Anticipating a Terrorist Attack on Congress

This is one of the most disturbing articles I've read in a while. A must read, in my opinion. It points to the possibility of the PNAC crowd finding a way around Congress, the current thorn in their side, to make way for the one-man-rule.

One way to do this would be for the next catastrophic 'terrorist attack' to be aimed directly at Congress.

An alarmed Senator Ron Wyden (D-Ore) said, "We are deputizing the military to spy on law-abiding Americans in America. This is a huge leap without a congressional hearing".

Is this the first time that the naïve Wyden realized that the war on terror is actually directed at the American people?
...
Their recommendations will allow the military to assume the traditional role of law enforcement and by giving it the authority to "carry out domestic criminal investigations and clandestine operations against potential threats inside the United States".
...
The only thing that makes this bizarre specter of a "capitalist police state" seem believable is that Bush has already executed the fundamentals of that other wacky conspiracy theory; The Project for the New American Century. Most of the goals of that hypothesis have materialized. The US has extended its military presence throughout central Asia and the Middle East, curtailed civil liberties at home, greatly enhanced the power of the president, militarized space, passed legislation for Missile Defense "Star Wars", and reinvigorated the bio-chemical weapons industry.
...
What we do know, however, is that elite right-wing groups like the American Enterprise Institute, "issued proposals for the operation of Congress following a catastrophic terrorist attack". They advocate the "APPOINTING" of individuals to the House of Representatives "to fill the seats of dead or incapacitated members, a first in American history"… "The Continuity of Government Commission is 'self-commissioned’, its members being neither elected nor appointed by any government body…and mostly made up of professional lobbyists". (Read the whole article; www.conservativeusa.org... )
...
But, why now???

Bush’s fortunes are inextricably tied to an "unwinnable" war in Iraq. As his popularity has continued to dwindle, Congress has become more reluctant to promote his far-right agenda and make further cuts to popular social programs. This situation promises to get worse unless the Cheney-Rumsfeld cabal take "preemptive" action to reverse the current downward trajectory.
...
With Congress out of the picture, the path is clear for one man rule; the final jewel in the neocon crown.

Emphasis added.

Is this the next step in the dissolution of our democracy?


[edit on 28-11-2005 by Benevolent Heretic]

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

With Congress out of the picture, the path is clear for one man rule; the final jewel in the neocon crown.

Is this the next step in the dissolution of our democracy?

Your kidding right? Are you emphasizing that the Bush Admin wants Congress to be wiped off the map to take control of the whole govt. based on my interpretation. Or is it that you believe that a terrorist attack not sanctioned by the Bush Admin would give Bush the ultimate power over the American people? Maybe you should read the Constitution on how the policy works if Congress is decapitated. It has something to do with Governors.

Originally posted by deltaboy
Maybe you should read the Constitution on how the policy works if Congress is decapitated.

Maybe you should read the article. Or just the parts I bolded.

Check out the link in the quote:

"Continuity of Government" - A Threat to the Constitution
by U.S. Rep. Ron Paul

[edit on 28-11-2005 by Benevolent Heretic]

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Maybe you should read the article.

Or just the parts I bolded.

I read the article, but you put something that peaked my interest that you put out in bold

With Congress out of the picture, the path is clear for one man rule; the final jewel in the neocon crown.

Anyways its based on proposals and not the actual policy. We have the Constitution that already deals with this issue.

Originally posted by deltaboy
I read the article, but you put something that peaked my interest that you put out in bold

Sorry, that was supposed to be inside the quote. All fixed.

Anyways its based on proposals and not the actual policy. We have the Constitution that already deals with this issue.

Yes, it's a proposal. A proposal to do away with the provisions of the Constitution under such grave conditions as a terrorist attack on Congress! That's the point!

You obviously don't think it will be passed, but the fact that it's being proposed has me quite concerned. This is a conspiracy website, right?

