Remember this code: HSPD-20.
HSPD-20 is a document issued by the White House on May 9 this year (also known under the code NSPD-51). Its complete title is National Security Presidential Directive 51 and Homeland Security Presidential Directive 20. You don’t have to take my word for it that this document exists. You can read it for yourself on the White House web site. Don’t look for this story in the papers of record of the USA, though. Neither the New York Times nor the Washington Post have bothered to tell their readers about it.
HSPD-20 is not a law, and it does not have the power to overrule any law passed by Congress. HSPD-20 is a presidential proclamation that declares how the White House intends to deal with what it calls a “catastrophic emergency”, which the directive defines 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”.
Mysteriously, HSPD revokes Presidential Decision Directive 67, entitled Enduring Constitutional Government and Continuity of Government Operations, but directive 67 has never been released for public review. What exactly is being revoked?
The directive requires a team within the Bush Administration to prepare a plan (the National Continuity Implementation Plan) to implement HSPD-20 within 90 days after HSPD-20 is issued. That’s the middle of August, 2007. This does not mean that HSPD-20 will be activated in August of 2007. Rather, it means that HSPD-20 will be ready for activation at that time.
Getting to the meat of the matter, some claims have been made about HSPD-20 that don’t seem to hold up under examination. Many, including Randi Rhodes on Air America, have made heavy-breathing statements that the directive allows the President to assume the powers of a dictator, even controlling private businesses, and acting beyond the control of Congress. There are claims that HSPD-20 does not even mention the Congress.
I’m as receptive as any to considering moves made by George W. Bush and other politicians to overturn the Constitution and revoke its liberties. There are many real examples of this sort of thing taking place within the last several years, setting the stage for grotesque abuses of power. The Military Commissions Act, for example, really does give the President of the United States many of the powers of a dictator above the law. However, I am not convinced that HSPD-20 can be placed in this category.
Joyce Marcel writes of HSPD-20 in the Battleboro Reformer, a Vermont newspaper, that “under this directive, Bush entrusts himself with leading the entire government — not just the executive branch — during a “catastrophic emergency.”
Read the directive yourself, and you’ll see that this claim is clearly not at all true. The Enduring Constitutional Government, an acronym which some are saying describes a totalitarian regime, is in fact designated by HSPD-20 as “a cooperative effort among the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the Federal Government, coordinated by the President, as a matter of comity with respect to the legislative and judicial branches and with proper respect for the constitutional separation of powers among the branches, to preserve the constitutional framework under which the Nation is governed and the capability of all three branches of government to execute constitutional responsibilities and provide for orderly succession, appropriate transition of leadership, and interoperability and support of the National Essential Functions during a catastrophic emergency”.
You’ll note in this quotation, directly from HSPD-20, that the directive does indeed mention Congress – as the “legislative” branch of government. Another hyperventilated claim about the directive debunked.
The claims that HSPD-20 gives the President the power to direct private business activity, institute martial law, and do all manner of awful things, seems to come from a conservative columnist’s complaint that HSPD-20 ignores the procedures set up during he National Emergency Act. From there, Matthew Hine writes in The Chattanoogan that:
The directive issued May 9 makes no attempt to reconcile the powers created there for the National Continuity Coordinator with the National Emergency Act. As specified by U.S. Code Title 50, Chapter 34, Subchapter II, Section 1621, the National Emergency Act allows that the president may declare a national emergency but requires that such proclamation “shall immediately be transmitted to the Congress and published in the Federal Register.”
A Congressional Research Service study notes that under the National Emergency Act, the President “may seize property, organize and control the means of production, seize commodities, assign military forces abroad, institute martial law, seize and control all transportation and communication, regulate the operation of private enterprise, restrict travel, and, in a variety of ways, control the lives of United States citizens.”
Hine then makes the slip of supposing that by ignoring the National Emergency Act, HSPD-20 is trying to overrule the National Security Act’s preservation of congressional powers in the case of emergency. Actually, HSPD-20 does no such thing.
Using the art of skimming in place of the disciplined practice of reading, many other commentators have gone on to ascribe the purported qualities of the National Emergency Act to HSPD-20, even though, if you read it yourself, you’ll see that it’s not at all true.
There is one place in HSPD-20 that discusses coordination between the federal government and businesses that are related to vital resources and infrastructure, but in no way does the directive state that the President will be given powers to seize control over these private economic resources. In fact, the federal government already coordinates with big corporations.
