3,4 (government response following a dominipede)

GOVERNMENT REACTION

This documentary is admittedly very U.S.-centric.  I needed to give it a regional context and bring my own life experiences into the equation.  But yes, I am cognizant of the notion that an AGS or dominipede could very well occur outside the U.S.  Similar events (text induced panics) have already transpired in many nations.  This isn't a new phenomenon by any means which makes it all the more frustrating.

Post-dominipede, I would predict an enormous upheaval within the U.S. govt., basically because you cannot use the excuse of bureaucracy as a shield.  Nor is it wise to plead complete ignorance.  The existence of this documentary and the manner in which it was submitted should be sufficient in exposing an unacceptable level of incompetence.  It is intentionally designed to expose the deniability of the "how could we have known" argument across the board.  If you think about it, there are some eerie overtones very similar to the Bin Laden "determined to strike in America" memo. 

An accidental side-benefit to the creation a documentary, assuming it's accurate, is that it will likely expose some of our leaders as self-serving cowards.  If you're aware of the existence of this documentary and are afraid or unwilling to admit it, that's bad.  But even worse, if you did view it and purposely deny ever having watched it, that really speaks volumes.  Because it directly infers that you're more concerned with political survival and your own selfish interests, rather than the safety of your constituents and welfare of the American people.  The American public deserves bold and brave leaders, not just those who can buy the office seeking self-aggrandizement and accumulation of power for its own sake.

If the dominipede happens in the near future, I would predict immediate resignations or firings of the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, the Chairman of the FCC and possibly the Director of the FBI.  Presidential impeachment proceedings based on the blatant level of inaction would likely be part of the mix as the politics of division would quickly emerge front and center.  Don't forget Rahm Emmanuel's motto "You never want a serious crisis to go to waste."  This would become the rallying cry of the minority party.  Kind of ironic (if it happens during an Obama administration) that it would potentially come full circle based upon the words of the mayor of Chicago.

I'll even go one step further with the predictions.  Obviously, lawsuits would likely be lobbied against the govt. and I think such a class-action case would be fast tracked straight to the Supreme Court.  My hunch is that the court would dismiss such a class-action suit.   They would rule that an AGS or dominipede was an event too hypothetical in nature.  You cannot hold the federal govt. accountable for every foreseeable tragedy that MIGHT happen.  And too place that high a burden of safety upon the federal govt. is an unreasonable expectation.  Just thought I'd throw that in there because it would take a long time to resolve this mess.  

And I'm well aware of the notion that someone might use the mere existence of this documentary as a political weapon to undermine the current administration, largely due to the lose-lose proposition.  When exposed to this information, from a political standpoint, there's very little upside.  You're either accused of unnecessary fear-mongering, an elitist stance (the general population is too stupid to know the difference between a real bomb threat and a hoax - the president must think the general population is really stupid) or just blatant incompetence.  Either way, if  you acknowledge the AGS and it unfolds on your watch... you own it.  Your administration takes the blame.

This was only intended to be viewed by members of Congress.  But I'm not naive.  I imagine it could be used to further the agenda of the party not currently in power.  If it's used to establish temporary leverage, I can live with that.  Judging from history, the pendulum will probably swing back.  This is not about partisan politics.  This is about saving lives and preventing a worst case scenario catastrophe.

In the event of the dominipede, you'll likely hear 1 of 3 govt. narratives. 

Plan A. - (likely) That a plan to combat the AGS was in the formative stages of being developed.  My participation in the matter created problems and hindered the eventual implementation and/or solution.  To discuss these matters openly would be a violation of existing cybersecurity laws designed to protect the general public.  Basically, it's the age-old defense - we can't show you "our hand" let alone "our cards."  It's simply a matter of national security. 

or

Plan B. - The govt. had a "secret plan" in place to mitigate the dominipede, but my actions directly compromised it.  I doubt the U.S. govt. would explore this avenue in the aftermath of a dominipede because not only would it reek of desperation, the media would be morally compelled to closely examine and try to discredit it.  Public distrust of the federal govt. would likely be at a "fever pitch" in the aftermath of a dominipede.  To take an absolutist approach to such a complex, overreaching problem wouldn't make a whole lot of sense.

or

Plan C. - The govt. is NOT negligent because nobody could have ever fathomed of such an "X" event.  However, with it being public knowledge that the entire US Congress was sent this DVD, that might be a really tough sell.

I'm also aware that a dominipede would force the federal govt to resolve other key issues:

* States vs. Federal rights when it comes to large scale, heavily populated events.  Does the federal govt have the direct authority to evacuate an area and supersede the judgement of an incident commander on the ground?  Specifically, who has the authority to make these decisions.

* What exactly constitutes a credible threat.  Under what circumstances does the federal govt have the authority to directly contact its citizens through cellular devices.  How fast can they do it, to how many people, in how big an area.

* Is there a line in the sand between dangerous free speech and dangerous hypothetical free speech?  Are there certain national security issues that can never be openly discussed?