|
|
#21
08-20-2007, 09:08 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Directive 51
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] trying out a Google search on Directive 51, I it is very hard to find supportive posts. Amazing it hasn't had a better run in the US news. [/ QUOTE ] http://www.feldgrau.com/dir51.html [img]/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img] [/ QUOTE ] "Amazing it hasn't had a better run in the US news." This is what I don't understand. How is it that more people from around the world knew about this than US citizens? And why did the MSM fail to see this as important enough to cover? [/ QUOTE ] If you don't believe there's a sinister conspiracy to seize control of the government, it's just not very interesting. Most people don't believe there's a sinister conspiracy, so the audience of most news outlets would not be interested in it. 
|
|
#22
08-20-2007, 09:48 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Directive 51
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] trying out a Google search on Directive 51, I it is very hard to find supportive posts. Amazing it hasn't had a better run in the US news. [/ QUOTE ] http://www.feldgrau.com/dir51.html [img]/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img] [/ QUOTE ] "Amazing it hasn't had a better run in the US news." This is what I don't understand. How is it that more people from around the world knew about this than US citizens? And why did the MSM fail to see this as important enough to cover? [/ QUOTE ] If you don't believe there's a sinister conspiracy to seize control of the government, it's just not very interesting. Most people don't believe there's a sinister conspiracy, so the audience of most news outlets would not be interested in it. [/ QUOTE ] Uh.. so by that logic you believe that Canada, Australia, and other countries who DID cover this news all believe that there is a "sinister conspiracy to seize control of the [US] government" by the current administration? Now THAT sounds like a conspiracy theory.
|
|
#23
08-20-2007, 10:18 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Directive 51
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] trying out a Google search on Directive 51, I it is very hard to find supportive posts. Amazing it hasn't had a better run in the US news. [/ QUOTE ] http://www.feldgrau.com/dir51.html [img]/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img] [/ QUOTE ] "Amazing it hasn't had a better run in the US news." This is what I don't understand. How is it that more people from around the world knew about this than US citizens? And why did the MSM fail to see this as important enough to cover? [/ QUOTE ] If you don't believe there's a sinister conspiracy to seize control of the government, it's just not very interesting. Most people don't believe there's a sinister conspiracy, so the audience of most news outlets would not be interested in it. [/ QUOTE ] Uh.. so by that logic you believe that Canada, Australia, and other countries who DID cover this news all believe that there is a "sinister conspiracy to seize control of the [US] government" by the current administration? Now THAT sounds like a conspiracy theory. [/ QUOTE ] Was it heavily covered overseas?
|
|
#24
08-20-2007, 10:40 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Directive 51
It would only be interesting if it were attempted. The directive does not make this lawful in any way. Add that with the fact most executives have behaved as if this were Presidential entitlement for the last 100 years and you really don't have big news here.
A fascist coup like this would not succeed in any event.
|
|
#25
08-21-2007, 12:57 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Directive 51
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] dimisfh1, Extract from DS1: [ QUOTE ] (23) Annex A and the classified Continuity Annexes, attached hereto, are hereby incorporated into and made a part of this directive. (24) Security. This directive and the information contained herein shall be protected from unauthorized disclosure, provided that, except for Annex A, the Annexes attached to this directive are classified and shall be accorded appropriate handling, consistent with applicable Executive Orders. [/ QUOTE ] Doesn't that tell you there are part of DS51 that are not public? [/ QUOTE ] Wow, the government has classified information, what a subversive concept. [/ QUOTE ] Classified legal directives are indeed subversive. Classifying the very way the govt is permitted to act is clearly usurping democratic principles. [/ QUOTE ] Not if the disclosure of those directives subverts the value of the underlying programs. [/ QUOTE ] Yes, EXACTLY because of that.
|
|
#26
08-21-2007, 12:58 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Directive 51
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] dimisfh1, Extract from DS1: [ QUOTE ] (23) Annex A and the classified Continuity Annexes, attached hereto, are hereby incorporated into and made a part of this directive. (24) Security. This directive and the information contained herein shall be protected from unauthorized disclosure, provided that, except for Annex A, the Annexes attached to this directive are classified and shall be accorded appropriate handling, consistent with applicable Executive Orders. [/ QUOTE ] Doesn't that tell you there are part of DS51 that are not public? [/ QUOTE ] Wow, the government has classified information, what a subversive concept. [/ QUOTE ] Classified legal directives are indeed subversive. Classifying the very way the govt is permitted to act is clearly usurping democratic principles. [/ QUOTE ] Not if the disclosure of those directives subverts the value of the underlying programs. [/ QUOTE ] Except you can't determine the value of the underlying programs if they are classified, and thus they subvert democracy because we just have to trust their value and aren't able to judge their value for ourselves or through our leaders. Your statement in no way refutes this fact, and is not a logical response to charge of subverting the democratic process. [/ QUOTE ] of course it is, you just have never demonstrated any ability to complete a logical train of thought. The primary purpose of our representative democracy is the protection of its citizens. If there is a program that is protecting the citizens, but its revelation would negate its effectiveness, then it is entirely consistent to withhold that information. [/ QUOTE ] The democratic process != do whatever you have to to provide security If you want to redefine what "democratic" means, then there is no point to debate. [/ QUOTE ] Thank you for again proving you are incapable of logical thought without being led through it. The primary purpose of any government is protection of its citizens. OUR form of government (read what I said) is a representative democracy. Ergo the primary purpose of OUR representative democray (reread what I said) is protection of its citizens. Spend some time with truth tables, you will benefit greatly. [/ QUOTE ] Not protection in the narrow sense you are using it here.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