Read HSPD-20 for yourself, and you’ll see the document for what it is – a plan to protect the current constitutional form of government in case of a crippling national crisis of some sort. There are some mysterious elements of the directive, but there’s nothing I can see that gives the President the power of a dictator.
I’m not writing this because I want to discourage people from examining documents such as HSPD-20 for signs of growing attacks upon American liberty from the White House. There have been too many real and very profound attacks upon American liberty to dismiss citizens’ alarm.
However, in order to be credible critics of the assault upon American liberty, we need to be careful and accurate critics. If you will just read HSPD-20 for yourself, instead of relying upon what other people are writing about it, it will soon become clear to you that many of wild claims being made about HSPD-20 are obviously untrue.
Let’s focus on the real threats to our liberty, in laws like the Military Commissions Act and the Patriot Act, in programs like the continued, renamed Total Information Awareness, and in clearly illegal activities like warrantless wiretapping. We ought not to be distracted by non-threats like HSPD-20.
Interesting, but could we test this theory before it’s enacted please? Work with me here.
The scenario: The trucking industry is struggling right now and fuel prices continue to climb. Every one is paying more but the shippers who are paying the same or less. So let’s say (I know this is a reach, but …) trucking companies and independent owner/operators across the country collectively unite and strike. No truck in this country moves for 14 days to protest rising fuel prices and falling freight rates.
Across the country, mainstream society is …
Day 1, everyone’s saying, “I told you it would be better without all those trucks out here.” Day 2, manufacturers are beginning to worry over missing material shipments. Day 3, perishables are spoiling or being dumped because the “holding” centers for things like milk, fruit, vegetables just can’t take anymore. Day 4, stores begin to run out of consumables, especially food items, as the populace begins to hoard. Day 5, the building industry comes to a screeching hault as the last of their materials is used up. Day 5, the last of the stores of dry goods, non-perishable foods, other consumables, building materials, fuel, and other goods is out or nearly out, especially in major urban areas.
On which day do you suppose a national economic emergency would be declared? For how long a period would the emergency continue? Would we come out of it with the current constitution or is there be a brand new one waiting in the wings?
I’m sorry, but I think you’re wrong on this one. Dead wrong. It may not have any legal clout under current circumstances, but if it’s so innocuous, where is the clause that says, “and in the event Congress is incapacitated and unable to convene…”? Why, since this is a “just in case” directive with no power under the law, does it go so far as to include soveriegn tribal governments (who typically block the way to land with incredible mineral resources or where the federal government is most fond of dumping their hazardous waste)? Why are you considering it on its own merit instead of laying it down side by side with the Patriot Act (dissenters are now terrorists) and Military Commissions Act. When you do that, 1+1+1=bye bye republic, hello monarchy.
Listen, you’re not speaking at all to the actual directive. You’re just talking about what you think would really happen, IN SPITE of what’s the law, and what the directive states.
Maybe you’re right, and maybe you’re not, but you’re just speculating.
It’s not comparable to the Military Commissions Act, because the Military Commissions Act is a law, and not just a plan, and because the Military Commissions Act ACTUALLY SAYS that the President has some really scary powers, whereas this directive DOES NOT.
Stop hyperventilating, and read the actual document.
I don’t trust Bush with power, but that’s a separate issue from what this particular directive actually does. Don’t mix the two up.
I think that part of the problem is that the media blackout on this directive engenders suspicion. Nothing against this site, but it’s a pretty sad state of affairs when this is one of a handful of posts on the web about this directive, the rest of which are decidedly alarmist, from the far left and right. I for one might be somewhat less freaked out about it if there was a reasonable amount of examination in the “MSM” — but when the Times, the Post, and every other major publication in the nation, not to mention TV news chooses to completely overlook the directive, it just smells rotten. I guess I’ll read this thing myself, but it’s a problem to me that next to no one has even heard of this thing.
Well, Dingle, we at Irregular Times do try to fill in the gaps.
There are too few people writing too few articles about too few subjects, which then go out to be reprinted on too many news sources that do too little work on their own for too few readers who are outnumbered by those who prefer to be entertained rather than informed.
I read the directive before coming by your blog and agree that a lot of what I have heard is not really reflective of what’s actually written. However I do wish to stress that there are conditions built in provide enough vaguery that the claims may not be so far hidden between the lines.
