Everyone knows about the reinstallation of martial law and the suspension of habeus corpus for 'enemies of the state.' It's only getting worse.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20...0070509-12.html

Now we have this, the National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive 51. Basically, it gives Bush dictator-like powers in the event of a catastrophic attack on US soil. He would immediately oversee all three branches of the government. That means Congress can't hold elections unless Bush says its ok, and the Supreme Court can't rule anything unconstitutional without his approval. It's some pretty scary stuff, and 'somehow' slipped through the MSM. (Although anybody who still trusts newspapers and television stations run by predominantly conservative Republicans is a fucking tool.)

Yeah, yeah, fix your tinfoil hat, Logik, it's letting in the gamma rays from space, I know. But then there's this:

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/febru...entioncamps.htm

In addition to the above directive, Bush has granted contracts to Halliburton subsideriares to build detention camps in the event of a catastrphic attack on US soil.

This is the scariest part of it all:


I've looked into that, and nothing I've seen tells me that's not the case.

So now, someone please set me at ease here. Someone, please explain to me how an attack on US soil cannot be orchestrated to give Bush absolute power. Why does Bush not care at all about his approval rating or saving face for his party? Why does he insist on carrying on like he has despite numerous resolutions by the Democratic Congress against him? Everything I've seen points to the fact that Bush has no intention of leaving office anytime soon, and all the dominos are in line to make that happen. Meanwhile, we keep sitting around like the fucking cattle we are more worried about whether Sanjay is going to make it to the next round of American Idol.

Somebody, anybody, tell me why I shouldn't be looking at seriously moving out of this country before the shit hits the fan.

*Sanjaya

Thanks for proving my point.

Welcome to "I told you so land", population : me.

Bush's Unitary Executive vision for the office of POTUS is the single greatest attack on civil liberties since Fascism.

Yes, I just Godwinned. Fuck you, it doesn't change the fact that it is TRUE.

If it's true, it doesn't fall under Godwin's Law as far as I'm concerned.

This is a fascist regime, there's no doubt about it.

It all stems from fucking PNAC, those stupid fucks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_t..._administration

I don't even blame Bush for this, exactly. He's little more than a modern day Mussolini, a puppet leader doing the bidding of others behind the scenes.

All I can hope is that he, Rove, Cheney and the rest of those fucks see the same end-game Benito did.

Hello, I'm Dante, and I don't have anything constructive to add to the discussion, so I'm going to rip on people's personal interests, because I'm not very bright and that's all I'm capable of doing.

Think what you want.. but the truth is there dude. Its obviously as hell. Ill let SEP rip into you as I dont feel ilke spending the time on you.

Lol, youre using ALEX JONES as a source on the Haliburton angle? come on logik...

I'm not going to waste my time to dig up another source for this just because you don't agree with the original link. The directive is there, find it yourself. It doesn't matter who's on the bullhorn.

The directive has been around forever. This isn't part of the Patriot Act either. I guess the government has been conspiring to turn into a dictatorship since the Cold War. Damn Eisenhower. Basically its an update from Clinton's one with the Department of Homeland Security written into the directive.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuity_of_Operations_Plan

For this to even matter, there has to be a series of major attacks on US soil within the next...19 months or so. Now, some people think there is one in the works, but I disagree. There are too many dedicated people who wouldn't let something on the scale of 9/11 happen again. Bush doesn't have complete control over US (and European?) intelligence, so what you fear, Logik, is unlikely to happen.

Say that 10 attacks on the scale of 9/11 happen in one day. The US still wouldn't let something as crazy as indefinite incarceration of citizens just happen.

whether it was around a while ago or not, the president shouldn't have that kind of power at any time.

yeah i seriously want to move to canada before i get jailed for saying my opinions over the phone, or we get attacked by north korea. Why should I suffer for a country I don't believe in and that is too far over the edge of reason to save. plus relaxed weed laws, woot.

I disagree with usurper, and I think believing this shit is impossible and that the government just 'wouldn't do it' is a very dangerous view tohave, and the kind of shit that is allowing this shit to happen without anyone rising up against it..The government does tons of horrible inhumane shit we make the appearance of not being capable of doing. For christsakes we sold IUD's we took off the market because they were toxic and killed over 30,000 women in the u.s. to third world countries. Yes, we knew they were dangerous and killed american women, but who cares if third world countries women are killed, mirite. we need to sell this useless merchandise. go capitolism.

