Bush Signs Bill Enabling Martial Law

An anonymous reader writes to point us to an article on the meaning of a new law that President Bush signed on Oct. 17. It seems to allow the President to impose martial law on any state or territory, using federal troops and/or the state's own, or other states', National Guard troops. From the article: "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. 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." Here is a link to the bill in question. The relevant part is Sec. 1076 about 3/4 of the way down the page.

Oh My.

My initial reaction to this is "Oh My."
Sometimes, people in power should have checks and balances to their ability to oppress their own people. After all, a little revolution now and again is a good thing.

Re:Oh My.

Yes, I'm pretty sure when the elections get 'cancelled indefinitely' we'll be all primed for revolution. Provided we're not all distracted by the new consoles first.

Re:Oh My.

Yes, I'm pretty sure when the elections get 'cancelled indefinitely' we'll be all primed for revolution. Provided we're not all distracted by the new consoles first.

No need to "cancel" elections, just make them so they're pretend elections.

Mod parent up!

Even Saddam had elections.

It isn't whether you have elections, it's who counts the votes.

Re:Mod parent up!

And with Diebold counting the vote, we're screwed!

In COBN3T AM3RNKA

In Soviet America, Martial Law is Enabling Bush!

"Enabling". It's a fascists 'comfort word'.

Re:Oh My.

Suddenly the 1 reason for the 2nd amendment becomes crystal clear.

Re:Oh My.

indeed, the framers out of the bill of rights recognized two forms of a citizens vote.

Re:Oh My.

As a 'leftist gun grabber' (at least, what I think you mean, is someone who wants to take your guns away) I did have this epiphany not too long ago. Maybe a year or so ago, if not less.

I used to think that citizen militias were all a bunch of kooks (and let's face it, a lot of them are), but they seem to have the right idea as far as defending themselves from their government. I still think that gun laws should be strictly enforced and that gun ownership should be limited. I think that it's silly to own a gun for "protection", unless, as I've realized, it's to protect yourself from the government. I do fear there may come a day when Americans are forced to rise against the federal government. I wouldn't *like* that, but when I see news stories like this, my paranoid side really kicks in and tells me to go out and buy a gun (and learn how to use it).

Re:Oh My.

Really? They seem to be working OK for the Iraqis.

dumbass

What a load of bullshit. Every single person who's used this retarded line of thinking needs to be rounded up and forced to watch every single Vietnam movie ever made (or hell, as someone else pointed out, footage from Iraq.) There is a big big BIG difference between fighting to control and fighting to annihilate. A government will never desire to annihilate its own population. Yes, they might "make examples" on occasion, but on the whole the populace must be not be annihilated, otherwise who will they rule? Who will pay their salaries, who will build their weapons?

Seems like there are millions of people who've simply never heard of guerilla (or asymmetrical) warfare. The point is, there would be no centralized locations to drop your bombs on. The point is, most of the time there would be no visible difference between the militia and the civilians. The milita would blend in with the population--the only reliable way to find them and destroy them is on foot, on their terms. On those terms, most of the military's advantages evaporate. They might have better tech and training, but they will be severely vulnerable to ambush. Even if they outnumber the (armed) rebels by a great deal, if the majority of the populace is willing to support and shelter those rebells I would venture a guess that the military would *eventually* be compelled to withdraw after repeated harassment attacks. If the armed rebels are few in number and the majority of the populace cooperates with the military, I would venture a guess that the rebels would either be wiped out or ignored as irrelevant. The military's infrastructure and tech do make a difference, but their most potent weapons are simply inapplicable in a war where indiscriminately annihilating civilians isn't a viable option.

Re:Oh My.

At the point when you're "scared enough to buy a gun," it will probably be too late for you to do so.

Re:Oh My.

You actually think a bunch of untrained civilians with guns would stand an ounce of a chance against the most powerful military in the world?
They see to be holding their own in Iraq.

Re:Oh My.

Actually, probably so. Many in the armed forces would not take up arms against their fellow countrymen without a damn good reason. It's one thing doing disaster recovery...it's another to tell them to go "house to house" in New York or Chicago. Even using troops from different areas of the country probably wouldn't work too well. I would expect the officer corp would be very much against it to.

A decent chunk of the US's population is former military too. They know how to fight, know what equipment to sabatoge, and could easily make life a living hell for the troops who didn't just flat walk out and quit when the pacification order was given.

