Open Letter to Saxby Chambliss (R, GA)


I received an email today from Senator Saxby Chambliss, and I’m posting both his communication and my own.

Dear Ms. N: Thank you for contacting me regarding the National Security Agency’s (NSA) monitoring of conversations connected to terrorist activity and the treatment of military detainees. It is good to hear from you.

I certainly understand your concerns regarding personal freedoms. We are blessed to live in a free and effective democracy, and, just like you, I hold dear the personal freedoms that are provided to each and every law-abiding American.

As you know, the world changed on September 11, 2001. In the weeks following the catastrophic and murderous attacks on our nation, President Bush authorized the NSA to intercept certain international communications into and out of the United States from persons known to have links to terrorist organizations. As it has been publicly discussed, the purpose of the monitoring program is to prevent another attack on our country. This program is effective and the terrorist plots that have been foiled demonstrate that it is vitally important for the President of the United States to have the power and authority to act on information to protect the American people.

With respect to military detainees captured by the United States, they should be treated humanely and in a manner that honors our agreement under the Geneva Conventions. On October 17, 2006, President Bush signed into law (P.L. 109-366) a bill that outlines the treatment of our military detainees and our interrogation program. This law will further underscore to other countries that the United States will treat its detainees properly and justly.

As always, I appreciate hearing from you.

(Yada yada yada, I’m so sure he appreciates hearing from me.)

So here is my response. I am almost completely certain that such correspondence has no impact on Senator Chambliss whatsoever, but perhaps his staff draws some kind of statistical trend reports for purposes of future elections.

I’m not the only Georgian who wonders why Mr. Chambliss continues to puppet the lies of this administration.

Dear Senator Chambliss:

The NSA monitoring of conversations and email has gone beyond the bounds of what you describe in this correspondence. I am quite sure that you are aware of that.

How can you try to say that you hold dear our freedoms and the values of our democracy when you continue to support the unethical and anti-American actions of this President and Vice-President?

Stop using 9/11 as the “second Pearl Harbor.” With policies such as surveillance of American citizens, retroactive immunity laws, the expansion of executive power, and the torture and mistreatment of prisoners of all kinds – both here and abroad – you have undermined the values of the United States of America.

In this respect, the 9/11 attack couldn’t have been more successful as an act of terrorism; this administration, with your full support, has used it to betray what we should have been standing up for – our freedoms, our democracy, our rights as Americans. You, sir, are allowing that act to succeed in changing the very fabric of our nation.

You say we are “blessed to live in a free and effective democracy.” What remains of this “blessing” – a state of affairs hard-earned in blood and vigilance – is systematically being dismantled, and you contribute to this! Your oblique reference to God does not move me; I cannot imagine how you think God would approve of rampant greed and corruption, deceit, theft, torture, war profiteering, or throwing away the very aspects of American democracy that used to give hope to so many people here and abroad.

Senator Chambliss, after 9/11, we had the sympathy and support of most of the world – think for a moment about how we have thrown that away. Think for a moment about how a truly effective counter-terrorism policy might have reduced terrorism, rather than exponentially increasing it as this administration has done with its harmful policies and actions.

America currently disregards international and domestic laws and agreements on a level that I would never have thought possible. We have even aggressively invaded another country that had not attacked us – a deep violation of our own principles, and of the U.N. agreements for member countries.

You claim that the NSA program has foiled terrorist plots. Would you care to name a few? Can you show me someone that has been lawfully convicted on the basis of this (unconstitutional) activity?

The statement that we treat prisoners (whether at Gitmo, or in Iraq or Afghanistan – or in the countries we ship them out to for torture) in a manner that is in accordance with international law and treaty is so laughable that I am quite frankly amazed that you would still continue to make this claim.

Mr. Chambliss, I have contacted you about many issues, and although I know that your email responses are simply cut and pasted from form letters written by others, I still ask you to hold yourself accountable for the misleading statements being made in them.

