posted on Jan, 12 2010 @ 09:33 PM
I read this document, as it stands and this is how I would interpert it:
1) The US, and the provences that are unders its jurisdiction will be divided into 10 parts, with 1 govenor from that area to sit on a council,
including those who are in charge with the defense of the country to determine the proper course of action.
2) That at least 2 to 5 govenors would be of the opposite party as directed by the Executive order, so that means there should be 5 Democrats and 5
Republicans sitting on the council, that would make recomendations to the President on the security of the country, including how and when to deploy
resources, men, equipment and supplies. And those Govenors would be appointed by the President of the United States to sit on this council, though it
will not be they who are in charge, rather I believe the head of Homeland Security will be in charge overall over this council.
Now here is what I believe it would be. I do not believe it is a Martial Law order, or a precursor to such. I do believe that this is a bad idea and
a redundent order for the following reasons: 1) I was under the impression that the department of Homeland Security along with the FBI was
responsible for the safety of the United States of America. By forming this council, the President is in short stating that those 2 departments can
not handle the responsiblity for such. 2)The only person who can best determine the safety and security of a particular state is the govenor of that
state. That means that the Govenor of California, for example, can only speak for his state, not for the state of Arizona or Nevada, or Hawaii, or
Oregon, as he would not know what they need or the problems or resources they would require for such. 3) I think that the only thing this will do is
to bring either political pressure or political favor to those who would serve on this council, and there is no provision for what to do if the
govenors just flat out refuse due to cost and time constraints.