UFPPC’s Donna Quexada reports on the proliferation of National Security Presidential Directives (NSPDs). -- How many are there? -- That’s unknown, and, for mere citizens, unknowable....
THE SECRET GOVERNMENT By Donna Quexada
United for Peace of Pierce County (WA) January 11, 2005
When the president wants to legalize some action -- say, an assassination --
he signs a National Security Presidential Directive (NSPD).
But the words, the subject, even the existence of the directive are a secret.
In the brief piece appended below, Steven Aftergood notes that “the content
and even the subject matter of most of these instruments of presidential
authority is [sic] unknown.”[1]
The government does not acknowledge, and few Americans appreciate, the extent
to which the U.S. has abandoned “government of the people, by the people, and
for the people” for something quite different.
We see this in the rampant and probably -- though how could one know, really?
-- increasing employment of what used to be called “National Security
Directives” (NSDs).
The change in terminology, to “National Security Presidential Directive,” was
introduced in the first months of George W. Bush’s administration. NSPD
1 is dated Feb. 13, 2001 -- seven months before September 11, be it
noted. The term “presidential” is no doubt an allusion to doctrines held by
judicial radicals in the administration like Alberto Gonzales, John C. Yoo, Jay
S. Bybee, and William J. Haynes II.
(Also, one suspects, by the Rupert Murdoch executives who dictate to the
scriptwriters of Fox’s popular TV drama 24 Hours, now in its third season and starring Kiefer
Sutherland as Agent Jack Bauer, who works in a “Counter Terrorist Unit”
presumably created by an NSPD.)
Messrs Gonzales, Yoo, Bybee, and Haynes, as every reader of the torture
policy documents knows, hold that the Article II, Section 2 power of the
president as “Commander in Chief” authorizes him, in this era of an endless “war
on terror,” to assert an unlimited executive power that can, in principle, be
checked neither by the legislative nor by the judicial branches of the federal
government, nor, indeed, by any authority here below.
The abrogation of the Geneva Conventions for persons whom the president
declares to be in the category of “enemy combatant” is but one consequence of
this doctrine, which is in a way the culmination of tendencies that have long
been observed by students of American government (see Arthur Schelsinger’s
The Imperial Presidency, first published in 1973 and still in print).
How many other consequences are there? Sorry, but you’re not allowed to know
that.
“[G]iven the current Administration's predilection for the unfettered
exercise of executive power,” writes Steven Aftergood, “one can only imagine
what national security policies are being ‘made and implemented’ without notice
or oversight.”
Well, actually, probably one can’t imagine.
Steven Aftergood’s short piece supplies some links to sources that describe
what is known about NSPDs.
Abraham Lincoln spoke, on Nov. 19, 1863, of the hope “that government of the
people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth,” but the
governmental practices of the U.S. national security state are in some ways
closer to those of a plutocratic Orwellian czardom than to those of the
constitutional republic with democratic ideals that is described in the United
States Constitution and its 27 amendments.
1.
THE USE OF PRESIDENTIAL DIRECTIVES By Steven Aftergood
Secrecy News January 10, 2005
http://www.fas.org/sgp/news/secrecy/index.html
The Bush Administration has issued dozens of National Security Presidential
Directives (NSPDs) but the content and even the subject matter of most of these
instruments of presidential authority is unknown.
In itself, this is not a new phenomenon. In 1992, the General Accounting
Office (GAO) attempted to conduct a review of presidential directives in the
previous Bush Administration but was denied the access that congressional
investigators sought.
"Without access to detailed information about NSDs [national security
directives, as they were then known], it is impossible to satisfactorily
determine how many NSDs issued make and implement U.S. policy and what those
policies are," the GAO reported to Congress.
See "The Use of Presidential Directives to Make and Implement U.S. Policy,"
GAO Report NSIAD-92-72, January 1992:
http://www.fas.org/irp/gao/nsiad-92-72.pdf
But given the current Administration's predilection for the unfettered
exercise of executive power, one can only imagine what national security
policies are being "made and implemented" without notice or oversight.
Last week, at least the title of one more Bush Administration NSPD came to
public awareness, thanks to Jeffrey Lewis of ArmsControlWonk.com, who noticed
that the government speaker at a National Academy of Sciences conference last
year had cited the directive in his conference bio. So we now know that NSPD 28
concerns "Nuclear Weapons Command, Control, Safety, and Security." See:
http://tinyurl.com/6b6lt
A compilation of all publicly acknowledged or referenced NSPDs is here:
http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/nspd/index.html |