It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Round 1. Enjoies05 v. TruthWithin: Inside Job, Part II

page: 1
3

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 7 2007 @ 01:03 AM
link   
(UPDATE: Ignorant_Ape has been disqualified. TruthWithin will take over.)

The topic for this debate is "An attack on a scale equal to or greater than 9/11 is currently being planned by the US Government, and will serve to end constitutional rule in the United States before President Bush leaves office".

Enjoies05 will be arguing the pro position and will open the debate.
TruthWithin will argue the con position.

Each debater will have one opening statement each. This will be followed by 3 alternating replies each. There will then be one closing statement each and no rebuttal.


A post may not be any longer than 5,500 characters, using the ATS character counter.
Closing posts may not be any longer than 3,500 characters.

This character limit includes all board code, links, etc.
Extra characters will be deleted from the end of your post.

Please notice that the character counter counts backwards. If for some reason your character counter won't let you post a full 5,500 characters in one post, make a second post to finish your 5,500, and then u2u me and let me know.


Editing is strictly forbidden. This means any editing, for any reason. Any edited posts will be completely deleted. This prevents cheating. If you make an honest mistake which needs fixing, you must U2U me. I will do a limited amount of editing for good cause. Please use spell check before you post.


Opening and closing statements must not contain any images, and must have no more than 3 references. Excluding both the opening and closing statements, only two images and no more than 5 references can be included for each post.


Responses should be made within 24 hours, if people are late with their replies, they run the risk of forfeiting their reply and possibly the debate. Limited grace periods may be allowed if I am notified in advance.


Judging will be done by a panel of anonymous judges. After each debate is completed it will be locked and the judges will begin making their decision. One of the debate forum moderators will then make a final post announcing the winner.

When this thread becomes unlocked, you may proceed.

[edit on 7-8-2007 by The Vagabond]

[edit on 9-8-2007 by The Vagabond]




posted on Aug, 7 2007 @ 09:58 AM
link   
"An attack on a scale equal to or greater than 9/11 is currently being planned by the US Government, and will serve to end constitutional rule in the United States before President Bush leaves office".

In this debate I will show how America is one attack away from ending constitutional rule, and eventually becoming a dictatorship before President Bush leaves his office. And how this attack is being planned by the US Government.

In May of this year, President Bush ordered a plan to be made for responding to a “Catastrophic Emergency”. He put out his plan in a document called the National Security Presidential Directive

In that plan Bush gives himself the power of leading the entire federal government and gives himself the responsibility of ensuring the constitutional government in case of an emergency.


(6) The President shall lead the activities of the Federal Government for ensuring constitutional government.


According to the plan a catastrophic emergency is “any incident regardless of location, that results in extraordinary levels of mass casualties, damage, or disruption severely affecting the U.S. population, infrastructure, environment, economy, or government functions;”

If there was any attack or incident, like 9/11, Bush would be put in control, and this would give the opportunity to let Bush have his dictatorship.

Why would the President give himself this kind of power now, towards the end of his term? Unless he knows something might happen. And the only way he could be positive that something will happen is if the Government plans it themselves.

At this time we hear all about terrorists in the Middle East and the War in Iraq and all those stories. We hear all about people that want to harm the US. If an attack occurred more people would blame the terrorists than think that their own government planned it, and that’s what the government wants people to think. They could pull of something like 9/11, or even worse and the majority of the population would be very scared, and look to their government to help them. And when people are scared and looking to the government they can give up rights easily.

Lately there have been many bills passed letting the Government spy on people through phone, internet and mail, like Laws to expand the Governments authority to eavesdrop on American citizens without a warrant.

And most of the public doesn’t say anything because the government tells them it’s to protect us from terrorists.

The American public is being told by the Government that terrorists overseas want to harm us, so we give up our rights to them. The government can then plan and carry on an attack on it’s own grounds before Bush’s term is over, blame it on terrorists and President Bush will have power over everyone. American’s constitutional rule will end and it will become a dictatorship. No one could stop them and people who try to speak out the truth against the government could be brought to justice.

