Posted on 01/11/2010 7:45:15 PM PST by Pantera
ESTABLISHMENT OF THE COUNCIL OF GOVERNORS By the authority vested in me as President by theConstitution and the laws of the United States of America,including section 1822 of the National Defense AuthorizationAct of 2008 (Public Law 110-181), and in order to strengthenfurther the partnership between the Federal Government and Stategovernments to protect our Nation and its people and property,it is hereby ordered as follows:
Section 1. Council of Governors.
(a) There is established a Council of Governors (Council).The Council shall consist of 10 State Governors appointed bythe President (Members), of whom no more than five shall be ofthe same political party. The term of service for each Member appointed to serve on the Council shall be 2 years, but a Membermay be reappointed for additional terms.
(b) The President shall designate two Members, whoshall not be members of the same political party, to serve asCo-Chairs of the Council.
Sec. 2. Functions. The Council shall meet at the call of the Secretary of Defense or the Co-Chairs of the Council toexchange views, information, or advice with the Secretary ofDefense; the Secretary of Homeland Security; the Assistant tothe President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism; theAssistant to the President for Intergovernmental Affairs andPublic Engagement; the Assistant Secretary of Defense forHomeland Defense and Americas' Security Affairs; the Commander,United States Northern Command; the Chief, National GuardBureau; the Commandant of the Coast Guard; and other appropriateofficials of the Department of Homeland Security and theDepartment of Defense, and appropriate officials of otherexecutive departments or agencies as may be designated by theSecretary of Defense or the Secretary of Homeland Security.Such views, information, or advice shall concern:
(a) matters involving the National Guard of the variousStates;
(b) homeland defense;
(c) civil support;
(d) synchronization and integration of State and Federalmilitary activities in the United States; and
(e) other matters of mutual interest pertaining toNational Guard, homeland defense, and civil support activities.
Sec. 3. Administration.
(a) The Secretary of Defense shall designate an ExecutiveDirector to coordinate the work of the Council.
(b) Members shall serve without compensation for theirwork on the Council. However, Members shall be allowed travelexpenses, including per diem in lieu of subsistence, asauthorized by law.
(c) Upon the joint request of the Co-Chairs ofthe Council, the Secretary of Defense shall, to theextent permitted by law and subject to the availability ofappropriations, provide the Council with administrative support,assignment or detail of personnel, and information as may benecessary for the performance of the Council's functions.
(d) The Council may establish subcommittees of theCouncil. These subcommittees shall consist exclusively ofMembers of the Council and any designated employees of a Memberwith authority to act on the Member's behalf, as appropriate toaid the Council in carrying out its functions under this order.
(e) The Council may establish a charter that is consistentwith the terms of this order to refine further its purpose,scope, and objectives and to allocate duties, as appropriate,among members.
Sec. 4. Definitions. As used in this order:
(a) the term "State" has the meaning provided inparagraph (15) of section 2 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002(6 U.S.C. 101(15)); and
(b) the term "Governor" has the meaning provided inparagraph (5) of section 102 of the Robert T. Stafford DisasterRelief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5122(5)).
Sec. 5. General Provisions.
(a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair orotherwise affect:
(1) the authority granted by law to adepartment, agency, or the head thereof; or
(2) functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary,administrative, or legislative proposals.
(b) This order shall be implemented consistentwith applicable law and subject to the availability ofappropriations.
(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, createany right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable atlaw or in equity by any party against the United States, itsdepartments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, oragents, or any other person.
BARACK OBAMA
THE WHITE HOUSE,January 11, 2010. #
BS is not a good reply to a thoughtful question - wars (and revolutions) are won by planning, logistics and communication. Suggest you and those like minded give some further thought on what exactly you can and cannot do in regards to the above. Else, when the time comes, end up wishing you had.
Anything to confuse operations further.
Do you have a link for that, I want to send it out.
Wow. I’m sure he means well though. /sarcasm
And that would be a bad assumption based upon wrong premises. These monsters have no intention of relinquishing power. Ever. Draw your own conclusions. Then act.
For Immediate Release
January 12, 2010
Washington D.C.
FBI National Press Office
(202) 324-3691
Op-Ed on FBI’s Post-9/11 Counterterrorism Efforts
The following op-ed, published on January 11, 2010 in The New York Post, was written by former FBI Assistant Director James Kallstrom. Kallstrom, who is currently a member of the FBI Director’s Advisory Group, was also director of the New York Homeland Security Agency.
Ever since 9/11, critics have suggested that the FBI isn’t up to its task as our nation’s lead counterterrorism agency.
Yet, as the nation focused on the failures of the intelligence community in the Christmas Day bombing attempt over Detroit, last Friday saw two more arrests in the ongoing FBI investigation of a plot to bomb New York City first exposed by the September arrest of Najibullah Zazi.
It’s easy to stand on the periphery, without the benefit of real-world experience, and render judgments with the benefit of hindsight. But counterterrorism cases are extremely complex and often require a relatively quick series of judgments, often with incomplete information. Counterterror investigations and intelligence gathering aren’t black and white, simple, or easy.
America went on a war footing against terrorism only after 9/11. Before then, our government viewed international terrorism strictly as a law-enforcement matter, giving the FBI the responsibility to address it. In that period, the FBI had significant accomplishments, including the apprehension of the 1993 World Trade Center bombers within six days; preventing attacks on New York’s most important landmarks with the arrest and conviction of the “Blind Sheik;” sending agents in 1998 to East Africa, where they quickly solved the two US embassy bombing cases without the assets normally available to investigators in America; and, in 2000, dispatching agents after the USS Cole bombing to Yemen, where they determined that al Qaeda terrorists had carried out the bombing. During this period, the Justice Department severely and unnecessarily restricted the FBI’s ability to share intelligence information, and Congress acted haltingly to properly resource, fund and provide the legal framework for the FBI’s counterterrorism program, including new technology required to defend the nation.
Post-9/11, as al Qaeda and other Muslim extremist groups have demonstrated their obsession with radicalizing U.S. Muslims, the FBI has disrupted a number of plots.
While some claim that collecting and analyzing intelligence is a new phenomenon in the FBI culture, in fact, the FBI’s intelligence and counterintelligence mission began before World War II and predates the creation of the fabled OSS and the CIA. Indeed, the FBI has long honed the skills and techniques necessary for success in protecting against international terrorism—using informants, undercover operations, and court-ordered electronic surveillance. Historically, the FBI has collected and analyzed information, whether the threat was the Soviet Union, domestic terrorist groups like the Klu Klux Klan, or organized crime.
Yet such critics as Gabriel Schoenfeld (in his Dec. 4 Post op-ed, “The FBI Bungles on Terror Again”) assert, “It’s high time to look at creating a new and separate domestic counterterrorism…agency along the lines of Great Britain’s MI5.”
In evaluating this naive and discredited suggestion, we need to consider the following:
Americans have rejected the notion of a national police force for over 200 years. The FBI was not established as a law-enforcement agency until 1933, precisely because the republic wanted to limit the authority of those whom protect our civil liberties.
The FBI is designed to be as transparent as possible for the purpose of protecting the nation, as well as the rights and liberties enshrined in the Constitution. The oversight provided by Congress, the courts, and others have ensured the FBI did not evolve into a secret police force operating in the “Perpetual Black.”
While England’s MI-5 might be viewed as a panacea, it needs to be examined in light of the long, painful history of its operations in Northern Ireland. Moreover, MI-5 didn’t protect England from the London Subway bombings and other acts of terrorism.
It would be difficult, if not impossible, for a myriad of state, local, and federal law-enforcement officials to have effective liaison with a secret domestic police operation.
A painful lesson learned from 9/11 is that the bifurcation of our intelligence and law-enforcement competencies leads to “stove piping” of information—a formula for disaster. Creating a separate secret-police organization would revive that failed model—weakening and balkanizing the law-enforcement and intelligence communities, rather than creating a united, seamless effort.
While many terrorism and legal experts have weighed in, the most qualified critics are the Brits themselves. If fact, many senior British law-enforcement officials criticize the MI-5 model and prefer the FBI’s dual criminal and intelligence/terrorism roles.
This isn’t to say the FBI can’t do a better job integrating these disciplines and more broadly coordinating within the larger intelligence and law enforcement communities. Yet the fact these structures don’t always perform seamlessly doesn’t suggest the current process is dysfunctional.
Having devoted a considerable amount of my life in the “arena,” I am confident the dedicated men and women of the FBI will continue to perform at a very high professional level to protect this great nation, while adhering to constitutional principles and the rule of law.
WTH?????
What is going on here in this country....and I do live in a big city..... : (
Chicago, would have to close down the metra system. Police/National Guard would attempt to keep the city calm.
My car is in Ft Lauderdale right now. I'll be picking it up come February....
How long do we have until the SHTF? I am thinking at least a few months???
Prepare for the Jackbooted THUGS. They are being organized NOW!! Whose gonna go FIRST? The Jackboots or the thugs? CO
Yes, the old soviet constitution permits it.
I have seen this coming for a long time. In fact the creep said he would do this while he was yet campaigning. And right now, he HAS to think of a way to keep the 2010 Elections from happening because NO tyrannt will ever allow HIMSELF or his cabal of lackies surrounding him to be removed thereby removing his power. This guy is a dangerous, hateful, megalomaniac. America is going to have to ACT first. After the fact will be too late. CO
Exsoldier, thank you for this post. My parents are from WW2 Europe. Every word of your post is true.
It seems the times are going to get way too interesting.
Special PFYW, ExSoldier.
I think The Bees Americanus are a special breed and will adapt to your ability to spray them with DDT, smoke and other sorts of weapons in your possession.
Whoops I meant to say Who is going to go first the Jackboots or t=he “We the People”? CO
~~OMG .. what a stunning and profound first hand
account of past history, and what we could someday
face.
Thanks for the ping, Chgogal, and thanks so much
for posting, exsoldier!!
MUST READ ................ PING!
Both were the ‘right’ guy and ‘right’ eras just now there is more com available to the public - so perhaps there is a chance again - planning, logistics and communucation would be the areas I’d look hard at.
However, it seems to me that most of those sort of guys are busy writing about their machismo to the detriment of any real thought what would actually be involved...
I don’t have any special sauce for those bees, but the big beekeeper in DC does.
Just wish you guys/gals would do more than write “machismo” laced posts... getting very old.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.