Are We ALREADY Living in a Non-Constitutional Continuity of Government America?
By George Washington
April 15, 2008
One of the top investigative journalists in the country, Larisa Alexandrovna
(the lead journalist at Raw Story), says the following
concerning her attempts to determine whether or not the U.S. is still officially
in a state of emergency, such as would justify the continuation of Continuity
of Government (COG) Plans implemented on 9/11:
“Well, I have called around… believe it or not, no one seems to have
an answer as to this simple question: ‘are we in a state of emergency?’ “
(see comments following essay).
Keep in mind that Alexandrovna has broken many top stories, later picked up
by the New York Times and other mainstream publications, and has developed
a broad network of contacts. And yet she couldn’t find an answer.
“Consistent with section 202(d) of the National Emergencies Act (50
U.S.C. 1622(d)), I am continuing for 1 year the national emergency I declared
on September 14, 2001, in Proclamation 7463, with respect to the terrorist
attacks at the World Trade Center, New York, New York, the Pentagon, and aboard
United Airlines flight 93, and the continuing and immediate threat of further
attacks on the United States.
Because the terrorist threat continues, the national emergency declared
on September 14, 2001, last extended on September 5, 2006, and the powers
and authorities adopted to deal with that emergency, must continue
in effect beyond September 14, 2007. Therefore, I am continuing in effect
for an additional year the national emergency I declared on September 14,
2001, with respect to the terrorist threat.”
A separate announcement on the White House website states:
“Because the actions of these persons who commit, threaten to commit,
or support terrorism continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat
to the United States, the national emergency declared on September 23, 2001,
and the measures adopted on that date to deal with that emergency, must
continue in effect beyond September 23, 2007. Therefore, in accordance
with section 202(d) of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)), I
am continuing for 1 year the national emergency with respect to persons who
commit, threaten to commit, or support terrorism.”
What does this mean?
We know that Continuity of Government Plans were implemented on 9/11, based
upon a “national emergency”. The 9/14/01 declaration of a national
emergency may have been a way to document that declaration. The 9/23/01 declaration
may have been a make-weight document created by the White House regarding the
“War on Terror” in general.
Regardless, the proof is becoming quite strong that the state of emergency
declared on 9/11 (as memorialized in writing thereafter) is still in effect.
If the state of emergency is still in effect, the Continuity of Government Plans
are almost certainly still in effect, since COG plans are meant to take effect
in a state of emergency, and because there is very strong circumstantial evidence
that they are, in fact, still in effect — and, indeed, the government has been
acting like COG is in effect. (See this,
As the Washington Times wrote on September 18, 2001:
“Simply by proclaiming a national emergency on Friday, President Bush
activated some 500 dormant legal provisions, including those allowing him
to impose censorship and martial law.”
It appears that we are living in a non-Constitutional COG America.
George Washington is a pen name. I am using the pen name, with the approval
of the publisher, because I have received death threats due to my 9/11 research
and writing. I am using a pen name to protect myself and my family.
Ed: A bit of historical perspective…
Wartime presidential powers supersede liberties
By Frank J. Murray
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
The government arsenal to counterattack U.S.-based terrorists behind last week’s
“act of war” already includes wartime powers and other Draconian tactics
that unsettle civil libertarians.
In “cases of rebellion or invasion [when] the public safety may require
it,” the Constitution permits a president to suspend the right to be freed
from arrest by a writ of habeas corpus — as Lincoln did during the Civil War.
That denies a person jailed even by illegal means recourse in the courts.
On Lincoln’s orders, outspoken civilians from secessionist states were jailed
at Fort McHenry without formal charges, as were Baltimore’s mayor, police chief
and police commissioner, 31 members of the Maryland legislature and newspaper
reporters, members of Congress and judges.
Simply by proclaiming a national emergency on Friday, President Bush activated
some 500 dormant legal provisions, including those allowing him to impose censorship
and martial law.
In 1944, the Supreme Court upheld the Roosevelt administration’s use of Executive
Order 9066 to place curfews on Japanese-Americans and later intern thousands
of them. That legal precedent — affirming the conviction of Toyosaburo Korematsu,
a U.S. citizen of Japanese descent who refused the federal government’s order
to leave his home in San Leandro, Calif. — still is law and would sanction
military controls over a population perceived as dangerous.
