Has anyone reviewed Executive Order From March 16?

[sunwyn]

I have noticed alot of posts on Facebook from folk concerning an Executive Order sign by President Obama on March 16 called - National Defense Resources Preparedness. They say it allows the government to seize anything they want from private citizens in the event of war or disaster. Has anyone heard of this? I found this at:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/03/16/executive-order-national-defense-resources-preparedness

I haven't had a chance to read it yet. Hoping to as soon I get to my computer and off this ipod.

[leftofcool]

1. This is not new..............just revised and signed

All Presidents have had the power to do this.

[sunwyn]

2. Thanks...there seem to be a lot of people freaking out over this. I thought

they were acting a little crazy.

[orpupilofnature57]

3. It is a bit alarming to see all the Military ,Commerce

Cooperation.

[IamK]

6. why revise it after 62 years? what's the reason?

[leftofcool]

7. I think more of an update...........New Prez new updates

[woo me with science]

8. That does not answer the question. nt

[onenote]

19. Its actually an update of a 1994 Executive Order

issued by President Clinton. A number of the revisions reflect organizational changes in the government (such as the fact that FEMA is not an independent agency any longer but is part of DHS).

[IamK]

10. Even if there is no ulterior motive, politically the timing

seems odd/ill advised... Why not wait until after the election? Plays it to the fears of his opponents....

[IamK]

4. it appears to able the president to declare martial law

and nationalize critical industries etc during PEACETIME...
It's always nice to be able to override the Constitution on a whim... Maybe the martians are coming or this end of the
world stuff is happening in 2012 after all... timing seems odd... Excuse me while I hide my stuff...

[Lil Missy]

5. That's always been the case. It's only in the case of war or disaster.

[woo me with science]

9. Nothing to see here. Move along. nt

[James.andreasen]

17. Read it before you comment

Those of you that comment without reading are what Stalin called "useful idiots". After Stalin gained control, the first of the twenty million he murdered were the useful idiots. He had no use for them and he didn't want someone else to use them.

[elehhhhna]

21. -- and Hitler disposed of the Brownshirts when he came to power --

why? they were used-up useful idiots

[grantcart]

25. and Lincoln suspends writ of habeas corpus

So what is your point with your strange reference to Stalin?

[cags]

11. It now allows for control in peacetime too. It is in preparation for Israel striking Iran...

so the unrest in the middle east doesn't affect our fuel prices.

At least that is what I think.

[Blue State Bandit]

14. Laying the groundwork to seize Koch Industry assets...

...including any super-tankers full of oil sitting in the Gulf of Mexico?

[bart95]

26. Ironically, Koch's biggest political contribution of 20 million, was to the ACLU

to fight Bush's Patriot Act

you have to get beyond black/white thinking to get that

[onenote]

20. Another person who hasn't bothered to look at the previous version

of this Executive Order. That previous version, issued in 1994 by President Clinton, also referred to "peacetime."

Compare sections 102 and 103 of the Executive Order signed by the president last week and the Clinton-era version:
http://www.disastercenter.com/laworder/12919.htm

[thesquanderer]

12. imperial presidency/unitary executive, cont'd

http://www.examiner.com/finance-examiner-in-national/president-obama-signs-executive-order-allowing-for-control-over-all-us-resources

The conclusion may be an over-reach, but still, I don't like the on-going and expanding executive branch power grab...

...need I mention the PATRIOT act, whistleblower protections, warrantless wiretapping...

Transparency, uh huh.

[woo me with science]

15. +1 You nailed it.

[OKNancy]

18. that is a right-wing kook site

WTF is going on at DU that people are swallowing this stuff.
The right-wing loons are bad enough.

[thesquanderer]

24. I agree, actually.

The author of that article actually makes two overreaches, which contradict each other… (a) that it involves peacetime control and (b) because it's for wartime control, it means they are prepping for major war.

I wouldn't assume either of those things, much less both.

Having now read the full text of the order, it really does not seem nearly as onerous as that author makes it sound. I think some of us here are just so sensitive to the continuing executive branch power expansion that we are inclined to react negatively to anything that hints in that direction. After Bush, it would be nice to see some significant movement in the opposite direction.

I think what might be most interesting is how this policy differs from the previous executive orders that it specifically replaces:

&quot a) Executive Order 12919 of June 3, 1994, and sections 401(3) (4) of Executive Order 12656 of November 18, 1988, are revoked."

But I don't have the time or patience to figure that out.

[onenote]

22. Your conclusion is not just an overreach. Its lacking in factual justification.

The Examiner piece is riddled with easily checked falsehoods, which suggests that the author wasn't merely careless -- he was attempting to mislead.

Here are some of the Examiner's specific allegations and the easily determined facts that show those allegations to be bull.

Allegation: This executive order "expands upon a prior order issued in 1950"
Uh, no. It updates and supersedes an executive order (EO 12919) adopted by President Clinton in June 1994; the Clinton EO itself was an update, consolidation and restatement of a series of policies adopted in Executive Orders dating back to 1939. (Source: Section 803 of the new Executive Order; Section 904 of the 1994 EO).

Allegation: This Executive Order changes prior policy by being applicable to "peacetime."
Uh, no. Here's a link to the 1994 EO. http://www.disastercenter.com/laworder/12919.htm
Compare Section 102 and 103 of that EO to the language quoted in the Examiner article. See the references to "peacetime" in both.

Allegation: This Executive Order changes prior policy by assigning each cabinet office "specific powers when the order is executed, and include the absolute control over food, water, and other resource distributions."
Uh, no. Compare section 201 of the 1994 EO to section 201 of the new EO -- virtually nothing has changed (although, terrifyingly, the Secretary of Agriculture now has specific authority with respect to the allocation of veterinary services).

Allegation: According the author of the Examiner article, EOs relating to national preparedness are nothing new, but every time one is issued it provokes a "Constitutional crisis."
Uh, anyone remember the Constitutional Crisis" of June 1994, when the previous version of this EO was issued? Probably not, since it would only exist in the imagination of the lying idiot who wrote the article linked in the OP.

So, you ask, if this is nothing new, why did the President issue a new version of the old EO? Well, for one thing, a number of things have changed since 1994, such as the consolidation of a number of government agencies under the Dept. of Homeland Security. The old EO makes no reference to DHS, so the new one updates several parts of the old one to reflect the current organizational structure of the government. There are other changes as well, but none are nefarious and none justify the lying bullshit foisted on us by the author of the article linked in the OP.

[SidDithers]

13. It's the latest outrage widget from the 'Obama is a bad man' factory...nt

Sid

[James.andreasen]

16. National defense resource preparedness.

For those of you that obviously cannot read...

From the white house text of the EO
(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,

"in peacetime" doesn't mean wartime

[onenote]

23. As has been the case since at least 1994.

The language of the current EO issued by the President last week is, in this regard, virtually identical to the language of the EO that it replaces -- one issued by President Clinton in 1994. The Clinton EO itself superseded a number of EOs issued going back as far as 1939 -- I haven't bothered to check them to see whether they were applicable to "peacetime," but it wouldn't shock me if they were and even if they don't, this is not a change from the state of affairs for the past 18 years.