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.

Comments

Oh My.

[Meagermanx]

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.

[Rachel Lucid]

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.

[daeg]

We have the checks and balances, he just seems to be ignoring them. The Executive Branch is designed to enforce laws and represent the government as a whole. Bush, through a frightening number of executive orders, is ignoring the legislative process where laws are debated, written, and rewritten in the Legislative Branch. What I don't understand is why Congress, even under Republican control, isn't reprimanding the President for this behavior--afterall, he is effectively taking away their need to legislate things of national importance.

The GOP should be outraged as well. The focus is entirely on the President, who will become largely irrelevant in two years. They should be allowing the Legislature to work at full capacity and bring forth some new stars for the party. Having no attention on potential candidates will make public exposure of new candidates more difficult.

Re:Oh My.

[Instine]

And you thought us limeies were bad. Just wait... You'll be begging to pay us our tea taxes, just to help get rid of "GWB the Opressive".

; }

Re:Oh My.

[HotBlackDessiato]

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.

Re:Oh My.

[bgfay]

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.

Re:Oh My.

[Bloater]

We got the equivalent law some months ago here in the UK. The government no longer needs parliament to pass acts (the primary purpose of parliament). The Prime Minister now has full autocratic power over every person in the UK including the Queen - should he, or his successors whoever they may be, choose to use it. That includes the right to personally ban elections if he wanted to (not to suggest that he wants to, of course, just to indicate the lack of foresight that parliament had in allowing this poorly worded law to pass).

Re:Oh My.

[DiamondGeezer]

It's what happens when you have a one-party state, or as the Republicans called it a "clean sweep".

Re:Oh My.

[Broken scope]

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

Re:Oh My.

[BorgCopyeditor]

Bush, through a frightening number of executive orders, is ignoring the legislative process where laws are debated, written, and rewritten in the Legislative Branch

Not to mention asserting that the judicial branch, too, is irrelevant, especially through the claims made in signing statements about military tribunals and about the president's presumed authority to declare anyone an "enemy combatant" without any judicial review of this declaration.

But I'm told that thinking there's something wrong with these things proves that I "want the terrorists to win," so I guess I'd better just shut up now.

Re:Oh My.

[TerranFury]

Well, there's always Jeb.

*shudder*

Re:Oh My.

[Saikik]

From the Section in question:

``(c) LIMITATIONS.--(1) Supplies, services, and equipment may
be provided under this section--
                      ``(A) only to the extent that the constituted authorities
          of the State or possession concerned are unable to provide
          such supplies, services, and equipment, as the case may be;
          and ``(B) only until such authorities, or other departments or
          agencies of the United States charged with the provision of
          such supplies, services, and equipment, are able to provide
          such supplies, services, and equipment.

----

If you read the main part of the section it sounds like they're trying to prevent another Katrina blunder where LA blamed FEMA and FEMA blamed LA.

(A) 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--
                                  ``(i) domestic violence has occurred to such an extent
                      that the constituted authorities of the State or possession
                      are incapable of maintaining public order; and
                                  ``(ii) such violence results in a condition described in
                      paragraph (2); or
                      ``(B) suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic
          violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy if such insurrec-
          tion, violation, combination, or conspiracy results in a condition
          described in paragraph (2).
          ``(2) A condition described in this paragraph is a condition
that-- ``(A) so hinders the execution of the laws of a State or
          possession, as applicable, and of the United States within that
          State or possession, that any part or class of its people is
          deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named
          in the Constitution and secured by law, and the constituted
          authorities of that State or possession are unable, fail, or refuse
          to protect that right, privilege, or immunity, or to give that
          protection;

Re:Oh My.

[jnf]

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

Re:Oh My.

[lawpoop]

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?

Re:Oh My.

[ClassMyAss]

On the chance that you don't actually want to download and search through that obnoxiously long bill for the one relevant section, and recognizing that the article is currently Slashdotted, here's the text of section 1076 of this bill:

SEC. 1076. USE OF THE ARMED FORCES IN MAJOR PUBLIC EMERGENCIES.
a USE OF THE ARMED FORCES AUTHORIZED.

1 IN GENERAL.
Section 333 of title 10, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:

333. Major public emergencies; interference with State and Federal law

a USE OF ARMED FORCES IN MAJOR PUBLIC EMERGENCIES.

1 The President may employ the armed forces, including the National Guard in Federal service, to

A 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

i domestic violence has occurred to such an extent that the constituted authorities of the State or possession are incapable of maintaining public order; and

ii such violence results in a condition described in paragraph 2; or

B suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy if such insurrection, violation, combination, or conspiracy results in a condition described in paragraph 2.

2 A condition described in this paragraph is a condition that

A so hinders the execution of the laws of a State or possession, as applicable, and of the United States within that State or possession, that any part or class of its people is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law, and the constituted authorities of that State or possession are unable, fail, or refuse to protect that right, privilege, or immunity, or to give that protection; or

B opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws.

3 In any situation covered by paragraph 1B, the State shall be considered to have denied the equal protection of the
laws secured by the Constitution.

b NOTICE TO CONGRESS.The President shall notify Congress of the determination to exercise the authority in subsection a1A
as soon as practicable after the determination and every 14 days thereafter during the duration of the exercise of that authority.

2 PROCLAMATION TO DISPERSE.Section 334 of such title is amended by inserting "or those obstructing the enforcement
of the laws" after "insurgents".

3 HEADING AMENDMENT.The heading of chapter 15 of such title is amended to read as follows:

CHAPTER 15 ENFORCEMENT OF THE LAWS TO RESTORE PUBLIC ORDER.

4 CLERICAL AMENDMENTS.A The tables of chapters at the beginning of subtitle A of title 10, United States Code, and at the beginning of part I of such subtitle, are each amended by striking the item relating to chapter 15 and inserting the following new item:

15 Enforcement of the Laws to Restore Public Order 33.

B The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 15 of such title is amended by striking the item relating to sections 333 and inserting the following new item:

333. Major public emergencies; interference with State and Federal law.

b PROVISION OF SUPPLIES, SERVICES, AND EQUIPMENT.

1 IN GENERAL.Chapter 152 of such title is amended by adding at the end the following new section:

2567. Supplies, services, and equipment: provision in major public emergencies

a PROVISION AUTHORIZED.In any situation in which the President determines to exercise the authority in section
333a1A of this title, the President may direct the Secretary of Defense to provide supplies, services, and equipment to persons affected by the situation.

b COVERED SUPPLIES, SERVICES, AND EQUIPMENT.The supplies, services, and equipment provided under this section may include food, water, utilit

Re:Oh My.

[foamrotreturns]

Sometimes, people in power should have checks and balances to their ability to oppress their own people [emphasis mine]

But full reign over other countries' citizens is OK.

Re:Oh My.

[Teilo]

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.

Re:Oh My.

[paitre]

One wonders just how many of the leftist gun grabbers are actually going to have this epiphany.

Unfortunately, the gun grabbers on the right side of the aisle are laughing gleefully because it hasn't happened.

Re:Oh My.

[Yaotzin]

Hitlers father!?

Re:Oh My.

[xrobertcmx]

Uhm, you just did. We didn't save anyone from Hitler's father. You are thinking of the Kaiser I believe.

Re:Oh My.

[foobsr]

The focus is entirely on the President, who will become largely irrelevant in two years

In related news in the future, one will hear that the war on terrorism has created the need for the President to secretely sign a law to postpone elections until the war is won.

CC.

Re:Oh My.

[Anonymous Coward]

You fucking right-wingers put him into power. You tell me.

Re:Oh My.

[Broken scope]

Lets see.
3 carbines that fire 9mm.
2 Pump 12 Gauges.
3 Pistols 2 .45 1 9mm.
2 Well maintained M1 Garands. 1 Modified with a muzzle brake and 1 that can have a scope attached. Rare as hell.

Perfect for zombie outbreaks and rebellions against goverment.s

Re:Oh My.

[Yusaku Godai]

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.

[Original Replica]

forget pistols. get a sniper rifle. it's for hunting ;)

Re:Oh My.

[Yusaku Godai]

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.

[Yusaku Godai]

Who said anything about pistols? I was thinking more like shotgun (I can't aim).

Re:Oh My.

[monkeydo]

Too bad your initial reaction wasn't, "I should go read the bill[0]", or "I should figure out what marshal law is." There's nothing in the section in question that's anything like advocating marshal law, or giving the president any additional power to declare it. Marshal law is more than just putting troops in the street. Marshal law is the suspension of civil authority, and the imposition of military authority on civillians. There's absolutly nothing in there that says anything about suspending civil authority. It's all about the fed.gov's power to send troops to assist in local emergencies, and the legality of using federal dollars to do so.

[0]Even better would be if you read the new law and the old law, so that you could see what has actually changed.

Re:Oh My.

[Anonymous Coward]

Why would you expect a response? It's a nonsense question. Hilary Clinton is unelectable as a presidential candidate.

Re:Oh My.

[cyber-vandal]

No problem there are a load of people with handguns the US government won't dare try to pull any fascist crap.

Re:Oh My.

[leemer]

Oh how funny that back during Katrina allot of people mostly Democrats was saying that Federal Troops should have been in Lousiania on Day one Well Look what they got now!! They asked they recieved I feel it should have never came to this but, Seems everyone want to Blame Bush for what he does when in fact it was the Dems that where jumping up and down like mad men saying Federal Goverment had there hands tied and could not help them people in New Orleans. And wow allot of people like to use this for there own agenda as well like That EVIL President Bush he just want to Opress us. Ok logicaly where did this all start at I know Helping People in Hurricanes. Yep he wants to Opress people all right. But, I will say this the powers given to do this can be used against you under a Socialistic and fine line Communitist regime in the future.

Re:Oh My.

[mc6809e]

Well, there's always Jeb.

*shudder*

Jeb is the only Bush worth a damn. He just can't be a real Bush.

I think Barbara has something to tell George Sr.

Maybe something about getting lonely while he was away...

Re:Oh My.

[psykocrime]

In related news in the future, one will hear that the war on terrorism has created the need for the President to secretely sign a law to postpone elections until the war is won.

Yep. How much you want to be that happens in our lifetimes?

Re:Oh My.

[hb253]

The militia types and citizens with guns, whether kooky or not, are powerless against true military hardware. Rifles and shotguns are useless against tanks, airplanes, a precision guided missiles.

Re:Oh My.

[troll -1]

But the the bill he signed came from Congress. And what Congress giveth it can taketh away. That's one check. The other check is the Supreme Court which has already ruled that habeas corpus, which Marshall Law suspends, cannot be taken away when cilvilian courts are in operation, see Ex parte Milligan 71 US 2 1866.

Re:Oh My.

[omeomi]

One wonders just how many of the leftist gun grabbers are actually going to have this epiphany.

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? The 2nd amendment may have been relavent for this reason at one time, but not anymore...now it's just an excuse for gun-nuts to make sure they can still buy automatic weapons for "hunting". It's interesting that "Liberals" are (stereotypically) more concerned with freedom of speech and "Conservatives" are more concerned with freedom of guns (and the oppression of the freedom of speech). Says a lot, if you ask me...

I've always found it interesting that the right-wing religious concervatives thump their bibles at all sorts of people who are just trying to mind their own business, but are still willing to ignore "Thow Shalt Not Kill", as long as the killing is framed in some sort of mythical wartime struggle between good and evil.

Re:Oh My.

[Original Replica]

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.

[Anonymous Coward]

You weren't around during Katrina, where you? Guns were taken away from law abiding citizens, and they'll do the same this time. Otherwise you're rooting for the terrorists.

Re:Oh My.

[mc6809e]

The interesting question is not why Republicans do not object when their Republican president issues these orders,

Actually they do. There is plenty of division within the party right now and plenty of Republicans pissed off for the same reason those on the left are pissed off.

Re:Oh My.

[Zuke8675309]

Too bad your initial reaction wasn't, "I should go read the bill[0]", or "I should figure out what marshal law is." There's nothing in the section in question that's anything like advocating marshal law, or giving the president any additional power to declare it. Marshal law is more than just putting troops in the street. Marshal law is the suspension of civil authority, and the imposition of military authority on civillians. There's absolutly nothing in there that says anything about suspending civil authority. It's all about the fed.gov's power to send troops to assist in local emergencies, and the legality of using federal dollars to do so.

[0]Even better would be if you read the new law and the old law, so that you could see what has actually changed.

Right, but folks on slashdot can't resist a tinfoil hat bitch session on how Bush is the devil - regardless of the truth beneath the conversation.

Gee, didn't it occur to anyone that maybe this is dishonest political grandstanding by Patrick Leahy and has nothing to do with Bush trying to take away freedoms with evil intent?

Post Katrina all the bitching was "George Bush didn't do enough to restore order." Newsflash - the federal government as absolutely no authoritiy to restore order in the event of the type of lawlessness that happened in New Orleans. The state Governor has to request and send in the National Guard. Oh wait! That's right, the Governor of Louisiana and the mayor of New Orleans had their heads too far up their asses to take decisive, helpful, and intelligent action. What they were good at however, is blaming other people in government.

Re:Oh My.

[rben]

The problem is that the Republicans are more concerned with staying in power than in the well-being of the country or average Americans. They will put forth the old argument that they "must" be in office in order to do the right thing, all the while, passing laws that make legal actions that the President should be impeached over. All this to preserve the party.

This is what things have come to. Party politics have become more important than good government. The Republicans were willing to cover up Foleys actions. Why? Because they'd rather have a Republican sexual predator in office than any Democrat. How messed up is that?

It's time we demonstrated that the Republicans way of doing things has a price. Vote them all out of office on November 7th. And, if the Democrats can't do any better, vote them out in the next election. It's time we took back our country.

Don't just moan and groan, do something about the problem. VOTE. Make sure that these jokers are voted out by such a huge margin that even cheating won't help them. Then insist that your new representatives actually pay attention and work for you, rather than which ever lobbiest gives them the biggest check.

Re:Oh My.

[jbrader]

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

Re:Oh My.

[paitre]

How much you want for one of the Garands? They easily my favorite firearm of all time (although I'm also fond of the M16A1...)

Re:Oh My.

[NDPTAL85]

And only two hands.

Boy, you pro-gun people sure are smart.

Re:Oh My.

[diamondsw]

And if you think your little arsenal of a dozen guns is going to stop the government if they want to get you, you're dreaming. Face it - with the spending on military and "defense", if the government is truly out to get you, you're dead.

In the meantime, your paranoid little arms cache will more likely be used to injure your own family, or a school shooting (despite precautions such as "gun safes" and the like).

Re:Oh My.

[anagama]

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?

The most powerful military in the world is apparently struggling to enforce its will in Iraq. Granted, a bunch of old farts with guns will have no chance in a conventional engagement. But they could cause all manner of havoc indefinitely.

Re:Oh My.

[paitre]

Ironically, that's exactly what's being used against our military in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Throw in IEDs and the very, very occasional shoulder fired missile, and you get a stalemate situation.

Asking American troops to fire on American citizens? I could see a couple Case Western-type incidents occurring before whole-sale armed desertion begins to occur. In all branches. Having a lot of active and former military peeps in my family, most of them would very, VERY serious consider an order to fire on American Citizens to be improper, and would ignore it.

Re:Oh My.

[paitre]

Boy, you anti-gun jerk-offs are really dumb.

Multiple weapons owned by a single person increases both his, and his family's, survivability. Not only can he arm himself and EVERY person able to fire a weapon in his household, he likely has at least one extra weapon so a non-combat family member can be reloading while everyone is continually firing.

This tactic was used to great effect during many past wars, including the US Civil War and the US Revolutionary War.

Re:Oh My.

[R3d M3rcury]

Well, yes and no.

First, tanks, airplanes, and even precision guided missiles are known for their "collateral damage." As always, the last thing you do when you're engaging an enemy with superior firepower is give them a great big target. You mix and mingle with the population. Consider Iraq, Vietnam, and the early strategies of the American Revolution.

Imagine how many more recruits an insurgent group would get if the government, say, used tanks and artillery to destroy an apartment building where a suspected insurgent was hiding. Kill 100 or so innocent Americans to get one insurgent.

The other nice thing about smaller weapons is that they can assist you in getting bigger weapons. So while a pistol versus an M-16 in a straight-on fight is useless, if you are able to sneak up on the guy carrying the M-16 and shoot him with your pistol, you can take his M-16.

Re:Oh My.

[rthille]

I grew up with guns. In high school I took a friend's sister shooting and her parents thanked me for giving her some firearms education. But until 2001 I didn't own a gun myself. No need. I grew up on land, but as an adult I've lived 'in the city' (well, residential anyway) and didn't feel the need. After 9/11 my wife decided she wanted a gun. I recall her wanting it "for protection" (I'm not sure from what), and I voiced my opinion that getting a firearm to protect oneself from "terrorists" was idiotic, especially as we lived far from likely targets.
Well, the Patriot act changed my mind. Now I've got a 9mm and 1000 rounds (which when delivered, the FedEx guy asked, "Here's your ammo. You going to go back east and shoot the president now?" with a hopeful tone. And that was sometime in 2003), in addition to my wife's 12 gauge.

I've always felt that everyone should know how to use a gun, at least a long gun, but in this day and age, I feel that everyone (of sound mind) should own one. After all, you never know if/when someone will hack the voting machines and put Democrats in charge of the government, with all the powers that the republicans have now. See, no matter which party you prefer, I think it's better that the government have the least power necessary to do their job.

Re:Oh My.

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

You actually think these people are talking in terms of open warfare? When the Gestapo (Godwinned! Oh no! Whatever.) comes to our doors, we can shoot them and run, protecting ourselves. When people come into power that shouldn't (people who are far worse than Bush is right now) one, even if untrained beyond simple shooting, can 'vote from the rooftops'.

I do not believe anyone intends to go and directly confront the nearest military base.

Guerilla warfare and assassination are the real tools of a modern rebellion. Stop making a ridiculous straw man argument against the second amendment.

Re:Oh My.

[miskatonic alumnus]

Absolutely correct. Good thing for Uncle Sam that they have 1 tank, 1 airplane, and 1 missile for every gun toting citizen.

Re:Oh My.

[Luteus]

Here's the thing though. The American military force is made up of... Americans. A lot of them feel the same way as the average citizen towards their government. Time will tell though. We can have something like another American revolution or a fascist dictatorship like Nazi Germany.

Re:Oh My.

[Doc Ruby]

What, the "A well-regulated ['supplied'] militia being necessary to the defense of a free state" reason that the Constitution says?

We don't do militias - we have a huge standing army. Not only would it crush any of your neighborhood's weekend-warrior paintballers in exactly the kind of action Bush just signed this law to protect. But your puny militia would give the government troops the excuse to shoot everyone, just like they're doing in Iraq.

Why don't you just go ahead and vote out the Republicans you voted in, who passed this law, among others destroying the country? Or are you just looking for an excuse to shoot someone, before going out in a blaze of glory?

Re:Oh My.

[Anonymous Coward]

The militia types and citizens with guns, whether kooky or not, are powerless against true military hardware. Rifles and shotguns are useless against tanks, airplanes, a precision guided missiles.

People always say this but I don't think they always think it through. If advanced military hardware has such overwhelming power, then how do you explain the Afghanistan-USSR conflict or the Iraq-US conflict. Sure both sides have had help (from the US and Iran respectively) but that doesn't mean that potential US insurgents wouldn't also have help. Additionally it is useful to remember that the federal government has to occupy areas, not just drop bombs or drive tanks. This is a great equalizer. While the US was attacking Iraq in early 2003 there was no question who had control (in places where tanks, airplanes, and precision guided missiles were actually important). But once the occupation started the power faded away because to successfully occupy a country your most important force isn't fancy technology--it is an infantryman with an M-16.

As one final point, the US military is sworn to the US Constitution, not to any particular man. They are also sworn to follow what they consider 'lawful' orders from people in positions above them, including the President. As it was seen in the US Civil War, many military assets with the highest level of technology at the time were transferred to the rebels. To put this in perspective, if Montana, Wyoming, Idaho, and North Dakota decided to secede from the Union, they have a nuclear force about as strong as China's but with a population under 4 million (including the ability to develop and build nuclear weapons). If Washington also seceded and joined the rebels, they would have the entire US Pacific SSBN (nuclear powered submarines with ballistic nuclear missiles) fleet as well as 1-2 aircraft carriers, an air wing, a major shipyard, and multiple army bases. This one chunk of roughly 10 million people (3% of the population of the US) would make North Korea and Iran look like kids playing with wiffle ball bats. And unlike North Korea and Iran, missiles fired from this rebel territory would reach Washington and New York.

Re:Oh My.

[paitre]

Actually, the odds of a home defense being used in an accident is LESS likely than the injured family member being in a car accident during any given time period.

Quote :
Children from 5 to 14 years old are three times as likely to die from bicycle accidents as from gun accidents. They also are 14.5% more likely to die from car accidents and five times as likely to die from drowning or fire.

Now then, care to spout off on some more of the junk, bullshit "science" that the anti-gun jerk offs have been spouting for the last thirty years?

Re:Oh My.

[delong]

Don't try to be reasonable on Slashdot.

The bill allows the President to declare a state of emergency and directly command federal troops and state National Guard to act without relying on a State Governor to declare an emergency and request federal troops, or act on their own to mobilize state National Guard.

Remember Katrina? Remember all the bitching on Slashdot about Bush not sending in the military right away to assist? That's because he couldn't. Now he, and any future President, can.

This is why I rarely bother with Slashdot or Digg anymore. They're all a bunch of deranged paranoid fanatics here.

Re:Oh My.

[jZnat]

You still need to aim with a shotgun. ;p

It's a bit harder to aim a shottie than a rifle IME due to a much larger kick from shooting a shotgun shell as opposed to a rifle bullet.

Re:Oh My.

[BunnyClaws]

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?"

Hey, you stole my reply to the same talking point. It drives me nuts how short sighted Republican Kool-Aid drinkers have become. What will they do when one day they have the terrorist label thrown at them and the tables turned? Damn fools!

Re:Oh My.

[Fred_A]

Shouldn't you better get an Abrams ? Or an F16 ?

Re:Oh My.

[Anonymous Coward]

Guns wont protect you. Remember Waco fool. And I wonder what that OK City shit was all about. Dipshit.

Re:Oh My.

[Desipis]

Having a lot of active and former military peeps in my family, most of them would very, VERY serious consider an order to fire on American Citizens to be improper, and would ignore it.

What happens when it's "Fire on those rebels or we'll throw you and your family (including children) in gitmo for treason."?

Re:Oh My.

[Broken scope]

One guy doesn't fit every situation. Also jackass a gun in each hand is a very good way to waste ammo.

Re:Oh My.

[paitre]

The difference between the military shooting Iraqis versus them shooting Americans is that the Iraqis AREN'T US.

Think about that for a second. The Iraqis/Arabs are people that we have been taught are borderline evil for at least 20 years now, and many Americans harbor general resentment against Arabs in general for a variety of reasons.

The same is NOT true of how we feel about our fellow Americans. Multiple Case-Western type incidents, and the general knowledge that the current Iraq policy is being enforced on Americans WILL lead to a second Civil War. One far, far more bloody in terms of both actual body count and percentage of the population lost than has ever been seen before, but one that would likely result in a far better country and world than what wer are living in now.

Re:Oh My.

[wrf3]

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.

[Ztream]

Yes, they can resist. But can they overthrow? To me it seems no side is winning, and the losers are the general civilian population.

Also, people who talk about how they can just get their gun if government starts oppressing them seem to take for granted that other civilians will agree with them. I'd say such actions, at least in present day USA, would bring a civil war, not a war of people against government.

Re:Oh My.

[abigor]

That's because the US military is being "nice" about it. They are on a PR mission as much as anything else. Trust me, if the US military wanted to level that country they could do it in a day - actually, in an hour.

Re:Oh My.

[Anonymous Coward]

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

It already works like that since a century or so.

Re:Oh My.

[Broken scope]

Aww its so cute when an anti gun person makes assumptions.

Paranoid? Maybe.

You will be more than welcome to come into my home and try to shoot me with my guns. Assuming you can find the one that is not dismantled or very well locked up. Find the ammo for it all before I break your jaw. Assuming you know how to use a gun.

Take your moronic stereotype and shove it.

Re:Oh My.

[paitre]

How many of the pissed off Republicans are in positions that actually matter within the party power structure?

Very, very few, if any.

I completely agree that, as a party, the Republicans are heavily divided on things at the moment, unfortunately, they are -STILL- going to vote for the same scoundrels that are currently in office, because they have to be better than the alternative.
(Such flawed logic is part of WHY we're in this situation to begin with)

Re:Oh My.

[wrf3]

That's only because we care to try and limit civilian casualties. If we took the gloves off, they wouldn't stand a chance.

Re:Oh My.

[rthille]

I think even Dubya might think twice about dropping bombs on US soil when the 'terrorists' are obviously US citizens.

Hell, even the Fundies might think twice about bombing S.F....

Re:Oh My.

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean the ~655,000 dead ones?

Re:Oh My.

[Xonstantine]

Yep, and thats what happens when the opposition party and their followers goes off the deep end. In response to Republican dominance, Democrats have gone even further to the left, which is the absolutely last thing they should do. Freaking Ted Kennedy is the "conscience" of the party. And that's really, really fucking scary to the average person in the midwest.

Re:Oh My.

[uradu]

It's strange to hear us liberals all of a sudden yearn for the good old days of Small Government, while under a "Small Government" (wink, wink) administration.

Re:Oh My.

[Loconut1389]

not really- the rebels (as opposed to iraqi's in general) are causing most of the problems with improvised explosives. Do you have a TV?

Re:Oh My.

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't assume that the military is simply a group of mindless drones who will do the bidding of their superiors, no questions asked - if something along the lines of "there will be no elections, So Sayeth W" were to occur, don't forget that the military he'd invoke to quell the doubtless uprising is made up of Americans, Americans who swore to uphold the Constitution. I think no one would be more furious and ready to overthrow the government than the men and women of the Armed Forces in a case like you're describing. The President can't declare martial law without a military to back him up.

Re:Oh My.

[TheRaven64]

I was under the impression that you could write in candidates in US ballots? In the UK, you have the option of spoiling your ballot paper. You do this by doing anything other than putting a cross in the correct box. A spoilt ballot is typically counted as meaning non of the above and, while it doesn't have any legal meaning (if the majority of ballot papers are spoilt, that doesn't automatically mean the election is re-run), it is a more active protest than simply not voting.

Re:Oh My.

[tolan-b]

I think the insugency in Iraq is a bit better armed than your average farmer.

Re:Oh My.

[fimbulvetr]

If we take the House and maybe (oh please, oh please) the Senate, we have the chance to do something that matters: nothing.

You know, that's funny. That's actually one of the defining things of a "conservative" view. The lack of change. Everything how it is. Even more interesting is most conservatives will argue that's not what the conservative party is for. They'll say it's for passing laws against abortion and gay marriage. For applying taxes so the govn. can keep us safe. These are everyday conversations I have with republicans. The new conservatives are the democrats. What's a libertarian to do?

Re:Oh My.

[BlindFate]

Are you saying the current elections arent pretend?

Re:Oh My.

[MBGMorden]

You still have to aim with the shotgun, it's just that you don't have to aim so precisely. Taken from a hunting perspective, shotguns are made to shot moving things at close range, whereas rifles are made to shoot stationary (or very slowly moving) things at larger distances.

Pistols are basically a last resort weapon in full out combat. If you run out of ammo or you primary weapon is lost or malfunctions, the pistol is small enough to be quickly drawn and used until you can get your hands on another rifle.

Best bet would be to have a variety to switch around depending on use. I'm a collector and avid hunter so I've got more than most, but I have 4 pistols, 5 shotguns, and 15 rifles :).

Re:Oh My.

[Tony Hoyle]

First I've heard of that, and I tend to keep on top of these things.

For the UK government to pass such an act it'd have to get through the lords (and they are bouncing crap back to the commons like they're playing tennis at the moment) and even if Blair used the parliement act to force it through then the queen would have to sign it (granted she hasn't refused to sign anything recently but she has the power to do so). By the time he'd gone through all that (would take 2-3 years) the bad publicity would have killed it anyway.

Re:Oh My.

[paitre]

In that case, you're looking at a full scale mutiny, because the family would already have to be in custody for that to be the case.

Start threatening the families of the people flying your nuclear bombers sometime. Those are the folks who joined the military out of duty to country, and they -will- refuse to follow improper orders, especially coming through a corrupted chain of command.

Re:Oh My.

[TheRaven64]

Nuke(tm): Because sometimes you really can't aim.

Re:Oh My.

[Broken scope]

I find it funny.

I know people in the military. I know many of them WOULD refuse to fight if Bush tried to use them to put himself in charge as a military dictator. The same thing would happen if a US general tried to do the same thing. Yes, there would always be those who are loyal to the military and not their country. However they are in the minority.

Sorry, but I plan to live a long damn time. That doesn't include doing very stupid things. I wouldn't stage a 1 man assault on a military check point. That is called a suicide mission. There are much more effective tactics against a well trained military force.

I didn't vote the republicans in. In fact you have no idea which way I voted, or even if I could have voted at that point. So take that little assumption and shove it.

A government should fear the people, as it is the servant of the people.
A government that does not fear the people is a broken one, and should be replaced.
Through democracy, or if necessary through force.

Re:Oh My.

[smchris]

OH, WOW! Could I have been wrong all these years?

When Dubya comes for the liberals and a SWAT team with snipers, tear gas, dogs and God knows what kicks down our door in the middle of the night I'll be _so_ much more helpless than I would have been if only, IF ONLY, I had thought to buy a handgun to put under my pillow.

I better run right out and get one. Should I model myself after Sylvester? Or Arnold? Or Claude? Those guys could take on the Chinese Army singlehanded with a 45 and never die.

Let's talk:

A. Look at places that tried to restrict firearms like apartheid South Africa.

1) They didn't succeed. South Africa is still awash with apartheid-era firearms.

2) It wasn't the guns that won the revolution. It was the organizing. With a little help from the car bombs, the restaurant and nightclub bombs, torching the SASOL refinery and sanctions.

B. There are probably enough guns in the U.S. to divide them up among every adult American and they can still shoot two-handed.

C. If it comes to lone households against the troops of a regime you have already lost _everything_ and are trying to fight back from _nothing_. That may be some people's B video mountain cabin fantasy, but, for damn sure, the best thing is to make sure it never comes to that. So if your choice this weekend is to browse a firearms catalog or get politically organized with your neighbors, I would seriously suggest the latter.

[Oh, and coming from a white trash childhood, I _do_ actually possess a handgun packed away somewhere. Thank you for asking.]

Re:Oh My.

[NDPTAL85]

All of this is irrelevant against a government that has tanks and other superior firepower.

Re:Oh My.

[Pink Tinkletini]

...the need for the President to secretely sign a law to postpone elections...

Laws like that are, indeed, most effective when kept secret.

Re:Oh My.

[paitre]

Seriously.
As the other respondent stated - Write yourself in. Get your friends to write you in.
Hell, get everyone who you can contact in the next week to write you in for every fucking office that they want to get an incumbent out of. Failing that, to at least write THEMSELVES in.

Hell, it's what I'm doing.

Re:Oh My.

[Yusaku Godai]

I would if I could afford to ;)

Re:Oh My.

[Broken scope]

One day of bombing Dresden resulted in somewhere between 40k to 60k civillain deaths. That was with the gloves off. Now imagine that but more widespread.

Re:Oh My.

[John Miles]

How about Vietnam? Was that a PR mission, too?

Re:Oh My.

[Warg! The Orcs!!]

It remains to be seen whether, in the case of a full-scale rebellion against the US Govt, the nation's armed forces would follow orders and shoot its own people. Generally troops do not like to kill their countyfolk.

Re:Oh My.

[Anonymous Coward]

What happens when it's "Fire on those rebels or we'll throw you and your family (including children) in gitmo for treason."?

Their going to run out of room rather quickly

Re:Oh My.

[reub2000]

although I'm also fond of the M16A1

That doesn't seem like a very appropriate firearm for use in rebelling against the US.

Re:Oh My.

[Anonymous Coward]

"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?"

I would guess this is the same thing that King George III thought 200+ years ago. Also if an armed rebellion broke out against the Government how many in the military would side against the government. I believe the oath most officers take is to defend the constitution against all enemy's foreign AND DOMESTIC. And if the president becomes and enemy to the constitution I would image any oath sworn to obey the orders of the commander in chief becomes void. That is suposed to be the idea of this country we all pledge our allegiance to the constitution and the ideals this country was founded on not to a King or ruler.

Re:Oh My.

[Yusaku Godai]

Well of course you have to aim, just less precisely as you said. I also agree it's not a bad idea to have a backup.

And if I ever did get scared enough to buy a gun, I would go to target practice and at least work on developing some idea of how to use it.

Now, if you're a hunter, and enjoy guns just for the collection aspect, then all power to you. But for the average person that much arsenal is just ridiculous.

I think that in general gun ownership should be discouraged--not that there aren't plenty of people capable of being responsible gun owners. It's just that current laws make it too easy for irresponsible gun owners to get a hold of them. But in times like these, where I genuinely am worried about my own government's actions, I am for once glad that the 2nd ammendment gives me the right to arm myself should I choose to.

Re:Oh My.

[BunnyClaws]

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?

The last sentence about Americans not remembering history is the punch line right?

Re:Oh My.

[louisadkins]

Ah, but if you are trying to milk an area for labor and taxes going to bombing and such would not be in your best interest. Too many supporters/surfs/profits lost.

Re:Oh My.

[wrf3]

Yes, we can write in candidates in the US. I may try it just to see how the thrice-cursed Diebold machines handle it. Now you've got me going on another reason to hate the idiots in government in Georgia. Voting machines with no paper trail. I've been writing software professionally for 34 years; I'll be damned if I'm going to trust a machine.

Re:Oh My.

[lexarius]

My optimistic side urges me to believe that our military would try even harder to limit civilian casualties if they were fighting their own people.

Re:Oh My.

[Lumpy]

Cancel elections??? are you mad?

There are a couple of things that North Korea and Iran have tought all inspired dictators...

Keep the elections, the people love you so that they will always vote you as supreme leader every single time.

I am sure that the Shaw of Iran and Mister, Ill are beloved by their people! They protect them from terrorism!

Me? I'm shopping for land way WAY north in the woods or what I can do to emigrate to northern canada.

Re:Oh My.

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

And even if some of the armed forces did follow orders, at least at first, there would likely be a lot of dissent in the ranks, they'd be vastly outnumbered, they'd have no advantage in terms of stealth/surprise, and they wouldn't be able to use military-style heavy weaponry without inflicting wounds on themselves. And if you think they're untrained, you should go watch the keen ones practice at the range, and compare their skills with small arms to those of the average military foot soldier.

So yeah, in reply to the original question, I'd say your "bunch of civilians" would stand a pretty good chance. In any case, if things really got that bad, I'd bet on the administration being forced from office within days, if not hours, and certainly well before either side of an armed conflict got "serious".

Re:Oh My.

[Anonymous Coward]

Strangely enough I don't trust you on this at all. I think the paper tiger has been shown up - there are limits to what the yanks can do.

This is Bush's legacy.

Re:Oh My.

[eples]

It would never come to that. People would run for office LONG before a situation escalated to military force.

If that didn't produce the desired change, various states would separate from the Union.

If that didn't produce the desired change (inconceivable) - let's indulge this crazy notion - you really think our army is going to shoot at AMERICAN CIVILIANS in large numbers?
No fucking way.

Re:Oh My.

[wrf3]

Me running for office is about as sensible as me trying out for American Idol. There are some things that I know I'm not good at. Dealing with people is one of them. I don't do well around incompetence, b.s., and politics. But I repeat myself.

Re:Oh My.

[Anonymous Coward]

No matter how "high powered" the rifles of the gun-toting NRA members, the odds of defeating a dictator in the white house are pretty slim. They have tanks (no, you can't have one), and troops with automatic weapons (no, the law says you can't have that either), and rocket launchers (really, I would like one to hunt flightless birds and squirrels). Oh, and DU shells. Don't think for a moment that they won't bomb you if you revolt! Assuming your children survive, they'll get to live with incredibly high rates of cancer, just like the Iraqis since the 90s.

You can't possibly defend yourself from your own government. There used to be three branches of government to keep mad power-crazed loonies from running the show. That seems to have not worked out so well, thanks to handing the keys to the neo-conservatives and the dems rolling over. If you want my advice, shut down the terrorist-talk before someone notices, and get the hell out of the country before you get whisked off to be tortured.

Re:Oh My.

[dkleinsc]

Minor question here: When you say "Case Western-type incidents" are you actually referring to the Kent State shooting incident during the Vietnam War?

Re:Oh My.

[jazman_777]

the leftist gun grabbers

Most leftists, living in urban areas, are really afraid of armed blacks in their cities. They can't say that, though, so have to go on about the "gun nuts" in the heartland...

Re:Oh My.

[ChrisMaple]

In Vietnam, we had an (unjustified) fear of mainland China officially joining the war. Also, the situation was not serious enough to justify nuclear weapons. If we had been serious about defeating North Vietnam, we could have done it.

Re:Oh My.

[eples]

Yeah - it's really fucking shocking how the Executive branch has amassed wide sweeping powers (with no oversight, secret laws, etc etc) over the last 6 years.

The elder generation tells me that America has always had a pendulum effect in these types of things - we sway way the fuck too far at first, and then slowly crank it back to the middle.

So, um.. here's hoping.

Re:Oh My.

[TheRaven64]

You can probably make the military take the gloves off against Iraq because, after all, they don't look like 'us'. Dehumanising the enemy is very important to this kind of thing. Doing the same against their own parents, siblings, schoolfriends, etc. is much, much harder. There are always a few sociopaths in any army who would open fire on their own civilian population, but there are usually more who would shoot the ones who did.

Re:Oh My.

[ThosLives]

a couple Case Western-type incidents

Case Western incidents? What incidents happened at Case? And why did I not hear about something that happened at my alma mater?

Or did you perhaps mean the incident at Kent State?

Re:Oh My.

[Jaysyn]

Obviously, you don't know the farmers I know...

Jaysyn

Re:Oh My.

[ericartman]

As I remember the oath taken was to defend the Constitution against all. I DO SOLEMNLY SWEAR (OR AFFIRM) THAT I WILL SUPPORT AND DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES AGAINST ALL ENEMIES, FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC. If you love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen. -Samuel Adams, 1776 E.C.

Re:Oh My.

[mitymidget]

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?

Your also forgetting that the military is made up of untrained civilians that go through training. Any malitia that can take time to do target practice and keep their health up has a fighting chance if their in a fire fight. Besides, our country is founded by revolutionists...dont forget how we fought British (yeah I know the french helped). The side with more wilingness to win will win.

Re:Oh My.

[Coryoth]

My optimistic side urges me to believe that our military would try even harder to limit civilian casualties if they were fighting their own people.

Well yes, but at that point why do you need to guns anymore? All the civilians can just stand up and say no, and the military can have the moral quandry of whether they want to cold-bloodedly slaughter a significant percentage of the US population who are standing in unarmed opposition. If you don't have widespread enough support to do that, then you are sufficiently small to be labelled a "radical terrorist group" ala McVeigh and friends or Koresh and co. at Waco, at which point you'll find n public support, and plenty of willingness to allow harsh measures.

Re:Oh My.

[HiThere]

I think you mean we decline to report civilian casualties. The actual numbers (estimates...all that's available) is somewhat frightening and very excessive. Our presence is clearly not desired, despite the propaganda denying this.

It's true, we aren't doing "radical cleansing". No massive fumigations of cities with poisonous gas. We could do worse. This is hardly the same as "limiting civilian casualties". When you target someone's house with artillery aren't limiting casualties of anyone living in the same block, likely not in the same dozen blocks. When you destroy their water supplies, you aren't limiting casualties. Etc.

It is probably fair to say that we haven't intentionally striven to kill civilians for the sole purpose of killing civilians. I'm not sure, but that probably fair. OTOH, driving people homeless into the desert without food, water, or transportation isn't exactly "limiting casualties". That action in and of itself can easily lead to over 50% fatalities. Telling people to leave in just that way or be targeted by artillery isn't "limiting casualties". It's merely limiting the number of people who are shot.

It's also a great way to ensure that the rest of the populace loves you dearly.

Re:Oh My.

[civilizedINTENSITY]

The article seems to indicate otherwise

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."

Note: this wouldn't have helped in New Orleans, since LA declared an emergency, and asked for help, and New Mexico said that they'd send national guard troops, even before the storm hit. Before such troops can cross a state line, it is required that Bush OK it. It took him a week. What good is it to allow Bush to go in, then, without state's consent?

Re:Oh My.

[mofomojo]

Don't forget the Phillipine-American war. One of the most frequently forgotten American regional conflicts and Imperialism as a new age colonial power, essentially a precursor to Iraq and Vietnam.

See : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phillipine-American_W ar

Re:Oh My.

[monte48lowes]

Here is a link that is working http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/20050041 6.html As for the conspiracy, there was much todo during the aftermath of hurricane Katrina. There were defense personnel who were ready to lend assistance to the state of Louisiana. They were not able to since the Louisiana state government did not ask for it. The provision in this bill would allow the President to send troops to help those citizens in need without having to waste time waiting for the state government. Many people blame the President for not doing enough before/after Katrina. This is one step the government has taken to prevent that from happening again. Mike

Re:Oh My.

[wrf3]

You can probably make the military take the gloves off against Iraq because, after all, they don't look like 'us'.

Given that the U.S. is the world's melting-pot, just what does 'us' look like?

Dehumanising the enemy is very important to this kind of thing

Which cannot be done without dehumanizng yourself.

Re:Oh My.

[HairyNevus]

Actually, in an episode of Showtime's "Bullshit!" Penn and Teller (mostly Penn) point out that the wording of the second amendment really does clearly state that the right for citizens to own guns is for the government to be afraid of us. However, Chuck Heston and is right wing cronies have turned it into a "right to protect yourself from every other person (read: minority) out to break into your home and kill all y'all"-type amendment.

Re:Oh My.

[TheRaven64]

Children from 5 to 14 years old are three times as likely to die from bicycle accidents as from gun accidents.

Interesting. And what's the ratio of bicycle ownership to gun ownership?

Re:Oh My.

[b17bmbr]

All of this is irrelevant against a government that has tanks and other superior firepower.

which as we all know has been tremendously effecttive in stopping the Iraqi insurgency.

Re:Oh My.

[Meagermanx]

I find it ironic.

Re:Oh My.

[7Prime]

Aren't you refering to the Kent State shootings during the 60's anti-war movement? Case Western had it's share of protests, but noone was killed. Kent State's a bit south of Case.

Re:Oh My.

[foobsr]

How much you want to bet that happens in our lifetimes?

At the time being, I cannot afford the luxury to bet, but read this: "Officials discuss how to delay Election Day" (as of Monday, July 12, 2004).

CC.

Re:Oh My.

[Original Replica]

So maybe I'll start my revolution in Va.Beach VA where 75% percent of the population is military and their familes, let'em try to bomb me then. Or maybe it'll start in DC itself. Or in Portland OR were the bombers are made, or any other city in the US. Maybe I'll enlist in the Army, get my training and then revolt. The point is: the US military would be largely ineffective against a revolt of the general US citizenry. If all of the labor unions went on strike (never firing a single shot) how long do you think the US military machine could run?

Re:Oh My.

[Yusaku Godai]

To be fair, our congress critters could be doing a lot more to combat this sort of thing--Democrats and Republicans alike. The executive branch may be to blame, but I also fault congress for not doing more to maintain the balance of power. And the judiciary is just a joke when "laws" are made in the form of signing statements and can't even be challenged effectively in court.

Re:Oh My.

[Ucklak]

Well then vote Libertarian, if anything, just to get a third party available.

Re:Oh My.

[paitre]

Honestly, you're probably more cut out for the job because you DON'T want it and think you're singularly unqualified than the jackasses that have been about nothing but power, law and politics their entire adult lives (which would be MOST of the jackholes in Congress).

Re:Oh My.

[pete-classic]

You make two assumptions that I believe to be incorrect.

First, you assume that the military is a mindless tool wielded by whomever sits in the White House. Every service member has sworn an oath to support and defend the Constitution. Every service member knows that it is his duty to refuse an unlawful order. There is no question that there are some members who will follow any order, but there are also many who would have the courage to refuse to be an instrument of oppression of his fellow citizens.

Second, most of the guns in the United States are privately owned. Most of the men in the United States are are not in the service of any part of our governments. The raw numbers are overwhelmingly in favor of a popular (in both senses) revolt.

I served four years in the US Army, and I consider myself a patriot. I love my country. When I say "my country" I mean the American people and the values we share. The government is only legitimate to the extent that it represents those people and those values. Overthrowing an illegitimate government is the duty of the people.

-Peter

Re:Oh My.

[Anonymous Coward]

"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"

So did the guy breaking into my house last night - He was wrong!!

Re:Oh My.

[Sri Ramkrishna]

Funny, I think the British thought the same thing. Look what happened to them, eh? Americans can kick ass when we want to.

sri

Re:Oh My.

[Broken scope]

Yes, minorities are the only ones who break into homes.

ya... right.

Re:Oh My.

[memeplex]

Yes, we have a one-party State. It's called the Republicrats, or Demoblicans, if you prefer. We live in a beautiful corporate pseudo-Democracy, which has produced the most productive and powerful nation in the world. Clinton and Bush are part of the same club -- good ol' boys who meet in smoke-filled rooms with leather arm-chairs. The *big secret* is that they actually have our best interests in mind, and are working 24/7 (from Ft. Meade to Ft. Bragg) to prevent Armageddon. (CIA, Yale, Masons, Rhodes, yada, yada, yada.) They're the Quigley gang, and they know exactly what they're doing. President Clinton violated Posse Comitatus at Waco, bombed the Chinese embasssy in the latest Serbo-Croatian war, and banned - temporarily - the sale of new combat-ready semi-automatic (A.K.A. "assault") rifles. The Chief Executive, or Commander-in-Chief has had the ability to order troops anywhere needed for a long, long time. Just over a year ago, many of you pissed and moaned that Bush had been *too slow* to deploy the 82nd Airborne to New Orleans! Wake up.

Re:Oh My.

[foobsr]

Sorry.

CC.

Re:Oh My.

[myowntrueself]

Rifles and shotguns are useless against tanks, airplanes, a precision guided missiles

Theres a reason its called 'assymetric warfare', you insensitive clod!

Re:Oh My.

[S.O.B.]

I had a friend that did the same thing until I pointed out to him that without a "none of the above" option his vote was lumped together with people who are too stupid to put an X in a circle.

A better way to protest a lack of options is to not vote. Poor voter turnout is noticed.

Re:Oh My.

[7Prime]

Dude, we're already doing that, not with bombs though. Currently, there are MANY american citizens that have lost all their rights, simply because someone outted them as being a terrorist. We've created a situation in which the definition of "terrorist" and "american" cannot overlap, therefor, anyone who's a "terrorist" isn't a citizen of this country, and is subject to whatever we want to do to them. A lot of people are buying into it too. Terrorism is the new communism, except this time around the witch hunters were smart enough to attach some racial stigma to it as well.

Re:Oh My.

[Ucklak]

I'm guessing that you're anti-gun. If you are, what group of people would you like to have the legal right to possess guns?
If you're making a list, please add the unlawful criminals to the list first as they will do whatever they please anyway.

Re:Oh My.

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

I call bullshit. Blair has got through some pretty creepy things -- look at the Civil Contingencies Act, for example -- but nothing that far-fetched. The closest he's come so far was the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill, and the really bad stuff in there was dropped very quietly one fast news day a few weeks after it started getting noticed.

Re:Oh My.

[flamingnight]

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.

[bladesjester]

Why not? They have before.

It was called the Civil War

Re:Oh My.

[myowntrueself]

That's only because we care to try and limit civilian casualties. If we took the gloves off, they wouldn't stand a chance.

Thats right, if you purge the population and wipe out all trace of civilisation then the land will become safer for your occupying forces.

Ain't assymetric warfare a wonderful thing?

Re:Oh My.

[Ucklak]

Last I read, they're not using guns and rifles, they're using RPGs, and IEDs. Basically, military weaponry.

Re:Oh My.

[Anonymous Coward]

And it's abundantly clear before your concluding statement that a) you don't own a gun and b) you've put little to no serious thought into gun ownership and c) you've given little thought to what it would take to protect yourself in case of a local riot or how to take even a minimal defensive posture.

"I still think that gun laws should be strictly enforced and that gun ownership should be limited."

That's one hell of a contradiction. It's not okay for martial law to be declared by the government, but you advocate that the government can lay seige to someone's home because they have a barrel 1/4" too short?

The very freakin nature of an overly powerful government is extreme measures of force for non-violent infractions.

"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."

Huh? Protection includes being able to protect your home and to have a weapon available if need be within a reasonable amount of time.

btw, what do you consider "government" anyways? Local, state, federal, police, federal worker, what? Have you even thought about that? Do you include those who enforce a legal but wrong law a threat? Are you willing to protect yourself from them? If not, go away, because right or wrong, THOSE are the people who will come knocking--those who are "doing their job."

"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)."

Why would you bother? You're so impotent on the large, overly intrusive government issue that you only take a stance when you are in a losing situation? Worse, your concern about a federal government you don't agree with comes only after the government has grown so large that you take action only when that 2 ton gorilla might be misdirected? The same federal government that grew in power, to which you were so happy with only a few years ago?

To take a saying from my favorite anime, you are and will be USELESS if such a time comes (it won't in our lifetime). Even if it did, people like you will simply watch the TV or internet reports "in horror of what was going on."

What a pathetic attitude. In order for you to buy that gun AND to hold true to the laws of most states (as you said, you want strict adherence and enforcement of the law), the federal government already KNOWS you own a weapon and can go after you FOR THAT REASON ALONE under martial law because they ran a background check on your ass before you purchased it. If I recall, isn't that one of the first questions they looked up and/or asked New Orleans residents when they were evicting them from their homes?

For everyone's sake--don't buy a gun. Stay home. If that sorry day came, you'd be more a danger to others around you than help. (I suppose we could use you as a decoy, but that'd be just mean.)

Re:Oh My.

[Anonymous Coward]

Lesson in U.S. history... see, there was this thing called the civil war.....

Re:Oh My.

[Lumpy]

Oh yeah, untrainede civilians with rocks and stones can kick the American Army ass over and over and over again.

They are doing it right now. Suicide bombers are exceptionally effective and easy to get volunteers. A mother where her children were killed by the troops will be very happy to blow herself and 30 marines/footsoldiers to bits. A child that has seen his family killed and his older brother taken away? he will happily carry in a few handgrenades and smile and hug a troop near a humvee giving out "supplies" as he lets the handles go.

You bet, the american army and marines are helpless and can get their asses kicked so hard with mere untrained and underequipped civillians that they will be scared to do anything.

The easiest was to stop an army is to scare the shit out of it. The Iraqi's have done it to us already. I dont care if you have a nuke, if you are scared that someone is going to blow your ass personally up later you will think twice before doing it.

If you need more evidence on how this is done, please see the vietnam war, how we won the revolutionary war, and the current war in iraq.

Re:Oh My.

[Anonymous Coward]

Ecept the Second amendment has lost its teeth, what are you and your hunting rifle going to do agasint tanks, RPGs, and fully automatic weapons?

Re:Oh My.

[Anonymous Coward]

...and me without my mod points. Not to mention that "low tech" worked fine in the Revolutionary War, Vietnam War and Korean War.

