Experts: Prez Directive Nothing New

[babylonsister]

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/003310.php

Experts: Prez Directive Nothing New
By Laura McGann - May 29, 2007, 3:31 PM

When a presidential directive appeared on the White House’s Web site on May 9, seemingly expanding the president's powers after a catastrophic attack, readers began emailing us asking why there had been no uproar in the media or amongst civil liberties groups.

The consensus amongst experts seems to be that the directive, aimed at establishing "continuity of government" after a major disaster, is not new nor does the policy seem to expand executive power.

In fact, Mike German, the policy counsel to the ACLU’s Washington office told me that an executive continuity plan actually might “not be that bad of an idea.”

Executive power expert, NYU law professor David Golove, also sent me an email saying the directive didn’t appear to be a power grab.

National Security Presidential Directive 51 or Homeland Security Presidential Directive 20 is posted here. Have a look.

Presidential directives outlining how the executive branch will remain intact in the event of an emergency have been around since the Cold War. The directive posted this month is the first to be made public, to the best of German’s recollection. (A description of Clinton’s continuity directive is available here.) German called the release a positive sign, but said he urges the release of all previous directives so we can get a real sense of what has changed.

The concept of continuity of government applies to all branches of government. Christopher Kelleye, a presidency expert and political science professor at Miami University Ohio told me in an email that he didn’t see any new powers listed in the directive, but wondered why Congress hasn’t done the same thing.

[RevCheesehead]

1. The words that frighten me are "seem to."

"...nor does the policy seem to expand executive power."

This needs to be clarified, ASAP.

[babylonsister]

2. I know, Rev. We can't trust these criminals so it would be nice if

someone knowledgeable provided something more definitive to assure us.

[Igel]

5. And, of course, the reason for the 'seem to' is that nobody

knows what was in Clinton's or Bush I's directive. They're classified.

* actually issued one that wasn't fully classified--although it does have a classified annex.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

3. The Directive and it's presumed...

...intended purpose "continuity of government" may not be anything new or particularly sinister, but the illegitimate regime looking/hoping for, if not planning, the event which will clear the way for it's invocation IS.

[madrchsod]

4. the problem is the supremes

they hold the cards unless the citizens storm the whitehouse