On 9/11 we were shown what the Government can plan out and carry out while getting away with it. If they can do it once they can do it again, and they are going to do it again to get what they want.

President Bush just needs one attack to implement his plan to become dictator.



posted on Aug, 9 2007 @ 02:42 PM
link   
First, hats off to ATS (particularly The Vagabond) for hosting this event. It is unfortunate that Ignorant_Ape was unable to participate, however I look extremely forward to participating in this debate. Thank you for the opportunity!

"An attack on a scale equal to or greater than 9/11 is currently being planned by the US Government, and will serve to end constitutional rule in the United States before President Bush leaves office".

During the course of this debate I would like to explore 3 key points that illustrate why this argument is, in simple terms, COMPLETELY impossible.

The first point of contention is the reference to the NATIONAL SECURITY PRESIDENTIAL DIRECTIVE/NSPD 51, mentioned by my opponent in his opening statement. Immediately we find a major flaw in the argument that this document shall be used to “end constitutional rule in the U.S.”. My opponent even quotes the section of the directive as saying –



(6) The President shall lead the activities of the Federal Government for ensuring constitutional government.


Enduring Constitution Government or ECG (as defined in Section 2 (e) of NSPD 51) is set forth to-



(e) "Enduring Constitutional Government," or "ECG," means a cooperative effort among the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the Federal Government, coordinated by the President, as a matter of comity with respect to the legislative and judicial branches and with proper respect for the constitutional separation of powers among the branches, to preserve the constitutional framework under which the Nation is governed and the capability of all three branches of government to execute constitutional responsibilities and provide for orderly succession, appropriate transition of leadership, and interoperability and support of the National Essential Functions during a catastrophic emergency;


This very definition disproves the notion that this directive is a tool designed to give an “end to Constitutional Rule in the US”. In fact, by its very definition, NSPD 51 ensures the protection and continuation of the constitution by granting “proper respect for the constitutional separation of powers among the branches, to preserve the constitutional framework under which the Nation is governed and the capability of all three branches of government to execute constitutional responsibilities”.

We are not debating whether Bush is trying to become a dictator, we are debating whether or not a 9/11 size attack could or would end constitutional rule in the US. If one is using NSPD 51 as evidence to to bolster this argument, then the argument cannot hold any ground because the very nature of NSPD 51 is to PROTECT the constitution.

It is also important to note that, should things get out of control, the congress can simply vote (2/3 Majority) to kick the directive right off the books.

My second point of contention is the ASSUMPTION that resides within this argument that the Bush White House would be competent enough to perpetrate an attack on US soil of equal or greater magnitude than 911, and furthermore the ASSUMPTION that Bush had anything to do with 911 in the first place.

The argument ASSUMES that this administration is CAPABLE of pulling off an attack that would meet the level and severity that might threaten the constitution, or at the very least put NSPD 51's definition of such an attack-



"Catastrophic Emergency" means any incident, regardless of location, that results in extraordinary levels of mass casualties, damage, or disruption severely affecting the U.S. population, infrastructure, environment, economy, or government functions;


In the course of this debate I will illustrate this incompetence and show that that, while this administration has caused much controversy, they would never be able to plan and execute a plan so grandiose and delusional on their own, certainly not on the scale necessary to “end constitutional rule”.

This leads me to my third point of contention with the argument.

It is no secret that President Bush’s approval rating is in the gutter. 25% is nothing to write home about. What is more shocking though is the level of dissention within the ranks of the President’s own allies. High ranking members of the GOP are beginning to distance themselves politically and strategically from Bush so as to protect themselves from the current back lash.

I plan on illustrating through the course of this debate that the sheer size of this operation would blow the lid off of it and thus make it impossible.

An attack that is planned ENTIRELY by the administration would require 1000’s of people to perpetrate it. It would seem to me that SOMEONE would speak out and “let the cat out of the bag”, so to speak.

It is an insult to human nature and conscience to think that so many people would commit an act so heinous, against their own people and country mind you, and not feel any remorse or need to speak out as a result of the tremendous amount of guilt involved.