I always believed that no country would invade the US, not because of our military, but because of our citizens. Imagine in 1980, the Soviet's dropping 100,000 paratroopers in Alabama (Texas, Georgia, etc). Few would make it all the way to the ground. Alive, that is.

Re:Oh My.

[myowntrueself]

You still need to aim with a shotgun. ;p

Hah!

Your barrel isn't short enough...

Re:Oh My.

[Waffle Iron]

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.

Re:Oh My.

[lonesome phreak]

I can almost guarentee all these crazy power-grabbing laws will be either revoked or "sunsetted" by the Bush administration if his party looses the Presidential election. Of course he wouldn't want his enemies to hae the same powers.

Re:Oh My.

[ArcticCelt]

The only problem is that the majority of the gun nuts are the ones following the government.

Re:Oh My.

[flamingnight]

The "rebels" are mostly the Iraqi people defending themselves against an occupying nation. The principle of self-determination gives them every right to do so.

Re:Oh My.

[Broken scope]

You act as if every gun owner is a gun nut.

Re:Oh My.

[Ucklak]

Dehumanising the enemy is very politically incorrect. They're not a bunch of thugs wanting to kill us, they're just misguided people that need compassion and understanding.

Re:Oh My.

[SpacePunk]

Contrary to popular belief... tanks, airplanes, guided missiles are fairly ineffective against individual human targets who have a good deal of mobility over any kind of terrain. With a handgun I can take a rifle, with a rifle I can take explosives, with explosives I can take something more lethal. Use of force when properly, and not chaotically applied is an effective tool in getting items that grant you more force.

Rifles and shotguns may be useless against tanks, but tanks are a huge achilles heel where other types of attacks can be levered against it such as explosives in the treads, molitove cocktails against the hull, trenches, etc...

Also, if it really comes down to the people defending itself from the local, state, and/or federal governments, there are numerous national guard armories that have just the right tools for the job.

Re:Oh My.

[LGagnon]

This is clearly not a republican vs. democrat issue. It's freedom vs. fascism which cuts across all party lines.

Actually, fascism is a right-wing ideology by definition. Granted, the supposedly left-wing Democrats are going along with it, but they are centrists, not leftists; centrists go along with anything to "remain" in the ever-moving "center". Because of this, the two parties are, essentially, two sides of the same coin.

Re:Oh My.

[myowntrueself]

If all of the labor unions went on strike (never firing a single shot) how long do you think the US military machine could run?

As long as it takes that military machine to organise press gangs to round up people for the slave-labor factories.

In the UK there was a General Strike many decades ago. It didn't quite come to that, but the soldiers did have live ammo.

In todays US? They'd be denounced as terrorists and their leaders would be 'revealed' as pedophiles.

You need to start your revolution in the television media first, then in the supermarkets and malls. Turn the tables.

Re:Oh My.

[TwilightXaos]

You have a very different idea of "OK" then I do. And different than most americans i would imagine.

Re:Oh My.

[Anonymous Coward]

> What happens when it's "Fire on those rebels or we'll throw you and your family (including children) in gitmo for treason."?

"You threatened my family? You're no commander of mine. Boys, take him."

Re:Oh My.

[bshellenberg]

I hear this one a lot. Guns to protect you from your government. Here is an idea.... load up whatever gun you've got, then call up the FBI (your government) and invite them over. Once they get there, shoot one of them. Let's see how well you do protecting yourself from the government.

Re:Oh My.

[myowntrueself]

Some time after the Great War, in the USA, a large band of war veterans gathered in the capital to protest at not having been paid for their war bonds (IIRC what soldiers received in lieu of actually being paid cash; they were supposed to be redeemed for money later on. Government reneged, war veterans protested).

The military didn't seem to have a problem with orders being followed when the protesters tent city was overrun with tanks and set on fire. And these were *ex* military; veterans of the Great War.

Their brothers in arms? Didn't make much difference.

Re:Oh My.

[Sancho]

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.

[Tim C]

the military can have the moral quandry of whether they want to cold-bloodedly slaughter a significant percentage of the US population

It wouldn't take that though; massacre a few selected groups (probably only one or two) and the vast majority of the population would find their resolve melt away, leaving just the ones who were always willing to die for the cause in the first place.

Re:Oh My.

[Anonymous Coward]

she did, his name is bill

Re:Oh My.

[Unlikely_Hero]

Ya....
and you'll have any fucking chance with civilian grade weaponry.
Keep dreaming.

Remember, only criminals would want assault rifles!

Re:Oh My.

[lonesome phreak]

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.

[LindseyJ]

Poor voter turnout is noticed.

And attributed, more often than not, to laziness and apathy. It's like the RIAA/MPAA: when CD/Movie ticket sales drop, it's always because of piracy, not because nobody wants to listen to your music or watch your movies. Similarly, when voter turnout is low, it's always portrayed to be a sign of the laziness of the American people, not the fact that a lot of people are disgusted with both main-stream parties, don't want to have to choose the 'lesser of two evils', so just don't vote.

It's the same every election. You'll go on CNN or FOX and see "So And So won the election, but voter turnout was the lowest it's been in years!", then they'll cut to some man-on-the-street shtick where they'll have a reporter on the streets of the Bronx or Cleaveland looking for tools who don't know anything about anything, then propping them up as the mainstream viewpoint:

"Hey, what man? Sorry, I just woke up, killer party last night, dude. Man, I did sooo many hits on that bong -- Huh? Election? There was an election yesterday? Nah, I didn't go. Man, weren't you listening? Dave had some people over; he got some choice weed, dude..."

Re:Oh My.

[Dark_MadMax666]

Ohh well and guess what Nazy Germany military force was made up of.. duhh. germans. And in my own country(Russsia) during 1917-1950 guess who was killing they own fellow citizen , puting them in GULAG , torturing them in prisons - they own fellow russians, not some aliens from outer space.
  Weak argument.

Re:Oh My.

[Anonymous Coward]

"granted she hasn't refused to sign anything recently but she has the power to do so"

Yeah, once. If she starts causing problems she's out; unless the goverment at the time was sufficiently disliked to actually make that a rebellion-triggering event, which is obviously fairly tricky based on Thatcher and Blair's popularity record.

Re:Oh My.

[kcbrown]

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

No, they're not. Want proof? We're still there. Only when we've been kicked out forcibly as a result of taking far too much in the way of military losses (like, for instance, losing more than 50% of our fighting force) can you say that armed resistance has worked for the Iraqis in the same way that it would have to for domestic revolutionaries.

The Iraqis have been a nuisance, yes. But a successful revolution through arms requires a lot more than that. It requires major military victory. Victory by revolutionaries armed with nothing bigger than a few 50mm cannons against an opponent as well-armed as the U.S. government is nigh unto impossible.

Against a sitting government that will do literally anything it has to in order to remain in power, being a mere nuisance is worth as much as doing nothing at all.

No, for an armed revolution to succeed in the U.S., it has to have the backing of major portions of the U.S. military. All the shotguns, M-16s, etc. in the world will do you no good at all against a bomber cruising along at 45,000 feet, or against a cruise missile heading your way at 600 mph, or (in the worst case) against a nuclear-tipped Titan missile heading your direction.

In the fight for freedom, we have lost. There is nothing left to do and nowhere left to go.

This is why armed revolution worked in the U.S. back in the day, and why democracy managed to spread throughout the world. Those conditions aren't true anymore. The technological landscape favors totalitarianism more today than it has any other time in human history. Given that, is it any surprise that it's right on our doorstep now, even (especially?) in the "land of the free"?

Re:Oh My.

[Anonymous Coward]

not really- the rebels (as opposed to iraqi's in general) are causing most of the problems with improvised explosives.

I believe the rebels are Iraqis in general.

Re:Oh My.

[Anonymous Coward]

Not to state the obvious, but "vote Libertarian"?

Re:Oh My.

[Simon Garlick]

Repeat after me:

Voting will not do anything about the problem.

Once again:

Voting will not do anything about the problem.

COUNTING the votes is the only thing that will do something about the problem.

Re:Oh My.

[Belegothmog]

Hmm... And the Vietnamese did pretty will against "the most powerful military in the world." (USA)

And the American Colonists did well enough against "the most powerful military in the world." (Britain)

The Spanish did well enough against "the most powerful military in the world." (Rome)

The Boers did well enough against "the most powerful military in the world." (Britain)

The Philippines did pretty well against the rising American military around 1900.

The list goes on and on. For thousands of years, guerilla fighters have been highly effective against powerful opposing military forces. Out-trained and out-gunned with low-tech weapons and loose organization these forces have waged effective wars against their enemies. The victories may not have been complete, but they accomplished regime change, policy change, favorable terms and sometimes withdrawal/freedom/independence.

People who use the term "untrained civilians with guns" also forget that there is a much larger number of civilians with military, police or civilian firearms training than there are in the military. Additionally, in a true revolution/civil war the military will most likely split just as the populace will split. Add to that, how do you feed your million troops if the farmers have stopped planting their crops or are giving their produce to the enemy?

A revolution in the US would be ugly. Really, really ugly. But it wouldn't look like General Schwartzkopf zipping his way up the highway to Baghdad. It would look more like a cross between the Civil War and Vietnam -- widespread displacement of populace, hunger and starvation in the cities, lots of dead people, no one knowing who is friend and who is foe.

But it would very likely accomplish regime change. So in that sense, it would probably be very successful.

Just my $.02

Re:Oh My.

[wrf3]

You (and people like you) are exactly why we are in this mess to begin with.
Excuse me? We're in this mess because the candidates I once supported broke their promises and forsook their principles?

You "despise Democrats" and are "angry at the Republicans" rather than looking at the individuals in the various parties as individuals.
That's because I have looked at the individuals that are on the ballot. There is one who I'll vote for without holding my nose (Rep. John Linder, author of the FairTax). If Zell Miller were running, he's one Democrat that I could support. If you haven't listened to his speech at the '04 Republican National Convention, I recommend it and it's free on iTunes.

For example, I have the choice of an incumbent "republican" governor who wants to end state income tax on seniors -- which in my view is fiscally irresponsible and a transparent effort to buy votes; or a democrat who wants to spend even more. A pox on both of them.

Worse, you don't even seem willing to vote for third-party candidates
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.

(their presence next election depends upon their votes in this one)
And their votes depend on the stand they take on the issues today. It isn't my fault if they take positions that I cannot support.

That is the true disease of American politics: a combination of partisan behavior and apathy
The true disease of American politics is that too many American's are welded to the public teat. They don't deserve to be called adults.

Re:Oh My.

[Trailwalker]

Generally troops do not like to kill their countyfolk.

A quick glance at the statistics from the U.S. Civl War will show otherwise. There were more than 500,000 casualties.

Re:Oh My.

[Artifakt]

I'm getting tired of that phrase, IED. When you have to whip one up in 15 minutes from whatever's available under the kitchen sink, that's an "Improvised" Explosive Device. When they are being made from engineer's designs, by well trained technicians in industrially clean environments, they really aren't improvised anymore. Just because they are (probably) still being assembled in small batches rather than an actual assembly line process from a liscenced military armsmaker, doesn't mean the word improvised is still appropriate.
      In fact, it's become a propaganda issue: The insergents are not supposed to be organized and trained enough to make professional grade explosives, even with many months to prepare. They have to still be making sloppy bombs that have a big chance of not going off, or going off prematurely, or else we face bigger challenges than when we started, and saying that is unpatriotic.

Re:Oh My.

[sgt_doom]

And for ALL those Bushtards (formerly known as f*cktards) who kept repeating the #1 talking point ("You're not suggestin Bush is a fascist, are you?"),

ANY QUESTIONS?

Re:Oh My.

[Anonymous Coward]

the US military is being "nice" about it.

Ah yes, we're just being "nice" about it. Raping little girls and setting them on fire, forcing men to rape each other, why, it's exactly what jesus would do, isn't it?

Re:Oh My.

[tolan-b]

They have RPGs?

Re:Oh My.

[sgt_doom]

IEDs, anyone?

Yes, it sounds nasty, but I don't support the American invaders in Iraq, and no I don't support more American imperialist and amoral agression against Iran (and yes I am a combat veteran, i.e., a real American to all you Rush Limpbaugh loving scum)....

Re:Oh My.

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

I think there are excellent checks-and-balances right now. For example: Congress passes a bill to allow "Marshall Law", which could start a revolution. The balance is the same Congress made sure they didn't renew the assault weapons ban so we'd had firearms for the revolution which they instigated! See, the wheel 'hath come full circle.

Now go watch Fox News and don't worry about a thing ... "We're from the Federal Government and we're here to help you". =)

Re:Oh My.

[WindBourne]

Actually, the average enlisted will not care. They will do what is ordered of them. The officers are a different matter. A number of them will realize the unlawfulness of this, but will keep quiet. After a bit of time, then they will start to rebel against the orders. If nothing else, notice that fact that CIA/NSA folks are outing what is going on, and very recently, military officers have come out against Iraq. That is very unheard of during a war. Even in 'nam, it was only at the end of it, the officers started to speak out against it.

Re:Oh My.

[minion]

Worse, you don't even seem willing to vote for third-party candidates (their presence next election depends upon their votes in this one).
 
I'm sorry, but that statement there is the entire reason voting is a HUGE joke. The system is designed to keep those in power, in power.
 
If you have to spend $50 million on a campaign to win a seat that pays a mere $140,000 a year, then you're not there to help the people. You're there to enjoy the power trip. Our government is so dirty and so "elitist" that the common man is not represented, and our elected officials have absolutely no idea what the average American experiences everyday.
 
The only thing they care about, is making it difficult for the "average American" to get proper representation, because that would end their reign of power and corruption. It'd end the need to spend $50 million to get elected. It'd end the need to have %5 OF THE VOTE IN THE PREVIOUS election to get ON the ballot the NEXT election.
 
If voting could actually change things, it'd be illegal.

Re:Oh My.

[vcalzone]

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.

[Artifakt]

If it takes a white trash childhood to have a single handgun stashed away, I must have been raised by wolves.

Re:Oh My.

[minion]

The 2nd amendment may have been relavent for this reason at one time, but not anymore...now it's just an excuse for gun-nuts to make sure they can still buy automatic weapons for "hunting"
 
Check your local DNR (dept of natural resources). Its illegal to hunt with a machinegun.
 
Get your facts straight before you spout off on pure emotion.

Re:Oh My.

[Pseudonym]

Elections won't get cancelled indefinitely. You'll still be able to vote!

Except for you. You've been struck from the roll in the latest purge. Complete accident. Sorry about that. Better luck next time.

You were expecting someone to help you get to a polling place? Funny thing is, that bus won't be making it. Some loony vandal slashed the tires. What are the odds of that?

Oh, you can still vote, though. Don't worry, I'll count your votes. I know what's a valid vote. Yes, of course the votes will be counted correctly! Don't you trust me or something? Oh, you must be some kind of nutty conspiracy theorist.

No, of course you can't have a recount. The Supreme Court says so. The guy was elected, can't we just leave it at that?

Sheesh, the nerve of some people.

Re:Oh My.

[Pseudonym]

Don't worry, I'm sure you can count on gun owners to provide the necessarily balance. After all, look what a good job they did against Japanese-American internment, McCarthy, unreasonable search and seizure as part of the "war on drugs", the "patriot" act and the suspension of habeas corpus.

Re:Oh My.

[Pseudonym]

Of course! That's why US governments have never gotten away with infringements on civil liberties. You all have gun owners to thank!

Just think: During WW2, the government might have actually succeeded in interning Japanese-American citizens. Or McCarthy might have succeeded in his assault on freedom of association. The "war on drugs" might actually have succeeded in making unreasonable search and seizure routine. The "patriot" act might have passed. The NSA might still be tapping phones without warrants. Even habeas corpus might be suspended!

Thank you, gun owners! You've made America what it is today!

Re:Oh My.

[DavidTC]

Imagine how many more recruits an insurgent group would get if the government, say, used tanks and artillery to destroy an apartment building where a suspected insurgent was hiding.

I'm pretty sure we don't need to 'imagine' that anymore.

Re:Oh My.

[wrf3]

How can the government possibly be small if they involve themselves with personal issues rooted in subjective morality like a woman's reproductive rights
First, nobody is stopping a woman from having sex or becoming pregnant. What should be stopped is the deliberate taking of an innocent human life. Second, that one of the functions of government is to prevent the strong from preying on the weak does not mean that government has to be involved in all areas. For example, I would wholeheartedly support the disbanding of the Department of Education, for example.

how can an open-ended war on an intangible opponent be considered fiscally responsible?
First, I don't consider (insert politically correct modifier here)-Islam to be an intangible opponent. I will live under the U. S. Constitution; I will not submit to sharia law. Second, do you know what percentage of GDP is spent on the war? There is far more fiscal irresponsibility in the budget (the damned prescription drug plan, for example, not to mention social security and medicare).

Either you have a government that...
I think you've offered up a false dilemma.

Re:Oh My.

[gilroy]

Blockquoth the poster:

I can almost guarentee all these crazy power-grabbing laws will be either revoked or "sunsetted" by the Bush administration if his party looses the Presidential election.

What makes you think he'll allow the possibility of the Republicans losing the election?

The point of this party is to perpetuate its grasp on the government forever, no matter how many cherished freedoms, constitutional guarantees, or simple decent principles they have to jettison along the way. Ask the Democratic legislators from Texas who had to flee their state in an attempt to stop a controversial mid-term redistricting...

Re:Oh My.

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

According to the Johns Hopkins study, about two thirds of the dead Iraqis were killed by other Iraqis. People with light weapons go for soft targets instead of shooting at professional armies.

Re:Oh My.

[homer_ca]

Not necessarily. In any conflict between natives and colonists, or insurgents and occupiers, the willingness to sustain higher casualties is a big equalizer against a superior force. We're talking much higher casualties, like 10 to 1. However, I get the feeling that the recruiting pool of Americans willing to die for freedom is pretty small, given our addiction to bread and circuses.

Re:Oh My.

[ArcticCelt]

I admit this was not 100% politically correct proof, here my second try:

The only problem is that historically, the gun owners (who may be nuts or not) are normally less incline to dissent with the Republican government.

Re:Oh My.

[Urza9814]

How many people do you actually think will revolt? 99% of America would be perfectly happy if Bush declared himself dictator, as long as they still had American Idol. And probably 90% of those that WOULD care wouldn't be willing to kill and be killed for it. When the second revolution comes, they won't be telling the army to clean out the resistance in NYC, they'll be telling them to stop the 1000 crazies in DC. And I don't think they'd have much of a problem with that.

Re:Oh My.

[Broken scope]

Once again, not ever gun owner likes the current administration. So please come back once you are done frothing at the mouth.

Re:Oh My.

[Coryoth]

I don't think it would be that easy. Who are you going to get to do the massacaring? I'm sure some rather more thoughtless platoon or otherwise will just kill people in cold blood, but really, in the face of mass civilian protest most of the military, if told to just kill them all, are going to do an about-face and try and defend them from whatever small groups are foolish enough to follow orders. Basically, even if a slaughter or two does occur, for the most part the military is simply going to revile that, and turn against those who do the killing. Moreover, as much as it might frighten some people, I expect that news of the slaughter of unarmed civilians in cold-blood is going to do far more to strengthen the resolve of the public to oppose whatever regime did that. Of course being told that a group of armed terrorists were gunned down while resisting arrest, and several soldiers were killed by the terrorists - that's a lot less likely to draw any public sympathy for those who were opposing the government.

Re:Oh My.

[DavidTC]

I thought the queen had a literal 'self-destruct government' button, where she can just magically dissolve parliament, or at least the House of Commons, and force new elections at any time.

Re:Oh My.

[Anonymous Coward]

This is why armed revolution worked in the U.S. back in the day, and why democracy managed to spread throughout the world. Those conditions aren't true anymore. The technological landscape favors totalitarianism more today than it has any other time in human history.

Things will swing back. A totalitarian dictatorship will not maintain technology to the level we have today. Time will pass. Generations will come and go. The knowledge to build powerful military weapons will disappear and there will once again be a balance between the military and the people. Several hundred years from now, a revolution will return democracy to the people. Just wait and see...

Re:Oh My.

[homer_ca]

"not the fact that a lot of people are disgusted with both main-stream parties, don't want to have to choose the 'lesser of two evils', so just don't vote. "

Look, if people aren't happy with the choices they have, do something about it. Don't just complain. You can accomplish some things going the third party route. You won't win, but you can get your issues out and influence the position of the closest major party. If you're playing to win, what you have to do is take over one of the major parties and make it over in your image. Reagan did that in the 80's with his unholy alliance of corporate lobbyists and Christian Fundamentalists. People can do it again only this time without the obligation to big corporate donors. You won't get everything you want issue-wise because you have to find enough people to agree with you, but the end result is still a hell of a lot better than what we have now.

Re:Oh My.

[_Hellfire_]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that the kick from a firearm happens after the bullet or shot is ejected from the muzzle. Therefore aiming and pulling the trigger on a shotgun or rifle should result in the same accuracy (discounting other factors like predicting the kick (and therefore "compensating") and jerking the firearm as you pull the trigger).

Re:Oh My.

[Anonymous Coward]

There's only one thing I envy about how Russia applies its democratic elections: the ability to cast a negative ballot.

I imagine it's probably worthless, but it must be so satisfying.

Re:Oh My.

[oohshiny]

The elder generation tells me that America has always had a pendulum effect in these types of things - we sway way the fuck too far at first, and then slowly crank it back to the middle.

Well, then the "elder generation" you talk to is full of shit. The US government didn't use to have this kind of power. Oh, sure, it wanted to, and it abused whatever power it had, but it didn't officially have this kind of power. What's happening is unprecedented for the US.

Re:Oh My.

[lonesome phreak]

Absolutly nothing...I think that they will fix the election or just suspend it. But if they did somehomw loose...

Re:Oh My.

[Procyon101]

More than "not taking up arms" against the populace, the military would break up into factions and fight each other. In an armed populace, the faction supported by the populace would be served with resupply and conscripts from the populace while the other faction faces broken supply lines and guerilla resistance. The reason for an armed populace is not to overthrow the government, but to ensure that the government realizes that taking any action likely to segment it's military against itself is suicide so that a revolution need never happen.

Governments in unarmed populations do not need to be so cautious, as they know the populace cannot supply or provide decent conscripts, and so factioning is easily overcome.

Re:Oh My.

[callmetheraven]

I have been waiting for SO LONG for a good gun discussion on slashdot!!!
I didn't think until this minute that there was a single slashdotter that got my sig.

Re:Oh My.

[Broken scope]

I'm not really sure what you are really talking about, maybe I missed something?

Re:Oh My.

[CFBMoo1]

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?

Lets not forget that these untrained civilians here in America could possibly be their own family and friends.

Re:Oh My.

[Wolfkin]

I would like to have government spending and laws rolled back. A lot. The choice at the ballot box is always between candidates who are for increasing government spending and more draconian laws, and those who are for these things slightly less, or in different ways (this is crystal clear now even to Republicans, as Bush promised no nation building and foreign adventuring, and not only broke that, but ramped up federal spending to previously undreamt of heights). There is no choice I agree with, and every candidate that *is* on the ballot is directly opposed to everything I want, while briefly giving lip service to those things I agree with, once in a while.

What is a person in this position to do? There's no reasonable candidate to vote for, and therefore no point in voting. There's been an uninterrupted trend toward tyranny since at least the early 20th century in the US, and I don't see any chance of it suddenly turning around.

Re:Oh My.

[DavidTC]

Yeah, it sounds like that, except at no point during that was any State incapable of maintaining public order. And that didn't involve 'insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy'.

And the president not mobilizing the national guard was his own damn fault. The president can ask for the national guard whenever he wants, and send them anywhere ready to help under the control of a governor. What he cannot do is operate them himself, in a state, without permission, but he can certainly say 'Hey, governor of Arkansas? Can you send your national guard guys to report to the Louisiana governor?'.

This is, of course, pretending the little 'No on declared a state of emergency' meme is right. Sadly, the governet of Louisiana did ask for a declaration of a state of emergency, before Katrina hit.

There was absolutely no legal obstacle to the national guard being there, and being there in advance, and the fact the Feds screwed around with people, like those firefighters who volunteered and got shipped to Atlanta for 'training', demonstrates they just weren't fucking trying to help.

The very cynical would suggest they weren't trying because they wanted a 'failure of emergency' so they get assigned more power. So this little bill could get slipped through later, to try to stop the American insurgency half the damn country sees coming.

Re:Oh My.

[lonesome phreak]

Well, current polls put him under 40% right now in approval. Unless we're actually facing a land invasion or something similar, I really don't think it would work very well.

I live in Oklahoma, which is pretty damn Republican. If cleaner teams started sweeping the streets shooting American citizens, I know for a fact that most people wouldn't just be like "oh, what's on TV?".

I don't think there will be an actual revolt though. I really think that what will happen is a gradual disingration, possibly followed by a break-up of the USA, due to general unsustaniblity of our current lifestyle. We will eventually push our resources too far.

Go ask a vetran you know...ask them what it would take for them to take up arms against the general population.

Re:Oh My.

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

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.

"I'd prefer the terrorists not to win." I wonder what had all those republicans tounge-tied?

Re:Oh My.

[Dravik]

The recoil begins as soon as the round goes off. The expanding gasses push the bullet down the barrel and at the same time, Newton and all that, push against you. If you have the weapon improperly braced it will move and you will miss your target. If you hold a hand gun loosely or sideways like the gangstas your probably completely miss a person 5 feet away. Also firing an improperly braced weapon hurts. This will generally cause a huge problem because the shooter will move the weapon in anticipation of the recoil.

Re:Oh My.

[Dolly_Llama]

Many of them are in fact improvised from the leftover artillery shells and what not. Cheaper that way. Just because they're improvised doesn't make them less lethal. I'm sympathetic to where the spirit of your comment is going, but I think you're reading too much into the connotations.

Re:Oh My.

[bouis]

It's people like you who think they can pick and choose which parts of the Constitution to follow who are the reason we all should be afraid of the federal government. You don't mind ignoring the 2nd amendment or abandoning the entire idea of limited government with enumerated powers when you're arguing for more socialism and more government income redistribution, but the second you're afraid the government might be spying on your communist party meetings you start talking about violent revolution.

I'd say that as part of the problem, rather than the solution, you probably shouldn't be armed; but your type are no more dangerous armed than otherwise.

Re:Oh My.

[jonom]

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.

The worst possible thing you could do is stay home.

I don't know which is worse: how much I absolutely despise the Democrats or my anger at the Republicans.

Why do you despise the Democrats when it's the Republicans that are fucking up your country?

Re:Oh My.

[Fulcrum of Evil]

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.

War on Terror? Are you insane? There's no such thing, just us invading a couple countries and trying (poorly) to stomp Al Queda.

Re:Oh My.

[This Is Ridiculous]

Can we get that as a unified diff or something?

Re:Oh My.

[Stormshadow]

To reply to your first part: The point is not that *I* would be able to stop the gov't cracking down; because, in this instance, you are right, a single person doesn't stand a chance. The point is that many people like this, in groups or not, make it rediculously difficult for the gov't to do it. They only have so many people.

  To reply to the second part: Sorry you drank the anti-gunner's kool-aid. Close your eyes as you surrender your right to defend yourself; it's okay the police will be here in *insert average response time for your area* as soon as they have units able to respond. Surely it won't take long, even though they're not legally bound to actually protect you as an individual, only the people as a whole (but you knew that didn't you?) Nothing bad could ever happen to you before then. Think of a happy place, maybe the BadGuy(TM) won't hurt you; in fact, give in to their demands, they'll be so thrilled at your compliance they'll never consider hurting you at all.

Re:Oh My.

[Urza9814]

I agree that people wouldn't sit there if the US army attacked their city, but I'm saying I don't think it'll come to that. They may be ordeded in in extreme cases, in which case the general population will say 'oh, thank god they're doing something to restore order.' My point is that a revolution is never going to happen because people don't care enough. The government may be stupid, but they're not stupid enough to blindly attack their own citizens...and that's pretty much what it'd take to get us off our ass.

Re:Oh My.

[Anonymous Coward]

... and keep their health up...

Remember, kids, Medkits give twenty-five health, and stimpacks give ten.

Re:Oh My.

[Anonymous Coward]

Whine whine. You lost. You're losing now. Get over it.

Re:Oh My.

[dircha]

Terming it "apathy" isn't necessarily fair. I believe there is something to be said for abstaining from federal elections. Now, that isn't an excuse to ignore the issues. But I see nothing detestable about a principled position of closely following federal issues yet choosing to abstain from federal elections.

To those who believe we have regressed to a point where the ground rules - the system itself - is illegitimate or is of questionable legitimacy, there is no better means of expressing this determination on the ballot than by abstaining from voting in federal elections or even in all elections. Until the ballot contains a "NO" option - "NO" to every candidate, "NO" to the system - they are left with NO option.

Perhaps you would prefer to make voting mandatory, punishable by a fine or even jail time?

Would you have railed against Iraqis who would have abstained from voting when Saddam was in power given the option?

Detractors can say that it is pretentious or childish or whatever they wish, but let there be no doubt: voting lends legitimacy to the system. If that system is illegitimate, then the act of voting lends legitimacy to an illegitimate system. Even dictators hold elections, often with mandatory participation. They use their high turnout figures to defend the legitimacy of their systems.

What better way to vote against the system than to join the 45-60% of elligible voters who consistently choose to abstain from voting federal elections?

And yet I would encourage these individuals to consider their participation in state and local elections independently. Your representation at the federal level diminishes every year as the white country club that is the Senate remains static as population increases. Likewise with increasing corporate influence, gerrymandering, and outright fraud and bribery. Yet hopefully your representation at the state or at least local level remains strong. Do not overlook these elections even if you abstain from federal elections.

Re:Oh My.

[jx100]

First, nobody is stopping a woman from having sex or becoming pregnant. What should be stopped is the deliberate taking of an innocent human life. Second, that one of the functions of government is to prevent the strong from preying on the weak does not mean that government has to be involved in all areas. For example, I would wholeheartedly support the disbanding of the Department of Education, for example.

If you think a blastocyst or an embryo is actually equivalent to a full human life, you really should re-examine some facts.

First, I don't consider (insert politically correct modifier here)-Islam to be an intangible opponent. I will live under the U. S. Constitution; I will not submit to sharia law. Second, do you know what percentage of GDP is spent on the war? There is far more fiscal irresponsibility in the budget (the damned prescription drug plan, for example, not to mention social security and medicare).

You didn't say "-Islam", you said terror. Terror *is* an intangible.

And... do you seriously think there is anyone with the capability of actually forcing sharia law on us?

Re:Oh My.

[Anonymous Coward]

"How can one make a revolution without firing squads?"
-Lenin

Re:Oh My.

[Andy Gardner]

If we had been serious about defeating North Vietnam, we could have done it.

How would you define defeat? I think the US was fairly serious about defeating North (/South) Vietnam.

2 million civilians from the North and 2 million from the South, 2 million NVA, 200,000 ARVN, at least 10 million displaced. 13% of land in the South (Roughly Belgium or Massachusetts) was 'defoliated' with the use of chemical weapons, a good proportion rice crops. The US dropped more ordnance tonnage on Vietnam than all of the Allies combined during WWII, the entire country was completely decimated. It's taken thirty years to even begin to recover I think it's safe to say the US defeated Vietnam.

Also, the situation was not serious enough to justify nuclear weapons.

Nuclear weapons would have been much more humane.

Re:Oh My.

[alphamugwump]

NAPOLEON. They do not look at it quite in that way. The most worthless
soldier wants to live for ever. To make him risk being killed by the
enemy I have to convince him that if he hesitates he will inevitably be
shot at dawn by his own comrades for cowardice.

THE ORACLE. And if his comrades refuse to shoot him?

NAPOLEON. They will be shot too, of course.

THE ORACLE. By whom?

NAPOLEON. By their comrades.

THE ORACLE. And if they refuse?

NAPOLEON. Up to a certain point they do not refuse.

THE ORACLE. But when that point is reached, you have to do the shooting
yourself, eh?

NAPOLEON. Unfortunately, madam, when that point is reached, they shoot
me.

Re:Oh My.

[Anonymous Coward]

There is plenty of division within the party right now and plenty of Republicans pissed off for the same reason those on the left are pissed off.

Please identify a single Republican that has done anything to stop the ever-increasing power handed to the President. How can you stand up for a leader who's "pissed off" if he isn't willing to take action?

Re:Oh My.

[wrf3]

Why do you despise the Democrats when it's the Republicans that are fucking up your country?

The answer should be obvious; I think the Democrats will make it even worse than it is now.

Re:Oh My.

[Bing Tsher E]

They know it's their buddies who would be 'throwing them in gitmo' and that those guys will think twice, too.

Re:Oh My.

[Ilmarin77]

So, you are saying that US military can theoretically use nuclear weapon against US citizens? What kind of victory is it going to be?

Re:Oh My.

[Bing Tsher E]

Maybe he's referring to 'Jackson State' though, the student massacre that happened shortly after 'Kent State' but which is commonly ignored. It was black students at Jackson, ya know. Less useful for 'stirring up sentiment' I guess. Supposedly 'enlightened progressives' are always playing the 'Kent State' card in what has to be considered a racist gesture.

Re:Oh My.

[wrf3]

If you think a blastocyst or an embryo is actually equivalent to a full human life, you really should re-examine some facts.

What "facts" do you want me to re-examine? Human life is a continuum from conception to death. And if you disagree with that, that there is a discontinuity, you still have to answer why we have the right to end development before that point is passed.

You didn't say "-Islam", you said terror. Terror *is* an intangible.

Terror is a tactic.

And... do you seriously think there is anyone with the capability of actually forcing sharia law on us?

Today? No. But Europe will be fully Muslim within a generation or two (European birthrates are below the replacement threshold). And if you'll study your history, you'll find that Islam is a state building religion. They won't stop with Europe. It remains to be seen if Islam can be transformed into something compatible with Western notions of liberty.

Re:Oh My.

[CAIMLAS]

I don't think you'd consider firearm ownership for protection from criminal elements such a silly idea if:

- You weren't middle class and lived in a "disadvantaged" area
- You were female
- You had been robbed or otherwise assaulted in the past
- You had family to protect

At the end of the day, nobody is responsible for your safety other than yourself, and those who take on additional responsibility willingly to protect the lives of others (such as parents, and to limited degree, cops). Cops can not be there 24/7 to prevent every little crime; their presence is, at best, a marginal deterent.

And realistically speaking, you're more likely to need a gun for personal protection than you are to overthrow/protect yourself from a government. At least in the US (void where prohibited, such as Africa).

You and I likely disagree on damn near every political ideal - except this one. Go out, purchase a rifle as comparable to that of what the military uses as your local laws allow*, and learn to use it. (Handguns are impractical and ineffective for all but defense purposes - a role which they excel in.) I may dislike you and your politics (which I can't say for sure), but I believe that every law abiding citizen with even an ounce of civil responsibility should feel obligated to arm themselves in accordance with the 2nd Amendment (taking note of the "well regulated" part of it, and maintaining their arms, safety, and proficiency as intended).

* That is, not necessarily an AR-15, but something that is semi-automatic, has removeable magazines, and has high capacity magazines available for it (the modern equivilant for what the Militia Act specifies, as well as is legal). Or, realistically, as part of a citizen militia, something like an SKS (semi-auto, 10-round integral/non-removeable magazine) would be sufficient, but make sure you are proficient!

Re:Oh My.

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

So, you just recently realized this, huh? How stupid are you? Seriously. How fucking stupid are you? You champion the elimination of second amendment rights without bothering to give any critical thought to the subject and then, finally, wake up and smell the coffee. Do us all a favor and engage your fucking brain next time before deciding to repeal parts of the Constitution. The framers really did think some of this through, you know. What they probably didn't anticipate was the high percentage of dumb fuck voters like yourself.

Re:Oh My.

[Yusaku Godai]

Some people have been watching too much 24.

Honestly, is this stuff that we have to sign into law? One of the many things about that show that's unrealistic is that Jack Bauer is the only person in law enforcement who'll do whatever it takes to protect American lives. That's not true. If there was really a ticking bomb situation (and there hasn't been in the war on terror that anyone knows of anyways) people will do what it takes to get the information. And that's fine.

So why do we have to make laws saying the president has the right to indefinitely detain anyone deemed to be an "enemy combatant." Would you really trust George W. Bush with that power?

Re:Oh My.

[RagingFuryBlack]

And the same was said about the rag-tag untrained american millitias against the heavily armed tactically advanced british. The thing is, people would be fighting for a cause, and that cause carries much more strength then any missle or bomb. (Read: At one point in the Vietnam war, for every one american soldier killed, 10 vietnameese were killed. Ho Chi Min was asked why keep fighting? He answered: Because you (The americans) will eventually give up because you are fighting for the sake of fighting. We (the vietnameese) are fighting for our right to exist.)

Re:Oh My.

[Anonymous Coward]

The objective of a guerrilla war is not to directly engage the enemy and it does not require "major military victories" to be successful. The objective is to simply disrupt the enemy by targeting thier supplies, infrastructure etc. and strategize your attacks for maximum propaganda value and wait it out until they run out of resources or lose politacal will. If you check your history you will see it has been very successful; for instance, the U.S. invasion of Vietnam and the USSR invasion of Afghanistan.

Re:Oh My.

[CAIMLAS]

Probably roughly the same (1/3rd). There are over 80 million known gun owners in America.

Even amongst the households I know, there are more guns than bikes by a factor of 5, at least. And I'm not talking about a collection of uber-conservative people or anything like that, either.

Re:Oh My.

[CAIMLAS]

The 1% of the south who instigated the "War Between the States" would disagree quite whole heartedly with you.

And Lincoln was quite like Bush - a Republican with social (ie non military, non-political) ideals which were quite inline with the Democrats of the time - if you'll believe many of the liberals who want to take credit for Lincoln.

Re:Oh My.

[Firehed]

It also means that anyone who does turn up to vote has more of a say. Going under a reasonably safe assumption that most people who vote tend to be sheep in one way or another, do you really want to trust your future to sheep?

Vote for some unknown candidate. If neither the republican nor the democrat seem to be getting much of the vote, that will get noticed too. And it's actively saying that you don't want either of them in office.

Re:Oh My.

[ScrewMaster]

True ... but it's also true the the Democrats haven't been able to field any credible competition to the Republican presidential picks either. Clinton was a disaster in oh-so-many ways and Bush, unbelievably, was worse. It would be nice if at least one party were required, by law, to have quality material available for election purposes. That way, even if your party puts forth a numbskull there'd still be someone worth casting a vote for. This idea that they can just shove one corrupt cretin after another down our throats is really starting to piss me off.

Re:Oh My.

[jericho4.0]

I was waiting for someone to make this point. People seem to be ignoring the fact that there are many examples of totalitarianism in history and in the present, maybe believing the Constitution or some inherent quality of the American people ensures that such could never happen to them.

But the U.S. has already fallen farther than I ever thought possible. Torture, wiretaps, lies used to wage war, vote fraud and the blatant use of fear as a weapon against their own people are the order of the day, and the guns Americans hold have so far proven useless.

Re:Oh My.

[Penguin Follower]

All of this is irrelevant against a government that has tanks and other superior firepower.

We couldn't finish Vietnam despite the fact that our army had superior firepower. I have superior firepower now and can't seem to finish off the job in the Middle East. And, we were definitely considered the underdogs at the beginning of the Revolutionary War, yet we won.

It takes more than just superior firepower to win...

Re:Oh My.

[Anonymous Coward]

If Hillary were President--which is a big "if"--then I wouldn't have any problem with it; the power is with the office, not the person (something I think a lot of so-called "americans" have a problem dealing fairly with). So why do you have a problem with Bush being able to declare anyone an enemy combatant?

Re:Oh My.

[newt0311]

see. guns should be in wide circulation in a country. especially the automatic 50 calibre armor piercing kind.

Re:Oh My.

[Monsuco]

True, if I remember right, every single oppresive dictatorship in history has banned guns or restricted the hell out of them before becoming oppressive. Bush however has at least once as far as I can remember, spoken in favor of allowing people to own guns. It is the people who oppose the republicans that want to ban them. If you dont think that a disorganized group of citizens with guns could resist our military and martial law, then take a look at Iraq. Our military has had noticable difficulty with the relativly small number of resistance fighters there, take what we have there and multiply it by 80, and that is what martial law here would be like. The military could not defeate its own nation.

Re:Oh My.

[westyx]

What exactly would the EU/UN be able to do to stop the US having a civil war? Long supply lines, fuzzy objectives, muddled identification of enemy vs friendlies, fighting people who have the most powerful and advanced military force in the world - uhm, i don't think so. Everyone else would just be hoping the nukes don't get launched.

Re:Oh My.

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't it shocking we're even having this discussion? Could you imagine earnestly debating the feasability of a guerilla war against the U.S. by its own citizens even 5 years ago? Should we be heartened by the fact that there are others who also think we might just have to have another revolution? If there is a U.S. revolution does that mean the "American experiment" failed or is it working just as the founders envisioned? Will Jerry Bruckheimer make a movie about it?

Glad we're having this debate, just sorry we had to have it.

Re:Oh My.

[Rakarra]

Terror is a tactic.

Exactly. Terror is a philosophy. How do you declare war on a philosophy, on a tactic? A war on Al Quaeda? Ok, that I can get behind. But we have to sacrifice while the "war on terror" continues? Just when will that war end? When "terror" surrenders?

Re:Oh My.

[ShieldW0lf]

Spoiling your ballot is a bitch thing to do. Like a child screaming "No!" and then doing what they're told.

If you're not going to vote, run for office. Or vote for an independent.

Get off your ass and take your fucking country back.

Re: Oh my.

[Thomas Shaddack]

That presumes that the military itself will not split to factions, one loyal to the government, and one loyal to the country itself and the citizens.

Re:Oh My.

[Boronx]

Everything comes back eventually. Unlike a pendulum, there's no limit to how far we'll can go before turning around.

Re:Oh My.

[omeomi]

Apparently you didn't see the quotes around "hunting". My point is that there is *no* reason for civilians to have assault weapons, and they should be banned. When one says that to a gun-nut, however, they tend to act like you're taking away their right to hunt and defend their family.

Re:Oh My.

[Anonymous Coward]

What exactly would the EU/UN be able to do to stop the US having a civil war? Long supply lines, fuzzy objectives, muddled identification of enemy vs friendlies, fighting people who have the most powerful and advanced military force in the world - uhm, i don't think so. Everyone else would just be hoping the nukes don't get launched.

They could cut off all oil and natural gas. You are aware that most all of that is imported, no. The government couldn't swith to ethanol either because without petroleum derived agricultural products corn yields would be severly reduced.

Re:Oh My.

[jackbird]

Just like how Kent State ended the protest movements of the 60's?

Re:Oh My.

[SueAnnSueAnn]

Don't Worry there are many ways to bring about change.

When it's time, it's time, and it may be sooner then you think.

SueSue

Re:Oh My.

[rycamor]

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.

The problem is much deeper than that. It's not a question of partisanship but of a *greatly* reduced spectrum of choices. When the choice of meal is hamburger, ground beef, or minced cow, some of us start to get just a little skeptical. Basically, the whole argument these days comes down to who wants to "do more" and thus usurp more of your freedoms in the process. No one even asks "Why do we want politicians to do anything? How exactly have they helped us?". No one dares to ask what would happen if we just started ignoring the politicians (Oh no! We have to do something, or the wrong lizard might get in). No one seems to remember that the USA was made of people who believed it was the citizen's obligation to replace government--by force if necessary--if that government abuses its position.

What the democrats propose one decade, the republicans carry out in the next. The republicans of today would be considered leftist by the democrats of a century ago. The right's "seed of democracy in the middle east", is the left's Wilsonian War Democracy of two generations previous. The partisanship is a sham, and all part of the process of herding us down the ever narrower path into the corral.

And whence this strangely reduced spectrum of possibility? It all began in the 1850s when the USA made the horrendous decision to adopt the Prussian method of (enforced) public schooling, whose expressed purpose was that of breeding out independent thought and self-direction, in favor of--essentially--groupthink and dependence on authority. This is the schooling system that has given us such wonderful concentration-breakers as the 45-minute class period, punctuated by the loud martial sounds of a bell, the drudgery of homework rather than the wonder of reading, the division of knowledge up into upteen tiny containers called "subjects", the concept of "grades" and "classes", and Grade Point Averages, essentially industrializing the whole process of guiding fresh explorative minds into the same well-worn pathways. And that classic inarticulate teenage rebellion is just a recognized byproduct that actually works in the favor of all this. Why else would we keep on doing something that obviously is not working, when the past is rife with better ways?

It has done exactly what the elite wanted; it has created generations of citizens without the mental initiative to think beyond the simple choices they are presented with.

sigh...

(my child is being home-schooled, as I was)

Re:Oh My.

[MKalus]

First, I don't consider (insert politically correct modifier here)-Islam to be an intangible opponent. I will live under the U. S. Constitution; I will not submit to sharia law.

That's a thing I hear over and over by the right wing extremists (and yes, sorry there is no other way to put this). Osama bin Ladin and his kind are not in the business of converting people, they use religion like it was used in Europe in the past: As political reasons to commit crimes. A WAR on Islam will backfire, simply because there are 1.2 billion (yes, with a B) Muslism in the world today.

Terror never HAD a military solution, it is a crime prevention solution and that means police work, intelligence etc. It does not mean invading other countries under false pretenses, if anything that is counter productive.

Second, do you know what percentage of GDP is spent on the war? There is far more fiscal irresponsibility in the budget (the damned prescription drug plan, for example, not to mention social security and medicare).

Last number I heard was 2 BILLION a week on Iraq alone, that does not count in Afghanistan and any other "secondary" battlefield that the Bush Administration has opened up since 9/11.

A quick Google though says 3% of the GDP is spent on Iraq. I am assuming that's just the direct visible cost. To that you probably have to add all the medical cost for the wounded soldiers, the cost of early replacement of equipment not to mention the marketing you have to spend money on to counter the negative effects in the press / world.

Re:Oh My.

[espo812]

Sometimes, people in power should have checks and balances to their ability to oppress their own people.

To quote just the Slashdot writeup:

An anonymous reader writes to point us to an article on the meaning of a new law that President Bush signed on Oct. 17

The check here is that Congress passed the law. The President never could have signed it into law if they had not first passed it. Quoting from the submitter:

With one cloaked swipe of his pen, Bush is seeking to undo those prohibitions.

This is misleading, considering the President, even President Bush, cannot submit or pass laws in Congress. With one not so cloaked swipe of his pen, President Bush signed into law the prohibitions Congress passed.

Re:Oh My.

[wrf3]

How do you declare war on a philosophy?

Ask the ACLU. Or Al Quaeda.

Re:Oh My.

[toddestan]

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.

Instead of staying home, atleast go out and vote for one of the third parties. Sure, it may not do much good in this election, but if we want a political party other than the Democrats and Republicans, the third parties are going to need to have votes before Joe Public takes them seriously.

Re:Oh My.

[__aajfby9338]

The other nice thing about smaller weapons is that they can assist you in getting bigger weapons. So while a pistol versus an M-16 in a straight-on fight is useless, if you are able to sneak up on the guy carrying the M-16 and shoot him with your pistol, you can take his M-16.

Right. In fact, a crude single-shot pistol called the "Liberator" was mass-produced during WW2 with the intention of dropping large quantities of them behind enemy lines in Europe, so that resistance fighters could then use them to liberate better weapons from Axis soldiers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FP-45_Liberator

Re:Oh My.

[Profound]

>> not ever gun owner likes the current administration

That was his point, and did having guns stop those restrictions of freedom that he mentioned?

Re:Oh My.

[austus]

I'm not an anti-gun nut. In fact, I'm kind of fond of them as a means to protect my family against home invasion seeing how alarm systems are fairly worthless. But enlighten me. How are the weapons you mention effective against the government's fully automatic weapons?

Re:Oh My.

[jx100]

What "facts" do you want me to re-examine? Human life is a continuum from conception to death. And if you disagree with that, that there is a discontinuity, you still have to answer why we have the right to end development before that point is passed.

I do disagree with that continuum. I posit that human life does *not* begin with conception. I posit that it begins *before* conception. If there were some point at which life were made from completely nonliving material, you might have a potential point here. But, as I'm sure you're aware, everything involved is alive before, during, and after conception. As such, I say that conception is irrelevant to this discussion. What *is* relevant, however, is consciousness. I am quite certain that a blastocyst is *not* conscious or sentient, as it completely lacks the neural structure to be so. Until it does, it is physiologically no different than any other parasite living inside another person's body. So please tell me your justification for why a parasite living inside someone else's body has a natural right to life?

Terror is a tactic.

To clarify: You said "war on terror", not "war on terrorists" or something equivalent.

Today? No. But Europe will be fully Muslim within a generation or two (European birthrates are below the replacement threshold). And if you'll study your history, you'll find that Islam is a state building religion. They won't stop with Europe. It remains to be seen if Islam can be transformed into something compatible with Western notions of liberty.

Does this mean you eventually see us declaring war on a European nation?

Re:Oh My.

[Profound]

If you have no elections, it is obvious that you are a crook.
If you control how elections are counted with no external audit, then the results are the same, but it is really hard to prove you are a crook.

"Do really bad thing X so sayeth W" will not motivate people to do something they initially resist.
"We've under attack by terrorists, do X, anyone who is against this is un-american and wants to terrorists to win" is a different story.

Re:Oh My.

[Greyfox]

The second ammendment is a joke. You're already outgunned before you even start playing that game. And acquiring a gun through legal means is still going to leave a paper trail a mile wide. If you're going to have a revolution in this country, you're going to have to have the military on your side. Now those guys swore to uphold the constitution and might help you out if some serious shennanigans were going on -- say elections were called off indefinitely or something along those lines. If the existing power structure is even remotely legitimate it ain't going to happen.

Now the folks who really should be worried are various and sundry other countries who really don't want to see any sort of instability in a country that holds the largest stockpile of nuclear weapons on the planet. We've been dismantling them over the years but I'm sure we still have more than enough to wipe humanity off the face of the planet if it came down to it.

Re:Oh My.

[canadian_right]

So you are Ok with wasting money to KILL people, but not Ok on "wasting" money to buy drugs for sick USA citizens?

That is just bizzarre.

Re:Oh My.

[kcbrown]

People always say this but I don't think they always think it through. If advanced military hardware has such overwhelming power, then how do you explain the Afghanistan-USSR conflict or the Iraq-US conflict.

Neither of those conflicts is relevant or revealing. In both cases, the superior military force took control of the region. In both cases, the resistance was/is unable to achieve military victory over the occupying force. In both cases, the occupying force was/is that of a foreign power. In the case of Afghanistan, the occupying force left of its own will.

In the case of an armed revolution, the revolutionaries would have to achieve military victory over the sitting government's forces. You make some excellent points with respect to that, but you assume that a large fraction of the military will side with the revolutionaries.

But the reasons you give for that are the same reasons that would lead one to believe that no military dictator should be able to achieve power: that the military, which is comprised of men (and, in some cases, women) who grew up with the very people they are being asked to oppress, would be unwilling to fire on civilians in their own country.

History, including U.S. history (see Kent State for example), is littered with the corpses of those who would attest to the falsehood of that belief. There is no reason at all to believe that the U.S. military is any different than any other government organization in this regard. Military personnel initially take a vague oath to "uphold and defend the constitution" but that cannot match the everyday indoctrination they receive to follow orders. History is littered with even more corpses of those who can attest that many/most military personnel will follow orders even if they disagree with them.

