Talk:National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It's amazing that this "break from constitutional law" has received no attention from the Supreme Court or the mainstream U.S. media. Either they're all part of the most massive conspiracy in history or it's not really a break from constitutional law. Every source for this article is either an editorial or an article from a liberal newsletter or other fringe news source. I think an analysis from a normal attorney or a news source that I've heard of is in order. Tulane97 23:50, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

The directive appears as if someone fresh out of law school had written it the night before it was to be announced. True, it leaves a lot to the imagination. The thing is, the National Emergencies Act already exists so it is unclear why this new directive has been released, or how it reconciles (if at all) with the pre-existing Act. Badagnani 00:00, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm certainly not a law expert myself, but it does strike me as very odd that this wasn't even mentioned in any minor way on CNN and other sites. The implications of such a bill could be rather startling, and certainly are at first glance...
And this has been out for quite some time, when compared to other things that aren't deserving of media attention but get them anyway. By the way, if you CAN in fact find any neutral sources discussing it, go ahead and link to them. But I haven't, myself. And the silence is rather disturbing... --Melissia 02:59, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
As is increasingly the case with the most significant news, only the blogs covered it for weeks, then the Boston Globe article came out. We do have that one linked. Badagnani 03:04, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

You say that the implications of this directive are startling "at first glance," but if you read the actual directive itself, it doesn't seem very startling at all. It's only the opinion pieces interpreting it as "near dictatorial" that seem startling. Again, the lack of media coverage could be interpreted as either blatant incompetence on the part of the media, a massive conspiracy, or the possibility that this directive is no big deal. Since the media seems to jump on any sinister element in the Bush administration, I tend to think that the conspiracy and incompetence options are not very viable. And when even the ACLU, which freaks out about everything, says that this is no big deal, you have to start to wonder whether the people who say it is a big deal are crazies. Tulane97 17:47, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

If you think it's a good idea to ignore the fact that this directive disregards the Congressional oversight over the Executive mandated by the National Emergencies Act, you're free to do that. Badagnani 18:05, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I neither ignore nor deny that fact, I just think it's not that big of a deal, and I definitely don't think it amounts to "near dictatorial" power by any stretch of the imagination. This directive goes into effect in the event of a disaster so widespread that the government is either destroyed or unable to function normally. In that case, the importance of basic survival will outweight that of civics. Tulane97 21:08, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Of course, the disaster would not need to be nationwide, as stated in the directive--it could be nearly anything that EITHER causes loss of life on a "large scale" OR great disruption to the nation's workings (like what happened to the Reichstag years ago, I suppose). From the text of the directive, the President would coordinate the operations and collaborations between the three branches as he sees fit, as he interprets "relevant" law (and, as we know from long experience by now, he does disregard or skirt much of U.S. federal law, which he apparently finds "irrelevant," in his statements and actions). The thing is, the branches are equal, and do not need to be "coordinated." Again, the National Emergencies Act covered this quite well. Badagnani 21:12, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

"Coordinate" is not the same thing as "exert power over." And even if it was, there are many situations in which one branch of government exerts power over another. The veto, judicial review, etc. All of the checks and balances. Why does "coordination" upset you so much, but it does not upset you that Congress can "oversee" the other branches as specified in the National Emergencies Act? I strongly believe that the sentence about this being a departure from constitutional law should be deleted. Tulane97 03:14, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] External Links

Please review the guideline on external links for use in article. All links must conform to WP:RS Relevant section is as follows:

Links normally to be avoided

* Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority.

