Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Could Bush stay indefinately for National Security?

  1. Oct 20, 2007 #1
    Should we all be as angry as this congressman is?


    Bush officials have denied Congressman Peter DeFazio from his duty to review classified White House documents that describe how the Administration plans to conduct the US government if martial law is declared.

    He's angry that the bush administration has prevented all three branches of govenment from looking at the continuity of govenment plans in case of a terrorist event. I certainly would not like a group of power hungry men to think they can stay in power indefinately on national security grounds, so i think we should all beable to see what is in the documents. I just cant think of any good reasons for keeping them a secret from everyone so i thought i would post it here to see what peoples views are on this.

    Just what are they trying to hide?
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 25, 2014
  2. jcsd
  3. Oct 20, 2007 #2

    Gokul43201

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member



    Should we be angry? Can we be any more angry than we already are?
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 25, 2014
  4. Oct 20, 2007 #3

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    This is the same conspiracy theory they had about Clinton when he reformed some of the same types of laws.

    It's dumb.
     
    Last edited: Oct 20, 2007
  5. Oct 20, 2007 #4
    Bush's own motto:

    "What the top richest one percent of the Republican party wants WILL be put in place for the rest of America"
     
  6. Oct 20, 2007 #5

    Evo

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    You're joking, right? You don't seriously think that everyone should be allowed to know all of our government plans, especially if there is a breach of national security?

    That has nothing to do with who is President, republican or democrat, we're talking plain common sense.
     
  7. Oct 20, 2007 #6

    Art

    User Avatar

    The details of the actual plan can justifiably be kept secret but the mechanism and authority by which it is enacted should probably be published or is it already??
     
  8. Oct 20, 2007 #7

    turbo

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Our elected representatives in Congress who are responsible for disaster-planning and continuity in governance in the case of of national emergency should be able to view the administration's plans. It is ridiculous to assert that the information should be publicly disseminated, since that would give valuable information to any potential enemy. It is equally ridiculous, dangerous, and perhaps treasonous for the administration to concoct such contingency plans unilaterally and in secret and refuse to allow our elected representatives to view them. Given the track record of this bunch, the president may have asserted his right to suspend elections because of "emergencies" caused by weather events, economic problems, or staged "attacks". Unless Congress grows a set, the appropriate elected representatives will never know, nor will they be able to offer the US populace any assurances to the contrary.

    I have been following politics closely since my teens, and my feeling is that in no time in those 40+ years have we been closer to a coup. Don't say "it can't happen here", unless you are willing to vigilant against the possibility.
     
  9. Oct 20, 2007 #8

    Evo

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    There is a hierarchy where access to information vital to the nation's security is allowed to specified officials, but not all at one time and not unless there is a need to know. To allow every elected official access to all documents is folly. I don't know if this particular Congressman has the right to view the documents he wants to see. And yes I agree, the powers that a president can invoke can be abused. That's what needs to be addressed. It seems we agree on the fact that the public certainly has no right to have access to this information.
     
  10. Oct 20, 2007 #9

    turbo

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    As I hope I made clear, there are elected congressional representatives that are members of committees that are tasked to deal with national emergencies and contingencies that may be required to deal with them. There is no need for the administration to disseminate the information regarding their planning, but they MUST inform representatives of the other branches of our government.
     
  11. Oct 20, 2007 #10

    Gokul43201

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    It's hard to make a good case for everyone knowing the details. But do you think it is unreasonable that at least the House and Senate Committees for Homeland Security be briefed? Do you also think it unreasonable that any assumption of emergency powers be made after at least informing Congress?
     
    Last edited: Oct 20, 2007
  12. Oct 20, 2007 #11

    Gokul43201

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    What conspiracy theory? The crux of what is being said is that there is a classified document detailing plans for continuity in the case of a homeland security emergency, and no member of the Senate or House Committees for Homeland Security has access to this document. A second point of concern is that, according to NSPD 511, the President awards himself very broad powers without requiring approval from Congress.

    It appears your reaction is based entirely on the title of the thread.

    1: NSPD 51, May 9, 2007
     
    Last edited: Oct 20, 2007
  13. Oct 21, 2007 #12
    Bush has also recently issued a new biodefense directive;

    http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/10/20071018-10.html

    I find this odd in light of the fact that FDA inspections of imported foreign food products were allowed to dwindle to an all time low.

    One thing all of this does fall in line with is the continued Cheney/Bush fear factor game. A lot of people who see these new directives are going to be thinking something terrible is about to happen.

    In conjunction with DHS we recently had a disaster drill at some of our local hospitals. It was appropriately named. It was a disaster. No one knew what the hell was going on. It was made apparent that in a real disaster we simply are not prepared.
     
  14. Oct 21, 2007 #13

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Pretty much, yeah, I generally consider the title of the thread to say what the subject of the thread is intended to be. The OP is wondering if the plans are being kept secret because they contain evidence that Bush plans to sieze dictatorial power. Otherwise, what is the point of the thread? Secrecy for the sake of secrecy?
     
    Last edited: Oct 21, 2007
  15. Oct 21, 2007 #14

    BobG

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    The annex in question may be a special access program with extremely limited access, similar to the foreign surveillance plan submitted for Congressional review.

    If so, I don't think this instance is as problematic as the foreign surveillance plan. At least you'd expect the few Congressmen authorized to view the annex to have some degree of expertise in how the government should function in an emergency. In the case of the foreign surveillance plan, it was virtually impossible for Congress to provide any meaningful oversight. The viewers didn't have the technical expertise to evaluate the program and access was so restricted there was no way for them to get an independent review from their own staff or sources.

    I doubt Bush could use this to stay in power if Congress and the Supreme Court still existed and could meet in session. A more realistic guess would be that the plan covers how to handle a situation that prevents the other branches of government from functioning for a period of time.
     
  16. Oct 21, 2007 #15

    turbo

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    If this is true, then why cannot the members of House and Senate committees responsible for disaster response and planning be allowed to see the plan? The secretive nature of the administration and their propensity to claim powers not legally granted to them make this a serious concern.
     
  17. Oct 21, 2007 #16

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I don't know how much more plain it can be that these people are acting against the Constitution and are therefore enemies of the state, by definition.

    If this doesn't stop soon, the terrorists attacking Washington will be Americans.

    As for the OP, you tell em Pete!!! DeFazio is a good man.
     
    Last edited: Oct 21, 2007
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Could Bush stay indefinately for National Security?
Loading...