a private organization is BREAKING the law. This makes the government able to size a private institution over anything. You're just posing straw man arguments.

[Hababi]

It would be ok for the government to step in if a private organization is BREAKING the law. This makes the government able to size a private institution over anything. You're just posing straw man arguments.

Not really. A hospital could be not breaking the law but at the same time working in ways to maximize their profits, and by doing so affecting the post-disaster recovery. Or they could just be ill equipped to handle it. There are plenty of rational reasons to have this, and your objection is slippery slope fear mongering. AMERICA FROM FREEDOM TO FASCISM :rolleys:

[Mr. Ron]

Not really. A hospital could be not breaking the law but at the same time working in ways to maximize their profits, and by doing so affecting the post-disaster recovery. Or they could just be ill equipped to handle it. There are plenty of rational reasons to have this, and your objection is slippery slope fear mongering. AMERICA FROM FREEDOM TO FASCISM :rolleys:

I'm pretty sure there would be some law violation when hospitals would "slow" the treatment of some patients that cannot have their treatments "slowed".

[AmericanWeiner]

so you're implying that lets say..a hospital who has only half of is staff on campus should be forced to call them up in the event of an emergency

I'm not attacking, just seeing if i can find a concrete example of what you're saying

[Hababi]

I'm pretty sure there would be some law violation when hospitals would "slow" the treatment of some patients that cannot have their treatments "slowed".

Why not have a specially trained government organization to help maximize operations in the event of a terrorist attack? It makes no sense not to.

so you're implying that lets say..a hospital who has only half of is staff on campus should be forced to call them up in the event of an emergency

I'm not attacking, just seeing if i can find a concrete example of what you're saying

Absolutely.

[gregulus]

Why not have a specially trained government organization to help maximize operations in the event of a terrorist attack? It makes no sense not to.

this p.d. doesn't talk about any group specifically trained to guide the country in the times of a disaster, it gives sole decision making to the president. also, it gives an extremely broad definition of the word disaster.

and did you really ask what's wrong with something being unconstitutional?

[Independent_CA]

I think that's quite an overreaction to it. This is a measure of narrow scope and specific purpose and its results will be positive. In the event of a terrorist attack, the federal government should have measures in place to direct everything it needs to in order to restore order.
No, it seems to be a measure of very broad scope. From what I heard there, it allows the president to decide what constitutes an emergency all on his own and take whatever level of control he chooses. I don't have a problem with something like this if there is a legitimate need for it and there are clear guidelines for how it would be implemented. This is far too broad.



So you find it objectionable that government health experts would provide guidance to private hospitals in the event of a terrorist attack?
The fact that it would be the president who had control of the whole situation, not the health experts, is what is objectionable. Even more objectionable is the fact that there doesn't actually need to be a terrorist attack in order for the president to use this directive.

[Mr. Ron]

Why not have a specially trained government organization to help maximize operations in the event of a terrorist attack? It makes no sense not to.



Absolutely.

They're not talking about "helping" anyone, they want martial law.

[Independent_CA]

Why not have a specially trained government organization to help maximize operations in the event of a terrorist attack? It makes no sense not to.

Ever heard of FEMA?

[griftadan]

I think that's quite an overreaction to it. This is a measure of narrow scope and specific purpose and its results will be positive. In the event of a terrorist attack, the federal government should have measures in place to direct everything it needs to in order to restore order.

complete control over every executive institution at the local, state and national level is narrow scope?

i don't disagree that the executive should have mergency powers, but they should be in check of congress and not this broad.

[Mr. Ron]

complete control over every executive institution at the local, state and national level is narrow scope?

i don't disagree that the executive should have mergency powers, but they should be in check of congress and not this broad.

This ^^^^

[Hababi]

and did you really ask what's wrong with something being unconstitutional?

Yes. Sometimes you need to go beyond the Constitution. Lincoln did it during the Civil War. FDR did it, with less justification, during WW2. Stuff happens.

No, it seems to be a measure of very broad scope. From what I heard there, it allows the president to decide what constitutes an emergency all on his own and take whatever level of control he chooses. I don't have a problem with something like this if there is a legitimate need for it and there are clear guidelines for how it would be implemented. This is far too broad.

My guess is that clearer guidelines will be put forth in times to come.



The fact that it would be the president who had control of the whole situation, not the health experts, is what is objectionable.

Someone has to be the boss of the health experts, right? ;)


Even more objectionable is the fact that there doesn't actually need to be a terrorist attack in order for the president to use this directive.

