Hey, I won't blame you for that as long as I know you haven't read the decree yourself.
When I first read it I thought it was benign, but it stuck with me that it was so specifically giving certain powers to certain people under the office of the President. So I studied it again and took a look at what others are saying about it. The article there isn't from some right-winger, he is a lefty, posting on a lefty site. So... don't take my word for it.
Here's what I read in the decree itself, boiled down so you don't have to read it if you don't want:
The specific goals of the decree are somewhat broad, but not outlandish, and basically specify what each cabinet position would be responsible for doing in the event that we have a national emergency or martial law status. OK, plan ahead.
However, there are three major issues I see with it. First, it specifically states that this plan is for non-emergency, non-wartime operations. That means that anything in the decree can be enacted without there being martial law. In fact, it simply leaves out any type of specifics about when this can be enacted other than to say that it is when the President wants it to happen, in peace, or in war.
Second, that anything in the decree can arbitrarily (I say arbitrarily because it specifically states that a non-emergency, non-wartime situation is OK for putting any of these powers into play) be activated by the President with no judicial or Congressional oversight or check.
Third, this piggy-backs on the 2012 NDAA act, meaning that any of the things in that act can be enacted in the same arbitrary fashion. In case you don't know, that means a U.S. Citizen can now be held on suspicion of being anti-government or a terrorist. Without bail. Without a warrant. Without a judge or a lawyer. For as long as they want.
Previous to that, the 2012 NDAA act was itself expanded so that it would be able to include the new definition of people who are now on terrorist watch lists: right-wing groups, returning soldiers, gun owners, people who post or email anti-government blogs or messages, and even people who are reporters who have possible contacts in a terrorist network.
How real is this? Well, the part about the reporters who are using contacts to get scoops on stories who are on terror watch lists, who because of the 2012 NDAA act are now subject to arrest and detention without representation or any timeline for release -- they already sued Obama and won in federal court. That specific part has been turned over... but none of the rest of it.
This Garrison fellow seems to be one of a very few in the left leaning media who are fed up enough with it to actually report on it. The rest of the media, now that they personally are off the watch list and out of danger, are content to keep quiet about it because they know it is their man in the White House.
And finally, just in case you didn't read the article or the decree itself. Here are a few tidbits:
The draft is now actually active, all that is needed is for Obama to say so.
The confiscation and control of the the nation's water supply, food supplies, and all civil transportation is under the control of the federal government at the word of Obama.
No congress needed. No due process. No remuneration in part or full is mentioned.
So, if you have some argument to post up about how the Bill of Rights is not usurped by this, I'd be relieved to hear of it.