Remember, we are talking about killing thousands, if not HUNDREDS of thousands of people here and I would like to hope that SOMEONE who has been elected BY the people would be looking out FOR the people that put them there in the first place.




Source: www.whitehouse.gov

Mod note: this post was 37 characters over the 5,500 character limit. The last sentence has been removed.

[edit on 9-8-2007 by The Vagabond]



posted on Aug, 10 2007 @ 11:01 AM
link   

The first point of contention


This document only benefits one part of the government, the executive branch. While the method stays the same (i.e. Checks and Balances) the amount of power does not. All the power is consolidated to the executive branch, nothing to the other two. Who drew the resolution? The president and his staff, including military advisors did.

The executive branch and the common mentality of nearly all presidents are the same and seek the same thing, through our history each president after the last has had more power consolidated.

The executive branch has issued many orders that show that they seek this end to constitutional rule.

Executive orders 10995, 10997, 10998, 11000, 11001, 11002 and 11051 were some that were passed that give the President the ability to suspend the constitution and Bill of rights.

And more recently, orders like Blocking Property of Certain Persons Who Threaten Stabilization Efforts in Iraq which violates the first, fourth and fifth Amendments of the constitution.


They want all the power over everyone. They don’t want anyone to try to speak out against them. (Also in the NSPD 51- 5 (e) ) They issue orders that take away from citizens rights.

The very fact that there is a group of people, or an idea within the people which is even worse, that they wish to have absolute control without the ignorant masses interjecting and stalling "progress" in their eyes…
The very fact that anyone wishes this gives the basis for why the government is even planning an attack in the first place.

They are moving towards an end of constitutional rule, and a simple disaster could mean their objective is completed.


It would seem to me that SOMEONE would speak out and “let the cat out of the bag”, so to speak.


And if someone tried to speak out they would most likely be brought to justice by the government and/or covered up.

Not to mention if the Government carried out an attack the public would think it was terrorists, like I mentioned in the first post. Like 9/11 conspiracy theorists if someone said the government was responsible for the attack most people wouldn't pay attention to them, or just think they were plain crazy.



It is an insult to human nature and conscience to think that so many people would commit an act so heinous, against their own people and country mind you, and not feel any remorse or need to speak out as a result of the tremendous amount of guilt involved.


Power. Greed. Human nature is greed. They want all the power that this could give them and they will do anything to get it. Even if it means hurting those in their own country. Their own guilt will be forgotten once they have the power they are so greedy for.



posted on Aug, 10 2007 @ 04:08 PM
link   
The constitution of the US has been under attack since its signing. There have always been, and shall always be those that wish to undermine it or manipulate it to serve their own interests. This is not a new concept and the constitution will never be “safe”.



“Executive orders 10995, 10997, 10998, 11000, 11001, 11002 and 11051 were some that were passed that give the President the ability to suspend the constitution and Bill of rights.”


These orders are 45 YEARS OLD!!! Wouldn’t it be logical to assume that if these were designed to overthrow the constitution that perhaps in the last 45 YEARS there would have been an attempt to do so?

The Executive Orders that my opponent uses to clarify his point, inevitably undermines the argument. Pointing out 45 YEAR OLD executive orders and suggesting that they prove a clear and CONTEMPORARY THREAT to “End Constitutional Rule” does not convince me.




The very fact that there is a group of people, or an idea within the people which is even worse, that they wish to have absolute control without the ignorant masses interjecting and stalling "progress" in their eyes…


I must have missed the memo that “speculation”, which is what this is, can now pass as “fact”. Do you have any “facts” to back this preposterous statement up with, or is it just a “hunch”? And I might also add that congress can still VOTE THESE DIRECTIVES OUT if they are such a bad idea.

So let’s recap about my opponents argument that there is such a tremendous threat to our constitution:

1 -


This document only benefits one part of the government, the executive branch. While the method stays the same (i.e. Checks and Balances) the amount of power does not.


Since when has the executive branch not had more power? That might be the reason they called it “executive” in this “separate, but not equal government of ours”.

