A "typo" in an Executive Order signed earlier this year could prove catastrophic.

Greetings all. First of all, if you read this thread, you will know that anyone and everyone needs to see it. Trust me.

Here's a rundown of this conspiracy that I came across in January, but nobody listened:

An executive order signed by Obama in January, 2010 lays out the foundation for disaster management by establishing a board of governors based on regional territories in the United States. Okay, great. However, something potentially sinister was written into the EO. Most people considered this a typo. I made the point that you don't publish a typo'd document like that. Here's the "typo":

Sec. 4. Definitions. As used in this order:
(a) the term "State" has the meaning provided in
paragraph (15) of section 2 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002
(6 U.S.C. 101(15)); and
(b) the term "Governor" has the meaning provided in
paragraph (5) of section 102 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster
Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5122(5)).

Okay, first red flag: the document does not define its own terms. These documents are supposed to define their terms within the document. It should never reference another document for this. So maybe they had a good reason? Well let's look at the definitions in those documents.

(6 U.S.C. 101(15))

(15) The term ‘‘terrorism’’ means any activity that—
(A) involves an act that—
(i) is dangerous to human life or potentially
destructive of critical infrastructure or key resources;
and
(ii) is a violation of the criminal laws of the United
States or of any State or other subdivision of the United
States; and
(B) appears to be intended—
(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii) to influence the policy of a government by
intimidation or coercion; or
(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass
destruction, assassination, or kidnapping.

WHAT?? That's not what a state is. That's an extensive definition of Terrorism. Okay maybe it was a typo. Let's look at the other definition...

(42 U.S.C. 5122(5))

(5) “Governor” means the chief executive of any State.

Yes, that's what a governor is. But wait a minute... If a "Governor" is the chief executive of ANY "State", and a "State" is that entire 15th paragraph defining "Terrorism", then a "Governor" as described and established in this Executive Order is legally the chief executive of "Terrorism" as defined by (6 U.S.C. 101(15)).

Do you see the nightmare here? Why has this document not been amended??? Notice that the Homeland Security Act and the Disaster Relief Act both define their terms within themselves. Thoughts? discussions?

Sources:
Executive Order 2010
Homeland Security Act of 2002
Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act

www.law.cornell.edu...

(15) The term “State” means any State of the United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and any possession of the United States

and # 16, for good measure:

(16) The term “terrorism” means any activity that— (A) involves an act that— (i) is dangerous to human life or potentially destructive of critical infrastructure or key resources; and (ii) is a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State or other subdivision of the United States; and (B) appears to be intended— (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping

taken from cornell.edu

now, if you go to codes.lp.findlaw.com... they have #14 defining state and #15 defining terrorism

oddness abounds

ok, checked dhs.gov

www.dhs.gov...

they have it as 14 for state, 15 for terrorism. someone used the wrong source for their definitions.

I can see that as being a problem.

perhaps a letter to our President, letting him know that he needs a friggin editor is in order

reply to post by Crakeur


Okay so which document is accurate? I didn't know there were two versions where the number 15 and 16 were switched around...

ETA: My original linked PDF is the official PDF of the document from DHS.gov

reply to post by OrphenFire


see my edit above. dhs has 14 as state, 15 as terrorism

reply to post by Crakeur


Okay I see. And yes, maybe a letter or something would be in order...

bout time the states and their governers grow some cahones and admit to being what we all know they are. now that everyone is a terrorist, we have to find more labels to use. before it was just the citizens the "homegrowns" now it the government too. oh what a wonderful world

I'll email a copy of this discrepancy to the white house in support of any letter written and sent as good measure. Anyone else desiring to support 'change' should also send in an email to Pesident Barrack Obama [email protected].

The more emails the better chances will be that attention will be given to it.

"(15) The term ‘‘terrorism’’ means any activity that—
(A) involves an act that—
(i) is dangerous to human life or potentially
destructive of critical infrastructure or key resources"

so any one who is or may commit a crime is a terrorist?
that gives them total power.

It would appear that the version hosted by the DHS is missing this section (section 9) in the cornell version.

The term “intelligence component of the Department” means any element or entity of the Department that collects, gathers, processes, analyzes, produces, or disseminates intelligence information within the scope of the information sharing environment, including homeland security information, terrorism information, and weapons of mass destruction information, or national intelligence, as defined under section 401a (5) of title 50, except— (A) the United States Secret Service; and (B) the Coast Guard, when operating under the direct authority of the Secretary of Defense or Secretary of the Navy pursuant to section 3 of title 14, except that nothing in this paragraph shall affect or diminish the authority and responsibilities of the Commandant of the Coast Guard to command or control the Coast Guard as an armed force or the authority of the Director of National Intelligence with respect to the Coast Guard as an element of the intelligence community (as defined under section 401a (4) of title 50.[1]

reply to post by rogerstigers


so, to recap, the president declared states terrorism and the department of homeland security is lacking in the definition of intelligence.

Originally posted by Crakeur
reply to post by rogerstigers

 

so, to recap, the president declared states terrorism and the department of homeland security is lacking in the definition of intelligence.

Lol.. seems that way. Curious though that they would have a differant version of the law. Gonna go see what the official version says at the LOC.

