'Is Y2K a National Emergency?
By Jim Lord
November 16, 1998
A recent report (Oct 8, 1998) from Congressman
Steven Horn's Subcommittee on Government
Management, Information and Technology provides a
detailed status of where the US Federal Government
and the nation stand vis-à-vis the Year 2000
Computing Problem. In the report, Congressman Horn
makes these statements:
"It is now clear that a large number of Federal computing systems will
simply not be prepared for January 2000. At the same time, the
utilities industry, the financial services industry, the
telecommunications industry, vital modes of transportation, and other
indispensable industrial sectors are all at risk."
"It is time for the President to declare that the Year 2000 Problem is a
National Priority. If sufficient progress is not made by an intermediate
deadline, he may even need to escalate the Year 2000 Problem to a
National Emergency." (my emphasis)
Could the Year 2000 Computing Crisis be used as justification for the
declaration of a national emergency? What is a national emergency
and what legal mechanism exists for its declaration? These are
delicate questions because many ultra-conservative political
organizations believe the government might use the imposition of a
national emergency for sinister purposes. Many Internet sites operated
by these groups discuss various Presidential Executive Orders that are
construed to give the President extraordinary powers to impose strict
control over virtually all aspects of the American society and economy.
For this reason, the subject demands specific, hard documentation
instead of opinion, interpretation or speculation. To begin, most of
these sites quote a multitude of Executive Orders (10998 and 11490
for example) that are no longer in force. A visit to the National Records
and Archives Administration web site provides a historical record of all
Executive Orders as well as their current status as found in the Federal
Register.
The current, in-force Executive Order (EO) governing the subject
supersedes all those above. It is EO 12656, "Assignment of
Emergency Preparedness Responsibilities," signed by Ronald Reagan
on November 18, 1988. The official document appeared in the Federal
Register, Volume 53. No. 228 on November 23, 1988
For a copy of this document, as well as EO 12472, which governs
telecommunications, visit the National Communications System (NCS)
website
The Preamble of EO 12656, in Section 101(a) defines a "national
security emergency" as,
"... any occurrence, including natural disaster, military attack,
technological emergency, (my emphasis) or other emergency, that
seriously degrades or seriously threatens the national security of the
United States."
This statement seems to clearly indicate the President could use Y2K
(should it cause civil disorder or widespread infrastructure failures, for
example) to justify the declaration of a national emergency. So, what
happens if he chooses this course of action? Here is a sampling of the
language used in these directives.
"(Provide for the) emergency management and control of civil
transportation resources and systems, including privately owned
automobiles, (my emphasis) urban mass transit (and) inter-modal
transportation systems." (EO 12656)
"Develop national plans to set priorities and allocate (my emphasis)
health, mental health, and medical services resources among civilian
and military claimants." (EO 12656)
"(Develop) plans for the management, control, and allocation (my
emphasis) of all usable waters from all sources within the jurisdiction
of the United States." (EO 12656)
"Develop plans and issue guidance to ensure effective use of civilian
work force resources during national security emergencies." (EO
12656)
"Develop plans for the operation of privately owned (my emphasis)
railroads, motor carriers, inland waterway transportation systems and
public storage facilities and services in national security
emergencies." (EO 12656)
"(Develop plans for) the mobilization and use of the Nation's
commercial, government and privately owned telecommunications
resources (my emphasis) in order to meet national security or
emergency preparedness requirements." (EO 12472)
As can be readily seen, these executive orders effectively empower the
President to nationalize (and thus, control) all businesses and even
some personal property. Congress has no role in the declaration itself
nor is it necessary for them to give approval. After six months, they may
review the action.
Many conservative political analysts believe executive orders are
unconstitutional at their core but the orders have been used
continuously since Abraham Lincoln's presidency. I suspect, therefore,
the Supreme Court would uphold the constitutionality of the system if it
were brought before the court.
To put the above into a Y2K context, consider the following quote from
the October 27, 1998 "Globe and Mail" newspaper (Toronto and
Ottawa),
"The Canadian Armed Forces have been ordered to spend the next
14 months preparing for what could be their biggest peacetime
deployment - tens of thousands of troops spread across the country
and frigates standing by in major ports - in case computer problems
in 2000 bring civil chaos."
"Rules for the use of force are being drafted should soldiers have to
make arrests or back up police dealing with riots and looting."
Will there be a declaration of a national security emergency in the
United States? Well, Congress has certainly sent an encouraging
message and our neighbors to the north have been most forthcoming
about their plans. I would say the chances are very high the same will
be done here. I suspect that the "spooks" in the basement of the
Pentagon are well along in their plans for a mobilization of our own
troops in preparation for Y2K riots and disturbances. Will the plans be
made public? Probably not. It seems to be the policy of the Clinton
Administration to keep the lid on Y2K to prevent panic. I guess I would
ask this question.
Has there been panic in Canada?
What we face here is the great policy debate of Y2K. Should the
government tell us the truth about Y2K and their plans for management
of the crisis? If they do, can we take it in stride without panic? It seems
that the government believes, if we know the truth, we will crash the
banking system and the stock market. And then burn down the cities, I
suppose. I would propose, however, the best way to prevent these
things from happening is to let people act rationally on the basis of
knowledge rather than irrationally based on suspicion and rumor.
In "Roll Call," online, Senator Robert Bennett said, not long ago, "The
size and scope of the Y2K crisis is still unknown. What is known is that
it has the potential to be a major national disaster. We can hope for the
best, but we must not rule out preparation for the worst."
That statement concisely describes what the Y2K policy of this nation
should be. The longer we delay the preparations called for above, the
more severe will be the results if Y2K does turn out badly. The "happy
face" put on by John Koskinen and the avoidance of the Y2K issue by
Bill Clinton, Al Gore and the congressional leadership is destructive. It
prolongs the denial that is still so prevalent across the country.
At this point, the greatest danger facing this nation from the Year 2000
Computing Crisis is the growing likelihood of gross federal
mismanagement.
------------------
This Week's Tip: Send a copy of this message to your local
newspaper and to all your elected officials, both local and national. Ask
them how they would feel about National Guard troops in their streets?
Browse the Y2K Tip of the Week Archives for previous editions of this
column, and see many more practical Y2K Tips such as these in my
book, A Survival Guide for the Year 2000 Problem, a sample of
which can be previewed at www.SurviveY2K.com.
y2ktimebomb.com |