Additionally, most military personnel in any given location in the U.S. are not from that location, and thus do not have any strong ties to that location. The only difference between that and an overseas assignment is that the locals happen to speak the same language and are probably a bit more similar in terms of beliefs and customs. When the order comes to implement martial law, there will be little reason on the part of the local military personnel to disobey orders.

Finally, whatever makes you think that the top military brass will be told the truth about why they are being asked to implement martial law in a region, or that they will share that information with their subordinates in the unlikely event that they are told the truth?

Military personnel are unlikely to start shooting civilians unless they put up some sort of resistance. If the civilians don't put up any resistance then martial law succeeds. If the civilians do put up significant resistance then the military personnel on the scene are much more likely to start shooting if only because such a situation by its nature must represent a significant threat to their lives. If a bunch of military people are faced with civilians pointing guns at them, do you really think the military personnel will surrender just because the civilians in question happen to be from their own country? Please.

The bottom line is that unless the revolutionaries get real military backing from whatever source (and it's unlikely that said backing will come from their own government's military), they will fail in their bid to overthrow the government. They can't merely be a sufficient nuisance as they can in Iran or Afghanistan -- they have to achieve military victory, because the government in question will be fighting for its survival. The sort of person who would declare martial law against his own population in order to secure his own power is the sort of person who simply doesn't care what it takes to remain in power, and will thus do whatever it takes, even if it means killing off a large fraction of his country's population.

It's nice to believe that, somehow, if the U.S. government gets completely out of control and goes totalitarian, large portions of the U.S. military will take up arms against that government. But the majority of history is against you on that one.

Re:Oh My.

[wvitXpert]

You think it's more likely that you'll need a gun to defend your self from the government than for "protection" from criminals? Please expain, I'm curious why you feel that way.

Re:Oh My.

[westyx]

The whole "Raging civil war" means that delivering oil and gas would be an incredibly risky affair to start with. Delivering *anything* would be an incredibly risky affair.

Re:Oh My.

[Anonymous Coward]

Please see Germany from 1930-1945.

Re:Oh My.

[kcbrown]

The objective of a guerrilla war is not to directly engage the enemy and it does not require "major military victories" to be successful. The objective is to simply disrupt the enemy by targeting thier supplies, infrastructure etc. and strategize your attacks for maximum propaganda value and wait it out until they run out of resources or lose politacal will. If you check your history you will see it has been very successful; for instance, the U.S. invasion of Vietnam and the USSR invasion of Afghanistan.

So, what, you think the U.S. government is just going to eventually give up power and hand it over to the revolutionaries just because they're being a significant nuisance? The scenario in question here is that the U.S. has gone totalitarian and an armed resistance has formed. You think the government in that case is going to voluntarily give up power? Please.

None of the wars you refer to are relevant at all in this regard. Guerilla warfare is an effective means of defense against an invading aggressor. Do not make the mistake of assuming that what is effective for defense must also be effective for offense. The goal of the guerillas in all those wars was to make the occupation not worth maintaining. The goal of the revolutionaries would be to overthrow the sitting government. The latter is much much harder than the former, by orders of magnitude, because the latter requires military victory whereas the former only requires a stalemate.

To believe otherwise is to believe that the sitting government will simply surrender of its own free will in the face of an underground revolutionary movement. That has never happened.

Re:Oh My.

[Paul D Howard]

Good Stuff

Re:Oh My.

[Anonymous Coward]

***WHOOSH***

Re:Oh My.

[Reziac]

I know it's fun to blame Bush for everything, but what folk here seem to forget is that the President doesn't just magically invent and sign legislation all by himself. He's the final rubber stamp, but the legislation first had to be created and voted through Congress.

If Congress had the balls to resist ideas like this one, the legislation would never get out of committee, let alone as far as the President's desk.

Re:Oh My.

[Profane MuthaFucka]

The leftist gun grabbers are a figment of your imagination. Go to Daily Kos and take a look around. Literally nobody's put up any gun control articles in months. On the other hand, there's plenty of liberals who are NRA members. Gun control is prohibition, which doesn't work, no matter what is prohibited. If liberals have been gun grabbers in the past, they are not now, because unlike conservatives, we learn from our mistakes. The problems we imagined we were solving with gun control in the past we now know can and should be solved in other ways that address the real problems.

Re:Oh My.

[bouis]

You need to distinguish the initial recoil of the bullet being propelled down the barrel from the sharp recoil of the gas behind it escaping. Since the bullet has already left the barrel when you feel the secondary recoil, and the initial recoil is very minor, a light grip usually won't affect the accuracy of the shot.

Re:Oh My.

[Sancho]

To those who believe we have regressed to a point where the ground rules - the system itself - is illegitimate or is of questionable legitimacy, there is no better means of expressing this determination on the ballot than by abstaining from voting in federal elections or even in all elections. ...
What better way to vote against the system than to join the 45-60% of elligible voters who consistently choose to abstain from voting federal elections?

Except that there is no way to distinguish this from the apathetic populace. Something like 30% of Americans vote in the 'midterm' elections. YOu can't tell me that 70% of the country is trying to make a point by staying home. My guess is that most of them simply don't care, or simply see it as "Here comes the new boss, same as the old boss."

My goal when I vote (in midterms) is to keep one party from controlling both the congress and the presidency. That's about the only 'check' I feel we can manage in this system.

Yet hopefully your representation at the state or at least local level remains strong. Do not overlook these elections even if you abstain from federal elections.

Actually, I live in Texas. Our state and even local elections are almost as much of a joke as the federal ones.

Re:Oh My.

[blank axolotl]

The spreadsheet for the federal budget is here. I've never really looked at it before, interesting. It looks to me like the iraq war really is a small part of the picture.

Military spending is currently 20% of the budget, up from 16% in 1998. However, looking back through the history, it looks like the late 90s have it exceptionally low: It is consistently around 25% from 1975 to 1990, then 20% through to 1995. (and a whopping 50% to 70% in the 50s and 60s). So really Bush just brought it back to early 90s levels. The 2008+ esimates say it should go back down to 16% again by then.

Overall, it looks like the Bush administration has increased spending in all areas (since the late 90s) except 'net interest' which has been halved from 15% to 7%. I assume 'net interest' spending means paying back loans/bonds/debts. The overally size of the budged as %gdp is ~20%, as it has been since 1950, so nothing unusual there.

Re:Oh My.

[hador_nyc]

For the record, we don't have the largest stockpile of nukes. We are number 2. Russia still maintains a significantly larger number of nuclear weapons.

Another point I'd like to make is about the purpose of the 2nd Amendment. The purpose of the law was a reaction against British prohibition of gun ownership in the colonies. Once things got a bit rebellious here, they decided to take the guns away. In fact, the British march on both Lexington and Concord in 1775 was intended to retrieve a rebel cache of weapons. Here's the key point, in those days the civilians did have more or less the same quality of weapons as the army. In fact, the refiling on many of the barrels that were used by the frontier folk for hunting made great waring weapons. The average British army soldier did not have that, but they did have more cannon. As technology has improved, the point of that law has lost much of it's meaning. Tanks, jets, and machine guns are quite beyond anything that an average person would have. The only way to beat that would be as you said to win the hearts and minds of the troops.

Now to address your main point. Having a few bad laws is no big deal. After all, we did make Prohibition a constitutional amendment. It's easy enough to undo the bad laws that any president would push through. The US has need of fresh politicians; I agree. Our government is not so bad that we need a new form of government. Our system is different, but certainly quite similar to the parliamentary systems in use in many other countries. It happens that people make mistakes and elect people who do a bad job. Just as this has happened before, we'll fix it again. These calls for revolution and the like are just silly. Sure people are angry, and I understand that. In general, I agree with them, but let's be serious. Militias and revolutions are not likely to appear in any serious numbers any time soon here. Hopefully, a fresh crop of politicians with fresh ideas that actually represent the desires of the people do. The latest commercials from both sides is not all that encouraging to me.

Re:Oh My.

[maxwells_deamon]

Do they report the totals of the spoiled/write in candidates in the UK? (I actually believe they do)

Here in the US the only easy way to get the election results is in the press. I guess you could go to the court house or somewhere to get the official results. The press does not report the numbers for "unimportant candidates" (generally)

As an example see:

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/pre sident/

Note the top three candidates are listed to the last vote but no other totals are given. There were more than three candidates listed on the ballot by the way. And at least the campaign managers voted for them.

Reporting the vote totals for a national election incorrectly should get you more of a fine than 1/2 second of nipple!

I am tempted to write myself in on the next election and confirm I was counted as an audit of the process.

Re:Oh My.

[TapeCutter]

"The true disease of American politics is that too many American's are welded to the public teat."

Replace "American's" with "corporations" and you have a point.

Re:Oh My.

[Anonymous Coward]

Something tells me everyone wouldn't just sit by and watch us nuke ourselves 10,000 times over.

aahhahhhaaaahahahhahahahaha!!! yeah we would.

Re:Oh My.

[HotBlackDessiato]

Are you saying the current elections arent pretend?

We're still beta testing this overthrow, OK? Give us Neo-Con's a break, we're stealing shit fast as we can already. We're improving and making truly great strides towards a more seamless pretend system of elections, pretend principles and pretend democracy. Just a few minor road blocks remaining, including you knowing and discussing all this -- so you'll have to stop soon ;)

Re:Oh My.

[Anonymous Coward]

I think I remember hearing that somewhere before... What was it now... Oh yes! The (first) American Revolution. I wonder how that one turned out?

Re:Oh My.

[Tsagadai]

I honestly think the checks and balences arguement is nothing short of stupidity. The 2nd Amendment in the US constitution is a masterstroke of political brilliance. If the government gives people the right to defend themselves from it they know they won't. I live in a country that has treason as the punishment for armed revolution. Guess which country I could see storming parlament first, it's not the US. If the government states you can who will. It is the government, not the people stating it. This is a trap I think america would never escape from if it had a totalitarian government. Remember what history teaches. The worst people in totalitarian societies aren't the government employees they are the militias. I'd be afraid of a US not ruled by the constitution or Government or anything else but by th NRA and other militia organisations that have shown themselves again and again to be the nail in the coffin.

Re:Oh My.

[BiggerIsBetter]

Some of the best minds in the world are in the US and would support that movement. Indeed much of the rest of the (civilian?) world would be behind it too, because what the US Government does is affecting all of us. I also think a surprising number of the military *would* back such a movement, because those kids and the many of the generals are fighting for their country and their people not for their government.

Seriously, if the revolution comes (I didn't think I'd ever write that and mean it) any government will be screwed - military weapons or no. Why? Because maybe those in power haven't learned the mistakes of previous generations, but I think that those without power certainly have.

Re:Oh My.

[TapeCutter]

The problem with extremisim is that it rarely makes sense to anyone outside of the closed group.

An example from the far right: Universal health cover is evil, corprate welfare to kill towel-heads is essential.

An example from the religious far right: The government must not intefere with my religion, they are there to enforce it by policing wombs, cesoring sex, banning drugs, ect.

An example from the far left: N. Korea ('nuff said).

An example from the green far left: The government should kill the economy to save the planet.

"What should be stopped is the deliberate taking of an innocent human life [abortion]....I would wholeheartedly support the disbanding of the Department of Education....the damned prescription drug plan, for example, not to mention social security and medicare...I will live under the U. S. Constitution; I will not submit to sharia law"

We all know "the man" owns our body, but he's also got your mind & soul my friend.

Re:Oh My.

[sillybilly]

One of the things that chemical weapons do best is damage DNA which then propagates through the population. It's the modern means of racism and extermination of races other than your own, you don't actually have to kill everyone if you keep up the nuissance and small damages over and over. It's insteresting to see just where exactly wars start to happen these days, and where are the mass-plague-like outbreaks - who da man has an axe to grind with and would like to see gone and wiped off the Earth's surface. Nuclear weapons are less targeted therefore safer from the racism standpoint because they just do random damage, and some mutations can actually be good (what doesn't kill you makes you stronger) as opposed to more predictable changes from specially formulated chemicals and biotech agents. Though one of the side effects of of even the chemical and biological agents is that their effects too cannot be accurately predicted, hence the need for even better biotechnology and better understanding of dna and how the human body functions, so people can more effectively combat "other kinds of people" in this "global competition." You think racism is nonexistent? There are way too many people "proud" of their heritage, origins, and they examine other people based on their origins too, and they preferentially treat and favor people of the same origin as themselves, or at least care very much to know about who is of the same origin, which is the very starting point for any racism, that sometimes fires back too. Sometimes it's just best not to know where you come from, even if it's hard to overlook differences in appearance and culture/language, and "knowing" you're different just by staring out of your head through your eyes at each other, but then there are those who get very involved in the difference seeking and take it to a level of science.

Re:Oh My.

[Anonymous Coward]

No, they're not. Want proof? We're still there.

We were in Vietnam for dozens of years too.

Re:Oh My.

[sillybilly]

Those were different days, my friend. Back in those days there were no 2millimeterx 2millimeter megapixel cameras on every tree in every forest connected to gps signals and sattelites that send that data each microsecond directly to his or her majesty the British Crown. Back then all you had were message carriers riding on horseback that took 2 weeks to deliver a piece of paper, so people had at least 2 weeks to do something and then another 2 weeks til the order came back from England telling the officers what to do. So, we got technology today, lots of it, and you can see it cropping up around you like mushroom on a forest floor after a spring rain. Fuck technology?

Re:Oh My.

[BiggerIsBetter]

If there is a U.S. revolution does that mean the "American experiment" failed or is it working just as the founders envisioned?

I would say the latter.

Re:Oh My.

[ZachPruckowski]

I'm pretty sure that the US military is going to be nicer to its own citizens than its being to the Iraqis.

Re:Oh My.

[BoneFlower]

Noone with a brain would stand toe to toe against the US military with typical civilian and improvised weapons. It would be suicide.

The answer? Don't let them define the battlespace. Ambushes, small raids against a few key points rather than slugging it out to conquer and take terrain, and a modern army can be decisively defeated even if they outnumber and outgun their opponents. Sieze the initiative, do damage, and get the hell away before they have a chance to grab the initiative back.

Go out and get a copy of "How We Won The War" by Vo Nguyen Giap.

A citizen rebellion would not be a traditional war, it woudl be an insurgency. The real battlefield will be in the hearts and minds of the citizens... all taking on the military is for is basically to keep them distracted while you take the fight there. The winner will be whoever understands this best.

Re:Oh My.

[SeaFox]

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?

Okay. I give up.

Was it Sir William Howe? Nicholas II, Csar of Russia? Who is that quote attributed to?

Re:Oh My.

[stinerman]

The counting of write-in votes is done under different circumstances in different states. Rhode Island, for example, counts every last write-in vote made for any "candidate". They count votes for "Mickey Mouse". In my state of Ohio, any write-in vote for anyone who is not a registered write-in candidate is not counted. You may not make a write-in vote in Oklahoma. AFAIK, Nevada is the only state with a mandatory ballot line of "none of the above".

So here there really is no way to say "none of the above" consistently. Most places just register no vote as an "undervote" that isn't usually tallied in the official returns. That is to say, if 100 people vote for Senator Foo and 100 people abstain. Senator Foo will be listed as having 100% of the vote. This might be different in other jurisdictions, but that is how we do it in Ohio.

Re:Oh My.

[mr_matticus]

"Similarly, when voter turnout is low, it's always portrayed to be a sign of the laziness of the American people, not the fact that a lot of people are disgusted with both main-stream parties, don't want to have to choose the 'lesser of two evils', so just don't vote. "
Which is still inexcusable. People don't have to choose between the two major parties--in fact, they don't even have to choose from the names printed on the ballot. Disgusted or not with the two major parties, not voting is just a sign that people don't care enough to do anything about it. They'd rather just let it keep happening and whine about it.

If most everyone was "fed up" or "disgusted" and voted for someone else, it would send a pretty clear message. But instead, they send no message at all. It's worse than voting for a fascist.

Re:Oh My.

[stinerman]

While I don't agree with your politics, I would suggest you vote for a minor party candidate who shares your views. Perhaps the Libertarian or Constitution party are more your style. While you might believe voting for a minor party is a waste of a vote, then certainly abstaining is at least as bad.

Also, to be sure if you are for reducing government spending, having divided government is the best way to go. President Bush will get to know that veto stamp quite well if the Democrats win one or both houses.

Re:Oh My.

[Anonymous Coward]

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

And the two years between Germany invading Poland and France, and declaring war on Britain were simply spent trying to find the perfect time to barge into the room yelling "Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!"?

:)

Re:Oh My.

[Kohath]

would you want Hillary Clinton to declare anyone an enemy combatant and detain them indefinately?

To prevent a terrorist attack on the US? Yes. Got any more really puzzling questions?

The fact that you even ask means you "want the terrorists to win" rather than Republicans. I'll take Democrats and the weaker, poorer, more hateful America they'd create over America getting hit like we did on 9/11.

(Of course, the more likely outcome is that a weaker America would lead to terrorists being successful, but that wasn't the assumption of your question.)

Re:Oh My.

[dulles]

Yes, but then we'd have a country turned against its populace, which is a threat no unlike an "insurgency" style conflict where the bad guys (the people) win because they are the people and therefore have the people's support.

Re:Oh My.

[BlastM]

This isn't even bringing the UN or EU into the fray... Something tells me everyone wouldn't just sit by and watch us nuke ourselves 10,000 times over.

Oh, you'd be surprised.

Love, The Rest Of The World.

Re:Oh My.

[srmalloy]

There are four boxes available to citizens to protect their liberty -- the soap box, the ballot box, the jury box, and the cartridge box, which should be employed in that order.

Re:Oh My.

[Anonymous Coward]

So, what, you think the U.S. government is just going to eventually give up power and hand it over to the revolutionaries just because they're being a significant nuisance? The scenario in question here is that the U.S. has gone totalitarian and an armed resistance has formed. You think the government in that case is going to voluntarily give up power? Please.

None of the wars you refer to are relevant at all in this regard. Guerilla warfare is an effective means of defense against an invading aggressor. Do not make the mistake of assuming that what is effective for defense must also be effective for offense. The goal of the guerillas in all those wars was to make the occupation not worth maintaining. The goal of the revolutionaries would be to overthrow the sitting government. The latter is much much harder than the former, by orders of magnitude, because the latter requires military victory whereas the former only requires a stalemate.

To believe otherwise is to believe that the sitting government will simply surrender of its own free will in the face of an underground revolutionary movement. That has never happened.

No, I don't think the US gov. would just surrender to an insurgency. I think you know that's ridiculous. But a formal surrender would not be necessary for victory. Assuming a revolution where each faction falls into one of 3 categories: rebels, the government, and neutral or unaligned. The rebels and gov. are further divided into combatants and non-combatant sympathizers of each faction. It's not as if during a revolution everyone would stop what they were doing and take up arms or flee. People will still have to go to work, feed their families, raise their kids, etc. That means the vast majority of people whether aligned or not are non-combatants just trying to still live somewhat of a normal life. The revolutionaries could then, through guerrilla warfare tactics so disrupt the lives of the non-combatants as to make the situation untenable. Couple that with an effective propaganda campaign to convince the unaligned and non-combatant supporters of the government that it is the government and not the rebels who are the cause of their suffering and over time they will lose the necessary support to mount a counter-insurgency. Win the propaganda battle with the international community and you cripple the government even further and make alliances with foreign powers sympathetic to the revolution. What do you think is the likely outcome of such a scenario? I suppose the government could attempt to kill or imprison every suspected insurgent ala Saddam Hussein. But Iraq is a tribal society geographically distributed according to ethnic, racial and religious lines. It would not be nearly as easy for the government to know their enemy in a diversified multicultural society such as the US. What then? The government either negotiates or ceases to exist through attrition or exile. In this secenerio, as you can see, no outright military victory is required.

As for guerrilla warfare being exclusively an defensive tactic and no sitting government ever surrendering to an underground revolution... have you ever heard of a place called Cuba?

Re:Oh My.

[Anonymous Coward]

No, they wouldn't just sit by and watch. They'd cheer and clap, too.

Re:Oh My.

[Malakusen]

http://www.impactguns.com/store/ak47.html Shazaam

And if sniping is more your style, http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.asp?Item =59440718 Now you too can be Vassily Zaitsev!

Maybe you'd rather have a grenade launcher? http://www.impactguns.com/store/dd.html

Re:Oh My.

[killjoe]

You will march into the booth and vote for the republican like you have always done. When push comes to shove you don't have ideals you are (like 90% of all people who vote) an animal of habit. You could never get yourself to vote for a democrat even if jesus and budha were on the ticket. You won't stay home because you were taught to believe it's a sacred duty. You will vote for all the republicans on the ticket even though you know by now that republicans don't stand for a small govt, more freedom, free market economics or any of the dozens of other talking points they spew.

Actions speak louder then words. That applies for the republican party and it applies to you.

Re:Oh My.

[senor_burt]

In theory, you're absolutely right. Political opinion really shouldn't fall neatly into one of two (or three if you count the Green party) opinions, but the reality of how American politics play out really does force people into bipolar camps. Republicans tend to vote in lock-step with the party, which basically means that you're really voting on the party, not the individual when it comes to them. Democrats, less so.

Given an apathetic public (as you mention) unwilling to do basic familiarization with nuance, let alone turn out in sufficent quantities to vote... that's probably not a bad thing for them to vote based on party rather than individual candidate. At least there's a chance they're somewhat informed.

Well... not entirely. People voting for Republicans for the normal reasons of party (they're fiscally sound, believe in individual privacy, believe in small government, etc...) are really not paying much attention.

I've always felt that you should be obliged to take a short quiz before being allowed to cast your vote. Name the candidates and associate them with their party. Name 3 top national or state (or local) issues, and associate the party/candidate with them. Nothing hard - just prove you're remotely aware of what you're doing. Give people a tax credit for passing and being allowed to vote.

I'm not so sure that partisan behaviour is so bad - except when it comes from the media. A very big case can and should be made about reforming journalism, and forcing the FCC to break-up monopolies.

Re:Oh My.

[killjoe]

Although there would be some soldiers with a conscience it would not be many. Look at how the soldiers in Iraq are all too happy to kill civilians by the truckload for example. All you have to do is to convince the soldiers that the citizens they are shooting at are traitors/muslims/liberals and the soldiers will shoot and kill.

As for presuming your political affiliation that's a no brainer. Gun nuts vote republican. Period. Add to that the fact that you think your 30-6 will be able to repel the US army and it becomes even more certain.

Re:Oh My.

[killjoe]

The answer is simple.

There will never be another democratic president. I am serious about this. The elections will be rigged from now on. If a democrat looks like they are going to win the elections will be cancelled and martial law will be declared.

I am serious. I know it sounds paranoid but look around.

Re:Oh My.

[icedevil]

THANK GOD we have a Christ loving president that would never receive a hummer in the oval office!

the US is fucked thanks to 50% of the population being fucktards.

Re:Oh My.

[AaronLawrence]

You might find that the military has it's own rules and power structures that, push comes to shove, will override whatever doubt the soldiers in question might think.

"I was just obeying orders ... "

Re:Oh My.

[AaronLawrence]

Many in the armed forces would not take up arms against their fellow countrymen without a damn good reason.

How about if they were told that there is a large group of terrorists infiltrating them? How about if they were told that their "fellow countrymen" are harbouring terrorists or aiding an enemy state?

All it takes is a few accusations that get people scared and angry, and people will do anything.

Re:Oh My.

[Fulcrum of Evil]

The only conflict that justifies nukes is someone else using them. Then you glass their capitol and major port cities.

Re:Oh My.

[cptgrudge]

massacre a few selected groups (probably only one or two) and the vast majority of the population would find their resolve melt away,

Or steel their resolve. Don't fool yourself into thinking that the American population is necessarily "weak".

Re:Oh My.

[Fulcrum of Evil]

Actually, once your factor out druggies and gangs (and suicide), gun deaths in this country are fairly low.

Re:Oh My.

[Fulcrum of Evil]

Think of the 2nd ammendment as a final line - if you're marching on Washington, then things have already gone completely to hell and you're going to clean house with a 308. Nasty as the stuff you mentioned are, they don't warrant the complete dissolution of the federal government. We do need to get rid of the war on drugs - it's at the root of a good number of our problems.

Re:Oh My.

[ralphdaugherty]

Oh how funny that back during Katrina allot of people mostly Democrats was saying that Federal Troops should have been in Lousiania on Day one

      You are quite wrong. Both Democrats and Republicans from all three states said they did not want martial law and federal troops. They wanted FEMA and their state National Guard which had been stolen by Bush to send to Iraq.

  rd

Re:Oh My.

[badmammajamma]

Wrong. They use various flavors of AK-47's mostly, which are perfectly legal in many parts of the country. The only difference is that theirs are enabled for fully automatic fire but this is a trivial modification to make to the semi-auto AK's here within the US.

Did you actually have a point to make?

Re:Oh My.

[cptgrudge]

We'll deal with our own shit. Our nukes are remote control.

Love, the Federal US Government

Re:Oh My.

[Shihar]

No, they would be frantically trying to save their own asses as the world economy plunges into a black hole that makes all the other depressions in the history of this world look like lazy day in the country. Even the prospect of a MIA USA would send the world into a collective tailspin as suddenly every single military and economic pact in the world breaks. Love or hate the US, but it is so deeply entangled with the economies and the politics of the rest of the world that anything that happens to the US ripples across the world. Consider just a few of the consequences:

- A massive hunk of the world's coal supply is gone
- A huge portion of the worlds financial systems fail as the US economy is removed from the rest of the world
- Most large corporations fail in the face of massive losses as investments in the US fail
- The worlds currency exchange market and banking system collapse
- China's economy completely fails assuring civil unrest and risking revolution
- EU's economy collapses as China and the US both have their economies vanish
- EU's entire social system collapses as the economy collapses
- The rest of the economies of the world rapidly collapse
- Third world nations suffer government failure, first world nations suffer massive hardship and possible government failure
- Nearly all military packs in the world are suddenly deeply imbalanced with the absence of the US.

Love or hate the US; it is tied so deeply into the world's economic and political system that its removal is like tearing out the world's heart. A US that descends into civil war takes the rest of the world with it.

That said, I don't really expect the US to descend into civil war any time soon. I am not going to have any lost sleep over this doomsday scenario.

Re:Oh My.

[ralphdaugherty]

how much I absolutely despise the Democrats...

      You will be pleasantly surprised how conservative many of the new Democrats up for election Nov. 7 are.

  rd

Re:Oh My.

[cptgrudge]

Something tells me everyone wouldn't just sit by and watch us nuke ourselves 10,000 times over.

The unlikelihood that nukes would be used in an internal United States insurgency notwithstanding, it is estimated that the United States has fewer than 6,000 active warheads today (out of just under 10,000 total warheads).

I know the difference is rather irrelevant when talking about nuclear weapons, but it is a 40% difference. Especially when you consider that the total US nuclear stockpile peaked in 1966 at 32,193 warheads.

Re:Oh My.

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Ohhhhhhhhhhhhh, I see! You're just insane.

Don't waste your time, guys...

Re:Oh My.

[lonesome phreak]

What he said!

Re:Oh My.

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

In other words, you're exactly the kind of Republican that demonstrates why the current batch of Republicans deserves to have there asses handed to them in the upcoming election.

Signed,
Ex-Republican

Re:Oh My.

[XO]

I would agree with this situation in theory, but in practice, it seems different. Once that law has been passed, now that all these laws attempting to revoke our liberties in exchange for security that they don't really provide, who is going to revoke it? Although the next wave of leadership, if it were to change, may not use these laws, but are they really going to repeal them?

Every single move that the current admin has made needs to be challenged in a proper court, but it will never happen.

Re:Oh My.

[Anonymous Coward]

And whats more, the republican party comes with Al Queda endorsement! Al Quedas leadership stated publically on Al Jazeera that Bush is the best thing that could ever have happened to them.

Bush has done more for Al Queda and their recruitment campaign than they could have ever done by themselves.

If you want the terrorists to win, why, all you need to do is stay the course!

Re:Oh My.

[XO]

I'd take the U.S. that saw hundreds of thousands of people get themselves out of lower-middle to upper-middle class and into the upper class, that saw one of the most peaceful times in memorable history, over the U.S. that is basically making anything they don't agree with a crime.

Re:Oh My.

[XO]

....and then redefining terrorism to include anyone saying anything that scares anyone else.

Re:Oh My.

[XO]

Islam, Christianity, and Judaism all share the same roots.

They've all gone on nation building sprees.

You're the best troll I've ever seen on slashdot, though. If you're not a troll, I have a hard time believing that someone can be both intelligent enough to use the Internet, and as vile a person as you are.

Re:Oh My.

[XO]

Remember the original army in Iraq? The Republican Army? Yeah, I think they were called that due to their resemblence to our Republicans.

Re:Oh My.

[Sippan]

"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."

Me, I'm pretty sure that only years ago, people were pretty sure that when that whole 'habeo-whatever who cares anyway' was put out of practice, we'll all be primed for revolution.

I look forward to finding out what will be the predicted revolution-trigger after it turns out that official dictatorship isn't.

Re:Oh My.

[XO]

I think the initial U.S. Civil War taught the individual states and the rest of the world, that although each State technically has a right to secede, in practice, the government would be more interested in annhilating that state than letting it go.

Re:Oh My.

[XO]

Of course, those who are found to be undesireable would disappear to a Gitmo before they end up banding together in a huge group.

Re:Oh My.

[XO]

I wonder seriously how many fully public discourses there have been in U.S. history like this slashdot thread?

Re:Oh My.

[lixee]

which when delivered, the FedEx guy asked, "Here's your ammo. You going to go back east and shoot the president now?" with a hopeful tone. And that was sometime in 2003

Best anectode I heard all year. Thanks!

Re:Oh My.

[XO]

And also to cover for those of us who are not necessarily anti-gun, but have had certain constitutional rights stripped due to our lack of income. (ie, you owe some government branch some money, you're not getting a gun)

Re:Oh My.

[gowen]

At the point where you think legally held firearms will protect you from an army controlled by a despotic government, well ... you're clearly too stupid to live.

Re:Oh My.

[XO]

At one time the British army was the most powerful military in the world.

You may remember how that fight came out.

Re:Oh My.

[lixee]

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

People in the middle east and latin America are pissed at the US because they are paying attention! Hard to dismiss children bodies lying around and pretend nothing happened.

Re:Oh My.

[XO]

Hrm, what country is the only country to have ever used nuclear weapons in combat?

Re:Oh My.

[PhB95]

As a foreigner, and over that french, I was reluctant to write about a strictly internal US subject, but here is just a small word : We (EU) would be no less than FORCED to TRY anything we could imagine to mitigate a civilian war in the US. The damage such a war would do worldwide is by far a sufficient reason to try to stop it, especially for so-called first world countries. How could we sit and look our civilisation go down the drain ? We would get a devastated north America (I don't think Canada would avoid being pulled in). That would surely bring no good for us : As much I don't like the current US policy, that's not something I hope to see !

Re:Oh My.

[XO]

The criminals have assault weaponry. So do the police. But, I suppose I repeat myself.

Re:Oh My.

[CAIMLAS]

I'm not a republican, but I'm most certainly not a Democrat, either. But I did vote against Al Gore. ;) And I'll tell you this: I think the Patriot Act is bad news, for that very reason, as well as for giving provision to this administration the same potential power. Or any future administration. The encroach of liberty doesn't need ot be immediate; it can rot away slowly and the public will notice due to the graduality of it.

As for "letting the terrorists win", that is, unfortunately, a flawed conclusion. If the US military were politically allowed to "take the gloves off" as it were, we'd have the mess cleaned up in 6 months. See "insurgents" going into a town or suburb? Smart bomb the town. None of this "door to door" stuff. Roadside IED go off and kill US troops? The neighborhood will suffer as a result. Teach the populace that all harboring and capitulation with the terrorists won't save them any trouble, and that they need to take care of their own problems if they want the US to leave.

Re:Oh My.

[Jedi Alec]

Shoot the officer giving said order?

Re:Oh My.

[sydbarrett74]

>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. Precisely. The Dems are licking their chops hoping they can get one of their own in the White House who'll be able to exploit these expanded powers. A Democrat dictator is no better than a Republican one. Dictators are dictators. Pigs is pigs is pigs.

Re:Oh My.

[DiamondGeezer]

Funnily enough, the Republicans don't appear to think the Democrats are in the same Party as themselves. The rest of your rant is standard Conspiracy Theory (especially about Waco) with a dash of loony "we-must-have-assault-weapons-at-all-costs"

Re:Oh My.

[westyx]

I'm not saying that the EU/other countries (including china) would try as much as they could to stop a US civil war, due to the tremendous damage it would do politically, economially and socially to the rest of the war. However, the previous poster I responded to was supposing a civil war, and I answered on those grounds.

Re:Oh My.

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually the AKs are used more for screening, protection and other less glorious tasks while the killing of americans is usually handled with explosives (155mm artillery shells + mobile phones = carnage) or RPGs.

Re:Oh My.

[Anonymous Coward]

Clinton was a disaster in oh-so-many ways ....

... solely because the motherfucking Republicans made it so. They pissed awaty two years of the nation's nusiness. Over ... he lied about A GODDAMNED BLOW JOB. Then they got their low-grade slobbering imbecile into the White House and lied us into a war that has killed about as many Americans as the whole WTC bombing. Are you too fucking stupid to know what a Pyrrhic victory is?

Yes the fucking terrorists HAVE won. They don't have to hate our freedom -- they got the slimeball in the White House to take it away for them.

So far the wars he's started have cost close to half a trillion. By the time we've finished ignoring our own schools to rebuild the Iraqi educational system and the rest of their sand warrens, we'll be well beyond that amount.

It's estimated that already 40% of those returning from Iraq have PTSD. I spend a good part of my time helping out a Vienam vet who still suffers from it 30 years later. And the VA has done precious little for him. His nephew got bitten by sand fleas in Iraq and, as a result, had to come home to be treated for flesh-eating bacteria, from which he lost a large amount of leg tissue. He's also being treated for radiation burns from the fucking oh-so-safe DU ammunition we've used over there.

Finally, it s been estimated that, by the time we've put that Humpty Dumpty off a failed state back together and taken whatever care we will of our new vets (not a good record since Vietnam and Daddy's version of Iraq), we'll have gone through about two trillion dollars.

They may hate out capitalism, but for their two million dollar investment in 9/11, that comes to about return of $1,000,000 on the dollar -- in any industry, a healthy return on investment.

Re:Oh My.

[Pseudonym]

If the second amendment is a final line, then in practice it's toothless, because no government is ever going to go near that line.

A US government can easily get away with oppressing unpopular groups (be they Japanese-Americans, suspected communists, Arabs, people who happen to be in Afghanistan at the wrong time or whatever). All they need to do is not obviously oppress the majority (e.g. convince everyone that "if you've done nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear") and there will be no recourse.

My point is that guns would not have helped, say, the Japanese-Americans interned in WW2. Indeed, if they were armed and prepared to defend themselves, it would have "proved" the government correct. Remember Waco?

You'll pardon me if I retain my skepticism that the second amendment has any value in protection against government.

Re:Oh My.

[Anonymous Coward]

Most of the men in the United States are are not in the service of any part of our governments.

Yes they are. They just don't realise it.

Re:Oh My.

[commodoresloat]

So do you support the right to make and own IEDs and car bombs?

Re:Oh My.

[Fafnir43]

Give me a... pro-life candidate.

[Someone else said:] If you think a blastocyst or an embryo is actually equivalent to a full human life, you really should re-examine some facts. [You disagreed]

I will live under the U. S. Constitution; I will not submit to Sharia law.

It is an objective scientific fact that an embryo or a blastocyst has no neural structure. It is not sentient. It will become sentient if allowed to grow, but it is not sentient, and that means it is not equivalent in value to a full human being. If you believe it is, that is therefore a wholly religious belief. If you believe that that belief should be enshrined in law, then you are no better than the radical Islamists you oppose. You say you will not submit to Sharia law - don't you realise that everyone else feels the same way about fundamentalist "Christian" law? You both want to punish other people for acting against your beliefs. The fact that you believe your belief is right is no excuse, and no comfort for the rest of us.

Re:Oh My.

[KDR_11k]

Proper pretend elections have no term limits.

Re:Oh My.

[Stitch_Surfs]

But how can we hope to rise up against our despotic leadership when they have nukular weapons?

"people should not fear their governments, governments should fear their people... V from V for Vendetta

Re:Oh My.

[KDR_11k]

Iraqi insurgents have anti-tank weapons and aren't particularly effective at anything other than making an area count as insecure.

Re:Oh My.

[Waffle Iron]

If all they had was AK-47s, we wouldn't be having any troubles at all right now.

Re:Oh My.

[Instine]

Bingo, re third+ parties. The Liberal Democrats are the "third party" here in the UK. Wheather you like tham or not, the chances are they've improved the party you do vote for. Why? Because one more player make the game play FAR more complex. When the Lib Dems had no power whatsoever, the two main parties focusesed one one thing and one thing only. Beating the other main party. That led to crap, polarised politics, that rarely went out on any limbs, and rarely tried to tackle anything of any real importance. As in America, even if you did want the war to happen, you probably don't like how it was handled. In a two party system, little is done to improve on this. With the Lib Dems being serious candidates, and at the very least take significant power away from the other two, they inject a degree of instability that prevents (to some degree) monotenus, ever degrading, tit-fot-tat polotics. Now we have the right (conservatives) pushing the green agender like they mean it, and looking again at their stance on the war and its fallout. And we have the 'left' making damn sure they deal with the economy as best they bloody can. Which has involved both rightist and liberal economic policise.

In biology diversity avoids degenerative mutation and extinction. Angree at one and hate the other? Vote for a third!

Re:Oh My.

[wrf3]

So you are Ok with wasting money to KILL people, but not Ok on "wasting" money to buy drugs for sick USA citizens?

I find it amazing that you think these are the only two possibilities.

Re:Oh My.

[wrf3]

... and as vile a person as you are.

Why do you think I'm vile?

Re:Oh My.

[Average_Joe_Sixpack]

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.

ummm...

Re:Oh My.

[Anonymous Coward]

Many in the armed forces would not take up arms against their fellow countrymen without a damn good reason.

This might be true, but in reality, it's not a huge hurdle for a number of reasons, possibly the biggest being:

For war to work you must dehumanize your enemy, it's one of the basic tools used to motivate troops to commit what basically amounts to atrocities against their fellow man.

Look to civil wars and how each side viewed (or views) the other.

Re:Oh My.

[wrf3]

You deserve a good fisking, so here goes.

It is an objective scientific fact that an embryo or a blastocyst has no neural structure. It is not sentient.

We agree.

It will become sentient if allowed to grow,

We'll come back to this in a moment...

it is not sentient, and that means it is not equivalent in value to a full human being.

Here's where your argument fails. Why is sentience the measure of the value of a human being? You've just injected your own personal view into the argument under the guise of science. But not only does science say no such thing, science can not validly say such a thing. Science deals with "is"; it is wholly incapable of dealing with "ought". Value judgments are not under the purview of science.

So why is something that, by your own words, "will become sentient if allowed to grow", of no value to you?

Re:Oh My.

[Instine]

Maybe not relevant in your familie's case (I'm not prejudging you and yours), but what if those civilians were black? (like I say this is a general question, as far as I know you and your folks might be black...)

Re:Oh My.

[FhnuZoag]

Unfortunately, it's the crazies who have been hoarding those guns all these years. Wanna bet whose side they'll be on?

Re:Oh My.

[Waffle Iron]

Do you honestly think that an army comprised only of snipers could win any war? Because that's what the 2nd amendment gives you.

Re:Oh My.

[Average_Joe_Sixpack]

At the end of the day the mayor, the sheriff and reservist all have to return to their homes amongst their neighbors. A potential bullet to the back of the head is more than enough incentive to keep things on the up and up. That is the power of the 2nd amendment.

That is why the coalition gov't in Iraq is doomed to fail, because the politicians and police seen working with the US are getting picked off one by one (or sometimes dozens at a time).

Re:Oh My.

[Lorkki]

An example from the far left: N. Korea ('nuff said).

Ah yes, what would be closer to the Marxist ideal than a militant state capitalism hell-bent on taking over the world.

The cold war ought to be over by now; the remnants of the Soviet Union ought to be taken for what they are, instead of labeling them with an ideology they've only ever had a superficial relationship with.

An example from the green far left: The government should kill the economy to save the planet.

I wouldn't be so hasty as to say making more efficient use of energy and material resources would be a killing blow - more like a long-term gain, although it's an odd concept where nobody can see farther than the next quarterly report.

Re:Oh My.

[C0R1D4N]

How is an "improvised explosive device" a military weapon? That'd be an oxymoron. There's civilian access to TNT in the US and the anarch cookbook is available for download. Not to mention in a civilian uprising military depots would probably get raided quite early. Unfortunately the limitations on our second amendment rights have worn away much of the civilian advantage; there's still numbers however. And speaking of amendments doesn't this bill violate the tenth?

Re:Oh My.

[Fafnir43]

Here's where your argument fails. Why is sentience the measure of the value of a human being? You've just injected your own personal view into the argument under the guise of science. But not only does science say no such thing, science can not validly say such a thing. Science deals with "is"; it is wholly incapable of dealing with "ought". Value judgments are not under the purview of science.

So why is something that, by your own words, "will become sentient if allowed to grow", of no value to you?

Ah, I apologise for my earlier vehemence - I understood your argument as being equivalent to most peoples' arguments against abortion, that blastocysts and embryos possess an immortal soul and are thus inviolable, or similarly theological arguments. This is an altogether different kettle of fish - I still believe it's incorrect and will argue as such, but you aren't advocating laws based exclusively on religion.

You put forward two main arguments:

1) Sentience is not the measure of the value of a human being.
2) The fact that something is almost certain to become sentient is in itself a measure of value on a similar level to sentience.

The first argument. You are correct in saying that I assumed that sentience was the measure of a being's value without reference to science without making that explicitly clear, for which I apologise. My reasoning follows. A dead human is inferior in value to a living human. The only things that separate a dead human from a living human are a lack of sentience, and 'minor' things like cell damage and so on (ignoring religious postulates, like the existence of a soul). It makes sense to call sentience the key factor here, as every other difference could theoretically be repaired. Therefore, if there is a distinction between living and dead matter, it must be in that which cannot be repaired with matter alone - sentience. There is also an emotional appeal to the idea, which I admit - we feel intuitively that someone's personality is more important than their cell structure! If there is no difference between living and dead matter and sentience has no value, of course, the question of whether abortion (or even murder) is wrong has no meaning. You can see why I assume there's a difference...

The second argument is more interesting. I know I'm arguing from consequences, but this is the best I can do. In the same way, a woman's egg has the potential for sentience. If a woman chooses to abstain from sex and artificial insemination, therefore, she is destroying that potential (as the egg is destroyed in the woman's period). If we grant that allowing something to happen passively is equivalent or almost equivalent to directly causing it to happen*, this is equally wrong, morally, to her having an abortion. Since the number of women out there having periods is far greater than the number of women having abortions, you should therefore focus your energies on preventing this tragedy.

* This is, of course, the weak point of the argument! I would consider the two equivalent (ceteris paribus), as illustrated by the following two scenarios:

- Firstly, two chemical plant workers are working on a catwalk above a large vat of acid. The first worker pushes the second worker into the vat, and the second worker dies.

- Secondly, the same two workers are working above the same vat of acid. The second worker slips on the catwalk through his own clumsiness, but manages to catch hold of the railing. He hangs there, shouting for help, while the first worker calmly watches and eats his lunch, making no move to help him. After five minutes, the second worker falls in and dies.

Re:Oh My.

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, fascism is a right-wing ideology by definition.

I think not. Hitler's National Socialist German Workers' Party was hardly a right wing party. This is not a left-right issue. This is the issue of "the end justifying the means".

Re:Oh My.

[Waffle Iron]

If they keep getting "picked off", it's only because we're trying to look like "nice guys" and don't respond in a way that's a credible deterrent. A hypothetical US government that warrants a revolution would not be constrained by such niceties. Moreover, we have just about zero intelligence about what's really going on in Iraq; a tyrannical US government would already know all about you and your associations.

If each assassinated government agent were replied to by the authorities exterminating an entire neighborhood, your antics with little guns would come to an end real quick. That's how historic tyrants have successfully managed the situation.

Re:Oh My.

[Ucklak]

I said "basically a military weapon". Something that can blow up a tank or damage it in the least or takes out dozens of people in one blast is a military grade weapon - at least in my book. That's efficient killing.
Was the Oklahoma city bombing a military grade weapon by definition? Absolutely not, but the damage it caused puts it up there.

Re:Oh My.

[wrf3]

The only things that separate a dead human from a living human are a lack of sentience, and 'minor' things like cell damage and so on

I would argue that this isn't the correct abstraction. The better abstraction is the direction of life's "arrow". Unless you're God or Dr. Frankenstein, the flight of the arrow has ended and it cannot be reversed. This is not true for the embryo; the direction of it's arrow is toward life and sentience. It is therefore not our place to stop it.

Since the number of women out there having periods is far greater than the number of women having abortions, you should therefore focus your energies on preventing this tragedy

Might as well focus on stopping masturbation, too, since it's a waste of perfectly good semen (and kittens!). Are you sure you want to take this position? Your argument leads to the notion that nature itself is a tragedy.

Chemical plant worker scenario ...

Are there any Jesuit readers who would like to comment on the intricacies of "sins of commission and sins of omission"?

Re:Oh My.

[angulion]

At the risk of being modded a troll I get the eerie feeling the US is starting to approach a state where election-monitoring by a foreign (UN?) body would be needed.

I know US is too proud for this to ever happening though.

Re:Oh My.

[SnapShot]

Quick question. At what point do you take up arms in a revolution? I have the distinct impression that all the NRA types will still be sitting around drinking Schlitz and bragging about the sie of their rifles even after the 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th and all of the rest of the amendments to the constitution are null and void.

Re:Oh My.

[jesup]

I know people in the military. I know many of them WOULD refuse to fight if Bush tried to use them to put himself in charge as a military dictator. The same thing would happen if a US general tried to do the same thing. Yes, there would always be those who are loyal to the military and not their country. However they are in the minority.

It's rarely put in those terms to the grunts. There are many ways to keep the majority of the military behind a coup (or at least abstaining): see movies like The Enemy Within (1994). For a president, all it requires is enough people (in the military) believing that there's a threat from a terrorist or home-grown insurgent group.

I'm not saying that the following is why Bush pushed for things like the Patriot Act, warrantless wiretapping, FCC expansion of CALEA to all internet access (virtually), etc, but those powers are exactly the sorts of things that enable a government to apply the sort of domestic controls of a totalitarian or fascist state. And such things don't happen overnight; it happens one step at a time, each one a "reasonable expansion" to deal with some perceived or hyped threat.

Lots of conservatives are upset about some of these because they don't trust a politician (of any stripe) with access to such powers.

Re:Oh My.

[Anonymous Coward]

Kent State?

Re:Oh My.

[walstib]

Maybe if more than the same 15% of the people actually go vote instead of just sitting around taking shots at the president and bitching about the results, maybe some change will come about. And I don't care who you vote for, Republican, Democrat, Libetarian, NAMBLA candidate, Mickey Mouse, whatever, just go excercise your rights! Geez, I served so people can USE their rights.

Re:Oh My.

[SnapShot]

The ACLU is the one of the few organizations actually fighting FOR the constitution. That's why you right-wingers hate it.

Re:Oh My.

[wrf3]

I think you missed the point. There are lots of ways to fight philosophies. The ACLU is using one tactic. Al Qaeda another. It doesn't matter what side you're on; it is part of human nature to want to impose your particular worldview on someone else.

Re:Oh My.

[SnapShot]

It would make sense that a religious fanatic right winger would think of the ACLU and Al Queda as morally equivalent.

Re:Oh My.

[dctoastman]

I'm a Rational Atheist and I will not submit to _ANY_ religious law. Not those imposed by the Koran, the Torah, or the Bible.

If it doesn't have a nervous system, scoop it out. You don't feel bad when you swat a mosquito, do you?

Re:Oh My.

[heybo]

Well at least I will die standing a free man, and take a few of the real terroist with me.

Better to die a free man fighting instead of being a slave to the system

Re:Oh My.

[Anonymous Coward]

Let us vist your examples:

Vietnam: Well over 3 million dead on their side. They were about to beg for terms of surrender to stop the slaughter. Then people like Kerry started a war from within and they found their heart again and carried on with the 5th column.

US Revolution: We got our asses handed to us on most of the mjor engagements we fought in. Until the French actually got off their white flags and sent a little help it was VERY, VERY close. Tha also ignores the fact the the Brits were busy in numerous other places in the world at the same time.

Spanish: Not certain of what you are talking about here? Against the Romans that ruled them for how long? Huh?

Boer War: Temporary victories followed by the defeat of the Boers. What was your point, again?

Phillipines: Got their asses handed to them, with heavy casualties.

Any force which consistently refuses the field of battle can achieve suprise over picked opponents, but if they cannot hold the field then they have not won the war, only that battle.

The larger force loses when the support from home is abandoned because the cause is seen as 'lost'. Right now we are engaged in a battle with those who have little hesistation to use ambush and underhanded deals to achieve victories.

And that is just those in our own country willing to sell our country out for political power and better ratings. The terrorists merely use fear and blood.

Next time you want to use military history to make a point, use histories which have any clue about.

No rebellion in history has won without these things:

1) Popular support.
2) Outside support with deep pockets.

Popular support is not enough. Without large amounts of support from exterior interested parties you end up with a slaughter, not a rebellion.

Re:Oh My.

[ostermei]

Similarly, when voter turnout is low, it's always portrayed to be a sign of the laziness of the American people, not the fact that a lot of people are disgusted with both main-stream parties, don't want to have to choose the 'lesser of two evils', so just don't vote.

This is exactly the problem. What nobody seems to realize is that they DON'T have to choose the lesser of two evils. Many times there will be one or more third-party candidates on the ballot whom they can vote for. Or if the third-parties weren't able to get on the ballot (most likely through some sort of byzantine election laws pushed through by the local GOP or Dems), they'll generally be running a write-in campaign (such as Mark McCoy in the upcoming Illinois gubernatorial race). It's a simple matter to check out who's running in your area through Wikipedia... I just did a search for "2006 Illinois gubernatorial election" and got all sorts of information on who's running. And in the event that you disagree with the main party candidates, and you can't find a suitable third-party candidate... just skip that particular section. You don't have to complete the entire ballot. Just go in and vote for the ones you feel strongly about, and leave anything you don't know/care about blank.

Re:Oh My.

[Greyfox]

True, true and I'm not advocating revolution at this point. I don't think that the electoral system has been subverted to the point that change couldn't happen through it. I DO think that this administration represents the greatest threat to the stability of the USA that we've faced since the civil war. I also think that it'll take decades to undo the damage that this administration has done, both to our standing in the world and to our legal systems on the home front.

For the next couple of decades I think we really need to focus on rooting out all the corruption in Washington and bringing in leaders who priortize the best interests of the country over their own. That'll take some doing with the public as apathetic as it is. It'll be interesting to see what happens...

Re:Oh My.

[kalidasa]

By DEFINITION, an IED is not a military weapon. The "I" stands for "Improvised." For example, a Molotov cocktail is an IED. (An RPG is a military weapon.) The success of the IED in Iraq and Afghanistan points to something that should have been learned a long time ago in 1940s Russia, 1960s and 1970s Vietnam, and in 1980s Afghanistan: an occupation army will lose if it can't win the hearts and minds of the people of the occupied land, no matter *how* superior their technology.

Re:Oh My.

