From the desk of Daniel D. New
PDD 25 - a coup d' etat in American government
by Daniel New
In 1994, President William Clinton authorized himself to place American soldiers under United Nations control by a completely new set of rules. Because he knew that this radical and unconstitutional policy would bring about demands for his impeachment, he then classified the document, so that not even your Senator or Representative in Congress can read it! Indeed, Madeleine Albright argued before a Congressional hearing that it was an "Executive Branch document" and, "...in order to preserve the Constitutional balance of powers between the branches of government," it would not be made available to them. And they accepted that answer!!!!
The difficulty in situations like this is in knowing where to start with the impeachments.
The government did release a "public version" (available at http://mikenew.com/pdd25.html), which is a fluff piece. Alleging to be a condensation, it is actually several pages longer than the original. Here is the government's own summary of Presidential Decision Directive #25.
When Army Specialist Michael New requested to see the legal basis for the order for him to wear a United Nations uniform, his officers informed him that it was based upon PDD 25. When he asked to see it, they informed him, "No, you cannot see it. It is classified. You will just have to trust us." Michael New laughed out loud, and said, "What is this? The Soviet Union? You can't just make up secret laws, then put people in jail for not obeying them!" Ah, but they can.
====================================
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The Clinton Administration's Policy on Reforming Multilateral Peace Operations
PDD 25 - a coup d' etat in American government
by Daniel New
In 1994, President William Clinton authorized himself to place American soldiers under United Nations control by a completely new set of rules. Because he knew that this radical and unconstitutional policy would bring about demands for his impeachment, he then classified the document, so that not even your Senator or Representative in Congress can read it! Indeed, Madeleine Albright argued before a Congressional hearing that it was an "Executive Branch document" and, "...in order to preserve the Constitutional balance of powers between the branches of government," it would not be made available to them. And they accepted that answer!!!!
The difficulty in situations like this is in knowing where to start with the impeachments.
The government did release a "public version" (available at http://mikenew.com/pdd25.html), which is a fluff piece. Alleging to be a condensation, it is actually several pages longer than the original. Here is the government's own summary of Presidential Decision Directive #25.
When Army Specialist Michael New requested to see the legal basis for the order for him to wear a United Nations uniform, his officers informed him that it was based upon PDD 25. When he asked to see it, they informed him, "No, you cannot see it. It is classified. You will just have to trust us." Michael New laughed out loud, and said, "What is this? The Soviet Union? You can't just make up secret laws, then put people in jail for not obeying them!" Ah, but they can.
====================================
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The Clinton Administration's Policy on Reforming Multilateral Peace Operations
Last year, President Clinton ordered an inter-agency review of our nation's peacekeeping policies and programs in order to develop a comprehensive policy framework suited to the realities of the post-Cold War period. This policy review has resulted in a Presidential Decision Directive (PDD). The President signed this directive, following the completion of extensive consultations with Members of Congress. This paper summarizes the key elements of that directive.
As specified in the "Bottom-Up Review," the primary mission of the U.S. Armed Forces remains to be prepared to fight and win nearly two simultaneous regional conflicts. In this context, peacekeeping can be one useful tool to help prevent and resolve such conflicts before they pose direct threats to our national security. Peacekeeping can also serve U.S. interests by promoting democracy, regional security, and economic growth.
The policy directive (PDD) addresses six major issues of reform and improvement:
1. Making disciplined and coherent choices about which peace operations to support -- both when we vote in the Security Council for UN peace operations and when we participate in such operations with U.S. troops.
-- To achieve this goal, the policy directive sets forth three increasingly rigorous standards of review for U.S. support for or participation in peace operations, with the most stringent applying to U.S. participation in missions that may involve combat. The policy directive affirms that peacekeeping can be a useful tool for advancing U.S. national security interests in some circumstances, but both U.S. and UN involvement in peacekeeping must be selective and more effective.
2. Reducing U.S. costs for UN peace operations, both the percentage our nation pays for each operation and the cost of the operations themselves.
-- To achieve this goal, the policy directive orders that we work to reduce our peacekeeping assessment percentage from the current 31.7% to 25% by January 1, 1996, and proposes a number of specific steps to reduce the cost of UN peace operations.
