Talk:Executive Order 13603

Comments

This is the ref I wanted to put in as a reputable source for criticism of the order: http://www.examiner.com/finance-examiner-in-national/president-obama-signs-executive-order-allowing-for-control-over-all-us-resources, but it was tagged as spam. I put in a request to allow it through. Kdammers (talk) 02:07, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

• There are many more sources from the right, but the ones I see are mostly blog-type comments, which are legitimate expressions of opinions, which is what I'm trying to show -- but I think that would be seen as original research. One that's a bit different is http://www.offthegridnews.com/2012/03/19/obama%E2%80%99s-%E2%80%9Cnational-defense-resources-preparedness%E2%80%9D-executive-order-minor-change-or-prelude-to-martial-law/, but it hasn't been vetted in Wik. Kdammers (talk) 02:14, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

This seems rather slanted. The opposing view is presented quite briefly and dismissed with a considerably longer talking point style rebuttal. Admittedly, I am not fully informed of what's involved in this executive order (more specifics in the article would be nice), but if it has the potential of being a big power grab, then it deserves some attention. For that matter, what I would like to know is, if this is "nothing more than a restatement of policy that has been in place for decades and grants no authority to the President or the Cabinet that they don’t already have under existing law" -- then why was this executive order necessary in the first place? Afalbrig (talk) 04:12, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Afalbrig: It was necessary because the structure of the Federal government has changed since the previous order was written. The previous order had references to FEMA, which was an independent agency at the time, but had since become part of the DHS. —MiguelMunoz (talk) 07:33, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Comment on additions by 66.191.70.10

WP user Kdammers left the following on my talk page: Hello. You recently removed most of the content from the article on Executive Order 13603, noting that there was no ref. I looked at the first link that you removed. It was to an op-ed article in Forbes. A quick scan revealed that much or all the the removed content was in that Forbes article. Forbes is a well-known magazine. So, I think the material should be put back, but with some of the "attitude" removed. Kdammers (talk) 07:30, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I'll respond here as it'll be about the article content. I found out about Executive Order 13603 via an e-mail forwarded to me that was from the Tea Party. You can view the e-mail by Googling for "Executive Order 13603 was recently uncovered by the Tea Party Research Team". I was curious as to what Executive Order 13603 was and looked it up on Wikipedia. The content that 66.191.70.10 had added was nearly identical to the the Tea Party's message and so I deleted it as unsourced/NPOV.

After I deleted it I realized that there had been links in the middle of the section and those were the sources. The Forbes editorial content was also very similar in structure to the Tea Party's message.

The present WP article content appears to be fairly NPOV in terms of presenting the pro and con. The Tea Party's interpretation, and spin, is extreme with most of it being speculation on possible consequences for events that have not happened.

I was curious on if anyone other than the Tea Party was interested in Executive Order 13603 and did a Google News search. At present there are three hits which were a blog post, anonymous comments unrelated to the article, and a letter to the editor. A Google News search for the range Jan 1, 2012–Sep 20, 2012 for '"Executive Order 13603" Romney' gets one hit which is the Forbes op/ed from 4/29/2012. If the Republicans and the Romney campaign is interested in this then they have not made it public.

The Forbes Op/ed by is already being used in the Wikipedia article as a source. Thus it appears we already have balanced coverage.

I'd like to fix up that red link for "Executive Order 10421". this search shows it's from December 31, 1952 and was revoked by Executive Order 11051 (wikisource:Executive Order 11051) by President Kennedy on September 27, 1962. Executive Order 11051 looks similar to Obama's Executive Order 13603. 11051 in turn was revoked by Executive Order 11490 (wikisource:Executive Order 11490) by Richard Nixon on October 28, 1969. Nixon's 11490 was replaced by Obama's 13603.

The Tea Party is not claiming that President Obama has given himself increased powers over previous versions of this executive order. That's further evidence that the Tea Party's view of 13603 should not be given WP:undo weight. --Marc Kupper|talk 18:50, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Weasel Words

"Some have labeled the executive order totalitarian and a preparation for peace-time martial law"

Anyone care to reword this statement as per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch. This is pretty much the example from that Manual asks us to avoid. ("some people say") So we should clearly state who we mean by "Some have labeled" who has labeled? Someone in authority or an expert on the subject? If so, we should name them =) Sketchee (talk) 05:25, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

EO number 10421 and 11490

The article excerpt is shown below:

"While some have labeled the executive order totalitarian and a preparation for peace-time martial law,[3] it has also been called a consolidation of existing laws and directives, being based on Executive Order 10421 and Executive Order 11490.[4][5]"

This is nonsense. Both 10421 and 11490 are revoked by EO # 12656 by Ronald Reagan on Nov. 18, 1988, (see sec. 2901, last page), a small part (sec. 401(3)-(4)) of which has been revoked my Obama's EO# 13603 on March 22, 2012. Therefore, the whole thing is deleted.

In fact, this whole article in its entirety should be deleted. http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/ndrp.asp

Mdoc7 (talk) 14:04, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

s:Executive Order 12657 only seems to have 9 sections, and does not mention 10421 or 11490. Did you mean a different EO? Rwendland (talk) 15:18, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it's a typo. EO# 12656, corrected above. Mdoc7 (talk) 17:01, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

This Article Has Problems, and could be improved

It's been chopped down to nothing, and doesn't even explain what it is. I have some suggestions for fixing the article.