[wrf3]

I'm a Rational Atheist and I will not submit to _ANY_ religious law. Not those imposed by the Koran, the Torah, or the Bible.

If you were truly a "rational atheist" then you would have to agree that the only basis for morality, and therefore law, is personal preference. The direct corollary to this is "might makes right" (since individual personal preference is trumped by force -- you can't provide a preference if you are dead). This is why atheistic states are invariably totalitarian. Another factor to consider is that, if you believe the evolutionary biologists, man is hardwired for religion. That means that atheists will always be in the minority. Therefore, the only way for you to not submit to any religious law is to impose your own. But, since you're in the minority, you can't do that without force. So, once again, you're back to totalitarianism.

BTW, you might find it somewhat disconcerting to know that one of the foundational teachings of Christianity is that law does not work. There is no law, whether human or divine, that man will not break. This isn't unique to Christianity. Lao-Tzu said, "The more laws and order are made prominent, the more thieves and robbers there will be." In any case, the cure for this, obviously, is not more law.
 

If it doesn't have a nervous system, scoop it out. You don't feel bad when you swat a mosquito, do you?

Mosquito's have a nervous system. And, yes, I do feel bad. I'm not particularly fond of killing, regardless of the species. There was a mouse in our garage a few weeks ago. I had used a 2x4 to move back some of the clutter and saw it. My wife wanted me to bash it's little head in (she doesn't like them). I wouldn't do it and let it go.

Re:Oh My.

[Anonymous Coward]

Did any of you actually read the text of the bill?

It doesn't say what the Anonymous coward claims it says. The only things it allows for is for massive unrest or inability of the State to maintain order for (insert reason) so the Fed.Gov has to step in. If this had been around for NOLA then we would have seen more action sooner, as the Governor waffled in true Democrat fashion about whether to allow the President to send help. Took her 24 hours to agree that she didn't know her a$$ from a hole in the ground.

And you dorks STILL blame the President and FEMA for that CF!

Re:Oh My.

[Anonymous Coward]

Three words:

Small Goverment Conservatives.

One label:

Democrats

Re:Oh My.

[hador_nyc]

I don't mean to quibble with you, but I don't really think things are that bad. Hell, there aren't even the riots that there were in the 60s. Were the country as full of violence strife as it was then, I'd agree with you. I think many people are angry and motivated in a positive way, and I do think that the result will be for the benefit of all of us. As for the corruption, well again, I don't think this administration is particularly bad historically speaking. We've had some BAD corrupt presidents in the past. Even honest guys like U.S. Grant were unable to control the corruption in their administrations. Granted, I'm not comparing the North's hero of the Civil War to Bush, far from it, but his administration was far, far more corrupt. Harding's was probably the worst, and he wasn't a great guy. He, you might want to compare to Bush. I could go on and on, sadly, with many more examples. My point is that I really don't think things are THAT bad, but I do agree that significant corruption is taking place and needs to be fixed. I'm just trying to say that we've been here before, and I have a secular faith in the people to correct their mistakes. We elected the wrong guy, and he's mucked up far more than he's done right. The other thing that makes me even more hopeful for the future is things like this. The internet with the fantastic ability of it to keep tabs on folks, and to spread commentary, will only help empower people more while at the same time adding another check on to the corruption of the politicians. Would you and I be talking were it not for this? I doubt we'd even hear about this terrible law were it not for the internet. I do not think the MSM would cover it; left or right leaning. You could argue that I view the world through rose colored glasses, but much of my hope is from studying the past. It has been worse, and we're smarter now. In no way could the abuses of Tammany_Hall exist in my town, NYC, today. So I feel about our country.

Re:Oh My.

[Fafnir43]

The only things that separate a dead human from a living human are a lack of sentience, and 'minor' things like cell damage and so on

I would argue that this isn't the correct abstraction. The better abstraction is the direction of life's "arrow". Unless you're God or Dr. Frankenstein, the flight of the arrow has ended and it cannot be reversed. This is not true for the embryo; the direction of it's arrow is toward life and sentience. It is therefore not our place to stop it.

Two points:

Firstly, why is this a better abstraction? I don't quite understand. I'm sure it's my fault rather than yours, but could you clarify? Thanks.

Secondly, as an abstraction, it relies on the idea that the embryo's potential to become sentient (the fact that the 'arrow' is in motion) is important, and so my second argument (quoted below) attacks it.

Since the number of women out there having periods is far greater than the number of women having abortions, you should therefore focus your energies on preventing this tragedy

Might as well focus on stopping masturbation, too, since it's a waste of perfectly good semen (and kittens!). Are you sure you want to take this position? Your argument leads to the notion that nature itself is a tragedy.

That's why I was talking about it being an 'argument from consequences'. I KNOW the argument leads to stupid conclusions (i.e. abstinence and masturbation are evil), and I don't agree with those conclusions, but by putting forward the argument I show that either the conclusions are correct (which neither of us believes), or one of the axioms is incorrect (which I do believe). More specifically, the argument falls over if we assume that something that will become sentient is of vastly inferior value to something that is sentient, because then refraining from sex and having abortions are then both equally inoffensive. I believe that, so I don't have to accept the silly conclusion I brought out. You don't believe that, so you either have to accept the silly conclusion, accept my point, dispute one of the other axioms or find a weakness in the argument itself. It's sort of like proof by contradiction in maths if you're familiar with that, only less so because the contradiction is intuitive rather than logical. Here's the full argument again:

The second argument is more interesting. I know I'm arguing from consequences, but this is the best I can do. In the same way, a woman's egg has the potential for sentience. If a woman chooses to abstain from sex and artificial insemination, therefore, she is destroying that potential (as the egg is destroyed in the woman's period). If we grant that allowing something to happen passively is equivalent or almost equivalent to directly causing it to happen*, this is equally wrong, morally, to her having an abortion. Since the number of women out there having periods is far greater than the number of women having abortions, you should therefore focus your energies on preventing this tragedy.

So while I do believe it is equally 'wrong' for a woman to refrain from sex as it is for her to have an early abortion, this belief is sane because I believe neither of them are wrong.

Are there any Jesuit readers who would like to comment on the intricacies of "sins of commission and sins of omission"?

I'd be interested as well - it's an area I don't know much about.

Re:Oh My.

[cdrmret]

Who is Marshall, and how did he get a law named after himself?

Re:Oh My.

[Anonymous Coward]

Challenge it in the SCOTUS. They'll toss it if really is a constitutional disaster. the states rights, originalist dudes will be pissed if it messes with the framer's work. of course there are those that defer a lot to presidential power, but there aren't enough to make that a dominate position on the court.

Re:Oh My.

[Lemmy Caution]

Underlying your claim is the belief that, deep down inside, we all want the same thing.

We don't. The partisanship reflects real rifts in values, culture, experiences, and interests.

I'm pretty much on the left, in a fiscally-sane and let-the-locals-run-themselves kind of way. Civil liberties issues are more important to me than most others, though: in theory, I should be able to hang out well with libertarians of various stripes. In practice, most libertarian-conservatives are more interested in protecting gun ownership - which strikes me as, honestly, silly and irrelevant - while what are the major issues for me are lifestyle ones: gay marriage and drug decriminalization. The litmus for me is the former right now - I'm not gay, but many of my friends are, and some are in international relationships.

This means major visa problems if they want to live with their loved ones in the US. It's a problem which affects a minority of people, but it strikes me as an essential question of fairness. It doesn't even appear on the radar of so-called libertarians who are part of traditional culture here, just like gun ownership doesn't appear on mine.

How does this link to your post? Well, because that's what determines who the "They" that wins every time is. "They" are people who can exploit these gaps in cultural experience and carve out a majority, and do so without any regard for any kind of moral compass. Overcoming apathy wouldn't help: it would make the demagoguery worse. The only chance I see for the fair thing happening is a bit more apathy about gay marriage on the part of people who have been riled up in opposition to it.

Re:Oh My.

[grimwell]

Not voting is a better way of protesting the lack of candidates that appeal to you?

Maybe the halloween candy has rotted my brain but your logic escapes me. With poor voter turn-out wouldn't the parties just increase their efforts on appealing to those that do actually get out to vote, as those are the people that are going to get them elected. With poor voter turn out, the candidate actually has less people he or she has to appeal to.

Poor voter turn out might be noticed but it doesn't improve the field of candidates.

Re:Oh My.

[rickwood]

One of the principles of guerrilla warfare is that you must take your arms and ammunition from your enemies because you have no other way to procure them. If your guerrilla band is small and lightly armed, you take small bites and only ambush small detachments. You only have to eliminate one enemy patrol to have nice automatic rifles and the ammunition that goes with them. You might even get some grenades and a rocket or two.

One other thing to consider: What makes you think the entirety of the military will side with the government?

Re:Oh My.

[Anonymous Coward]

There aren't a lot of people left of me politically. One would imagine that I would be a gun control nut. I've always been sort of ambivalent toward it, though. In any case, six months ago I bought an AR-15, joined the local gun club and took lessons on maintenance and marksmanship. I'm working toward an armament goal of a shotgun, two AR-15s, and 10K rounds of ammo.

Should the shit hit the fan, I'll be ready. If not, then I still enjoy going out to the range on weekends and plinking.

Not paranoid, per se. Just prepared. And give the events of the last few years, I understand much better the intent of the second amendment.

Re:Oh My.

[grimwell]

If you want the incumbent out, why not just vote for the guy running against him. If the person is un-opposed, then write yourself in.

That could be an interesting project....
1) Publish list of all un-opposed incumbents
2) Publish list of write-in candidates (one or two people for each incumbent)
3) ???
4) democracy

Re:Oh My.

[Sancho]

Except that I was also talking about more parties and/or more ideas being represented. I know plenty of conservatives that don't really get the party-agenda on homosexuals--they don't care, or better, they see no reason to deny them these rights. However, they don't look at the individual issues and who is supporting them--they just look at the party affiliation and vote thusly.

In many elections (for congress and local seats), there are people running who are either third-party candidates or independants. They tend to differ significantly in idealogy from either of the main party candidates, but they tend to get almost no press because of the broken system. If people sought out these candidates, they might see something there that fits them better than either of the two main parties. But they don't. They're lazy and probably don't even bother voting in the midterms, believing that only the President really matters. I think that in the past few years, we've seen what can happen when the same party controls both the presidency and the congress. I guess for someone who believes everything the Republican party believes (and even that statement is lumping them all together) then this would be ok, but I sincerely believe that most people have at least somewhat differing opinions on some of the issues.

Re:Oh My.

[ralphdaugherty]

The spreadsheet for the federal budget is here

      The budget hasn't been a particularly troubling issue, paying for it has. And keeping the undeclared "war" out of the budget, typical Republican lying.

  rd

Re:Oh My.

[Cederic]

whether they want to cold-bloodedly slaughter a significant percentage of the US population

Where do I sign up?

Re:Oh My.

[Doc Ruby]

Tell that to the people of New Orleans, many of whom were not the "crazy armed gangs" the network news framed for us as "the looters", who were shot by the Blackwater private army reimported back from Iraq.

Or to the NYC and LAPD cops (among many others) who shoot Americans for whatever reasons. When many PTSD Iraq veterans get the usual post-military jobs in stateside police and private security, I expect a lot more of this kind of violence. Even before Bush sends American troops to "protect us from the insurgents" inside America.

But that's all pretty reasonable. I don't know how to explain to you that an American civil war, especially one so bloody as you describe (bloodier than Rwanda?) can't possibly make America and the world any better. Unless you hate America, and want to see every one of us dead, and no trouble to anyone anymore, including ourselves. An insane viewpoint that doesn't suggest any way to help turn it to the light.

Re:Oh My.

[Doc Ruby]

Now's the time for you to claim you're a "Libertarian", not a Republican, like the rest of the rats fleeing the sinking ship, talking out your ass about your fantasy militia war in a totalitarian America.

And I'm sure many soldiers would have refused to go to Iraq if Bush hadn't found a way to lie us in there on WMD threats and lies about how Iraq was part of the 9/11/2001 planebombings.

You shouldn't be so cranky. With Bush turning us into a tyranny, you'll probably get your chance to shoot people and get away with it soon enough. The reason you "Libertarians" will stick into your version of the 2nd Amendment instead of its false premise about militias - as you already have.

Re:Oh My.

[wrf3]

Firstly, why is this a better abstraction? I don't quite understand. I'm sure it's my fault rather than yours, but could you clarify? Thanks.

I hold that it's a better abstraction because it takes all of the properties of the embryo into account, not one arbitrary one.

...so you either have to accept the silly conclusion, accept my point, dispute one of the other axioms or find a weakness in the argument itself.

I dispute the equivalence of the unfertilized egg to that of the fertilized egg.

Re:Oh My.

[Ucklak]

As I have replied before, "basically it is a military weapon". If it can take out military hardware, that makes it a military weapon in my book.

Re:Oh My.

[Anonymous Coward]

Well that was a stultifyingly ill-informed post.
Have a look at a ranking of countries by percentage atheists. Here's the one at the top of Google:
http://www.adherents.com/largecom/com_atheist.html

The nations at the top of that list are not known for their totalitarian governments. You have to get down into the thirties before you hit one that is. It's also worth pointing out that many at the top of the list are majority atheist.

For a start, no religous movement of any size can ever agree amongst its own members as to what are the actual laws of the system. Your concept of any legal consistency arising from religious law is pretty nonsensical.
More importantly, atheists do not implicitly accept "personal preference" as the only source of law. Only a small minority of nihilists would ever support this. The vast majority believe in some level of social order; the value to the individual arising from an ordered society is quite clearly greater than the costs. I do not know why you think atheists are incapable of seeing this. A great deal of the world's philosophy regarding sacrificing for the greater good is written by atheists, proposing systems of law that have everything to do with serving the needs of the general public over the needs of the individual. Because atheism is, by its nature, non-divisive compared to national and religious belief systems, atheists are generally much more willing to follow laws in the public good. The reason they do it is because they know that, if they don't support the guy next door, he won't be there for them. They don't need a bearded guy living in the sky to tell them that. And they don't expect that sky-dwelling feller to save them; they have to hope the guy next door will.

Re:Oh My.

[Knuckles]

you still have to answer why we have the right to end development before that point is passed.

Simple: women have this right because they already end development all the time using just the natural functions of their body and mind. You seem to be under the wrong assumption that every time a blastocyst is formed an implantation follows and consequently an embryo and then child develops. This however is wrong.

Women reject blastocysts all the time, and the chance that an implantation actually happens is lower the less the woman wants to be pregnant. Abortion early in pregnancy is just an extension of this perfectly natural event using technical means and is not fundamentally different as long as the embryo is still without the ability to experience pain or has other higher functions.

Re:Oh My.

[Doc Ruby]

Bush will find a way to get the soldiers to "enforce law and order" against Americans, even ones with guns. Just like he did in Iraq, where most soldiers believe they're there to "take revenge for 9/11", or to find/stop WMDs, or some other lie Bush used. The way Bush and Rumsfeld got soldiers and "contractors" to torture Iraqis, as in Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo (and elsewhere).

I agree with you about all your patriotism. But I don't make the mistaken assumption that Bush will appear to be illegitimate. He's been a criminal for years, but has managed to paint himself as a saint, and his opponents as traitors, keeping the cooperation of most Americans, especially the government and the military. I don't see why that would suddenly change, when all he's done is change the degree of his tyranny to a little higher each time.

For example, where was the outrage, or even a whisper of dissent, when Bush got this martial law signed two weeks ago? The same day he got Habeas Corpus thrown out? After discarding the Geneva Conventions, and the ABM Treaty, and...

Re:Oh My.

[Fafnir43]

I hold that it's a better abstraction because it takes all of the properties of the embryo into account, not one arbitrary one.

But the only property my abstraction fails to take into account is the potential for sentience, which is still under debate as an important property. So we're right back to this.

<i>I dispute the equivalence of the unfertilized egg to that of the fertilized egg.</i>

And why do you dispute that? They do both have the potential to become a full human being. The only difference is that the unfertilised egg requires a little help to make it sentient, and the thrust of my argument is that withholding the help needed to turn the unfertilised egg into a sentient being is equivalent to actively preventing a fertilised egg from turning into a sentient being.

Re:Oh My.

[Rakarra]

I've heard Republican pundits on TV mention the popularity of 24 as a mandate of support from the American public for any sorts of "anti-terrorism" legislation/action.

Re:Oh My.

[Doc Ruby]

That's true. The Congress is controlled by a Republican majority in each chamber. Which controls all the committees. Which excludes Democrats from practically any influence on any legislation. Which rejected 80% of Democrat-sponsored bills and amendments this year. Which withholds pork projects from Democrats unless they vote for "Unitary Executive" legislation like this one.

Of course Democrats could do more to act as an opposition party, if only having an effect in the media (to win the people over for the next election). But the fact is that this is a Republican government, and produced this typically Republican piece of tyrannical legislation.

Re:Oh My.

[Anonymous Coward]

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

  Pfft. As the anti-gun folks like to say, if "guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns."
  But if you're afraid of your government and ready to rise up, why not be an outlaw? Many of the Iraqi insurgents didn't have guns prior to the U.S. invasion -- they were kept in heavily guarded armories by Saddam's men. Those guys either left their posts the when fighting got near, or began passing the guns out when it was clear they wouldn't get shot by their superiors anymore.

Re:Oh My.

[Knuckles]

Al Qaeda another

Enough already! There is no Al Qaeda in the sense of it being a terrorist organization. No, I won't bother doing your research for you.

Re:Oh My.

[wrf3]

But the only property my abstraction fails to take into account is the potential for sentience, which is still under debate as an important property. So we're right back to this.

You think the potential for sentience isn't important, I do. I don't know how to resolve this.

And why do you dispute that? They do both have the potential to become a full human being.

I would argue that preventing fertilization is not equivalent to actively terminating a fertilized egg from growing. One is letting nature take it's course; the other is to actively prevent nature from taking its course. (Note that this argument borders on the religious; if there is no purpose to nature, then who cares?) One objection might be that medicine prevents nature from taking its course; so why not forbid medicine? And I have to fall back on what I think is self-evident, that life is better than death. The direction in which we turn the arrow is important.

Re:Oh My.

[PongStroid]

You (and people like you) are exactly why we are in this mess to begin with. Excuse me? We're in this mess because the candidates I once supported broke their promises and forsook their principles?

I don't blame the politicians... I blame YOU. There were plenty of us out there over the last few elections saying exactly what you're saying now. They have NO principles, and you can't trust them to keep promises. That you voted for these criminals says more about you than them.

Re:Oh My.

[buzzzz]

Don't forget there have been completely unarmed large scale civilian protests against armed armies that have been successful - vis a vis Gandhi.
As he said it - Firing at unarmed civilians will break the resolve of the most in-humane army... everyone has some conscience.

Can't believe no one brought this up before!!!

Re:Oh My.

[mkarcher]

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

You make Germany sound like D'Hara.

Re:Oh My.

[spasm]

The last time the rifles people had in the closet were a technological match to the military firepower of the day was the Boer war. The Boers still lost, eventually. The American 2nd amendment is useless unless it grants you the ability to own something that can shoot down a B52.

Re:Oh My.

[spasm]

"Human life is a continuum from conception to death".

What's with the obsession with 'conception'? Conception is one of a long, long, long list of biological processes that *must* occur, and *must* occur in the right sequence for a birth to occur. It's hardly the first step in the process, nor is it the last. The obsession of the American Right with 'conception' is really just an extension of their general obsession with sex, and their desire to control other people's understanding of when and under what conditions sex is appropriate.

And, I say this with all due consideration of the term I'm about to use, you can all go fuck yourselves before I'll accept your divine right to dictate the terms of everyone's sex life. I don't care what third-rate, unscientific, sex-obsessed justifications you want to use.

Re:Oh My.

[wrf3]

Simple: women have this right because they already end development all the time using just the natural functions of their body and mind.

Just curious, but what role does the mind play in a spontaneous abortion? You claim: the chance that an implantation actually happens is lower the less the woman wants to be pregnant. I'd be interested in seeing supporting documentation for this.

Re:Oh My.

[Fafnir43]

I suppose the question isn't really of whether we must attribute any value to the potential for sentience - it's how much value we may attribute. I don't think we can consider a foetus as directly equivalent to a baby, on the grounds that we will eventually become corpses, and treating a human as being directly equivalent to a corpse would obviously be wrong! So the real question becomes: do we place enough value on the potential for sentience to ignore the possible death of an actual sentience? Carrying a pregnancy to term is still far riskier than an abortion. My instinctive reaction would be to say that the preservation of the established sentience must take priority. We would throw away a thousand acorns rather than cut down an ancient oak. I also think this is the sort of question where logical arguments don't really work - we can't exactly derive a numerical value for this sort of thing! I think we might end up agreeing to differ on this one... I would argue that preventing fertilization is not equivalent to actively terminating a fertilized egg from growing. One is letting nature take it's course; the other is to actively prevent nature from taking its course. (Note that this argument borders on the religious; if there is no purpose to nature, then who cares?) One objection might be that medicine prevents nature from taking its course; so why not forbid medicine? And I have to fall back on what I think is self-evident, that life is better than death. The direction in which we turn the arrow is important. You've anticipated my main objection! :-) I don't agree that nature is in itself a viable source of morality, simply because nature shows no compassion, and (as you would probably agree) I would consider compassion to be one of the most important defining traits of a moral being. Exactly as you say, medicine prevents nature from taking its course. While I would agree that life is 'self-evidently' better than death, nature would disagree. You can't logically both attach importance to nature's wishes simply because they are nature's wishes and say that life should be preserved and compassion is good. I think the only way the two actions can be morally different is if we go back to commission versus omission again. It's late (UK). Me sleep now.

Re:Oh My.

[Anonymous Coward]

Provide evidence that sentience cannot be repaired with matter alone.

Re:Oh My.

[Anonymous Coward]

As a 2nd Ammendment defender, I'd recommend learning how to use one (or more) _before_ buying one. Just zip down to your local range, talk with folks, take a safety course, and you'll have a great time.

Re:Oh My.

[AUDIOMIND]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Write-in_candidate

A write-in candidate is what you're after. :)

Re:Oh My.

[wrf3]

My instinctive reaction would be to say that the preservation of the established sentience must take priority.

I would say, if only one can be saved, save the one. But abortion, by and large, isn't about saving the mother. It's about convenience.

I don't agree that nature is in itself a viable source of morality...

An astute observation. Morality is solely a product of self-awareness. But here's where I think we'll fundamentally differ: I would argue that nature is the by product of design and we can learn from that design. I'm not going to be overly concerned about the loss of an unfertilized egg, because that is a part of nature's design. But it is also a part of nature's design that a fertilized egg, all other things being equal, come to term. If there is no design to nature, then there's no point in anyone arguing about anything; let the stronger impose their will on the weaker.

Sleep well. Thanks for the excellent discussion.

Re:Oh My.

[sgt_doom]

These were typical responses to my last 50 or so posts....

Re:Oh My.

[Bloody Troll]

There's only one thing I envy about how Russia applies its democratic elections: the ability to cast a negative ballot.

Not anymore. Putin has removed this option recently.

Re:Oh My.

[kalidasa]

Unfortunately, "your book" isn't exactly determinative. No one thinks of IEDs as "military hardware." They are things that can be created by a mob, not just by military hardware manufacturers (unlike RPGs; it would be interesting to find out where the RPGs are coming from in Iraq, by the way: while I'm sure many are left-overs from the Hussein regime, it's quite possible that many are not).

Re:Oh My.

[chadbo]

There are winners and there are losers. It's good to be on the winning team.

Re:Oh My.

[Knuckles]

I'm sorry, I am unable to find data online. I do know that I have seen data somewhere though. You might have a chance here. On this page there are no numbers on the influence of a woman's desire to be pregnant, but they do give numbers on how very common spontaneous abortions are:

According to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists(ACOG) (...) studies reveal that anywhere from 10-25% of all clinically recognized pregnancies will end in miscarriage. Estimations of chemical pregnancies or unrecognized pregnancies that are lost can be as high as 50-75%, but many of these are unknown since they often happen before a woman has missed a period or is aware she is pregnant.

Even though I cannot present hard data, from the sheer number of spontaneous abortions it seems pretty obvious to me that the willingness of the woman to become pregnant in the first place will have an effect, just as the state of mind of a sick person will have an effect on recovery, or the mind of an athlete will have an effect on physical performance. If you google for "spontaneous abortion" + mind and related terms, something might turn up. However most sites talk about how to prevent miscarriages. You might find more if you turn to women's studies.

Re:Oh My.

[ClamIAm]

I think it's kind of funny that you complain about all these politicians and parties not sharing your views, yet you seem to be quiet on this point: democracy is more than voting. And I don't mean running for office, either.

You can join a political party and work to improve their platform on different issues. Depending on what state you live in, this might also be the only way to vote in a primary, giving you a chance to support candidates who you like.

You can join or start a non-profit organization. I'm pretty sure you've heard of ones like the EFF, ACLU, and NRA.

You can work to get measures on the ballot yourself. For some types of legislation, this is the only practical way to get something done. For example: my county petitioned our commissioners to vote on a smoking ban. It didn't pass (despite polls being like 85% in favor), and unfortunately the commissioner I know personally gave me a pretty weak anti-regulation reason as to why he voted against it (and he's also a smoker, heh). The plan now is to get it on the ballot (probably in '08).

Re:Oh My.

[ClamIAm]

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?

I really hope you've never studied the American Revolution. Yeah, there were trained people (and the French), but you should keep in mind that Minutemen were named so because they dressed quickly in old clothes instead of fancy military uniforms. And there are dozens of other examples throughout history (as well as current events) that show civilians can incapacitate even the greatest military powers.

Re:Oh My.

[Bloater]

That's the one I was referring to, I didn't realise the most worrisome part was dropped.

Re:Oh My.

[Anonymous Coward]

No, a B52 is useless unless it can identify and eliminate individuals who will swear on a stack of bibles that they are loyal citizens while the government is looking, and torch government buildings when it isn't.

Re:Oh My.

[Anonymous Coward]

What happened to the "lock box"?

Re:Oh My.

[adinb]

That would be "serf", and if it got to all-out war/imperialism I don't think we would care about the people or their infrastructure. Plenty of Black Gold for us to pull out of the ground on our own...with labor supplied by KBR, Exxon, and Halliburton.

Re:Oh My.

[binary paladin]

You really don't understand warfare, do you? Particularly civil war. All the cool, hi-tech weapons in the world do not make it magically possible to occupy and control the people in a given area. If you simply want a "take all land and kill all the inhabitants" sort of war then, okay, toys win in most cases. When your own citizenry is fed up with you, can't just nuke your own cities. You can't use flying fortresses to strategically bomb your own cities.

No matter how far tech goes, you'll always need an infantry presence. If you can destroy your enemy's infantry, it doesn't matter how many tanks, battleships or airplanes he has. And if you think that's not the way it works, look at the Middle East and Eastern Europe. Guerilla warfare and that kind of revolt is not about winning. It's simply about not losing. No one would have to march in and "take" the White House. If the country collapses into that, the economic backlash would destroy everything else.

Tanks need factory workers, fuel, ammunition, etc. It doesn't take a lot of unrest to cripple that. Wars are often won in the will, not in the toys.

Re:Oh My.

[pete-classic]

You make a good point. I'm for repealing the income tax. It was a terrible idea and has borne bitter fruit.

-Peter

Re:Oh My.

[spasm]

{grin} you have a point.

Re:Oh My.

[TapeCutter]

Not a word about the far right examples, guess I offended the far left eh?

N. Korea: I was talking about the reality of far left politics, not the naive idealism that leads to it.

The economy vs environment: I am not talking about Kyoto here, I think it is possible and desirable to significantly improve our management of both the economy and the environment(particularly in the 3rd world). Some on the far green left think we need to dump everything in a modern economy and reinvent tribalism (in reality: join the 3rd world in their economic misery).

My point is that extreme economic/environmental measures only "work" for one brand of extremists at a time (if at all), the rest of us (extreme or otherwise) are not invited to the table.

Re:Oh My.

[louisadkins]

Why, yes, it is spelled "Serf." And I think there would, indeed, be an element that would be hesitant in such actions for selfish reasons.

Re:Oh My.

[adinb]

Oh, I was just being snarky--My cynicism got the best of me...Just chalk it up to me being a grouchy disabled vet who has had too many direct dealings with the lower echelons of the administration that follow in the footsteps of their leaders on the hill.

Re:Oh My.

[TapeCutter]

"it is part of human nature to want to impose your particular worldview on someone else."

Yes, and it is the job of any democratic civilization to channel the urges of control and curiosity into a vibrant and diverse society. More often than not, people use it at as an excuse to implement a closed, monotone, stone throwing society where curiosity can get you killed. If you think the ACLU is guilty of this then push to change the constitution, that's the weapon they are using to fight against your narcissistic philosophy.

Re:Oh My.

[10Ghz]

"I don't know which is worse: how much I absolutely despise the Democrats or my anger at the Republicans."

Are there only two political parties in the USA? Why not vote for someone else instead? Because your vote would be "wasted"? That's the kind of mentality that gives you the duopoly the modern-day USA has. You have two parties that equally corrupt, just in different ways. And they know that their corruption and incompetence will not harm them, because people will vote for either of the two. They are confident that they can do all kinds of crappy things, since the voters are not going to "waste" their vote for a third-party. Either they keep on voting for dems and reps or they stay at home. Either way: they cling to the power.

Like I said: go out and vote, but for some other party than dems or reps.

Re:Oh My.

[10Ghz]

"What should be stopped is the deliberate taking of an innocent human life."

Fetus is not a human. True, it's a line drawn in water as to when that fetus does become "human", but fact remains that a collection of cells in a womans uterus is not human.

And what we have here is someone (you) pushing his ideals and opinions on others. You can be against abortion, and still be pro-choice. You could think that abortion is something that should not be done, yet you feel that it's to every individual to make up their mind. But no, you insist that everyone must agree with your ideals and opinions on this matter. And if they don't, you want government to step in and enforce your ideals. Yay for "small government"!

I, for one, get very annoyed when someone tells me what to do and think. And that is why I'm pro-choice. I don'texpect people to agree with me, I consider it to be their personal decision. You do not, you just want to cram your viewpoints down other people's throats. Pro-lifers are very selfish in this regard.

Re:Oh My.

[10Ghz]

"Human life is a continuum from conception to death."

"Human life" is life that can be identified as being "human". Some collection of cells in a uterus is not "human". And those cells are not self-sustaining, nor are they capable of higher thinking nor are they self-aware.

"Europe will be fully Muslim within a generation or two"

I'm sorry, but you sir are a complete moron. While birth-rates are quite low in Europe, and there is sizable Muslim-minority, it does NOT mean that "Europe will be fully Muslim withing generation or two". It seems that 4.3% of people in Europe are Muslims. And you claim that in "generation or two", 100% of people in Europe will be Muslims? Well, as it happens, the fastest-growing religion in Europe is not Islam, it's Buddhism.

source: http://www.bible.ca/global-religion-statistics-wor ld-christian-encyclopedia.htm

Re:Oh My.

[shutdown -p now]

I wish ballots had "none of the above" which, if it "won", would force new elections with new candidates.

Some countries actually have that sort of thing in their elections, working precisely as you described. Russia did have it, for example - the "against all" vote. It was removed some time after Putin came to power, and many people (myself included) considered it a serious blow to democracy. I am extremely surprised that it is not an option in the USA either.

Re:Oh My.

[Des Herriott]

Roadside IED go off and kill US troops? The neighborhood will suffer as a result. Teach the populace that all harboring and capitulation with the terrorists won't save them any trouble, and that they need to take care of their own problems if they want the US to leave.

This is known as collective punishment, and is a war crime. Sure, it'll work in the short term - worked great for Hitler, Stalin, and Olmert, at least for a while - but do you really want to join that club?

Re:Oh My.

[TobascoKid]

That's what I don't get about the post - it seems to give 100% of the credit to Bush and completely ignores the fact that congress actually made the law. I know plenty of people have an axe to grind with the president, but they really should be blaming congress first for coming up with the bad legislation in the first place.

Re:Oh My.

[B0red At W0rk]

You can be 100% sure that if the situation gets where people feel they have to use guns against a would be dictatorship in the US, they would be flagged as terrorists by the powers that be (since hey, this is a democracy right??) and those nasty terrorists would be used as an excuse to justify marcial law.

Re:Oh My.

[dctoastman]

Awesome. The "true Scotsman" arguement.
No, the only basis for morality is the basic edict that you should do nothing to anyone that interferes with their ability to do the same without consent. Basically, leave me alone, I'll leave you alone. If you want to deal with me, trade value for value.

We are also hardwired to kill, rape, and steal. Doesn't mean we should do those other things either.

And atheists outnumber the Jewish population in America.

Have fun with your delusions. I won't participate.

Re:Oh My.

[Lorkki]

Not a word about the far right examples, guess I offended the far left eh?

Heh. Oversimplifying a bit, are we?

N. Korea: I was talking about the reality of far left politics, not the naive idealism that leads to it.

I mentioned the cold war because people seem to be using old propaganda pamphlets as authoritative references.

I don't think of North Korea, China or the Soviet Union as communist states simply because they are and were not. The clearest hint should be that wealth is quite strictly centralised and controlled by a ruling class, obviously isolated from the rest of the population. What that ruling class calls their system is about as relevant as medieval monarchies' rhetoric about them being the benefactors of the peasantry, or saying that the western world is a free market economy.

Making sense can be a matter of context. "Working" can be a matter of execution. In any case even extremists can bring good ideas to the table.

Re:Oh My.

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Time for you to get involved in the Libertarian Party. Otherwise you'll continue to get big-government politicians elected. In my short life the Republicans have gone from Regan, who talked really great about cutting government but was powerless to do it b/c of a Democratic Congress, to Bush the Younger who rarely even talks the talk now and has a Republican Congress that spends like drunken sailors. The only time having a Republican Congress kinda worked was when Klinton was in office. Pretty sad that a Democrat has a better record of reducing the increase in government spending than a Republican. However Klinton was such a scary guy that even insane politicans had to act reasonable.

It's time to forsake the D&R's.

Re:Oh My.

[Dun Malg]

How are the weapons you mention effective against the government's fully automatic weapons?

Automatic weapons are not a magic firehose that mows down the enemy as you run by holding the trigger down, like in Commando. Automatic fire is used primarily for suppressive fire, keeping your opponent from "getting comfortable" and aiming at your unit while it maneuvers into position, or to keep a larger force from making a frontal assault. In asymmetrical warfare, particularly in an urban environment, the effectiveness of automatic fire is greatly reduced. There is no clear "front", and the ranges are far too close in to establish and clear a meaningful fire lane. No, other than training, there's really no great superiority to a squad of soldiers armed with standard small arms against a group of civilians armed with semi-auto rifles. The awkward thing about an insurgency is that the "enemy" is mixed in among the civilian population, so using laser guided bombs, artillery, or anything else beyond highly discriminate small arms (i.e. aimed rifles) is simply out of the question. Add in the fact that the "enemy" knows the neighborhood, outnumbers you, and more than likely contains a few military folks who have "switched sides", and you have a serious fight on your hands.

Re:Oh My.

[CyberdogOSX]

They already are:

Was the 2004 election stolen?

A call for investigation

Security Analysis of the Diebold AccuVote-TS Voting Machine

They Said it Couldn't be Done

Re:Oh My.

[CyberdogOSX]

Those Check & Balances are being eroded. VOTE! this year and in 2008.

High Court Trims Whistleblower Rights

The Rise Of Pseudo Fascism

Conservatives Without Conscience

Re:Oh My.

[abigor]

No, that's not what I'm saying. Someone implied that the Iraqi insurgency was "winning". My response was that if the U.S. had absolutely no qualms about maximum bloodshed, they'd pull all their troops, park a single nuclear submarine offshore, and that would be that.

I'm not a American, nor am I any particular supporter of the U.S. military. I'm just realistic.

Re:Oh My.

[Anonymous Coward]

Lazy? Maybe. Weak? Not on your life. And quite a few lazy people turn into absolute power-houses when they get motivated enough to get off their asses.

Re:Oh My.

[Ilmarin77]

Even this is unrealistic. As it will probably make everybody else in this region a little angry, including countries which sell oil to the USA.

Re:Oh My.

[Mith]

This is the answer to a question I asked on http://governanceimperative.blogspot.com/. Why do people vote the straight party ticket? Someone here suggested a 'none of the above' which causes a new election if it gets a certain percentage of the votes. I like that idea.

Re:Oh My.

[b0s0z0ku]

Do you honestly think that an army comprised only of snipers could win any war? Because that's what the 2nd amendment gives you.

"Arms" means "weapons." The 2nd amendment, as originally written, didn't qualify this as "to keep and bear *small* arms." This is just a later interpretation.

-b.

Re:Oh My.

[SoulRider]

Many of us would consider you a patriot if as a Republican you didnt vote in the next presidential election.

Re:Oh My.

[2short]

The Iraqi insurgency is doing a fine job of making Iraq a very nasty place to be, and possibly at making Americans wonder if there is any positive benefit of being there that makes it worth it.

But I don't see them staging a military takeover of the United States.

Planning to defend your rights by violent rebellion is not reliable. The second amendment as written should give everyone the right to their very own nuke. That would be insane; Hence reigning in government by ensuring the ability of the people to violently rebel is no longer feasible. This is a very dangerous position to be in, so we need to be extremely vigilant in protecting our rights and freedoms by other means, since if it gets to the point of needing guns, it's too late.

On the plus side, there's not much reason to we can't go ahead and have some reasonable gun-control policy...

Re:Oh My.

[EMC_CJ]

It's easy to blame Bush. He's the stupid Texas hick who caused 9/11 and lied to the country to get us to go to war over it, right? But Congress has tacitly condoned everything he has done. And I do mean tacitly. The Iraq Liberation Act (which was passed while Clinton was in office, incidentally) passed by a 360 to 38 vote in the House, and was passed unanimously by the Senate. Our Congress needs to grab a pair and stand up for what we elected them to profess.

Re:Oh My.

[abigor]

Yes, I'm not addressing the consequences. The argument is simply that the Iraqis are capable of beating the U.S., and my retort is that's the case only because the U.S. is refraining from transforming the entire country to glass, which they could do in a heartbeat. Obviously, this would piss people off and so forth, but that's a side-effect, and has nothing to do with the point of the argument.

Many people greatly, vastly underestimate the firepower of the U.S. military. A single Nimitz-class carrier could wreck much of the world (16+ missiles/nukes, 90 fighter jets, etc.), and they've never really been used anywhere close to their full capabilities. The U.S. has ten of them.

Re:Oh My.

[NDPTAL85]

So you have to threaten to murder a politician to keep them acting on their best behavior? Whatever happened to simply voting them out of office? Or should we just do away with the whole voting thing and just threaten to shoot our leaders?

Re:Oh My.

[duffolonious]

I disagree in one major respect. I don't know about other states but Minnesota, Wisconsin fex allow write-ins. So even if you don't like the listed canidates you shouldn't stay home. You write somebody in - yourself, Daffy Duck, or even Darth Vader (he gets results!); otherwise as far as politicions are concerned you don't exist.

Politicians can't change policies over imaginary non-voters. Aye, but the 300 people that voted for Daffy Duck, what's their angle?

Re:Oh My.

[LindseyJ]

Aye, but the 300 people that voted for Daffy Duck, what's their angle?

Well, obviously they think all the other cantidates are dispbbbbpbickable.

Re:Oh My.

[louisadkins]

No worries. Sorry I didn't pick up on the difference.

Re:Oh My.

[Ilmarin77]

>Many people greatly, vastly underestimate the firepower of the U.S. military. A single Nimitz-class carrier could wreck much of the world (16+ missiles/nukes, 90 fighter jets, etc.), and they've never really been used anywhere close to their full capabilities. The U.S. has ten of them. Well, the goal for this war is not total anihilation of iraq. Actually, if you think about it, it is rarely the desire of an army to conquer completely devastated territory. Even Nazis during the WWII didn't want to kill all the civilians on the occupied territory. As to the ability of Nimitz to wreck the world, well, you know Russia (as well as USA) have the capacity to completely destroy the life on Earth but it doesn't say anything about it's ability to solve some specific military task (like getting rid of the guerilla fighters). -- Excuse my English.

Re:Oh My.

[abigor]

Of course you're correct, and now you see my original point. The U.S. is approaching this whole thing with the intent of being "nice", because they have defined the military problem that way: defeat the insurgents while simultaneously help with reconstruction, etc. They are being a whole lot better about it than many conquering armies of the past, let's face it (note that I am NOT in favour of the Irag invasion in general).

As for totally conquering the enemy, well, it wouldn't take total devastation. Horrible as it sounds, a couple of nuclear bombs dropped on "problem" cities would do it. Most of Iraq would be intact afterwards. That's what happened in Japan.

The simple fact is, if the U.S. had defined the problem differently, then the war would be over. They chose to define it in equal parts fighting and reconstruction with minimal loss to civilian life. Of course, they haven't been particularly successful with the solution.

Re:Oh My.

[Ilmarin77]

>Horrible as it sounds, a couple of nuclear bombs dropped on "problem" cities would do it.
No, I don't think it is that easy, because guerilla fighters are supported by the general population, In case of Japan the government of Japan capitulated, and the army obeyed the orders. But in Iraq this doesn't apply, as the government is pro USA anyway but id doesn't control the fighters. For example : Countering Insurgency in a Foreign Land

Re:Oh My.

[Harry Coin]

Except that Abe Lincoln declared martial law and suspended habeas corpus. Really, the elder generation just knows more history than you.

Re:Oh My.

[Anonymous Coward]

This was a FANTASTIC discussion! Thanks to both of you. I learned a great deal.

Have you both looked at it like this:

Is life precious in our society? Yep.
Is choice natural to self awareness? Yep.

Pro life and pro choice.

Let couples or single women choose and decide who they want to be in light of the pregnancy. Do they want to remember having killed a fetus? Is this something they want to define themselves with? I know from talking to women who have or chose not to (non rape examples), that the difficulty in the choice created tremendous personal growth that was pro life (pro mine, pro the baby's). It encouraged both to look at how society, family and old beliefs about right/wrong made the welcoming of life difficult, and used the experience in efforts of advocacy. They were allowed to be human. I'm sure that creates a greater opportunity for change and creativity than living under a government's thumb. And feeling free to choose, instead of feeling free to get punished, makes the choice of favoring life all the easier, because the more sentient life will notice its own life is being PRO'ed.

When it's right/wrong to choose, it means it's right/wrong to be alive to choose, and that is a destructive energy that helps make abortion more alluring. If life is surely so restricted when older, it's naturally OK to restrict it when younger. This is often purely subconscious where nobody notices. Our society is setup that we're not allowed to live, unless we earn currency and consideration regardless of age. Abortion is a natural extension of this setup.

I believe in the end, to let women choose or not, is not dependent on a political party's right/left wingedness, but on the level of their anxiety disorder about REAL freedom where choices lie.

Re:Oh My.

[bytesex]

If you took the gloves off, your international reputation wouldn't stand a chance either. Besides, in 'nam, you guys openly took the gloves off, and you still couldn't do it.

Re:Oh My.

[Anonymous Coward]

Why don't you just re-register as an independent? I was a Republican for 10 years, and I feel the same way as you. I despised the Democrats. Then, I realized how the Democrats are Tweedledee and the Republicans are Tweedledum. I can't tell the difference. The only reason they don't merge into the one party of Republicrats is probably because they need a false dichotomy to keep the passion alive. After all, if there's no passion, who's going to want to donate money? I'm an independent now, and I feel like I'm actually thinking for myself for the first time.

Re:Oh My.

[morphiussys]

Actually, there is usually a third option, or write in. But either way. I wouldn't be suprised if we see a surge in votes for independent candidates.

Re:Oh My.

[Anonymous Coward]

naah, it's an excellent firearm for that. it's easy to use captured ammunition.

Re:Oh My.

[Darlantan]

Oh, no. We have the capability to eliminate any hostile force in Iraq in a matter of hours, if we really want to.

We just don't have a way of doing it without eliminating a substantial portion of (or, in truth, almost all of) the civilian population. Not to mention that actually _doing_ it, or making a real attempt at it, would be political suicide and would likely piss off every other nation in the world.

You know, for a government that exists solely due to the use of clever guerrilla tactics to which there _still_ isn't an effective counter, you'd think we would know better. Vietnam and Iraq suggest otherwise.

Re:Oh My.

[badmammajamma]

Yeah, they use IED's too but they also use sniper rifles which are also perfectly legal in the USA. Use of snipers has increased dramatically over the last several months and they are extremely effective at killing American soldiers.

Re:Oh My.

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Thank you, Mister Russian soldier, and your millions of buddies, for saving us from Hitler.

It was shocking that a third-world non-industrialized country like Russia could beat the best army (Nazi Germany) in the world, and beat it to a bloody pulp, with casualties in seven digits.

Rodin Forever!!!

Re:Oh My.

[Lumpy]

Vote libertarian.

once you get over the foaming at the mouth fit of rage conservatives have over the "smoke pot agenda" they make real sense. and honestly, the best thing to ever happen is to legalize pot, that way we can tax the hell out of it. Drug laws only empower drug dealers. Kids have easier access to narcotics than cigarette's and alcohol.

"Posse Comitatus" and "Insurrection"

[gardyloo]

I'm quite certain that Bush thinks those are some conditions to be fixed with 5iaGRa.

In a stelthier move...

[LordEd]

... the white house quickly slashdots the article alerting people to the bill.

Re:In a stelthier move...

[HoosierPeschke]

...but was unable to completely wipe out the information for those geeks with the Slashdotter Extension.

Coral Cache, Google Cache, and Mirrordot all remain stable in the face of the slashdotting...

Hurricane and winter storms

[flyingfsck]

This probably has more to do with the hurricanes and winter storms. During Katrina, the Feds were criticised for *not* bringing in the defence force to render aid.

Re:Hurricane and winter storms

[majutsu]

Or that is one way to justify it.

Re:Hurricane and winter storms

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, thats why it says "in case of insurrection, break constitution".

Re:Hurricane and winter storms

[Xeth]

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:Hurricane and winter storms

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, because you need to fight a war with your own citizens in order to get food and water to them within a week.

Re:Hurricane and winter storms

[pilkul]

Why not?

Re:Hurricane and winter storms

[Anonymous Coward]

Right, the power elite will not benefit from this expansion of power in any conceivable way, and therefore one should rule out any possibility of self-interest driving the decision.

Re:Hurricane and winter storms

[Ex-MislTech]

Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

In the past, in "many" countries, vast extensions of power were
almost always abused, just like this one will be abused.

History repeats itself almost always.

Re:Hurricane and winter storms

[ottffssent]

Rendering aid is perfectly legit without these new provisions. The food, medicine, shelter, etc. that weren't provided resulted in well-deserved criticism but no apparent change in policy, and this new law won't help with that.

The additions allow the use of military forces in a law enforcement setting whenever the president wants. And don't try arguing that it's restricted to cases where local law enforcement is incapable of maintaining order. Read the text again, this time pretending you're Alberto Gonzales and your boss wants to illegally spy on citizens' communication. The verbiage is loose enough to drive a truck full of soldiers right through it.

Re:Hurricane and winter storms

[modecx]

Why would you grant government powers so incredibly far-reaching when the solution requires something much narrower?

We, normal, insignificant people, wouldn't, of course. Government on the other hand? Their job is to accumulate power, or so they seem to believe.

Re:Hurricane and winter storms

[Anonymous Coward]

Power itself is the abuse.

Re:Hurricane and winter storms

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sorry, we don't allow logical discussion of any decision republicans make here on slashdot.

Re:Hurricane and winter storms

[smchris]

This probably has more to do with the hurricanes and winter storms. During Katrina, the Feds were criticised for *not* bringing in the defence force to render aid.

No doubt. Considering how relentless the administration has been in working night and day to restore New Orleans in the short term and assure that secure dikes are constructed to avoid another catastrophe in the longer term, what other justification could there be?

Re:Hurricane and winter storms

[Teun]

http://politics.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=20327 2&cid=16625792

Re:Hurricane and winter storms

[Anonymous Coward]

That's correct, but wrong in this context. It's not about rendering aid. The language of the amendment is highly specific. It grants the government the power to use the military to "restore public order and enforce the laws of the United States" in situations where a natural disaster or other large-scale emergency so overwhelms the state and local authorities that chaos erupts.

This is a power that was previously explicitly denied to the government via the Posse Comitatus Act. That law prohibited the government from using the military to maintain order or enforce the law without specific Congressional authorization. Not only that, but it made doing so a criminal offense, subject to jail time.

That's why the President couldn't send in the National Guard when New Orleans erupted in violence and looting after Katrina.

If you'll recall, the people universally called upon the government to amend the law to authorize the use of military forces to restore order in the event of a large-scale emergency. Which is precisely what this bill authorizes.

This is just another case of the people begging their government to do something, then getting pissed off when the government does exactly what it was asked to do.

Re:Hurricane and winter storms

[Anonymous Coward]

This probably has more to do with the hurricanes and winter storms.

No, it doesn't.

During Katrina, the Feds were criticised for *not* [...properly rendering...] aid.

Yes, they were. But none of these provisions would have helped them. Bush's choice to ignore what was happening in New Orleans was his own doing (or undoing). No law prevented him from making sure FEMA had not been mismanaged or from putting forward the focus and attention at the appropriate time to be sure FEMA was handling the crisis in New Orleans. His desire to nationalize the troops and then use not helping New Orleans as the consequence for any state government that wanted to retain its sovereignty will go down in history as one of the most callous moments of any president's tenure. Bush can go to hell for doing that. Hopefully he will at least go to prison.

Re:Hurricane and winter storms

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't try arguing that it's restricted to cases where local law enforcement is incapable of maintaining order.

Nobody has to argue that. It's not even up for debate. It's written right there in the law, in absolute black and white. Really long quote alert:

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 maintaining public order; and such violence results in a condition ... that so hinders the execution of the laws of a State or possession, as applicable, and of the United States within that State or possession, that any part or class of its people is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law, and the constituted authorities of that State or possession are unable, fail, or refuse to protect that right, privilege, or immunity, or to give that protection.

If you've got high-school reading-comprehension skills, you can see that the President is only authorized to use the military to restore order when local authorities are "incapable of maintaining public order." And not only that, but the extent of the emergency must be so severe that the authorities are no longer of capable of protecting the rights and privileges granted to the people by the Constitution.

Nobody has to argue that this law can only be used in the most extreme circumstances, because it specifically says that it can only be used in the most extreme circumstances. Anything short of a complete breakdown of civil authority means the President is not authorized to deploy the troops.

Re:Hurricane and winter storms

[WindBourne]

Actually, he was not criticized for not use military force. He was criticized for having the La National Guard in Iraq and being able to use them for what they were designed to do.

Re:Hurricane and winter storms

[Duhavid]

Checks and balances?

Re:Hurricane and winter storms

[JonXP]

This, I imagine, is exactly why this was passed. This is exactly what everyone was asking for when they asked why the federal government was unable to immediately send troops into the area. Congratualtions.

Re:Hurricane and winter storms

[lendude]

You need to re-assess YOUR comprehension skills. Read this again ..."the President determines"... - repeat - ..."the President determines"... Lets look at your statements again with this in mind:

"If you've got high-school reading-comprehension skills, you can see that the President is only authorized to use the military to restore order when ..."the President determines"... local authorities are "incapable of maintaining public order", and "And not only that, but the extent of the emergency must be so severe that ..."the President determines"... the authorities are no longer of capable of protecting the rights and privileges granted to the people by the Constitution".