Sir, your role in the Senate is to represent the interests – and the laws – of the people of Georgia and of this nation. When will you begin to take your job more seriously?

Senator, I plead with you. Revisit some of these important issues. The future of America is at stake.

These are real problems, and the way they have been handled so far will have lasting repercussions.

Won’t you begin to be part of solving these problems rather than making them even worse with your denials and your continued support of every whim of this secretive and dangerous administration?

Most sincerely-

(it’s “Dr. N.” to you, Senator)

Chuck Hagel Lets it Rip


Chuck Hagel, Republican turning Democrat. Maybe he can give the Dems some… ahhh…. backbone.

“This is one of the most arrogant, incompetent administrations I’ve ever seen personally or ever read about,” the always blunt and frequently quotable Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., said yesterday during an appearance at the Council on Foreign Relations in New York.

“This administration in my opinion has been as unprepared as any administration I’m aware of,” Hagel added, “not only the ones that I have been somehow connected to and that’s been every administration — either I’ve been in Washington or worked within an administration or Congress or some way dealing with them since the first Nixon administration. I would rate this one the lowest in capacity, in capability, in policy, in consensus — almost every area, I would give it the lowest grade. …

“And you know, I think of this administration, what they could have done after 9/11, what was within their grasp. Every poll in the world showed 90% of the world for us. Iran had some of the first spontaneous demonstrations on the streets of Tehran supporting America. They squandered a tremendous amount of opportunity.”

Read Hagel’s (not Hegel’s – lol) complete remarks.

Way to Support the Troops


Nice. You get wounded, and then you are asked to REPAY part of your incentive to enlist in the first place? Insult upon injury. Literally.

“Service members seriously wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan after they received a $10,000 bonus for enlisting are being asked by the Pentagon to repay portions of the incentive money, says a U.S. senator who calls the practice an example of military policy gone wrong.”

“A bill in the mail is not the kind of present our soldiers deserve in this holiday season,” Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y. said. “Our veterans are not being treated with the dignity, respect and thanks that they deserve. It’s just a disgrace.”

At a news conference Sunday, he said the policy remained in effect despite a report last July by a presidential commission that wounded veterans were being unfairly penalized by a requirement that enlistees must fulfill their entire term of service or lose a pro-rated portion of their bonus.

Nancy Nord – oh please


Nancy A. Nord was nominated by President George W. Bush to be a commissioner of the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) for a term that expires in October of 2012. The CPSC is supposed to protect the public against unreasonable risks of injury and death associated with consumer products. You know, lead. Things like that.

Nord is also the president of Executive Women in Government, a nonprofit professional women’s organization. Sorry, women.

In two different letters, Nancy Nord has asked lawmakers not to approve legislation that would increase the agency’s authority, double its budget and increase its ever more pathetic staff. She opposes increasing the maximum penalties for safety violations. She opposes making it easier for the government to make public reports of faulty products. She opposed protecting industry whistle-blowers. And of course she opposes prosecuting executives of companies that willfully violate laws.

Hello? Anyone home in America?

The agency has suffered from a steady decline in its budget and staffing in recent years. Its staff numbers about 420, about half its size in the 1980s. It has only one full-time employee to test toys. And 15 inspectors are assigned to police all imports of consumer products under the agency’s supervision, a marketplace that last year was valued at $614 billion.

I am ashamed to share a syllable of my name with Nancy Nord. My mother’s name is Nancy, too. I haven’t felt this bad since people started asking me if I was related to OJ Simpson because of a character he played. Sorry, children.

The very direction of North – what Nord means – is blasting its winds in her general direction.

Anyone who doesn’t think the agency needs more resources “does not understand the gravity of the situation and does not understand the concerns that America’s parents have for the safety of their children,” Pelosi said.

Government Bad. Corporations Good. Yar yar.

Family values? Children’s safety?

Lead, good. Whistleblowers bad.

Good government? Promote the general welfare?

Bah. We don’t need your stinkin’ children.