Currently, there are 499,000 active duty Army troops, backed up by 700,000 National Guard and Army reservists. There are, as of 2005, 67,742,879 males age 18-49 and 67,070,144 females age 18-49. 12 million vs. 1.2 million. Many of the active duty / reserve troops are dissatisfied due to Iraq already...what do you think their reaction would be to have to come home to enforce martial law?

If it actually came to the point of using artillary or ordinace against US citizens, then whatever administration started it has already lost. They would probably accomplish hastening the end of our current civilization too.

This isn't even bringing the UN or EU into the fray. A highly destablized and civil-warring US would be horrible news for the rest of the globe too. Something tells me everyone wouldn't just sit by and watch us nuke ourselves 10,000 times over.

Re:Oh My.

I don't know why parent was modded funny. As a right winger I'm so mad at the big spending, big government Republicans that I've almost talked myself into staying home in November. I don't know which is worse: how much I absolutely despise the Democrats or my anger at the Republicans. I wish ballots had "none of the above" which, if it "won", would force new elections with new candidates.

Re:Oh My.

You (and people like you) are exactly why we are in this mess to begin with.

You look at the American government through polarized lenses. You "despise Democrats" and are "angry at the Republicans" rather than looking at the individuals in the various parties as individuals. Not all Democrats vote along party lines. Nor do all Republicans, yet you're willing to stay home from the elections rather than looking at the issues, who supports what, and making a decision. Worse, you don't even seem willing to vote for third-party candidates (their presence next election depends upon their votes in this one).

That is the true disease of American politics: a combination of partisan behavior and apathy. It's why They win, every time. It's why our elections are largely for show. It's why, no matter who wins next November, we'll probably be in exactly the same boat.

Re:Oh My.

Give me a fiscally responsible, small government, pro-life candidate who supports the war on terror (appeasers need not apply) and I'll consider voting for them.

How can the government possibly be small if they involve themselves with personal issues rooted in subjective morality like a woman's reproductive rights, and how can an open-ended war on an intangible opponent be considered fiscally responsible? Either you have a government that maintains the right to curb liberties as they see fit and can spend billions of dollars on something that will never see any returns, or you can have a government that conserves money and doesn't interfere in the private lives of its citizens. I don't think the war on terror is a bad idea, and I have never seen any quote from any Democratic party member saying so, either. The problem is that Bush is wasting all our money, our resolve, and our international credibility on a war that didn't have much to do with terror in the first place.

Re:Oh My.

Here's a clue for you: the Iraqi insurgency doesn't use weapons that are legal for you to own. So much for the 2nd amendment.

Revolution, American Style

We already have a series of escalating revolutions built into our government. Elections and impeachment [afterdowningstreet.org].

In a couple of weeks, on TUE November 7, 2006, you can go to the polls to fire your Representative in the House [congress.org]. A good first move, especially if they're Republican, because the House is supposed to stop the president from abuses. Through oversight in committees overseeing all the president's executive actions and agencies. Through hearings, to which Congress can legally force people to appear and explain their actions, facing penalties for lying like "contempt of Congress", "making a false statement", and the usual perjury and other penalties for lying. Republicans in the House have failed to oversee Bush's actions, instead just keeping each other reelected and sending $TRILLIONS each year to their favorite bribers^Wsponsors.

The House is also not supposed to send laws to Bush that misrepresent their constituents, like laws encouraging martial law or destroying posse comitatus, etc. The Republican House has instead sent these laws to Bush, secretly or just quietly.

You'll probably have a chance to fire one of your senators, too, that Tuesday. Odds are they're a Republican, and have worked together with the Republican House to keep the Republican government, headed by Bush, rolling in dollars, without accountability, while he moves us further from freedom and closer to tyranny. These elections are our version of regularly scheduled revolutions, so no one gets hurt, but change is part of the programme.

But the House is even more important. Because the House, representing the people, has the responsiblity to impeach a president out of control. Especially a criminal president. Impeachment is like indictment for civilians: it's the formal accusation of specific charges against the president, and beginning of a trial in the Senate. Actual conviction in the Senate might not happen, or take too long, but impeachment itself, once begun, is a strong way to stop presidents like Bush from doing anything more. Meanwhile, Congress can pass and repeal bad laws to fix what the president has done. If the president persists, conviction in the Senate is even more likely to be prompt. Unless Republicans really do buy into Bush's gang, and rush to do more damage while their boy is still running things. Most Americans want Congress to impeach Bush [afterdowningstreet.org].

We all want a revolution. The last few revolutions have been nonstarters, in 2004, 2002, and 2000 - the bad guys won. It's probably time for industrial-strength revolution, impeachment, because the regular revolutions, elections, aren't enough. We'll have the regular revolution first, then see how much we can fix without lowering the boom on Bush. But since he's hell-bent on tyranny, we'll probably have to impeach him, too.