Well, the government hasn't done it yet. They didn't do it after 9/11, which would have been the perfect chance too. Yeah, the president probably shouldn't have that power, but there are plenty of safe guards in it that preserve the power of the judiciary and legislature if you actually bother to read the whole thing. And is this IUD thing more conspiracy babble? I can't find any information on it anywhere, but I haven't searched very far.

yes, and GO CAPOTILISM, mirite.

This is awful. If there was a nuclear strike or something on my country, I'd want at least four months of wading through bueracratic red tape before anyone in charge could start doing anything about it.

And I'm sure that the attack(s) that would force this directive into motion would have to be desperately fatal. So, it's unlikely to happen. Thought I don't agree we shoudl have a Directive like that in the first place, perhaps running to Canada like a pussy isn't the best way to handle it. Perhaps, trying to do something about it and change it would help.

Check the link again. That's a new directive outlining new methods that was just signed this month by President Bush. None of the previous directives were as vague or as detrimental to the checks and balances of this country. True, a lot of the post-apocalyptic stuff that was enacted pre-Bush is still under wraps, but a situation like that is so different than what I was talking about here, and what's defined in Bush's directive, that it's hardly applicable.

And Usurper, read how the directive is written. We don't need a 'series' of attacks in order for this directive to used. Just one. Hell, it doesn't even have to happen within the US, just against US interests.


Other than that, if you think this country is any safer than it was on September 11th, 2001, you've been drinking some funky kool-aide. Hell, even the airports now are practically back to pre-9/11 security measures. Never mind the security lapses at our borders, ports, utility stations/offices, shopping malls, and sports stadiums. Add to that the possibility of the Executive office letting something happen for this directive to become active, and we're really not safe at all.

And Dante, if you had a point, I would have left your post alone. But you didn't, all you did was rip on my personal interests again that have absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand. You don't like my hobbies, I fucking get it. But this isn't the Lounge, either have something to add to the discussion or piss the hell off.

Dante insults your hobbies, so you decide to insult his intelligence? That's constructive.

I agree completely, but you may need to make a "The Brewing 404Daily Dictatorship" topic to talk about that without getting modded.

Look. There is a entire bloody board for discussing mod actions with the powers that be. Use it and stop derailing threads people.

I read the iud thing in the book CUNT, I assume they checked their sources before being published. I'm not really sure if the rest of your message is in reply to what I said or something else (I assume something else cuz it doesnt make sense otherwise) but you quoted me so im confused. II thought 'shit' was a pretty general term for things like what is being talked about, or just unfavorable things. And congratulations on pointing out that I put an o instead of an a, whoopdeefreakindoo. I like how you had to search for something to get on me for and then exaggerate it because it isn't a big deal. thanks babi.

EDIT: http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/19...ehrenreich.html it's called contraceptive dumping and heres the first article I quickly found on it.


PERHAPS, I don't agree with how this country is run, and instead of changing it ( why, if so many people seem fine with it, plus pretty hopeless wtf can I really do) I would like to live somewhere I actually enjoy living. I hardly think its just 'being a pussy' You can all stay here and put up with shit you shouldnt have to a futiley try and protest things, but if you think people really have much of a say here anymore, you're sadly mistaken and I'm too far off for naive hope in making a difference. Besides, I hardly think I should be asserting my will over this country... its way too far from my ideal. people voted for george bush again,. people buy hummers. we put shitloads of people away for non violent crimes(not too mention the uselessness of our jails), we go insane when 30 students get shot and ignore everyone elses hardships. I still get 70 cents or so on the dollar of a man. We're assholes, I don't want the association, thanks.

Aw dalkons. That wasn't American government thing, it was a corporate matter and the courts actually awarded 200 million dollars to the plaintiffs. The company sold a faulty product and was basically sued out of existence, considering how much 200 million went for back then.