Get that? It's up to the President's determination. There's the huge fucking hole you could drive an Abrams through.

Re:Hurricane and winter storms

[ralphdaugherty]

This probably has more to do with the hurricanes and winter storms. During Katrina, the Feds were criticised for *not* bringing in the defence force to render aid.

      This was rated Insightful, but the state's National Guard is supposed to be used to handle natural disaster. The Feds, that is, Bush and the Republican neocons, have "federalized" the National Guard into the Army with a backdoor draft, and gutted FEMA, so that there was nothing left to deal with Katrina, deliberately so.

      Instead, Bush Republicans want to declare martial law and send the Army into American streets. Let your thoughts on that be known November 7. That will be insightful.

  rd

Re:Hurricane and winter storms

[Faylone]

Almost? There were times when it wasn't abused?

Re:Hurricane and winter storms

[Anonymous Coward]

This is just ignorant. The president has ALWAYS had this power in the case of insurrection. After September 11th, this power was granted for terrorist attacks. This change is a response to the inept governance of the Louisiana politicians who still, to this day, haven't allocated billions of dollars that the federal government has set aside for that disaster, and sit waiting for them to simply be spent. There are thousands of bought and paid for mobile homes that are sitting empty because the governor of Louisiana and the Mayor of New Orleans are more interested in making themselves look like heros, than they are in helping their people.

Re:Hurricane and winter storms

[bewert]

Bullshit. There was no call to restore order, there was a call to provide aid. There were soldiers there, driving the streets but not providing aid. From http://www.nola.com/newslogs/tporleans/index.ssf?/ mtlogs/nola_tporleans/archives/2005_09.html

Rumors of rampant violence at the Convention Center prompted Louisiana National Guard Lt. Col. Jacques Thibodeaux put together a 1,000-man force of soldiers and police in full battle gear to secure the center Sept. 2 at about noon.

It took only 20 minutes to take control, and soldiers met no resistance, Thibodeaux said. What the soldiers found - elderly people and infants near death without food, water and medicine; crowds living in filth - shocked them more than anything they'd seen in combat zones overseas. But they found no evidence, witnesses or victims of any killings, rapes or beatings, Thibodeaux said.

People just want help, not house arrest.

Re:Hurricane and winter storms

[Scudsucker]

This is a power that was previously explicitly denied to the government via the Posse Comitatus Act.

That's a lie. There are exemptions for disaster responce, and even for "domestic violence" a la the L.A. riots in the early 90's. And besides, those are restrictions for law enforcment operations, not disaster responce operations, which was what was needed after Katrina.

Godwin's law

[Anonymous Coward]

This all seem awfully familiar.

Re:Godwin's law

[jt418-93]

1940s germany all over again. we had our reichtag fire (911) and now we have the enabling act. bush has absolute power now. he can lock up, torture, kill, have disappeared or assassinated anyone he wants at his sole discretion, and with no oversight. now he has direct control over all military / police in the us.

we already invaded poland (afganistan) and czeckoslovakia (iraq). france (iran) is next. the secret service now has global unlimited police powers (ss), we have dhs (gestapo). we didn't learn, and now its happening all over. sadly, the end game looks similar too.

absolute power for anyone is a bad idea. especially a trained monkey (bush) and his handler (dirty dick cheny)

good luck to us all

Re:frist psot

[EGSonikku]

http://news.pacificnews.org/news/view_article.html ?article_id=eed74d9d44c30493706fe03f4c9b3a77

Coincidence ? I'm not normally part of the tinfoil brigade but now I calls it like I see's it.

Obligatory....

[LordPhantom]

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

Re:Obligatory....

[Robber Baron]

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

Actually no. If the frigging government is doing its job correctly, there would be no need for it to be afraid of its people! That dubya needs to be sequestered behind armour ought to tell you something.

Re:Obligatory....

[technicalandsocial]

Really makes me wonder why anyone would want to live in America "the free" anymore. Is anyone doing anything proactve to stop these blantant removal of freedoms?

* US Patriot Act
* Surveillance of innocent citizens
* Wars for greed
* Breaking every single international treaty (UN, even NAFTA which is all allies)

Quite the track record the US administration is racking up, and from the outside it doesn't seem like anyone is doing anythinbg about it. You're welcome to come up to o Canada, glorous and free (comparatively).

Re:Obligatory....

[fishlet]

And why should the government fear you...
The problem is the government took away your rights "to bear arms" along time ago. Sure they'll let you purchase a hand gun (if you pass a background check), but the minute you try to build a nuke in your basement see how long it takes for the feds to come crashing down your door. The right to bear arms only really means anything if you had the ability to protect your self from your government- and you can be sure the government won't let you have anything powerful enough to do that.

Then there is the whole screwed up political system. Supposedly you have power with your vote but your choices are all the same. It's like bringing a vegetarian to a restaurant and telling him he can have chicken or steak. You basically have a choice of two bloated corrupt political parties who don't give a flying f#^$ about your interests (just your vote). Sure maybe you can vote someone out of office, but all you'll get back at the end of the day is the same entity with a different face.

Re:Obligatory....

[Olix]

The problem is that so many counties in the world seem to be losing their liberty. Here in the UK, when I consider a country to run off to, Europe is a no go, the US is screwed, Australia is becoming a nanny state, Japan is overly right wing, and all the other counties never had much freedom to begin with. Canada, which you suggest, is better but going down hill. Maybe somewhere like Brazil, which isn't 'free' as such, but is a nice place if you have enough money for gated accomodation and bribes.

Re:Obligatory....

[Sperbels]

Is anyone doing anything proactve to stop these blantant removal of freedoms?

Not much. At least there're prominent figures speaking out against them now, which is more than can be said when they passed the Patriot Act. Back then there was such a ridiculous amount of nationalism going about you couldn't even give the president's picture a disapproving glance without everyone coming down on you. I'm not so sure Marx was right about religion being the opiate of the masses...I think it's a high standard of living. As long as that's maintained, the American people would probably welcome another Hitler in power.

Re:Obligatory....

[quigonn]

You still have the right to bear arms. Or were yours forcefully amputated already?

Re:Obligatory....

[jZnat]

* Breaking every single international treaty (UN, even NAFTA which is all allies)

Oh, not every international treaty. We still seem to be doing quite well with the IP-related ones.

Re:Obligatory....

[garcia]

You still have the right to bear arms. Or were yours forcefully amputated already?

That *only* works when the government and the people have equal footing when armed. Unfortunately, their guns are much bigger and much more powerful than the ones we are permitted to own.

I wish people would stop with the "right to bear arms" comments when talking about topics like this.

Re:Obligatory....

[Monty845]

The amendment really doesn't add any new power, under the old version the president could deploy troops in the event of "domestic violence"... If you ask me thats a broad enough term to cover pretty much anything (Especially when interperted by a certain administration)... Read the old version of the law, then read the amendments, then ask yourself what changed....

Re:Obligatory....

[he-sk]

swooosh!

Re:Obligatory....

[Anonymous Coward]

Was that the sound of a Nike logo going right over his head?

They're just being good boy scouts.

[Tibor the Hun]

They're just prepairing for the next presidential election when Cheney miraculously pulls another victory for them. So, just in case people get up in arms over it, they'll have the law on their side. (Though I doubt that they'd need it, Cheney is a crack shot himself, I hear.)

Re:They're just being good boy scouts.

[Trikenstein]

(Though I doubt that they'd need it, Cheney is a crack shot himself, I hear.)

Say goodbye to your face

just impeach the bastard

[Anonymous Coward]

for NOT defending the constitution

martial law oh noes!

[Anonymous Coward]

Canada has always had the ability to declare martial law. (It's called "The Riot Act".) It was enacted once in the 70s for a short time. And that's about it. It's not really a big deal, IMO, given the fact that such powers will probably never be used.

Re:martial law oh noes!

[Anonymous Coward]

It's actually called the "war measures act". It was invoked during WWI, WWII, and the FLQ terrorist crisis in the 1970s. And in each case, invoking it has been a VERY big deal.

Re:martial law oh noes!

[sedyn]

Enacting the draconian "War Measures Act" (not the Riot Act*) is considered former Prime Minister Trudeau's greatest mistake.

The next government that was in power for a substanial amount of time (Mulroney, not Clark) repealed the Act and created the "Emergencies Act" in 1988.

*The Riot Act is in the Criminal Code and only covers limited circumstances.

Re:martial law oh noes!

[CrankyOldBastard]

The Riot Act was read in 1854 in Ballarat, Victoria, Australia. Many Australians (though not all) consider the battle that followed to be the birth of democracy in this country. Note that in this case the At was used principly as a political weapon, and not as a means of restoring order in a time of calamity.

I'm sure it was Bush...

[daninaustin]

Last time I looked it took a majority of both the House and Senate to pass a law... People complain that about the lack of federal action during Katrina, but when laws are passed to allow the federal govt. to actually do more all the conspiracy theorists start crawling out from their bunkers. If congress passed something before they had read it then shame on them, You Bush haters really need to get a life.

Re:I'm sure it was Bush...

[WilliamSChips]

Bush and the United States military were the last ones there when Katrina hit. Fucking Fidel Castro did more than Bush. Bush has shown that his interests are clearly not in helping the American people. The conspiracy theorists are more levelheaded than Bush supporters.

Re:I'm sure it was Bush...

[udderly]

Hells Bells, you know that the guy can't win with this crowd. Interestingly enough, GWB is simultaneously the stupidest president ever and is engineering a most Machiavellian evil plan to take over the world.

I will admit that he certainly seems to have been fairly ineffective--but I wonder how history will judge him. I personally just think that he's ineffectual because he speaks *as if* he's an idiot, which keeps him from being able to clearly communicate what he's trying to do. I wouldn't be surprised if he just had some sort of undiagnosed dyslexia or reading disorder.

Either way, I will probably be relieved when Hillary's president--heaven knows that the Clinton cabal has never tried anything shifty.

Re:I'm sure it was Bush...

[Anonymous Coward]

Do not equate a lack of morals with stupidity.

Do not equate a lack of ethics with intelligence.

Re:I'm sure it was Bush...

[Mr. Slippery]

Last time I looked it took a majority of both the House and Senate to pass a law.

...both of which bodies are currently under Republican control, and both of which have shown for decades a disappointing tendancy toward supporting an imperial presidency.

If congress passed something before they had read it then shame on them

We know they did that with the "USA PATRIOT" Act.

Re:I'm sure it was Bush...

[Anonymous Coward]

Bursh really is an idiot, but his cabinet and advisors are extremely intelligent. After all, why would you want to be the target of assasination attempts, character attacks, and other dangers of the office, when you can just tell the idiot on the throne what descisions to make? You have all the power with a reduced amount of risks.

Based on Bush's public speaking, which invariably adds about five new quotes with every appearance, I dont think that he has enough brainpower to orchestrate such a subversive plot on his own, but I wothout question think that he would easily be manipulated into doing so. Maybe not even manipulated, more like instructed.

Also very interestingly, everytime that I come to slashdot, theres always an article about politics that disturbs me to a great degree.

Re:I'm sure it was Bush...

[Criceratops]

>Hells Bells, you know that the guy can't win with this crowd. Interestingly enough, GWB is
>simultaneously the stupidest president ever and is engineering a most Machiavellian evil
>plan to take over the world.

Um, no... GWB is an idiot, obviously a lush, obviously an inveterate fratboy redneck. The Machiavellian (sp?) plots are coming from his backers -- the Cheney/Rumsfeld/Rove and their corporate cronies, and some of these old men have been working on these plots since pre-Reagan times. It's like boiling a frog -- as long as you increase the temperature *slowly enough*, he won't notice until it's far too late.

>I will admit that he certainly seems to have been fairly ineffective--but I wonder how
>history will judge him. I personally just think that he's ineffectual because he speaks *as
>if* he's an idiot, which keeps him from being able to clearly communicate what he's trying
>to do. I wouldn't be surprised if he just had some sort of undiagnosed dyslexia or reading
>disorder.

Actually, I think I've read somewhere that it's almost provable that he's functionally illiterate, just based on the way he *routinely* garbles words. He is certainly ignorant of higher ethical concerns, or chooses to be.

>Either way, I will probably be relieved when Hillary's president--heaven knows that the
>Clinton cabal has never tried anything shifty.

Screw Hillary. She will never get elected, there are too many folks with a knee-jerk repulsion to her. And the Clintons WERE shifty. Just because the GOP is evil doesn't mean that the Dems are the *lesser* of the two evils. Sure, there is the occasional semi-honest president -- and they either get lambasted (i.e., Jimmy Carter) or shot (i.e., JFK).

By the way, if there ARE any committed liberal assassins out there, start by taking out the Carlyle Group, THEN get the idiot at the helm. Take out the true Axis of Evil before knocking the figurehead off the Death Ship.

(DISCLAIMER: Please note that I cannot personally endorse killing anyone, Mr. Secret Service Man, and I don't even own a gun and certainly would not even discuss plans for really assassinating anyone. Especially since you bastards took away Habeus Corpus.)

Re:I'm sure it was Bush...

[VENONA]

OK, I'm a Bush hater. On the other hand, the likely Democrat front runners for our next presidential election suck, too. H. Clinton already saying things she clearly doesn't believe in, just to appease the religious fruitcakes, and get into office. Even McCain (I'm a vet too, same timeframe, and somewhat prejudiced in his favor) has sold us down the river.

It's the system that's at risk, and a damned noble experiment it has been. If you value Thomas Jefferson's thoughts, anyway. Some (not most, but an important fraction) of it probably has to do with everyone knowing that our congressional reps are mostly criminals. If we could ever get our power back, drag the sons of bitches into court, and try them...

We are nowhere, until we limit the power of lobbyists. They've been around since this country was founded, but lately, their power is unbounded--on both sides of the aisle. Unfortunately, I don't see any limit on their influence happening. Where's the bill? When is it going to be voted on? Who's taking what position? Those are the important questions, and they aren't being asked, by either party.

There's nothing going on, and the populace is numb. Extremely busy watching Survivor, no doubt. We get the government we deserve. Does anyone really believe the government has our best interests at heart? With resistance to things as basic as food labelling laws (other examples abound)? Does the image of a BK Whopper in your last commercial look *anything* like your last *actual* BK Whopper? Why do we allow corporations this huge latitude of obviously false advertising, and just accept it as business as usuall? You've accepted the fact that corporations can lie to you, and manipulate you, with *complete* impunity. No penalty whatsoever, for something we all know is a marketing hallucination.

Does anyone see this as a fundamental flaw? Vote your conscience, for once in your lives. Take a fucking stand. If you don't, well, content youself with knowing that you get the government you deserve.

Re:I'm sure it was Bush...

[ermintru]

Who do you vote for ? In the UK there is no one I want to vote for, all elections should have a box 'None of the above' and if that wins it forces a re-election. How many people don't vote because 'what is the point' or if they do vote choose the least bad option. NONE OF THE ABOVE would be great They would never dare do it.

Re:I'm sure it was Bush...

[lawpoop]

"I wouldn't be surprised if he just had some sort of undiagnosed dyslexia or reading disorder."

I think so too. Bush the Elder seemed to have similar problems when he would go off script, though not as bad as his son.

Re:I'm sure it was Bush...

[civilizedINTENSITY]

Problem was that the feds didn't do what they could have, why would they do any more when given more powers?

Re:I'm sure it was Bush...

[doom]

ermintru (797621) wrote:

Who do you vote for ? In the UK there is no one I want to vote for

If you live in:

• California -- vote for Debra Bowen for Secretary of State. The Republican SoS has a "nice old guy" image, but he's evil (e.g. re-approved Diebold machines, after the last SoS ruled against them).
• New Jersey -- a tight senate race where the Republicans are spending on ads like crazy: vote Democrat; with the Democrats in control of the house we'll have a check on the Bush regime
• Missouri -- another tight Senate race.
• Virgina -- another tight Senate race.
• Tennessee -- another tight Senate race.

The Democrats are far from perfect, but it's not like you don't have a clear choice (i.e. between incompetence and evil).

Re:I'm sure it was Bush...

[VENONA]

I'm wishing that everyone would vote every incumbent out of office. We'd lose a couple of good people, but many more bad ones. And it would send a huge dissatisfaction message. The largest in history. Maybe that would shake things up, and convince the next crop that they have exactly *one* term to prove themselves. Not special interest money, nor our own brand of religious fundamentalist fruitcakes.

There are no good choices. If The Shrub is a good example of the Republicans, it's fairly plain that they're evil, lying, lawbreaking, Constitution-destroying idiots. But then we have a sole surviving Kennedy as a powerful Democrat. A man that would have been locked up years ago, over the Chappaquiddick affair. And would have been, if he weren't a Kennedy. And is now busy trundling illegal aliens over the border as fast as he can, in hopes of votes, and the wellfare of the country be damned.

There's nothing good to be said for either party. Throw all of the incumbents out. We'll end up with a bunch of innexperienced people in office, but how can they *possibly* do worse than the current crop? Right now, there's some debate about whether Iraq should divide along ethic and religious boundaries. This country is now so divided that we may not have too many election cycles before we're thinking about whether we should do the same thing.

I'd vote in favor, on the theory that being associated with Kansans who seem to still have a problem with evolution, and believe in a 'born-again' *anything*, much less President, can't lead to anything good. Separation of church and state was built into our constitution for a *reason*. History has clearly shown that religious groups *will* legislate their beliefs into law, given half a chance, and you will be *screwed* if you don't subscribed to their beliefs. These fruitcakes now constitute a voting block so powerful that it has to be overcome, pretty much immediately, or it's time for people to choose up sides and get ultimately nasty.

I know that the next evangelist (Jehovah's Witness, S. Baptist, etc.) that knocks on my door is going to be seriously insulted. I'd as soon punch their lights out, to tell you the truth, but I suspect they come in pairs because they know they're an annoyance at best, hated in many places, and need a witness.

Fundies mean nothing good for our way of life, if you believe in the sparation of church and state. Next time you wonder how Muslim sects can kill each other with such joyous abandon, you might want to remember that our home-grown fundies have murdered doctors who performed legal abortions. If you have religion you don't need rationality, respect for secular law, or anything else. You're guided by your Higher Power, or Invisible Friend.

Organized religion is one of the last great evils. It's probably the single greatest cause of warfare in our shiny new 21st century, and has killed tens or hundreds of millions down through history. At what point do we decide that there's been enough of this religion weirdness, and at least recognize it as seriously delusional?

Oh Jesus..

[yamamushi]

How much more are people going to take before they realize what is going on here? Seriously, we're only a step away from open revolution.. Will it actually take having troops parade around your hometown enforcing martial law before people stand up for their rights?? (which we don't have many anymore). I'm not saying there should be a call-to-arms, but I AM saying that people need to wake up and see what's going on before it's too late! First Patriot Act, Patriot Act II, Military Commissions Act, and now THIS?! All in the name of "terrorism". We're just letting the government trample all over our constitution, because people don't understand why it was written in the first place, TO LIMIT GOVERNMENT! When will people realize that FREEDOM is NOT letting your government take away all your rights...

Re:Oh Jesus..

[dkmeans]

Get a clue -- the American public is very heavily armed last time I checked...the government doesn't like us owning 200 million plus firearms...be glad for the 2nd amendment...that's what it's ther for. We can, and will shoot back. One day you might actually be glad there's the NRA protecting your rights to not be opressed at teh end of a rifle from your government....

Re:Oh Jesus..

[Anonymous Coward]

We're just letting the government trample all over our constitution, because people don't understand why it was written in the first place, TO LIMIT GOVERNMENT!

What do they teach in history class these days? Did you not learn about the Articles of Confederation?

As a matter of simple fact, the Constitution was written in order to strengthen the federal government, albeit in a limited way. That's way the Constitution was so controversial when it was being ratified. If you look at the preamble of the Constitution, it is actually a justification for the strengthening of the US government, compared to what had existed before.

Re:Oh Jesus..

[Jackie_Chan_Fan]

Its funny how those in power, arent interested in limiting themselves... even though that is the job we trust them with doing.

For example.. give me the power to make my own movie... huge budgets, endless cash... i'll do as i want, as i please because its what i want and what i see fit.... But whos fault is it? I was given power to make a movie... I did it my way... you dont like it? Tough. I can bullshit the guy that gave me the power to make a movie, and win him over onto my side by telling him how nice is family is, and how adorable his new baby is. I can win him over by playing around of golf with him and say i'm just like him... and yap endlessly about how i love golf, when really i only play it to make buisness deals and could careless...

Thats our government.

Re:Oh Jesus..

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you really, honestly think 200 million rifles and handguns frightens the government and prevents opression? Please. If you honestly believe that this is a deterrent when they have things like tanks and cruise missiles, then I have a bridge in Brooklyn I'll give you a sweetheart deal on.

At least if you're unarmed, they'll just use the soma to calm you down.

Re:Oh Jesus..

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, it's not like the government has anything that can withstand rifle blasts. Like an updated version of the medieval armoured horse. Except that it's mechanized. And it can fire things back while the "rider" is stationed safely inside it. I should stop before I give the government ideas on how to overcome its own "heavily armed" populace.

Re:Oh Jesus..

[wes33]

We can, and will shoot back

... looks more likely you Americans will meekly march off to Gulag chanting "if the president orders it, then it's legal" ...

Re:Oh Jesus..

[Nutria]

When will people realize that FREEDOM is NOT letting your government take away all your rights...

Who wants freedom when you are so easily bribed with bread and circuses?

Re:Oh Jesus..

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you serious? You think a bunch of civilians can take on the world's most powerful military?

I was watching this documentary a few days ago on the fight against segregation in the 60's. They talked to a pastor who said that after one of the particularly despicable police attacks on a peaceful protest some people were ready to go get their guns and fight. How did he talk them out of it? He asked them what kind of guns they had. The police had better weapons. And there were more of them. It would have been a suicide mission, and it would have undoubtedly set their cause back by giving the racists an excuse.

If you actually want change, going to try to kill them won't work because they can kill you more easily. You need to use other methods.

Re:Oh Jesus..

[rthille]

Wow, how the fuck did this get mod'd troll?

Re:Oh Jesus..

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

Considering what a civil war can do, on display in Iraq right now, I don't wish it on my home country.

Re:Oh Jesus..

[Bertie]

Darling, if one day your government does turn against you, exactly what good do you think your rifles will do you against tanks, cluster bombs and cruise missiles?

Re:Oh Jesus..

[Anonymous Coward]

Agreed. Sad state if all those who modded him are Americans.

Re:Oh Jesus..

[yamamushi]

I said the same thing to myself.

Re:Oh Jesus..

[Jane Q. Public]

This is a silly argument, since the Constitution was demonstrably written to do both. It establishes the powers of government, but it also limits them in very strict ways (if we were to actually follow it these days). You cannot really separate the two.

Re:Oh Jesus..

[zeroduck]

... and when the government starts using that sort of force against it's own citizens, I think the tide will entirely change. Our soldiers are also citizens.

Re:Oh Jesus..

[rahrens]

Converse to what you allege, the Constitution DOEs limit the Federal Government. It does this by reserving all rights not specifically given to the Federal government to the States, or the people. Yes, the Constitution was intended to build a stronger Federal government than the Articles of Confederation allowed. that's why the preamble reads the way it does. But the Constitution is intended to limit the Federal government's power. This is done through the Tenth Amendment as follows:

Amendment X - Powers of the States and People. Ratified 12/15/1791.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

This is to prevent the Feds from arbitrarily seizing power without checks and balances to prevent it.

Re:Oh Jesus..

[kfg]

. . .the Constitution was written in order to strengthen the federal government, albeit in a limited way. That's way the Constitution was so controversial when it was being ratified.

And why it required ten amendments before it was.

KFG

Re:Oh Jesus..

[Anonymous Coward]

... and when the government starts using that sort of force against it's own citizens, I think the tide will entirely change. Our soldiers are also citizens.

So were Hitler's soldiers. Our soldiers will obey their orders the same way countless others are cheering for this law. Go read some Republican blogs. Anyone that doesn't tow the party line is hated with a passion. For goodness sakes, these people think we should use nuclear weapons in Iraq (so we can bring freedom to the people). With a couple days of propaganda on Fox News, they'll be cheering for your death too.

Re:Oh Jesus..

[westlake]

Get a clue -- the American public is very heavily armed last time I checked

Deer Season begins around Thanksgiving. Each year we bury another Elmer Fudd. The gun does not make you a "well-regulated" milita or a disciplined guerilla force.

Re:Oh Jesus..

[MoneyT]

Seems to be working awfuly well in Iraq. I actually ran the numbers once and it was pretty interesting. From what I recall if you take the US population, divide it in half, and then cut out all of the people under 18 and over 65 from one half and give them all guns and put them up against every active member of the armed forces (not counting for anyone who might fight for them or any armed forces who might fight for us) and figured a casualty ratio of 1 armed forces member to 50 armed citizens, you would still come out ahead on the citizens side, and that doesn't count those you didn't arm.

Re:Oh Jesus..

[BeeBeard]

Well of course, that just brings up the whole pro-gun argument that the framers wrote the Bill of Rights with parity between the military might of the government and that of an armed militia of the people. The argument is a little ridiculous when you apply it to today's military weapons. I don't know about you, but I would personally prefer that cruise missiles and nuclear weapons were in the hands of governments rather than crack dealers, pimps. or even Mr. Joe Ordinary who works at the steel mill down the street. Do you think he needs to be able to destroy cities on a whim?

Re:Oh Jesus..

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, the Constitution was intended to build a stronger Federal government than the Articles of Confederation allowed. that's why the preamble reads the way it does. But the Constitution is intended to limit the Federal government's power.

But that's exactly what I said: "The Constitution was written in order to strengthen the federal government, albeit in a limited way."

This is done through the Tenth Amendment as follows: [...]

Ok, that's a bit funny. If you want to talk about the original historical intent of the people who wrote the Constitution, why bring in a piece of text that wasn't added to the constitution until two years later?

Anyway, the tenth amendment is really superfluous. It was already obvious that the US government derives its powers from the Constitution and it that it does not legally have any additional powers.

If anything, the tenth amendment gives a false sense of security. If the government is going to blatantly ignore one part of the law (the enumeration of powers), why wouldn't it ignore another (the 10th amendment)? And that's what has happened, since early in the 20th century.

Re:Oh Jesus..

[rahrens]

And if that happens, what you are seeing today in Iraq will be like a Sunday school by comparison. There are millions of Americans, trained by the Armed forces, either currently civilians, or employed by the National Guard, that will be more than happy to join in if that ever becomes necessary. Not to mention all of the weapons stored at National Guard armories.

Then you'll get to the part where American troops refuse to fire on civilians. That will happen, because of the oath that US Armed Forces officers take upon taking their commissions. It requires them first to defend the Constitution. The tradition of all the Military academies is to "Duty, Honor, Country". Nowhere in that tradition will you find anything that would lead American officers to order American troops to fire on Americans. Not if the political situation would be one where it's the Feds in the role of oppressors.

Just look at Iraq today, and they don't have any tanks or airplanes, either. Cruise missiles need specific targets, as do cluster bombs. Hide some troops where they can't be seen, and that cluster bomb is so much junk. Give me a half gallon bottle filled with gas, and I'll blow that Abrams sky high. I might die doing it, but I'd say that one ground troop in a trade for a multi-million dollar tank is fair in combat, wouldn't you say?

The second amendment was intended to allow the American people to retain sufficient firepower to give the government pause if it ever fell to people that felt the necessity to begin oppressing the American people. A general uprising and refusal to obey illegally empowered martial law authority would definitely keep that authority too busy to even think about real oppression. It wouldn't last long.

Re:Oh Jesus..

[rahrens]

If it was that obvious, it wouldn't have been felt necessary to add the ten amendments in the Bill of Rights, now would it? Read the Constitution word for word, and it never says anything about limiting the powers of the Federal government in just that way. That was a hole the Supreme Court could drive a tank through. So they closed it with the amendment.

A quote:

"The Bill was largely a response to the Constitution's influential opponents, including prominent Founding Fathers, who argued that it failed to protect the basic principles of human liberty." from Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of _Rights

So you're saying that the entire Constitution gives a false sense of security. With that attitude, why even have the Constitution?

Re:Oh Jesus..

[paitre]

If the Federal government, today, were to actually limit itself according to the amendments currently enacted, the Federal government would be, at minimum, HALF the current size.

Why?

Because every single one of our entitlement programs (Social Security, Medicare and Welfare) aren't legalized by it. The FBI, DEA and BATF would be arguable, as there is no provision for federal police forces (of which type all three are).

The powers of the federal government are limited to what is -specifically- stated in the Constitution. Period. There has been an excessive use of the Commerce clause to expand the reach of the Federal government into areas which are covered explicitly by the Ninth and Tenth amendments (both of which have been almost explicitly ignored since the Civil War).

Sadly, I believe that only application of the Second Amendment and a military coup leading to a reformation of the government under the Constitution, as written, will solve the current problems. The fuckers -NEED- to fear the populace, it's unfortunate that most Americans are as uneducated about what their rights and responsibilities with respect to governance are.

It's one of the core reasons that, while I abhor term limits in principle, I support them in practice.

Re:Oh Jesus..

[Sperbels]

The gun does not make you a "well-regulated" milita or a disciplined guerilla force.

Well-regulated, disciplined? No. It does make you a militia and a guerilla force though...if the need arises.

Re:Oh Jesus..

[Anonymous Coward]

The kicker is that people need to stop being so damned apathetic and actually stand up for themselves.

Re:Oh Jesus..

[Anonymous Coward]

... and when the government starts using that sort of force against it's own citizens, I think the tide will entirely change. Our soldiers are also citizens.

Whoa.. you sound just like Jefferson Davis.

Re:Oh Jesus..

[lspd]

As others have pointed out, civilian small-arms would be highly innefective against the U.S. military.

The real protection we have is that the military is composed of human beings who hopefully wouldn't follow orders to drop bombs on their fellow citizens. The hardline communists failed in 1991 for that very reason.

Once we have robotic tanks and planes though there will be nothing left to stop a corrupt government from establishing a dictatorship whenever it wants.

Re:Oh Jesus..

[jZnat]

The first 10 amendments were all ratified at the same time y'know...

Re:Oh Jesus..

[kfg]

Yes.

KFG

Re:Oh Jesus..

[DerekLyons]

Get a clue -- the American public is very heavily armed last time I checked...

Get a clue -- heavily armed, untrained, uncoordinated, and tactically unsophisticated people will be mowed down like grass before an armed, trained, coordinated, and tactically sophisticated force a tenth (or smaller) their size.
 
 

One day you might actually be glad there's the NRA protecting your rights to not be opressed at teh end of a rifle from your government....

When the NRA starts protecting my right to own guns, rather than the manufacturers right to sell them, and serving as haven for nutcases - then I'll indeed be glad.

Re:Oh Jesus..

[Anonymous Coward]

I notice you didn't address my original point of contention: viz., that the Constitution was written in order to strengthen the US government.

So I'll assume you have conceded my point. Thanks.

Whether the Bill of Rights (again, written after the Constitution) was necessary to preserve liberty is beside the matter. For what it's worth, personally I very much prefer a Constitution with the Bill of Rights to one without.

Re:Oh Jesus..

[incabulos]

Pacifist civil disobiedience Ghandi-style only works if your opponent is sufficiently good & civilised to not order the massacre of unarmed civilians, as the British arguably were at the time. If there is one thing that observing the antics of the Bush regime over the last 6 years has taught me, its that Bush lusts to kill, torture, humiliate and terrorise innocents. He makes up excuses for doing it. He helps others do it. Initiatives which serve to actually reduce suffering, like stem-cell research he opposes in all forms, even when the research can utilise stem cells with no ethical dilemmas - like those taken from placentas.

So I'm thinking that it wont work this time, he Rumsfield and Cheney would order the military to make strikes on civilian towns and cities inside the US in a heartbeat, we have seen evidence of this mindset in Iraq and Afghanistan. And now there are thousands of US troops who are used to waging war against civilian populations, who are trained to see anyone not in US battle fatigues as a terrorist and an enemy.

If the US population had sufficient will, they could sieze their nation within 24 hours, occupying all government buildings, courthouses, and police stations. 200 million people armed with guns and the resolve to use them spread throughout the nation and in every city, town and rural area. You cant beat that with a conventional military force. Or do you think the insurgents in Iraq are in their last throes, ready to give up, lay down and die any day now?

Re:Oh Jesus..

[rahrens]

Uh, yeah, I DO remember saying that - I even included a quote to that effect. That's why I didn't dispute it. So you don't have to get a superior attitude.

And I notice that you didn't address MY original point, that the Constitution was written to LIMIT the Feds' power. So thanks for conceding MY point, whenever the Bill of Rights was written.

Re:Oh Jesus..

[geminidomino]

Do you think he needs to be able to destroy cities on a whim?

Do you think Bush does?

Re:Oh Jesus..

[Shihar]

If the government really wanted to seize power, it damn well should worry about the armed population. Even more then the armed population, they should worry about their own military and national guard. All the tanks in the world are worthless against a population that supports rebels and a military that harbors many insurgent sympathizers. Imagine what sort of mess Iraq would be (like it isn't bad enough) if a large portion of the US military there actively was revolting against the military occupation... and you get an idea of the sort of mess that US fighting itself would run it.

Further, most weapons are utterly useless. What exactly do you launch a cruise missile at when fighting a civil war that is not based on any geographic boundaries? What the hell good is a tank when you need to role it down a street in New York? What are you going to do, burn your own cities and blast your own buildings?

The idea that the US military could possibly fight its own population is laughable. Consider the following:

- The US is fucking big. It has states bigger then Iraq. No army could ever occupy it without the consent of the people.
- A large portion of the population is not only armed, but has military training.
- There are no 'geological' boundaries like during the American Civil War between the sides.
- The military is drawn from the population and is NOT an elite "class" of people. Therefore, much (all?) of the military would simply revolt against any government that ordered it to fire upon American citizens. If you think that your average military man would shell Chicago or drop a bomb on New York, you are delusional.

The entire prospect of the US occupying itself it's a laugh. There are plenty of ways that I could see the US becoming a place I wouldn't want to live military occupation is not one of them.

Re:Oh Jesus..

[Anonymous Coward]

The armories are likely to be under Federal control "to improve security" and to "protect from terrorists taking advantage of our God-given rights."

I'd also expect a lot of "midnight knocks" on the doors of the people who have - legally - acquired guns (and thus are most probably tracked - easiest way to do this would be to track sales of ammo by credit card, bypassing gun registration).

Anyone responding to a request to relinquish their guns "for a short time, while we check the ballistic profile/" would probably be suspected to be - and treated as - a terrorist.

You see, for the citizens to react, either you have to have people working up a fuss against the government - unlikely during the current days media, and possibly with those people ending up designated enemy combatants - or the actions of the government will have to be brutal, overt and affecting a lot of people all over the place.

The former is unlikely to happen, and can be controlled - the latter is even more unlikely to happen - while the Bush administration takes amazing liberties with your liberty (pun intended), I doubt that they would ever do it that clumsily.

I'd rather expect each state, as it gets a faithful Republican in control, to start clamping down on their "internal security issues" - perhaps after a helpful report from DoHS. It would thus happen once or twice every year, until they've either secured all of the states or are "forced" to make an example out of some state.

Meanwhile, your National Guard is employed in a systematic dehumanization project (likely to cause casualties which has several important effects) which virtually ensures that no one wants to join it - and thus no one else get access to training and equipment from it. Any old-timers are likely to be drafted and used up, as they are less probable to be effectively dehumanized (unless they already are) partially since they are likely to have a larger social support network at home.

Once you have a force of severely traumatized people that are trained with guns to handle insurgencies / civil war, you can quite easily use them in their homeland (not in their home-state / county, of course, but...) because they will be so traumatized that they will not care who they kill - only that they have been betrayed by their own countrymen, who are now trying to overthrow their leader, and who prevent him from being able to release them out of his authority.

If nothing else, it'd make an interesting plot for a book.
I just wish it did not fit the current situation as well as it does.

Sarf

Re:Oh Jesus..

[rahrens]

Oh, please! You give the Feds way too much credit.

Yeah, eventually, you'd see military control of the armories, but in cases where large scale defections of Guard units occur, the weapons could be stolen and moved before the military gets word. It is not as controlled a situation as you and other conspiracy theorists like to imagine.

Yes, you are correct as to the chaotic nature of such a situation, but that just lends credence to what I'm saying. It wouldn't be terribly clear to anybody just when the break would come, and lot of people would tend to want to be ready when it did.

Your picture of "loyal Republicans" being in control is just so naive. Just how well do you think a state governor can "control" his state? That varies from state to state, but most state constitutions limit the power of their executive to prevent just the kind of scenario you suggest. There are so many people that own guns, so many guns that are unregistered, state Guard units couldn't keep up with it, even if you could persuade them to begin confiscating guns. But I suspect if a State governor tried to do that, most Guard officers would refuse the order, realizing it would be illegal.

And your scenario of the Guard becoming "unacceptable" to join? Please, such a situation would take too long for older trained personnel, such as myself, to die off that to even suggest it as a tactic is ridiculous. There are just too many militarily trained people in this country, many of them quite willing to imagine having to man an insurrection against an oppressive government. You underestimate the intelligence of the average American joe. Military units would have a hard time maintaining cohesiveness in a situation of general unrest such as we're talking about. The military hasn't grouped military units (save the Guard) by home location since the War between the States. It was found to be too devastating to a single locality if a unit was destroyed in battle, the losses to a single community could be extreme. So you would have a hard time doing what you describe to keep things in hand.

American soldiers are not like medieval armsmen. They are not loyal to a single leader. They take an oath to defend the the Constitution, and loyalty to a single leader, even the Presidency itself, is NOT part of that oath. To expect American soldiers to fire upon American citizens in general revolt against a government that has become as oppressive as you seem to imagine the Bush Administration getting is just beyond anything I can imagine happening. This is a modern volunteer military. Most of them are there for just a few years, and will not feel the institutional loyalty necessary to carry out the kind of oppressive measures necessary to defend a dictatorship. Widespread desertion would decimate the milirary's ability to function, and eventually such a government would collapse. The American people would never support a dictator, I'm afraid.

Certainly the military would not.

Re:Oh Jesus..

[buzzzz]

This is the obligatory Gandhi reference. You don't need an armed population to resist the government. You just need everyone to stand up and say no together.

Re:Oh Jesus..

[Jane Q. Public]

I hope you were not waiting for me to argue with you. While we are at it, let us throw in two separate but related issues: The sixteenth amendment, which was to have legalized income tax, was never legally ratified by the states. Even if it had been, the income tax was established to be a tax on "income", which is a corporate concept and was never intended to apply to individual earnings.

Text mirror

[mgkimsal2]

http://fosterburgess.com/kimsal/martiallaw.html

Signs adding up?

[EGSonikku]

http://news.pacificnews.org/news/view_article.html ?article_id=eed74d9d44c30493706fe03f4c9b3a77

Coincidence ? I'm not normally part of the tinfoil brigade but now I calls it like I see's it.

If you didn't vote Libertarian, you ASKED FOR THIS

[Anonymous Coward]

Anyone who voted Republicrat or Democan, shut up and go sit on the sidelines.

You've already demonstrated that you want an intrusive, activist government.
You have no room to complain now.
You ASKED FOR THIS!!!

______________________________________
A vote against a Libertarian candidate is
a vote to abolish the Constitution itself

-1, US-centric

[Anonymous Coward]

politics.slashdot.org more like usa.slashdot.org, go to hell kdawson

Calling Godwin

[rolfwind]

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

Re:Calling Godwin

[Digitus1337]

Do not link to active wikipedia pages! http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Enabling _Act&oldid=82293467

Re:Calling Godwin

[Anonymous Coward]

For people who don't understand this reference fully, the wikipedia article about the Reichstag Fire and it's background could be helpful:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichstag_fire#Backgr ound

Re:Calling Godwin

[glwtta]

Well, no, we are not there yet.

We are still working our way through this one. About 1/4 done, I'd say. Probably because freedom of the press is so salient an issue in the public eye, so they started with the other stuff.

Re:Calling Godwin

[Hoi Polloi]

Wait until there is a mysterious fire at the Captial building.

Since we are in an eternal war against terror he could proclaim an eternal state of emergency.

Re:Calling Godwin

[Pink Tinkletini]

Why not? If Wikipedia articles improve over time (fixing mistakes and such) then surely the current revision is better than the old?

To argue against this point would be to admit the flaw in Wikipedia's underlying philosophy.

Re:Calling Godwin

[Anonymous Coward]

they really didn't capitalize on the pseudo plane crash on they pentagon did they.

Re:Calling Godwin

[Anonymous Coward]

Because you're referencing a particular instance of the page, not the whole dynamic page. This is why you specify retrieval dates in citations of online sources. When was the last time you were in school, 1989? Get out of here oldie.

Re:Calling Godwin

[mcelrath]

It's not necessary for congress to pass an Enabling Act if the president, his minions, or anyone else can slip in legislation undebated. The white house can and is making legislation without review. This procedural technicality gives anyone in the ruling party absolute power to pass legislation. This is no democracy.

It's about time we clamored for an Accountable Legislation provision:

1. All legislation will be provided in electronic and print formats, at taxpayer expense, to the people as well as representatives of the government for a period of not less than 30 days before a final vote shall be taken on said legislation.
2. Modifications may not be made to legislation for 30 days prior to a vote on it.

This seems obvious, but it gives the government time to sift through 500 page bills, it gives the public and media pundits time to vet legislation, and gives the opposition party an opportunity to be heard. Voting does not a democracy make. If you don't have transparency, you don't have a democracy.

-- Bob

Re:Calling Godwin

[Digitus1337]

I do concede that they do tend to improve over time, but that said, getting modded in a thread on /. tends to get them vandalized.

Re:Calling Godwin

[Pink Tinkletini]

But I thought vandalism is usually caught and reverted right away, hence not a problem.

Re:Calling Godwin

[petrus4]

To argue against this point would be to admit the flaw in Wikipedia's underlying philosophy.

Which particular flaw do you mean? There's quite a few...can you narrow it down any for us? ;-)

Re:Calling Godwin

[Digitus1337]

Vandalism is a very real problem. Are you a troll?

Re:Calling Godwin

[Pink Tinkletini]

No, I'm just repeating what I've heard from numerous Wikipedians, namely: vandalism doesn't compromise the encyclopedia because it tends to be quickly reverted.

But I suppose anyone who questions the sustainability of the Wikipedia model must be a troll, right?

Re:Calling Godwin

[Digitus1337]

It is just good practice to link to a archived page, especially if using it as a resource to make a point (so the point is not lost in editting, however prudent the editting). If anyone was questioning the sustainability of the Wikipedia it was me, even though I am an advocate. I am going to stop responding to this, I do not want to be part of a flame war.

Re:Calling Godwin

[kharchenko]

Great reference! Here's a part that resonated particularly strong for me:

With the threat of communism looming, Hitler's government persuaded President Paul von Hindenburg to authorize several emergency powers in the Reichstag Fire Decree, which (among other things) suspended civil liberties and habeas corpus rights. The Decree enabled Hitler to have the Communist Party's offices raided and its representatives arrested, effectively neutering them as a political force.

Much of the todays retoric refers to the these periods of German history as seeming madness, but it's sobering to see how this was achieved by deliberate and remarkably familiar steps of media compains, FUD and pacts with specialized interest groups (i.e. Catholic church). I wish these aspects of history were more emphasized in schools, instead of devoting time to praises of the past kings.

/. butchured the url....

[EGSonikku]

http://news.pacificnews.org/news/view_article.html ?article_id=eed74d9d44c30493706fe03f4c9b3a77

or

http://tinyurl.com/9aqnn

Well, it USED to be about freedom

[slidersv]

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.

Re:Well, it USED to be about freedom

[Anonymous Coward]

Slavery is nigh, actually. It's just of a different form. These days, it's economic slavery. People being seduced into buying all sorts of crap they don't need and putting it on credit. People seduced into buying cars on extended credit. People suckered into drawing down the equity in their houses the moment they actually start to see daylight. The goal is to keep you all perpetually shackled to debt, and keep sucking on the cigarette of consumerism. Keep buying; keep digging yourselves deeper into debt; never stop. Keeping everyone up to their eyeballs in debt is the only way to achieve wealth for all. Yeah, right.

Re:Well, it USED to be about freedom

[Cstryon]

We can't blame Bush alone. Yes he is the President, but he is not in complete power. He leads the executive. The Legislative, and Judicial still have to approve of this "Martial Law" thing before it passes.

Re:Well, it USED to be about freedom

[Anonymous Coward]

When the president signs a law, it means congress already passed it. The president has the right to veto a law that congress passes or sign it, but only after it's been voted on.

Re:Well, it USED to be about freedom

[sjf]

Is slavery at hand?

No need for slavery: minimum wage, no unions and no healthcare is much cheaper.
Nickel_and_Dimed

Re:Well, it USED to be about freedom

[Bertie]

You've also got three million people in prison, many of them unnecessarily, many of them being put to use as almost-free labour. That's a rather less subtle form of slavery, in my book.

Re:Well, it USED to be about freedom

[mwilliamson]

Call me an elitist, but I really do believe my vote should count more than some straight-ticket voting fool's vote. Why should those of us who actually care have our votes diluted down by someone who's given their right to choose away to a political party? As a matter a fact, straight-ticket voting should be outlawed. At least force people to read each candidate's name.

Washington reminds me of a stable. Im not sure if it is the bullshit, or the horse's asses in office, but it is certainly overflowing with feces.

Re:Well, it USED to be about freedom

[ChrisMaple]

Would you like to explain how Yale graduated a man you claim is illiterate?

When you make an idiotic claim, it weakens the force of your other claims.

Re:Well, it USED to be about freedom

[dbIII]

Are we doomed? Is slavery at hand?

Yes, it happens, but in US territories it is only legal in the Marianas - guess who opposed changing this in June this year?

Re:Well, it USED to be about freedom

[The One and Only]

Persuasion is slavery?

Re:Well, it USED to be about freedom

[Anonymous Coward]

I feel like I'm bent over, my pants are down, and the illiterate president is hard at work behind me.

Your disgusting manners serve only to alienate. Republicans greatly hope that your character never improves, as such repulsiveness on your side consistently helps them win elections.

Re:Well, it USED to be about freedom

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a prison for your mind, Neo. :-P

Re:Well, it USED to be about freedom

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

Maybe we will see peak-of-the-cold-war conditions, but then again, judging by history, we will probably see our way back through it.

Re:Well, it USED to be about freedom

[faolan_devyn_aodfin]

I think you mean forced. For all too many people, credit is the only reason they are not living in a cardboard box. The number of people making less than $12,000 a year is staggering--I can attest that I know too many people that work schedules determined on a day-to-day basis, make minimum (and some even below the minimum), and can barely afford living with a roommate in a studio apartment.

Re:Well, it USED to be about freedom

[dircha]

And don't forget that if we had an election system that wasn't an insult to every voting man and woman, George W. Bush would NEVER have become president in the first place.

There wouldn't have been an Iraq invasion. And we wouldn't be suffering through "4 more years!' as we speak because there wouldn't have been 4 years to have more of.

The People did choose their leader in 2000. But that didn't stop Bush from taking office.

If it weren't for our antiquated presidential election system, we would not be in Iraq today.

That is just astounding.

The Bush presidency is a miscarriage of democracy. And this isn't a flame about Florida. No one denies that Gore won the popular vote nationwide.

Re:Well, it USED to be about freedom

[Kyro]

It's always nice to see someone else who has opened their eyes. I'm a finance student, so I study a bit of economics (micro as well). It's rather interesting to see how consumerism is totally embedded into our models of free market economics.

Re:Well, it USED to be about freedom

[Profound]

I love how many economists say that the American consumer is the driving force of the world. Consumption is easy, heck, you could throw things into the ground or burn them to achieve the same effect. Production, efficiency, inovation etc are now secondary to buying on credit at Walmart sales.

Re:Well, it USED to be about freedom

[sillybilly]

Whenever I feel like I'm in that situation with my pants down bent over with da man behind me, keep it tight, no matter how painful. Then da man sends his agents to try to convince me that everyone is better off if I keep it lose, because if I keep it tight it hurts me, and da man too, and who do I think I am to be special when everyone else keeps it loose and lives on just fine, telling me hey, this is just how it is, this is what we live with, and we got over it. And I say no, I never get over it and keep it tight, make it hurt, make it hurt bad for both of us, because the whole point is not to get pounded in the first place, and no matter how detailed and long the explanation, or how many lessons I get put through, I'll always keep it tight for da man, make it hurt, and the only way it's gonna stop hurting if da man stops pounding me, but that's something hard because it's in da man's nature to keep doing everyone, otherwise he wouldn't be called da man.

Re:Well, it USED to be about freedom

[slidersv]

Well, Yale should explain that, not me.
Look up illiterate in the dictionary. The meaning of the word, beyond the ones you are implying are
showing lack of culture, esp. in language and literature and also
Marked by inferiority to an expected standard of familiarity with language and literature.
My statement was correct, there was just misunderstanding on your part of the word illiterate.

Re:Well, it USED to be about freedom

[Anonymous Coward]

That's a rather less subtle form of slavery

... and most of them are black.

If you really want to bake your noodle: With jobs to do, Louisiana parish turns to inmates describes exactly this sort of post-reconstruction slave labor.

Re:Well, it USED to be about freedom

[bergeron76]

Well said.

I vote with my wallet. When rich Republican fat cats are in Washington, I save my money to send a message to their corporate "sponsors"/lobbyists. When the Democrats are in office, I spend the money I've saved (those were the days).

The most important thing I've done for my country, was to help myself. I freed myself from credit card debt (almost all debt actually). Becoming financially responsible is a small step that every American can make to help their country, by sending a message to the corporations that we're not falling for their nonsense marketing (do you _really_ need that blue crap in your toilet water?) and buying their garbage. America _did_ become great because we're a consumer nation which also makes us the richest. However, absolute money corrupts. We need to clean house my friends.

If the shit ever does hit the fan, you'll regret having spent $3 dollars (a hundred times) on insignificant things (like blue toilet water inserts). ;)

Re:Well, it USED to be about freedom

[Duggeek]

Mussolini, anyone?

---

A good navigator knows that you reach your destination by making small adjustments, not by reversing your course.

Stealth?

[Threni]

Why not do it publicly? Something to hide? Is this a law the public wants/needs?

It's coming...

[__aaclcg7560]

Removal of due process under the law, martial law at whim, and it won't be long before the Constitution is gutted out to removed the two-term limit and replace the presidency with a monarchy. I'm surprised this didn't happened under Ronald Reagan since today's players worked for him. Maybe they needed someone more guillable than an ex-actor?

November elections

[Anonymous Coward]

Remember this come November. Don't be surprised if dubya imposes martial law in every state that sends a Dem to Washington. One small leap for dubya, one giant leap for totalitarian fascism. Welcome to the new US, where freedom runs you.

Re:November elections

[Anonymous Coward]

+1 Insightful!?! Puh-leez!

Re:November elections

[__aaclcg7560]

The conspiracy is now clearer. Get the bulk of our military forces stuck in far off countries to prevent any general from rallying the troops behind the Constitution and offer safe passage back to the U.S. for any military personnel overseas who pledge their loyalty to the new marital law government. This is all beginning to make sense.

Text of the section

[Anonymous Coward]

Rather than having everyone load a huge bill... here is the text of the section:
The formatting sucks, but hey, it's congress.

