|
|
Topic started on 21-2-2007 @ 02:41 PM by grover
|
Stealth bill makes declaring martial law easier
Source Link: www.truthout.org
 Making Martial Law Easier
The New York Times Editorial
Monday 19 February 2007
A disturbing recent phenomenon in Washington is that laws that strike to the heart of American democracy have been passed in the dead of night. So
it was with a provision quietly tucked into the enormous defense budget bill at the Bush administration's behest that makes it easier for a president
to override local control of law enforcement and declare martial law.
The provision, signed into law in October, weakens two obscure but important bulwarks of liberty. One is the doctrine that bars military forces,
including a federalized National Guard, from engaging in law enforcement. Called posse comitatus, it was enshrined in law after the Civil War to
preserve the line between civil government and the military. The other is the Insurrection Act of 1807, which provides the major exemptions to posse
comitatus. It essentially limits a president's use of the military in law enforcement to putting down lawlessness, insurrection and rebellion, where
a state is violating federal law or depriving people of constitutional rights.
The newly enacted provisions upset this careful balance. They shift the focus from making sure that federal laws are enforced to restoring public
order. Beyond cases of actual insurrection, the president may now use military troops as a domestic police force in response to a natural disaster, a
disease outbreak, terrorist attack or to any "other condition."
Changes of this magnitude should be made only after a thorough public airing. But these new presidential powers were slipped into the law without
hearings or public debate. The president made no mention of the changes when he signed the measure, and neither the White House nor Congress consulted
in advance with the nation's governors.
There is a bipartisan bill, introduced by Senators Patrick Leahy, Democrat of Vermont, and Christopher Bond, Republican of Missouri, and backed
unanimously by the nation's governors, that would repeal the stealthy revisions. Congress should pass it. If changes of this kind are proposed in the
future, they must get a full and open debate. (visit the link for the full news article)
Related News Links:
www.nytimes.com
Is there anything that this pathetic little egotist, aka bush minor, won't do to this country?
All republics and democracies are fragile constructs and historically tend to last a couple hundred years maximum but so far we have beat the odds.
There is a time and a place for martial law, such as in periods of great social unrest or some natural catastrophe but for a society such as ours to
remain healthy, they need to be short and most importantly, above board, which this law certainly is not. It really makes me wonder if the little
twerp even intends to step down in 08.
Of course there are those fools who will salute this move without thinking out the consequences; just like there are those, safely in their armchairs
who are gung ho for any and all war we get involved in regardless of how we got there.
[edit on 21-2-2007 by grover]
[edit on 21-2-2007 by grover]
|
copyright & usage
|
Click here for more Breaking Alternative News topics
Hot Topics
|
Top Topics
|
This Week
|
Subscribe
|
Home
|
reply posted on 21-2-2007 @ 03:28 PM by BattleofBatoche
|
Everyone who lives in a so called democratic country needs to stand up and force the Gov't to read all bills out loud before voting on them and stop
the practice of hiding little back door clauses of tyranny in with the baby's bath water.
|
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 21-2-2007 @ 03:38 PM by Damocles
|
not suprised bush slipped it in there...
kinda suprised congress signed it.
is the text of this budget/bill online anywhere?
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 21-2-2007 @ 03:56 PM by grover
|
It was the Republican congress that passed it.... in October. They knew by then they were going to lose big time so....
People just don't understand... karl Rove, Grover Norquist and their ilk have been angling for permanent Republican control of the government for
years now. I do believe that is for all intents and purposes plotting a coup or take over of government and I do believe that is treasonable.
You cannot have a democracy or a republic (unless it is a paper one like one of the Eastern bloc ones during the cold war) unless you have a multiple
of voices, parties and positions to choose from.
|
copyright & usage
|
|
AboveTopSecret.com is advertising supported.
|
reply posted on 21-2-2007 @ 04:16 PM by Justin Oldham
|
Here's a relevent thread I started some time ago about The Future of the Posse Comitatus
Act that you may find useful in this discussion.
There's a been a sneaky trend in government under way for quite some time now that I and others have been warning against.
The Shape Of Things To Come is my CM thread that explains my thinking.
This trend towards greater centralization of power means just one thing. We are fast approaching the day when a U.S. President will feel suitably
compelled to overstep their Constitutional authority. As I have maintained in my published work, this time is not far off. It's quite likely that
whoever the next President is, they will be the one who initiates the crisis.