Iraq Numbers


Iraq causalities may be more than a million.

…a survey of 1,461 adults suggested that the total number slain during more than four years of war was more than 1.2 million. … nearly one in two households in Baghdad had lost at least one member to war- related violence, and 22% of households nationwide had suffered at least one death. It said 48% of the victims were shot to death and 20% died as a result of car bombs, with other explosions and military bombardments blamed for most of the other fatalities.

Here are some more startling stats – via Tom Engelhardt’s excellent article Here Are the Real Numbers That Tally Iraq’s ‘Progress’:

Number of U.S. criminal investigations underway for contract fraud in Iraq, Kuwait, and Afghanistan: 73.

Cost to Pentagon of shipping two 19-cent metal washers to a key military installation abroad, probably in Iraq or Afghanistan: $998,798.00.

Amount paid by the U.S. military to two British private security firms, Aegis Defence Services and Erinys Iraq, to protect U.S. Army Corps of Engineers reconstruction teams in Iraq: $548 million ($18 million a month, with a private army of 2000 – about three military battalions).

Percentage of Iraqi national police force which is Shiite: 85%.

Number of Iraqis in American prisons in Iraq: 24,500.

Number of juveniles (11-17), held in those prisons: Approximately 800 (85% Sunni).

Number of foreign suspected jihadis held in those prisons: 280.

Estimated number of full-time al-Qaeda-in-Iraq fighters: 850 (2-5% of the Sunni insurgency).

Number of times President Bush mentioned al-Qaeda in a speech on the Iraqi situation on July 24, 2007: 95.

Number of Iraqi civilian deaths in August: 1,809 (the highest figure of the surge year so far).

Number of Iraqi “bus people” now in exile in neighboring lands: 2.5 million.

Amount spent by the average household in Baghdad for a few hours of electricity a day: $171 a month ($400 is a reasonable monthly wage).

Number of U.S. Army suicides: 17.3 per thousand, the highest rate in 26 years – not including unconfirmed reports or those who served and then committed suicide at home. In 2006, 99. Since 2003, 118 U.S. military personnel have committed suicide in Iraq itself.

Percentage of people across the globe who “think U.S. forces should leave Iraq within a year”: 67%, according to a just-released BBC World Service poll of 23,000 people in 22 countries. Only 23% think foreign troops should remain “until security improves.”

Percentage of citizens of U.S.-led “coalition” members in Iraq who want forces out within a year: 65% of Britons, 63% of South Koreans, and 63% of Australians. Even a majority of Israelis want either an immediate American withdrawal (24%), or withdrawal within a year (28%); only 40% opt for “remain until security improves.

Percentage of Americans who think U.S. forces should get out of Iraq within a year: 61% (24% favor immediate withdrawal, 37% prefer a one-year timetable).

Percentage of people across the globe who think the United States plans to keep permanent military bases in Iraq: 49%.

Percentage of Americans who believe, that the U.S. mission in Iraq will be seen as a failure in the long run: 57%, (only 29% disagree).

These from “The General Lies” by Robert Scheer:

Percent of Iraqis who believe security has deteriorated since the surge began: 70%.

Percent of Iraqis who believe attacks on U.S. forces are justified: 60%.

Percent of Sunnis (whom the general and ambassador claim are joining our side) that want to see us dead: 93%.

Recommended reading:

America’s Deadly Shock Doctrine in Iraq by Naomi Klein explains how the U.S. set about to destroy the Iraqi national psyche and then push through a disastrous privatization of its economy. The link will lead to an excerpt from the new book.

U.S. Secret Air War Pulverizes Afghanistan and Iraq by Conn Hallinan reports on the U.S. military’s increasingly reliance on deadly air strikes in Iraq and Afghanistan as the ground occupations fall apart, killing untold numbers of civilians.

Faced with defeat or bloody stalemate on the ground, the allies have turned to air power, much as the U.S. did in Vietnam. But, as in Vietnam, the terrible toll bombing inflicts on civilians all but guarantees long-term failure.

