President Bush, without so much as issuing a press statement, on May 9 signed a directive that granted near dictatorial powers to the office of the president in the event of a national emergency declared by the president.

The "National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive," with the dual designation of NSPD-51, as a National Security Presidential Directive, and HSPD-20, as a Homeland Security Presidential Directive, establishes under the office of president a new National Continuity Coordinator.

That job, as the document describes, is to make plans for "National Essential Functions" of all federal, state, local, territorial, and tribal governments, as well as private sector organizations to continue functioning under the president's directives in the event of a national emergency.

The directive loosely defines "catastrophic emergency" as "any incident, regardless of location, that results in extraordinary levels of mass casualties, damage, or disruption severely affecting the U.S. population, infrastructure, environment, economy, or government functions."

Translated into layman's terms, when the president determines a national emergency has occurred, the president can declare to the office of the presidency powers usually assumed by dictators to direct any and all government and business activities until the emergency is declared over.

NSPD-51/ HSPD-20 also makes no reference whatsoever to Congress. The language of the May 9 directive appears to negate any a requirement that the president submit to Congress a determination that a national emergency exists, suggesting instead that the powers of the executive order can be implemented without any congressional approval or oversight.

"Any incident, regardless of location ..."

An almost entirely secret directive, NSPD-51 can be invoked when the president decides "any incident, regardless of location, that results in extraordinary levels of mass casualties, damage, or disruption severely affecting the U.S. population, infrastructure, environment, economy, or government functions" occurred. Bush alone will decide when he must assume this burden, though perhaps only upon prayerful contemplation during the time saved not having to consult Congress. In addition, because of a change to the Insurrection Act of 1807, enacted as part of the 439-page 2007 Defense Authorization Bill signed into law in October 2006, Bush need no longer obtain a governor's consent to take control of a state's national guard units. This same bill overturns the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, which limited the use of US military forces within the United States for law enforcement, concern about which ignored by corporate media. In addition, Bush issued an executive order on July 17, 2007 authorizing the government to seize the assets of anyone "undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq" under provisions of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. Could this include critics of the Iraq war, whom Bush has repeatedly accused of undermining the war effort?

Indicative of Bush's state of mind with regard to suspending a constitution and declaring emergency rule is his comment three weeks after Musharraf suspended the constitution, arrested thousands of political opponents, and fired of the Supreme Court in Pakistan: Bush, ". . . He's also advanced democracy in Pakistan. . . . He hasn't crossed the line. As a matter of fact, I don't think that he will cross any lines."

Whatever and Whenever The Decider Decides

When might Bush declare a national emergency under NSPD-51? My own guess would be Spring 2008, after Bush is "forced" to attack Iran, perhaps with nuclear weapons, and Iran then fails to cooperate, attacking US ships in the Gulf and Mediterranean instead of accepting our offers of assistance. Or this might come after a UN Security Council resolution authorizing boarding Iranian ships for inspection, thereby creating an opportunity for a casus belli the Bush administration has been transparently pressing to create. Even if Iran denied Bush his basic objective by refusing to be goaded into reacting beyond its own borders, the resulting global economic chaos and spontaneous popular reactions beyond Iran to such attacks could compel Bush to invoke NSPD-51, quite apart from whatever our new enemy might undertake.

On the other hand, under NSPD-51 any provocation of Bush could lead to him creating a pretext for declaring a national emergency. For example, Ralph Nader quotes Massachusetts Rep. John W. Olver (D), who has a PhD from MIT, when presented with the votes of 13 Town Meetings [real Town Meetings, not the media events staged for candidate performances] in Olver's congressional district calling for impeachment of Cheney and Bush, Olver responded that he opposed any impeachment move against Bush because "the current autocratic executive [Bush] would attack Iran from the air, declare a national emergency, institute martial law, and call off the 2008 elections were the Democrats to initiate impeachment." Or, perhaps we have a national emergency for as yet unknown reasons, maybe in the late summer when likely replacement administrations are judged by Bush/Cheney to be unacceptable; and then, as the national emergency begins to unravel, we attack Iran. The essential assessment is that we have reached a point where the possibilities are vast and unpredictable precisely because its all up to Bush; he is The Decider.

Beyond Our National Experience

This section briefly speculates about the consequences of the abuse of national emergency powers to appreciate better how recent events may be leading to it and why ending it, once invoked, would be unlikely.

Should Bush declare a national emergency and begin exercising the many powers available to him in law, as well as the ever expanding "inherent" powers he claims by fiat, our nation could swiftly cross into a world increasingly difficult to predict, largely beyond our national experience, except perhaps for our revolution and civil war, subject to ad hoc, unchecked decision making, with genuine rule of law no longer an available guide. It would likely become increasingly difficult, in the absence of reliable information, to understand and deal with the originating crisis, however real or contrived. And to distinguish it from the difficulties arising from the declaration of a national emergency itself.

