Oh, for Pete’s sake, Shodan. Are you stupid, after all?
There was a one minute gap. There are at least two reasonable explanations for that:
Czarcasm was composing while MEBuckner post was posted. As mods can post to closed threads, nothing would stop his post from going through. This is probably what happened.
There is usually some gap between the posting of a thread closure, and the thread being closed. They are separate actions. I have seen members posts sneak in between the announcement and the closure; it’s just timing.
I got my post in after MEBuckner posted that the thread was to be closed, but before he closed it.
Get in the last word? What the hell are you talking about, Shodan? My last post asked questions that were directly tied to the OP.
This is a report on Presidential Directives published by the Congressional Research Service. It’s about 19 pages long and gives you a good general overview on what exactly National Security Directives are, how Presidents have used them in the past, and how they are created.
The linked .pdf contains general info on a variety of Presidential Directives/Proclamations/et cetera, here’s some of the pertinent information on security directives:
It allowed a poster the last word. Czarcasm’s post was clearly in his capacity as a poster, not a moderator. Like Frank said it could have happened with any poster, even those without moderator status, I believe in the past one of my posts got in after the mod’s post saying “thread closed” but before the thread itself shut down.
Also, just because a policy paper, signed by the President and produced in conjunction with the National Security Council is not published in the Federal Register doesn’t mean that only biased, administration-types get to see it. Several members of Congress have significant security clearances and would have access to these directives (often this is based on committee status, not all of Congress would have access nor would all of those who do be vigilant enough to read every classified paper they have access to, in fact most probably wouldn’t read even a fraction of them.) The NSC also has the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs as a member. So to believe that this directive contains a secret proviso establishing a dictatorship in the United States is to believe that:
-Several members of congress read that and didn’t make a fuss about it
-ALL of the NSC staff who had access to the document, which would range from political appointees to long-term professionals read such a proviso and didn’t make it public (even if you believe ALL of them are corrupt Bush toadies, can you really believe ALL of them want Bush as their dictator?)
-The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, a man who took an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States didn’t say anything publicly about this. His oath would supersede his duty not to disseminate classified information
Just to make this point more clear: if a member is composing a post when a thread is closed (in the database, not when a closing post is made), when they submit the post, they will get the “you are not authorized” message. If a mod attempts this, the post will go through. There is nothing nefarious or intentional about it. Unless your brain cell hasn’t divided yet.
Does implying that an embarrassed mod got in the last word by underhanded means count as knee jerk or not rationally based? Does using the phrase “Funny that” to imply underhandedness, then pretending (after one is called on one’s shit) that one was simply stating the facts without implying anything more count as after the fact rationalisation?
I didn’t post in that thread and didn’t even read it. However it is necessary to remember that it’s a little difficult to maintain equanimity when you are called unAmerican traitors, and worse, for opposing foolish national policies.
Opponents of GW and his nonsense have been reviled over and over in worse terms than anyone has used against him. I call him a shallow, sophomoric ninny but even I don’t think he is traiterous and running the country into the ground intentionally. I just fault him for his delusion that he is competent to be president of the US.
I certainly didn’t mean to imply there was actually anything underhanded going on with my last post, which was intended to be light-hearted. Czarcasm was undoubtedly composing his post at the same time I was composing my “thread is closed” announcement is all. Mods can post in closed threads, and there is no “This thread is closed; are you sure you want to post here?” message; a post to a closed thread by someone who’s a Mod just goes right on through.
That whole post should be a sticky. Outstanding post!
People, GeeDubyaShrub is NOT going to turn the US into a fascist dictatorship police state Gitmo from sea to shining sea.
Fucking relax! He’s a lame duck moron who will be outta here pretty soon.
You lefties need to concentrate on getting one of your people in there.
Fucking Og on a crutch, get your shit straight for the election instead of wigging out over Art Bell-esque weirdism about bullshit. If you people can’t win the white house this fucking time, you deserve what you get.
Get a grip, get your shit together, and throw the bastards out.
You’re doing it again. That’s not what this is about. Besides, after (I assume) reading my original post, why do you even need to ask? What are you trying to achieve?
Heh. There’d be like three of us there, but maybe.
Lemur866: between that post and the post in the “land of the free” thread, you just became one of my favourite Dopers.
OK, last try. Did you know, when it was passed, that the military authorization bill empowered GW to undertake extra-legal surveillance on his own authority? Neither did I, but they will look you right in the eye and say, “Well, of course it does, not in so many words, but he’s a wartime president, so it necessarily follows that he gets all those special wartime president powers…”
If you don’t believe so, then you must think that this guy is willing to warp the wording and intent to serve his own ends. In that case, what difference does it make that there is no direct threat in the proposal? Did you expect him to give you “fair warning”?
How many times have you said to yourself: “He’s not that crazy and/or evil!” How many times have you been wrong? He’s fooled me a couple three times like that, starting to feel snakebit.
Now that point seems fairly simple to me, but I’m not interested in annoying you, if you don’t buy it, you don’t. 'Nuff sed.
Wow, do some people just not get how it works! One wonders how many times they need to be punched in the nose before they become a little bit guarded.
Why develop a document if you’re just going to usurp power? Don’t you remember the Authorization to Use Military Force? You know, the one that says that we should work with the U.N. and exhaust diplomatic options before invading Iraq? Did we fucking do that? No, obviously not. But dammit if everyone, including tsk tsking “liberals” doesn’t point to the document as an excuse for Bush’s actions. At worst, we say, well they shouldn’t have gone along with it because they knew in reality what it meant, and that Bush would do what he wanted anyway.
That’s why you get the paper - paper provides surprisingly great cover. Especially when you have a nice conglomeration of willing to do anything for party before country cunts on the one side and finger wagging “let’s not be so mean and uncordial” ninnies on the other side.
So now after all of the multitude of examples of the abuse of power, the misrepresentation of the meaning of what was agreed to, the dissemination of lies, (such as “Carter did it too” - see, e.g. the ever useless Sho-bot in this very thread), if we look with a jaundiced eye at something like this that seems to have major nooks and crannies, we are either hysterical bullshitters or naive for worrying about what is actually written on the paper.
My good god, at least Sho-bot has the excuse of being a pathetic mindless dickless conservadrone. What the fuck is your excuse, Priceguy?
What about you, Liberal? Weren’t you just calling the Democrats pussies for not seeking impeachment? Now you are “tinking” glasses with someone who is critical of a dubious regard for the proposal in question?