[nonhuman]

Read this article from the Washington Post.

My question is: in the event that it was necessary to turn power over to this "shadow government" how much power would they actually have? I'd expect that it would be some sort of national emergency situation and they'd probably declare martial law or some such bullshit. The whole rebuilding the government thing sounds good, but I sure wouldn't want it to be done by a body that already has absolute power over the people.

Can we overthrow the government yet?

[The Jackalope]

Originally posted by nonhuman:
<STRONG>

Can we overthrow the government yet?</STRONG>

No, the demon Lincoln made secession, which was one of the main points of the Jeffersonian Decleration of Independence, into a baaad thing. Bastard killed 300,000 people to push the Hamiltonian all-powerful fedgov down the throats of everyone and we are definately reaping what was sowed back then.

Here's a book that I am ordering, I hear it's pretty good: Lincoln Reconsidered

[driven]

Originally posted by nonhuman:
<STRONG>Read this article from the Washington Post.

My question is: in the event that it was necessary to turn power over to this "shadow government" how much power would they actually have? I'd expect that it would be some sort of national emergency situation and they'd probably declare martial law or some such bullshit. The whole rebuilding the government thing sounds good, but I sure wouldn't want it to be done by a body that already has absolute power over the people.

Can we overthrow the government yet?</STRONG>

If Washington D.C. is nuked then perhaps it isn't the best time for open debate. Let the government keep peace and order until things calm down when we can have national elections again.

In any event I sincerely hope we never have to worry about it.

[xi_hyperon]

I posted earlier about this because I thought it was worthy of discussion, but alas, no responses. My original question was- where are we going with this? What powers could they have and where is it outlined?

[nonhuman]

Originally posted by driven:
<STRONG>

If Washington D.C. is nuked then perhaps it isn't the best time for open debate. Let the government keep peace and order until things calm down when we can have national elections again.

In any event I sincerely hope we never have to worry about it.</STRONG>

No, that's the perfect time to debate it. When there no longer is a government you definitely have to worry about how to establish a new one (unless, god willing, you decide to stick with anarchy ). What's to say there ever will be national elections again if all power goes to some unknown agent who declares martial law, and we're all to worried about the status quo to question it?

[The Dude]

It's really quite simple. If and when some crazy nut**** in the "Shadow Gov't" takes dictator-like power of the remains of the country, you should just kill any gov't agent that gives you unnecessary shit.

Problem solved. They'll eventually get the idea that total power isn't something looked highly upon by the rest of the populace.

[nonhuman]

Originally posted by The Dude:
<STRONG>It's really quite simple. If and when some crazy nut**** in the "Shadow Gov't" takes dictator-like power of the remains of the country, you should just kill any gov't agent that gives you unnecessary shit.

Problem solved. They'll eventually get the idea that total power isn't something looked highly upon by the rest of the populace.</STRONG>

Have you been paying attention to what's been going on in politics here lately? If there was an attack so bad that DC was taken out and we needed to resort to this shadow government I think the majority of Americans would be perfectly willing to bend over and take it from any government official that came calling. Remember, it's all in the name of safety and security.

[beb]

Scary.

[The Dude]

Originally posted by nonhuman:
<STRONG>

Have you been paying attention to what's been going on in politics here lately? If there was an attack so bad that DC was taken out and we needed to resort to this shadow government I think the majority of Americans would be perfectly willing to bend over and take it from any government official that came calling. Remember, it's all in the name of safety and security.</STRONG>

Yea, and that's why most Americans can kiss my ass.

Buncha goddamn complacent pussies.

[AKcrab]

This is the reason we have the right to bear arms. We are supposed to be able to overthrow our own government.

[The Dude]

Oh ya, I'm completely aware of that fact. But Americans would never do that. They're too dependant on the system which the government provides for them.

[nonhuman]

Originally posted by The Dude:
<STRONG>Oh ya, I'm completely aware of that fact. But Americans would never do that. They're too dependant on the system which the government provides for them.</STRONG>

Ooh, ooh, I would, I would! Pick me!

[Earth Mk. II]

So when will the public take the tail out from between its legs?

[andi*pandi]

The public is scared, and trusting ol' george to do the right thing, so is willing to part ways with several freedoms, rights, and liberties.

In other words, the public is stupid.

Back to the cold war, folks...
government in bunkers... sheesh.

[The Dude]

Originally posted by nonhuman:
<STRONG>

Ooh, ooh, I would, I would! Pick me!</STRONG>

::throws stick of dynamite::

OK BOY! GO GET IT!!!

[Face Ache]

L.A. riots.

The first sign of destabilisation and you get the L.A. riots.

Anarchy and chaos are waiting in the wings. For all it's talk of freedom, a large part of America is feeling repressed and just itching to take a swing at someone, anyone. Hell, even the millionaires find something to bitch about. Nobody gets "enough" of anything in a capitalist consumer society.

So there can't be a split second where there is a power vacuum, or the Americans will turn on themselves � fighting over looted Nikes, let alone power.

[shanraghan]

Hm... so, when attacked by Afganistan, do as the Afgans do... and hide your arse in a cave so the bombs can't reach you. Honestly, if Washington were nuked then this shadow government might be something we'd need to keep the country running. Whether elections continue or not, if most of Congress were eliminated in a single stroke you'd need something there until you can replace what's been lost. With any luck this interim government wouldn't be needed for too long, but it would be a good thing to have in case of such a catastrophe.

The only thing is, I don't see much danger on the horizon. Indeed, it is true I don't look at the news too much. True, I don't know all that's out there. Indeed, I doubt many people know exactly what the presumed threat is. It's been months since the attack, the war in Afganistan is about as good as over and there haven't been any recent reports of definite, staggeringly dangerous threats. In short, the stance the government has taken seems excessively defensive. If there's a good reason for it, I'd like to know what it is.