Continuity of Operations is defined as Primary Mission-Essential Functions with no definition nor guidelines as to what those may be, presumably because all emergencies require a different set of priorities, but isn’t this only meant to preserve federal government operations? This seems like micro-management built into a sweeping policy.
Then we come to this: “(6) The President shall lead the activities of the Federal Government for ensuring constitutional government. In order to advise and assist the President in that function, the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism (APHS/CT) is hereby designated as the National Continuity Coordinator. The National Continuity Coordinator, in coordination with the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs (APNSA), without exercising directive authority, shall coordinate the development and implementation of continuity policy for executive departments and agencies. The Continuity Policy Coordination Committee (CPCC), chaired by a Senior Director from the Homeland Security Council staff, designated by the National Continuity Coordinator, shall be the main day-to-day forum for such policy coordination.” So now we see in whose hands this micro-management shall be placed.
Heads of executive departments will, “(19-d) Plan, conduct, and support annual tests and training, in consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security, in order to evaluate program readiness and ensure adequacy and viability of continuity plans and communications systems,” and, “(8) The National Continuity Coordinator…will lead the development of a National Continuity Implementation Plan (Plan), which shall include prioritized goals and objectives… The Plan shall be submitted to the President for approval not later than 90 days after the date of this directive.”
This document, with the most optimistic interpretation, provides for a president-controled scaling back of federal government and operations under very vaguely defined circumstances and with very vaguely defined instructions. In fact the only definitions for continuity defined are for military and homeland security. It is not a great leap of the imagination to see the pits between the branches.
You may not call it a great leap of the imagination, Stephen, but it is a leap of the imagination.
The language all calls for coordination “without exercising directive authority”.
Is there really anything wrong, illegal, or unconstitutional about the President of the United States serving as a coordinating leader of the federal government in case of emergency? He is the EXECUTIVE, after all.
I’m not a fan of centralized power without checks and balances, and I’m not a fan of Bush, but it’s important to be realistic in our criticism of him, and not cry wolf when there isn’t a wolf – just a file folder crumpled to cast a shadow in the shape of a wolf.
Look at what’s actually written in this directive, and it’s clear that there’s no wolf.
Good job pointing out what little people understand about HSPD-20. I think it’s good you people are intent on preserving Civil Liberties, but I think your brainpower could be put to even better use if you were helping us all figure out how to defeat the Islamic Terrorists of the world, while realizing how and why they use our own liberties against us as they plot to kill innocent people, day after day. You people (most entries I’ve seen on this site) seem to have little understanding of what Bush and his Administration are really up against…way too much paranoia…what you see is what you get…he’s just trying to keep America safe and strong. It’s a lot easier for people to be anti-war and anti-Bush than to face the reality of a large group of Islamic enemies who only see U.S. Protestors as weak and stupid, yet useful to their cause.
… Says the man who works for a group that needs heightened homeland security hysteria to get a paycheck.
Terrorists do not use our liberties against us. They use weapons against us. Liberties don’t kill innocent people. Weapons do.
But yes, as Jim points out, Jimmy is part of the Homeland Welfare system of handouts.
Fragment of Bloomberg quote heard while turning on the radio today:
“if you take away people’s personal rights in the interest of security, the terrorists win without firing a shot”
Oh, Bloomberg said that, did he?
Well then how does he explain throwing hundreds of peaceful, lawful protesters, and even people who were just walking down the street, into jail during the Republican National Convention?
How does Michael Bloomberg explain sending out New York City police officers around the world to infiltrate and spy on peaceful anti-Bush activist groups?
Michael Bloomberg as a proponent of liberty is about as credible as Fred Thompson as a proponent of Shakespearean acting.
Now, now, J Clifford, it’s the thought that counts. Taking the remark in context, it was about closing off a section of Chinatown for security reasons and causing some sort of traffic bruhaha in the process. But I thought the idea had a nice ring to it as well as a broader meaning. It looks like you have found one.
Just out of curiosity, are you important enough that Micheal Bloomberg has infiltrated you yet? Just wondering. hee hee
I don’t know about Michael Bloomberg’s police state goons. However, when I did a Freedom of Information Act request to the FBI requesting any files related to me, they refused to comply.