“Far from bringing about the intended softening up of the opposition,” Phillip Gordon, a Brookings Institute Fellow, told the Asia Times, “bombing tends to rally people behind their leaders and cause them to dig in against outsiders who, whatever the justification, are destroying their homeland.”"


Six Years After 9/11, Why We’re Losing the War on Terror
by David Cole and Jules Lobel argue that the Bush administration and its extralegal policies have taken the U.S. from being the object of the world’s sympathy to the object of their scorn.

The proposition that judicial processes and international accountability — the very essence of the rule of law — are to be dismissed as a strategy of the weak, aligned with terrorism itself, makes clear that the Administration has come to view the rule of law as an obstacle, not an asset, in its effort to protect us from terrorist attack.

Our long-term security turns not on “going on offense” by locking up thousands of “suspected terrorists” who turn out to have no connection to terrorism; nor on forcing suspects to bark like dogs, urinate and defecate on themselves, and endure sexual humiliation; nor on attacking countries that have not threatened to attack us. Security rests not on exceptionalism and double standards but on a commitment to fairness, justice and the rule of law. … The preventive paradigm has compromised our spirit, strengthened our enemies and left us less free and less safe.

Actions of the Day for Progressive Armchair Activists


We come in peace (shoot to kill): Just Foreign Policy Iraqi Death Estimator

Some actions for my fellow armchair activists. Click on the links for more information and to take action.

Impeachment and Bush Record Workshops in Atlanta


Impeachment Workshop, June 28th

This workshop will focus on Bush’s impeachable offenses and bring out the full array of crimes committed by the Bush administration. Speakers will also address the need to build a movement across the country on the grounds of impeachment as the vehicle to force the Bush administration from office.

Thursday, June 28, 3:30 p.m. – 5:30 p.m.

Inman Park United Methodist Church
DOT-ADA Community Room
Marta Stop- Inman Park
1 block from the station on Edgewood Dr.

Speakers:

Dennis Loo, co-editor of the book “Impeach the President: A Case Against Bush and Cheney”, an Associate Professor of Sociology at Cal Poly Pomona, and member of the World Can’t Wait Steering Committee.

Prachi Noor, member of the World Can’t Wait Steering Committee and involved since its launch in July 2005. She has been at the forefront of the movement to stop the repression of immigrant communities.

David Swanson, co-founder of the AfterDowningStreet.org coalition, a writer and activist, and the Washington Director of Democrats.com.

Mathew Cardinale, editor of Atlanta Progressive News

Crimes Against Humanity–The Bush Record, June 29th

You thought you knew. But you can’t really know until you see the full scale and scope of all the crimes brought together. It is far worse than you could even imagine. This is the documentation that activists in all fields need.

Join the session “Crimes Against Humanity–The Bush Record” at the U.S. Social Forum in Atlanta, Friday, June 29, at 10:30 am.

Location: Second Floor meeting room of the Central Library. The Library is at the corner of William St. NW and Forsyth St. NW.

Participants in the Atlanta panel include: Dennis Brutus, South African poet and former prisoner with Nelson Mandela on Robben Island, Ann Wright, former US diplomat and retired US Army Colonel, Larry Everest, author of Oil, Power & Empire: Iraq and the U.S. Global Agenda, Clark Kissinger, convener of the Commission, together with short video excerpts on the evidence.

The hearings of the International Commission of Inquiry on Crimes Against Humanity, held in the winter of 2005-2006, is where the U.S. public first heard, brought together in one place, the stunning evidence of crimes against committed by the Bush Administration.

These hearings are where we first heard together: * Gen. Janis Karpinski describe how the orders for torture at Abu Ghraib came right from the top. * Journalist Jeremy Scahill expose the deployment of armed mercenaries in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina and the ethnic cleansing that followed. * Dr. Alan Berkman detail the genocidal implications of the Bush administration’s “abstinence only” policy as the cure for AIDS in Africa. * Daphne Wysham document the censorship of government scientists trying to warn of global warming. * United Nations weapons inspector Scott Ritter explain exactly how the Bush administration in fact that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

The printed verdict of the Commission and two different DVD programs based on the hearings will be available at the session.

