Political Crossfire Forums

[wyldejackyl]

http://sf.indymedia.org/news/2006/10/1732834.php

****
In a stealth maneuver, President Bush has signed into law a provision which, according to Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont), will actually encourage the President to declare federal martial law (1). It does so by revising the Insurrection Act, a set of laws that limits the President's ability to deploy troops within the United States. The Insurrection Act (10 U.S.C.331 -335) has historically, along with the Posse Comitatus Act (18 U.S.C.1385), helped to enforce strict prohibitions on military involvement in domestic law enforcement. With one cloaked swipe of his pen, Bush is seeking to undo those prohibitions.

Public Law 109-364, or the "John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007" (H.R.5122) (2), which was signed by the commander in chief on October 17th, 2006, in a private Oval Office ceremony, allows the President to declare a "public emergency" and station troops anywhere in America and take control of state-based National Guard units without the consent of the governor or local authorities, in order to "suppress public disorder."

President Bush seized this unprecedented power on the very same day that he signed the equally odious Military Commissions Act of 2006. In a sense, the two laws complement one another. One allows for torture and detention abroad, while the other seeks to enforce acquiescence at home, preparing to order the military onto the streets of America. Remember, the term for putting an area under military law enforcement control is precise; the term is "martial law."

Section 1076 of the massive Authorization Act, which grants the Pentagon another $500-plus-billion for its ill-advised adventures, is entitled, "Use of the Armed Forces in Major Public Emergencies." Section 333, "Major public emergencies; interference with State and Federal law" states that "the President may employ the armed forces, including the National Guard in Federal service, to restore public order and enforce the laws of the United States when, as a result of a natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident, or other condition in any State or possession of the United States, the President determines that domestic violence has occurred to such an extent that the constituted authorities of the State or possession are incapable of ("refuse" or "fail" in) maintaining public order, "in order to suppress, in any State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy."

For the current President, "enforcement of the laws to restore public order" means to commandeer guardsmen from any state, over the objections of local governmental, military and local police entities; ship them off to another state; conscript them in a law enforcement mode; and set them loose against "disorderly" citizenry - protesters, possibly, or those who object to forced vaccinations and quarantines in the event of a bio-terror event.

The law also facilitates militarized police round-ups and detention of protesters, so called "illegal aliens," "potential terrorists" and other "undesirables" for detention in facilities already contracted for and under construction by Halliburton. That's right. Under the cover of a trumped-up "immigration emergency" and the frenzied militarization of the southern border, detention camps are being constructed right under our noses, camps designed for anyone who resists the foreign and domestic agenda of the Bush administration.

An article on "recent contract awards" in a recent issue of the slick, insider "Journal of Counterterrorism & Homeland Security International" reported that "global engineering and technical services powerhouse KBR [Kellog, Brown & Root] announced in January 2006 that its Government and Infrastructure division was awarded an Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract to support U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) facilities in the event of an emergency." "With a maximum total value of $385 million over a five year term," the report notes, "the contract is to be executed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers," "for establishing temporary detention and processing capabilities to augment existing ICE Detention and Removal Operations (DRO) - in the event of an emergency influx of immigrants into the U.S., or to support the rapid development of new programs." The report points out that "KBR is the engineering and construction subsidiary of Halliburton." (3) So, in addition to authorizing another $532.8 billion for the Pentagon, including a $70-billion "supplemental provision" which covers the cost of the ongoing, mad military maneuvers in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other places, the new law, signed by the president in a private White House ceremony, further collapses the historic divide between the police and the military: a tell-tale sign of a rapidly consolidating police state in America, all accomplished amidst ongoing U.S. imperial pretensions of global domination, sold to an "emergency managed" and seemingly willfully gullible public as a "global war on terrorism."

Make no mistake about it: the de-facto repeal of the Posse Comitatus Act (PCA) is an ominous assault on American democratic tradition and jurisprudence. The 1878 Act, which reads, "Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both," is the only U.S. criminal statute that outlaws military operations directed against the American people under the cover of 'law enforcement.' As such, it has been the best protection we've had against the power-hungry intentions of an unscrupulous and reckless executive, an executive intent on using force to enforce its will.

