There is the historical truism that those that fail to study history are bound to repeat it. So let’s start this month's installment with a bit of history.

In November, 1932, in Germany, elections gave the Nazi part the largest electoral block in the Reichstag but not a majority. As part of a power-sharing deal, Hitler was appointed Chancellor of Germany by President Paul von Hindenburg. The post World War I period in Germany, with its rampant inflation, shortages, violence, and political instability had put the nation on edge. A suspicious fire in the Reichstag on February 27, 1933, was the final blow and a state of emergency was declared. The Nazis were able to push through the Reichstag Fire Decree in February, and the Enabling Act in March of 1933 - legislation that suspended human rights provided for by the 1919 constitution of the Weimar Republic and allowed Chancellor Adolf Hitler and his cabinet to enact laws without the participation of the Reichstag. Hitler went to be a de-facto dictator until his suicide on April 30, 1945. He had legally hijacked a constitutional government.

An interesting historical story, one that most of us are familiar, but certainly not something that could happen here in the United States. The most powerful nation in the world, economically and militarily, with over two hundred years of successful democratic government. Even when tested: in its earliest days, through the Civil War, and during the Cold War, Democracy not only held its own but spread throughout the world. Surely, we are safe from an unscrupulous individual from usurping of power. Or are we?

A little noticed National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directives, NSPD-51, available on white house's own web site at http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/05/20070509-12.html is entitled National Continuity Policy. It states, in part:

The following NEFs [National Essential Functions] are the foundation for all continuity programs and capabilities and represent the overarching responsibilities of the Federal Government to lead and sustain the Nation during a crisis, and therefore sustaining the following NEFs shall be the primary focus of the Federal Government leadership during and in the aftermath of an emergency that adversely affects the performance of Government Functions…

So the purpose of the directive is to keep the government functioning in the time of crisis. But who will be running the show?

The President shall lead the activities of the Federal Government for ensuring constitutional government. In order to advise and assist the President in that function, the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism (APHS/CT) is hereby designated as the National Continuity Coordinator. The National Continuity Coordinator, in coordination with the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs (APNSA), without exercising directive authority, shall coordinate the development and implementation of continuity policy for executive departments and agencies. The Continuity Policy Coordination Committee (CPCC), chaired by a Senior Director from the Homeland Security Council staff, designated by the National Continuity Coordinator, shall be the main day-to-day forum for such policy coordination.

Some of the responsibilities include: "Protecting against threats to the homeland and bringing to justice perpetrators of crimes or attacks against the United States or its people, property, or interests" and "provision must be made for the acquisition of the resources necessary for continuity operations on an emergency basis". Of course, the details are secret: "This directive and the information contained herein shall be protected from unauthorized disclosure, provided that, except for Annex A, the Annexes attached to this directive are classified and shall be accorded appropriate handling, consistent with applicable Executive Orders." Notably absent are any references to the role of the Legislative or Judicial branches during a state of emergency.

This sounds suspiciously like the legal framework for a Presidential takeover of the government, throw enemies of the state in jail, and takeover whatever resources he/she feels are necessary in the state of emergency. America is already on edge, constantly being reminded that we in the midst of a Global War on Terror and a shooting war in Iraq. The administration, who believes strongly in a strong executive branch, has pushed the bounds of legality - using the excuse of security - by participating in wireless wiretapping, the kidnapping of foreign citizens, the holding of Americans and others indefinitely without trial. They’ve ignored US law and directed the use of water boarding in the Global War on Terror, in spite of the fact that the US has declared water boarding a war crime and prosecuted Japanese prison guards specifically for the act.

Could this be putting into place the legal framework to take the next step? The parallels are eerie. Surely this could only be triggered in the most dire of circumstances, right? The directive does state that is would only occur in the event of a Catastrophic Emergency, which is defined as "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." This rather broad definition, to which pretty much any event could be used to trigger these directives, for example Hurricane Katrina or even the recent economic losses in the sub-prime housing market.

I would like to think that a President wouldn't declare a state of emergency and assume the emergency powers given to them by this decree, but I am skeptical. Prior the invasion of Iraq, I didn't think that any sitting President would go to War except as a means of last resort. Colin Powell's arguments to the UN were largely debunked in the media prior to the war:

• Weapons tubes were determined not to be for nuclear centrifuges, but rather conventional rockets;
• The anthrax and other biological and chemical weapons that were unaccounted for after the Gulf War, were known to have relatively short shelf-life;
• The information on mobile weapons labs were supplied by a German informant, code named "curveball", that were unsubstantiated and, according to German intelligence, highly questionable in nature.

I, like many, assumed that there must be clear and present danger, one that we cannot be told about - perhaps that exact location of a mobile weapons lab (that would presumably be moved upon disclosure) or some knowledge of a program so secret it was only known by a select few and if we let Saddam know we had knowledge of it, it would lead to the loss of our intelligence source. However, I was wrong. Like many, I underestimated the ruthlessness of the administration.

On 9/11 Cheney was in the White house bunker and, with President Bush unavailable, mistakenly thought he had given the order to shoot down United Flight 93 over Pennsylvania. If the Vice President was willing to sacrifice without second thought, a planeload of American citizens for his own safety, is it possible that if the framework were in place and available he would have gone further? If this Presidential Directive was in place, could have the administration assume the levers of Government? Would have they given them back? Or used them until the Global War on Terror was won? Since terror is a tactic and not a group, cause, or people and the administration has admitted there will never be any surrender ceremony, would have this been a takeover that would last indefinitely? Or at least until America was ruined, as in the case of Hitler and Germany?

Although the blogosphere is full of conspiracy theories, I still would like to think that this President may be poorly advised, but is sincere in America and the constitution is sincere. I'd like to believe his motivation for putting this framework in place is the administration's belief that the executive branch should be "restored" to a position as the lead, with the other branches merely acting as occasional breaks to prevent a runaway train. I’m concerned on both accounts: this fruit may be too tempting for some future administration in a time of crisis, and the continuity of Government is important, but it should be continuity of the Constitutional Government including all branches "separate but equal".