Our mandate from the beginning has been to change the very terms of debate in society by forcefully raising the proof of crimes against humanity. You can help make this important material available to the thousands coming to the U.S. Social Forum by contributing to the Commission.

Help put the DVDs of the Bush Crimes Commission into the hands of activists from all over the country. Make a tax-deductible contribution to support the work of Bush Crimes Commission. Other contributions can be made out to NION SOC Inc., and mailed to NION, 305 West Broadway, #199, New York, NY 10013.

Presidential Directives


I was rereading a bit about Emerson and self-reliance earlier. It affected me, as it always does. Before I wade into current political statements of opinion on the recent Presidential Directives (I’ve seen blog headlines), I’ve decided to treat it like I would treat any document I wanted to interpret. What follows is my initial set of impressions and thoughts. This will change, it always does. It might be interesting to do part 2 sometime later, when these thoughts bounce against those of others and I have to rethink things.

This is for my friend Mary, who asked me to blog on this (thank you, but look what you’ve done!).

HSPD-20 / NSPD-51 (National Security Presidential Directive 51 and Homeland Security Presidential Directive 20) is a presidential directive (not a law) that was issued by the White House on May 9. As you might have guessed from the numbers, there have been other directives. I’m not sure why this one is so special, or causing such a buzz.

The first time I read it, it really did fill me with alarm. I thought – “Oh, good lord, now all they have to do is drop a bomb here at home, and BOOM – no more elections.” But I’m not so sure that I completely understand its significance. Maybe they all read like that. After all, think of the topic of discussion. In a disaster, we do want some plans in place!

HSPD-20 is a presidential proclamation that declares how the White House plans to deal with a “Catastrophic Emergency” – “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.”

Yeah, that makes me nervous already. It’s the “regardless of location” that bothers me – a lot. Think about possible locations…

Ok, what KIND of plan, and what has changed?

There is the creation of the position of an executive branch “National Continuity Coordinator” who will be in charge of coordinating plans to ensure just the continuity of Federal Government structures and the implementation of Federal continuity policies – it’s about policy coordination for contingency plans?

This is a bit ambiguous. I think you could defend the interpretation that it declares the executive branch itself to be the “National Continuity Coordinator” over “executive departments and agencies” – what unspecified power for executive “guidance” is it claiming over local, state, and private organizations to ensure continuity for national security (as well for emergency response and recovery)? These are very different things. This is perhaps an extension of the powers of commander-in-chief (it’s only supposed to cover the army and navy).

The most ominous part of the document somehow is the revocation of Presidential Decision Directive 67, “Enduring Constitutional Government and Continuity of Government Operations.” What is being revoked? Why it is all being revoked? Why not just amend, or supersede?

It appears that the text of PDD67 has never been released to the public. This is going to be a pain.
but it’s unclear what Bush would see as needing to be revoked.

— OK, back. PDD67 was issued by Clinton in October 1998 – it directs all levels of government to plan for full minimum operations in any potential national security situation. Uniform policies were created for developing and implementing plans to ensure the continuation of essential operations during any man-mad, natural, technological, or national security emergency. So it’s about how to plan the plans? Sheesh.

Each federal agency was assigned specific functions based on their capabilities and authority, and each had to publish a contingency plan (“continuity of operations plan”- COOP), maintain the budget to support it, and ensure readiness with training, testing and evaluation (including computer simulations, war games, hazmat training, rehearsals, and the like). This built on and amended previous plans and directives, such as PDD-62 (Clinton, May 22, 1998), which established an integrated program to counter terrorist threats and to manage the consequences of attacks on the US. PPD-63 and the EPA’s Critical Infrastructures Protection Plan made each department and agency maintain plans to protect their own infrastructure (including their “cyber-based systems). In case of catastrophic disaster, the EPA is responsible for protecting the water and air supply against “corruption” (Don’t you feel safe now, knowing that the EPA has it under control? I’m starting to see why it’s so important for cronies to be in these positions… steady, steady – no ranting…).

