Congress Denied Access To Post-Terror Attack Plans

Started by Schecter6 pages

Congress Denied Access To Post-Terror Attack Plans

WASHINGTON — Constituents called Rep. Peter DeFazio's office, worried there was a conspiracy buried in the classified portion of a White House plan for operating the government after a terrorist attack.

As a member of the House Committee on Homeland Security, DeFazio, D-Ore., is permitted to enter a secure "bubbleroom'' in the Capitol and examine classified material. So he asked the White House to see the secret documents.

On Wednesday, DeFazio got his answer: DENIED

"I just can't believe they're going to deny a member of Congress the right of reviewing how they plan to conduct the government of the United States after a significant terrorist attack,'' DeFazio said.

Homeland Security Committee staffers told his office that the White House initially approved his request, but it was later quashed. DeFazio doesn't know who did it or why.

"We're talking about the continuity of the government of the United States of America,'' DeFazio said. "I would think that would be relevant to any member of Congress, let alone a member of the Homeland Security Committee.''

Bush administration spokesman Trey Bohn declined to say why DeFazio was denied access: "We do not comment through the press on the process that this access entails. It is important to keep in mind that much of the information related to the continuity of government is highly sensitive.''

Norm Ornstein, a legal scholar who studies government continuity at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, said he ``cannot think of one good reason'' to deny access to a member of Congress who serves on the Homeland Security Committee.

"I find it inexplicable and probably reflective of the usual knee-jerk overextension of executive power that we see from this White House,'' Ornstein said.

This is the first time DeFazio has been denied access to documents. DeFazio has asked Homeland Security Committee Chairman Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., to help him access the documents.

"Maybe the people who think there's a conspiracy out there are right,'' DeFazio said.

(Jeff Kosseff can be contacted at jeff.kosseff(at)newhouse.com)

http://www.newhouse.com/congressman-denied-access-to-post-attack-government-continuity-plans.html

the original article concerning this issue (i could have sworn i made a thread on it, but could find nothing)

With scarcely a mention in the mainstream media, President Bush has ordered up a plan for responding to a catastrophic attack.

Under that plan, he entrusts himself with leading the entire federal government, not just the Executive Branch. And he gives himself the responsibility “for ensuring constitutional government.”

He laid this all out in a document entitled “National Security Presidential Directive/NSPD 51” and “Homeland Security Presidential Directive/HSPD-20.”

Other than a discussion on Daily Kos led off by a posting by Leo Fender, and a pro-forma notice in a couple of mainstream newspapers, this document has gone unremarked upon.

The subject of the document is entitled “National Continuity Policy.”


http://progressive.org/mag_wx051807

wow....so many questions...

have the seeds for a dictatorship have been planted? all it would take is another 9/11 for bush to claim absolute power and render the house and congress helpless.

is this how we preserve our freedom? by giving it away and unconditionally trusting one man? i thought that was a dictatorship...right?

and why the secrecy? what is there to hide?

how can one branch of government declare itself autonomous from the others?

how come the evil jew liberal bias media hasnt even TOUCHED this story when its been out for months?

were the conspiracy theorists correct?

why will this thread inevitably be trolled by retards?

weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeird

here is the official document's overview
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/05/20070509-12.html

Re: Congress Denied Access To Post-Terror Attack Plans

Originally posted by Schecter
...were the conspiracy theorists correct?...

No.

well written and thought provoking. thanks.

Originally posted by Schecter
well written and thought provoking. thanks.

Thank you, chicken little. 🙄

Originally posted by Schecter
here is the official document's overview
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/05/20070509-12.html

Would have been perfect if Darth Vader's march started playing when you opened the page. I'm going to read every line of that when I get the chance.

[edit]
One thing of note, this directive revokes the previous one:

'(22) Revocation. Presidential Decision Directive 67 of October 21, 1998 ("Enduring Constitutional Government and Continuity of Government Operations"😉, including all Annexes thereto, is hereby revoked."

Decision Directive 67 of October 21, 1998:

http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/pdd/pdd-67.htm

Seems every president does one of these... wondering the differences between what Clinton stiplulated as to Bush.

Not exactly a surprise considering the prolific use of Signing Statements, recess appointment of John Bolton to the UN etc.

(6) The President shall lead the activities of the Federal Government for ensuring constitutional government.

which imho renders all the assurances of preserving the 3 branch system moot. it trusts that the president will surrender absolute power when the crisis has ended.

Originally posted by Schecter
which imho renders all the assurances of preserving the 3 branch system moot. it trusts that the president will surrender absolute power when the crisis has ended.

Sorry, but you have to find the similarities with Star Wars esp. 1-3 and this to be hilarious, though disturbing.

Originally posted by Robtard
Sorry, but you have to find the similarities with Star Wars esp. 1-3 and this to be hilarious, though disturbing.

idiots will swoop in here and declare the similarities as proof that the issue doesnt exist. just watch.

Originally posted by Schecter
idiots will swoop in here and declare the similarities as proof that the issue doesnt exist. just watch.

When in reality, it's both a devious and ingenious way to seize power... Hitler used irrational fear to unify Germany and seize total power.

Originally posted by Schecter
idiots will swoop in here and declare the similarities as proof that the issue doesnt exist. just watch.
I wont be one of them. It wouldnt surprise me if, in the wake of another terrorist attack, that this happened.

Well, it would have to be huge...

"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"

...then again, who decides what is considered "extraordinary" in terms of death, damages or disruption.

Originally posted by Robtard
Well, it would have to be huge...

"[b]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"

...then again, who decides what is considered "extraordinary" in terms of death, damages or disruption. [/B]

Something like a nuke going off in a major city?

Originally posted by Robtard
Well, it would have to be huge...

"[b]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"

...then again, who decides what is considered "extraordinary" in terms of death, damages or disruption. [/B]

exactly. its subjective, and we all know who decides. 'the decider' of course. 9/11 was a "catastrophic emergency". also notice the word "or" in place of "and".

Originally posted by Schecter
exactly. its subjective, and we all know who decides. 'the decider' of course. 9/11 was a "catastrophic emergency". also notice the word "or" in place of "and".
too many if's, and's, but's and maybe's.

Originally posted by Schecter
exactly. its subjective, and we all know who decides. 'the decider' of course. 9/11 was a "catastrophic emergency". also notice the word "or" in place of "and".

What would you want to happen if Catastrophic Emergency did occur?

the same as when any catastrophy has happened in the history of our democracy here in the u.s. carry on with 3 equal branches of government. i know, its a tough one to wrap your brain around when you're scared of brown people and just want to hire a cowboy to take care of us and kill them all. maybe chuck norris would have been a better candidate?

Originally posted by Schecter
the same as when any catastrophy has happened in the history of our democracy here in the u.s. carry on with 3 equal branches of government. i know, its a tough one to wrap your brain around when you're scared of brown people and just want to hire a cowboy to take care of us and kill them all. maybe chuck norris would have been a better candidate?

What in the hell was all of that about? I have no idea what Chuck Norris has to do with anything. Your insults are not called for when I asked you a simple question; to get a better understanding of your point of view.

I think the real problem is that you are a hater.