=========

SEC. 1076. USE OF THE ARMED FORCES IN MAJOR PUBLIC EMER-
GENCIES.
(a) USE OF THE ARMED FORCES AUTHORIZED.--
(1) IN GENERAL.--Section 333 of title 10, United States
Code, is amended to read as follows:
" 333. Major public emergencies; interference with State and
Federal law
"(a) USE OF ARMED FORCES IN MAJOR PUBLIC EMERGENCIES.--
(1) The President may employ the armed forces, including the
National Guard in Federal service, to--
"(A) 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--
"(i) domestic violence has occurred to such an extent
that the constituted authorities of the State or possession
are incapable of maintaining public order; and
"(ii) such violence results in a condition described in
paragraph (2); or
"(B) suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic
violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy if such insurrec-
tion, violation, combination, or conspiracy results in a condition
described in paragraph (2).
"(2) A condition described in this paragraph is a condition
that-- "(A) so hinders the execution of the laws of a State or
possession, as applicable, and of the United States within that
State or possession, that any part or class of its people is
deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named
in the Constitution and secured by law, and the constituted
authorities of that State or possession are unable, fail, or refuse
to protect that right, privilege, or immunity, or to give that
protection; or
"(B) opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the
United States or impedes the course of justice under those
laws.
"(3) In any situation covered by paragraph (1)(B), the State
shall be considered to have denied the equal protection of the
laws secured by the Constitution.
"(b) NOTICE TO CONGRESS.--The President shall notify Congress
of the determination to exercise

Re:Text of the section

[Lawrence_Bird]

Oh so shocking that the Senator from VT would cry about the bill after it is passed. Where were the Dems when it was voted on? Where was the fillibuster? And all you Katrina 'why didn't the feds do more' whiners are now getting exactly what you deserve.

Re:Text of the section

[lawpoop]

If they had made a stink about it, or, God forbid, raised the issue of the filibuster, the Tough on Terror Bush supporters would turn out in droves in the election and ensure a democrat defeat.

In order to win one of the houses, they have to remain *very very* quiet on security issues. If they so much as make a peep, they risk turning all of these tightly contested races over to the Republicans. They have to keep the focus on the economy, health care, and corruption.

Once they win one or both houses, then the impeachment and oversight can begin. If they happen not to win either house, however, expect four more years of absolutely nothing. They will have no power whatsoever, and the Republicans will have no reason to compromise with them.

Re:Text of the section

[zoftie]

President can alter and sign the bill, it seems that he altered the bill by removing conditions, that preclude the enaction of such measures. In the end letting enact at any time with or without the cause.

Re:Text of the section

[mrego]

Exactly! The President signed a LAW passed by Congress. Nothing unilateral like a Clinton Executive Order.
When the next Katrina happens it will allow the military to help. Sounds very humanitarian to me.
Only people making it out as something sinister are the ones playing politics.

Re:Text of the section

[Anonymous Coward]

--"Where were the Dems when it was voted on?"

A better question that you probably realize. The current administration has carefully coordinatated things in Congress. The majority leaders (ie. parly-line Republican high muckety-mucks) call votes at strange hours, in strange locations, with literally no notice to the Democrat members. They have to go way out of their way to even find out this kind of thing is going to happen, much less actually be able to show up in time to do something about it.

Although, to be fair, most of the Dems these days seem to be pretty spineless in the first place. It probably wouldn't have changed anything, but the Repubs are definitely doing their best to make sure they don't a chance to show any.

Re:Text of the section

[dircha]

So the President can deploy the military to enforce martial law whenever he "determines" "any other" of these things have occurred?

Just like he "determined" there were WMDs in Iraq.

Somehow I am not overwhelmed with trust and appreciation. The phrase "WMD-related program activities" comes to mind...

Re:Text of the section

[ben there...]

Oh so shocking that the Senator from VT would cry about the bill after it is passed. Where were the Dems when it was voted on?

TFA is slashdotted, but I news.google'd it, and here were Leahy's objections prior to the signing of the bill:

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."

It seems Leahy was objecting to the bill. Your favorite news source just didn't tell you he was.

Re:Text of the section

[Xyrus]

...In other news, the manufacturers of jack-boots and metal battons are expecting triple digit growth in the near future...hey what are you doing in here? *WHACK WHACK WHACK* ***THUD*** #!@#*&^%*%$#@!

Re:Text of the section

[Lawrence_Bird]

So in essense you have said the Democratic party is spineless. If they will not stand on principle to gain power, why should we then expect them to stand on principle while in power? Will they not be just the same, doing what ever they preceive is required to get their base 100% behind them to stay in power?

Re:Text of the section

[Lawrence_Bird]

thank you for sourcing his comments. Yet it remains a fact that the Senator from VT did not (apparently) himself seek out the media. The NY Times? MSNBC? CBS? There are any number of media outlets he could have pressed this debate on and frankly I would have liked ot have heard about it in more detail as I'm opposed to it, at least the way it is now written. I'm also (as must be apparent) equally sick of Dems tossing around evil consipiracy theories for every thing either Bush does or worse, laws that he signs that come out of Congress. Sadly what is needed now is 535 new elected representatives/senators.

Re:Text of the section

[Reziac]

Occurs to me that should the National Guard (or whatever forces) be sent across state lines without the consent of the receiving state, that state's governor would be within his rights to mobilize his own state's NG to seal his borders.

Which may well be necessary to maintain states' rights, and worst case, might eventually lead to civil war.

Re:Text of the section

[quax]

I closely observed the US media over the time that I last lived in the US (fall '03 until this summer when I moved on to Canada) because I wanted to figure out why it was such a white noise machine in comparison to what I was used to from Europe. I think I can say with certainty that a single senator can not get the media to run with a story. Even if the Democrats are united on an issue they seem to be very ineffectual to get the media to pick it up as a real issue. The best they can hope for is a "he said she said" "balanced" story where the Democratic point of view will be complemented with the White House spin. And the latter always comes out on top because they have outstanding political marketers. Of course that still does not absolve the Democrats for being such an ineffective opposition but I think a large part of this stems from the fact that for the longest time most of them were as much in denial as most of the country as to what a radical departure this administration has been making from everything the US is supposed to stand for.

Re:Text of the section

[Dachannien]

And then he went and let the conference report pass by unanimous consent. If he really objected to it, wouldn't he have voted no?

Re:Text of the section

[ralphdaugherty]

When the next Katrina happens it will allow the military to help

      We do not want the Army on our streets, thank you very much, Mr. Bush martial law supporter.

  rd

FWIW

[mgkimsal2]

I didn't mirror all the javascript, png files and such - just the basic HTML.

Re:What Happened to News For Nerds??!!

[CosmeticLobotamy]

In five years, when a Democrat is in charge (yeah, right), it'll be fun to hear about how obvious our Republican bias is with our constant criticizing and conspiracy-theorizing.

Re:If you didn't vote Libertarian, you ASKED FOR T

[Xeth]

Um, alternatively, a vote against a Libertarian candidate is a show of disbelief about the benefits of a largely unregulated economy. Yes, the Libertarians have a few right ideas. But I think that the mercantile right is, in fact, one of the less-important rights, and sometimes it must be lessened to ensure that other rights are safeguarded and society is bettered.

OCTOBER SURPRISE!!!!

[arcite]

SURPRISE!

I for one welcome our new illustrious and infallible world leader for life.

I humbly volunteer to be a mole for the new empire Pax america.

Perhaps I could spit polish Karl Rove's shoes? Your sires? :::cowers away:::

Re:OCTOBER SURPRISE!!!!

[jchoyt]

Everytime I see this kind of comment, I get flashbacks to that cinematic masterpiece, Escape from LA. The President is literally insane, but has been voted in for life. And he's manipulated and abused Christianity to get there. Kinda like our current president.

Gzipped version

[mgkimsal2]

I'm already getting hammered here - not sure how many people are using gzip in the browser to pull from my web server, but http://fosterburgess.com/kimsal/martiallaw.html.gz would definitely give you a gzipped version, lightening the load on my bandwidth a bit :)

Re:Gzipped version

[commodoresloat]

I'm already getting hammered here

Me too! Pass the tequila...

Open revolution??

[daninaustin]

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??

[Anonymous Coward]

That's okay. For every 20 gun control moms in minivans, there's a crazy anarchist hippie with an arsenal ready to be passed around for the sake of freedom. Or maybe that's just here in California?

Re:Open revolution??

[__aaclcg7560]

Since California has The Ahnold, we're just separate from the Union and form the Republic of California!

Re:Open revolution??

[Jane Q. Public]

Nonsense. I oppose Bush and have since he announced his first Presidential campaign. But I am strongly opposed to so-called "gun control", because the real facts do not support the idealism. I think you have lost sight of the fact that even Republicans have been abandoning Bush in droves.

Re:Open revolution??

[Anonymous Coward]

...yeah and a trained army to fight a military. The US population, gun or no gun, is NOT trained to use their guns in a combat situation against the US army. Our best offense is a good defense. That is, don't elect a jackass into office that will go all McCarthy on you over ghost weapons in a foreign land.

Re:Open revolution??

[Mr. Slippery]

Most of the people who oppose Bush are also the same ones for gun control.

Actually gun control attitudes correspond better to urban/rural than lef/right. There are a significant number of leftists with guns out there, and a lot of conservatives who favor gun control.

Remember, it was conservative icon Ronald Reagan who signed the first modern gun control law, California's 1967 Mulford Act, to disarm the leftist Black Panthers.

Re:Open revolution??

[thrillseeker]

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

Dad?

Re:Open revolution??

[Anonymous Coward]

What are you going to revolt with, rocks and sticks?

Silicone and roots, maybe. This is hitting more at the base.

Re:Open revolution??

[gregeth]

What are you going to revolt with, rocks and sticks?

Ooh, Oooh. I know! Mentos and Diet Coke?!

Re:Open revolution??

[Anonymous Coward]

last time i pictured a hippie there was lots of tie-dye, long hair, loud rock music and drugs. lots of pot, but never any firearms. and because we're stereotyping, replace "hippie" with white trash or redneck. that should make your post more realistic.

Re:Open revolution??

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm a former marine. I know guns reasonably well, how to use them, and how to work with others in small teams.
There are a lot of us out there with similar experience. Some have even managed to stay in shape, thanks to sports, workouts, paintball, etc.
But you know, this is only a red herring. The deciding factor in a war is not how well-trained the individual fighter is, but who can establish and maintain command & control, supply, etc. The military chain of command works (almost) flawlessly. Civilians don't have anything already in place like that...

Re:Open revolution??

[Anonymous Coward]

last time i pictured a hippie there was lots of tie-dye, long hair, loud rock music and drugs. lots of pot, but never any firearms. and because we're stereotyping, replace "hippie" with white trash or redneck. that should make your post more realistic.

That's because you've recieved your notion of hippies from TV and movies. Real hippies said things like "smash the state!" and "burn, baby, burn!" While some were pacifists, others were armed and ready for the revolution.

  Being a hippie was never about fashion or trends (even though it was to some -- the readily stereotypeable sort. Sometimes referred to as "plastic hippies", they seemed to get their idea of what it was all about from TV and movies, too.) it was about 'doing your own thing.' -- independence from external controls and restrictions. That's anarchy, baby!

Re:Open revolution??

[trytoguess]

You're forgetting civil disobedience. Not to mention if things get that bad... well guns are rather easy to get despite gun haters.

Re:Open revolution??

[Anonymous Coward]

Remember rule #1... You need a gun for a gunfight.

Only if you run out of grenades.

Re:Open revolution??

[Thomas Shaddack]

Never underestimate the power of Diet Coke spilled into the guts of enemy's telephone switchboard or a high voltage transformer.

That it is a common civilian stuff does not mean it can not be used as a weapon.

Re:Open revolution??

[Ten24]

Most of the people that blame Leftists for wanting Gun Control have not half a brain to realize exactly what Gun Control is. I hope you realize at some point in your life that owning a gun or multiple guns can still exist perfectly with having strict Gun Control no matter what any right wing nut has to say about it. I guess for today's Republican we have to dumb things down enough so they can understand it a bit more clearly, why don't we just call it 'Keeping Guns Out of Reach From Crazy People That Are Likely to Take out Their Frustration on Innocent Citizens While Maintaining the Ability for Good Law Abiding Citizens to Obtain a non Assault Legal Type Gun of Their Choice' would that help? That said there is a bit on the far left that would like all guns banned, let's not try to group them all together though, OK?

Re:Open revolution??

[themadplasterer]

Son?, is that you? Time for some target practice :P

Re:Open revolution??

[cliffski]

you imply that having a high level of gun ownership in the US has enabled the people to keep a tight rein on their government and prevent them doing anything authoritarian or stupid.
The evidence for this point is not especially compelling.
I understand the theory, but in practice, it's not really working is it?

Re:Open revolution??

[Lost Race]

Whoa there, pardner. Lots of us gun-totin' conservatives opposed Bush from the start, and our numbers have grown a lot in the last few years.

Re:Law

[Xeth]

So, did you read the bill? Start to finish? It's absolutely huge. And it's certainly not the only bill before Congress this year or month or week. It's stealthy in the sense that a poison needle in a haystack sitting in the public square is stealthy.

Bush bashing begins?

[Gothmolly]

Is Bush "seeking" these new powers, or are they pushed onto the Executive branch because people in the CIA want to use other provisions of them (no habeus corpus, etc) ? Is he really twirling his moustache over this, or is he the patsy?

Either way it sucks, but don't give him more credit than he deserves. He's no Sith Lord.

Re:Bush bashing begins?

[spinfire]

The CIA is part of the Executive Branch and thus operates under the authority of the President. If the President is "bitch" to the CIA, he isn't doing his job because he is supposed to oversee them and holds ultimate responsibility for their actions.

Re:Bush bashing begins?

[Chanc_Gorkon]

This bill came out of the house. Bush just signed it. It wasn't a Executive Order.

Re:Bush bashing begins?

[Gothmolly]

If you think that the CIA has no longer-term agenda than whatever the current administration is looking at, I'm afraid you're naive. There's plenty of people working there from before 2000.

Re:Bush bashing begins?

[spinfire]

I don't think that at all. But that doesn't change the fact that the President is the head of the executive branch and is ultimately responsible for the CIA's actions. Including oversight of those who feel they are above the President.

Re:Bush bashing begins?

[mianne]

Bush is largely a figurehead. The executive branch is firmly under the control of a small-cadre of neo-cons some of whom are relatively well-known (Rumsfeld, Cheney, Rove, etc) and others who don't generally take centerstage but are extremely influential nonetheless.

So in this context - though history may never fully tell us - Bush was probably not the person chiefly responsible for getting us mired in Iraq, eroding civil liberties, or anything that ordinarily would seriously be considered grounds for impeachment. Tying in to your point, this group has a presence not only in the CIA, but also Congress, the newsmedia, and higher learning institutions. Many of these relationships were forged following the Watergate scandal.

Hitler wouldn't have "achieved" his goals without the help of Goebbels, Göring, or Himmler either. Though history points to Hitler's very strong charisma as being a key reason for the "success" of the Third Reich, GWB may help to disminish the importance of being largely admired by the populace, as long as there's a "greater enemy" or in this instance an "axis of evil" enough people will stick their heads in the sand and toe the line until it is too late.

Re:Bush bashing begins?

[ralphdaugherty]

Is Bush "seeking" these new powers...

      He has been publically all along, and he tried to use Katrina to justify it.

  rd

I can't believe you People

[Jeremy Erwin]

First, you lambast the president for acting like a king, for deciding which of the laws he should follow, and which he should not.

And now, you lambast the congress for authorizing such arbitrariness. I mean, did you ever really think that the Republican Congress would not pass acts enabling wiretapping and dismantling oversight, enabling torture and disabling oversight, enabling arbitrary arrests, and disabling oversight.

Face it, the Republican Congress won't save you from the excesses of a dictator, because they like what he dictates.

Re:I can't believe you People

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

>did you ever really think that the Republican Congress would not pass acts enabling wiretapping and dismantling oversight, enabling torture and disabling oversight, enabling arbitrary arrests, and disabling oversight.

Why shouldn't they answer to the people who elect them instead of following the Party Line?

Republican Howard Baker asked tough questions on the Watergate Committee, and Sam Ervin was only a Democrat because he was from the South: anywere else his politics would have made him a Republican, and a conservative one at that.

One state has a congressman who's followed orders from the national party on 94% of his votes, and some people call him independent.

The current situation is not something to take for granted. It's a historical anomaly that we desperately need to correct at the polls.

Re:I can't believe you People

[roystgnr]

I mean, did you ever really think that the Republican Congress would not pass acts enabling wiretapping and dismantling oversight, enabling torture and disabling oversight, enabling arbitrary arrests, and disabling oversight.

Well, call me naive, but I didn't think so. To legally enable wiretapping without judical oversight, they would need a supermajority to repeal or cripple the Fourth Amendment, and they wouldn't have had it. To legally enable torture, they would need a supermajority to repeal or cripple the Eighth Amendment, and they wouldn't have had it. To legally enable arbitrary incarceration without due process, they would need a supermajority to repeal or cripple the Fifth and Sixth Amendments (and part of Article I), and they wouldn't have had it.

I should have realized that passing more Constitutional amendments isn't the Federal M.O. anymore. If you want to pass an unconstitutional law, you don't bother to change the Constitution, you just pass the law and see if you can slip it by the Supreme Court. The Supremes tend to be bigger sticklers about some rules (like the First Amendment) than others (like the forgotten Tenth Amendment), but even if they overturn your law, these days the voters are less likely to get mad at the legislators who vote for unconstituional laws than at the "activist judges" who notice.

Re:I can't believe you People

[mianne]

Let's not pin all the blame and contempt on the GOP now. Were the Democrats in the White House, Congress, and SCOTUS, things would almost certainly be every bit as bad. Perhaps in a different direction, but very bad nonetheless.

The expression, "Power Corrupts ... " is quite appropos. When one party has control of Government, and crafts its policies to serve the needs of its donors more than to the needs of the public; things go downhill very fast. It was Democratic corruption that brought about Newt Gingrich and the "Contract with America" 12 years ago that slid the balance from mostly left to almost completely right, and yet scandals and corruption still occur. Look at how "Ethics Reform" was soft/back pedaled in the wake of Abramoff and how that term no longer comes up during present-day scandals.

It isn't that Republicans or Democrats are inherently evil or self-serving, no matter what Rush Limbaugh or Al Franken might try to tell you. But when the checks and balances are minimized due to a strong single-party majority, legislation to eliminate any remaining vestiges of those safeguards can never be too far behind.

Re:I can't believe you People

[Talchas]

To legally enable wiretapping without judical oversight, they would need a supermajority to repeal or cripple the Fourth Amendment, and they wouldn't have had it. To legally enable torture, they would need a supermajority to repeal or cripple the Eighth Amendment, and they wouldn't have had it. To legally enable arbitrary incarceration without due process, they would need a supermajority to repeal or cripple the Fifth and Sixth Amendments (and part of Article I), and they wouldn't have had it.

Actually, they'd need even more than that. They would need 2/3 supermajorities to PROPOSE an amendment. They would then need 3/4 of the states to ratify it. Not gonna happen, just like any amendment only one party would vote for like the gay marriage amendment they wanted.

Re:I can't believe you People

[Jeremy Erwin]

I suspect that most bills are not even read by many of the members, let alone debated upon.

Re:I can't believe you People

[dubl-u]

did you ever really think that the Republican Congress would not pass acts enabling wiretapping and dismantling oversight, enabling torture and disabling oversight, enabling arbitrary arrests, and disabling oversight.

To be frank, yes I did.

I have a number of issues with typical Republican positions, but I've always been a fan of their distrust of centralized authority. Ditto their sense of fiscal responsibility, their promotion of individual liberty, and the belief that individual responsibility goes along with that. When W was elected I was disappointed, but had some hope that they'd accomplish some good in areas that Democrats were missing unarguably missing. Instead we've gotten corruption, statism, theocracy, cronyism, profligacy, jingoism, and authoritarian leanings more suited to a feudal monarchy than to what I want to believe is the world's most robust democracy.

And torture? That someone wearing my flag would torture people? To me, this is the deepest betrayal of what America stands for. I am outraged. And the weasel words and sophistry around it only makes it worse. I have no idea what happened to the Republican party or the people in it whose ideals I respect. But I hope that this is a temporary abberation that will be cured by a drubbing in the next couple of elections.

Re:I can't believe you People

[quax]

No need to suspect this since there are so many well documented examples for it. For instance many Congressmen are on record of having stated that they did not have time to read the Patriot Act before it was voted on. Then there is the popular procedural trick of the majority leaders to schedule a vote so close to finishing a draft that the opposition is caught of guard and does not have time to organize. One of the crassest examples for this despicable spectacle is the current budget bill that even contained a typo: http://newstandardnews.net/content/index.cfm/items /2834

Re:I can't believe you People

[stinerman]

That is just the point. It takes so long for any law to make it through the appeals process that tomorrow Congress could pass a law making it a crime to criticize the President and it'd take 3 years to get it in front of the Supreme Court.

Kissinger once said "The illegal we do immediately. The unconstitutional takes a little longer." Apparently we can do the unconstitutional immediately as well.

Remember remember the 5th of november...

[arcite]

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?

Re:Remember remember the 5th of november...

[Anonymous Coward]

you can say 'shit' on slashdot.

Well, that's one way...

[jafo]

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

Sean

Re:Well, that's one way...

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

It would be more direct to simply postpone the election. But only temporarily, of course, only until we're out of danger from terrorism.

Mirror

[Raven15]

Digg also covered the story:
http://duggmirror.com/politics/Bush_Moves_Toward_M artial_Law_2/

Re:Law

[__aaclcg7560]

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.

Axis of EVIL

[slidersv]

I thought military states (e.g. North Korea) are all axis of evil, and is not a way to go

I guess I was wrong...

Re:What Happened to News For Nerds??!!

[headkase]

Well instead of bitching why don't you post some constructive examples of what you believe in.

It's my firm personal opinion that the American political system is out of tune. Hell, Bush may be the best thing to happen. I think that his policies and actions have weakened America. Thus providing a stimulus to vote his ass out and fix shit. In terms of promoting terror the current administration has real terrorists outflanked. Constant fear mongering emanates from the White House instilling in average Americans the opinion that something must be done now. It's sick when you have a reactionary administration that seems to care more about polls and spin instead of providing the vision to lead their country.
So all-in-all let Bush do what he wants, I think history will judge him harshly.

It's such a beautiful day

[ishmalius]

Why spoil such a wonderful weekend? Can't we please have a one-day moratorium, a brief respite without the word "Bush" being so obsessive-compulsively uttered?

Re:It's such a beautiful day

[BorgCopyeditor]

He's the one who signed the bill, so perhaps you should direct your complaints to him and his enablers. For my part, I'll admit that I have a little OCD thing about freedom. There are worse obsessions, I think.

Re:It's such a beautiful day

[SocratesJedi]

"Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty." -Thomas Jefferson

Re:It's such a beautiful day

[Original Replica]

Only if you give me a one day moratiorium on all the facist shit the Bush camp is doing. Let the enemy-combatants off the waterboard to enjoy this beautiful day of yours. Go drive your SUV to WalMart and buy some sand to bury your head in.

Mod parent up!

[khasim]

Even Saddam had elections.

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

Re:Mod parent up!

[Alpha Prime]

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

Re:Mod parent up!

[clambake]

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

Actually, that would be an IMPROVMENT over the current policy of just assigning 51% to the Republican side.

Re:Mod parent up!

[Monchanger]

In these fake democracies, it's probably not really a matter of counting votes as much as the combination of opposition suppression and voter intimidation.

The "democratically elected" government (a de facto dictatorship), will outlaw other parties from running for oddball reasons. "Coincidentally", this happens to any party that even begins to show signs of popular support. The easiest way of doing this is by suppressing free speech (hey China! how's it going?), and jailing those who speak up against the government (Egypt has always been great at that, and they're the most democratic Arab country in the region, except perhaps now Turkey).

Incidentally, we have both (though to lesser degrees) right here in the good old USA:
* The Democrats actively take the Green party to court to stop them from running. I'm not sure if the Republicans do the same to the Liberatarian party, but I wouldn't be surprised. People are really fed up with both of these corrupt parties, but have no alternative since once a third party seems to be viable, they'll be shot in the head before the people have the chance to hear about it.
* Both Democrats but more often Republicans employ advertising intended to scare people into voting for them. In the Republican case, they'll even stoop to veiled religious threats ("if you don't vote for XYZ, you'll go to hell...").

Re:Mod parent up!

[ultranova]

Even Saddam had elections.

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

"Those who cast the votes decide nothing; those who count the votes decide everything." -Joseph Stalin.

But no problem: if Bush does this, just sue him from infringing on Stalin's intellectual property :). You propably could already...

Re:Mod parent up!

[LilGuy]

"Diebold CEO Walden O'Dell has bundled $100,000 or more in contributions for George W. Bush. O'Dell and his wife have given $19,965 to GOP candidates and campaign entities, nothing to Democrats." Source

Indeed scary.

Re:Mod parent up!

[Anonymous Coward]

And who is allowed to run

Re:Mod parent up!

[ArtStone]

Not to worry - last year Venezuela (aka Hugo Chavez) acquired Smartmatic, a company that makes voting machine software and its subsidiary Sequoia Voting Systems, used in 17 states and the District of Columbia

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/29/washington/29bal lot.html?_r=1&bl&ex=1162270800&en=ce373aa6462524ce &ei=5087%0A&oref=slogin

This will likely be the last thread on Slashdot regarding electronic voting, since Hugo Chavez set the standard for honest elections - just ask Jimmy Carter!

Why all the political stories?

[Anonymous Coward]

And especially about 10 days until the election, and most of them being anti-GOP.

Of course, /. editors would NEVER try to influence the election. Never.

Re:Why all the political stories?

[__aaclcg7560]

The Republican went into this midterm claiming how invincible they are and how they were going to wipe out the girly Democrats from office. Now that all changed with blood in the water from them whipping themselves over the page scandal, Iraq and everything else. It's very shocking to see Republicans behave like Democrats.

Re:Why all the political stories?

[OSUBeav]

I don't think you have a leg to stand on. Your guys are doing it all themselves. I laugh in your general AC direction.

Re:Why all the political stories?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ridiculous. Of course there will be more stories leading up to an election. There would be stories regardless of the party in power.

Not everything is a liberal conspiracy, you idiot.

Re:Why all the political stories?

[Mr. Slippery]

And especially about 10 days until the election, and most of them being anti-GOP.

It being close to the elections, there's naturally a flurry of activity as people try to either 1) make themselves look good, or 2) do their dirty deeds before they get booted.

Heh

[Anonymous Coward]

So, now the Insurrection Act has a martial flaw?

Legal inconsistencies?

[BeeBeard]

I will only agree to this if it doesn't interfere with my right to be beaten, tortured, and detained against my will. Otherwise, the President can just count me out of this. No thank you, sir!

Re:Legal inconsistencies?

[LuxMaker]

I will only agree to this if it doesn't interfere with my right to be beaten, tortured, and detained against my will. Otherwise, the President can just count me out of this. No thank you, sir!

Remember, the beatings will continue until morale improves!

Re:Legal inconsistencies?

[Anonymous Coward]

"I will only agree to this if it doesn't interfere with my right to be beaten, tortured, and detained against my will. Otherwise, the President can just count me out of this. No thank you, sir!"

Shouldn't that be "...with my right NOT to be beaten, tortured..."?

Sorry

Re:Legal inconsistencies?

[Anonymous Coward]

That is the joke. The grandparent was referring to how the American President, George Bush, just passed one of the most controversial bills in United States history. After pretending to object to it, the Republican Congress approved a largely unedited version of it. From that article:

"The president can now - with the approval of Congress - indefinitely hold people without charge, take away protections against horrific abuse, put people on trial based on hearsay evidence, authorise trials that can sentence people to death based on testimony literally beaten out of witnesses, and slam shut the courthouse door for habeas petitions," ACLU executive director Anthony Romero said.

I think Americans joke about it because it scares them so much.

You're obviously not a Canadian

[arcite]

It was and is a big deal to us. It was a pivitol moment in our collective history and hopefully it will never happen again!

Re:You're obviously not a Canadian

[wes33]

plus it's called the "emergencies act" (replacing the old and misused - by Trudeau - "war measures act" in 1988)

Re:You're obviously not a Canadian

[mofomojo]

No, I believe it was called the War Measures Act. I've never heard of the Riot Act. The War Measures act was used to defuse quickly escalating FLQ seperatist tensions in the summer of 1969 to find those responsible for murdering a kidnapped minister or something or other. The FLQ was a terrorist group that was supposedly responsible for several mail bombs and the previously mentioned murder. It's still a very controversial moment in our history when Trudeau used that act. There was troops on the streets of Montreal and over 500 people were arrested and detained without charges. But, what Bush is doing is different. The United States is not in an imminent crisis, seperatist uprising or is on the verge of a civil war.

Somebody mentioned that this was to be used for use in natural disasters, I don't know, I've heard stories of people getting shot on the streets of New Orleans by police and the National Guard. Arguably, the headline is sensationalist. Irrelevant of the motives, this type of leglislation only get hearts beating, brows narrowing, mouths shouting and fists and debris - and maybe even bullets (knowing Americans) flying - directly at authorities, of course. People are angry, I know it and you guys know it. The president couldn't have picked a worser time to put this into law, that's my opinion. And I also think the president is horribly incompetent at his job. I'm not sure if he's evil, though. Anyways, the real debate here is not whether Bush is a good president or not - we all know he's terrible - but whether he is criminal and power hungry or just an outright incompetent opportunist with he and his pals.

We all know Nixon and Reagan were criminals, but is Dubya?

what, are you an idiot?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's perhaps the most paranoid crap I've read on Slashdot in a while, and that's saying something. Go back down in your bunker, and wait for the tanks. The rest of us have our lives to lead.

Re:What Happened to News For Nerds??!!

[TerranFury]

Political thought should have more to it than rooting for the local sportsteam. This isn't about cheering on a party or hoping the Democrats go to the World Series.

Lemme guess...

[Anonymous Coward]

you're a big supporter of gun ownership rights? Oh, I see you put a little disclaimer in there about your rant not being a "call-to-arms".

Could you list actual and specific cases where the Patriot Act, Patriot Act II, or Military Commissions Act have resulted in an American being unduly persecuted or oppressed? Any?

Re:Lemme guess...

[civilizedINTENSITY]

"Could you list actual and specific cases where the Patriot Act, Patriot Act II, or Military Commissions Act have resulted in an American being unduly persecuted or oppressed? Any?"

Isn't that the scary thing about losing habeus corpus? How could anyone list actual or specific cases, when people could be spirited away in the dead of night without any requirements to acknowledge said abduction? However, I would suggest that american lawyers have been oppressed in their attempts to do their jobs, and this is fairly well documented. Or don't they count?

Tying the knot?!

[BeeBeard]

I'm reading these Slashdot comments, and I don't understand why all these people are so against getting married. Marriage is a fine institution and...oh no, I think I've misread something.

Re:Tying the knot?!

[__aaclcg7560]

It's the getting the girl part that confuses a lot of Slashdotters. Now they could get married to each other and that would substantially improved the gene pool for the rest of us.

Re:Tying the knot?!

[Cederic]

This is tying the knot in a doggy sense of the term. Yes, the American public gets to play the role of 'bitch'.

Well it's finaly time....

[Anonymous Coward]

...to buy a few guns and a lot of ammo, just in case.

Mod Parent Up

[toddhisattva]

The parent blows up Leaky Leahy's conspiracy theory.

Martial Law would have been a step up from anything New Orleans has had for a couple of centuries.

Re:great

[Jackie_Chan_Fan]

If i could only mod you +5 Funny :) I'm not sure how many got that ;)

Sammo Hung rules!

Voluntary or involuntary

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

States and localities could request military assistance already. Governor Bianco invoked the Stafford Act on August 27, and Mayor Nagin less formally said "We need troops, man!".

The Insurrection Act is about using Federal troops to coerce a local government. For example, President Eisenhower used it on Little Rock when they violated a court order to desegregate.

Re:Voluntary or involuntary

[jamstar7]

States and localities could request military assistance already. Governor Bianco invoked the Stafford Act on August 27, and Mayor Nagin less formally said "We need troops, man!".

Yup, they can. However, this bill is about the President overriding the politician on the scene in calling in the troops.

Scenario (old version of the MCA):

President: You need federal troops to help contain those Girl Scouts gone wild.
Governor: Nope, we're doing just fine here, thanks for offering, though.
President: (grumble) All right then, but don't expect any help in the next election.
Governor: Dude, you're not in my Party!! (hangs up)

Scenario (new version):

President: You need federal troops to help contain those Girl Scouts gone wild.
Governor: Nope, we're doing just fine here, thanks for offering, though.
President: Screw you, you're getting them anyways. Clear your runways, the transports will be landing in 20 minutes.
Governor: But we really don't need them! Honest!
President: They'll be arresting you when they get there for interfering with a Federal operation. Congratulations, you're no longer
. governor, since the law states you can't hold office as a convicted criminal.
Governor: (whimper)

Any questions?

Re:Voluntary or involuntary

[tomhath]

Governor Bianco invoked the Stafford Act on August 27, and Mayor Nagin less formally said "We need troops, man!".

Neither has any relevance; Stafford just requests FEMA aid, and Nagin's request meant no more than his request for Greyhound busses. Bianco refused to turn the National Guard over to federal control until Bush personally intervened and talked her into it, several days too late.

Re:Voluntary or involuntary

[DavidTC]

That's exactly right, except you left off the fact that, of course, Blanco didn't need the loaned troups under Federal control, she asked for them under her control, as the National Guard would normally be.

The White House, however, realized she was a Democrat, and refused her request, instead demanding she turn over all the National Guard troups to the WH. (Even her own Nat Guard troups.)

About this time, a hurricane coincidentally hit(Of all the crappy luck), and thus it was a few days before Blanco replied.

Re:Voluntary or involuntary

[Scudsucker]

Not to mention the fact that Administration officials ran around in the immediate aftermath of the disaster, claiming that their only role was in offering support to state and local officials. If that's the case, why didn't they follow Blanco's request instead of wanting control? Anyway you shake it, the Administration was lying through it's teeth.

Sunlight Rule would help put an end to this

[schwit1]

... rule requires that no piece of legislation, including conference reports, can be brought before the House of Representatives unless it has been available to members and staff both in print and electronic versions for at least ten days.

More shenanigans

Re:Sunlight Rule would help put an end to this

[Chanc_Gorkon]

Um.....this bill is dated April 6, 2006. It's bene around a while and doesn't violate any law....even this one proposes by Rockwell.

Re:Law

[BorgCopyeditor]

Not to mention the way the "USA PATRIOT Act" was rushed through. People react to this sort of news as though the Congress' rules are somehow fair and would prevent this kind of manipulation. People, that is, who haven't studied how Congress actually works.

OH BOY ! this is getting exciting now !!!

[unity100]

Yea, you have voted for him, and now he pays back.

I was wondering when he and his fancy entourage would be bringing things to this level, and voila, now they are !

Next to expect is lifetime presidency declaration.

Halfway there

[Anonymous Coward]

How long now until the Reichs^h^h^h^h^h^hcapitol is set on fire by commun^h^h^h^h^h^hterrorists?

I've got your package

[BeeBeard]

Dear Mr. Fox,

Hey Mr. Fox. Name's Bob. Listen, I think our deliveries got mixed up and I've got your mask thing or whatever. It also came with two of those crazy 3-pronged Japanese forks, you know--like that ninja turtle uses? Is your real name Raphael?! Because if so, I can totally keep a secret! Cowabunga! Also, if you got a 30-count box of cherry flavored edible underwear, then you just hang onto that. That's, um, for a science experiment I'm conducting for the Nobel...um..Committee...um...Administration for Forwardness. That's right. The Nobel Comittee Administration for Forwardness. Yes. Just email me your phone number and we can arrange to swap these boxes out tomorrow.

-Bob "Beebeard" Beekowski

Re:frist psot

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

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."

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

Re:OWN3D by the dimwit

[Anonymous Coward]

being in prison is what they are experts at

Crime Statistics > Prisoners > Per capita by country
 
#1 United States 715 per 100,000 people
#2 Russia 584 per 100,000 people
#3 Belarus 554 per 100,000 people
#4 Palau 523 per 100,000 people
#5 Belize 459 per 100,000 people
#6 Suriname 437 per 100,000 people
#7 Dominica 420 per 100,000 people
#8 Ukraine 416 per 100,000 people
#9 Bahamas, The 410 per 100,000 people
#10 South Africa 402 per 100,000 people

This sounds like a troll

[Bertie]

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

[mofomojo]

He did create a giant national wildlife preserve in most of American Pacific Island territory to protect thousands of square miles of coral reef and thousands of rare fish species.

That's notable and should appease to a few liberals. Just a few, like the tree huggers. Other than that, he hasn't been able to tell left from right ever since. He will be a dark mark on America's history.

Re:This sounds like a troll

[monkaduck]

If Bush has done things right, they've been peanuts compared to everything else. Before 9/11, he was taking a lot of vacation time and not doing anything. After 9/11, it's been wars, Katrina, Enron, Abramoff (sp), WMD's, etc. Either he's the biggest puppet of all time or the unluckiest person ever. Probably both.

Re:This sounds like a troll

[LaughingCoder]

Seriously, has he [Bush] done anything good?

Well, we haven't had a terrorist attack on our soil in 6 years. And the economy is chugging along nicely. The Dow hit another a series of all time highs last week. Unemployment is very low. Obesity is a big problem, so we aren't starving by any means ;-) Libya (largely due to what happened to Iraq) has backed down and become more reasonable, making amends for past transgressions. Afghanistan is no longer run by Islamic fascists, and it is no longer hiding/accomodating/sponsering terrorists. NASA put two rovers on Mars and they have vastly outperformed their original mission. Much progress has been made on the International Space Station. The US led the relief effort after the tsunami. And in 2 years there will be (yet another) orderly transition of power to the next president.

The list of good things that have occurred during Bush's 2 terms is fairly long (as, sadly, is the list of bad things). Now most here will say that Bush had nothing to do with those successes, but then they blame him for everything bad. In my view you can't have it both ways. Anyhow, in the end history will judge this presidency. It is impossible to judge it whilst we are in the middle of it.

Re:This sounds like a troll

[quizzicus]

I'm still hoping that once this nightmare is over, we'll all have learned something. I'm decidedly less optimistic after 2004.

Re:This sounds like a troll

[Bertie]

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

[lawpoop]

We haven't had single terrorist attack since 9/11. Not a single one.

All those terrorist are running scared, fighting us in Iraq, so we don't have to fight them here. That's why we haven't had a conviction of a single serious terrorist since 9/11.

I also have a special rock for sale that keeps you safe from tigers. Check out my website.

Re:This sounds like a troll

[Bertie]

Unfortunately, to distract their attention from your own country, you've had to destroy somebody else's. And in doing so, you've increased enormously the number of people with a grudge against you, and while they might be duking it out in Iraq today, they'll drop in on your doorstep one day, and they'll come mob-handed. It's not just postponing the inevitable, it's making it worse when it does happen.

Re:This sounds like a troll

[LaughingCoder]

The US national debt as a percentage of GDP (projected by the OMB in the 2007 budget) will rise to reach the level it peaked at near the end of Clinton's first term (about 70%) http://zfacts.com/p/318.html While high by historical comparison, the nation is waging a very expensive war, and for wartime it's actually somewhat low (it went to 120% during WWII). Certainly the trade imbalance is worrisome, but that is hardly Bush's fault. That is more, as you correctly observe, a reflection of our collective hunger fo cheap imports. And yes, I agree, it will catch up with us before too long.

Re:This sounds like a troll

[Anonymous Coward]

1.) Well, we haven't had a terrorist attack on our soil in 6 years.

Who's to say the first one was a terrorist attack and not an attack planned out by the current administration? And the fact that we haven't been attacked doesn't mean Bush has done anything useful.. its contestable whether anyone has tried.

2.) The Dow hit another a series of all time highs last week.

Again.. How the fuck do we accredit this to bush?

3/4.) Unemployment is very low. Obesity is a big problem, so we aren't starving by any means ;-)
Ditto..

5.)Libya (largely due to what happened to Iraq) has backed down and become more reasonable, making amends for past transgressions
debateable on whether they've backed down, or are playing their cards.. and whether or not its in relation to Iraq is debateable.. I think everyone is terrified of the US at this point..

6.) Afghanistan is no longer run by Islamic fascists, and it is no longer hiding/accomodating/sponsering terrorists.
So says the current administration and Fox News.. how do we even know they were run by Islamic fascists in the first place again? We're clueless about the accomodating / sponsering terrorist.. if there was any follow through to verify this like the follow through to find the WMD's in Iraq I'm quite sure we'd find none being purposely harbored.

7.) NASA put two rovers on Mars and they have vastly outperformed their original mission.
This is certainly NOT thanks to Bush.. The bush administration has constantly cutt down NASA funding for anything besides what could be a facade to militarize our orbit..

8.) Much progress has been made on the International Space Station.
Hence.. "international"

9.) The US led the relief effort after the tsunami.
Lets compare this to the effort to help Katrina victims..

Bush is a worthless shitbag and 90% of the world will be glad to see him go. To answer the top parent of this thread.. NO Bush hasn't done a single thing worth noting that is in the scope of presidential duties. Not a single thing to benefit the hardworking Americans, nor to protect them. He's taken away liberty after liberty in the name of "security" only to let us fall prey to an even worse and less trustworthy (if there is such a thing) administration down the road.

Re:This sounds like a troll

[0xA]

I'm not able to comment from an American POV but as a Canadian I get more exposure to US media so maybe I can offer some insight.

American politics and it's media coverage are so completely polarized that trying to get a perspective on what is actually happening is impossible. There is left or right, a centrist view or politician doesn't exist. Although I struggle to think of one maybe Bush has done some good things but by the time it gets to the public the truth is so distorted that you will never know the difference. The conservative media trumpets any success no matter how insignificant so you learn to tune that out. The opposing side either tries to take some some obviously partisan counter point no matter how shallow or passes by the story completely so you tune them out too.

While I agree with your impression I have to say that American politics are so messed up that I don't think anyone knows for sure.

Re:This sounds like a troll

[lawpoop]

The problem is, I think, is the perception among Americans that the United States is the only country that can keep peace in the world, and we have a moral obligation to do so.

It stems in part from having a relatively homogeneous population and only two close neighbors, both of whom have similar cultures. Also, it stems from being a major player in the winning sides of WWI and WWII, and winning our rivalry with the Soviet Union. I guess also that America is a young country and we have little to no sense of history. We've never lost a war, nor had to live under a repressive government (blacks notwithstanding). People think that if anything were to 'happen' to the United States, it would be the End of the World.

Re:This sounds like a troll

[Anonymous Coward]

He has, on several occasions, correctly laced AND tied his shoes without help from his parents, Cheney or Karl Rove.

Re:This sounds like a troll

[LaughingCoder]

Who's to say the first one was a terrorist attack and not an attack planned out by the current administration?

As soon as you write this, 75% of the readers (and 100% of the rational readers) stop reading. I only read on because I was looking forward to you further embarrassing yourself with ludicrous statements. You should have saved this silly statement for last.

Speaking of silly statements, let's continue to examine your undeniably false, post:

NASA's budget has gone up during Bush's 6 years. It went down during the Clinton years http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_Budget And the vast majority of NASA's budget has been for the shuttle, which is used mostly to build the space station, not military missions (sorry - you are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts)

debateable on whether they've backed down, or are playing their cards

Yeah, it's a coincidence it happened weeks after we caught Sadam (after Libya was a "rogue" nation for the better part of 2 decades)

The economy started to rebound, and the market began to jump, shortly after the tax cuts and the changes to the tax code reducing the rate at which dividends would be taxed.

Why is it that the brainless invariably post AC?

Re:This sounds like a troll

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, the national debt was almost twice as high during the largest war ever fought in history? You're going to need better stats than that to convince me that the current level is "actually somewhat low" for wartime.

Re:This sounds like a troll

[LaughingCoder]

Ummm, sorry ... Enron happened during the Clinton years. During Bush's term they got caught (and severely punished).

Re:This sounds like a troll

[ctid]

Well, we haven't had a terrorist attack on our soil in 6 years.

Five years, surely?

Afghanistan is no longer run by Islamic fascists, and it is no longer hiding/accomodating/sponsering terrorists.

Afghanistan is descending into chaos again and the Taliban is back on the march.

The US led the relief effort after the tsunami.

And failed miserably to handle the disaster in New Orleans.

And in 2 years there will be (yet another) orderly transition of power to the next president.

No argument with this, and it's worth celebrating, in my opinion.

Re:This sounds like a troll

[Jeremi]

He did create a giant national wildlife preserve in most of American Pacific Island territory to protect thousands of square miles of coral reef and thousands of rare fish species. [...] That's notable and should appease to a few liberals. Just a few, like the tree huggers.

Unless I missed something in biology class, there aren't very many trees that grow in coral reefs... so while the fish kissers might like it, I doubt the tree huggers will be terribly impressed.

Re:This sounds like a troll

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Who's to say the first one was a terrorist attack and not an attack planned out by the current administration?

Occam's razor. Careful... it's sharp.

Re:This sounds like a troll

[smchris]

Thanks. It's been driving me crazy and I bet that was it. I knew there was something noteworthy he signed two or three years ago that sounds like it hadn't flopped out from the dark side but I couldn't remember what it was.

Re:This sounds like a troll

[mofomojo]

Wow, it's as if they've got a ticker to say how long it's been a terrorist attack since.

It's standard to have no terrorists attacks. It's not as if it's a natural occurance that Bush somehow keeps at bay. No, the fact that we haven't had any terrorist attacks is largely due to the fault that the terrorists don't want to attack at this specific moment. They aren't even aggressive.

I think you're only telling the half story of these beneficial occurances. NASA goes on with it's agenda only as far as their government grant allows them, which, given the frivolous spending habits of Bush, is nothing new. September 11th was largely the fault of Bush, yet he's taking credit for not repeating his mistakes (how backwards is that?!), there was no proper criminal investigation into the events, everybody knows that the 2000 election was rigged and stolen. He's nearly bankrupted your nation. He's given dozens of tax benefits to the rich. Under Clinton, comparably, the DOW went from 3000 to 12 000 - not the stock value of the 30 richest, largest, monolithic and most elite companies really benefit the common citizen, anyways. Of course, it's going to be hitting new all-time highs every week since it's consistently growing - even if it only grows a couple of points each day - hey, still it's a NEW ALL TIME HIGH! (jackass.....). It's akin to watching the mileage on your car grow and calling it a new all-time high every time it ticks off another point.

There's little to directly give credit to Bush for. However, his policies on civil liberties are really hurting Americans and are destroying their rights at such a rapid rate. And yes, it is possible to judge it while you are in the middle of it. Just read a fucking newspaper for god's sake.

What affect his actions will have on the future are impossible to know, but what effect they've had on the past are clearly visible and damaging. The world no longer trusts the United States and largely views it as a rogue power. It's not my fault, that's Bush's fault.

Re:This sounds like a troll

[marcello_dl]

Well unless somebody shows me a real life working model of steel and asbestos structure which, imbibed in how much jet fuel you care to throw at it, goes down in his footprint in a similar way the two towers+wtc7 did, I consider ludicrous your blind acceptance of the most intriguing series of coincidences that let those terrorist bring down the towers according to the official investigation. According to my most paranoid theories, Bush seems the troll Mussolini and Hilter were: the facade showing nationalism, in truth bringing their nations to their knees for the invasion of the next masters. Why America was chosen as the leader and soon replaced? Before Americans were the ideal "tabula rasa" for the consumer society. But now people under communism and underdevelopment were deprived of their culture and were shown your way of life. Now they're better than you or us poor old western european folks, for the semi-free society of tomorrow. Sounds paranoid? sure, but postulating a centuries old process (which might be a conspiracy or a mere sum of interests) that is stripping mankind of every value different from the lust for money, by playing with people nations and war, is a very interesting way to look at history.

Re:This sounds like a troll

[martinschrder]

>Well, we haven't had a terrorist attack on our soil in 6 years.

Surely you mean 5 years?

>Much progress has been made on the International Space Station.

In fact it has been so little that your international partners are quite angry and have pointed out the treaties which require you to actually run the thing and not shut it down like you wanted to.

>And in 2 years there will be (yet another) orderly transition of power to the next president.

Only if you have an election.

Re:This sounds like a troll

[ChrisMaple]

Lowered taxes. This has done more to strengthen the economy than anything since Reagan's presidency.

Re:This sounds like a troll

[EPAstor]

Not to turn this nasty... But you notice that the national debt as a percentage of GDP -peaked- during Clinton's term as president? To be honest, judging the president on the basis of the economy is one of the silliest things I've ever heard of. I don't know of any direct power the President is able to exert over the economy, beyond appointing the people who matter - and generally, that just means finding someone smart and trusted (i.e. Greenspan) and then getting out of the way. I'm a liberal and generally aligned with the Democratic party, plus I very much liked Clinton, so I'll direct my cheap swipe that way... The economy was great under Clinton, wasn't it? Funny... every serious economist who supported trickle-down theory realized that its practice would take at least a decade to have any impact. Let's see... can we add and subtract to see who was President, and what was being done, at about a decade before that? Interesting, isn't it? Again - the President has no direct power over the economy during his/her term in office. Indirect power, certainly, in declaring wars and establishing security, but these indirect methods result in only transient effects.

Re:This sounds like a troll

[RAMMS EIN]

``Afghanistan is no longer run by Islamic fascists, and it is no longer hiding/accomodating/sponsering terrorists.''

So what are these people fighting against the foreign troops? Freedom fighters?

Re:This sounds like a troll

[RAMMS EIN]

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

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

Re:This sounds like a troll

[Anonymous Coward]

I suppose if the stock market improves its performance tenfold my lousy $150 tax break might manage to cover my extra share of our skyrocketing national debt. Republican president==more national debt. Thank you Reagan, Bush I, and especially Bush II for bankrupting America. Especially you, W, for it takes a very special kind of jackass to lower taxes in the middle of NOT ONE BUT TWO FUCKING GROUND WARS. Republicans ceded the issues of economics and fiscal responsibility to Democrats decades ago...which still makes us Libertarians weep.

Re:This sounds like a troll

[Anonymous Coward]

>It's standard to have no terrorists attacks

my anti-crocodile pills are working well today. :)

Re:This sounds like a troll

[dreamchaser]

Try over $2000 per year extra in the pocket of your average middle class family of four. Nice try though.

Re:This sounds like a troll

[dbIII]

Libya (largely due to what happened to Iraq) has backed down and become more reasonable,

Interesting viewpoint - do you really think this happened immediately after 9/11 as a reaction to the operation in Iraq more than one year later? I can't see that the two things have anything to do with each other - the timing is wrong for it to make any sense at all.

In my opinion, the USA had the goodwill of almost the entire world, even including Libya, immediately after 9/11. It has not all been lost despite "freedom fries", threats to bomb Pakistan back into the stone age, locking up citizens of military allies in GITMO without trial and other petty actions almost calculated to lose goodwill. Perhaps Bush, Powell then Condi and their departments did have to manage things well to keep goodwill after various gaffes.

Re:This sounds like a troll

[LaughingCoder]

well, you conveniently ignore the fact that at 70% it is the same as it was in the Clinton years, when there was no war ...

Re:This sounds like a troll

[civilizedINTENSITY]

"We've never lost a war..."

I don't think you can say anyone "won" the civil war. We didn't win in Korea. We didn't win in Vietnam. I'm not even sure what it means anymore, to say we "won" in Iraq. Mission Accomplished. I don't think so.

