The "Continuity of Government" plan (Shadow Government) is nothing new. But....

[IDemo]

Shadow Government

The concept first arose with President Eisenhower during the "duck and cover" era of the Cold War. Every president since, including Carter and Clinton, has issued one or more "Continuity of Government Operations" statements in one form or another. The first time that actions were actually taken under its umbrella, however, was immediately following the events of September 11, 2001. Bush admitted the action six months later. Key congressional leaders had not been informed until then.


Bill Clinton issued Presidential Decision Directive 67, which replaced the Bush (41) Administration's NSD 69 "Enduring Constitutional Government" of 02 June 1992, which in turn succeeded NSD 37 "Enduring Constitutional Government" of 18 April 1990 and NSDD 55 "Enduring National Leadership" of 14 September 1982. The latest "COG" (Continuity of Government) exercise, from Bush junior, states: "Presidential Decision Directive 67 of October 21, 1998 ("Enduring Constitutional Government and Continuity of Government Operations"), including all Annexes thereto, is hereby revoked."


Why would the latest continuity statement in a series of such statements stretching across half a century be cause for alarm if none of the others have caused a constitutional crisis so far? Excepting the fact that the source of the the Homeland Security Presidential Directive/HSPD-20 is one who can hardly open his mouth (perhaps even to brush his teeth) without wreaking havoc on people and principles, what exactly causes us to fear for the worst this time around? Could it mean that something big is up, and the BFEE is feeling the need to shield itself with absolute power in the face of a looming catastrophe?


Bush shrugged off his responsibility as Commander in Chief by announcing the creation of a new 'War Czar', but within a week he issued a national security directive that would, in the event of a catastrophic attack on the federal government, assign the responsibility of running a shadow government to the White House, not the Department of Homeland Security. Why would he shirk responsibility for conducting the war "over there" one week, and completely empower himself for the one over here the next?


If you weren't a MIHOP'er before, should you be considering becoming one now? Or is this just another style point for das Chimperor, along with the gutting of Posse Comitatus and habeas corpus and the complete lack of respect for those other two branches of government and that pesky Constitution thangy? Absolute power, corrupting absolutely; DU'ers are well aware of that theme by now, but have all of the outrages been accomplished without intents of using that power? And has the wannabe Unitary Executive been so empowered just to hand it all back to Democrats in January 2009 with a whimper of defeat? On the second point, I have become increasingly skeptical, and it seems Greg Palast has as well. On the first point; is BushCo simply waiting anxiously for another 9/11 or Katrina to unleash martial law and end constitutional government as we know it, I couldn't say. If there is indeed a MIHOP incident planned, then all bets are off for ever regaining control.


But with the 28 Percenters becoming the 25 Percenters with no end in sight for the decline of true believers, and with scandals exploding weekly, is there something brewing in the RoveCheney pit to complete the corporacratic power grab once and for all before an impeachment or election can spoil the party? The Shadow government sprang into life, however briefly, on 9/11. Do you really think they would hesitate to use it again, given the chance?

[ramapo]

1. How does it compare?

Yes there has long been a plan for continuity of government in the event of sudden catastrophe. It is a necessity. But I wonder if the definition of events allowing invocation of the directive has always been as broad as now? The Clinton directive was never released, only a summary is available. Haven't found earlier versions.

This latest one has a few very troubling sections, made more so when you consider who signed the directive.

[IDemo]

3. The concept began as a safety measure against nuclear attack

And, as far as I know, continued to focus on that up until the end of the Cold War.

The latest iteration, though, expands quite a bit on the definition of which catastrophes qualify: "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;"

[ramapo]

4. Kennedy's didn't revolve around POTUS

My specific interest is in how broad were previous directives. Kennedy issued two Executive Orders in early 1963, which included specific delineation of responsibility for actions of the various agencies. His EO did mention that it was directed towards all manner of natural emergency, including attack, so one could construe it to be broadly applicable.

However, there was none of the assignment of extraordinary power to the Executive Branch or the naming of lower officials who would have extraordinary power to direct the government, as in Bush's latest Directive.

There was back then a long presidential succession list which went all the way down to the Postmaster General. I was once a bit morbidly fascinated by the list. Of course, the succession list is still set and, in my mind, that should be adequate to ensure continuity of government. None of this creation of a new form of government by power of the executive is warranted and Congress should do something about this.

[snappyturtle]

2. I have NO doubt that the administration would

use The Shadow Government if given the chance. I think this because of the gutting of posse comitatus and habeas corpus,the existence of the Patriot Acts, the Military Commissions Act (?), *'s latest presidential directive and the excessive number of signing statements.Why so much unless the executive branch has sole unitary plans in mind?