1. Base the article on the text of the EO itself, rather than reporting about it. That includes things like the purpose. While the EO may have relationship with other EO's it is also written as a standalone piece, and the order itself explains what it is and is not. Thus explain (using quotes from the EO mostly, what it does. Instead of eplaining it as "a modification of another EO".

2. Include a "controversy" section after the fairly dispassionate fact based description above that includes the main claims of those who see the act as troublesome, and the main rebbutal points to those claims. I think it is fair to assume that many people coming to this page will do so because they have encountered a message or post making claims based on the EO.

first paragraph: (pretty good, unchanged)

The National Defense Resources Preparedness executive order (Executive Order 13603) is an order of the United States' President signed by President Barack Obama on March 16, 2012.[1] The purpose of this executive order is to delegate authority and address national defense resource policies and programs under the Defense Production Act of 1950.[2] Executive Order 13603 provides the framework and authority for the allocation or appropriation of resources, materials and services to promote national defense.[3]

second paragraph - problems, re-written

The Order is one in a series of EO's, issued to provide guildelines and delegate authority within the executive branch of the United States federal government in the event that the Defense Production Act of 1950 is used. The Defense Production Act (Pub.L. 81–774) is a United States federal law enacted on September 8, 1950, in response to the start of the Korean War. It was part of a broad civil defense and war mobilization effort in the context of the Cold War. Changes in the structure of the Federal Government, particularly the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, necessitated updating the EOs in this area.[5]

The Act contains three major sections. The first authorizes the President to require businesses to sign contracts or fulfill orders deemed necessary for national defense. The second authorizes the President to establish mechanisms (such as regulations, orders or agencies) to allocate materials, services and facilities to promote national defense. The third section authorizes the President to control the civilian economy so that scarce and/or critical materials necessary to the national defense effort are available for defense needs.[1]

EO 13603 fulfills the Presidents obligation for establishing the mechanisms and details of implementation of the Act, in the event it is invoked. The act was invoked during the Korean war, and sporadically during the Cold War. In the 21st century it has been invoked only once. In 2011 it was reported that the law was invoked to force telecommunications companies, under criminal penalties, to provide detailed equipment outlines to the Commerce Department’s Bureau of Industry and Security, for the purpose of understanding and countering suspected Chinese electronic espionage on these companies networks.

Executive Order 13603 delegates to the National Security Council, Homeland Security Council, and National Economic Council the policymaking role for consideration and formulation of national defense resource preparedness policy, and delegates to Cabinet Secretaries responsibility for organization of individual sectors. Final authority under the EO lies with the President himself.

In the event of a war or national emergency requiring the use of the Defense Production Act of 1950, the secretary of Energy could require utilities, for instance, to accept a government contract that prioritized delivery of electricity in the way that the policymakers deemed essential, such as supplying military production or bases. In a similar manner the secretaries of of Health and Human Services, Transportation, Defense and Commerce have responsibility for specified areas.

The Act may be invoked only in support of programs that have been determined in writing as necessary or appropriate to promote the national defense. Once invoked the Secretary of the individual departments have broad powers and may " control the general distribution of any material (including applicable services) in the civilian market." Other mechanisms that are authorized to ensure production and availablility of critical resources include: loans, loan guarantees, commitments to purchase, and purchase for stockpiling, as well as provision for the development of production capabilities.

The above is my draft of what the replacement article will look like, using my outline described above. It does not yet contain the controversy section.

Please comment on my proposed revisions. If there are not objections over the next couple of weeks I will update the article with the draft above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.22.76.12 (talk) 20:48, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

ZeroXero (talk) 20:53, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I realize this article is old, but I noticed that immediately as well. The first half tells what it is, no speculation or opinion. The second, however, seemed to try to kinda justify it. Trying to make it sound less important. If all the laws were put forth at once, it would have a major impact. Litteraly doing what Hitler did to take over Germany getting rid of their constitution. The fact that 99.9% of the population doesn't know about it makes it sound scary as is. I wouldn't put any of this in an article and I'm not whispering of a conspiracy, whether it is or isn't, this is an order people should know about, hearing it from a non bias view. Let them make of it as they will. I just don't see any reason a peacetime martial law should ever be implemented. Could argue economy threats, but America's been through that before with the need. It wasn't pleasant, but neither would it be if this were put forth. EnemyTortoise15 (talk) 03:28, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

America's been through it WITHOUT the need, Sorry EnemyTortoise15 (talk) 03:30, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

References

Don't confuse the Order with the Act

This article is about Executive Order 13603. It is related to the Defense Production Act, but the two were written 62 years apart, by different branches of government. In the text of this article, they are referred to as "the Order" and "the Act", respectively. There was a recent edit (which I'm about to correct) which confused the two. The Order never used the word "Requisition" or alluded to that power. Thundermaker (talk) 18:05, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Source

When did Snopes.com become a reliable source? The website is neither academic, or a news source. There appears to be several opinions regarding it being reliable or self-published.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 15:38, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Snopes itself is well-sourced, and it covers silly rumors that mainstream news won't touch. Our own article here glosses over the viral e-mail that claims this order is a power-grab, alluding to "a few initial claims otherwise". Most of the traffic coming to this article is probably a result of the rumor. Of course we should copy the sources from Snopes to back up the facts we assert. But I think we should also point to Snopes (either sourced as it is or in an External Links section) because it addresses the rumors directly. Thundermaker (talk) 13:43, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Snopes

how is snopes considered an accurate source? 2600:1017:B111:CA93:193B:7757:F3BD:4AC5 (talk) 17:34, 27 June 2023 (UTC)