The links do not conform with the guideline or the policy on WP:RS. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 15:42, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, to the extent the article is saying something like "bloggers stated XYZ (citation)" then it is completely appropriate to use a blog as a citation - though not an external link perhaps. If the article were saying "XYZ (citation)." Then I agree they would be inappropriate. Debivort 17:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
The handful of blogs that noted the Directive provide some measure of commentary on the Directive, which strangely is lacking in all mainstream media save the Boston Globe. Badagnani 19:10, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
A lack of commentary on the EO does not mean we can WP:IAR when it comes to documenting it. Perhaps the lack of commentary could lead one to the conclusion that the subjects notability is questionable. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 21:05, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Refs 6 & 7 go to an article no longer available at The Oregonian (via this link, anyway).Originalname37 (talk) 20:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RFC

The dispute seems to center around three things:

1. The inclusion of Michel Chossudovsky as a commenter on the EO

  • Chossudovsky aside from being a bit of a nutjob, Chossudovsky's discipline is economics, not American law. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 19:34, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

2. The general debate on sources for it

3. Is this a stub?

I think that Michel Chossudovsky might be an acceptable source if he were identified, not as an economics professor which is indeed irrelevant, but as a political activist and author. It appears that he has published at least one book that is relevant to the topic. Unfortunately, the Wikipedia bio of him is poorly sourced and it is difficult to make a further evaluation based on the article alone. --Marvin Diode 06:22, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Chossudovsky's article is self published, so its a violation of WP:RS. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 05:29, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Enabling act - please start a discussion

All right folks - time for a discussion of the edits here. The anon is clearly making the effort to include this text in good faith - they are providing a citation, and including context to the statement. Rather than call it Vandalism and revert, we owe them a reason why this is not appropriate. TDC - I'm looking your way. Debivort 05:19, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Because its a pretty freaking big stretch to compare this to the Enabling Act of 1933, thats why. The citation goes nowhere. I mean, why not put a link to the Reichstag Fire on the 9/11 article? Torturous Devastating Cudgel 05:26, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
The "stretchiness" of the connection has nothing to do with it, it sounds like. Your rationale that the source is self-published is the legitimate reason to exclude it. Thanks for posting. Debivort 06:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
The fact that this comparison is gaining speed on the blogosphere and several news outlets is proof that the comparison is being made in the world. Omitting this information is akin to hiding it. Wikipedia does not censor and does not cave to political agendas. —scarecroe 18:14, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
You've got to be kidding me. The idea that there is any valid comparison here is hilarious. According to wikipedia's own article, the Enabling Act "enabled Hitler and his cabinet to enact laws without the participation of the Reichstag." This executive order allows the president (any president, not just Bush) to oversee Congress (not make laws) in the case of a devastating national emergency (and not at any other time). I realize that comparing Bush to a dictator is quite en vogue among a lot of fringe media sources, but that doesn't make it a legitimate "see also" link. The only actual legal similarity here is that both directives involve branches of government of a country. I promise, if America becomes a dictatorship, I will retract this statement and re-add the link, OK? Tulane97 20:16, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for the patronization; I'm aware of both directives. The debate of whether or not it is similar to the Enabling Act is not for this discussion page. The article is about the directive itself, which is being compared to the Enabling Act elsewhere. Please see the difference here. —scarecroe 20:35, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
If the comparison is really widespread, then it will appear in reliable sources and these may very well be worth noting in the article, but if the sources are just self-published things like blogs, then they aren't appropriate. Debivort 21:30, 25 July 2007 (UTC