So, to reword, plans were developed to identify possible requirements for a “Plan B” of chain of command and emergency functions and things like that in the event that the status quo was seriously disrupted. There were different roles for different agencies and departments (some or all of which may still apply?). So now it looks like they have to show metrics for successful performance? Is that new? I’m not sure. The EPA and the Department of Defense will probably still train state and local emergency responders, and so on.

We’re familiar with FEMA. Most of the resources of the National Preparedness Directorate of the Federal Emergency Management Agency [FEMA] used to be spent on ensuring the continuation of civilian government in the event of a nuclear war, through what are known as these Enduring Constitutional Government programs.

They called it “coordinating consequence management activities.” Lovely.

I’m thinking sci-fi scenario – the underground bunkers, maybe even the secret blast-off to a satellite – but maybe that’s become a dated chain of thought (or maybe I’ve read too much science fiction).

“Like, dude, what do we do with all these people dying of radiation poisoning? How many towns do we have to quarantine to prevent the epidemic? Where should I put all these bones?”

“Never mind that, get the President and the Speaker and those lobbyists into the capsule.”

Keep laughing. The George W. Bush Administration was the first president ever to put the Continuity of Operations plan into action – right after September 11, 2201. They pulled a rotating staff of 75-150 senior officials and other government workers from every Cabinet department and other parts of the executive branch into two secure bunkers on the East Coast (a government-in-waiting that Congress didn’t even know about, nice).

Still, even if we don’t like to think about it, we do need to have executable contingency plans so that everyone wouldn’t be running around, not knowing what to do, or thinking that they should all sit and wait for the Rapture, or go hysterically violent, or something like that.

So what’s new? Under the previous arrangement (as far as I can glean), there is no ultimate coordinator or boss or czar or whatever. The Head of each Federal agency/department was responsible for ensuring continuity of functions, essential resources, facilities and records, and the delegation of authority for emergency operating capabilities (within applicable laws – and probably without, too).

This directive would take away some authority in planning, and probably impose a new uniform standard of some sort? Would it take away authority or action at the time of disaster too? I can’t tell.

Each branch of government is responsible for its own plans. This would add a functionary to coordinate with the other two branches for “interoperability.”

Would this Coordination be arbitrated by a higher authority? What grievance procedure could there be in this? What happens if the head of one of the federal agencies or departments disagrees with this “coordinator”? Then what? Who has the final word? What about oversight?

This Coordinator person has to come up with a plan for all this within 90 days. Right. So it’s already written, and the person is already chosen? Wolfowitz needs a job, for example? Shouldn’t this be a position that needs to be confirmed? Oh oh… he couldn’t be thinking Gonzales…Rumsfeld… Rove? No, no, couldn’t be. Back to the text.

The White House could be building on its previous successes in expanding the executive role (hence the concern) – in which case state and local governments, territories, other properties (Guantanamo?), and interestingly enough, also private corporations – would be his (and Cheney’s and ?) to command in case of a national emergency. That would be really, really bad – I’m guessing that’s the cause of all the buzz and noise, if people read it that way.

The other interpretation might be that he is trying to do what he’s done in other places, like Homeland Security, which is to centralize power and information. In this case, the executive branch would be (or have?) the ultimate “coordinator”, like a wedding planner. Think the right will steal that metaphor?

Still, even then, the language of “coordinating” might be a screen for more of a “dictating” role. Have you actually dealt with someone whose title was “coordinator”? So you know what I mean. Anyway, the document says it’s not a directive role…and there’s lots of repetitions of “constitutional.” Maybe he’s trying to respond to criticisms about how this government has failed to respond effectively to catastrophes.