Re:This sounds like a troll

[dbIII]

Well unless somebody shows me a real life working model of steel and asbestos structure

Google will help - large numbers of civil engineers answered exactly this question at the time and it was printed in many newspapers worldwide at the time in detail. Perhaps try a news source outside your country if it was dumbed down too much on CNN or in the NYT. Big towers are heavy which is why the things went straight down when the structure had almost zero strength in the middle instead of going down like a model in a Godzilla movie. Remember that the guys who make movies don't actually ask how a building falls down so they model it on things they know - like falling trees.

Re:This sounds like a troll

[dbIII]

Didn't Reagan really screw up your economy? I know I shouldn't speak ill of dead Presidents, but that is what it looked like at the time from overseas.

Re:This sounds like a troll

[LaughingCoder]

I consider ludicrous your blind acceptance of the most intriguing series of coincidences that let those terrorist bring down the towers according to the official investigation.

Unlike you (apparently), I am not an expert in building structures, material melting points, etc. I have watched the video trumping that ridiculous conspiracy "theory". It is very convincing. But then so was Erich Von Daeniken's "Chariots of the Gods" back in the 70s. Every generation seems to have its crazy theories, so I will forgive you yours. By the way, maybe you can answer me this ... how can such an unbelievably elaborate "plan" be kept secret when literally thousands of people would have to be in on it? Heck, Watergate was only known by a small handful of people and word got out very quickly. It is simply not possible to keep a secret of this magnitude. Somebody would have come forward, or somebody would have uncovered real proof, not just hairbrained "theories" backed by pseudo-science. The fact that no proof has emerged is a far more difficult thing to explain than the "amazing coincidence" of the buildings' collapse.

Re:This sounds like a troll

[Anonymous Coward]

Afghanistan?

Anyway, at least Clinton REDUCED the deficit. Even right-wing economists are panicking about our current spend-crazy president.

Re:This sounds like a troll

[LaughingCoder]

He's given dozens of tax benefits to the rich.

Oh, this is "rich". OK, let's address this tired liberal mantra. First of all, the 2005 tax cuts INCREASED the percentage of tax revenues paid by the top 1%, top 5%, top 20% and top 50% of the taxpayers. It REDUCED the percentage paid by the bottom 50%. And, in terms of percentage cuts, it most favored the lower rung taxpayers because the increased child tax credits (what's a measly $1000 to a millionaire?) disproportionately benefited the "poor". Second of all, the top 50% of taxpayers pay over 94% of ALL TAXES. So, here's a little riddle for you .... is it possible to give a tax cut to PEOPLE WHO DON'T PAY TAXES? You can't give a tax cut to the poor in this country because they don't pay taxes (well, not federal taxes anyhow - the states and towns still get 'em). By definition, then, all tax cuts are "for the rich", since they pay almost all the taxes.

Re:This sounds like a troll

[Anonymous Coward]

He, ehm... err... Helped all those people in New Orl... nope, not that either. Well, at least he kept his promise for low gas pric... darn, not again. At the very least, he's done all the right things to make ANY president look good. And given comedians enough material for a century. Just as long as he doesn't lock them up in the next two years as 'A threat to the well-being of the country', we're fine.

Re:This sounds like a troll

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not ignoring it. I'm just tired of people making shitty arguments. I didn't say I didn't believe it, only that comparing the piddly war in Iraq to the Second World War is completely ridiculous.

Re:This sounds like a troll

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, if he did screw up then I don't know about the rest of the world (especially Europe) given the fact that the GDP in places like Germany or France used to be similar to one in USA about 25 years ago - today it is only 70% of that in USA.

So you tell me who is screwing up here ?

The fact is that USA is pulling away from Europe as far as GDP and overall state of economy. If anyone, it is you who need to worry about your future. As far as Reagan - no , it was during Carter years when USA economy got fucked up ... but you wouldn't know that would you ? After all , Reagan was republican and that my friend in Europe is like being facist.

Re:This sounds like a troll

[Anonymous Coward]

The dow always hits a new high.

Inflation gaurantees it, so does currency devaluation; particularly when the dollar is devalued by 50%; isn't the Dow a reflection of the US Dollar without regard to purchasing power? In case you haven't been paying attention - everything is almost double in price. The dow doesn't reflect the health of the economy, just the pockets of the wealthy - and one thing *is* clear, the wealthy have done quite well over the past 6 years between tax cuts, utility windfalls, military contracts and straight up graft.
That I *do* blame on Bush.

Re:This sounds like a troll

[pleasegetreal]

You aren't going to get a clue by reading the drivel on this site.

Re:This sounds like a troll

[LaughingCoder]

The fact that the deficit as a percent of GDP is the same as it was during the Clinton years strikes me as a pretty good argument actually. I was refuting the claim that Bush is spending the US into the poorhouse. By demonstrating that the deficit is no worse than it was during the mid 90s I think I rather handily disproved the claim.

Re:This sounds like a troll

[Alsee]

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

Well, I'd say Bush deserves some credit for helping make the Daily Show the best show on TV.

-

Re:This sounds like a troll

[0WaitState]

The apologist above said: Well, we haven't had a terrorist attack on our soil in 6 years

I know you meant 5 years, but you're conveniently forgetting the anthrax attacks that killed people in 2002. Even today we still have buildings evacuated and businesses disrupted when white powder falls out of an envelope. When any plane accident occurs, the first question is, "Was it A-rab terrorists?". So, the logical conclusion is, we're still terrorized. A better leader who didn't depend on scaring the population before every national election would have cured us of that. I mean, Churchill said things like "We have nothing to fear but fear itself." When's the last time you heard something like that from the white house?

Re:This sounds like a troll

[dcollins]

Quote: "Anyhow, in the end history will judge this presidency. It is impossible to judge it whilst we are in the middle of it."

Bullshit. That's a Bushie cop-out equivalent to "Duh, I have no idea if these poker cards are good until the hand is done." Intelligent people can weigh evidence and come to a likely conclusion. In this case the existing evidence is overwhelming.

"In early 2004, an informal survey of 415 historians conducted by the nonpartisan History News Network found that eighty-one percent considered the Bush administration a 'failure.'" (Sean Wilentz, Rolling Stone magazine: http://www.rollingstone.com/news/profile/story/996 1300/the_worst_president_in_history )

Re:This sounds like a troll

[Tony]

I don't think you can say Bush is responsible for the lack of terrorist attacks. In spite of the propaganda, there are very few people who really want to attack the US. Otherwise, we'd have roadside bombs and car bombs every few days. Considering it had been about six years between 9/11 and the previous terrorist attack in the US, Oklahoma City, I don't think terrorist attacks in the US are really all that frequent. So, there is no cause and effect here. There is no evidence to suggest Bush has stopped a single attack on US soil.

In May of 2001, Bush gave the Taliban $42,000,000. True, he removed them from power after, but he failed to catch bin Laden, though he promised the US he would. Now Afghanistan is controlled by warlords, the Taliban is still around, and people are still dying.

In Iraq, the civilian death toll is at least 45,000 people. We are no longer in control of Baghdad, and Iraq has gone from one the most progressive middle-eastern countries to . . . well, I don't know. If conservative fundamentalists take control of the government (which seems very possible, if not probable), chances are it will turn into a religious government such as Iran. In any case, Iraq is now more likely to produce a bumper-crop of terrorists with no real reason to like the US, according to recent intelligence reports.

But, I guess you reap what you sow.

Unemployment is relatively low, but real wages are not keeping up with inflation, though adjusted profits are up, and executive pay increases are greater than inflation. As others have pointed out, the Dow as a pure number isn't an accurate indicator economic health. You have to factor in the value of the dollar, at a minimum. By that standard, things are not that rosy.

Anyhow, in the end history will judge this presidency. It is impossible to judge it whilst we are in the middle of it.

It is *not* impossible to judge his Presidency at the moment. He has authorized the use of torture, he has stripped habeas corpus from "enemy combatants," who can be *anyone*, even US citizens. He changes laws to suit his desire through the use of signing statements. The economy has improved since 2001, but is still soft. He lied to get us into an unnecessary war. (It was proven at the time we went to war that all of the pieces of evidence used in his case for war were forged, incorrectly represented, or outright fabrication. We knew before a single troop stepped foot in Iraq that there was no good case for the war.) He has used the tragedy of 9/11 to frighten and cow American citizens, and to justify laws we would never have allowed otherwise.

He has given billions of dollars to corporations in no-bid or single-bid contracts. He has quelled investigations into abuse of those contracts. He has single-handedly pushed the US into the greatest debt it has ever seen.

It is easy to judge him now. It may be hard for me to see the good for the bad, but the things you call "good" are not as good as you seem to think.

Re:This sounds like a troll

[MKalus]

Well, we haven't had a terrorist attack on our soil in 6 years.

Because, or despite of him?

And the economy is chugging along nicely.

Because of the war? Or because there is a real civilian upbeat in the market?

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

If you take the devaluation of the USD into consideration you will notice that you are still roughly 3000 points away from a high. If you adjust the value on the companies listed on the Dow Jones to 2000 Dollars you're still a bit short.

But hey, it's marketing, right?

Re:This sounds like a troll

[LaughingCoder]

Intelligent people can weigh evidence and come to a likely conclusion. In this case the existing evidence is overwhelming.

... and if Iraq stabilizes and becomes a democracy and that democracy spreads throughout the rest of the Arab world, and terrorism becomes much less of a force in the world, is it still a failure? There is no denying that terrorism has been steadily getting worse for the past 4 decades, during which time appeasement has basically been the policy. So I believe it is possible that this war in Iraq *could* still pay off (though admittedly it's not looking likely). And I submit that would be fairly highly regarded in years to come should it play out as I described above. Then Bush would and should receive quite a bit of credit from "intelligent people" for having the courage to prosecute a very unpopular war. Sadly, I cannot predict what will happen in the future as clearly as you seem able. That is why I believe we need to look back on how this all plays out before casting judgement.

Duh, I have no idea if these poker cards are good until the hand is done."

Nice analogy that perfectly demonstrates my point. You see, I might have a full house and be feeling pretty good about myself - even willing to declare that I have the best hand in the game. But I really don't know how good my hand is until everyone shows theirs. Conversely, I might have a pair of deuces and be tempted to fold. Lo and behold, it could prove to be the winning hand once all the other hands are shown.

Re:This sounds like a troll

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually it was FDR who said that

Re:This sounds like a troll

[dodongo]

given the fact that the GDP in places like Germany or France used to be similar to one in USA about 25 years ago - today it is only 70% of that in USA.

You ever looked at a map or population numebrs for Germany or France? If your numbers are accurate, there's no reason why the GDP of the 3rd most-populous country on earth shouldn't be well beyond small European nations. Even having a 10-to-7 lead on them isn't really a sparkling number.

Re:This sounds like a troll

[dodongo]

How fucking magnanimous, since health care and cost of living have only gone up to cover most of that in his term.

The Bush plan is that the rich get richer, and the normal people learn to cope better with less purchasing power. It's the track we've been on since WWII, and we've sure done some incredible things. But at some point capitalism will have to answer for its propensity for screwing everyone-but-those-who-have-the-most as much as it possibly can.

Re:This sounds like a troll

[klept]

You know I really cant think of anything. I can think of a lot of things he's done worse. Wait, seriously, there was one thing, and even some of the European press agreed with him. His administration did take on Iran, China, etc., about the issue of freedom of the internet. Sounds funny, since his administration sort of partly created the confrontation with their obsession about net porn and terrorists. But the beginning of the problem, as I interpet it based on what I read, was created by that genius Billy Clinton.

Re:This sounds like a troll

[Anonymous Coward]

Your being glib and disingenuous. What about the massive cut in capital gains and dividends conicidentally followed by a big increase in corporate dividend payments- who did that benifit? All those working class families with big portfolios?!? It's all smoke and mirrors and you know it.

But that's besides the point. Do you really think it's a good idea to cut taxes while INCREASING spending and during a war to boot? Oh well, I guess your kids and grandkids and thier kids can pay it off. Hey, you got yours, right?

Did it never occur to you that all this financing of US debt by China is more than just an economic strategy? Reagan won the cold war by getting the USSR to bankrupt themselves, right? Isn't that how the story goes- we became the dominant superpower by defeating them financially?

I hate taxes too, but explain to me again how it's actually tenable to cut taxes without corresponding economic growth or spending cuts?

Re:This sounds like a troll

[clambake]

We haven't had single terrorist attack since 9/11. Not a single one.

Why is it so difficult to remember the Anthrax? NOBODY remembers the anthrax.

Re:This sounds like a troll

[SeanMon]

"We have nothing to fear but fear itself."

Bush's version: "We have... to fear."

Re:This sounds like a troll

[Anonymous Coward]

Which plane brought down WTC building 7 ?

It looked like a controlled demolition to me. Silverstein said they demolished it.
So please tell me your "theory" on who or what brought down that building.

Re:This sounds like a troll

[Anonymous Coward]

Gee, as I recall, Under Clinton we had a surplus but with old Georgie boy we have a HUGE friggin' deficit....and at the rate he's blowing thru money i don't know if we will get out of debt any time soon.

Re:This sounds like a troll

[stinerman]

You can't give a tax cut to the poor in this country because they don't pay taxes

For the record, I'll assume you're talking about the federal income tax. You are wrong in that you can't give the poor a cut in the federal income tax, though. Right now many poor people have a 0% federal income tax liability. If you cut their taxes by, lets say %5, they will now have a -5% income tax liability. Negative numbers do exist and we can use them in tax policy.

Re:This sounds like a troll

[0WaitState]

Thank you--dunno why I attributed that to Churchill.

Re:This sounds like a troll

[ralphdaugherty]

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.

      This is so true, and Republicans hide from it. It is the most onerous tax they could have imposed on us, the birth tax, our debts that our children and their children for generations inherit at birth.

      But, trust me, they did not do this thinking Democrats would replace them. They like to think that cutting off taxes will "starve the beast", that is, starve the government they hate, but Republicans just borrowed money to feed the beast instead, and passed it on to future generations as their legacy. Not to mention everthing they did to the Constitution.

  rd

Re:This sounds like a troll

[ralphdaugherty]

Second of all, the top 50% of taxpayers pay over 94% of ALL TAXES. ....By definition, then, all tax cuts are "for the rich", since they pay almost all the taxes.


      the rich are defined as the top 1 or 2 percent, not the top 50 percent.

  rd

Re:This sounds like a troll

[zoftie]

Singular economic numbers, are useless, the whole picture is alot more complex. For example some take stock market as health indicator of investment market, which is false one. Few overblown stocks, minus the cumilitive inflation. Etc etc. You get the idea. GDP is amount of stuff is produced. So there are alot more GM cars go on credit. Whoppee. Some numbers said that savings in US is at lowest point in time to total debt(forgive my unsavvy knowlege), whichever it is. That the balance of the economy is at the tipping point. War makes economy go, though so onesided investment generation from the war, that effect is alot smaller then it should be.
Granted arms sales into middle east will keep putting food for people on the table for a long time, and putting kids through school.

Re:This sounds like a troll

[Fear the Clam]

Seriously, has he done anything good?

He's managed to make our former president Nixon look pretty good in comparison.

Re:This sounds like a troll

[drew]

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?"

See, I find this ironic, because this is exactly what I figured the Democrats were thinking near the end of Bill Clinton's second term. Although I disliked Al Gore more than I disliked GW (at least at the time- with 6 years of hindsight now, I don't think I would have voted for either of them), there was a part of me that wished he would win just so that the Democrats couldn't blame the impending recession on the Republicans. (Or at least they wouldn't be quite so smug anymore about the economy under Clinton, which he had next to nothing to do with.)

Re:This sounds like a troll

[lawpoop]

You are correct.

What I meant to write was that 'we have never lost a war on our soil'.

For me, the implication is that the death, carnage, and destruction of war was never really imprinted on the American consciousness, which is why we willing to do stupid things like liberate the Iraqi people. Now 600,000 Iraqis are dead from our foolishness and arrogance, but our war is still just.

The civil war was a violent hammering out of our internal disagreements. We have never had a long, drawn out war with 'someone else' where our major cities were bombed out, and we were ruled by another government. The idea that that could happen, and after decades or centuries American culture and identity would survive and re-emerge, is totally absent from American consciousness. We have no sense of history. Our history books start with the pilgrims landing on Plymouth rock. What happened in the rest of the world may as well have happened in another universe.

There is still the idea that America *as it is now* is the sole light on the hill, the one beacon of freedom and democracy for the world. If America were to change in any way, it would no longer really be America, and thus any hope for the world would be extinguished.

This probably has a lot to do with out rivalry with Russia and the threat of nuclear annihilation -- at that time, the 'end of the United States' very well may have meant the end of the human race.

Re:This sounds like a troll

[mikelieman]

You using the fake GAO debt numbers, or the less fake GAAP numbers?

Re:This sounds like a troll

[wfberg]

Well, we haven't had a terrorist attack on our soil in 6 years.

And I have, in my pocket, a rock that keeps away tigers.

See?

No tigers.

Re:This sounds like a troll

[civilizedINTENSITY]

Not so sure I can agree. The civil war seems to fit both your criteria. It was bloody, and the death tolls incredibly high. I'm sure the South felt they had been invaded, their cities destroyed (Sherman's march to Atlanta), and then without doubt the South was "ruled by another government", to say nothing of Carpetbaggers. Depends on how you define "someone else", perhaps. Still, a good chunk of the USA has rather vivid memories that are still repeated from oldsters to their youngsters, regarding the invasion and occupation by a foreign power (the North,) and the humilation resulting from a war that was lost and the resultant penalities imposed. A lifestyle, for better or worse, was wiped out, and a culture surgically removed. People remember.

Re:This sounds like a troll

[marcello_dl]

That's the second question. the first and most disturbing one is: why the hypothetical plan was so elaborate? A couple terrorists dumping lethal doses of whatever into the water supply would have been easier and more secure to do as an inside job, right? So it has been done to potentially blow in the face of the perpetrator if the proper leaks are done? Or it's all a big diversion to steer away from some other socioeconomic dynamics that will affect us more than 4000 + asbestos related deaths? Anyway, how many people need to know the full extent of a conspiracy? answer, one. All the others can just be people whose careers soared by keeping the mouth shut. And, speaking out implies being charged with murder and exposed to the wrath of none other than a bunch of nation leading neo cons blockheads (i speak from a christian point of view before you call me commie) And, your question doesn't make the disruption of WTC any more credible. And you assume the operation went well, but it was so full of holes else nobody would be still discussing it now.

Re:This sounds like a troll

[yusing]

The GOP has failed by any measures I've seen in my lifetime, except in the sense that they've contrived to bring disrepute and fiscal hardship on America.

Under pressure of fear, uncertainty, and doubt, many people went along with them for years ... but are starting to realize that they have been and are being led in a direction they do not want to go.

Re:This sounds like a troll

[marcello_dl]

Nope, nothing i found on google explains the phenomenon in terms of a - literally - friggin' real life modeling of 911 style collapse. NIST report, FEMA report, Popular Mechanic report, tons of debunking. If I found something it were appealing, i'll try making a model with some engineers that can understand better than me the whole affair and cash out the 1000000$ contest http://www.reopen911.org/Contest.htm

Re:This sounds like a troll

[Anonymous Coward]

You aren't going to get a clue by reading the drivel on this site.

Well, help us out with that problem by leaving.

Re:This sounds like a troll

[Scudsucker]

Lowered taxes. This has done more to strengthen the economy than anything since Reagan's presidency.

Completely false. The vast majority of Bush's tax cuts have benefited the wealthy, which does nothing to stimulate the economy. The whopping $300 that the average American got from Bush's cuts was made insignifigant by rising health care and fuel costs, and stagnant wages.

Re:This sounds like a troll

[Scudsucker]

... and if Iraq stabilizes and becomes a democracy and that democracy spreads throughout the rest of the Arab world, and terrorism becomes much less of a force in the world, is it still a failure?

Of course it's still a failure. Far, far more Iraqi's have died in the aftermath of our invasion than if we'd just left Saddam in power. It's almost impossible to find a family that hasn't lost a member to violence. Some women haven't taken off their mourning robes in three years, because before the end of the mourning period another family member is lost. Even if Bush "wins" in Iraq it's going to be a phyrric victory.

Re:This sounds like a troll

[Scudsucker]

Although I disliked Al Gore more than I disliked GW (at least at the time- with 6 years of hindsight now, I don't think I would have voted for either of them)

Yeah, lots of people were dumb in 2000. A voter wondering in 2006 if he should have voted for Gore over Bush is like Miramax wondering if passing up Lord of the Rings was a bad idea after Peter Jackson made New Line a couple billion dollars.

wished he would win just so that the Democrats couldn't blame the impending recession on the Republicans

The bursting of the dot com bubble was inevitable. The screwing over of the rest of the economy was not.

Re:This sounds like a troll

[Scudsucker]

And the economy is chugging along nicely.

The economy is flush with jobs, but with shitty, low paying Wal-Mart jobs. For the middle class, the decline of unions, the rise of offshoring, stagnant wages, and the exploding cost of fuel, health care, and real estate means the economy is certainally "chugging along"...in the wrong direction.

Libya (largely due to what happened to Iraq) has backed down and become more reasonable, making amends for past transgressions.

Libya's moderation doesn't have anything to do with Iraq. They just got tired of being an international parriah, and the process was started long before Bush II came to office.

Afghanistan is no longer run by Islamic fascists

The GOP should really stop using that term, because right-wing Republicans are just as facist as the people they are lambasting. Fanatical support of the military? Check. Fanatical support of the party in power? Check. Our-way-or-the-highway, you're-with-us-or-you're-with-the-terrorists attitude on any issue? Check. Torture, detention with no trial, ignoring civil rights...check, check and check.

and it is no longer hiding/accomodating/sponsering terrorists.

Only if you flip-flop on your definition of "terrorist". The Taliban are on the rise, and Pakistan has opened their borders and is allowing militants to cross at will.

The US led the relief effort after the tsunami.

Led? American's have donated a good amount of money, but they were quite late to the party as far as immediate responce goes.

The list of good things that have occurred during Bush's 2 terms is fairly long

Not really. And the list of positive things that he is responsible is virtually entry-free. As opposed to the list of his debacles.

It is impossible to judge it whilst we are in the middle of it.

Nonsense. Even if, for example, Iraq becomes a peaceful democracy in the next decade, that doesn't change the fact that the rational for the invasion, the invasion itself, and the following occupation were all miserable failures.

Re:This sounds like a troll

[aeryn_sunn]

The problem with nutcase conspiracy theorists like you..is that no amount of evidence will EVER convince you otherwise...EVER. You will always try to come up with an excuse to any fact or evidence. Popular Mechanics is one source of information that does a good job of debunking this whole conspiracy nonsense. People like for some reason have a problem with believing that terrible events happen. Debunking sources such as Popular Mechanics aside, the perpetrators, Al Qaeda, has even admitted to it and the rest of the Middle East accepts that it was the work of said organization. I don't really know what else to say to conspiracy nuts...they will never ever believe otherwise.

Re:This sounds like a troll

[h4x0r-3l337]

It is impossible to judge it whilst we are in the middle of it

Utter nonsense.

Re:This sounds like a troll

[An Onerous Coward]

is it possible to give a tax cut to PEOPLE WHO DON'T PAY TAXES?

Yes.

As for the rest of your tired conservative mantra: For those people who are so very very lucky because they're too poor to tax properly, any miniscule tax cut they received was swamped by the cuts in non-military government spending that were required to pay for the cuts. I'm sure the average taxpayer would be happy to see a few hundred dollars off my tax bill. But they'd probably reconsider when their kids' school has to get rid of the special ed. teacher, or when grandma has to move in with them because her housing assistance dried up.

And that doesn't even begin to cover the hurt we'll all be feeling when this mountain of government debt forces the U.S. to double its interest rates. Anyone remember back to the nineties, when Democrats and Republicans seemed to agree that a balanced budget was a Good Thing?

But feel free to get on your pulpit and start yammering about how these tax cuts are practically paying for themselves.

Re:This sounds like a troll

[tm2b]

Well, we haven't had a terrorist attack on our soil in 6 years.

Every time I hear this, I don't know whether to laugh or to cry at the stupidity. Pop quiz: how much time passed between the September 11th attacks and the previous militant Muslim attack on US soil?

Al Qaeda takes their time in planning and executing attacks.

Re:This sounds like a troll

[marcello_dl]

No amount of what evidence? I asked for a simple model. If all you need is a "deal of good sense" to understand the 911 phenomenon, why can't you tell us poor nutcases how to make a collapsing model to satisfy our doubts? There are sure difference between a model and a full scale building, but one can arbitrarily add weight to the model to make up for that. I assert articles in the web have made a good job of debunking popular mechanics. But that's irrelevant. For all the googling, nobody is going to take a million dollars home, or unmask the jokers who offered it, by making steel structures collapse in their path the 911 way. Strange.

Re:This sounds like a troll

[LaughingCoder]

I explicitly said I was referring to the federal taxes, since those are the ones Bush is responsible for (that was the discussion after all). And no, you are wrong, it is not a tax cut to give people who don't pay any taxes a handout. This is really very simple: you can't cut someone's taxes if they don't pay any taxes. And that's all I was saying. Giving them a handout (paid for by other taxpayers) does NOT constitute a taxcut for that poor person. If I never went to the food store, my grocery bill would be $0. If I then went to the grocery store and they gave me $5, that would not be a cut in my grocery bill. It would be a gift, or a handout, or charity, depending on the giver's intentions. Please don't follow the usual "progressive" technique of redefining the language to suit your own purposes. WE all know what the meaning of the word is is.

Now why did I wade into this firestorm one might ask? It drives me crazy when people say, reflexively, Bush's "taxcuts-for-the-rich" like it's some sort of special class of tax cuts; like it's possible to give serious tax cuts (i.e. tax cuts that will substantively reduce the federal intake, leaving money in the private sector where it can do some good) to the "working poor", even though they hardly pay any taxes to begin with. This is especially rankling when one also realizes that the child tax credits were a huge taxcut for the "working poor", virtually eliminating all federal taxes for many at the lower income levels (it was a tax credit so if you paid no taxes, you got no tax credit). So, percentage-wise, actually the poor were the bigger beneficiaries of the Bush tax cuts. Of course on an absolute basis the rich got the majority of the cut; there is simply no other way to do it and still have a tax cut. So, to call a taxcut "for the rich" is redundant, obvious, and therefore not informative. The "rich" pay the vast majority of the taxes in this country. If you have a tax cut, BY DEFINITION, the rich benefit. Have I said it enough times for it to sink in?

Re:This sounds like a troll

[LaughingCoder]

There was in fact a surplus at the end of Clinton's second term. it was due to good policies put through by President Clinton working in conjunction with a Republican-led Congress to hold the line on spending. But the biggest component of the surplus was the supply-side up-tick in federal revenues driven in large part by the huge capital gains taxes paid during the bubble in the stock market. In fact an interesting, but not often discussed aspect of the current deficits is that many businesses and individuals are still recovering from the bubble burst; they are still claiming investment losses incurred in 2000, 2001 against today's income and stock market gains. This is of course due to the $3000 limit on investment losses (over and above any gains in that tax year) one can declare in any given tax year.

Re:This sounds like a troll

[LaughingCoder]

What about the massive cut in capital gains and dividends conicidentally followed by a big increase in corporate dividend payments- who did that benifit? All those working class families with big portfolios?!?

Well over 50% of Americans have 401Ks (the number is actually 67% per the source below), which means that they all benefited from those dividend tax cuts. Do you consider everyone except the bottom 33% rich?

Source: http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v63n1/v63n1p34. pdf

Re:This sounds like a troll

[LaughingCoder]

But feel free to get on your pulpit and start yammering about how these tax cuts are practically paying for themselves.

Please try to put your hate aside and re-read *my* posts. All I said was "taxcuts for the rich" is a disingenuous (and purposely inflammatory) way to describe a tax cut, since the rich pay the vast majority of the taxes in this country, by definition a tax cut will benefit them. Said differently, the only way you can have a taxcut that will make any difference in the federal revenues is to cut taxes for the rich ... they are the ones paying them.

Re:This sounds like a troll

[aeryn_sunn]

I'll correct myself...for conspiracy nutcases, no evidence will EVER change your mind... already, you set some arbitrary standard that somebody has to create some "collapsing model" of a 110 story building, built in the early seventies and have a fully fueled commercial airliner crash into in at a certain height and then see if it actually collapses... that is the only evidence that you claim would change your mind... but then you assert that you are surprised that because noone has taken the million dollar prize then this proves that the buildings did not collapse as reported by the government investigation... you are basing your whole conspiracy theory on the premise that if someone cannot, or has not, created a model, then a conspiracy demolition brought it down... of course, no government report would convince you because conspiracist dismiss anything from the government as biased... and anybody else that comes out with any evidence that exposes any conspiracy theories as wrong... then your response is that people like that must either be blackmailed into supporting the government's theory or they are in on it...

Hell, I still see nutcase conspiracist that still think the Oklahoma bombing was the work of the government... despite the fact that McVeigh admitted to it

Re:This sounds like a troll

[stinerman]

Of course on an absolute basis the rich got the majority of the cut; there is simply no other way to do it and still have a tax cut.

Really? Who says the tax cuts have to be across the board? A 5% tax cut in every bracket is indeed a tax cut that benefits the rich more than it does anyone else. Of course, the main problem in most tax discussions of this vein are that people like me look at overall benefits while people like you look at benefits by percentage. The intellectual laziness on both sides of the debate as well as the inaccuracy of the English language is how flamewars start. Example:

Family A paid $100 in taxes last year. After a tax cut, they now pay $0. That is a 100% reduction in their taxes.
Family B paid $100,000 in taxes last year. After a tax cut they now pay $75,000. That is a 25% reduction in their taxes.

I (and others on my side) look at that and say the rich benefited much more than the poor because we see that the poor family only got $100 of relief and the rich got $25,000 of relief. I suspect you would argue the other side.

There is no reason why we couldn't just cut the tax rates of particular tax brackets rather than across the board. I think that a reasonable person could call a tax liability reduction of only the poorest 50% of Americans a tax cut. Now, I'll agree with your position that an across the board tax cut necessarily benefits the rich by definition. I think that you must concede that not every tax cut is by definition a tax cut for the rich.

Re:This sounds like a troll

[LaughingCoder]

I appreciate your civil response. It is the exception rather than the rule in these parts. Yes, we can agree completely. Invariably, one side or the other of a debate will use percentages to bolster their argument. As an aside, it is my experience that most people don't think in percentages (which is why things like stock splits have an affect on the stock price), but I find them to be a very useful normalizer. Anyhow, recall that one of my central points is that the lion's share of the taxes are paid by the "rich" (insert your own favorite definition of what that means). This is not debatable, it is fact. So, in order to have any kind of meaningful tax cut (i.e. one that has substantive impact on the federal budget) it follows that one MUST cut taxes to the rich, since that is where most of the money is coming from. So, in the end, while technically it is accurate to refer to them as "taxcuts for the rich", there is really simply no other way to do an *effective* taxcut. In reality, Bush's cuts are called "for the rich" purely to divide and polarize (accusations that are customarily hurled at the conservatives), and it bothers me because it doesn't advance discussion, it (as you correctly point out, and as this thread proves), incites arguments. On that I assume we can agree?

Re:This sounds like a troll

[stinerman]

In reality, Bush's cuts are called "for the rich" purely to divide and polarize

Certainly. They are a roundabout way of making an appeal to emotion. In of themselves they aren't, but the choosing of words is such that they are an appeal to emotion.

In fact, I believe most political discourse these days is based on appeals to emotion, fear, and consequences of a belief. Equivocation is a big one in there as well (hence my previous allusion to intellectual laziness). It is a shame that people can't debate an issue without relying on semantics and faulty logic to advance their position.

Re:This sounds like a troll

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure, but there's only two ways to cut federal spending that will cover the decrease in tax income. The first is to cut military spending, and I doubt we'll see *that* any time soon. The second is to cut assistance programs designed to *help* those working poor. The worst part is that during this administration, we've had tax cuts *and* an increase in military spending, accompanied by a pretty drastic cut in assistance spending, so those working poor get hit much, much, harder.

A simple example using small numbers:
Working poor: earns 10,000 used to pay 100 in taxes and get 200 in assistance.
Rich guy: earns 100,000, used to pay 40,000 in taxes and get 0 in assistance.
Rich guy is paying 99.75% of taxes. That sounds bad, but rich guy still earns 6x working poor after taxes.

The tax cut comes through:
Working poor: earns 10,000 pays 0 in taxes and gets 200 in assistance. Net gain 100 or 1%.
Rich guy: earns 100,000, pays 30,000 in taxes and gets 0 in assistance. Net gain 10,000 or 10%.
Rich guy is paying 100% of taxes. That sounds worse, but rich guy now earns 7x working poor after taxes. He's 10% better off, despite paying a higher percentage of the taxes.

Assistance spending gets cut:
Working poor: earns 10,000 pays 0 in taxes and gets 0 in assistance. Net loss 100 or 1%.
Rich guy: earns 100,000 pays 30,000 in taxes and gets 0 in assistance. Net gain 10,000 or 10%.
Rich guy is paying 100% of taxes still. He's keeping 7x what working poor earns, and is 10% better off than before, while working poor is 1% worse off than before.

And *that* is why they call them 'tax cuts for the rich'. It's not because *only* the rich get the tax cut, it's because the rich disproportionately see the *benefit* of the tax cut, compared to the people who need it the most.

Re:This sounds like a troll

[LaughingCoder]

I think that you must concede that not every tax cut is by definition a tax cut for the rich.

Sorry, I neglected to address this question. On the surface your argument is true - obviously it IS possible to only provide a tax cut to the "lower brackets". Of course we must both agree to not call an "earned income credit" or other form of largesse from the government to people who don't pay any taxes a tax cut. But once we have agreed to that groundrule, I think you are still missing a key aspect of my argument. While it's possible to give a tax cut to the lower brackets, that cut would be so small in absolute dollars with respect to the total federal revenues as to be totally ineffectual. In my mind the purpose of the tax cut would be either a) to shrink government and/or b) to stimulate the economy. Since the lower income echelons pay a small *absolute* number of tax dollars, giving them a cut accomplishes neither. So, when I keep saying "a taxcut is by definition for the rich", I should probably be qualifying that by saying that "any taxcut that can accomplish its goals must by definition be a cut for the rich". Otherwise it is merely a nice gesture that has no chance of actually doing anything substantive (if you accept the stated purpose of the cuts as I described above).

Re:This sounds like a troll

[lawpoop]

No, I don't think that the civil war fits either of my criteria.

The utter destruction of cities and massive *civilian* casualties of WWI and WWII are nothing compared to the military casualties of the American civil war. The American civil war were soldiers shooting at soldiers with hand-loaded rifles. There were gatling guns and canons, but they were used against armies, not cities and civilians. WWI and II were fought with tanks, planes, bombs, and also nuclear and chemical weapons. Sure, Sherman marches to the sea and burned down one city, Atlanta, but the torching of wooden buildings is quite different from thousands of firebombs falling randomly out of the sky, destroying entire cities and killing thousands of civilians in a matter hours.

When I say 'somebody else', I mean another culture, another language, another legal system that has no right in anyone's mind to claim that they are the legal ruling authority.

In the American civil war, there were people in both the North and the South that felt that the South had the legal right, under the constitution, to break away from the nation. There were also those in both the North and South who felt that the South didn't have a right to break away. It was an internal dispute, and reasonable people were in dispute about what the constitution meant, and what really was the legal right of states. There's no way you can argue the North was a foriegn power, any more than Cleveland and Cincinnati are foreign to each other.

Compare that with Hitler's invasion of Poland and France -- I doubt there were many in Poland or France who felt that Germany had rightly reclaimed their historical 'lebensraum', and deserved to rule their countries. They were another people, speaking another language, with a different culture, legal system, etc.

Regardless of how people felt about succession, there were still almost 100 years of shared history as a single country with a single, unified government and legal system. There was also a broadly shared culture and a common language. Yes, there were differences between the north and south, and also between cities, but it's nothing like in Europe were traveling forty minutes by train brings you to another country with another language, another government, another history, another cuisine, etc.

As far as memories are concerned, nobody alive today can remember the civil war. They weren't alive then. If you read a book, hear a re-telling, or watch a movie or documentary, you are imagining what it was like back then, not remembering. They know the history, but they are not remembering it. By contrast, there are still lots of people alive today -- although they are elderly, they lived through and thus can remember WWI and WWII. Their fathers fought in WWI and they hid in bomb shelters with their mother and siblings, and they went off to fight in WWII.

Re:This sounds like a troll

[LaughingCoder]

accompanied by a pretty drastic cut in assistance spending

Got a reference for this? Seems to me things like the new drug program constitutes a significant increase in assistance spending. Did the aggregate really go down? Or did it just shift around, but on the aggregate go up?

Opposition makes for Good Government

[Original Replica]

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

Re:Opposition makes for Good Government

[Anonymous Coward]

This information is not very useful unless you give timelines/statistics on when the government was unified. If the government is unified 99% of the time (which it isn't), then is it really telling of anything that certain events only seem to happen when the government is unified?

Re:Opposition makes for Good Government

[volkris]

But that doesn't address the heart of the matter: should we have joined these conflicts? If the wars were right then we shouldn't HAVE such a constraint, as they would be a negative drag on our rightful participation in war.

The quote presupposes that all war is bad.

Re:Opposition makes for Good Government

[Alegery]

The current war in Iraq, initiated by a Republican president and backed by a Republican Congress, is consistent with this pattern.

The Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq was passed by a Democratic Senate in Oct. 2002. Maybe a more accurate version of the theory would be "When the opposition party is weak" rather than as when there is unified government.

One cloaked swipe of a pen?

[Sloppy]

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.

Re:One cloaked swipe of a pen?

[benicillin]

this should be +5 absolutely on point.. if there was such a category..

Re:One cloaked swipe of a pen?

[Xeth]

Again, did you look at the bill? It's hundreds of pages of obtuse prose and context-free alterations to random pieces of Federal Code. Far more likely, somebody tacked this in, and maybe a few congressional aides gave their bosses a vague gist of "Government can intervene in disasters".

Of course, the president probably didn't read it all either...

Re:One cloaked swipe of a pen?

[nurb432]

shhhhh you are sounding informed and intellegent, if you keep that up you might derail some of the bush bashing going on...

( except that i dont believe that ' we the people ' can influence anything with our vote at this point )

Re:One cloaked swipe of a pen?

[boarsai]

If the guy could read, maybe it would never have happened.

Re:One cloaked swipe of a pen?

[tropicdog]

All the way down here near the bottom of the comments. Someone finally hit the nail squarely on the head. Thanks for you insightful comment.

Re:One cloaked swipe of a pen?

[sillybilly]

Bush is a puppet, like the rest of the politicians, because he dances according to how da man whistles the tune, because da man got the money. All politicians are slaves to money because that's what's needed to run campaigns and get elected, money is their string the puppetmaster pulls and controls. What's new - money talks, dog barks, caravan walks, politicians are crooked and corrupt, and the Earth takes trips around the Sun - it's just how things are.

Re:One cloaked swipe of a pen?

[Guppy06]

"Are you going to say "no, stop doing this"? Or are you going to say "woohoo! Keep up the good work, government"?"

The voters, as always, will say "We're not really happy with what you're doing, but I still want more pork so I'll vote for you again."

Federal vs. State forces

[MarkusQ]

This probably has more to do with the hurricanes and winter storms. During Katrina, the Feds were criticised for *not* bringing in the defence force to render aid.

The critics I heard were more aimed at the lack of national guard units, who are supposed to deal with this sort of thing, but could not because they were tied up in Iraq.

I don't think anybody was seriously saying "we need to have the Army, Navy, and Air Force ready and able to mobilize inside the US so that the National Guard can stay focused on invading foreign countries."

--MarkusQ

Re:Federal vs. State forces

[civilizedINTENSITY]

And the NM national guard units, who couldn't legally respond because crossing a state line required Bush's OK, which was withheld for a week.

Re:Federal vs. State forces

[Chris Burke]

And the NM national guard units, who couldn't legally respond because crossing a state line required Bush's OK, which was withheld for a week.

NM?! The New Mexico NG would have to cross the entire state of Texas to get there. Why would the NM guard even be needed when TX is so much closer? Where were they?

Oh, right.

Re:If you didn't vote Libertarian, you ASKED FOR T

[Anonymous Coward]

Slashdot users really need to adopt some of 4chan's vernacular vocabulary so they know what a "copypasta" is when they see one.

um, try reading the bill

[Anonymous Coward]

Have you guys read the relevant section of the bill at all? It's actually rather tightly defined as far as federal law goes, and far more so than the article implies. It mostly focuses on disaster situations, with also a section for a situation that "opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States."

The section below is a bit on the Secretary of Defense being authorized to provide supplies to those citizens caught up in such a situation. Overall, this bill reads like a response to Katrina, not the "broad-sweeping martial law" bill you guys seem to think it is.

-------

Sec. 333. Major public emergencies; interference with State and Federal law

`(a) Use of Armed Forces in Major Public Emergencies- (1) The President may employ the armed forces, including the National Guard in Federal service, to--

`(A) 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--

`(i) domestic violence has occurred to such an extent that the constituted authorities of the State or possession are incapable of maintaining public order; and

`(ii) such violence results in a condition described in paragraph (2); or

`(B) suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy if such insurrection, violation, combination, or conspiracy results in a condition described in paragraph (2).

`(2) A condition described in this paragraph is a condition that--

`(A) so hinders the execution of the laws of a State or possession, as applicable, and of the United States within that State or possession, that any part or class of its people is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law, and the constituted authorities of that State or possession are unable, fail, or refuse to protect that right, privilege, or immunity, or to give that protection; or

`(B) opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws.

`(3) In any situation covered by paragraph (1)(B), the State shall be considered to have denied the equal protection of the laws secured by the Constitution.

`(b) Notice to Congress- The President shall notify Congress of the determination to exercise the authority in subsection (a)(1)(A) as soon as practicable after the determination and every 14 days thereafter during the duration of the exercise of that authority.'.

(2) PROCLAMATION TO DISPERSE- Section 334 of such title is amended by inserting `or those obstructing the enforcement of the laws' after `insurgents'.

(3) HEADING AMENDMENT- The heading of chapter 15 of such title is amended to read as follows:

CHAPTER 15--ENFORCEMENT OF THE LAWS TO RESTORE PUBLIC ORDER'.

(4) CLERICAL AMENDME

Re:um, try reading the bill

[Anonymous Coward]

`(A) 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

Re:um, try reading the bill

[Anonymous Coward]

`(B) suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy if such insurrection, violation, combination, or conspiracy results in a condition described in paragraph (2).

It's the conspiracy that I'm worried about. How difficult is it to send in the troops, kill a couple of people, and then accuse the dead people of conspiracy.

Re:um, try reading the bill

[Anonymous Coward]

You're exactly right (too bad we're both AC).

If you read it, it basically says "If something really (really) bad happens and the normal government procedures can't deal with it, then the Pres. can ask the Sec. of Defense to have armed forces resources used to bring necessary aid, if those forces aren't needed for something else at the moment."

Before, I think the President could only mobilize the national guard, now he/she can call on all of the Armed Forces. It's a response to Katrina, really. The only part that's sorta 'what?' to me is where it says how long the President has to report this to Congress. I think it says something like "as soon as practical". I'd prefer that details are given for more immediacy or specificity were given there. Send someone to contact Congress immediately, and if it's truly, super-emergency-style _not practical_, then the President won't be penalized after the fact.

Re:um, try reading the bill

[Anonymous Coward]

Before I think, the President could only mobilize the national guard, now he/she can call on all of the Armed Forces. It's a response to Katrina, really...

Before you think any more... I do wish you would acquaint yourself with States rights.

Anyway;

Prior to this the Federal Government could not call out the Military to suppress internal insurrection. Now they can.

Katrina you say? Why not simply fix the FEMA failure?

AND ... Why in heavens name rebuild New Orleans as it was. A coastal town mostly built out below sea level? I mean seriously! The French Quarter ... most famous part of N.O. and all of the original town was built on high ground and came through Katrina largely unscathed. Out ancestors knew better than that!

So now we can call in the Marines to put down the looters? If FEMA wasn't an unmitigated disaster of magnitude equal if not greater than hurricane Katrina we wouldn't have had the conditions that were faced to begin with. The old civil defense initiatives worked better than FEMA and those were local. Having been disbanded in favor of Federal FEMA bureaucracy, Fed Gov writ large on a grand scale, the suffering would have been certainly no worse.

That said, I could easily be persuaded to dismantle FEMA entirely. That Fed Gov writ large cannot function in its bloated enormity beyond feeding itself primarily. That when faced with the job it was tasked with at inception it was and is, doomed to failure. This is generally true of Fed Gov, that the bigger it gets, the more of a worthless cluster fuck it becomes.

NASA would be another example. Pushing the frontiers of questionable space access initiatives, over budget, behind schedule and increasingly more than a little bit.

20/20 hindsight tells us that we could have done no worse if FEMA just stayed home in the aftermath of Katrina.

The problem we all face is in our expectations that Fed Gov will actually perform as advertised and not acting surprised when it doesn't. Take Social Security for example. It is worse to expect to have safety nets such as SS or FEMA and have them fail than it is to have no such expectations to begin with. New Orleans was unprepared because they thought FEMA and the rest of Fed Gov had the action plan. What stood in evidence after the fact is that FEMA does what FEMA does best. Spend Billions on itself for no tangible result beyond implementing their own rendition of another Fed Gov interdepartmental full employment initiative.

What this latest bill accomplishes at a minimum, is using out of state troops to put down localized insurrection due to Fed Gov arrogance and incompetence if your using the FEMA/Katrina incident as an example but I see it as nothing more than an opportunistic Fed Gov power grab that will eventually result in the streets of America looking like Baghdad's Sadr City with Washington DC as the Green Zone.

Everybody's favorite fantasy aside, the American populace is less resilient than Iraq's and will die faster when faced with similar challenges. The only bright spot in that situation is realizing the leadership who sold us down this river, when America reverts to the Medieval in Biblical proportions, will ultimately be found dying much slower.

So what will save us from the apocalypse? The American people in their majority being a lot less naive then what you have demonstrated here today for one thing. Throughout this Bush administration we have seen unchecked incompetence demonstrated repeatedly. Intention remains a curious point of contention but ultimately we have to ask if that even matters given the results. The Republic is in peril.

rewatch the movie "The Siege"

[Original Replica]

The terrorist have won. America is gone.

Re:rewatch the movie "The Siege"

[Anonymous Cowled]

If I had mod points - you'd be getting modded "+1 Insightful"

Re:rewatch the movie "The Siege"

[Anonymous Coward]

The terrorist have won. America is gone.

No, it's the Americans who have lost. Terrorists don't need to win for you to lose. Politicians, however, will always win.

Re:What Happened to News For Nerds??!!

[rthille]

To hear the writer of the article on the cover of Rolling Stone (don't remember his name) tell it, even voting 80% of congress out of office won't help, because the congressional process is broken. No longer are the parties willing to work together, now whoever is in power wields it like a club and freshmen coming in think it's odd that an oldtimer would talk to someone across the isle.

I'm not sure what we can do to fix it, but I think that Debt of Honor had the right idea...

california?

[jnf]

I wonder how this will be used (if at all), take for instance a state like California, which has routinely violated federal law by passing state laws for medicinal marijuana/etc; furthermore with things like that gathering momentum in other states (colorado? nevada? etc) it could seem in DC that certain aspects of their official line are under official attack. I wonder if it will get used for things like that, or if it would be used only in response to a natural disaster/terrorist attack/'act of god'.

Re:california?

[Anonymous Coward]

take for instance a state like California, which has routinely violated federal law by passing state laws for medicinal marijuana/etc

The only federal law that governs what laws a state may or may not pass, is the constitution. There isn't anything in the constitution that outlaws what California did. California did not violate any laws.

Inflammatory and Misleading

[crucini]

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

[paitre]

It might be one of the least stealthy processes on the planet, but it's horribly broken in that, due to the volume (both in number and number of lines) of bills passed each year, that it is impossible for all legislators to actually read the legislation brought before them.

Secondly : Bush is abnormal in that he has singularly refused to veto ANYTHING (ok, with ONE exception). Look at the numbers :
Clinton issued 37 in two terms.
GHWB issued 44 in ONE term.
Reagan issued 78 in his two terms.

That's the last 26 years worth of presidents. GWB has issued -one- veto on 1 and a half terms. The last time a president issued so few vetoes was Garfield, and he was assassinated 8 months into his term (ok - he was actually shot about 6 months into the term, and died 2ish months later). Garfield was President in 1881, so it's been 125 years.

Prior to Garfield, Taylor and Fillmore BOTH failed to issue a single veto. Both, it should be noted, held the office within a decade of the Civil War, so there was an intense amount of appeasement being made towards both Southern and Northern interests. It comes as no surprise. (Note: Taylor died from a food-borne illness in 1850 allowing Fillmore to assume the office).

In general, vetoes were uncommon prior to 1860 (Abraham Lincoln's election to the Presidency). The Congress had a tendency to not over govern, and to actually apply their common sense. Something which has been increasingly uncommon since 1890 (Garfield vetoed 414 bills in his single term of office, FDR 616 in his 4 terms, and Truman followed FDR up with 250 - these three presidents combing for just under half of all vetoes issued, ever).

What we -need- is a president willing to follow all three's example and force Congress to pass legislation that is actually -necessary-, and not what is politically expedient. A President that vetoed entire bills because of a single Rider added would quite a powerful force to be reckoned with. Shutting down the Federal Government for a year or two would be interesting, to say the least :D

Re:Inflammatory and Misleading

[TubeSteak]

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.

Re:Inflammatory and Misleading

[Richard Allen]

Bush is accused with not working with the Dems and of being partisan - but when he refuses to veto the bills that make it to his desk, now he's not divisive and partisan enough.

Come on guys. No matter what he does you're going to find fault.

Re:Inflammatory and Misleading

[staticdaze]

Mod parent up. If anyone is angry about this bill, you should be going after the vast majority of the house that passed it. Here is a link to the major congressional actions (i.e. votes) on the issue. For those too lazy to click the link:

05/11/06 - Passed the house 396-31

09/29/06 - Conference report filed and voted on; passed 398-23

Re:Inflammatory and Misleading

[Anonymous Coward]

The parent post was brought to you by Capitol Hill, a Haliburton Subsidary.

Re:Inflammatory and Misleading

[petrus4]

You're assuming that the executive branch ever cares about the interests of anyone but itself; it doesn't.

The executive branch only *exists* purely as a concession to the reality of dark side of human nature...the Fuhrerprinzip. The principle existed for aeons before Hitler...he was merely the first to so specifically and consciously name it. The cry of, "We want our Fuhrer!" has echoed throughout human history...despite the hunger for a Fuhrer being so destructive, it will exist long after Bush has gone, regardless of the enormity of the crimes that he ultimately commits.

People need a Fuhrer because only through a Fuhrer can they abdicate self-responsibility...which above all else, they have an endless, insatiable need to do.

Re:Inflammatory and Misleading

[Rob the Bold]

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 . . . So why does this writeup make it sound like Bush magically created this law himself?

Remember the USA PATRIOT (sic) Act? Written by the White House, rubber stamped by Congress without anyone reading it? Back on the president's desk for a signature that's only a formality. It was only a few years ago.

