Presidential Directive
Wednesday, May 23, 2007
The National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive was released on May 9th. I didn't hear about it until today. It's disturbing to me, not just because of the content, but because the press has totally ignored it.
The directive states as its purpose:
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.
A catastrophic emergency is defined as:
"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
That definition is so vague, it could be used for many events. Could the war in Iraq be covered if soldiers are considered a "U.S. population"?
I'm not sure what the intent of this new directive is. I know that Bush received a lot of criticism over Katrina, and this may be a response to that criticism. I think this directive is going overboard. The President and appointed cabinet members would be in charge of the country if this ever was enacted without any say from Congress. To me, that seems unconstitutional.
Does it bother anyone else to have the President give himself powers like this?
This directive is to replace the Presidential Decision Directive 67 of October 21, 1998 ("Enduring Constitutional Government and Continuity of Government Operations"), which I've never seen. How much difference is there between the two? I don't know if Directive 67 was ever published publicly.
(HT to venjanz)
Wednesday, May 23, 2007 at 7:51:00 PM CDT
You asked; here's the answer:
(don't feed hysteria by reading too much into this):
With the reduced threat to this country of nuclear attack by the former Soviet Union and its successor nations, Enduring Constitutional Government programs (the former Continuity of Government programs) were scaled back in the early 1990s. Most of the resources of the National Preparedness Directorate of the Federal Emergency Management Agency [FEMA] were spent on ensuring the continuation of civilian government in the event of a nuclear war, through what are known as the Enduring Constitutional Government programs. The directorate also supports ongoing studies through war gaming, computer modeling, and other methods.
Wednesday, May 23, 2007 at 11:05:00 PM CDT
Yes, that seems a little freaky to me that he wouldn't need approval from Congress...seems almost, dare I say it, Chavez style! I find that funny and ironic considering Chavez and Bush are archenemies!
Sorry, I don't have much else to compare it to, down here in Chile on the news all we see is South America, and really not even much outside of Chile.
Thanks for your comments on my blog, I've actually felt a little better thinking maybe I'm just hearing animals or something....
Take care!Kyle
ps. I'm a girl, don't be fooled by name :)
Thursday, May 24, 2007 at 12:11:00 AM CDT
This is the sort of thing that makes me think that Prisonplanet.com is a legit news source.
-T