The fact of the matter is that our leaders have been exploiting terrorism for the
purposes of increasing Federal power, which they hope to keep even after the crisis has passed.
There are more laws in the planning stages that will be implemented as the
opportunity presents itself.
The looting of America will continue for as long as it remains profitable.
Some laws, like this one will be changed with the stroke of a pen to suite the
purposes of the people who now seek total power.
Having said all this, I've got to confess that I'm still an optimist. Forthe time being, we still have
a few options which the dark powers that be haven't seen fit to take away from us.
Does it get worse? Yes. It gets much worse. Until we start having these conversations behind razor wire, we will still have time and opportunity
to act. Do we accept this and go quietly, or, do we do...something else?
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 21-2-2007 @ 04:22 PM by grover
|
excellent stuff Justin. What stuff have you published?
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 21-2-2007 @ 04:38 PM by marg6043
|
Grover the president can sign anything he wants . . . but when it comes to the rights of the union the individual states still holds the power as per
state.
They can deny or accept what the president dictate if the people in the states force their governments to act against it.
Is many states that have made individual amendments to the patriot act and they are within the rights to do so.
So the state can make any amendments in references of any bills.
I think 
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 21-2-2007 @ 07:28 PM by Justin Oldham
|
As per precedent, Federal law supercedes State law. Read your 10th and 11th amendments. The States may challenge any Federal law up to and including
the Supreme Court. If there is no challenge, the precedent stands once the law has been in effect for a period of time sufficient to satisfy the SC
that it has been justly tenured. Side note. Average cost of a single ride to the SC is four million dollars.
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 21-2-2007 @ 08:10 PM by shooterbrody
|
Our government has done many things in the time since sept 11th in the name of "security" and "fighting terrorism".
Here are a few of interest:
1) H.R. 1268 - Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Tsunami Relief, 2005 (Enrolled as Agreed to or
Passed by Both House and Senate)
- This bill includes a section that was once the Real ID Act.
2) H.R. 3162 - Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (USA PATRIOT ACT) Act of
2001 (Enrolled as Agreed to or Passed by Both House and Senate)
3) S. 3622 - North American Investment Fund Act (Introduced in Senate)
- To authorize the President to negotiate the creation of a North American Investment Fund between the Governments of Canada, of Mexico, and of
the United States to increase the economic competitiveness of North America in a global economy.
4) H.R. 3930 - Military Commissions Act of 2006 (Enrolled as Agreed to or Passed by Both House and Senate)
- This bill authorizes trial by military commission for violations of the law of war, and for other purposes.
5) H.R. 5122 - John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Enrolled as Agreed to or Passed by Both House and Senate)
- This bill authorizes the President of the United States to declare Martial Law on the United States of American, and allows the President to
bypass the Pose Comitatus Act.
A link to a site where we monitor our rights
www.mkcaf.us...
I have written letters, I have met personally with my congressional rep. He knows how I feel about these issues. If our leaders do not hear outrage
from normal American citizens all these infringements on our rights,that did not exist before sept. 11th, will pass unopposed.
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 21-2-2007 @ 08:52 PM by Infoholic
|
I asked my Congressional representative on his big "listening tour", about H.R. 5122 - John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2007, and his response was:
Me: "Mr. Congressman, could you elaborate on H.R. 5122 - John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007, please?"
Congressman: "I'm not familiar with that bill."
Me: "Mr. Congressman, you voted to pass this bill."
Congressman: *shaking head* "I'm... I'm... I'm..."
Me: "Mr. Congressman, do you understand that this bill authorizes the President to use the military within US borders?"
Congressman: "Uhhh... I'm not sure of what...."
Me: "Doesn't this bill actually nullify the posse comitatus act?"
Congressman: "Oh, yea, that bill....."
They know what they are doing, folks. Don't let them kid you. Those in Congress today are not going to explain to the general public of what's in
the bills they put together... either they know what they are signing for and they don't want the public opposition, or they have no clue... of
which they should be thrown out on their a$$'s by us... the people.
If you'd like to keep track of what bills are being introduced and what's going on... go here:
House Floor Summary - What's happened on the floor most recently (motions)
Yesterday in Congress - Bills introduced (most recent)
Daily Digest - Summary of the Congressional Floor.