However, this sort of thing has occurred in many countries, with much the same result likely here: a self-sustaining crisis, in which the chief rationales for continuing the national emergency are the effects of the national emergency themselves, compounded by errors in governance and crimes by those who seized power, sustained by supporters profiting from it and their fear for what would happen to them should they end it.

In the short term, one can imagine Congress, demonstrating its usual wisdom and courage, expressing concern about the evidently substantial, though secret, number of American citizens "detained", surprise at the scope of firearm and asset seizures, discomfort with the pace of executions under the Military Commissions Act of 2006, and outrage at being locked out of its capital offices due to a classified biological threat of undetermined duration, thus preventing Congress from voting to set benchmarks for Iran and to demand our readmission to NATO.

On the other hand, Congress would likely find some comfort in the "delay" of the 2008 elections, given Bush's decision to allow all incumbents, including those temporarily detained, to remain in office, which many in Congress would praise for its "bipartisan comity", and urge us all to await the president's determination when it is safe for Congress and the Supreme Court to actually meet again. Just as many in corporate American would appreciate the need to "defer" collecting capital gains and corporate taxes and to "ease" enforcing regulations in the interests of helping the economy in a time of national crisis.

In addition to inaction by the intimidated and support from the misled, this tyranny, as all tyrannies, will no doubt have its servile enablers, among them: careerists who see opportunity in national tragedy; pathological authoritarians who welcome roles in a police state; and, common criminals who know a Kleptocracy when they see one. Besides, how could anyone resist the perfectly Orwellian logic of declaring a dictatorship to insure "Constitutional Continuity" for the "homeland," while setting aside the actual Constitution of the United States? Perhaps not The Federalist Society, with emergency appointments to newly vacant judgeships dancing in its members' heads, some may well continue to praise the glories of a "unitary executive", concocting judicial theories that explain how its all utterly necessary, perfectly logical, and manifestly constitutional, despite the fact that control of executive power is at very core of the history, architecture, and wording of our Constitution.

The longer term prospect, if such a coup were to succeed at all, would likely include national decline and insurrection, with an even more unpredictable array of international consequences, starting with a widening war and global economic boycott.

Building Those Detention Centers, For One and All

Whatever unknowable future an inappropriate declaration of national emergency might bring, clearly those contemplating such a declaration realize many are going to be profoundly unhappy with such a turn of events. And that may be why Kellogg Brown & Root, a Halliburton subsidiary, is already building detention centers around the nation to "support the rapid development of new programs" that could accommodate those incompatible with Constitutional Continuity, the dead-enders who actually protest or resist, plus the usual suspects who might think to object.

OPERATION FALCON: Practice Makes Perfect

But how would all those potential incompatibles, certainly tens of thousands and likely far more, find their way to an appropriate detention center? After all, the Bush administration has managed to prosecute only a handful of businesses for hiring illegal aliens who number in the millions. Its clearly a matter of priorities. So, despite such distractions as hurricane Katrina, the Justice Department has been conducting mass arrest exercises code named Operation Falcon, (Federal and Local Cops Organized Nationally), whereby thousands of law enforcement officers from federal, state, county and local agencies arrested some 10,000 individuals within seven days, working from lists provided by the U.S. Marshall's Service, all coordinated to commence across the country simultaneously. Since practice makes perfect, four mass arrest exercises have been conduced: Two national (Falcon I April 4-10, 2005 arresting 10,340; Falcon II April 17-23, 2006 arresting 9,037); and one "eastern half of the country" (Falcon III October 22-28, 2006 arresting 10,733).

The latest, Falcon IV (renamed Falcon 2007), continues narrowing the focus with regional exercises, such as Operation FALCON-Baltimore (February 2007, arresting 195)and Operation FALCON-Indianapolis (May 2007, arresting 283) as well as 27 other regional exercises (from July 8, 2007 to September 16, 2007), arresting a total 6,406 "fugitives", including "235 for not registering as sex offenders" and "300 documented gang members" making for excellent press. In fact, the main focus of Falcon 2007 was gang members and sex offenders, neither of whom were prepared to match the federal public relations effort, which includes raw video footage (more raw footage) passed to corporate media that shows police raids with positive commentary, no questions asked and no critics heard. What has not changed is the operational profile: federally prepared arrest lists, distributed to local, state, and federal police agencies, who arrest as many as possible within a week's time, usually starting before dawn on Sunday morning.