Not a minute too soon.

Re:Oh My.

The biggest concern I have as an American is that the checks and balances simply are not working and the administration just keeps demanding that we trust them. We won't torture--wink, wink. We won't tap your phone-line--nod, nod. And so on.

My brother and I were just talking about how for the first time in a long time the midterm elections are of paramount importance. With three branches of government sufficiently controlled by the administration's party, we are going down the drain. If we take the House and maybe (oh please, oh please) the Senate, we have the chance to do something that matters: nothing.

That sounds odd I know. But the real goal of putting the Congress in Democratic hands is to keep the administration from doing more of the same. Nothing would be preferable to the damage being done at the moment.

Opposition makes for Good Government

In the words of William A. Niskanen:
"It's not that unified governments love to purchase bombers, but, rather, that they tend to draw us into war. This may sound improbable at first, but consider this: In 200 years of U.S. history, every one of our conflicts involving more than a week of ground combat has been initiated by a unified government. Each of the four major American wars during the 20th century, for example--World War I, World War II, the Korean War, and the Vietnam War--was initiated by a Democratic president with the support of a Democratic Congress. The current war in Iraq, initiated by a Republican president and backed by a Republican Congress, is consistent with this pattern. It also stands as the only use of military force involving more than a week of ground combat that has been initiated by a Republican president in over a century. Divided government appears to be an important constraint on American participation in war. "
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2006/061 0.niskanen.html#Byline [washingtonmonthly.com]

New definition for "initiated"

Yeah, it was pretty awful of those Democrats in 1941 to start things off by attacking Pearl Harbor.

And the author kinda forgot Iraq War I (non-unified administration).

You see, "initiated" kinda requires the US to have actually started the war, not just responding to an attack on one of our allies (which is the situation in the other wars mentioned).

Re:Oh My.

As far as such executive orders go, this administration, as well as the prior two, have been extremely prolific. Look up the powers that the Clinton administration granted FEMA in case of a national emergency, and which Bush has extended.

The interesting question is not why Republicans do not object when their Republican president issues these orders, but why these same Republicans also held their peace when Clinton was signing them like mad, and why the Democrats are silent about the executive orders which Bush is currently issuing, when they are so vocal about everything else this President does.

When the Presidency makes a power grab, suddenly bi-partisanship is the name of the game? This is clearly not a republican vs. democrat issue. It's freedom vs. fascism which cuts across all party lines.

As much as I hate the mentality, I have to agree in this case: If you are not angry, you are not paying attention.

Live up to your anthem!

I've occasionally heard Americans disparage the "Star Spangled Banner", but I think its beauty and wisdom are contained in the last line: "Does that star spangled banner yet wave o'er the land of the free and the home of the brave?". Keys, wittingly or not, poses a three part question - is your flag still there (the easy part), but also he asks what type of America it's waving over.

Are you still the home of the brave, and the land of the free? Or have you been cowed into accepting a police state? In many ways, America has been the greatest nation in history. Are you going to give up that status now because of a single incident?

Re:Oh My.

Whenever a Republican brings up the "you want the terrorists to win" talking point, I usually ask them "would you want Hillary Clinton to declare anyone an enemy combatant and detain them indefinately?"

I have yet to receive a response to that question.

Re:Oh My.

After we saved your asses from Hitler, and Hitler's father back in WWI, it'd be the least you could do!

Who says Americans don't remember history?

Obligatory....

"People should not be afraid of their government - Governments should be afraid of their people"

Remember remember the 5th of november...

Oh #hit! It's almost here and I haven't gotten my Fedex with my mask and cape yet!

Did anyone get a delivery for a g. fox by accident? Anyone?

Calling Godwin

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enabling_Act [wikipedia.org]

Well, it USED to be about freedom

I feel like I'm bent over, my pants are down, and the illiterate president is hard at work behind me.
Considering the statement "Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it" and the quality of education in US public schools, I get the feeling of inevitability.
Peak of cold war jumps to mind, except now instead of communism, it's called terrorism.

Are we doomed? Is slavery at hand?
Unless people would stop choosing their leaders based on their tie quality, we will all suffer.

Well, that's one way...

That's one way to get around those pesky two term limits.

Sean

This sounds like a troll

And I apologise if it sparks off a huge flame war, it's not my intention. I assure you it's a serious question.

