ONE STEP CLOSER TO MARTIAL LAW, PASSED LAST MONTH HIDDEN IN DEFENSE BILL

[stefan segal]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jane-smiley/what-would-you-do-if-bush_b_41674.html

What Would You Do If Bush Declared Martial Law? (48 comments )
READ MORE: United States, Jane Smiley, New York, Iraq
An editorial in the New York Times yesterday pointed out, for those of us who didn't realize it, that the Bush administration had inserted two provisions into last October's defense budget bill that would make it easier to declare martial law in the US. Senators Leahy and Bond have introduced a bill to repeal these changes, and it is important that

voters keep track of this bill and hold their Congresspeople to account on it. Along with several other measures the Bush adminstration has proposed, the introduction of these changes amounts, not to an attack on the Congress and the balance of power, but to a particular and concerted attack on the citizens of the nation. Bush is laying the legal groundwork to repeal even the appearance of democracy. Any senator who does not vote in favor of the Leahy/Bond repeal of these provisions should promptly be recalled by his or her constituents.
That said, and without underestimating the seriousness of these provisions, I have to point out that with this as with other legal maneuvers like the Military Commissions Act, I have to wonder who Bush, Cheney, Rove, etc. think they are governing. Were they planning to spring these things on us? One day, we were supposed to wake up, and martial law would be declared, and we were supposed to actually pay attention to it? Where are they keeping the troops who were going to patrol our neighborhoods? Who was it who was going to disarm the population? Who was their base going to be, when they sought public support for martial law? Who was going to round us up and where were they going to put us?

[exarmyranger]

Where are they going to put,whoever is left?Marshall Law,is governmentees,for Military Rule.Military rule is like,giving the fox the key to the hen house.Soldiers,are not police,they do not function in a (serve&protect)mode...Rather they (command)...Those who do not submit,are killed,those who opposse this (tactic)are sumarily killed.Cops,unlike soldiers,may be good,bad,honest,dishonest,heroes,bullys,ect.Soldie rs are not afforded,choice.They kill whoever they are orderd,personal values/morals,are set aside.The only(imo)senario worse (in terms of lives lost)would be anarchy!ex

[stefan segal]

Yes...that's right..and already provided for in the bill that was passed about two weeks after the first rendition of the patriot act...it is a health bill, giving the State governors the ability to quarenteen whole areas, where life, limb and property is legally taken at soldier's whim...and any resistance like why are you taking my truck...will get you, if not shot for "resistance", you wil be herded into concentration camps that now await about 500,000 aplicants.

This act once enacted, is good for 90 days...but by then, who would be left to fight or resist.

Stefan

[Linkster]

The actual NYTs editorial the writer was talking about is below - This was known about - I think we even discussed it a while back - and all of the Governors of ALL states opposed it - but it got slipped in anyway:

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

My Response - not that I like the intent anyway - but heres the unbiased view:
Of course there are those historians that have gone on record saying that posse comitatus is being interpreted just the opposite of what it was originally intended for and unfortunately some active duty military leaders believe the exact opposite of what the act was designed for - thats why there was such a reluctance to use the military during Katrina response - yet posse comitatus was designed originally just for that type of situation

As far as this being a new interpretation - not really - those that oppose martial law tend to use this as the catalyst to involve the military in domestic affairs - yet that was originally the intent of the law - its just that most people have misinterpreted it since the late 1800s - if you think that it is supposed to prevent military operations in the US - you are incorrect and need to go read the actual transcripts of congress and why this act was first added to the Federal Register