Find your House Representative - Visit your representative's website and contact, contact, and
contact them some more.
Find your Senate Representative - Visit your representative's website
and contact, contact, and contact them some more.
|
copyright & usage
|
|
AboveTopSecret.com is advertising supported.
|
reply posted on 21-2-2007 @ 09:16 PM by jsobecky
|
So many people cried that Bush used Katrina to harm the black population. Nobody cared if the fact was that the governor of NO and mayor of NO fell
asleep at the wheel. If they had done their jobs, most of the misery that followed could have been avoided.
That was the catalyst for this bill: incompetent state management. Why wait for an incompetent governor to call in the NG when people are suffering?
Why wait for a racist mayor when the city is being looted and buses are sitting idle?
Much criticism was heaped upon FEMA after the Katrina storm, when in actuality, it was the fault of LA government.
This bill attempts to prevent future dog and pony shows. When or if the state can't do the job, let's try to avoid another Kathleen Blanco/Ray Nagin
fiasco. People are suffering in a disaster, and they need help now, not later.
In the post-mortem of Katrina, they looked at what went wrong, and developed a plan to avoid that same scenario from happening in the future. Yet you
all try to make it out to be some kind of population control conspiracy.
Please. 
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 21-2-2007 @ 09:36 PM by WestPoint23
|
Originally posted by Justin Oldham
We are fast approaching the day when a U.S. President will feel suitably compelled to overstep their Constitutional authority.
Already been done, and we're still doing just fine, Jackson, Lincoln, Teddy, Wilson, FDR, Nixon etc...
On a side note, I was not born yet but if one remembers the Civil Rights era you will see why the federalization of NG and the use of active military
forces in police roles over state wishes by the POTUS is sometimes necessary.
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 21-2-2007 @ 09:38 PM by jsobecky
|
In your post,you state that an "unwritten tradition" was not followed irt Gen. Hayden's nomination and appointment. From that, you speculate that
there is a conspiracy to nullify Posse Comitatus.
That is so illogical, so silly, that it makes the rest of your post in this thread irrelevant.
"Unwritten traditions" are unwritten traditions. They are not law. To try to suggest that this is somehow subverting the law is sensationalistic and
dishonest.
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 21-2-2007 @ 10:44 PM by DYepes
|
Does anyone even remember what happened in New Orleans? The local police were helpless, and many of them just up and left. I mean considering what had
happened, I dont blame them for looking out for themselves and their family, but that leaves a void that needs to be filled.
What are you going to do, bring in the NYPD, the LAPD? From a neighboring municipilaty that is dealing with the same mess from the same disaster?
All police forces should be Federalized immediately anyways, because the only difference at the moment is in the description. If you commit a Federal
crime, the local police will still show up. They are all armed the same way. The only problem is the databases are not networked.
What does this mean? It means certain criminals wanted for crimes in other states, or even cities, can slip right through after being arrested for a
petty crime. It happens everyday. Federalizing the police force makes it easier to allocate the units where they need to be, and to identify ANY
criminal threat to a local community no matter where the person happens to be.
I am all for it.
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 21-2-2007 @ 11:24 PM by syrinx high priest
|
wow, that's total BS. reminds me of how the fed was created on christmas eve
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 22-2-2007 @ 12:32 AM by shooterbrody
|
That was the catalyst for this bill: incompetent state management. Why wait for an incompetent governor to call in the NG when people are suffering?
Why wait for a racist mayor when the city is being looted and buses are sitting idle?
It is not the FEDERAL GOVERNMENTS responsibility to account for incompetent state management. If it were there would be no local elections, only
federal elections with federal appointees to take care of the local positions. You can not protect the local voting public from making bad electorial
choices. The constitution sets clear laws as to states rights and federal rights. States "militias" are clearly under the direction of the highest
office in the state:the governor.
en.wikipedia.org...
The law supports the checks and balances system the founding fathers put in place. IMHO it is intended to prevent the "commander in chief" from
using military forces inside the U.S. except in very limited circumstances.
Posse comitatus is now null in cases of natural disaster, disease outbreak, terrorist attack, or "any other condition." This arguably destroys the
original act outright, particularly in the context of a war on terror that is indefinite in nature.
wikipedia
With the questionable judgement used by the FEDERAL government in the past 8 years; I am not inclined to give anymore power to the executive branch,
as it would be that branch to determine what constitutes the aforementioned conditions.