Sitting here in the UK (and yes, it's hardly a shining example for the rest of the world, most of us are all too aware of it), it's easy to get the impression that George W. Bush has bumbled his way through office for six years or whatever and not done a single thing right.

Is this impression correct? Seriously, has he done anything good?

Re:This sounds like a troll

See, in my view your economy's only chugging along nicely because your government's running up astronomical debts without a thought for how they'll ever be repaid. I think they know they Democrats will get in next time, and they're going to hand them a mountain of debt, which they'll try and sort out, causing a serious cooling of the economy. Then four years later, back will come the Republicans, saying "remember how good you had it under us?"

Look under the surface and you'll find that the dollar's very, very vulnerable, and that China's busy buying up your bond markets piece by piece, using the money you're sending them for all those cheap imports you love so much. Sure, everything's rosy now, but I think it's going to get very ugly soon.

Re:This sounds like a troll

``The Dow hit another a series of all time highs last week.''

In US dollars or in Real money? If you adjust for inflation [dogsofthedow.com], the Dow has seen it's last high in 2000.

One cloaked swipe of a pen?

Um, you guys know that bills don't just magically appear on the president's desk, right? One swipe of the pen?! If he was able to sign something that screws you, it's because hundreds of people, working against your interest, put it there. Yes, blame Bush for not vetoing it, but don't stop there. If you can only count ONE pen, you're retarded.

You're voting if the midterms in a few days, right? Everybody in the House who voted for this, is up for re-election. About a third of the people who voted for it in the Senate, are up for re-election. Are you going to say "no, stop doing this"? Or are you going to say "woohoo! Keep up the good work, government"? The government is waiting to hear your response. Their favorite response is silence: there is no better way to register your enthusiastic approval.

Inflammatory and Misleading

In a stealth maneuver, President Bush has signed into law...

Before the president can sign a bill, it has to get passed by both houses of congress. It's one of the least stealthy processes on the planet.

And once a bill has been passed by Congress, the president normally signs it. To refuse to sign it is the exceptional event. So why does this writeup make it sound like Bush magically created this law himself?

Re:Inflammatory and Misleading

Before the president can sign a bill, it has to get passed by both houses of congress. It's one of the least stealthy processes on the planet.

To pretend that the legislative process is transparent, is delusional. Sure, it's supposed to be transparent, but the rules don't actually enforce it.

Provisions frequently get inserted at the last minute, for the express purpose of preventing anyone from reading it (or debating it) before voting.

It's a dirty trick and it subverts the legislative process.

I'm not saying that is what happened for this particular piece of law, but the passing of laws is not "one of the least stealthy processes on the planet." Not by a long shot.

Presidents have ALWAYS had this power ...

See 10 U.S.C. 331, 10 U.S.C. 332, and 10 U.S.C. 333. If they need any additional powers they'll just use Executive Orders [sourcewatch.org]. I'm not saying that it's right or consitutional, I'm just saying that it is the height of naivete and ignorance to believe that previous administrations, Democrat and Republican, have NOT had or used this authority.

Assignment of Emergency Preparedness Functions, October 11, 2004

The following EOs all fall under EO 12919: [7]

* EO 10990: "allows the government to take over all modes of transportation and control of highways and seaports." [8]
* EO 10995: Federal seizure of all communications media in the US.
* EO 10997: Federal seizure of all electric power, fuels, minerals, public and private.
* EO 10998: Federal seizure of all food supplies and resources, public and private and all farms and equipment.
* EO 10999: Federal seizure of all means of transportation, including cars, trucks, or vehicles of any kind and total control over all highways, seaports and water ways.
* EO 11000: Federal seizure of American people for work forces under federal supervision, including the splitting up of families if the government so desires.
* EO 11001: Federal seizure of all health, education and welfare facilities, both public and private.
* EO 11002: Empowers the Postmaster General to register every single person in the US.
* EO 11003: Federal seizure of all airports and aircraft.
* EO 11004: Federal seizure of all housing and finances and authority to establish forced relocation. Authority to designate areas to be abandoned as 'unsafe,' establish new locations for populations, relocate communities, build new housing with public funds.
* EO 11005: Seizure of all railroads, inland waterways and storage facilities, both public and private.
* EO 11051: Provides FEMA complete authorization to put above orders into effect in times of increased international tension of economic or financial crisis (FEMA will be in control incase of 'National Emergency').

* EO 12919 "Apparently Allows Cabinet Heads to Make Direct Loans to Government Contractors." [9]

Some of these Executive Orders have been around since the days of JFK. The umbrella EO 12919 was signed by President Clinton when he was in office back in 1994.