*BH looks around tentatively for other conspiracy hypotheses*

HR 841, Continuity in Representation Act of 2005, agreed by the House, is now before the Senate. It stipulates that if there are 100 or more vacancies in the House, the Speaker can declare an emergency. This sets a dealine of 45 days for special elections to be held in vacant districts.

Resolution: thomas.loc.gov...:3:./temp/~c109kptkfI::

Congressional History: thomas.loc.gov...:HR00841:@@@S

HR 3920, Congressional Accountability for Judicial Activism Act of 2004, would allow 2/3rds of Congress to overturn the Supreme Court if the latter rules a law unconstitutional.

Resolution: thomas.loc.gov...:HR03920:
Congressional History: thomas.loc.gov...:HR03920:@@@X

Together, these two resolutions could allow a legal executive dictatorship for up to 45 days, provided that the surviving members of congress can be counted on to overturn Supreme Court challenges to executive decisions. In a real crisis, two thirds of congress could be 2 people (one of whom is the Vice President) for up to 45 days.

I think they need to clear both sides and start with a new batch of lawmakers who have our rights and desires addressed. It's time the govt started working for those of whom that put them in office. I'm all for cleaning house, getting the lobbists out of there where the reps. can do their work with out wondering which corperation is going to put their children through college.

[edit on 28-11-2005 by FLYIN HIGH]

It wouldn't be the first time such tactics were employed to sieze power in government, amung them, Vlad The Impaler who held a 'special meeting' of his political opposition, the nazis burned the German Reichstag and blamed it on terrorism to garner popular support for the invasion of Poland, happened in Rome so many times I couldn't list them easily. The tactic is probably as old as murder itself.
Not a single member of congress even read the Patriot Act before passing it guys. The ones who openly opposed the war on terror agenda either got Anthrax in the mail or ended up like poor old Paul Wellstone. Everyone who has opposed this agenda has been silenced, discredited or demonized. Look at Richard Clarke, Valerie Plame, Sibel Edmonds, Doug Rokke, for god's sake even Linda Ronstadt lol.
Why not, with the recent legislations being pushed through in the name of security, the privatization of our military operations, half the population of the country absolutley if not blindly, sold on the concepts of terrorism, real or not. And with the power of the people now safely tucked away behind the mystique of privately owned electronic voting machines, we are particularly vulnerable at the moment. It happens in the real world, ask your Parents, ask your grandparents, these war pupeteers get away with it about once a generation or so. The only difference this time though, is that the paperwork is already been done for them.

That article is just plain scary. I don't have a comment, but instead am waiting for the attack to take place. Maybe all that hype about "dirty bombs" in the US is priming us to be numb for the elites to do just that, attack.......makes UFOs and other issues seem moot...

Originally posted by deltaboy
We have the Constitution that already deals with this issue.

We also have guaranteed freedom of political speech in the Constitution. How well has that worked? (remember "free speech" zones?)

We also have guaranteed protection from unreasonable search or seizure in the Constitution (PATRIOT act, anyone?)

We also have guarantees against indefinite detention without charge and guarantees for timely and public trials in the Constitution (Jose Padilla).

These are just three examples off the top of my head of how much this administration honors and respects the Constitution. There comes a time when you must start seeing the truth in front of your face.

[edit on 29-11-2005 by Benevolent Heretic]

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
These are just three examples off the top of my head of how much this administration honors and respects the Constitution. There comes a time when you must start seeing the truth in front of your face.

And you believe that this administration is the only one to not use the Consitution in times of war?

Maybe you like to know what happened in America's past wars when such emergency powers are granted?

Originally posted by deltaboy
And you believe that this administration is the only one to not use the Consitution in times of war?

Changing the subject is another divine way to avoid looking at the truth.

I'm not talking about the past. You're confidant that our Constitution would handle the eventuality of an attack on Congress. I'm showing precedent for why I think it will not.

First of all I am not so sure that no congress would be bad. All they do is take our money and vote themself raises.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Changing the subject is another divine way to avoid looking at the truth.

I'm not talking about the past. You're confidant that our Constitution would handle the eventuality of an attack on Congress. I'm showing precedent for why I think it will not.

