Has anyone seen or heard of this???

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Clip-Clop

For me, it comes down to recent redefining of "National Defense" and the inclusion of DHS. DHS has been given far too wide a berth since its inception and the wording of this EO is definitely far too broad brush for my tastes.

"National Defense" hasn't been redefined in the Executive Order document you reference. It's an executive order first put in place under Truman, and re-upped by every President since. It doesn't give any President any powers at all outside of his current legal powers.

It clearly, in the last page, has multiple exemptions explaining how, exactly, it specifically is not to be construed as such.

Did you read the Snopes comments about this? Please, read that.

Rude Boy Elvis is, of course, referencing something entirely different, a law passed by Congress, and something to have due concern about. It appears he's confused the two different items. Perhaps as they both have the words "national defense" in the title.

[Clip-Clop]

Originally Posted by Riot

"National Defense" hasn't been redefined in the Executive Order document you reference. It's an executive order first put in place under Truman, and re-upped by every President since. It doesn't give any President any powers at all outside of his current legal powers.

It clearly, in the last page, has multiple exemptions explaining how, exactly, it specifically is not to be construed as such.

Did you read the Snopes comments about this? Please, read that.

Rude Boy Elvis is, of course, referencing something entirely different, a law passed by Congress, and something to have due concern about. It appears he's confused the two different items. Perhaps as they both have the words "national defense" in the title.

Sec. 804. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect functions of the Director of OMB relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.

(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

Are you referring to this? I am fairly fluent in contract speak and this does not say what I think you think it says.
I did read the snopes comments too, they do not address my concerns, that DHS is now listed (once again way too wide a berth since inception) along with what can now be considered a reason to implement this. I didn't say the EO redefines National Defense, circumstances are what have redefined the term.
Not to mention the individual secretaries that these duties would fall to, but that is a different concern altogether.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Clip-Clop

I didn't say the EO redefines National Defense, circumstances are what have redefined the term.
.

The question is, is "ND" as listed in this benign EO defined exactly as in the NDAA?

Try this: even Hot Air says nothing to worry about
http://hotair.com/archives/2012/03/1...rab-or-update/