2


They are moving towards an end of constitutional rule, and a simple disaster could mean their objective is completed.


Could or would ? I am confused. I thought you were arguing that another major attack WOULD INEVITABLY end constitutional rule. Are you suggesting that it only possibly could?

And I still have yet to see any proof that they are up to these “sinister deeds”.

3


And if someone tried to speak out they would most likely be brought to justice by the government and/or covered up.


Brought to justice? You mean “Constitutional Justice”? You mean the justice system “Defined by the Constitution” justice?

It would be people’s civic duty to report treason. That’s what an attack like this would be. I concede there are some pretty seedy people in the white house right now, but again, logistics tell us that in order to pull an attack off on the scale we are discussing, 1000’s of people would have to have some clue as to what is going on. It would only take one.

4


Not to mention if the Government carried out an attack the public would think it was terrorists, like I mentioned in the first post.


Or would they? This Zogby Poll taken last year doesn’t seem to think so…looks like 42% of Americans are “plain crazy”.



Power. Greed. Human nature is greed. They want all the power that this could give them and they will do anything to get it. Even if it means hurting those in their own country. Their own guilt will be forgotten once they have the power they are so greedy for.


Greed is rampant in DC, no doubt, however we are talking about killing TONS OF PEOPLE. People who may lose family and friends, and NO ONE would speak up and expose the truth?

If you are to presume that people guilt could be usurped by the acquisition of power, take a look at the guy who turned himself in over the NJ Slayings…is that not an account of someone who thought they had achieved power by killing others and ultimately was done in by his conscience?


In order for this argument to work 2 things, each in their own way virtually impossible, must come together. Those things are –

1. The Bush admin being able competent to perpetrate an attack like this and
2. The constitution being in such a state that it would be so vulnerable that it would crumble under such a circumstance.

I feel as though neither of these things hold any ground thus far…


(this post has been edited to insert quote tags around a quote of a previous post)

[edit on 11-8-2007 by The Vagabond]



posted on Aug, 11 2007 @ 12:52 PM
link   

Pointing out 45 YEAR OLD executive orders and suggesting that they prove a clear and CONTEMPORARY THREAT to “End Constitutional Rule” does not convince me.


These 45 year old orders can still be enacted today. They are also a threat today because there have been steady series of new executive orders starting from Nixon to now Bush. Taking away rights and giving them more power. It is a bigger threat now then it ever has been.


And I might also add that congress can still VOTE THESE DIRECTIVES OUT if they are such a bad idea.


Why haven't they been voted out yet then? Once they go into effect Congress will have no-input anyway.


look at the guy who turned himself in over the NJ Slayings


You can't compare that to this. I read the article and didn't find the part where the killer received control over a nation.


1. The Bush admin being able competent to perpetrate an attack like this


How is that impossible? They were able to pull off 9/11. (Yes, I assume they did, just like you assume they didn't. There is enough evidence for me to assume they did) Even if they didn't how do you know what they are capable of?


2. The constitution being in such a state that it would be so vulnerable that it would crumble under such a circumstance.


The executive orders I linked to. When the Catastrophic Emergency happens the President can enact them. The President then has the power to suspend the Constitution. The constitution means nothing.



posted on Aug, 11 2007 @ 10:31 PM
link   


These 45 year old orders can still be enacted today.


Directives and orders are "enacted" the moment they are published and signed by the president. If congress deems them to be unwarranted or unconstitutional in their language or intent, congress can change the way that the directive is executed by introducing new legislation that corrects it.



Why haven't they been voted out yet then? Once they go into effect Congress will have no-input anyway.


So am I to understand that you have taken the directive to mean that IF there were an attack of equal or greater size in the US that Congress will just disappear? I would love to know where it says that.

The framers of the constitution planned for something like this and that is why congress can impeach a rotten president who threatens the rule of the constitution, the very document he is sworn in to uphold and protect.




You can't compare that to this. I read the article and didn't find the part where the killer received control over a nation.


Ok. Ho about Operation Northwoods. A prime example of a government conspiracy averted by conscience.




