Posted on 03/01/2002 6:04:09 AM PST by 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.
Since the Constitution is interpreted through legislation, prior arguments that "because something (our topic here)isnt in the Constitution, it isnt Constitutional can be thrown out...which leads me to state again...What proof does anybody have that the Shadow Govt (Wash Post stupid term), a contingency for a Govt emergency really.......what evidence that it is not Constitutional. Good Night. Cya in the AM
A new, and exciting way to protect the system from the people.
Duhhhh, whatever it takes...For us or against us....duh...let's roll!...duh
Some kind? Hey pal, a dictatorship is worse than anarchy IMO. Maybe you feel otherwise, but I don't care. What provisions have been made to restore our Constitutional Republic by this "Group of 150"? No idea. Who are this "Group of 150"? No idea. What authority do they have under the Constitution to do this kind of thing? None. What isn't permitted is forbidden the FedGov under the Constitution, in case you haven't read it lately. That's why the 10 Amd was ratified, after all.
Sorry, I don't think that installing a Politburo is better than letting us alone and allowing state govenors to handle their states respectively. And since the Founders didn't plan for a "Continuance of Government" in the Constitution, I reckon' they wouldn't take so kindly to this either.
The job of the FedGov, one of the few its delegated, is our common defense. They are not planning that so much as they are planning their own survival while leaving us in the cold of nuclear winter. Bah!
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.
Well said.
Consider how many people would run to the SCOTUS to interpret their owner's manual for their autos. But in most cases, their auto owner's manual have more words and are far more ambiguous than the U.S. Constitution.
No, the Constitution is very straight forward and not in need of 'interpretation', as they call it, in regards to clear cut issues such as this. If it is not permitted the FedGov in the Constitution, it is defaulted to the states or people via the 10th Amendment. No clause I can see for a "continuance of government" or "shadow government" in the body of the Constitution. Ergo, 10th Amd.
A new, and exciting way to protect the system from the people.
2nd Amendment. Check mate.
There is nothing in the Constitution and ALL LAWS passed in persuance of the Constitution that deem this emegency contingency unconstitutional.
Would it help you to feel better if instead of calling this a "shadow government" we all started to call it what it really is:----a crisis control center?
The folks rotating in and out of these "undisclosed locations" are currently government employees. They are the ones responsible for maintaining the utilities of the government: like making sure social security checks are mailed out and communication channels are kept working.
In addition to this, at all times at least one member of the Bush cabinet must be outside of Washington, DC;-- the VP still frequents his "undisclosed locations";-- and the Congress of the United States has its evacuation plans (starting with Denny Hastert) in the event of an attack.
This is not sinister, end of the world stuff. These are plans implemented by thoughtful adults who take their oath to protect and defend seriously.
If we learned anything on September 11 it should be that these contigency plans are necessary. We should applaud the administration for doing the job we have hired them to do.
Okay, I'll bite: What's the ham radio conspiracy? Or are you just being sarcastic about the fact that they'd be controlling much of our communications after a truly major disaster?
There is nothing in the Constitution and ALL LAWS passed in persuance of the Constitution that deem this emegency contingency unconstitutional.
We're starting from different base points here. Jurisprudence (sp) is fine and well, but the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. There are no mentions of COG in the Constitution, ergo the task falls to the states via the 10th amendment. Sorry, no lawyerspeak here, regardless of how much they use it.
I think the problem is that you are approaching this as a "what isn't forbidden is permitted" the FedGov via the Constitution. That viewpoint is not correct. What is not permitted is forbidden the FedGov via the Constitution, which is the whole reason the 10th Amendment was ratified in the first place. Look it up.
What's the ham radio conspiracy?
Yeah, being a HAM operator myself, I feel left out of the loop. Please let me know what the conspiracy is so I can take part in it, ok?
I'm not Annie, obviously, but no, I have no problem with it now and would have no problem with it at those other times either, past or future. We have to have some sort of COG. I would much prefer the entire COG plan be laid out in a constitutional amendment, but until we do, we'll just have to cover as best we can.
These emergency contingency centers have been in effect all during the Cold War. They were not ruled unconstitutional. These are not unconstitutional.
There are no mentions of COG in the Constitution, ergo the task falls to the states via the 10th amendment
That is a simplistic incorrect analysis of the US Constitution. Many things not mentioned in the Constitution do not go to the States via the 10th Amendment.
I think you're doing a disservice to the US Constitution and people who took an oath to defend it. With the millions of lawyers in this country, do you not find it strange that there is not outcry about what you perceive as it's unconstitutionality?
If you depend on the integrity of lawyers to back your argument, I suggest you start patching the hole in the ship of your argument sir. It is leaking, and wants to leak besides.
These emergency contingency centers have been in effect all during the Cold War. They were not ruled unconstitutional. These are not unconstitutional.
And where, pray, where were these things ruled on, precisely? Further, even if they were ruled on, where is the Constitutional authority for their existance. Its one thing to rely on feeble old witherspoons in black robes to back you up, its another to point out where in the Constitution this "shadow government" was authorized. It wasn't, never was, never will be short an amendment.
I've taken the trouble to read the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the Declaration of Independence, and the Federalist Papers, not to mention the Articles of Confederation and the Magna Carta, sir. Nowhere, nowhere, is this fallacy addressed, except in the dreams of those who would be Ceasar.
The problem with the SCOTUS is that it relys on prior rulings, when in fact that is not what it is suposed to to. It is supposed to weigh the case in question against the Constitution and determine whether it meets Constitutional muster or not. The fact that they do not do this is telling of their lack of integrity.
It falls to the 10th. Like it or not, it falls to the 10th friend. Pack you jurisprudence bags on the subject, the Constitution does not speak of this, thus it falls to the 10th.
If they were ruled on by the Supreme Court, that in fact would make it Constitutional. You seem to not even cede such a basic thing and yet you claim to be a defender of the Constitution. If they havent been ruled on, then the Constitutionality is not being questioned.
, Its one thing to rely on feeble old witherspoons in black robes to back you up, its another to point out where in the Constitution this "shadow government" was authorized.
,/I> Shadow government is an emotive appeal by you and by thw Wash.Compost nonetheless. Those guys in black robes are the interpreters of what is or is not Constitutional. Now if you dont like that may I suggest you find another Constitution or start a revolution.
It wasn't, never was, never will be short an amendment.
Again, you are showing a simplistic look at the Constitution. Many things are not in the Constitution and are still Constitutional. You have to look at laws that spring from the Constitution. If you choose not to, fine, but dont think that your fringe interpretation has any merit in reality.
It's all becoming clear to me now.
"We the people" could mean anyone. It depends on who's interpreting it.
"Shall not infringe..." is ambiguous, it depends on whether you put the emphasis on shall or not.
It's even worse if you read a whole paragraph at a time.
ARTICLE I
Section I
All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.
I never noticed how vague this was before.
ARTICLE 11
Section IV
The President, Vice-President and all civil officers of the United States shall be removed from office on impeachment for and conviction of treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.
How could anyone but a genius, nay nine geniuses, sort out all this gobbeldy gook of fancy words and trick phrasing? Does it mean that the Pres., Vice-Pres. and all civil officers have to be impeached, convicted and removed together? And just who are the civil officers? What are civil officers? Policeman who are never rude? I know what high crimes are at least but do you have to catch them all smoking dope at the same time to impeach them? It's all so confusing! Thank God for politicians and bureacrats to tell us what these arcane quatrains mean!
Thirty, my dear, you were right. It is all over but the crying and trumpet calls. That anyone would come on a political forum, let alone a conservative forum, and make a statement like this........%$##$#!!!
Public education and television have rotted out the very heart of the Constitution. It is nothing more than a hollow tree filled with termites, grubs and mildewed sawdust.
Check the co-ordinates on that missle Mr Franks....in case we don't get out of here.
That wouldn't help at all! Contrast the emotional rush that comes with "shadow government" to the drop in blood sugar that comes upon hearing "crisis control center." The only good thing about your phrase is that it contains "con," the first three letters of ...
Couldn't help but notice Pollack's 1976 article about the facility in The Progressive. Anything to help out the Soviet targeters, eh?
Why do I keep getting the impression that Liberals are just impulsive traitors? Whenever I see something like this, it just fries me.
The press is playing it as if the Administration were playing politics with it, just acting histrionic to keep up a war scare so they can get a budget through. Whatever, Daschle and company are not behaving as if they think the Prez is doing that, even though they are trying to start a debate. Which leaves us where? That Bush and Cheney think that the possibility of another big blow, possibly using something really nasty or really big, is the real deal.
The liberal media hacks are going to wind up looking really stupid, as well as crispy, if Al Q'aeda manages to bag DC. The upside would be that we wouldn't ever hear from any of them again -- and the survivors are going to really hate Arabs.
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.