3. Defining clearly our policy regarding the command and control of American military forces in UN peace operations.
-- The policy directive underscores the fact that the President will never relinquish command of U.S. forces. However, as Commander-in- Chief, the President has the authority to place U.S. forces under the operational control of a foreign commander when doing so serves American security interests, just as American leaders have done numerous times since the Revolutionary War, including in Operation Desert Storm.
-- The greater the anticipated U.S. military role, the less likely it will be that the U.S. will agree to have a UN commander exercise overall operational control over U.S. forces. Any large scale participation of U.S. forces in a major peace enforcement operation that is likely to involve combat should ordinarily be conducted under U.S. command and operational control or through competent regional organizations such as NATO or ad hoc coalitions.
4. Reforming and improving the UN's capability to manage peace operations.
-- The policy recommends 11 steps to strengthen UN management of peace operations and directs U.S. support for strengthening the UN's planning, logistics, information and command and control capabilities.
5. Improving the way the U.S. government manages and funds peace operations.
-- The policy directive creates a new "shared responsibility" approach to managing and funding UN peace operations within the U.S. Government. Under this approach, the Department of Defense will take lead management and funding responsibility for those UN operations that involve U.S. combat units and those that are likely to involve combat, whether or not U.S. troops are involved. This approach will ensure that military expertise is brought to bear on those operations that have a significant military component.
-- The State Department will retain lead management and funding responsibility for traditional peacekeeping operations that do not involve U.S. combat units. In all cases, the State Department remains responsible for the conduct of diplomacy and instructions to embassies and our UN Mission in New York.
6. Creating better forms of cooperation between the Executive, the Congress and the American public on peace operations.
-- The policy directive sets out seven proposals for increasing and regularizing the flow of information and consultation between the executive branch and Congress; the President believes U.S. support for and participation in UN peace operations can only succeed over the long term with the bipartisan support of Congress and the American people.
When the president of the United States takes it upon himself to authorize himself to do anything, outside the authority of the Constitution (the document he took an oath to support and defend), it can only be regarded as an act of rebellion to the rule of Law, an act of Tyranny, and an act of dictatorship.
Then Chairman of the Armed Forces Committee of the House, Bob Dornan, was shocked when I told him about PDD 25, in 1996. We were sitting in a restaurant at Tyson's Corner, near Alexandria, Virginia. He almost choked. The he said, "By God, I can get that document!" Then he turned to his aide and said, "You get that document on my desk, by tomorrow, if at all possible." His aide made a note. And not another sputter came from Bob Dornan or his office on the subject. Upon inquiry, all we could learn was that, "The document is not available."
The White House may make all the noise it likes about the difference in "operational control" and "command control", but when all is said and done, it is an act of sophistry. The terms are not recognized by the Constitution, and a sad day it is that we have to remind the president that we are a nation under that Constitution, not merely under the whims of a political hack. When our government leaders decide that the Constitution is out of date, (as did Speaker Dennis Hastert, when he gavelled down Rep. Ron Paul on the question of a declaration of war in Iraq), then we have government that has run amok, and will always find ourselves in untenable foreign policy situations that may please the crowds back home, for a while, but are outside the legal bounds of what we can do. Contrary to the popular mindset today, it is not true that "rules were made to be broken."
If the Guardians of the Gate do not do their duty, what happens? Two things are predictable. First, those in authority will begin to assume more and more power to themselves, ignoring those who object, because they have leaders above them who are doing the same thing. This results in tyranny. The other is that the People acquire a disrespect for law and order, because those who are supposed to enforce it are actually running roughshod over it. Historically, this creates a breakdown in law and order, and tends to lead toward the most unpleasant and dangerous mentality of revolution.
For these reasons, it is imperative that we expose the abuse of power that occurs, no matter how high the office where it is found, and reprimand or discipline those who commit such acts.
The first step in this process is for Congress to demand to see the original document, Presidential Decision Directive #25, and all other classified Executive Orders, and if necessary, for either Congress or the courts to revoke them. If a court needs to decide if national security might be threatened, that would be understandable, but if the court decides to provide legal cover to support a political agenda, then it is all over for this nation as a Republic. We may well survive for centuries as an Empire, but it won't be the same. What am I saying?! It's already not the same!!