There are two different time-frames being discussed – one is the coordination effort for planning, and the other is what kinds of authority would be activated in case the plans went into effect.

If it means that all these agencies and authorities and private interests have to answer to the White House or its representative during an actual disaster, that seems like a very bad idea. I’m not sure if that’s what it means or not, and I don’t think I’d be able to tell without having access to more of the document, which is classified. So I don’t know.

Are there any other “eyes” in the legislative branch who would know what we’re actually talking about here?

You don’t want to be waiting for authorizations at a time like that, and suppose communications systems are disrupted? And “systems are down”?

Decentralized and adaptive power structures are much more effective. There is some concern about communication networks in the document, and a science and technology officer is responsible for ensuring those systems. I guess it all depends on the kind of disaster…

One thing we should have learned from Global Terrorism (and Global Corporations – I wonder who learned from who?) is that “cells” and “units” with multiply-redundant lines of communication and feedback are more adaptive and effective than “headquarters.” Interpenetration is more effective than top-down management. Instead of using methods of intelligence-gathering integration, we blunder in without even knowing a language or culture and whip up hornets nests. We were better when we had some classy spies, and practiced protective camouflage. We’ve forgotten our roots as Revolutionaries. We’re the new “red coats” – sticking out a mile. But back to the matter at hand, already in progress…

There are those who are saying that this is a setup for Bush to become an actual, old-fashioned dictator. No – it’s a bit more subtle. The Enduring Constitutional Government (ECG) refers to all three branches – but the difference it that they would be “coordinated by the President.” I would need to hear more details about what the coordination and implementation would look like in order to start screaming “Dictator.” Bush would like to be a Dictator, I’m sure, but he’s not.

Most of the document that has been released is more about structures and planning than about actual implementation. Read one way, it’s almost a will, since it also provides for the succession to the Presidency. “Heads of executive departments and agencies shall ensure that appropriate support is available to the Vice President and others involved as necessary to be prepared at all times to implement those provisions.” Hmmm.

There will be a new threat alert/readiness system – the President will get to issue the COGCON level focused on threats to the National Capital Region.

Continuity of Government Readiness Conditions. COGCON? Are they kidding? It sounds like an inside joke. Cogswell Cogs, cog in the works, brick in the wall, conference, conjob, conning the cogs, the con about continuity of government. Anyway, that level issued (through the super-secret underground lair communication device?) will signal all the agencies and departments of the executive branch to comply with assigned requirements under the program.

“Bible college never prepared me for THIS – are you SURE that’s the required action for this department?” “Yeah, honey, now just stand over there…”

All details of the COGCON program are classified.

This directive and the information contained herein shall be protected from unauthorized disclosure, provided that, except for Annex A, the Annexes attached to this directive are classified and shall be accorded appropriate handling, consistent with applicable Executive Orders. – George W. Bush

The directive does not have the same weight as, say, the Patriot Act or the Military Commissions Act. There may be aspects of it that are even more dangerous, that go further than “total information awareness” and the other kinds of surveillance on American citizens that this administration seems to crave.

Hermeneutics/deconstruction – deconstruction/hermeneutics.

Nope. Can’t get a fix. I can read it as intending to protect and defend the American people and the Constitution. And I can read it as a very scary document that we’ll think should have given us warning about the destruction of America as we know it. And I can believe it could even, in some sick way, be both.

We could say – “thank goodness we had this.” We could say – “they were planning it all along.” We could say – “he just wanted to one-up Clinton, and somebody wanted a new job.”

I have serious reservations, but I don’t think I have enough information to credibly argue about this document. For all I can tell, they’re just trying to reduce the paperwork.

One thing that I can tell you is that I am happy that I don’t write government documents for a living. I suspect that there are many things that we don’t know about – across the board – at the federal level of government.

After all this, I’ll have to stew some more. Sigh.

Well, at least I’ve got the initial bits that struck me.

Comments are welcome.

Recent Posts: