Shadow Government Ordered After Attacks, Post Says (USA)

Reuters ^ | 3-1-2002

[blam]

Shadow Government Ordered After Attacks, Post Says

Fri Mar 1, 1:42 AM ET

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Bush has set up a "shadow government" to ensure that the government would continue to operate in the event of catastrophic attack on the U.S. capital, The Washington Post reported on Friday.

The newspaper said in the first hours after the Sept. 11 attacks, Bush deployed a "shadow government" of about 100 senior civilian managers to live and work outside Washington, in the first-ever activation of a classified "Continuity of Operations Plan."

The report cited three officials with first-hand knowledge of the operation as saying the Cold War era plan was enacted because of heightened fears that the al Qaeda network might somehow obtain a portable nuclear weapon.

The Post said U.S. intelligence has no specific knowledge of such a weapon, but officials thought the risk was great enough to justify the expense and deployment of a shadow government.

One participant told the newspaper that the first deployment came "on the fly" in the first hours of turmoil on Sept. 11 and that the plan has evolved into an indefinite precaution.

Under the plan, high-ranking government officials representing various departments have begun rotating in and out of the assignment at one of two fortified locations along the East Coast, the Post said.

A senior official involved in managing the program said the civilian force present in the underground bunkers usually numbers 70 to 150, and "fluctuates based on intelligence" about terrorist threats.

In the event of an attack, the underground government would try to contain disruptions of the nation's food and water supplies, transportation links, energy and telecommunications networks, public health and civil order, the report said.

The Washington Post said it agreed to a White House request not to name any of those deployed or identify the two principal locations of the shadow government.

[pocat]

Sinky is OK with having unelected, unaccountable civilian bureaucrats rule over him, as long as they have a (R) in front of their name. That makes everything all right.

If clinton had pulled this crap and established a "shadow government", the RINO's here would be up in arms. Bush does it, and it's OK.

[mrustow]

I only read the first 10,000 words, so if the plan is horrible, you're going to have to tell me why. And don't say, "Because Bill Clinton signed it." As much as I may hate Clinton personally, I can and must distance myself from my personal feelings, in judging his particluar acts as president.

[mrustow]

... I'd also like you to show me where the Constitution forbids it.

Or, so far as that goes, where it forbids throwing Japanese-Americans into concentration camps after the Pearl Harbor attack, though that was found to be an unconstitutional act by the US Sopreme Court long after the fact. And, had the Japs actually landed on the West Coast during WWII, would we have shot or gassed to death the inmates of those camps, as per the operational instructions in the event of an attempted riot or takeover of one of them?

Show me where the Constitution forbids it.

-archy-/-

I must confess to being utterly mystified as to your point, although I suspect the problem lies in your having overstated your case. ('Since the Constitution didn't prohibit interning the Japanese, and that was a terrible thing, and since I, archy, think a skeleton, backup government would be a terrible thing, the fact that the Constitution doesn't forbid it, just goes to show that it should be forbidden...'?)

[Poohbah]

You're using logic and common sense on a hot-button FR topic. Thirty lashes with an overcooked spaghetti noodle :o)

[tinacart]

"Hey, I happen to live on the East Coast! Thanks a lot!"

But hey, I happen to live on the West Coast!!! Does that make me self-centered? :) Seriously, take care and I pray we are all safe and everything is just precautionary :)

[max61]

(If the cabinet, and various government agencies (remember the Pentagon!) were wiped out, if the President did not have a backup, skeleton government, he would lack "principal Officers" to who he could turn for their respective Opinions.)

You mean the President might need to make his own decision?. Wow, what a concept. Our federal government becomes more like the ex-Soviet Union every day.

---max

[zog]

-you are absolutely correct. Any past historical example of an "emergency" that can be sited will show a suspension of constitutional checks and balances, and a default to the executive branch with full and complete dictatorial powers.

There is no provision for anything other than orders and following them.

There might be a congressperson or robed wonder wandering around, but that they would be listened to is beyond dubious into laughable. They'll be told to sit down and shutup. Pick a disaster or emergency that is historically available for review and anyone can see it for themselves.

The federal governments plan for a BIG emergency is exactly the same as for a MEDIUM emergency like we have been under for years now, and that is rule by the executive branch, refined under fema, renamed the patriot act, ongoing for years under an "emergency powers decree", that "allows" such niceties as one single human being ordering the nation to war, and everything under that..

They OWN you 100% right now, so to think they will own you less is silly. Anything you own is subject to confiscation. Your very person is subject to confiscation. These are the "laws" and can be looked up and referenced, I'd bet a dime to a dollar raising freeperthon donut they have been posted here dozens of times already, mostly to be forgotten, or een worse, trivilaised or denied that they exist..

The congressional and judicial branches currently are no more than a public facade for the legitimacy of the stealth coup that has taken over the united states. It's window dressing to keep people all serious about 'elections" and whatnot, like they are willing to actually let you "rule" yourselves should you choose to again now that you don't. They are just spelling it out in little words now so that people can start coming to grips with the reality of it. They have to do it in stages, and in different manners to inform the different levels of the public and their various awarness levels out there, this is just another stage.. They have little need nor less inclination to keep wasting their time for much longer on maintaining the illusion that we have a representative republic.

[Hoosier Patriot]

(If the cabinet, and various government agencies (remember the Pentagon!) were wiped out, if the President did not have a backup, skeleton government, he would lack "principal Officers" to who he could turn for their respective Opinions.)

Correct, under the scenario you have laid out. If the "principal officers" are no longer available, the President can't very well require, in writing, their Opinion. That is a fact. This doesn't change the fact, however, that nowhere is there the provision for a second, third, or even fourth string of "principal Officers." That it is stated that "he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments," can't necessarily be construed to mean that there will be principal Officers there to answer his request.

[buzzcat]

Why are you all laughing at this long-standing contingency plan? This is true. There is no tin foil watch here. The military folks out there know this. The only big deal is that it was never officially activated before 9/11, to my knowledge. In my estimation, on 9/11, it was correct to activate the plan.

[rbmillerjr]

The congressional and judicial branches currently are no more than a public facade for the legitimacy of the stealth coup that has taken over the united states.

You should write for SNL.

[rwfromkansas]

oh for heaven's sakes.....there needs to be some freaking order in case Washington is destroyed...get a dang brain

[rwfromkansas]

this is freaking comical....thanks for the laugh tonight!

[rbmillerjr]

Hey, whenever you hear them talk about the Constitution - keep in mind that it is their interpretation.

[Windy-Dave]

Ever studied the C.O.G. (Continuance Of Government Provisions?)This is Council On Foreign Relations material formulating the Federal Regions that goes back to the late 50's & 60's Gary Allen & Kent & Phoebie Courtney have excellent references on this subject!

[Hoosier Patriot]

Hey, whenever you hear them talk about the Constitution - keep in mind that it is their interpretation.

There is no interpretation needed in my opinion. The Constitution is not written in code or encrypted in any way. It plainly states, in quite common language, the powers granted to the government. It was not written in a way that required any interpretation, as it was written for the people. If a power is not enumerated in the Constituiton, that power has not been granted to the government. Confusing? Some may have difficulty grasping it. It seems rather straightforward to me. That's not meant as a slam in any way. It's just the way I see it.

I think what most folks have the greatest difficulty with is they believe that it surely must be far more complicated than what one short document can cover. Well, it's just that simple. One short document that is the cornerstone of this nation and the law of this land.

[rbmillerjr]

It was not written in a way that required any interpretation, as it was written for the people

That is incorrect. It is interpreted all the time. By people, by the Congress, by the Executive. The Constitution was deliberately left ambiguous because the founders new that the 3 branches would have to fight it out (checks and balances). Ultimately, the US Supreme Court decides. If it goes to the SCourt the case is worthy (You will note no such case for the topic being discussed btw)

Have all the US Supreme Court decisons been 9-0. No, because the Constitution is interpreted.

[Hoosier Patriot]

What I said was that the document was written in such a way that did not require interpretation to understand. It is a document that states the principles from which our laws have emerged. It is these laws that must be interpreted as to whether or not they are constitutional. The legislative branch creates the law, if there is a question as to it's constitutionality, the judicial branch determines the constitutionality (yes or no) of that law. The Supreme Court being the "last stop on the line," if you will, in the process of this determination. It is not the Constitution being questioned, that is the constant in the equation. It is the laws that are gauged against the Constitution to determine their constitutionality.

That is not to say that the Constitution is today as it was when ratified. Of course that's not the case. It's been modified over time through constitutional conventions. Some changes for the better, and some....? That is certainly open to interpretation!

[glc1173@aol.com]

"i wonder if America's armed citizens are considered allies or enemies by these subterranean rulers."

How much "ruling" - of the vast contiguous region called Red Nation - can be done by a fistful of people in a few faraway underground bunkers?

I'm willing to say it. Even with 100% of the postal infrastructure and effectively-100% of the postal personnel, snailmail in the Washington area is already seriously delayed by the need to irradiate it after those fistful of anthrax attacks. While "continuity of government" plans always had comical stuff like the change-of-address cards for use after nuclear war with Russia, imagine what snailmail service would be like with all the post offices and most of their personnel in even one major metropolitan area gone forever - along with much of the snailmailed items then in their custody.

"Continuity of (federal) government" is a joke. As someone else on a Southernist mailing list put it this week, the likely aftermath of Washington being nuked by a "rogue state" with one precious nuke to choose where to use will be to free Red Nation from Washington forever!

The flag of freedom.

[rbmillerjr]

I agree for the most part. A little reservation, but nothing that is worthy of substantive debate.

Agreed.

[KSCITYBOY]

I heard tonight that a person in the line of secession was kept with the shadow gov. so how is that a problem?