[nonhuman]

Originally posted by shanraghan:
<STRONG>If there's a good reason for it, I'd like to know what it is.</STRONG>

Of course there's a good reason. As long as people are scared and think there's some danger they're willing to give the government more power.

[Earth Mk. II]

The plot seems to thicken...

Congress Not Advised Of Shadow Government

So if this plan ever went into effect and these people were running things, basically it'd just be the executive branch? Um... is it just me, or does this seem just a tad unconstitutional? I figured that at least congress would be involved.

To quote my friend, "This smacks of shadiness."

[driven]

Originally posted by nonhuman:
<STRONG>

Of course there's a good reason. As long as people are scared and think there's some danger they're willing to give the government more power.</STRONG>

Look ... black helicopters!

Someone call Oliver Stone!

[chris_h]

Originally posted by driven:
<STRONG>

Look ... black helicopters!

Someone call Oliver Stone!</STRONG>

*sigh*

you make me weep for humanity

[shanraghan]

Originally posted by Earth Mk. II:
<STRONG>So if this plan ever went into effect and these people were running things, basically it'd just be the executive branch? Um... is it just me, or does this seem just a tad unconstitutional? I figured that at least congress would be involved.

To quote my friend, "This smacks of shadiness."</STRONG>

Ouch. Indeed, this isn't too pleasant a thought. However, there are some inherent problems in rotating congressional leaders, namely the fact that congress actually has to be all in one place every so often. I must agree, though, that congress should have been informed of these plans. The executive branch seems to be taking a few too many liberties...

[driven]

Originally posted by chris_h:
<STRONG>

*sigh*

you make me weep for humanity</STRONG>

I guess everyone has to have something to worry about.

[rob5243]

Sort of reminds me of The Handmaid's Tale by Margaret Atwood.

[dawho9]

Just been reading through my copy of the US Constition and I don't see anywhere in there that allows our government to create a "shadow government".

I would have to question the constitionality of this government. According to the 20th Amendment, it is the responsibility of the legistlative branch to replace a president/vice president in the case of death.

So the theory behind this shadow government is that if a mass-death occurred in Washinton DC, then this government would take power. So my question is this, lets say Bush and Cheney were killed and Congress was not in a place to direct the nation, this shadow government would run the show until when? I always thought we layed out how our government worked in plain written text, so to make sure there was no questions of how it functioned.

Just my thoughts,

dw9

[ringo]

To hell with the constitution, executive orders already exist that would allow the US to declare Martial Law under certain circumstances. You can pretty much kiss your freedoms away if GW ever gets an itchy trigger finger.
Scary, scary stuff. More details about the executive orders in question are available here.
Kinda makes the underground bunker stuff look like child's play.

[Face Ache]

Just lie back and relax...

[Earth Mk. II]

Originally posted by Millennium in another thread
responding to the following quote by Earth Mk. II:
-----
&lt;cheep shot&gt;
If by honest you mean, "forming shadow governments and not telling anyone about it," then yes. W. is the most honest person I know.
&lt;/cheep shot&gt;
-----

<STRONG>Strange; I seem to remember being told about that one. He waited until it was set up, but that's only prudent. And it can't even do anything unless the "real" government is somehow obliterated. So unless someone happens to drop a nuke on DC, I don't think we'd have to worry (and given my present location, if someone did drop a nuke on DC I don't think I'd be in much of a position to worry).</STRONG>

Bush didn't exactly tell anyone about the plan. All the information from the initial Washington Post story from friday comes from unnamed officials in Bush's administration. The only quote of any merit from the President in the follow-up article from Sat. is, "we're doing everything in our power to protect the American people." Near as I can tell, there has never been an official declaration to the public that this plan has been enacted, and anyone from Bush's administration that may wish to comment is to afraid to have their name actually printed.

Regardless of all that - though it may be prudent, it is certainly not honest that he mention an action after it has actually occurred. That's like when a kid wants to go play instead of doing homework - he just skips out of the house so mom can't tell him, "no!" Or when your girlfriend dumps a guy and tells him she's been seeing another guy for the past month. In both these situations, it's better that the mother knows where her kid was or that the boyfriend know that his girlfriend was cheating on him then never knowing at all, but does that make them honest? I would say not.

And when the child comes home, even if he did nothing else wrong than skip his work, he will still be reprimanded by his mother. Upon the boyfriend hearing that his girlfriend had been cheating on him, he would certainly be angry and trust her much less, and likely sever the relationship if she had not already. Why? Because this sort of behavior is simply unacceptable. Why should this become acceptable just because we are dealing with organization that is legitimate by common wisdom? If this organization had declared a war small enough that the public's attention would not be drawn to it, but then only see fit to tell the public a few months - say 5 months - after the war had been declared, would this action's secrecy be considered prudent? Certainly the military would not want the opposing forces to know it's plans and capabilities and informing the public would surely lead to questions whose answers may compromise that security.

The questions of honesty and how this replacement gov't will affirm it's legitimacy are my largest concerns with the whole issue. If you want a weaker, but more practical argument: It would have been easier for the interim government to establish it's legitimacy if Bush had been upfront from the start. Then, you also have to deal with the issue of the public ensuring that an normal method of rule is re-established, which I am unsure of the public's ability to take on that task at this point. But the public could only be more prepared to fulfill this capacity with prior knowledge that such a plan existed.

But that is a bias of my own, which you are fully able to disagree on.

[EDIT: reformatted the quote for more clarity]

[ 03-04-2002: Message edited by: Earth Mk. II ]