• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Executive Order -- National Defense Resources Preparedness

when the govt. doesn't have a plan and falls flat on its face, like during 9-11 and Hurricane Katrina, the country goes nuts and wants heads to roll.

when the govt. decides to put together a plan to prepare for a serious emergency, conspiracy theorists go nuts and suggest that this is in preparation for martial law & dictatorship.

I guess......you can't please everyone.
 
Oh my god, they have a plan! I think this executive order talk (not on this board, but elsewhere) is indeed noteworthy because it is the third example of a continuing trend, which is people being misinformed by social media "journalists." First the NDAA, then HR 347, now this executive order. Not just a few, but a lot of people, believe that these three things are "dots" that are to be "connected" -- meaning that the President is going to declare millions of Americans to be terrorists and indefinitely detain them, and if anything goes awry with this devious plan, martial law will be declared and our democracy will end. Have these people stopped to ask... WHY?!

Obama is projected by most media sources to likely win in 2012! He doesn't have overwhelming disapproval and it makes absolutely no sense why our government would be gearing up to herd us all into FEMA camps because we had the nerve to tweet something negative about the executive branch.

I never thought I'd see the day where I hoped people would watch cable news to be informed, but I think perhaps it has arrived.

Actually, the NDAA does allow for the indefinite detention of US citizens according to law professor Johnathan Turley (The NDAA's historic assault on American liberty | Jonathan Turley | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk) (Indefinite Detention of Citizens: A Response To Senator Carl Levin « JONATHAN TURLEY) and Glenn Greenwald (Three myths about the detention bill - Glenn Greenwald - Salon.com)

Also, HR 347 has some rather imprecise language (Imprecise Language and the Risks of H.R. 347 « JONATHAN TURLEY)
 
You realize doing that kills any point you might want to make?

Hussein means handsome. Navy just wants everyone aware that Obama's middle name is handsome. What's the big deal?
 
Let's repeat that sentence with invasion or terrible accident in mind instead of some conspiratorial coup:
The fact that something sounds horrific does not mean that it is not true (possible), or should not be taken seriously.
In this case "not possible" instead of "not true".

Any government should have at least some bare-bones structure in place to respond to a tragic event of national proportions. Not having one would be foolish because we know that bad things do happen. Let's say for sake of argument that a nuke went off in an American city - or we had a Fukushima event here. Do you really want the authorities arguing with some local farmer about using his tractor to build a berm? Or some factory making Pet Rocks arguing with (and later suing) the Fed because they cleared the road to a warehouse but left their business isolated? Without rules like this in place that's exactly what could happen. Yes, viewed by itself and out of context it looks extreme but responding to emergencies sometimes take extraordinary actions and there isn't always time to "go by the book" that we use for everyday life.


In your leisure you can point out what has really changed from the same emergency response book that was written 40-50 years ago to respond to a nuclear war with Russia. My guess is you'll find few changes, if any, beyond which Department is responsible for what.


Ed:
The next time you hear those tornado warning sirens (1st Wed @ 11AM) stop and remember that originally meant "Oh ****! Some Crazy Commie just pushed The Button."

(Yeah, I know they were around before then but I don't remember a time prior to the Cold War and I doubt anyone else does, either.)

My problem is with the language of this exec order. It says all these things can be done for the national defense and doesn't have to be done in a state of emergency due to how poorly worded it is.

I did preface the OP with "if I read it correctly"

Sent from my SGH-T989 using Tapatalk
 
My problem is with the language of this exec order. It says all these things can be done for the national defense and doesn't have to be done in a state of emergency due to how poorly worded it is.
I should have left that part out. My guess is FEMA has articles written along those lines.

But I did include invasion, as I'm sure a nuke going off in an American city would be viewed. Like I said, these were originally written with a worst case scenario of nuclear war with the USSR. As far as I know that's still the worst case scenario, nuclear war.
 
I should have left that part out. My guess is FEMA has articles written along those lines.

But I did include invasion, as I'm sure a nuke going off in an American city would be viewed. Like I said, these were originally written with a worst case scenario of nuclear war with the USSR. As far as I know that's still the worst case scenario, nuclear war.

Or four more years of increased debt.


Just kidding.
 
I find no reference to hoarding or anything in the EO about persons stockpiling food or other items. No one has yet to show that there is anything whatsoever wrong with this EO.

All you need to is review the steps Louisiana took during the hurricane and flood. No, the flowery language in the EO from both 1994 and now do not literally say what the critics in this thread claim, hence the flowery language. Basically the government is saying it will take steps, whatever necessary, to protect the common good, not individuals rights, freedoms or property. In one respect that's the right thing to do in a catastrophe to save the country or a majority of people. Some will not be saved, some will have their rights trampled on, their lives taken by accident or on purpose. It's the nature of a catastrophe. If **** happens, it's fend for yourself, depend on yourself, and do what you have to do to survive.
 

A ton of people have been arguing over the detention provisions in the 2012 NDAA and the language in HR 347, but in these debates the entire point seems to be lost. The point being that our concern should be our ongoing problems with the war on terror. And by problems, I mean the indefinite detention of terrorism suspects, mostly in Guantanamo Bay, and the ongoing conflict in the middle east that's threatening to continue or even possibly expand.

When we start throwing around conspiracy theories about the government trying to throw American protesters into FEMA camps, we get further away from the legitimate discussions we should be having.
 
My problem is with the language of this exec order. It says all these things can be done for the national defense and doesn't have to be done in a state of emergency due to how poorly worded it is.

I did preface the OP with "if I read it correctly"

Sent from my SGH-T989 using Tapatalk

My problem with your post is that it is incredibly vague and does not adress any of the things pointed out here. It's like you won't let go of the lie you where fed. Read the EO, find where it allows the government to do much of anything other than plan for emergencies. Compare it to the EO it replaces. Then you will be in a position to discuss the EO.
 
All you need to is review the steps Louisiana took during the hurricane and flood. No, the flowery language in the EO from both 1994 and now do not literally say what the critics in this thread claim, hence the flowery language. Basically the government is saying it will take steps, whatever necessary, to protect the common good, not individuals rights, freedoms or property. In one respect that's the right thing to do in a catastrophe to save the country or a majority of people. Some will not be saved, some will have their rights trampled on, their lives taken by accident or on purpose. It's the nature of a catastrophe. If **** happens, it's fend for yourself, depend on yourself, and do what you have to do to survive.

So it is in there, but you can't find it in there, but you know it is in there. Well done.
 
So it is in there, but you can't find it in there, but you know it is in there. Well done.

It's there, you choose not to see it because it doesn't explicitly say "we will institute martial law and nationalize everything including the contents of your pantry" it is NOT there, and therefore doesn't exist in any form or even inferred. Which means more Redress playing "the literal" game in this thread.

You and I both know politics is just as much about what IS said as it is about what ISN'T said. The coy "literal game" isn't fooling anyone so I'm not sure why you think it's a valid tactic going forward.... :shrug:
 
It's there, you choose not to see it because it doesn't explicitly say "we will institute martial law and nationalize everything including the contents of your pantry" it is NOT there, and therefore doesn't exist in any form or even inferred. Which means more Redress playing "the literal" game in this thread.

You and I both know politics is just as much about what IS said as it is about what ISN'T said. The coy "literal game" isn't fooling anyone so I'm not sure why you think it's a valid tactic going forward.... :shrug:

It does not say anything even remotely close to it. Nothing in the EO does this. If you can show evidence it does, please feel free.
 
It's there, you choose not to see it because it doesn't explicitly say "we will institute martial law and nationalize everything including the contents of your pantry" it is NOT there, and therefore doesn't exist in any form or even inferred. Which means more Redress playing "the literal" game in this thread.

You and I both know politics is just as much about what IS said as it is about what ISN'T said. The coy "literal game" isn't fooling anyone so I'm not sure why you think it's a valid tactic going forward.... :shrug:

I believe the language is intentionally vague. In politics as you know, even the least vague of interpretations are misconstrued all the time by the politicians in charge and the supreme court. Our constitution being one of the most prevalent examples. Too many of the statements that were meant to be taken literally, were chewed on, mis-analyzed and malformed to benefit the administrations in power.

Although this may not literally seem like a threat, it's a building block and a step in the wrong direction. It's about the culmination of laws like this that will eventually be our undoing, not necessarily one in particular. It's our duty to be outraged and critical of our government.
 
It's there, you choose not to see it because it doesn't explicitly say "we will institute martial law and nationalize everything including the contents of your pantry" it is NOT there, and therefore doesn't exist in any form or even inferred. Which means more Redress playing "the literal" game in this thread...

so even though it doesn't say anything about martial law and seizing all personal property, that doesn't mean they can't declare martial law and seize all personal property?

how's that work?
 
I believe the language is intentionally vague. In politics as you know, even the least vague of interpretations are misconstrued all the time by the politicians in charge and the supreme court. Our constitution being one of the most prevalent examples. Too many of the statements that were meant to be taken literally, were chewed on, mis-analyzed and malformed to benefit the administrations in power.

Although this may not literally seem like a threat, it's a building block and a step in the wrong direction. It's about the culmination of laws like this that will eventually be our undoing, not necessarily one in particular. It's our duty to be outraged and critical of our government.
So you would rather wait for the invasion then have the government operate illegally to combat the threat?
 
this reminds of how some folks were claiming that the PATRIOT Act was word for word identical to the German Enabling Act of 1933, which gave Hitler dictatorial power.

of course, it was a lie. but certain folks didn't care.
 
It does not say anything even remotely close to it. Nothing in the EO does this. If you can show evidence it does, please feel free.

Sorry it took me so long to reply - work got in the way. :wink:

So here's some things that concern me...

Executive Order said:
Sec. 103.* General Functions.* Executive departments and agencies (agencies) responsible for plans and programs relating to national defense (as defined in section 801(j) of this order), or for resources and services needed to support such plans and programs, shall:
(a)* identify requirements for the full spectrum of emergencies, including essential military and civilian demand;
(b)* assess on an ongoing basis the capability of the domestic industrial and technological base to satisfy requirements in peacetime and times of national emergency, specifically evaluating the availability of the most critical resource and production sources, including subcontractors and suppliers, materials, skilled labor, and professional and technical personnel;

Referenced section 801(j) said:
Section 801(j)
Sec. 801.* Definitions.* In addition to the definitions in section 702 of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2152, the following definitions apply throughout this order:
(a)* "Civil transportation" includes movement of persons and property by all modes of transportation in interstate, intrastate, or foreign commerce within the United States, its territories and possessions, and the District of Columbia, and related public storage and warehousing, ports, services, equipment and facilities, such as transportation carrier shop and repair facilities.* "Civil transportation" also shall include direction, control, and coordination of civil transportation capacity regardless of ownership.* "Civil transportation" shall not include transportation owned or controlled by the Department of Defense, use of petroleum and gas pipelines, and coal slurry pipelines used only to supply energy production facilities directly.

c)* "Farm equipment" means equipment, machinery, and repair parts manufactured for use on farms in connection with the production or preparation for market use of food resources.