ETA: official version at origin.www.gpo.gov... does have the section 9. which means that the reference in the EO is correctly pointing to the definition of State.

Originally posted by Crakeur
reply to post by rogerstigers

 

so, to recap, the president declared states terrorism and the department of homeland security is lacking in the definition of intelligence.

Now that is very appropriate, isn't it?

Here's a copy of the email being sent:

Greetings Mr. President.

This email is sent on behalf of the American people to share with the leadership of our great union a flaw in definition found within this document:

www.whitehouse.gov...

The flaw was disgussed as follows:

"An executive order signed by Obama in January, 2010 lays out the foundation for disaster management by establishing a board of governors based on regional territories in the United States. Okay, great. However, something potentially sinister was written into the EO. Most people considered this a typo. I made the point that you don't publish a typo'd document like that. Here's the "typo":



Sec. 4. Definitions. As used in this order:
(a) the term "State" has the meaning provided in
paragraph (15) of section 2 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002
(6 U.S.C. 101(15)); and
(b) the term "Governor" has the meaning provided in
paragraph (5) of section 102 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster
Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5122(5)).



Okay, first: the document does not define its own terms. These documents are supposed to define their terms within the document. It should never reference another document for this. So maybe they had a good reason? Well let's look at the definitions in those documents.

(6 U.S.C. 101(15))


(15) The term ‘‘terrorism’’ means any activity that—
(A) involves an act that—
(i) is dangerous to human life or potentially
destructive of critical infrastructure or key resources;
and
(ii) is a violation of the criminal laws of the United
States or of any State or other subdivision of the United
States; and
(B) appears to be intended—
(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii) to influence the policy of a government by
intimidation or coercion; or
(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass
destruction, assassination, or kidnapping.



That's not what a state is. That's an extensive definition of Terrorism. Okay maybe it was a typo. Let's look at the other definition...

(42 U.S.C. 5122(5))


(5) “Governor” means the chief executive of any State.


Yes, that's what a governor is. But wait a minute... If a "Governor" is the chief executive of ANY "State", and a "State" is that entire 15th paragraph defining "Terrorism", then a "Governor" as described and established in this Executive Order is legally the chief executive of "Terrorism" as defined by (6 U.S.C. 101(15)).

Do you see the problem here? Why has this document not been amended??? Notice that the Homeland Security Act and the Disaster Relief Act both define their terms within themselves."

Sources:
Executive Order 2010 - www.whitehouse.gov...

Homeland Security Act of 2002 - www.dhs.gov...

Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act - www.fema.gov...



Upon futher investigation by another accredited individual we find this to be true:



www.law.cornell.edu...

(15) The term “State” means any State of the United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and any possession of the United States


and # 16, for good measure:


(16) The term “terrorism” means any activity that— (A) involves an act that— (i) is dangerous to human life or potentially destructive of critical infrastructure or key resources; and (ii) is a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State or other subdivision of the United States; and (B) appears to be intended— (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping


"taken from cornell.edu

now, if you go to codes.lp.findlaw.com... they have #14 defining state and #15 defining terrorism

oddness abounds

ok, checked dhs.gov

www.dhs.gov...

they have it as 14 for state, 15 for terrorism. someone used the wrong source for their definitions.

I can see that as being a problem."



As clearly indicated, the definition of State needs to be amended within the document in question to accurately represent the term found within it.

So, in summary, the terms found within this document:

www.whitehouse.gov...

need to be clearly defined and placed within the document itself to better clarify the law found within it, namely, that:

The term “State” means any State of the United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and any possession of the United States.

The term “Governor” means the chief executive of any State.

Thank you for your time and your consideration on this mater.

If this format is aproved then anyone wishing to copy it and send in as email can feel free to do so.

I just had the hair stand up on the back of my neck,
considering the track record of the sneaky,under handed
nature of these people and the bills they run through congress,
with out allowing the process of even reading them.I'm thinking this is not a type-o.
And, since they themselves are above the draconian bills they pass into law,
This is intentional ? As an end run around the Governors who have been challenging
the Obama Administration on their State Constitutional powers.
Nothing in Politics is an accident. They can twist this any way they wish.(and do all the time)
Am I wrong on this ? Am I getting worked up over nothing ?(missing something ?)

The BrainGarden.

reply to post by BrainGarden


Ahhh, Nope! That's exactly what my first impression was from the very first reading of the OP's dissertation! Scarry as hell!
Zindo

reply to post by ZindoDoone



Reminds me of the Oath of Office screw up, and they had to do it again; behind CLOSED doors! I still believe it was deliberate, just as I'm sure this is as well.

Lol....these guys don't make those kinds of mistakes....
must have been a Freudian slip.

Well meant email and written to the 9's....think they will read it?
Hope so. Will it make a difference....remains to be seen.

reply to post by Heyyo_yoyo


Throw Crakeur's previous comment in for good measure.

Seriously though--disturbing goings on. How could they have missed this (?) and wondering what the official reply will be. (It refers to a nonpublished/disseminated version?)

S&F op.

I think the email could/should point out that the discussion was within an online forum. Maybe. I dunno...