Im am confident of the Constitution in dealing these types of situation in my view. In your view you are not confident and you probably feel the need to flee the United States of America and become a refuge right?

And past is always important for the present and future. Its important to learn the past, thats why its called history. Unless you hate history.

Also, if the Consitution is useless it would have been abandoned long time ago right? It shouldnt have last this long after two centuries right?

While the Constitution should be able to handle these situations, these two proposed acts in conjunction can make the Constitution powerless. The Supreme Court which is the main enforcer of the Constitution would be powerless for two reasons. 1. They can be overturned relatively easily in an emergency situation. And 2. The SC has no power to enforce it's rulings. That job is up to the executive branch. The President can get away with not enforcing or even directly acting against a SC ruling if Congress is complicit enough. Andrew Jackson did this in his handling of Native American tribes in the South.

In the case mentioned of there being only 3 left (including the VP), lets say there is one Rep., one Dem. The Rep. proposes to dissolve Congress and hand all it's powers to the Exec. This results in a 1-1 vote, broken by the VP who naturally votes for it. S.C. rules this Unconstitutional. If HR 3920 is passed that same 2-1 vote overrules the S.C. and the U.S. is now an Empire. If HR 3920 is not passed it is now up to the President to enforce a ruling that he can't be granted all of Congress' power. There is no threat against him just telling the S.C. to F off and taking power.

And again do we want to trust an Administration that has shown a complete and utter discontempt for the Constitution to be the ones to protect it, and help it prevent themselves from gaining greater power?

The Constitution works as long as the checks and balances are maintained and respected. But when one party basically owns all 3 branches of government that is only a little different from an empire. Then it's just a matter of the "Party Emporer" consolidating it's power into one head official.

One important point that is always lost because of the polarization in the U.S. over Bush is that we need to think long term as well as short term. Even if this President doesn't attempt to do this, what's to say a future President won't? Why give someone the opportunity?

Excellent post, abeyer! This is so true:

The Constitution works as long as the checks and balances are maintained and respected.

Originally posted by deltaboy
... you probably feel the need to flee the United States of America and become a refuge right?

Wrong. I ain't leavin, bud. I think you mean 'refugee' and no, I'm not a refugee, but there's nothing wrong with someone who flees a country to escape danger or persecution. Our great country was started by 'refugees'.

Unless you hate history.

Yeah, I hate history! I hate freedom, too! Bah-ha!! This is a serious subject! Now, quit making me laugh!

Also, if the Consitution is useless it would have been abandoned long time ago right? It shouldnt have last this long after two centuries right?

Who said the Constitution is useless? Never mind. This leg of this discussion is becoming boring. We disagree. Only time will tell who is right. I hope it's you.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Who said the Constitution is useless? Never mind. This leg of this discussion is becoming boring. We disagree. Only time will tell who is right. I hope it's you.

uh yeah. Thats your opinion. In my view the Consititution is still respected even if one party has manage to take control of the two branches of the government, and that don't mean that its in a sense true power and has total authority over all others, even the Supreme court.

Originally posted by deltaboy
uh yeah.

Thats your opinion.

Oooh! Good one! I didn't see that one coming!

In my view the Consititution is still respected even if one party has manage to take control of the two branches of the government,

Two branches? There are three and the Republicans ( if you want to call them that) have them all!

and that don't mean that its in a sense true power and has total authority over all others,

What others?

even the Supreme court.

Now, who's kidding?

[edit on 29-11-2005 by Benevolent Heretic]

Nice post BH.

Way Above!!

2006 looks unsecure.

Well, with the 2006 midterms coming, and the Republicans taking a beating in the public opinion polls, it's not hard to see why they'd be looking into getting rid of Congress.

Since by the far-Right's estimation and rhetoric those who don't support them are inherently traitors "out to destroy America", frankly I can see a lot of them supporting doing away with Congress if they find it full of Democrats in '06.

Never underestimate the fanaticism of that crowd... we've only seen the tip of the iceberg so far.

[edit on 11/29/05 by xmotex]