[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Sign-in] [Mail] [Setup] [Help]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
Author! Author! See other Author! Author! Articles Title: Continuity of Government What would you do if you knew that your government had created underground shelters for at least 1/3 of the politicians to disappear into in case of a national disaster (example)? What would you think if during this time, parts of the American Constitution was suspended? The main points of such a plan in the United States are to suspend certain parts of the United States Constitution and to allow the alternative use of federal land and buildings (including use as internment camps) by FEMA for the housing/detention of US citizens as required, as well as any rescue/recovery operations. It also allows for power in the US to be centralized to the White House and "appointment of military commanders to run state and local governments and declaration of martial law".[1] House Democrat Jack Brooks brought up the issue during the Iran-Contra Affair hearings. Try as he might, he was not able to get the answers to his questions from Col. Oliver North, (it had been reported in the Miami Herald that North had worked on such plans)[2] as he was repeatedly requested by the Chairman to refrain from discussing the issue and to request for a (non-public) executive session if he wanted to discuss the issue at all. The Miami Herald article claims that the Continuity of Government plan can be invoked: Also, and, An article entitled Back to the Bunker written by William Arkin and published in the Washington Post on 5 June 2006 includes the following statements concerning Continuity of Government. The 9/11 Commission report confirms the invocation: Some including Amy Goldstein and Juliet Eilperin, claim they can find no federal documents that state that the knowledge (and thus approval) of Congress is required in order to invoke Continuity of Government status. It appears they have a case as members of Congress were unaware that Bush had invoked Government Contingency plans after 9/11, until it was finally admitted in 2002.[6] There is no constitutional basis for the suspension of the constitution. However, there are provisions for the continuity of government to be maintained by relocation of government operations and personnel to remote areas. But these are totally distinct concepts. Unfortunately the report does not clarify whether the operations of government were decentralised, or whether the government purported to illegally suspend the constitution. A number of books mention the plans, one is James Mann's 'Rise of the Vulcans': Apparently the Legislative and Judiciary Branches of the US Government each have similar continuity plans. However, both require the Executive to notify them before they are activated. There appears to have been no notification following 9-11 to either the Congress or the United States Supreme Court until it was finally admitted to Congress in 2002.[8] There is considerable confusion between the use of extra-constitutional powers and "martial law" in an emergency situation, and Continuity of Government as such. Continuity of Government properly refers to processes, systems, and infrastructure whereby Government control and communications can be maintained. They involve communications systems, operating procedures, delegation of responsibility, and emergency accommodation- including bunkers. Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
|
||
[Home]
[Headlines]
[Latest Articles]
[Latest Comments]
[Post]
[Sign-in]
[Mail]
[Setup]
[Help]
|