Unfortunately, this past week, the president dealt posse comitatus, along with American democracy, a near fatal blow. Consequently, it will take an aroused citizenry to undo the damage wrought by this horrendous act, part and parcel, as we have seen, of a long train of abuses and outrages perpetrated by this authoritarian administration.

Despite the unprecedented and shocking nature of this act, there has been no outcry in the American media, and little reaction from our elected officials in Congress. On September 19th, a lone Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont) noted that 2007's Defense Authorization Act contained a "widely opposed provision to allow the President more control over the National Guard [adopting] changes to the Insurrection Act, which will make it easier for this or any future President to use the military to restore domestic order WITHOUT the consent of the nation's governors."

Senator Leahy went on to stress that, "we certainly do not need to make it easier for Presidents to declare martial law. Invoking the Insurrection Act and using the military for law enforcement activities goes against some of the central tenets of our democracy. One can easily envision governors and mayors in charge of an emergency having to constantly look over their shoulders while someone who has never visited their communities gives the orders."

A few weeks later, on the 29th of September, Leahy entered into the Congressional Record that he had "grave reservations about certain provisions of the fiscal Year 2007 Defense Authorization Bill Conference Report," the language of which, he said, "subverts solid, longstanding posse comitatus statutes that limit the military's involvement in law enforcement, thereby making it easier for the President to declare martial law." This had been "slipped in," Leahy said, "as a rider with little study," while "other congressional committees with jurisdiction over these matters had no chance to comment, let alone hold hearings on, these proposals."

In a telling bit of understatement, the Senator from Vermont noted that "the implications of changing the (Posse Comitatus) Act are enormous". "There is good reason," he said, "for the constructive friction in existing law when it comes to martial law declarations. Using the military for law enforcement goes against one of the founding tenets of our democracy. We fail our Constitution, neglecting the rights of the States, when we make it easier for the President to declare martial law and trample on local and state sovereignty."

Senator Leahy's final ruminations: "Since hearing word a couple of weeks ago that this outcome was likely, I have wondered how Congress could have gotten to this point. It seems the changes to the Insurrection Act have survived the Conference because the Pentagon and the White House want it."

The historic and ominous re-writing of the Insurrection Act, accomplished in the dead of night, which gives Bush the legal authority to declare martial law, is now an accomplished fact.

The Pentagon, as one might expect, plays an even more direct role in martial law operations. Title XIV of the new law, entitled, "Homeland Defense Technology Transfer Legislative Provisions," authorizes "the Secretary of Defense to create a Homeland Defense Technology Transfer Consortium to improve the effectiveness of the Department of Defense (DOD) processes for identifying and deploying relevant DOD technology to federal, State, and local first responders."

In other words, the law facilitates the "transfer" of the newest in so-called "crowd control" technology and other weaponry designed to suppress dissent from the Pentagon to local militarized police units. The new law builds on and further codifies earlier "technology transfer" agreements, specifically the 1995 DOD-Justice Department memorandum of agreement achieved back during the Clinton-Reno regime.(4)

It has become clear in recent months that a critical mass of the American people have seen through the lies of the Bush administration; with the president's polls at an historic low, growing resistance to the war Iraq, and the Democrats likely to take back the Congress in mid-term elections, the Bush administration is on the ropes. And so it is particularly worrying that President Bush has seen fit, at this juncture to, in effect, declare himself dictator.
*****


Wow, now that's scary. I wonder what the anti-gun people and the "that can't happen here" people say to this? Is our president pursuing honest intentions? :roll: :roll:

[Dennis]

I expect no less from someone like Bush. I don't know what kind of America Bush is living in but I don't recall the America I know being based on such control. Don't worry, when the Democrats take over, hopefully some of this will be reversed.

I'm reminded of non-supporters of the Patriot Act (such as myself) who often cited that one of the biggest problems with the Patriot Act was that it was/could be the beginning of something much, much worse - the government slowly and stealthfully moving toward complete control.