The executive orders I linked to. When the Catastrophic Emergency happens the President can enact them. The President then has the power to suspend the Constitution. The constitution means nothing.


WHOA! What? Where does it state in NSPD 51, or any other of the directives you linked to, that the president has the power to suspend the constitution? NO WHERE. Why? Because it is illegal.

The fact is that IF there were an attack, NSPD51 would not end constitutional rule, again, this directive was written to protect and ensure the constitution remains in tact.



NSPD51
(e) "Enduring Constitutional Government," or "ECG," means a cooperative effort among the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the Federal Government, coordinated by the President, as a matter of comity with respect to the legislative and judicial branches and with proper respect for the constitutional separation of powers





How is that impossible? They were able to pull off 9/11. (Yes, I assume they did, just like you assume they didn't. There is enough evidence for me to assume they did) Even if they didn't how do you know what they are capable of?


We could debate for years about who perpetrated 911. How do I know what they are capable of? It's called a TRACK RECORD. This administration has failed at SO many things Iraq, Katrina, education, the economy etc...

I cannot wrap my . around the notion that these guys can EXCLUSIVELY pull off something like this.



posted on Aug, 12 2007 @ 02:23 PM
link   

So am I to understand that you have taken the directive to mean that IF there were an attack of equal or greater size in the US that Congress will just disappear?


When those executive orders get invoked the President can do things like transfer populations to different parts of the country, suspend press and force a national registration, among other things, without congress' approval. If they have no input they might as well disappear because they aren't doing anything.


Ho about Operation Northwoods.


Ok, but this different people. You don't know how they would deal with it.


Where does it state in NSPD 51, or any other of the directives you linked to, that the president has the power to suspend the constitution?


The directives would suspend a great portion of liberties guaranteed by the constitution. And since the president is the one who can invoke the directives...



posted on Aug, 12 2007 @ 09:10 PM
link   
The fact is that we can on for eternity speculating on what the government MIGHT do. My opponent has built his entire argument on "what ifs" or "Mights" which only leaves us with speculation. Speculation is nothing more than a series of abstract bodies of evidence entwined together by fantastic leaps of knowledge.

All we have to go on are what evidence we do have in front of us.

In regards to NSPD51 - the facts are clear. The intent of the directive is to have the constitution protected. Period. Just because is says that IF this were to happen the president would "coordinate" the various efforts does not make him a dictator. The president would not be able to do anything if he were impeached and that is what would happen.

If feel that I have soundly proven that NSPD 51 is no more a threat to the constitution than any of the other examples my opponent has linked to. While the intent may be questionable, the FACT is that congress does NOT, by the wording and definition of the directive, lose its power or ability to deal with the president if he does something illegal. in FACT constitutional rule is not threatened by this document.

Again...



(e) "Enduring Constitutional Government," or "ECG," means a cooperative effort among the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the Federal Government, coordinated by the President, as a matter of comity with respect to the legislative and judicial branches and with proper respect for the constitutional separation of powers among the branches, to preserve the constitutional framework under which the Nation is governed and the capability of all three branches of government to execute constitutional responsibilities and provide for orderly succession, appropriate transition of leadership, and interoperability and support of the National Essential Functions during a catastrophic emergency;


I am not sure how this could be much clearer. If there is something in the Directive that disproves this, please quote it and let me know.


My opponent responds to my illustrating Operation Northwoods as a viable example of how conscience can shut down evil intentions within the government by saying...



Ok, but this different people. You don't know how they would deal with it.


Yes, but they are the same TYPE of people in the exact kind of situation that this debate is based on. Here we have a DIRECT example of one of the reasons I have illustrated that would PREVENT the government from planning and executing an attack on the country. They would "deal with it" the same way. I find it hard to believe that the 1000's of people that it would take to plan something like this would all suddenly lose their conscience.



posted on Aug, 13 2007 @ 09:51 AM
link   
In Closing...

These executive orders give the President power over the nation. They suspend rights given to the citizens under the constitution. And all the President needs to invoke them is a “Catastrophic Emergency”. - Those are facts.