I don't know what the rest of what you typed has to do with anything else in this topic, just seems like a whole lot of venting.

the rest is in responce to notquitebernadette

plus you didn't even skim the article, theyre talking about what happened after those court cases when U.S. Agency for International Development was selling off the dangerous IUD"s, high estrogen birth control pills, and depo prvera shots that we don't see fit for use anymore. The depo shots are still widely being sold to third world women and personally pisses me off since when I was 15 my doctor reccomended I try it. Awesome, you don't have to remember to take the pill everyday! Yeah well I bled everyday for 9 months, and developed symptoms similar to fibro fibromayalsia, that I couldn't get rid of until age 18 when I started doing yoga regularly. Not to mention the fact that they didn't tell me shit about side effects or anyhtring. And even went as far as to say cevical cancer was caused by having sex, not mentioning hpv. And theres shitloads of other sideeffects including osteoporosis and severe depression.

Because it was never proven that the US Agency for International Development ever did that. Barbara Ehrenreich is the only person to have ever claimed that. She's a columnist and not an investigative reporter.

WHOMG BUSH CAUSED 9/11 AND KATRINA!!!!

The argument made is that he is capitalizing on them for political gain, NOT that he caused them.

The U.S. already does that as far as I know. There have been a number of incidents were people, including U.S. citizens, have been held in prison for 'terrorism' without any charges being placed and without a trial.


To my knowledge those safe guards mean shit as they are completely ignored.

How is it detrimental to checks and balances. You haven't read the whole thing.





And there is a provision against Posse Comitatus.



and basically keeps the president in check -



I dont see the huge panic over all of this. This is mainly based off of the event of a nuclear attack by a terrorist. If you think the government is planning on doing that against its own people you have some serious issues with paranoia.

This is all well and good but with Bush's track of record of using signing statements to circumvent any new law's downside that is applicable to either himself or his cronies, how can you TRUST it?

So, youre expecting him to use what litttle time left he has in office to turn himself into "President for Life"?

*Only read the first post*

Did you know Clinton had the same power? This directive was created a while ago. It allows the US to exist as a dictatorship incase of a catastrophic failure of our government. It isn't a power play. All it is is an old directive reworded to fit in terrorists.

It doesn't have to be him. ANY President could use the signing statements he made. Or, reverse them with new statements.

The point is, this was both useless and an affront to the checks and balances, NOT en enhancement of them. The chain of sucession was already in place. The threat of nuclear annihilation during the Cold War was far superior to any caused by rogue, modern terrorists. Why change the system now?

It seems that consensus on all of this is that the only alterations from previous continuity policies is that terrorism and department of homeland security were worked into the framework AND a substantial portion of it was made public.

I wouldn't say it is completely useless, it never hurts to have some sort of plan for a worst case scenario. Katrina and 9/11 showed us that there really needs to be more cohesion between the federal, state, and municipal government in times of emergencies.

The checks and balances of the government have been messed up for a while now, the supreme court does more legislating than congress does now.

I recommend you all call your senators about this...I sure have.

In order to protect our system of checks and balances we need to be critical of every directive/law/decision that tries to stop our system of checks and balances. I agree that the way this is worded + President Bush's record with civil rights make me worried.

I think if we can get Congress to act more efficiently (it's been doing a hell lot of oversight lately...so much stuff you don't even hear on mainstream news), it can be more critical of this stuff.

Sure the Supreme Court is more powerful today than it was before but the Supreme Court is not at the point where it is making legislation. The Supreme Court is just reinterpreting laws and language, and therefore I think the Supreme Court is the only check/balance that is stable right now. Bush has such limited control over the Court that I think it's the Court's time to shine.

The only thing I feel is unbalanced is the checks/balances between Congress and the President and any type of directive that grants the president more power over the judiciary is insane. The court has had a reputation of keeping the nation from going too far right and too far left and this must be kept stable.

Haha, this is laughable. Bush is not a dictator, nor will he become one. 2008 will come and pass, and a new president will be in power. Now for future presidents this may be a concern, yet come on, you guys over exaggerate this evil Bush stuff.

When I said "just happen", I needed to clarify. I meant that it wouldn't just be totally accepted like business as usual. Yes, we're doing it, but look out how many people are putting the spotlight on it and demanding that it be stopped?