||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
[The Globe does not deal with the fact that the Constitution makes no
provision for martial law of the sort contemplated in these plans. In
the event of a real emergency, under the Constitution power should
devolve to the states and not to individuals illegally named in a
presidential executive order. This is not only the law, but it makes
sense as the governors are those best situated and best trained for
handling catastrophes unlike, say, Michael Brown late of FEMA or some
political pal of the president]
CHARLIE SAVAGE, BOSTON GLOBE - The Bush administration is writing a new
plan to maintain governmental control in the wake of an apocalyptic
terrorist attack or overwhelming natural disaster, moving such doomsday
planning for the first time from the Federal Emergency Management Agency
to officials inside the White House.
The policy requires all government agencies to have clear lines of
succession if top officials are killed and be prepared to operate from a
new headquarters within 12 hours of a catastrophe. They must be prepared
"to lead and sustain the nation during a crisis" - - a charge ranging
from "providing leadership visible to the nation and the world" to
"bringing to justice perpetrators of crimes or attacks."
The policy replaces a Clinton - era "continuity in government" post -
disaster plan. The old plan is classified, but security specialists and
administration officials said the new policy centralizes control of such
planning in the White House and puts a greater emphasis on terrorism
spurring the catastrophe. . .
The public portion of the new "National Continuity Policy" contains few
details about how surviving officials would invoke emergency powers, or
when emergency powers should be deemed to be no longer necessary so that
the elected democracy can resume. The answers to such questions may be
contained in a classified appendix which has not been made public.
The unanswered questions have provoked anxiety across ideological lines.
The conservative commentator Jerome Corsi, for example, wrote in a much
- linked online column that the directive looked like a recipe for
allowing the office of the presidency to seize "dictatorial powers"
because the policy does not discuss consulting Congress about when to
invoke emergency powers - or when to turn them off. . .
White House spokesman Gordon Johndroe said that because of the attacks
of Sept. 11, 2001, the American public needs no explanation of such
plans. "It's well known that the vice president was in a secure,
undisclosed location for a period of time for continuity - of -
government reasons, so these considerations are not unknown to the
American people in a post - 9/11 world," he said. . .
The policy broadly defines a "catastrophic emergency" - - the
triggering event for the plan - - as "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."
Sharon Bradford Franklin, the senior counsel at the Constitution
Project, a bipartisan think-tank that promotes constitutional
safeguards, said the policy's definition "is so broad that it raises
serious concerns about when and how this might be used to authorize
unchecked executive action."
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/
2007/06/02/white_house_revises_post_disaster_protocol?mode=PF
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
[The Globe does not deal with the fact that the Constitution makes no
provision for martial law of the sort contemplated in these plans. In
the event of a real emergency, under the Constitution power should
devolve to the states and not to individuals illegally named in a
presidential executive order. This is not only the law, but it makes
sense as the governors are those best situated and best trained for
handling catastrophes unlike, say, Michael Brown late of FEMA or some
political pal of the president]
CHARLIE SAVAGE, BOSTON GLOBE - The Bush administration is writing a new
plan to maintain governmental control in the wake of an apocalyptic
terrorist attack or overwhelming natural disaster, moving such doomsday
planning for the first time from the Federal Emergency Management Agency
to officials inside the White House.
The policy requires all government agencies to have clear lines of
succession if top officials are killed and be prepared to operate from a
new headquarters within 12 hours of a catastrophe. They must be prepared
"to lead and sustain the nation during a crisis" - - a charge ranging
from "providing leadership visible to the nation and the world" to
"bringing to justice perpetrators of crimes or attacks."
The policy replaces a Clinton - era "continuity in government" post -
disaster plan. The old plan is classified, but security specialists and
administration officials said the new policy centralizes control of such
planning in the White House and puts a greater emphasis on terrorism
spurring the catastrophe. . .
The public portion of the new "National Continuity Policy" contains few
details about how surviving officials would invoke emergency powers, or
when emergency powers should be deemed to be no longer necessary so that
the elected democracy can resume. The answers to such questions may be
contained in a classified appendix which has not been made public.
The unanswered questions have provoked anxiety across ideological lines.
The conservative commentator Jerome Corsi, for example, wrote in a much
- linked online column that the directive looked like a recipe for
allowing the office of the presidency to seize "dictatorial powers"
because the policy does not discuss consulting Congress about when to
invoke emergency powers - or when to turn them off. . .
White House spokesman Gordon Johndroe said that because of the attacks
of Sept. 11, 2001, the American public needs no explanation of such
plans. "It's well known that the vice president was in a secure,
undisclosed location for a period of time for continuity - of -
government reasons, so these considerations are not unknown to the
American people in a post - 9/11 world," he said. . .
The policy broadly defines a "catastrophic emergency" - - the
triggering event for the plan - - as "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."
Sharon Bradford Franklin, the senior counsel at the Constitution
Project, a bipartisan think-tank that promotes constitutional
safeguards, said the policy's definition "is so broad that it raises
serious concerns about when and how this might be used to authorize
unchecked executive action."
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/
2007/06/02/white_house_revises_post_disaster_protocol?mode=PF
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
No comments:
Post a Comment