When President Bill Clinton invoked PDD 25 with the stroke of a pen, he pulled off a coup d'etat and Congress snored. President George W. Bush, who could revoke PDD 25 with the stroke of a pen, has ignored the subject, and leaves PDD 25 in place for future presidents to use as precedent for further eroding the foundations of our constitutional republic.
The same can be said for a People who continue to elect senators and representatives who care nothing about the Constitution that they take an oath to support and defend, and who know so little about it that they could not protect it if they wanted to. They have no clue what it says, much less what it means.
(C) 2007, Daniel D. New
Real Americans don't wear U.N. blue!www.MikeNew.com/
-- The policy directive sets out seven proposals for increasing and regularizing the flow of information and consultation between the executive branch and Congress; the President believes U.S. support for and participation in UN peace operations can only succeed over the long term with the bipartisan support of Congress and the American people.
When the president of the United States takes it upon himself to authorize himself to do anything, outside the authority of the Constitution (the document he took an oath to support and defend), it can only be regarded as an act of rebellion to the rule of Law, an act of Tyranny, and an act of dictatorship.
Then Chairman of the Armed Forces Committee of the House, Bob Dornan, was shocked when I told him about PDD 25, in 1996. We were sitting in a restaurant at Tyson's Corner, near Alexandria, Virginia. He almost choked. The he said, "By God, I can get that document!" Then he turned to his aide and said, "You get that document on my desk, by tomorrow, if at all possible." His aide made a note. And not another sputter came from Bob Dornan or his office on the subject. Upon inquiry, all we could learn was that, "The document is not available."
The White House may make all the noise it likes about the difference in "operational control" and "command control", but when all is said and done, it is an act of sophistry. The terms are not recognized by the Constitution, and a sad day it is that we have to remind the president that we are a nation under that Constitution, not merely under the whims of a political hack. When our government leaders decide that the Constitution is out of date, (as did Speaker Dennis Hastert, when he gavelled down Rep. Ron Paul on the question of a declaration of war in Iraq), then we have government that has run amok, and will always find ourselves in untenable foreign policy situations that may please the crowds back home, for a while, but are outside the legal bounds of what we can do. Contrary to the popular mindset today, it is not true that "rules were made to be broken."
If the Guardians of the Gate do not do their duty, what happens? Two things are predictable. First, those in authority will begin to assume more and more power to themselves, ignoring those who object, because they have leaders above them who are doing the same thing. This results in tyranny. The other is that the People acquire a disrespect for law and order, because those who are supposed to enforce it are actually running roughshod over it. Historically, this creates a breakdown in law and order, and tends to lead toward the most unpleasant and dangerous mentality of revolution.
For these reasons, it is imperative that we expose the abuse of power that occurs, no matter how high the office where it is found, and reprimand or discipline those who commit such acts.
The first step in this process is for Congress to demand to see the original document, Presidential Decision Directive #25, and all other classified Executive Orders, and if necessary, for either Congress or the courts to revoke them. If a court needs to decide if national security might be threatened, that would be understandable, but if the court decides to provide legal cover to support a political agenda, then it is all over for this nation as a Republic. We may well survive for centuries as an Empire, but it won't be the same. What am I saying?! It's already not the same!!
When President Bill Clinton invoked PDD 25 with the stroke of a pen, he pulled off a coup d'etat and Congress snored. President George W. Bush, who could revoke PDD 25 with the stroke of a pen, has ignored the subject, and leaves PDD 25 in place for future presidents to use as precedent for further eroding the foundations of our constitutional republic.
The same can be said for a People who continue to elect senators and representatives who care nothing about the Constitution that they take an oath to support and defend, and who know so little about it that they could not protect it if they wanted to. They have no clue what it says, much less what it means.
(C) 2007, Daniel D. New
Real Americans don't wear U.N. blue!www.MikeNew.com/
This is a U.N.-free Zonewww.UN-freeZone.org/
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(C) Daniel D. New, Permission to copy, with credits, is hereby granted.
.
Source: http://www.danielnew.com/dn04.27.07.shtml
.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(C) Daniel D. New, Permission to copy, with credits, is hereby granted.
.
Source: http://www.danielnew.com/dn04.27.07.shtml
.