With the recent bill Bush has signed in, it looks like we are beginning to be stood proven!

If anyone has not seen the movie V for Vendetta, I highly recommend that you rent it, that way you can be prepared for what our future will be like should people like Bush and his cronies continue to be in office.

[Fido]

But it's going to be law, right? Not like now where we have to obey the law, and he does not? I don't like it when my government is scared of the people. First, we should not seem so threatening, and we should realize governments are easier to change than minds. Maybe I did not say that as intended. I mean, all you have to do is change minds to change the government, and since the government wants to help change minds by not working, it is the indirect approach that is most likely to effect a change. But a scared government is likely to hurt people out of fear of losing authority. When they are not scared they are almost human, and when scared they have no thought of human. Look a Waco. What exactly was the rush? Why not relax the perimeter until some one leaves to go bowl? No; once they get scared, some one has to die. The government must be protected from fear. Let us accept a larger measure of fear so we may feel safe from our government.

[TANSTAAFL]

Dennis wrote: I expect no less from someone like Bush. I don't know what kind of America Bush is living in but I don't recall the America I know being based on such control. Don't worry, when the Democrats take over, hopefully some of this will be reversed.

I'm reminded of non-supporters of the Patriot Act (such as myself) who often cited that one of the biggest problems with the Patriot Act was that it was/could be the beginning of something much, much worse - the government slowly and stealthfully moving toward complete control.

With the recent bill Bush has signed in, it looks like we are beginning to be stood proven!

If anyone has not seen the movie V for Vendetta, I highly recommend that you rent it, that way you can be prepared for what our future will be like should people like Bush and his cronies continue to be in office.

Agreed, and Equilibrium is another good one about the state gaining too much power.

[TANSTAAFL]

I also recommend the following fictional books: Freehold, by Micheal Z. Williamson- An Enemy of the State, by F. Paul Williams- The Probability Broach, by L. Neil Smith- and just about anything by Robert Heinlein. I know there will be some that disagree with this list, but these stories hit a note with me. Good luck to all and read whatever you want, but read and make your own decisions.

[bunny]

Ahhh, teh neW AmeriKa

[lucidnightmare]

God you people are paranoid.

[Fido]

lucidnightmare wrote: God you people are paranoid.

True, but there are too many to get a net over. I tend to believe that anyone not scared of the government has let their idealism get the keys to their brains.

[wyldejackyl]

lucidnightmare wrote: God you people are paranoid.

You don't see anything out of the ordinary with the passing of intelligence bills that uphold warrantless wiretapping, after the Federal courts struck it down as being unconstitutional? You like having all this power put into the hands of one man? Do you see where it has gotten us so far?

We aren't fighting terrorism, we are creating it. Pretty soon we'll have a lot more "domestic terrorists" as the government tries to brand the patriots that fight it as such, to scare the rest of the people into listening. You don't see any of this coming? You don't think that can happen here?

[lucidnightmare]

wyldejackyl wrote: lucidnightmare wrote: God you people are paranoid.

You don't see anything out of the ordinary with the passing of intelligence bills that uphold warrantless wiretapping, after the Federal courts struck it down as being unconstitutional? You like having all this power put into the hands of one man? Do you see where it has gotten us so far?

We aren't fighting terrorism, we are creating it. Pretty soon we'll have a lot more "domestic terrorists" as the government tries to brand the patriots that fight it as such, to scare the rest of the people into listening. You don't see any of this coming? You don't think that can happen here?

Bush is going to be gone in a few years first of all.

Plans and provisions like this have been made in America for years.They have plans for dealing with alien invasion and asteroid strikes.They have them in case of national emergencies.If they didn't have them and something happened people would attack them for not having plans.They may even say they 'let' it happen as part of some conspiracy like they do Sept.11.

We did n't create terrorism.The middle east did that.I don't buy that argument at all.


And what strikes me as funny is the people that claim that they are using terrorism to scare people into supporting them try themselves to scare people with governmental paranoia to support their policies.

I say none of that out of full support for Bush.Though I support the troops I believe that Iraq was a mistake and I am a socially liberal conservative unlike Bush.