(e)* "Food resources" means all commodities and products, (simple, mixed, or compound), or complements to such commodities or products, that are capable of being ingested by either human beings or animals, irrespective of other uses to which such commodities or products may be put, at all stages of processing from the raw commodity to the products thereof in vendible form for human or animal consumption.* "Food resources" also means potable water packaged in commercially marketable containers, all starches, sugars, vegetable and animal or marine fats and oils, seed, cotton, hemp, and flax fiber, but does not mean any such material after it loses its identity as an agricultural commodity or agricultural product
(j)* "National defense" means programs for military and energy production or construction, military or critical infrastructure assistance to any foreign nation, homeland security, stockpiling, space, and any directly related activity.* Such term includes emergency preparedness activities conducted pursuant to title VI of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5195 et seq., and critical infrastructure protection and restoration.



Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act said:
(3) Work and services to save lives and protect property - Performing on public or private lands or waters any work or services essential to saving lives and protecting and preserving property or public health and safety, including -
(A) debris removal;
(B) search and rescue, emergency medical care, emergency mass care,
emergency shelter, and provision of food, water, medicine, durable medical equipment, and other essential needs, including movement of supplies or persons;
(C) clearance of roads and construction of temporary bridges necessary to the performance of emergency tasks and essential community services;
(D) provision of temporary facilities for schools and other essential community services;
(E) demolition of unsafe structures which endanger the public;
(F) warning of further risks and hazards;
27(G) dissemination of public information and assistance regarding health and safety measures;
(H) provision of technical advice to State and local governments on disaster management and control;
(I) reduction of immediate threats to life, property, and public health and safety; and
(J) provision of rescue, care, shelter, and essential needs -
(i) toindividualswithhouseholdpetsandserviceanimals;and
(ii) to such pets and animals.

https://www.fema.gov/library/viewRecord.do?fromSearch=fromsearch&id=3564

So all fairly innocuous stuff for the most part but it's the stuff that's bolded that is really vague. So if the government needs it, they can say they're taking tons of grain without reimbursement to a farmer, to feed the masses. They can take farm equipment, regardless of it being private property. If there's an emergency, they can knock down my house by calling it a "danger to others" whether it is or not and use it as an emergency through way, or set up tents for a make shift school. All they have to do is say there's an immediate threat to life, property or public health. Of course I'm not saying that our government is evil and will do this just to get their jolly's, but I am saying that such language makes people who don't trust the government already even more distrustful.

I'm sure such mistakes that are made will be the vast minority, yet human nature being what it is - I have to say I'm a bit troubled by such language. I mean, if you follow all the references in the FEMA document, you'd need a cadre of lawyers to translate it into plain English and to follow all of the links and formalities. I don't have a horse in this... I'm just saying I empathize with what was said and I can understand how people would be able to think the government could come in and take their stuff under some federal or state order.
 
None of that talks about nationalization nor martial law, nor anything sinister. The EO is requiring the agencies to ensure there are plans to ensure that those things are available. The easist way to describe what the Eo does is to look at the example of the powergrid in the US. In the event of an attack, keeping the powergrid up and intact, in addition to ensuring that repairs to damage would be a key thing. This EO requires that a plan be in place to ensure supplies and manpower and whatever is needed is available. That is not nationalization, that is stockpiling.
 
None of that talks about nationalization nor martial law, nor anything sinister.
It depends upon who's reading it and what their perspective is... it may not seem sinister to you but I can certainly at least understand why others may see it as less than forthright.

The EO is requiring the agencies to ensure there are plans to ensure that those things are available. The easist way to describe what the Eo does is to look at the example of the powergrid in the US. In the event of an attack, keeping the powergrid up and intact, in addition to ensuring that repairs to damage would be a key thing. This EO requires that a plan be in place to ensure supplies and manpower and whatever is needed is available. That is not nationalization, that is stockpiling.
Agreed, but you didn't address any of the minor points I made... so they keep the power grid up. How does that help the farmer who just lost his farm equipment and products and animals because they were confiscated under "the public good" of a supposed emergency. I know the Spock defense ... I'm just saying it's not all milk and honey and it's not reasonable for everyone to give the government such a wide berth of being on the straight and narrow.
 
Nowhere in the EO does it say they can confiscate anything.
 
Back
Top Bottom