A fictional memo [wjopc.com] written to President Clinton back in 1999 gives a nice legal summary, history, and analysis of the laws already in place that would permit him or any president to declare martial law. From the "memo":

You have statutory authority to intervene with military force in a state's domestic disputes, upon request from the state legislature (or governor), at 10 U.S.C. 331:

Whenever there is an insurrection in any State against its government, the President may, upon the request of its legislature or of its governor if the legislature cannot be convened, call into Federal service such of the militia of the other States, in the number requested by that State, and use such of the armed forces, as he considers necessary to suppress the insurrection. [Emphasis added.]

Similar statutory authority permits you to use military force without any state request to address circumstances whenever and wherever you determine that the laws of the United States cannot be enforced (10 U.S.C. 332):(1)

Whenever the President considers that

Appropriate William Adama Quote

There's a reason why we separate military and the police: one fights the enemy of the State, the other serves and protects the people. When the military becomes both, then the enemies of the State tend to become the people.

William Adama from Battlestar Galactica Episode S01E02 "Water"

This is what you wanted

Despite the commentator's interpretation, the impetus of this bill was the New Orleans Katrina disaster. Everyone blamed Bush and the Feds for not doing enough, even though the responsibility for disaster planning and mobilizing the national guard rested solely with the local and state governments. Well, this bill fixes that - the next time there is a disaster the the feds don't act fast enough, it really *will* be their fault, because this gives the the authority to do something, which they did *not* have during Katrina.

So - you *wanted* this - you *cried* for it! "Bush didn't act fast enough! He should have done more!" Ok, if you think so, we'll give him that authority. Remember the looting in the streets? The local police deserted, and the ones left couldn't maintain order. The governor refused to call in the troops. Next time, the president can do it.

Be careful what you ask for - you just might get it!

Ballots always win out over Bullets

An informed, engaged electorate always win out over yahoos with Ammo, anyday. I find it funny that NOBODY is talking about cleaning up Congress, running for office, petitioning our elected officials to impeach this nitwit -- you know, legal and responsible means to take care of power-hungry bastards in Washington. Nope, we're all ready to grab our flack jackets and shot guns talking about going medieval on the US Army. Uhm, let me get this straight.... you're not going to bother to vote (which is still legal, and still pretty damn hard to steal, even with Diebold) which cost you no money and won't get you shot. But, everyone's willing to go commando on the US government?! Que?! Have we slashdot geeks been reading WAAY too much of the turner diaries?

In less than 2 weeks, we have a very legal, effective and powerful to take this clown out of office and reign these jokers. Vote. Vote early, vote intelligently (base your decisions on the candidate platform and whether they're just going to be Bush flunkies. After the election, get involved and nage your elected officials to impeach this creep before we all end up in the gulags. This is a mess we got ourselves in for not thinking rationally and demanding our elected officials are actual law abiding and sane. Nope, we chased one president's member and let our mathematically irrational fear of terrorists throwing nukes stop us from thinking rationally. It took years of political indifference, social apathy and outright stupidit to put us here. Its going to hard thinking, hard choices and direct action (beyond protests and fantasies about gunfights with the national guard) to get us out.

We can sit here and talk about how we're going to go underground to fight "The Man" (and subsequentially get our collective asses kicked) or we can use our ballots to make truly frightening revolution -- Americans actually taking politics seriously and voting these clowns out of office. The choices is yours/ours.

Peace - Cappadonna

Open revolution??

Come on now. Most of the people who oppose Bush are also the same ones for gun control. What are you going to revolt with, rocks and sticks? Remember rule #1... You need a gun for a gunfight.

Re:Open revolution??

For every 20 gun control moms in minivans, there's a crazy anarchist hippie with an arsenal ready to be passed around

Dad?

Re:Law

You mean to tell me that NO Democrat and NO Republican read the bill, and after the bill was passed they found out what they voted for?

A lot of these bills are not properly vetted and stuff get put in them all the time. Don't forget that this is the same Congress that approved a "Highway to Nowhere" in Alaska and practically done nothing that the people wanted but chased after stuff that only the Beltway talking heads were talking about. I'm looking forward to this election shaking up the entire political establishment.

Re:Hurricane and winter storms

I'm sure that's a reasonable justification. But the granted powers are considerably beyond the scope of rendering aid in an emergency. Why would you grant government powers so incredibly far-reaching when the solution requires something much narrower?

Re:frist psot

Bush Moves Toward Martial Law
Frank Morales

October 26, 2006

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."