I said the same thing during the Clinton administration about the far right who were paranoid about Clinton and Reno.All the claims that they were after peoples guns and burned the fruit-loops in Waco with tanks.

I just don't buy into stuff like this.I have seen no evidence that justifies paranoia on my part.All this stuff will be hammered out the areas of over stepping can and will be corrected.

I would have an easier time talking to people concerned about these issues if they would admit that we do face some degree of threat from terrorist and that Bush isn't the boogie man even if they hate everything he does.

[lucidnightmare]

Quote: The law also facilitates militarized police round-ups and detention of protesters, so called "illegal aliens,"

So called illegal aliens? We have border laws.They are illegal aliens.

[wyldejackyl]

lucidnightmare wrote:

Bush is going to be gone in a few years first of all.

Plans and provisions like this have been made in America for years.They have plans for dealing with alien invasion and asteroid strikes.They have them in case of national emergencies.If they didn't have them and something happened people would attack them for not having plans.They may even say they 'let' it happen as part of some conspiracy like they do Sept.11.

We did n't create terrorism.The middle east did that.I don't buy that argument at all.


And what strikes me as funny is the people that claim that they are using terrorism to scare people into supporting them try themselves to scare people with governmental paranoia to support their policies.

I say none of that out of full support for Bush.Though I support the troops I believe that Iraq was a mistake and I am a socially liberal conservative unlike Bush.

I said the same thing during the Clinton administration about the far right who were paranoid about Clinton and Reno.All the claims that they were after peoples guns and burned the fruit-loops in Waco with tanks.

I just don't buy into stuff like this.I have seen no evidence that justifies paranoia on my part.All this stuff will be hammered out the areas of over stepping can and will be corrected.

I would have an easier time talking to people concerned about these issues if they would admit that we do face some degree of threat from terrorist and that Bush isn't the boogie man even if they hate everything he does.

True, Bush will be gone, but aren't you concerned about the interim? What about the next person that comes to power - Democrat or Republican - both are in the pockets of Corporations..NOT the people. Who's running the show anyway? The fact that a law like this exists sets a dangerous precident..as does the fact that it was attached to another bill as it was passed through Congress. It's amazing that things like this just "get attached" to other laws as part of the approval process, even when sometimes the two have nothing in common, or one isn't a part of the other.

The government doesn't make plans like this to "cover its ass", it does so to eliminate its own responsibility. Notice how the blame is always going to some "enemy" and never from within? I'd like to see ONE TIME Bush admitted he was wrong..about ANYTHING. They are all a bunch of scumbags, and the service they have provided to our country is paramount to treason! I, for one, don't rely on the government to have plans in place to save everyone should something happen. I'm of the opinion that in a time of need, those you can depend on are your best friends, your neighbors, and yourself - that's why it pays not to be a douchebag to people in your community, and to be prepared for disasters individually. Just because a bunch of people are crybabies when the government doesn't pull its bra off and offer them a teat to suckle, means that gives them the right to enact laws giving sweeping power to ONE MAN?! I don't buy that argument either.

The middle east didn't invent terrorism. It evolved over the years, it just came about most recently in the Middle East, and that's what you hear about. You don't hear about armed marauders in Africa raping and murdering entire unarmed villages..that's terrorism. How about the Trojan Horse? I mean, that's terrorism too if you get right down to it. Terrorism wasn't invented in the ME or by the Muslims. Nor are they responsible for the world's terrorism. However, since they are weak in military force, they use that as their primary means of aggression..do you blame them? If our army was disbanded by a foreign force who attacked under the guise of many lies, and would not leave..how would you fight? Keep in mind there are soldiers everywhere so it's hard to organize and train an army..you'd fight dirty, and that's what they do. I don't agree to the religious reasons why they fight, but on a purely "get these invaders out of our country" level - I totally understand where they are coming from. Us being there only galvanizes their fighting force, and provides reason for recruitment globally. We shouldn't cave to them, but we shouldn't be so insistent on "our way or the highway" either.

