Originally Posted by smooth

I do know what I wrote, willravel, for a fact.
Now you can speculate as to what they may be used for, but it's you who are engaging in speculation about what might happen.

I know exactly why this was setup because I personally spoke to the heads of a number of organizations and the person who heads the entire operation now that's it's folded into one umbrella agency.
Now you may believe they are lying, and really just lurking in the shadows waiting to come and dissolve your rights, but our military and police organizations have been coordinating for decades in order to deal with narcotics, gangs, and now terrorism. After the attack on New York and later Katrina it became increasingly obvious that without a centralized logistics center, our old modes of each organization following its own protocol was too slow and ineffective to deal with serious catastrophic events of national importance.

Here's what the article actually says:

It helps when you quote the whole sentence :

Originally Posted by dc_dux

I still have serious problems with the 2006 amendments to the 1807 Insurrection Act that gives too much power to a sitting president:


I am ok with amending the 200 yr old law to include "a natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident." The kicker is the "or other condition" (determined by the president).

"Other conditions" leaves too much to the discretion of one person.

I would also prefer that it be done with the consent of Congress. The Democratic Congress tried to amend it further in 2007 and Bush vetoed it.