[edit] German article from July 24, 2007

Telepolis is the online magazin of the heise-Verlag, one of Germanys largest publishing companies. E.g. the (printed) computer magazin c't has a run of over 350000 sold issues (every other week). All Telepolis articles are written by paid staff. I wonder why you refer to Telepolis as "blog" and "unreliable source". Rod Powers 2007-08-05T15:30MEST
For one, I cannot open the link. Even if I could open it, I cannot read it. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 14:36, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Note - The Internet makes translation easy. It's not perfect, but one can get the gist of the article relatively easily via translate.google.com, babelfish.altavista.com, or sites such as this. The English translation may be found here. Badagnani 17:19, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Please dont think that anyone is patronizing you, but every article had to rely on a WP:RS when material of a potentialy controversial matter is included. Reliable sources no not include weblogs, self published sites, or sources whose publisher pr authorship cannot be determined. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 21:32, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I think this comparison should receive the exact same treatment as the theory that the Apollo moon landing didn't happen. Yes, it exists, but it's not accepted by mainstream human beings. I will not delete it again, but I am going to change the wording if the section appears again. Tulane97 21:41, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I dont agree, as some (not many) of the sources used for the moon landing hoax can be found in reliable sources. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 21:50, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
The "moon landing didn't happen" is a phenomemon that exists despite the fact that it can be proven that it happened. Such as is the case here. I agree that blogs are not reliable sources, but in this case, the controversy stems directly from the dozens of comparisons being made on the blogosphere and several smaller news outlets as indicated by the sources added to the article. Removing that information looks like Wikipedia is trying to hide something for some interpreted agenda. That's called censorship. —scarecroe 22:58, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
TDC: The fact that those reliable sources exist is the very reason that Apollo Moon Landing hoax accusations is an article. More over, that article is linked in the "See also" section of Apollo program - which is pretty analogous to what is being attempted here. That said - it is still an open question to me if the given references are appropriately reliable or not. Debivort 23:17, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
I have gone through them, and none of them meet the criteria. Provied one that does and the information might included. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 02:14, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Looks like Enabling Act guy is at it again! Tulane97 01:59, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This article is bullshit

The directive specifies that, following such an emergency, an "Enduring Constitutional Government," comprising "a cooperative effort among the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the Federal Government," coordinated by the President of the United States, will take the place of the nation's regular government, presumably without the oversight of Congress[1].

The directive makes no mention of replacing the regular government. In fact, ECG is explicitly defined as an effort to mantain the regular constitutional government during exceptional catastrophes, respecting the separation of powers. The article construes ECG as some sinister machination of Bush's, but it is a concept that had been introduced as far back as 1990 and reaffirmed in several presidential directives, the latest of which was Clinton's "Enduring Constitutional Government and Continuity of Government Operations". [1] The only difference is that, while the text of the preceding directives on ECG has never been available, Bush's directive is for the first time partially unclassified. How dictatorial!

The directive further stipulates that, in the case of such an emergency, the new position of "National Continuity Coordinator" would be filled by the assistant to the president for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism (this position is currently held by Frances Townsend).

No, assholes. The position of National Continuity Coordinator will not be filled "in the case of such an emergency". It is not an emergency position. The NCC has already been designated, and as the directive requires of him, he should currently be working to coordinate the development of plans of how executive agencies shall deal with catastrophic emergencies (think Hurricane Katrina), so they don't find themselves running around randomly like a beheaded turkey (again, think Hurricane Katrina). The deadline for completing the plan is August 9 (90 days after the directive was issued), so it should be about done by now.

It is unclear how the National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive will reconcile with the National Emergencies Act, a U.S. federal law passed in 1976, which gives Congress oversight over presidential emergency powers during such emergencies. The National Emergencies Act is not mentioned in the text of the National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive.

It is, however, mentioned that:

(21) This directive: (a) Shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and the authorities of agencies, or heads of agencies, vested by law, and subject to the availability of appropriations;

Please note that I'm not a Republican; heck, I'm not even American. I'm just a reader who's appalled at the divergence between WP's current treatment of this article's subject and the primary source. But hey, at least you rehashed Corsi's self-published rants. That's gotta count for something. --87.12.200.123 19:48, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Your best recourse is to go ahead and change the article, citing reliable sources in your revisions. Debivort 22:56, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NOTA.org

This external link about a "coup d'etat" is unreliable and should be removed. Speaking of which, to all of the people who think there is going to be martial law, a coup, etc., the time frame in which this would happen is running out. Bush is only president for another year -- in exactly which month of 2008 do you think he's going to "declare martial law"? Tulane97 02:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Let's keep the discussion limited to improving the article. I tried looking up William H White to see if he was a notable commentator, but it wasn't clear who the author of that site is. Could be removed in my opinion. de Bivort 03:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I tried removing it once, but the person re-added it. Tulane97 12:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)