I do agree we face threats from terrorism, and that Bush is nothing more than a puppet, however I believe our actions as a result of our disasterous foreign policy, are responsible for motivating a lot of these terrorists to fight. I think that taking rights away from Americans is NEVER condoned - even in a time of conflict. And finally, while Bush isn't the anti-christ, I do blame him for not having a spine and only looking out for his own agenda..instead of what's in OUR best interest!

[lucidnightmare]

Quote: True, Bush will be gone, but aren't you concerned about the interim? What about the next person that comes to power - Democrat or Republican - both are in the pockets of Corporations..NOT the people. Who's running the show anyway? The fact that a law like this exists sets a dangerous precident..as does the fact that it was attached to another bill as it was passed through Congress. It's amazing that things like this just "get attached" to other laws as part of the approval process, even when sometimes the two have nothing in common, or one isn't a part of the other.

Of course I am concerned about my freedom.I don't think they are in the pockets of only the corporations but radical short sighted special interest groups on the right and the left. It's the pragmatist like me that want balanced logical approaches to problems that have very little representation.

But right now these new laws as a result of the attack in 2001 are being debated and hammered out in the courts.The mechanism for preventing over reach is still in place and when a new administration comes in a few years they will be amended further.Not to mention the election in a few days.

I don't like it when they sneak things like this through on waste management type bills either.It's sneaky as hell and I don't like it.

Quote: The government doesn't make plans like this to "cover its ass", it does so to eliminate its own responsibility. Notice how the blame is always going to some "enemy" and never from within? I'd like to see ONE TIME Bush admitted he was wrong..about ANYTHING. They are all a bunch of scumbags, and the service they have provided to our country is paramount to treason! I, for one, don't rely on the government to have plans in place to save everyone should something happen. I'm of the opinion that in a time of need, those you can depend on are your best friends, your neighbors, and yourself - that's why it pays not to be a douchebag to people in your community, and to be prepared for disasters individually. Just because a bunch of people are crybabies when the government doesn't pull its bra off and offer them a teat to suckle, means that gives them the right to enact laws giving sweeping power to ONE MAN?! I don't buy that argument either

I agree.I don't trust them to take care of my family in a disaster either.Which is why I believe in limited government.When the government offers to do something for you they usually take away any means you had to do it for yourself.

As far as taking care of neighbors goes.The government often does things in the name of helping the less fortunate.If those who could took care of their neighbors because they wanted to the government would lose an excuse for taking power and money from the public.

Quote: The middle east didn't invent terrorism. It evolved over the years, it just came about most recently in the Middle East, and that's what you hear about. You don't hear about armed marauders in Africa raping and murdering entire unarmed villages..that's terrorism. How about the Trojan Horse? I mean, that's terrorism too if you get right down to it. Terrorism wasn't invented in the ME or by the Muslims. Nor are they responsible for the world's terrorism. However, since they are weak in military force, they use that as their primary means of aggression..do you blame them? If our army was disbanded by a foreign force who attacked under the guise of many lies, and would not leave..how would you fight? Keep in mind there are soldiers everywhere so it's hard to organize and train an army..you'd fight dirty, and that's what they do. I don't agree to the religious reasons why they fight, but on a purely "get these invaders out of our country" level - I totally understand where they are coming from. Us being there only galvanizes their fighting force, and provides reason for recruitment globally. We shouldn't cave to them, but we shouldn't be so insistent on "our way or the highway" either.

Bin Laden started on us because the Saudis turned down his offer to drive Saddam out of Kuwait and turned to us.We didn't invade Saudi Arabia.We were invited.This all started long before Iraq.

I think the people who started this strain of Islamic terrorism did for religious reasons.Others may fight for other reasons.But I think they do believe that their sort of Islam should rule the middle east and we are in the way.


Quote: I think that taking rights away from Americans is NEVER condoned - even in a time of conflict.


But we have to adapt to reality.We had to do that to win WW2,after the civil war we even did it to fight the terrorist organization of the south the KKK.

How we adapt is the debate that will develop over the next few years.

[wyldejackyl]

Don't the Saudis have their own army? I never heard of such a proposition..I'll have to look that up.