This bill attempts to prevent future dog and pony shows. When or if the state can't do the job, let's try to avoid another Kathleen Blanco/Ray Nagin
fiasco. People are suffering in a disaster, and they need help now, not later.
No this bill takes power from the state and gives it to the fed. The same problem arose in the 1860's and that did not turn out well.
If you support an entitlement society than this is a bill you want to see. Me, I prefer a seperation of powers and a system of checks and balances as
it was drawn up to be in the beginning.
|
copyright & usage
|
|
AboveTopSecret.com is advertising supported.
|
reply posted on 22-2-2007 @ 01:37 AM by DCP
|
1)I would blame this bill on Political Correctness over someone wanting to take over the world. After Katrina the government took it up the... so
they are making a knee jerk reaction. Most of the people in New Orleans made Darwinistic mistakes. Since it is not politically correct to blame
individuals for there own stupid behavior it's always someone elses fault(big business, government, or whomever) If you see that a Category 5
hurricane is close by...ummm leave. (Some people cannot, that is when the local authorities need to help, but they didn't i.e the school buses that
got flooded)
Another Darwinistic mistake...if you live in a hurricanes area you should have some supplies...some bottle water maybe. I think i bought 50 bottles
of 16 oz water for $10 on sale. (cheep water is still clean water)
So how many people reading this things that if you don't leave the path of a major hurricane and you don't have supplies that you will be A-OK.
Somehow all of this is the FEDERAL GOVERNMENTS fault... The feds do what they always do...dumb things down instead of telling the people to raise
their standards(public schools anyone) Next time a group of Dee Dee Dee decides to do something stupid the federal government can act the best they
can as fast as they can(how good and how fast is another debate)
2) Just because there is a bill out there saying that martial law is easier doesn't mean that the president will do it. I believe France in their
constitution talks about some form of martial law, but i always think they surrender before this happens
3) Infoholic...your asking the impossible. To read, understand and REMEMBER every bill that comes through the House. Cannot be done, that's why
they have a staff.
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 22-2-2007 @ 03:49 AM by Justin Oldham
|
*Puts on raincoat and leaves forum*
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 22-2-2007 @ 05:28 AM by jsobecky
|
Originally posted by shooterbrody
That was the catalyst for this bill: incompetent state management. Why wait for an incompetent governor to call in the NG when people are suffering?
Why wait for a racist mayor when the city is being looted and buses are sitting idle?
It is not the FEDERAL GOVERNMENTS responsibility to account for incompetent state management. If it were there would be no local elections, only
federal elections with federal appointees to take care of the local positions. You can not protect the local voting public from making bad electorial
choices. The constitution sets clear laws as to states rights and federal rights. States "militias" are clearly under the direction of the highest
office in the state:the governor.
< snip>
No this bill takes power from the state and gives it to the fed. The same problem arose in the 1860's and that did not turn out well.
If you support an entitlement society than this is a bill you want to see. Me, I prefer a seperation of powers and a system of checks and balances as
it was drawn up to be in the beginning.
Perhaps you don't remember what happened with Katrina. People DIED because the governor and the mayor were incompetent.
And then, of course, the blame shifted to Bush, as an attempt to take the attention away from the blunders of the local mismanagement.
If the governor cannot handle the job, should people die because of it? No. Therefore, there is nothing wrong with taking control of the situation and
bringing in the NG at the behest of the President.
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 22-2-2007 @ 06:11 AM by niteboy82
|
Originally posted by jsobecky
Perhaps you don't remember what happened with Katrina. People DIED because the governor and the mayor were incompetent.
People died because the levees broke and the levees were built by a federal group who built them to substandard levels.
And then, of course, the blame shifted to Bush, as an attempt to take the attention away from the blunders of the local
mismanagement.
No one held a gun to your president's head and made him say he was going to solve the problems. If he couldn't help in the first place, he never
should have said he would. Your president got blamed because he was telling everyone about what a great job Brownie did, and how he was sending aid
down immediately. He didn't have to say those things, if he didn't want to get involved he should have kept his mouth shut. 
Therefore, there is nothing wrong with taking control of the situation and bringing in the NG at the behest of the President.
Because that isn't a right that should be held by the president. 
|
copyright & usage
|
|