Oh, HO! Congratulations. It might not actually be all that great, though. The minister of our church finally got his Vietnam-era files and found out someone only infiltrated a Bible group. He was really disappointed that they only had two pages on him when more frivolous persons had pages and pages. But now they have a homeland security camera that supposedly watches the square in front of city hall but is pointed right at his office window. An article in the local paper showed a picture of the camera surveillance team with their names underneath, so he put a sign in his window saying hello with their names on it. Should be good for a couple more pages.
i heard about this one on NPR a couple of days ago. then a friend tells me they may use this to suspend the 2008 election. i read the thing, and i don’t see anything in there about suspending the constitution or elections. maybe the main stream press ignored this one because it’s not particularly interesting. it seems to me that this directive mainly establishes a reporting procedure for federal agencies and infrastructure operators. ostensibly, this reporting is to be done to allow for a plan of action in the event of a “catastrophic emergency.” it doesn’t specify what the provisions of that “plan” will be beyond ensuring that government and infrastructure continue to function. another benefit of this directive is supposed to be that when one administration hands over the keys to the next one, there will be a smooth flow of vital information about national security and emergency preparedness. aside from ominous-sounding acronyms like “COGCON” this document seems relatively innocuous.
So… you argue that “Congress” is mentioned in the following via the word “legislative”…
“a cooperative effort among the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the Federal Government, coordinated by the President, as a matter of comity with respect to the legislative and judicial branches and with proper respect for the constitutional separation of powers among the branches, to preserve the constitutional framework under which the Nation is governed and the capability of all three branches of government to execute constitutional responsibilities and provide for orderly succession, appropriate transition of leadership, and interoperability and support of the National Essential Functions during a catastrophic emergencyâ€.
Isn’t it very clear to you that all the King needs is to have any “Congressional/Legislative” action simply declared by “HIS” Supreme Court as being unconstitutional… by a vote of 5 to 4… DUUUHHH!!!
I just don’t get you folks that don’t understand that the Constitution exists for the purpose of establishing a benevolent government while at the same time protecting the people from the potential excess efforts exerted by that government!!!
Am I afraid of Muslims? FU#K NO!!! What I’m really afraid of is run-away corporate power!
MY GOD! For the last fifty years what we have really needed is another “TRUST-BUSTING” Teddy Roosevelt to redefine, yet again, that our Constitution exists for the purpose of protecting the people from all enemies, foreign AND DOMESTIC!!! Even if that domestic enemy is a CORPORATION!!!
Good God people… read your f’in history!
I recently published an essay that examines this recent directive in its proper historical light. We do indeed have reason to be concerned. Please read my findings at http://www.realitysandwich.com/node/362.
-ST
RE: (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.
(23) Annex A and the classified Continuity Annexes, attached hereto, are hereby incorporated into and made a part of this directive.
(24) Security. This directive and the information contained herein shall be protected from unauthorized disclosure, provided that, except for Annex A, the Annexes attached to this directive are classified and shall be accorded appropriate handling, consistent with applicable Executive Orders.
=============
I believe “Annex A and the classified Continuity Annexes” are the documents at issue, vis-Ã -vis the challenge by Oregon Rep. Peter DeFazio, who is now joined by two other Democrats on the House Homeland Security Committee. They wrote to a top Bush administration Homeland Security official requesting access to information, which The White House refused to provide to DeFazio earlier this month, offering no explanation beyond national security concerns. – http://www.oregonlive.com/oregonian/stories/index.ssf?/base/news/118559492719310.xml&coll=7
Wasn’t it Benjamin Franklin who said something like “A country who sacrifices freedom for security neither has nor deserves either one.” Anybody here read the information on 911truth.org? The government has already proven that they will conduct a false flag op against their own people for political ends. I am just wondering what this will mean once they do it again (probably in the next few months). No, I’m not paranoid, just well-informed.
The published portion NSPD-51 does little more than cancel the then existing continuation of government plan (Presidential Decision Directive 67 of October 21, 1998) and then go way beyond existing law and the U.S. Constitution in asserting emergency executive powers. All the details are secret, which the White House refuses to release even to the Congress. So I believe the only way to discuss NSPD-51 usefully is within its institutional context. I would refer you to the paper http://www.nota.org/NSPD-51/NSPD-51NationalEmergency.htm as one attempt.
http://www.nota.org/NSPD-51/NSPD-51NationalEmergency.htm