The adaptation is what worries me too; back in WWII and previously, people thought for themselves, knew what rights were, and upheld the constitution personally. Now, you'll be hard pressed to find anyone who knows at least 3 of the 10 first amendments. People have grown in ignorance of late, due mostly to the media (I think) and marketing tactics. Just 10 years ago Christmas was more about family..now it's about consumption. It used to make people mad when Christmas stuff was out before Thanksgiving. Now it's out in September. There are no more family values, no more understanding of rights and government, no more free thought. What's left is masked as "liberalism" whereby you accept everything and forsake your rights (in most cases anyway). The government and the people paying them off are surely taking advantage of this any way they can- certainly by not limiting their own power!

[lucidnightmare]

wyldejackyl wrote: Don't the Saudis have their own army? I never heard of such a proposition..I'll have to look that up.

The adaptation is what worries me too; back in WWII and previously, people thought for themselves, knew what rights were, and upheld the constitution personally. Now, you'll be hard pressed to find anyone who knows at least 3 of the 10 first amendments. People have grown in ignorance of late, due mostly to the media (I think) and marketing tactics. Just 10 years ago Christmas was more about family..now it's about consumption. It used to make people mad when Christmas stuff was out before Thanksgiving. Now it's out in September. There are no more family values, no more understanding of rights and government, no more free thought. What's left is masked as "liberalism" whereby you accept everything and forsake your rights (in most cases anyway). The government and the people paying them off are surely taking advantage of this any way they can- certainly by not limiting their own power!

I think we are on the same page but with a few minor points.I agree.People have become over fed cattle,it's done from the right and left,one is just as bad as the other.I fall to the right because they at least sometimes resist turning feeding at the tit of government a national policy.

As long as the cable TV is on and they can afford sneakers people don't give a s**t.

[lucidnightmare]

wyldejackyl wrote: Don't the Saudis have their own army? I never heard of such a proposition..I'll have to look that up.



Quote: In August 1990, Iraq invaded Kuwait. Bin Ladin, whose efforts in Afghanistan had earned him celebrity and respect, proposed to the Saudi monarchy that he summon mujahideen for a jihad to retake Kuwait. He was rebuffed, and the Saudis joined the U.S.-led coalition. After the Saudis agreed to allow U.S. armed forces to be based in the Kingdom, Bin Ladin and a number of Islamic clerics began to publicly denounce the arrangement. The Saudi government exiled the clerics and undertook to silence Bin Ladin by, among other things, taking away his passport. With help from a dissident member of the royal family, he managed to get out of the country under the pretext of attending an Islamic gathering in Pakistan in April 1991.

http://www.eurolegal.org/terrorism/terror105.htm

[Dennis]

[quote="lucidnightmare"] wyldejackyl wrote: lucidnightmare wrote: God you people are paranoid.

You don't see anything out of the ordinary with the passing of intelligence bills that uphold warrantless wiretapping, after the Federal courts struck it down as being unconstitutional?

Exactly.

lucidnightmare wrote: Bush is going to be gone in a few years first of all.

Until he is replaced with another one of his cronies.


lucidnightmare wrote: Plans and provisions like this have been made in America for years.They have plans for dealing with alien invasion and asteroid strikes.They have them in case of national emergencies.

They have plans for aliens and astroids but they didn't have a plan for major hurricans like Katrina?? What??!! I don't buy that.


lucidnightmare wrote: We did n't create terrorism.The middle east did that.

Don't be so sure about that. It's American corporations, after all, that are intruding on foreign land thanks to buying out the governments, using their resources, and keeping most of the profit from those resources. America has also been sticking its nose in foreign affairs for far too long. That doesn't excuse terrorists from the way they are handling these issues (killing and blowing stuff up) but it's no wonder why we have it.


lucidnightmare wrote: And what strikes me as funny is the people that claim that they are using terrorism to scare people into supporting them try themselves to scare people with governmental paranoia to support their policies.

That depends which you believe came first.

[bunny]

lucidnightmare wrote: God you people are paranoid.


"There's no such thing as paranoia, only ignorance" ~ HST