Bush To Be Dictator In A Catastrophic Emergency

J

JumpInTheFire

Prowler
This is a copy paste of the story...
even more proof of how the u.s. government is slowly enabling itself to turn into a police-state overrun with corrupt government...

i sure hope Ron Paul wins and brings back truth and freedom to america






The Bush administration has released a directive called the National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive. The directive released on May 9th, 2007 has gone almost unnoticed by the mainstream and alternative media. This is understandable considering the huge Ron Paul and immigration news but this story is equally as huge. In this directive, Bush declares that in the event of a “Catastrophic Emergency” the President will be entrusted with leading the activities to ensure constitutional government. The language in this directive would in effect make the President a dictator in the case of such an emergency.


read the rest here

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php? ... cleId=5721
 
I've read the directive, and as always, a presidential directive has no influence over the other two branches of government.  All it says is that the PotUS is required to use his powers to maintain the operations of all three branches of government.  As best as I can tell, it does not give any power to anyone.

Besides, declaring martial law has always been an option of any US president.  However, if anyone thinks the Bush administration has the support of the troops in order to pull a dictatorship out of the hat, they have another thing coming.  It's always good to analyze directives of this type, but if it was anything to worry about, law professors and the like would be screaming their heads off, and then it wouldn't be ignored by the mainstream media.  IMO, this is simply clutching at straws.
 
the power is in the fact that most laws are open to "interpretation"

the thing is... is that it states the Bush would be in control to help make sure that "constituional rights" are ensured... which is quite contradictory... dictator like powers to ensure constituional ones?

the fact is... the 3 branches will not be in power over themselves


the freedom of intrepretation can lead to misuse
thats all im sayin  ;)
 
Nothing to worry about here, but the coming year will be interesting on how hard the current administration will push. I am sure that there will be more than a few questions answered for all those conspiracy theorists out there.
 
Sure, of course it can.  That's why we have the prison at Guantanamo Bay, for instance.  However, the job of the executive branch (right in the President's job description) is to safeguard and ensure the continuance of the three branches of government.  This new directive only reaffirms that.

You cannot say what the "fact is".  You can only assume based on your interpretations of the intentions of the Bush administration.  Personally, I do not believe this administration has the ability to silence the legislative or the judicial branch for more than a short period of time.  In order for President Bush to enter into war, declare martial law, et al, he requires the authority of Congress.  In order to violate that, he'd need the support of the army.  Too bad he's got the army off getting butchered in Iraq.

I can understand the concern for personal freedoms, and the government is guilty, in my opinion, of violating some of the Constitutional rights granted US citizens.  The things, however, that you have suggested are beyond the scope of a critiquing public.  72% of US citizens disapprove of the Bush administration.  You can't install a dictatorship in a democratic nation like the USA without public support or the full support of a numerous military.  See Hitler and Mussolini for examples.
 
^ im not really sure what to say, because i agree with you

i didnt say it will for sure happen,
im just saying that things are open to misuse and given the fact that people can be corrupted because we are not perfect... it could happen


the thing is... the president is doing more than ensuring... it is allowing for him to be in control of the 3 branches... that is not in the constitution, otherwise how would you overthrow or impeach a president?


anyhow,
yes Hitler gained support by burning down his own countries building... the Reichstag
which of course all Germans refused to believe

Germans also refused to believe right after the war that camps of mass death were set up for jews...


what we choose and choose not to believe or focus or, greatly determines the power and influence of corruption and those people in power
 
JumpInTheFire said:
Germans also refused to believe right after the war that camps of mass death were set up for jews...
Click to expand...

That is not correct. A widespread policy in the Western occupation zones of Germany right after their liberation from the nazi regime was that the allied troops commanded the residents of nearby towns to go into the concentration camps and help bury the dead.
As early as 1953, the West German government publically apologised to the Jewish people for the atrocities commited, even though this was a mere formality and an uncomfortable situation for both sides.
In the early 1960s, finally, some prat who denied the existence of death camps such as Auschwitz was publically tried in West Germany, and several such trials have gained much attention ever since.

It was different in East Germany, but for the sole reason that some former concentration camps were used as Soviet POW camps in the early postwar years.

There's a lot you can say against the Germans and even the way they confronted their nazi past, but you cannot accuse them of collectively denying the Holocaust, at any point. You can accuse them of not talking about it until 1968, but they never denied it.
 
^ i apologize for what i said being not specifically clear

i didnt mean that they had denied it or were without total knowledge for very long
but there was a period of time that was like that
 
JumpInTheFire said:
^ i apologize for what i said being not specifically clear

i didnt mean that they had denied it or were without total knowledge for very long
but there was a period of time that was like that
Click to expand...

They looked away from it during the Third Reich. Most of them, at least.
 
JumpInTheFire said:
the thing is... the president is doing more than ensuring... it is allowing for him to be in control of the 3 branches... that is not in the constitution, otherwise how would you overthrow or impeach a president?
Click to expand...
What line of the directive gives the PotUS direct control over the legislative and judicial branches?
 
^

specific clarification does not exist,
because as i have said, laws are written most of the time, to be open to interpretation

so obviously, this could be used for good. and if it is, then i would be all for it

however this line

Enduring Constitutional Government," or "ECG," means a cooperative effort among the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the Federal Government, coordinated by the President

"coordinated" is too loose a term in which it allows for the president to "coordinate" with the 3 branches of government
 
But that's already the President's job.  "coordinated" can mean anything, you're right, but I highly doubt that Congress or the SCotUS would allow for the coordination to equal domination.
 
^ and you see i agree with you,

however im just saying that the looseness and allowance for interpretation can allow for it to be misused
now whether or not it will be successful or will happen is up to the hands of time to see  ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top