Do you think the President would use it in times other than terrorist attacks (or similar catastrophic incidents)?
They're not talking about "helping" anyone, they want martial law.

Right, they're doing this because they're power mad despots, not because they think it'll help the country :rolleyes: That's as ridiculous as all the nonsense said about Clinton during the 1990's.

complete control over every executive institution at the local, state and national level is narrow scope?

In terms of when it's applied, it is. I think in some circumstances this is necessary.

i don't disagree that the executive should have mergency powers, but they should be in check of congress and not this broad.

I wouldn't mind a check, but I'd prefer it to be judicial and not congressional.


Ever heard of FEMA?


Yeah. The last time I checked, they suck :p

[gregulus]

Yes. Sometimes you need to go beyond the Constitution. Lincoln did it during the Civil War. FDR did it, with less justification, during WW2. Stuff happens.

But with specialized agencies already in place, why does the president need this power? Surely you don't truely believe that he knows more about how to handle crisis better than experts in such areas...

[Hababi]

But with specialized agencies already in place, why does the president need this power? Surely you don't truely believe that he knows more about how to handle crisis better than experts in such areas...

No, but he has a network of advisers that can form a synthesis, parlayed to and through him and his guidance, that will best handle the situation. Like how Kennedy handled the Cuban Missile Crisis.

[gregulus]

No, but he has a network of advisers that can form a synthesis, parlayed to and through him and his guidance, that will best handle the situation. Like how Kennedy handled the Cuban Missile Crisis.

How is this more efficient than handing the situation over to experts? The Cuban Missle Crisis is hardly the same thing as a situation like NYC after 9/11 or New Orleans after Katrina.

Groups like FEMA, the FDA, the EPA exist for a reason. Let them do their job.

[Hababi]

How is this more efficient than handing the situation over to experts? The Cuban Missle Crisis is hardly the same thing as a situation like NYC after 9/11 or New Orleans after Katrina.

But what happened after 9/11? Bush and Rudy basically took sole control, particularly Rudy in New York. Whereas New Orleans had a bum in office and thus it didn't go as smoothly.

[gregulus]

But what happened after 9/11? Bush and Rudy basically took sole control, particularly Rudy in New York. Whereas New Orleans had a bum in office and thus it didn't go as smoothly.

Bush just stood on the ruins of the WTC and vowed revenge. It was the federal agencies, federal money, and various other groups that participated in the clean up/search efforts that got NYC running again.

[Independent_CA]

My guess is that clearer guidelines will be put forth in times to come.
I'd rather see them than guess about their existence.




Someone has to be the boss of the health experts, right? ;)
And that someone should be a health expert themselves or someone trained in emergency/disaster management, not a politician with limited skills and potentially ulterior motives for declaring an emergency.



Do you think the President would use it in times other than terrorist attacks (or similar catastrophic incidents)?
I believe it's possible because other executives in other countries have done so in the past, and our own government has shown some dictatorial tendancies in the past.


Right, they're doing this because they're power mad despots, not because they think it'll help the country :rolleyes: That's as ridiculous as all the nonsense said about Clinton during the 1990's.
I don't totally disagree with you here, but you have to remember that many of the people who would back something like this are some of the same people who support the PNAC and other far right ideas.


Yeah. The last time I checked, they suck :p
So fix FEMA, we don't need to create another shadowy bureaucracy to do the job of one that already exists. This can be done with legislation as can the rest of our emergency preparedness. FEMA is supposed to manage the damage and the military and other organizations are supposed to defend against futher attack and mount the necessary counteroffensive(s). This directive is unecessary, probably unconstitutional, and potentially dangerous.

[Hababi]

Bush just stood on the ruins of the WTC and vowed revenge. It was the federal agencies and federal money that got NYC running again.

You're drastically understating the role that Rudy Guiliani had, personally, in restoring order and getting things going again.

[Reaganista]

Oh come now. I don't see the objection to this.
that's cause you're a christianofascist

You're drastically understating the role that Rudy Guiliani had, personally, in restoring order and getting things going again.
that was a joke right

No, but he has a network of advisers that can form a synthesis, parlayed to and through him and his guidance, that will best handle the situation. Like how Kennedy handled the Cuban Missile Crisis.
the cuban missile crisis was a game of chicken

Yeah. The last time I checked, they suck
basically:
our executive institutions suck
so we should give the executive more power

[DougJI]

methinks the president would be impeached if he tried anything funny with this