With the resources they have, the desire for power they have, and the fact that they have most of the public already fearing an attack from terrorists, I feel that they can absolutely carry out an attack.

The threat has been building, it's a bigger threat now then it ever has been and Bush's actions show he wants the power. They aren't going to come out and tell everyone they are planning a secret attack on their own land, so you have to look what has been going on around us, and what is going on leads me to believe that they are planning something so President Bush can put those directives into effect, and in turn end constitutional rule.



posted on Aug, 13 2007 @ 10:26 AM
link   
The constitution of the US has endured. Born out of a revolutionary war – it has survived a civil war, two major world wars, a Korean war, a Vietnamese war and other conflicts too numerous to mention. It has guided great movements of US history, provided wisdom in times of confusion and given light when there has been darkness. 911 was the most recent test of the constitution and the impact of 911 continues to challenge people's idea of what is the appropriate sacrifice for safety.

In order to assume that we are "one strike away from the end of constitutional rule in America" is to assume that the constitution is vulnerable enough to be abolished by a single event, albeit massive, and to fall from the grace of its past into oblivion after all of this time. My opponent has offered NSPD 51 as evidence that there is certainty that



If there was any attack or incident, like 9/11, Bush would be put in control, and this would give the opportunity to let Bush have his dictatorship.


I have proven, by use of the directive's text, that a "dictatorship" is not only an impossibility of the directive, but an illegal act.

My opponent would have you believe that a new attack, planned and executed EXCLUSIVELY by the US government, that is of equal or greater scale than the events of 911 is possible. He asserts that the 1000's of people required to perpetrate such an attack would all seem to somehow harmonize within their –



Power. Greed. Human nature is greed. They want all the power that this could give them and they will do anything to get it. Even if it means hurting those in their own country. Their own guilt will be forgotten once they have the power they are so greedy for.


My opponent, however, fails to figure in the fact that all of the alleged planners are human, and inevitably, humans have a conscience. A failing president in a dead end war with a 25% approval rating simply does not have the "capital" to achieve something this dastardly. Bush has lost his power as a result of his own stubbornness and inability to "change the course" at the necessary times. Not to mention the fact that he is so bogged down right now due to the outrage surround the justice department firings, a CIA outing, the aftermath of Katrina, Afghanistan and the fact that Osama Bin Ladin has yet to be brought to justice. He can barely make a cup of coffee right now with out someone scrutinizing the sugar he is using. Do you really think he could plan something like this while so many are just waiting for him to make the next bib mistake, even with Dearth Cheney and friends? I think not.

In conclusion: The constitution is simply too strong to be taken by any single event. It shall endure and it will take more than a C average Yale grad with some evil cohorts to destroy a bed rock document that will outlive their heritage and legacy by eons.

Thanks again to ATS for hosting this debate. Enjoies05, it has been a real pleasure and I wish you the best of luck!



posted on Aug, 13 2007 @ 07:43 PM
link   
Alright, this one is off to the judges.



posted on Aug, 16 2007 @ 01:10 PM
link   
The winner is TruthWithin!

Congratulations to Truthwithin and good luck in the next round.

A selection of judges comments:


Enjoies05 certainly does present a good case, but IMO, Truthwithin deals with pretty much every issue brought up by his opponent in a concise and effective manner, to the point that I feel it would be extremely difficult to fault his performance.



Enjoies05 made an argument that was heavily dependent on the reader's distrust of the current administration. We were asked to believe that they were morally capable of this as a matter of faith. I didn't expect proof that would hold up in court, but I did expect means, motive, and opportunity, and I didn't get it.



this was a tough one. Enjoines was making his case on some old laws and the like and Truthwithin seems fixated on human conscience (Ask Stalin, Pot, Hitler et al if they lost any sleep)

The winner by a hair is Enjoies. Both argued thier points well.



Some of TW's rebuttals were suspect- NSPD 51 may say "constitutional" but this administration has wierd ideas about the constitution. TW's victory relied heavily on backing Enjoies away from 9/11 and Northwoods, which were critical evidence for enjoies' side.



new topics

top topics



 
3

log in

join