“Congress, reposing its confidence in this time of war in our military
leaders — as inevitably it must — determined that they should have the power
to do just this,” the justices said.
When the Korean conflict broke out in 1952, however, the high court drew the
line on allowing President Truman to use an executive order to seize steel mills
absent a declaration of war for a conflict far away.
The FBI said yesterday it has detained 49 persons so far.
Six are reportedly being held as “material witnesses” under sealed
warrants, with more sought under a process requiring a judge’s sanction for
persons otherwise unlikely to be available to testify.
The rest were detained on charges related to immigration status, allowing
them to be held for months without formal criminal charges being filed.
“We’re going to find those evildoers, those barbaric people who attacked
our country and we’re going to hold the people who house them accountable, the
people who think they can provide them safe havens will be held accountable,
the people who feed them will be held accountable,” Mr. Bush said at the
Since last Tuesday’s horrific attacks with four hijacked airliners took an
estimated 6,000 lives at the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, the Senate
has passed legislation to let law-enforcement personnel obtain private e-mails
without a court order, to allow U.S. attorneys to approve wiretaps in terrorism
cases, and to lift the longtime ban on CIA spying within the United States.
“Maybe what the terrorists have done made us feel a little bit less safe.
Maybe they have increased Big Brother in this country,” said Senate Judiciary
Committee Chairman Patrick J. Leahy, Vermont Democrat, who argues against hurried
steps to wiretap computers and telephones, as the Bush administration has requested,
along with a doubling of the five-year sentence for those who harbor terrorists.
“It is not so difficult to imagine government investigators, engaged
in good-faith efforts to protect our safety, beginning to ask, ‘Are you now,
or have you ever been, a member of a pro-Palestinian organization?’” said
Tobias B. Wolff, a professor of constitutional law at the University of California
at Davis, drawing comparisons to McCarthyism.
House Judiciary Committee member Bob Barr, Georgia Republican and a former
federal prosecutor, did not share that view.
“I’ll let the Lord worry about justice for them. We ought to take them
out, and take them out as quickly as possible. I’m not worried about Miranda
warnings for them,” Mr. Barr said.
“I don’t believe the government should, and I don’t believe they would
indiscriminately wiretap phones or read e-mails, but they should be allowed
to do so when they can document some reasonable suspicion about terroristic
activity,” said Yarol Brook, director of the Ayn Rand Institute at Marina
del Rey, Calif.
Gregory Nojeim, associate director of the American Civil Liberties Union’s national
office in Washington, said leaders had insisted the terrorism “not be used
to diminish liberty.”
“At its very first opportunity, the Senate passed legislation that threatens
privacy rights,” Mr. Nojeim said.
The White House rejected questions about any “concern that people’s civil
liberties are being violated.”
“Law enforcement agencies are going to act on legitimate law-enforcement
considerations, and they will do so in accordance with all of our laws,”
White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said.
The Immigration and Naturalization Act allows a president to deny entry to
“any class” of immigrants whose admission “would be detrimental
to the interests of the United States.”
E. Joshua Rosenkranz, president of the liberal Brennan Center of Justice,
doubts federal judges will be anxious to block aggressive action in the wake
of an assault likened to the sneak attack on Pearl Harbor.
“No judge wants to be responsible for another act of terrorism,”
Mr. Rosenkranz said.
Even if a majority of the Supreme Court found government actions unconstitutional
— as Supreme Court Chief Justice Roger B. Taney did in a 1861 ruling against
Lincoln that Congress negated — little can be done to stop a president when
national security is in jeopardy.
“I have exercised all the power which the Constitution and laws confer
upon me, but that power has been resisted by a force too strong for me to overcome,”
Chief Justice Taney said. He dispatched his ruling under seal to Lincoln at
the White House “to determine what measures he will take to cause the civil
process of the United States to be respected and enforced.”
Lincoln defied the court and the suspension of habeas corpus was revoked by
President Andrew Johnson on Dec. 1, 1865, months after the war ended.