Re:Inflammatory and Misleading

[MoneyT]

And when that happens, every single congressman who voted yes should be fired on the spot. "Didn't have a chance to read it" is not an excuse, it's a cop out. If they didn't read it, they should have voted no, because otherwise they can not truthfuly say the law was in the best interests of americans. Politicians should be accountable for every single line in every bill they pass. If they can't read them all or understand them all, then they need to make the bills shorter and clearer.

Re:Inflammatory and Misleading

[toddestan]

Bush is accused with not working with the Dems and of being partisan - but when he refuses to veto the bills that make it to his desk, now he's not divisive and partisan enough.

Come on guys. No matter what he does you're going to find fault.

There is no contradiction here. Bush has had both a Republican House and Senate for nearly the last 6 years. That easily explains how he can be both hostile to the Democrats and still be able to sign nearly every single Bill that has crossed his desk.

Re:Inflammatory and Misleading

[w3woody]

Sure, it's supposed to be transparent, but the rules don't actually enforce it.

Here, let me help: Thomas, Library of Congress.

Of course the biggest problem with being able to search every friggin' bill that Congress is working on is that our government is freakin' huge. On the other hand, you can do a text search on phrases such as "security", "Homeland Security" or "holiday"...

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

Then write your congress critter demanding (a) the line-item veto so that omnibus bills can have sections vetoed that really belong in a separate bill, and (b) that the process of passing laws be reformed so as not to pull stunts like this in the future.

You know, congress critters do listen--and the process can be monitored. I can't help it if the process is complex and obscure--and requires effort rather than having select items spoonfed to us because we're too damned lazy to get involved.

Re:Inflammatory and Misleading

[ralphdaugherty]

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?

      This was rated Insightful. The Republicans magically created this in the middle of the night. They have one of the most stealthy processes on the planet when it comes to sneaking provisions into law. In fact, this was almost certainly written up by the White House and ordered to be inserted, and only a few staffers and a leader or two were involved. Even Republucans from the South would have filibusted this had they known. That would have been insightful.

  rd

Re:Inflammatory and Misleading

[AaronLawrence]

Provisions frequently get inserted at the last minute

So it seems. I'm not clear why this is allowed. How can it possibly result in good laws? Isn't it basically a free pass for whatever junk someone feels like pushing?

Surely once you take legislation to congress (or wherever) it should be fixed in detail, and then you debate that, and if it's no good, you send it back with notes. Don't just have one guy change it on the fly to whatever he feels like and then everyone vote.

It seems ridiculous, an end run around the otherwise well setup US government rules.

Re:Inflammatory and Misleading

[ralphdaugherty]

09/29/06 - Conference report filed and voted on; passed 398-23

      Are you sure this wasn't sneaked in during conference? That's where Republicans like to do a lot of their dirty tricks.

  rd

Re:Inflammatory and Misleading

[forgotten_my_nick]

> It's one of the least stealthy processes on the planet.

Actually it isn't. There are lots of ways pass laws without your senators knowing about it. Some examples.

1. Tack said law to as a rider to a bill that would get political suicide if you denied the bill.

2. Make the bill excessively long and boring or extremly hard to read (Torture bill amendment was a pain to read).

3. release the bill at stupid times to be ruled on so when least expected to get contested.

4. release 4 or 5 similar bills at different times with the same stuff.

These have been obvious tactics before. You are right though in that it takes more then one person to get the bill through, but with recent mess of suspension of haebus corpus you have to wonder wtf is going on with this administration.

Re:Inflammatory and Misleading

[Legion303]

"1. Tack said law to as a rider to a bill that would get political suicide if you denied the bill."

Although this is a common tactic, it doesn't address your point of "[congress members] not knowing about it."

"2. Make the bill excessively long and boring or extremly hard to read (Torture bill amendment was a pain to read)."

Another common tactic--but regardless of whether I consider Bush a drooling fuckwit, I still expect my elected representatives to do their jobs, no matter how boring those pesky bills might be to read.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by point 3.

"4. release 4 or 5 similar bills at different times with the same stuff."

I also expect my elected representatives to know what they've already voted on, and debate it on the floor as such ("fellow [senators|congressmen], I urge you to reject this bill on the grounds that we already voted on it in the form of $BILL").

Re:Inflammatory and Misleading

[forgotten_my_nick]

In regards to point 3 as I recall it the Patriot act was released was released to the senators at some silly time before it was to be ruled on making it almost impossible to read it.

Re:Inflammatory and Misleading

[Cederic]

The UK allows amendments that can add or remove specific items in a law. These are voted on separately prior to the main vote.

This is surprisingly effective at preventing inappropriate riders on unrelated laws.

Doesn't stop the Government of the day passing a lot of shitty laws of course, but at least the Lords do their bit to try and keep things sane.

Re:Inflammatory and Misleading

[SETIGuy]

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

The current congress has elevated this to a new level: Adding provisions after the last minute.

It used to be that after a bill was passed, there would be a reconcilliation committee which would reconcile differences between the version passed by the house and the versions passed by the senate. These committies used to represent the party makeup of the houses. Now they are entirely made up of members of tha majority party. They used to only modify existing provisions in the bills. Now they add new provisions that were not in the legislation that was voted upon.

Re:Inflammatory and Misleading

[cdwiegand]

Two words: Executive Order. Requires no congressional approval. Enables dictators without requiring any pesky oversight!

Honestly, close to his last day in office, our King could arrange for a major disaster in, say, LA or Chicago. Declare martial law, write an EO stating that during national disasters the president continues to be president (sorry, king) until the disaster is declared over. And then "forgets" to end the disaster. There is NOTHING that could prevent this - it's all legal. Do I think it would work for long? Well... maybe. People these days are such sheep, it's scary how they'll just do what they're told.

Re:Inflammatory and Misleading

[Richard Allen]

Flamebait!

Wow, just because you disagree doesn't make this a flame. So, if I agreed that Bush was bad, then I would get an 'Informative'?? Wow, this place has lost it.

Re:Inflammatory and Misleading

[Richard Allen]

If you put what I said into the context of the discussion, it IS a contradiction. The representatives are elected by the people. It is NOT his job to assume the people do not like their representatives.

Re:Inflammatory and Misleading

[toddestan]

So, in your world, using the power of veto, is by definition, partisan?

Re:Inflammatory and Misleading

[Richard Allen]

If you didn't read my parent post, you might think that. Are you familiar with the word "context"?

The point I have been making is that no matter what he does, he will be berated for it. Oh, by the way, when he DID use the veto, he was called partisan for it. He was called "too stern" and said to only see things in "black and white". Please tell me I'm making all this up.

He does what he is elected to do.

Re:What Happened to News For Nerds??!!

[frank_adrian314159]

This isn't about cheering on a party or hoping the Democrats go to the World Series.

No, it's about preserving our national values and our constitution, something I think is a bit more important and would hope that even "Nerds" have a bit of an interest in.

Besides, if you don't like the political artcles, you can always choose not to read them, unless you're too stupid to find the preference page and click a checkbox.

Re:If you didn't vote Libertarian, you ASKED FOR T

[Jane Q. Public]

I am a Libertarian, for the simple reason that the Libertarian Party platform is the closest to my own personal principles. However, they do not mesh exactly, and Libertarians in some ways go too far, just as do the Democrats and Republicans. For example, some Libertarians would lessen or remove Antitrust laws, despite the evidence we have had in recent years that they are more necessary than ever. Ideals are wonderful... they have driven all the good changes in the world. But when your ideals clash with reality, perhaps they need to be rethought.

conspiracy theory #2008?

[MollyB]

I heard from Lou Dobbs on CNN that the Big Guys (corporations, lobbyists, think-tanks, etc.) are going to spring on us a "United States of North America" with Mexico, Canada, and the US comprising an economic entity to rival the European Union. All this without consulting the public or the Congress.

Perhaps this legislation, or at least the motive for it, is the probable insurrection of the American (and I hope) Canadian citizenry.

Further, I predict "W" will find a way to head up this new entity, thereby making the 2008 elections moot.

I can't believe I'm writing this; God, as a lapsed atheist, Please let me be wrong...

Re:conspiracy theory #2008?

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, a United States of North America would solve most of the problems that free trade is giving us, because under the sort of agreement existing in europe, the minimum wage would extend through the whole system, and so Mexican labor wouldn't suddenly cease to be cheaper than American labor.

Not that this will ever, ever happen.

ZAP! you immediately make me think of

[way2trivial]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6057734.stm the fact that your suggestion would prove Dr. Curry right...

In total fairness,

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

The Coast guard was there right away and was flying rescue helicopters before the winds died down. Apparently they didn't wait for orders...

Yea just like child porn

[unity100]

Just like child porn is used to justify many moves that are done to be able to monitor people's correspondence over the net or for censoring attempts.

Re:Yea just like child porn

[ivoras]

Since we're exploring the space of possibilities of parranoia here, who's to say the slow reaction to Katrina wasn't deliberate, so this law could be passed later (i.e. now)?

It's a bit strange - Bush will not be a president for much longer (unless he does something really radical), so could it be he actually means well? If not, THEN it becomes scary, for either he's planning something stupid, or he's setting the stage for somebody else...

Re:Yea just like child porn

[Anonymous Coward]

Bush will not be a president for much longer (unless he does something really radical), so could it be he actually means well?

The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Who cares if he means well, he's making it easier for people down the road. The 3rd Reich was established firmly on Weimar Constitutional Emergency Edicts passed 15 years earlier (to keep the peace).

Re:Yea just like child porn

[unity100]

Actually what i think is that both of what you say below are very probable possibilities.

Since we're exploring the space of possibilities of parranoia here, who's to say the slow reaction to Katrina wasn't deliberate, so this law could be passed later (i.e. now)?

It's a bit strange - Bush will not be a president for much longer (unless he does something really radical), so could it be he actually means well? If not, THEN it becomes scary, for either he's planning something stupid, or he's setting the stage for somebody else...

In COBN3T AM3RNKA

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

In Soviet America, Martial Law is Enabling Bush!

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

Re:In COBN3T AM3RNKA

[Anonymous Coward]

Never before has this joke been so apt.

Re:In COBN3T AM3RNKA

[Anonymous Coward]

or stupid

Re:In COBN3T AM3RNKA

[Anonymous Coward]

Sovizt Amzrika? What the hell is that?

Re:In COBN3T AM3RNKA

[faolan_devyn_aodfin]

You could almost say it is they're enabler. By the way, when I saw this I almost choked on my coffee. I cannot believe the arrogance of our government and the apathy of our own people. I just wish I could up to a paper on tomorrow's door step that reads: "BUSH INCARCERATED!" or "President Bush Assassinated"

Re:In COBN3T AM3RNKA

[Andrew Aguecheek]

You write that now, but you'll be laughing out of the other side of your face when he is assassinated and you're being asked questions in that... uh... cuban holiday camp...

Re:In COBN3T AM3RNKA

[OmnipotentEntity]

And have Cheney be president? Screw that!

Re:In COBN3T AM3RNKA

[Anonymous Coward]

The US Enabling Act is coming....
They seem to like the Nazi's so here's their version...

The Enabling Act (Ermächtigungsgesetz in German) was passed by Germany's parliament (the Reichstag) on March 23, 1933. It was the second major step after the Reichstag Fire Decree through which the Nazis obtained dictatorial powers using largely legal means. The Act enabled Chancellor Adolf Hitler and his cabinet to enact laws without the participation of the Reichstag.

The formal name of the Enabling Act was Gesetz zur Behebung der Not von Volk und Reich ("Law to Remedy the Distress of the People and the Reich").

Contents [hide]
1 Enabling Act text
1.1 Notes
2 Passage of the Enabling Act
3 Consequences
4 See also
5 References

[edit] Enabling Act text
As with most of the laws passed in the process of Gleichschaltung, the Enabling Act is quite short, considering its consequences. It is therefore reproduced in full in German and English:

Gesetz zur Behebung der Not von Volk und Reich Law to Remedy the Distress of the People and the Empire
Der Reichstag hat das folgende Gesetz beschlossen, das mit Zustimmung des Reichsrats hiermit verkündet wird, nachdem festgestellt ist, daß die Erfordernisse verfassungsändernder Gesetzgebung erfüllt sind: The Reichstag has enacted the following law, which is hereby proclaimed with the assent of the Reichsrat, it having been established that the requirements for a constitutional amendment have been fulfilled:
Artikel 1 Article 1
Reichsgesetze können außer in dem in der Reichsverfassung vorgesehenen Verfahren auch durch die Reichsregierung beschlossen werden. Dies gilt auch für die in den Artikeln 85 Abs. 2 und 87 der Reichsverfassung bezeichneten Gesetze. In addition to the procedure prescribed by the constitution, laws of the Reich may also be enacted by the government of the Reich. This includes the laws referred to by Articles 85 Paragraph 2 and Article 87 of the constitution.[1]
Artikel 2 Article 2
Die von der Reichsregierung beschlossenen Reichsgesetze können von der Reichsverfassung abweichen, soweit sie nicht die Einrichtung des Reichstags und des Reichsrats als solche zum Gegenstand haben. Die Rechte des Reichspräsidenten bleiben unberührt. Laws enacted by the government of the Reich may deviate from the constitution as long as they do not affect the institutions of the Reichstag and the Reichsrat. The rights of the President remain undisturbed.
Artikel 3 Article 3
Die von der Reichsregierung beschlossenen Reichsgesetze werden vom Reichskanzler ausgefertigt und im Reichsgesetzblatt verkündet. Sie treten, soweit sie nichts anderes bestimmen, mit dem auf die Verkündung folgenden Tage in Kraft. Die Artikel 68 bis 77 der Reichsverfassung finden auf die von der Reichsregierung beschlossenen Gesetze keine Anwendung. Laws enacted by the Reich government shall be issued by the Chancellor and announced in the Reich Gazette. They shall take effect on the day following the announcement, unless they prescribe a different date. Articles 68 to 77 of the Constitution do not apply to laws enacted by the Reich government.[2]
Artikel 4 Article 4
Verträge des Reiches mit fremden Staaten, die sich auf Gegenstände der Reichsgesetzgebung beziehen, bedürfen für die Dauer der Geltung dieser Gesetze nicht der Zustimmung der an der Gesetzgebung beteiligten Körperschaften. Die Reichsregierung erläßt die zur Durchführung dieser Verträge erforderlichen Vorschriften. Treaties of the Reich with foreign states which affect matters of Reich legislation shall not require the approval of the bodies of the legislature. The government of the Reich shall issue the regulations required for the execution of such treaties.
Artikel 5 Article 5
Dieses Gesetz tritt mit dem Tage seiner Verkündung in Kraft. Es tritt mit dem 1. April 1937 außer Kraft, es tritt ferner außer Kraft, wenn die gegenwärtige Reichsregierung durc

Re:In COBN3T AM3RNKA

[Anonymous Coward]

Bush's signing statements shows he could care less what Congress does, he will do what he wants regardless. Laws don't apply to them since they make them up as they need them. I guess they don't need an Enabling Act like the Germans did since we have shown them it's ok aqnd acceptable to make up your own laws. Why bother with even phony or joke elections, if we don't need Congress? Why are we still paying them? Why do we pay Bush or any of the administration? They don't work for us and we have any Constitution (Bush says it's a Goddam piece of paper) .
WOW I guess that means we don't have the IRS or have to pay income taxes either...they've done away with most of the other rights already...

Re:In COBN3T AM3RNKA

[Profane MuthaFucka]

That's the country just south of Soviet Canuckistan, and just north of Mexo-Soviet Chalupastan. Soviet Amzrikastan.

Re:In COBN3T AM3RNKA

[Anonymous Coward]

Honestly, the worst way to make a point is to do what you just did. Stop it.

Re:In COBN3T AM3RNKA

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

Cheney: "The buckshot stops here..."

Re:In COBN3T AM3RNKA

[Frodrick]

In Soviet America, Martial Law is Enabling Bush!

That schtick is not nearly as funny as it was back when it was just a joke.

Re:In COBN3T AM3RNKA

[sumdumass]

LoL, I cannot stop laughing at everyones reaction to this. This one really tears me a new gut.

During Katrina and the inaction following Bush caught all kinds of hell. The noted reasons was because the federal government wasn't able to use troops, take control of the guard and use their resources or direct the help to were it needed to go without the governor asking him to do so. We also know that the asking didn't happen until after one of her press conferences were she was talking about the feds taking to long to get involved. But this was bush's fault and because the FEMA director was a lackey appointed by Bush he got a bad rap too. We even know that after federal law was satisfied and the governor asked for help, initial response was still delayed because the governor was arguing about not letting the feds have control of the guard so resources and efforts could be coordinated and not waisted by duplicating efforts.

Now, the law was changed so a Katrina Type Response would never happen again and the Evil Bush IS taking your freedoms away and out to rape your computers while rebooting your wife. (did we get that one straight)

I know Bush and his cronies are the root of all evil and should be deported back to their native hell they came from. But quite frankly, the people asked for this law to happen. Everyone blamed someone for something that was just as much everyone involved having some fault and was told it should never have happened and it should never happen again. Well, it doesn't look like it will. At least not for the same reasons.

Now I'm done with my chuckle of the day... You can go back to the conspiracy theories and talk about how we are getting what we asked for. In the process we can insert sinister plans and attempt to gain support for his opposition in the upcoming elections. After all, thats what this is really about. The senator who started this was one of the ones who determined what happened and proclaimed it never should happen again. In essence- he asked for it directly and now he is inserting the "We should all be scared enough to vote for me and my kind".

Re:In COBN3T AM3RNKA

[sumdumass]

A little paranoid? Maybe too much.

First, the articles starts by declaring it an amendment to their constitution and the requirements for doing so have been meet. We have a process for doing the same and not only would it take the majority of senators but two thirds of the states to agree. And if that happens, It probably should become law.

Next, article 1 is almost an "executive order" which presidents have used for some time now. Except with executive orders, congress can go back and remove it, nullify it or alter it.

Finally, I didn't see anything else that looked familiar or similar to anything going on today. Were is the connection you are trying to make beside being close to an election and attempting to vilify this administration? I mean this bill wasn't drafted and passed in one day. It took several months and our good friends the democrats seemingly didn't have much to say about it until now. It was signed into law over a week ago, and poof- nothing until a couple days before an election. What would have happened if there was an extra week to hear the whole story about it?

Yes, the whole story, Which is that "the people" including the democrats asked for this to happen. This provision is directly linked to the problems of getting help to the people during the Katrina mess. Yep, If anyone was actually listening to what caused it they would have found that not only was it all Bush's fault and nobody else's, what caused the delay in getting help from the feds was a little law limiting what the feds could do and how they could do it. You see the governor had to ask for the Fed's help and we know she let that slip until asked about it in a press conference then held up the entire situation by taking a day to consider whether or not to give the guard units to FEMA's control. And then when the finger was being pointed at anyone other then Bush, the response was "it never should have happened that way and never should happen again". Now it won't happen that way again. Are we happy about this?

Re:In COBN3T AM3RNKA

[sumdumass]

Bush says it's a Goddam piece of paper

Why is this even being repeated? None of the major news outlets even covered it, the original author of the story claims there is a problem with the credibility of the so called witnesses. Namely two of the three weren't even in the building at the time they claimed to have heard it and the third as far as we know refuses to admit on way or another if it happened now.

DOUG THOMPSON, who's site is unreachable for some reason says that if it wasn't for the NSA wiretaps, he would have pulled the story completly instead of just posting questions about the sources. Non of the major news outlets (and believe me, some of them would have orgams pinning this on Bush) have found the story creditible enough to reprint. They apparently don't even think it is creditable enough to reprint some one else's story claiming this story is right or wrong. In short, the major news outlets think it is crap to begin with. Oh yes, when did that unsubstantiated story break? Oh yea, october of last year- just before an election. Go figure

Bush has done so much to criticize him for. Lets stop making shit up and use the ammunition he provides.

Re:In COBN3T AM3RNKA

[grimwell]

Cheney is not already pulling the strings? And the GOP presidental ticket for 2008 is.... Quayle/Cheney.

Re:In COBN3T AM3RNKA

[DarkVader]

There was absolutely nothing prohibiting the national guard or any other military branch from going into New Orleans and providing search and rescue, help sandbagging, or any other non-law-enforcement aid.

The only thing these laws prevented is keeping a branch of the military, which has no business doing law enforcement since that's not their function and they're not trained for it, from playing cop.

As far as I'm concerned, any branch of the military has no business ever being put in a law enforcement role, no matter what the circumstances. Enabling it is helping to pave the road to dictatorship.

Re:In COBN3T AM3RNKA

[ryguy]

This was the first thought I had about this as well. Not only did Bush not have the power to send in the National Guard during Katrina, when they finally arrived people were shooting at them!!! Nothing says "we need martial law" like a bunch of idiots firing at the military and non-military workers trying to save you after a disaster.

I find it quite humorous that they only bothered to get a democrat to comment on the story. Just another example of the liberal (read: drive-by) media and how biased and one sided it is.

Democrats asked for this law and now they are angry that it is happening. (kinda like voting for the war just before voting against it?)

Re:In COBN3T AM3RNKA

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

What hump?

Re:In COBN3T AM3RNKA

[Anonymous Coward]

relief work != law enforcement

Having this law in the event of Katrina would have changed nothing.

Re:In COBN3T AM3RNKA

[sumdumass]

There was absolutely nothing prohibiting the national guard or any other military branch from going into New Orleans and providing search and rescue, help sandbagging, or any other non-law-enforcement aid.

There most certainly was. and still are unless the president declares an emergency or one of the other provisions of law kick in.

Unless specific laws were followed by the local authorities asking for and giving detailed explicit requests, the federal government wasn't legally able to help in any way. This is like murder, unless the murderer crosses state lines, happens on federal government owned lands or does something prescribed by current law, the federal government cannot inter vein and attempt to catch the killer or prosecute them Unless, the state fills out a request, files it with the proper offices and basically invites the feds in. This paperwork didn't happen in Katrina, all the troops, FEMA agents, support vehicles and what else were stationed and ready to deploy but Louisiana's governor didn't make the request.

The only thing these laws prevented is keeping a branch of the military, which has no business doing law enforcement since that's not their function and they're not trained for it, from playing cop.

Law enforcement isn't just going out and catching the bad guys.
It is evacuating people, directing traffic, assessing threats and acting under the law. For the military to do most of what was necessary, it would have assumed a law enforcement position. This is why it was necessary to have the local authorities to ask for intervention or help.

As far as I'm concerned, any branch of the military has no business ever being put in a law enforcement role, no matter what the circumstances. Enabling it is helping to pave the road to dictatorship.

It is obvious that you don't understand what a law enforcement role entails. But i would agree to the degree that you do know. Military shouldn't be the police looking for criminals. I see no problem with them being brought in at the request of the state if necessary.

But we had to complain about it being Bush's fault so he took the middle man out and can now bring them in without the state's consent. All because We don't understand what the definition of law enforcement is and want to blame Bush for everything. This gets even funnier.

Re:In COBN3T AM3RNKA

[TapeCutter]

Agreed: There is more to politics than meets the eye. I'm not from the US so don't know all the politics behind Katrina but....

Would it not be best to take politicians out of the picture as much as possible, say allow the national gaurd to call in the army? May be a bad example but what is needed is people who know how to manage a disaster having enough autonomy when one happens to respond in a sensible manner (most of these people work in NGO's such as the red cross). There is no need for martial law when the response is quick, effective and permenant. The long and convoluted chain of command catastrophically broke down with Katrina, martial law is also similarly prone to get bogged down by politics. Probably the worst outcome from Katrina would be another major disater, people would remeber Katrina was a screw-up and would be less likely to cooperate with relief workers.

A slashdot style analogy: Does the fire brigade have get the mayor's permission before attending a fire?

Re:In COBN3T AM3RNKA

[Anonymous Coward]

According to this fellow: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Titor
we may be on a different timeline, but the Revolution appears imminent, after all.

Re:In COBN3T AM3RNKA

[chrish]

Welcome to the secret No Fly List, sucker.

Re:In COBN3T AM3RNKA

[sumdumass]

Would it not be best to take politicians out of the picture as much as possible, say allow the national gaurd to call in the army? May be a bad example but what is needed is people who know how to manage a disaster having enough autonomy when one happens to respond in a sensible manner (most of these people work in NGO's such as the red cross).

Sure that's a good example and a key to what didn't happen in the Katrina response. You see, we are operating under a level even before that needs to happen. The governor of Louisiana had the state guard at her disposal and even failed to send them in. She wasn't aware that the law says she either has to direct the guard or military to get involved or ask the feds to do so. Without this new law, the feds or the state guard couldn't get involved without certain request and papers being filed. Mississippi and Alabama were hit almost as hard "(minus a city flooding with people still in it). Coastal towns were completely destroyed and everything. We didn't hear about all the problems with those two states because they filed the paperwork, made the proper requests, and had a plan of action that was actually followed threw. with this new law, the guy who got all the blame for Katrina can step up and say, this isn't working- we are declaring an emergency and taking control. If FEMA under the direction of BUSH or the president might be, cold have done this in Louisiana, none of the stuff would have been as bad as it was.

There is no need for martial law when the response is quick, effective and permenant.

Martial law isn't just imposing curfews and having armed troops patroliing the streets. It is about usurping control from local officials who aren't capable of keeping control. This is what was needed in Katrina but didn't happen.

The long and convoluted chain of command catastrophically broke down with Katrina, martial law is also similarly prone to get bogged down by politics. disaster relief is about timing. The relief comes too soon and is destroyed in the disaster. Too late and people die. Getting the chain of command to ask for the help in the right time frame and letting those helping do what is necessary when it is necessary. In Katrina the governor wasn't in the loop and able to let this happen. Other states didn't have the same problem and didn't have the aftermath that Louisiana did.

Probably the worst outcome from Katrina would be another major disater, people would remeber Katrina was a screw-up and would be less likely to cooperate with relief workers.

There has been similar disasters around the world. The US government has shown a quicker and more effective response to them. The reasons are because we don't have complicated laws to comply with. And even when we do comply with the laws, the difference in response is noticeable. You see, even the red cross coordinates their initiative with a central law enforcement agency who is responsible for the safety of employees, citizens and directing the relief efforts to maximize the impact.

While working with local officials and developing a working plan along with the local officials being informed about proper procedure is still important. This "martial law" law allows for the president or congress to say "hey- there is a break down and we need to do something" and wrestling control from local officials is provided by law to get something done. The more interesting thing is going to be determining what and when this is used. It is a power given to the president by law and can be taken away in the same ways. If it is abused, It will be just a matter of time (probably 30 days) before it is removed. I say thirty days because an emergency session of congress can be called and held anywhere, a law revoking this provision can be made and if the president doesn't veto it it will expire in 30 days and then congress and override the pres

Re:In COBN3T AM3RNKA

[daddymac]

Careful, in this day and age that might be considered a threat. /me shines bright light in your eyes: Where were YOU on the night of October 30th?

Re:In COBN3T AM3RNKA

[Anonymous Coward]

Nobody was shooting at the rescuers. That was invented out of whole cloth by Fox News. See the story where not one, repeat, not one helicopter pilot reported gunshots to the FAA as required by law.
Even if that BS story *had* been true, did a few stray bullets stop the Berlin airlift? The Saigon evacuation? Hopefully, you get the picture by now.
That story was cover and an excuse for letting people die on the ground.

Re:In COBN3T AM3RNKA

[Anonymous Coward]

Even if that BS story *had* been true, did a few stray bullets stop the Berlin airlift? The Saigon evacuation? Hopefully, you get the picture by now.

And it didn't stop the katrina aircraft.

During Katrina and soon after, it was hard to concern the facts from fiction. The whole astrodome incidents of rape and murder was found to be false. A lot of what was reported seemed to be ratings and not fact. As a matter of fact, It apears CNN reported the shooting at helicopters as well as fox. I doubt CNN takes it's reports from FOX NEWS.

That story was cover and an excuse for letting people die on the ground.

It is more like a sad attempt to get ratings and show your coverage is better then the other networks. It all comes back to money and who will pay it to advertise on your network. If it happened or not, it was reported as it did by several news agencies.

Re:frist psot

[megaditto]

Coincidence you say?

1) In 1933 "terrorists" destroyed German Reichstag
2) To begin war on terror, the German "Patriot" act was passed getting rid of habeas corpus
3) The German congress passed the Enabling Act to help the president's "war on terror".
4) Hitler consumated the powers granted to him by the Congress through this legal process.

And the countless sheeple cheered on.

Bush is about to sign Step 3)
Can I get a Hallelujah?

Sock it up.

[Anonymous Coward]

>GWB is simultaneously the stupidest president ever and is engineering a most Machiavellian evil plan to take over the world.

Two words: Sock. Puppet.

Stealth maneuvers and the story of Double-O Bush

[timotten]

The stage was set. Congress had received a copy of the law. The Congress leaders had discussed it:

"This could end our democracy."

"It's a bad idea!"

"We cannot let Bush sign it! Such dangerous things must be locked away in the deepest dungeon of the backest backroom of the Congress!"

And so they agreed to lock it safely away in Mark Foley's closet, where no one could acknowledge its existence, let alone sign it. Or so they thought.

Little did they know that Double-O Bush was on the case. During the State of the Union, while the President distracted all of the Congressers, Double-O Bush snuck in to the closet, found (amid the bodies of various dead girls and living boys) a copy of the law. His hand shot fluidly to his ankle, and -- in a well-practiced maneuver -- pulled a pen from his ankle holster. Then he... signed the law!

And so it happened that Bush signed an evil law without any assistance from an inept Congress.

Re:Law

[thue]

Quoting this is seems very possible that stuff like that could have been passed unnoticed:


Instead of dealing with its chief constitutional duty -- approving all government spending -- Congress devotes its time to dumb bullshit. "This Congress spent a week and a half debating Terri Schiavo -- it never made appropriations a priority," says Hughes. In fact, Congress leaves itself so little time to pass the real appropriations bills that it winds up rolling them all into one giant monstrosity known as an Omnibus bill and passing it with little or no debate. Rolling eight-elevenths of all federal spending into a single bill that hits the floor a day or two before the fiscal year ends does not leave much room to check the fine print. "It allows a lot more leeway for fiscal irresponsibility," says Hughes.

A few years ago, when Democratic staffers in the Senate were frantically poring over a massive Omnibus bill they had been handed the night before the scheduled vote, they discovered a tiny provision that had not been in any of the previous versions. The item would have given senators on the Appropriations Committee access to the private records of any taxpayer -- essentially endowing a few selected hacks in the Senate with the license to snoop into the private financial information of all Americans.

"We were like, 'What the hell is this?' ?says one Democratic aide familiar with the incident. "It was the most egregious thing imaginable. It was just lucky we caught them."

No contradiction

[Anonymous Coward]

>GWB is simultaneously the stupidest president ever and is engineering a most Machiavellian evil plan to take over the world.

Most of us have figured out that he's not the one pulling the strings. Has anything happened in this administration that Cheney didn't want?

Anyway the power grabs aren't Macchiavellian, they're pretty crude.

Move along! Nothing to see here!

[PopeRatzo]

Of course this is no big thing at all. Coming on the heels of a bill that allows the President to suspend Habeaus Corpus and declare American citizens enemy combatants, this doesn't mean anything at all. Just a routine executive action, that's all.

C'mon, if you can't trust President George W. Bush, who can you trust, right? It's not like he's ever lied to us before.

As some clever old Greek boy named Plato once said:

"This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when he first appears he is a protector."

If life is fair, George W. Bush will see out his days in the prison cell where his peer, Slobodan Milosovic, had a chance to reflect on his contributions to human culture.

Re:Move along! Nothing to see here!

[PopeRatzo]

You're goddamn right this is flamebait. It might be a few of us need a fire lit. It provides light and heat, and can show the way.

Re:If you didn't vote Libertarian, you ASKED FOR T

[Anonymous Coward]

"Voting" liberatian is the kind of comical idea only anarcho-capitalists could come up with. The reason they always lose is the reason they defend capitalism: an endemic blindness towards rigged systems.
  Anarchists have long had a saying: if voting could REALLY change things, it would have to be made illegal.
  Still I guess there's always hope to "build the new order in the shell of the old" as Proudhon used to say. But you anarcho-capitalists still frighten me with your ideas about "private police forces."

Spelling

[Dorceon]

I believe you meant Fawkes.

Re:In a yet ste(a)lthier move...

[Ex-MislTech]

the white house quickly passes the law to cover the upcoming draft...

The only hope...

[Junta]

is not the civilian armament, but that if the government does push things so far as to evoke an armed response, that enough of the military would join en masse the revolutionaries, from all branches of the military (sea, air, land). It's true that situations like Iraq demonstrate that civilian armament is enough to give a royal headache to even advanced military forces, ultimately it achieves little if the oppressing force doesn't care about collateral damage, and even if they do (like our forces at least try to make a show of in Iraq), tactically speaking it hasn't changed things significantly, only significantly impacted civilian support of the American troop presence. And the armament being brought to bear in Iraq includes a fair amount of heavy-duty stuff left over from before the occupation, stuff beyond nearly all non-military personnel in the US.

You could fight the normal police force with typical arms (and even some atypical), but even just SWAT being called severely limits the effectiveness of your hypothetical revolt, and if the military got called in and didn't revolt any, it's over.

Re:If you didn't vote Libertarian, you ASKED FOR T

[illegalcortex]

I voted for the NAMBLA candidate. NAMBLA is all for strict limitations on government.

Be careful what you wish for....

[otis wildflower]

... First, Bush gets slammed because he didn't take over the various state National Guard units right off the bat after Katrina (after being refused authority by the Louisiana governor, which was her right to refuse). Now he signs a law that will let him do that and he gets slammed. WTF?

People were complaining that the Feds weren't responding quickly enough, and people I know (including relatives) thought the Feds should have simply taken everything over with little or no regard to the states' own sovreignty and rights. One could argue that the incompetence of inbred Louisiana government could justify such takings, but I find that dishonest. So those same people who _demanded_ that the Feds send their black helicopters and jackbooted thugs in to take matters out of the hands of the local yokels now complain when the President signs a law that gives him the authority to do so?

Think there's any politicking going on here?

Re:Be careful what you wish for....

[jamstar7]

... First, Bush gets slammed because he didn't take over the various state National Guard units right off the bat after Katrina (after being refused authority by the Louisiana governor, which was her right to refuse). Now he signs a law that will let him do that and he gets slammed. WTF?

The problem isn't that it allows a President (not necessarily Bush) to send in the troops in case of natural disaster, it ALSO allows said President to send in the troops if he thinks there's massive insurrection going on. Say, if a state decides to tell the Feds to go screw themselves on an issue. It allows said President to overrule said Governor. This is NOT a Good Thing.

Think there's any politicking going on here?

Yup.

With this new law allowing suspension of posse comitatus and the earlier legislation allowing an expanded role of the military inside the continental US, all they need now is a repeal of the 22nd Amendment for a clean sweep. And they've been working on killing the 22nd for a long time now. Funny how, under a Democratic president, repealing the 22nd was seen as 'evil' by the Republicans, but now that one of their own is in the Big Chair, it's suddenly a Great Idea...

Re:Be careful what you wish for....

[N1EY]

:: ... First, Bush gets slammed because he didn't take over the various state National Guard units ::right off the bat after Katrina (after being refused authority by the Louisiana governor, which was ::her right to refuse). Now he signs a law that will let him do that and he gets slammed. WTF? :The problem isn't that it allows a President (not necessarily Bush) to send in the troops in case of : natural disaster, it ALSO allows said President to send in the troops if he thinks there's massive :nsurrection going on. Say, if a state decides to tell the Feds to go screw themselves on an issue. :It allows said President to overrule said Governor. This is NOT a Good Thing. Have you actually followed our history? We have suppressed actual revolutions previously. We had more trouble with former Presidents being used as fronts for possible military coups. If there is an insurrection, then the President has to send troops. It only makes sense. Just because a governor says no, is unacceptable. I seem to remember a whole bunch of governors that led an insurrection. N1EY

Re:Be careful what you wish for....

[ralphdaugherty]

send their black helicopters and jackbooted thugs...

      The Feds that people were calling for was FEMA, not black helicopters and JBT's.

  rd

Intent vs. description

[Todd Knarr]

That section 1076 reads like it's intended to clearly allow the President to send in the National Guard during an emergency like Katrina, even (or especially) when the state governor hasn't asked for it explicitly. Of course, during Katrina the state governor had asked, so this section wouldn't have been neccesary to allow the National Guard in...

All ye who are paraniod, RTFB!

[Cherita Chen]

If any of you who are so quick to criticize the bill would have actually read the thing, you would understand that the relevant section has nothing to do with imposing martial law. It has more to do with expanding the DOD' ability to deploy (fund) service members in times of emergency/crisis, i.e., Hurricane Katrina.

Martial Law - when imposed against the will of the people is not very effective, especially in a country where many of it's citizens are armed to their teeth. Even in states with rigid gun laws (California), you can bet your ass the vast majority of homeowners own a firearm. In other states (Texas, Michigan, Florida), forget about it!

On a personal note, I've met some folks in Arizona that are armed better than a small National Guard unit. In many states it's not very hard to obtain a Class 3 Firearms license. I wish you luck trying to take away any of these folks rights...

Re:frist psot

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

You are a quisling.

Too bad that won't help you get extra blankets, when you are put in the same camp with us.

the Constitution

[Original Replica]

is a piece of paper.
http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/arti cle_7779.shtml

Re:the Constitution

[krell]

That's nothing. The biggest dent the Constitution took in ages was when a law was passed to criminalize the act of speaking in opposition to people in government. The Dems were the ones pushing the most for this, and Bush was pretty quick to sign it too (McCain/Feingold)

at which point...

[Nasarius]

The fact that a few people had some pistols because of the Second Amendment is entirely irrelevant, no?

Yea.

[Anonymous Coward]

Remember what happened when Katrina hit the US? Dogmatic Bush haters said "Look, it's Bush's fault" while responsible citizens said "No, the state has to ask for aid before the president can send in troops." Now the law's changed. Now dogmatic Bush haters say "Look, it's Bush's fault" while responsible citizens say "See? Look what happens when you lose your objectivity."

Re:Yea.

[civilizedINTENSITY]

Uh, no, the state did request help, New Mexico was willing to respond with National Guard units before the storm struck. It was four days before the feds responded, legally allowing New Mexico National Guardsman to legally cross the border. Now the law has changed, but if they wouldn't respond in the first scenario, why would they now?

Dear America,

[DarrylKegger]

Very sorry to hear you are going down the shitter.

Yours sincerely,

rest-of-the-world

P.S can i have your stereo?

Re:Dear America,

[Anonymous Coward]

We already sold out everything of worth to China, sorry.

So let me get this straight...

[GearheadX]

First people bitch at Bush for not sending in the troops to help out places like Katrina because he is NOT ALLOWED BY LAW to do so... ...And he gets bitched at when Congress CHANGES IT to LET him do that?

Re:So let me get this straight...

[hwyengr]

Wrong. The President is allowed to send the National Guard on request of the Governor. He probably would have (since the Gov. asked), but the National Guard seemed to be busy that week.

Re:So let me get this straight...

[dreamer-of-rules]

Bush was allowed to send in troops. The LA governor had declared a state of emergency and requested troops, but delays and in FEMA and the Bush administration made the response lackluster. It didn't help that the competent and experienced FEMA director had been replaced by a total boob.

And of course, we blame Bush for sending our troops off to Iraq, meaning that we didn't have them at home where they actually could have helped Americans. If Iraq were actually making "weapons of mass distraction", or had been buying nuclear arms on the black market, we wouldn't blame Bush for the lack of troops in America. But since he pushed and pushed to go to war without a just cause, he can accept responsibility for all the outcomes.

Re:So let me get this straight...

[dreamer-of-rules]

..follow-up to my previous reply...

The scary part about this bill is not that Bush gets to send in troops to respond to Katrina-like disasters even if the governor disagrees. (Although in the actual Katrina disaster, the LA governor requested troops, but FEMA and Bush failed to respond in a timely manner.)

The problem is that this allows the executive branch to declare martial law in any state, with any troops, any time. The Founding Fathers expressly did not want the President to have this sort of power. States' Rights, remember? They did not want another King in America.

China used this sort of power to break up the Tiananmen Square protests. The protests were against the perceived corruption in the Chinese government. The first set of troops sent in were local troops, who were familiar with the issues, and refused to use fatal force against the protesters. The Chinese solved that problem by bringing in troops from the other side of China, unfamiliar with the issues or protesters, and only saw the conflict in black-and-white. 7,000 protesters were killed.

Bush was just given these same powers, unilaterally.

Even during the Little Rock Integration Crisis the matter was handled diplomatically, with National Troops sent in only after being requested.

With the new law, Bush can declare martial law and send troops in -- against the state's wishes -- to break up protesters. I wouldn't be surprised if this new law were used during the upcoming elections. Even if the courts invalidate the law (as expected), Bush has a history of ignoring laws, judgments, and Congress. Protesters can now also be declared War Criminals, and tried in a military tribunal. The law prohibits the any courts from determining the legality of any particular military tribunal.

This is so against the intent of the Founding Fathers.

Re:So let me get this straight...

[Sloppy]

Might be different people bitching in the two different instances.

Re:So let me get this straight...

[ralphdaugherty]

First people bitch at Bush for not sending in the troops to help out places like Katrina

      People wanted FEMA and their state National Guard, not troops from Bush.

  rd

Revolution, American Style

[Doc Ruby]

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

In a couple of weeks, on TUE November 7, 2006, you can go to the polls to fire your Representative in the House. 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.

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:Revolution, American Style

[maetenloch]

The president already has the power to order to use military forces within a state, but only in circumstances involving rebellion or insurrection. Note that this is not martial law since civilian laws and courts are still operating - see Ex parte Milligan

This law is a reaction to the after effects of hurricaine Katrina. Since there wasn't an insurrection, federal troops could only be used in LA if requested by the Governor. Unfortunately local authorities including Mayor Nagin and Governor Blanco were hapless and hesitated in inviting them in or allowing local National Guard troops to be federalized. The irony is that the federal government is going to be blamed by people anyway for any bad response to a disaster, so it only seems fair that they should have the power to legally intervene in these circumstances when local authorities are not up to the task.

Re:Revolution, American Style

[nurb432]

And if you honestly believe that a simple election can reverse the tide of decades of degradation of our constution, you are sadly mistaken. Regardless of who gets in office, the trend is the same. So you cant blame one party/person over another. They are ALL corrupt.

What is the answer? I'm not sure at this stage of the game, but just a 'revolution at the polls' is NOT it.

Re:Revolution, American Style

[FridayBob]

Great! But, if Bush gets impeached then his brain (Cheney) takes over. How would that make things any better?

Re:Revolution, American Style

[gilroy]

Blockquoth the poster:

So you cant blame one party/person over another

Um, sure I can. I can blame the party that actually does these things, rather than the one they tar with the label. I can blame the party that sweeps up 500 people and dumps them in a camp with no attempt to sort out the guilty and dangerous from the innocent and unlucky -- at least, no attempt until the courts forced it. I can blame the party that engaged in and then supported illegal wiretapping of American citizens in contravention of a law on the books and functioning for nearly 30 years. I can blame the party that detained American citizens without charge, denying them habeus corpus, a fair trial, or even access to counsel. I can blame the party whose President took a world's worth of sympathy and support and somehow twisted it into unprecendented -- and unprecedently widespread -- derision, loathing, and hate. I can blame the party whose President abrogated the Geneva Conventions. I can blame the party whose President ignored the advice of top military leaders and launched a ill-conceived war of choice under false pretenses against a nation that had nothing to do with the attacks that created the climate of fear allowing such a step.

I can blame the Republicans. You know why? Because it's their goddamned fault! I'm tired of this "both parties are just the same" bullshit. It's yet another myth propagated by people who know better but who need to hide the odious stench of their own misdeeds.

Restore the rule of law. Safeguard American liberty. Vote Democat on November 7

Re:Revolution, American Style

[Anonymous Coward]

Seems the Democrats like this bill as much as the Republicans. Only 22 no votes in the house. If you want to fire your Representative, you'd better do it without regard to their party affiliation.

Better yet, we need term limits in both houses of Congress, some of these congressmen need to learn how to work for a living.

Re:Revolution, American Style

[Doc Ruby]

Bullshit. Blanco registered her State of Emergency before the storm. NM Governor Richardson did his legal requirements to send his National Guard to supplement the LA Guard, with over 25% of the LA Guard (and lots of its equipment) bogged down in Bush's Iraq. Bush sat on the required presidential OK for a week, until days after the storm. In the meantime, he used his holding back required approval to blackmail Blanco, trying to get her to let him federalize all the troops, putting them under his power. Even though he was obviously working against LA and its dying people.

Yap Yap Yap Yap Yap.

After Katrina, most of you lying Republican Bushworshippers snapped out of it - at least stopped pretending that any of the rest of us believe your bullshit any more. Note this: you and your lies are keeping in power the worst president ever, and letting him get away with pushing us from freedom to tyranny. You make me sick.

Re:Revolution, American Style

[Doc Ruby]

The tide starts turning with the first reversal in direction. You can give up if you want, but that only guarantees the bad guys win. You won't talk me into your fatalism.

"This stage of the game" is pretty late. If you don't know what to do by now, even if you're wrong, you're useless.

Re:Revolution, American Style

[Doc Ruby]

For one, Cheney already acts as the president, but without having to go in front of the cameras. Putting him in the president's seat would screw up his game quite a lot. And the incoming VP would get to use all the power Cheney created in that office - without being "on board" as much as were the pair of Bush/Cheney. That new VP could be Hastert, Speaker of the House, but Hastert's gone from that gig, probably either voted out or impeached - at least resigned. If Democrats take the House as expected, a Democrat would be the Speaker, and take the VP chair with all its Cheney power. That sounds like a good way to keep Cheney from hiding in the bunker doing crimes.

Besides, we should impeach Cheney, too. He's an even bigger criminal than Bush, and more hated.

Re:Revolution, American Style

[FFFish]

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].

You may want to use absentee voting; it leaves a paper trail.

At the very least, you want to be involved in making sure the vote is fair, which may include insisting on evidence and proof, which in turn may require riots.

Re:Revolution, American Style

[toddestan]

If Bush is impeached and removed from office, it should be no problem to do the same to Cheney.

Re:Revolution, American Style

[Amiga Trombone]

If Democrats take the House as expected, a Democrat would be the Speaker, and take the VP chair with all its Cheney power.

I don't think so. The Speaker of the House isn't in the line succession for Vice-President. The new Vice-President is selected by the President and confirmed by Congress. Think Ford succeeding Agnew, and Rockefeller succeeding Ford when Ford became President. Neither one was the Speaker of the House, both were chosen by the current President.

You're confusing succession to the Vice-Presidency with succession to the Presidency in the event both the President and the Vice-President are simultaneously killed or incapacitated.

Re:Revolution, American Style

[senahj]

  Bravo.

Re:Revolution, American Style

[nurb432]

Bullshit. BOTH parties are bad. If you cant see thru the fog in your eyes created by the media, then you are an idiot.

Re:Revolution, American Style

[nurb432]

The 'bad guys' always win, regardless of what color they wear..

Re:Revolution, American Style

[yoder]

True and well said. Thank you.

Re:Revolution, American Style

[Doc Ruby]

This process isn't clear. All that is clear is the "line of succession", not whether it must remain contiguous. I expect the Senate, in rendering a verdict on convicting under impeachment, would have to decide who gets what. And the Supreme Court would have to hear the inevitable lawsuit from the excluded replacements in the line, regardless of whom the Senate chose to assign where.

Which forces every branch of the government to agree in order to impeach (except the target branch, usually the executive). House impeaches, Senate convicts, people appeal, Court decides details in light of facts including the conviction - and other evidence decided in the trial.

Re:Revolution, American Style

[Doc Ruby]

Desperate closet Republican ploy: punt at "both parties", blame the media, personally attack the messenger.

And if you don't think you're on the Republicans' side, just realize that people who don't vote are part of their plan to rule with under 25% of Americans voting for their puppets.

Re:Revolution, American Style

[Doc Ruby]

Which, in turn, apparently requires Bush's power to declare martial law.

Re:Revolution, American Style

[SoulRider]

You are right, it usually takes a revolution to stop a coup (what else would you call whats happening in America?). Lets hope we can fight this revolution peacefully (through elections and legislation), though I doubt it since the other side appears to be full of religious fundamentalists who seem to be more than willing to let their supporters die for their cause.

Re:Law

[pintpi]

I'm looking forward to this election shaking up the entire political establishment. Yeah, like instead of a "Highway to Nowhere" in Alaska, the new political establishment will approve a "Highway to Nowhere" in New York. That's the kind of shakeup this country needs. Sadly, no matter what the outcome of November, there will be no shakeup in the political establishment.

No need to cancel

[The Creator]

According to precedent set by the supreme court, adding another 10 years untill the next election every ninth years does not count as setting it off indefinitely. (For reference see the whole extension of copyrights debacle)

Re:frist psot

[Anonymous Coward]

Those that forget history are bound to repeat it
-- Woodrow Wilson

And if you think NYT has a liberal bias, go listen to Randi Rhodes on Air America Radio: http://www.airamerica.com/ . THAT will clue you in to what liberal bias actually sounds like.

I smell hyperbole

[Lord Kano]

The President of the US has been able to ignore inconvienent laws for quite some time.

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."

Bill Clinton was quite able to ignore Posse Comitatus in order to enforce his will.

LK

Re:I smell hyperbole

[haapi]

Lest that smell increase, it should be pointed out that the Waco debacle was inherited from GHWBush's administration. Feb '93 was pretty damn early in Clinton's first term.

That does not excuse it from being a debacle and a tragedy, just that it was a bad situation well before it became worse.

Re:I smell hyperbole

[Lord Kano]

Lest that smell increase, it should be pointed out that the Waco debacle was inherited from GHWBush's administration. Feb '93 was pretty damn early in Clinton's first term.

Feb 93 was the initial raid. The involvement of the military didn't take place for at least a month and the fatal raid took place in April, under Janet Reno, the AG appointed by Bill Clinton.

That does not excuse it from being a debacle and a tragedy, just that it was a bad situation well before it became worse.

Bush 41 can take his share of the blame for Ruby Ridge, but very little of Waco was his fault.

LK

Re:frist psot

[Anonymous Coward]

Is anyone on /. familier with Godwin's Law? People try to compare Bush to Hitler way too much here. Seems like Godwin's Law has been forgotten.

Hysterics Make Me So Smart!

[StealthyRoid]

Look, I'm the first person to think that unnecessary expansions of government power are something to be feared and resisted, but, I'm sorry, did nobody actually _read_ the bill in question? Did everyone see "Bush signs bill abolishing restrictions on martial law", freak, and immediately begin to paste their canned "OMFG BUSH IMPERIAL PRESIDENT EMPIRE KARL ROVE DARK SIDE OF THE FORCE REPUBLICAN HALLIBURTON" responses?

You know what this bill does? It adds natural disasters and terrorist acts to the already existent set of conditions under which the President can assume command of, and deploy, the National Guard, and bring the other Armed Forces of the United States into use on domestic soil. That's _it_. The bit about keeping down insurrections and revolutions is _already_ part of the US code.

10 U.S.C.331 - "Whenever there is an insurrections 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.";

10 U.S.C.332 - "Whenever the President considers that unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages, or rebellion against the authority of the United States, make it impracticable to enforce the laws of the United States in any State or Territory by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, he may call into Federal service such of the militia of any State, and use such of the armed forces, as he considers necessary to enforce those laws or to suppress the rebellion."

10 U.S.C. 333 - "The President, by using the militia or the armed forces, or both, or by any other means, shall take such measures as he considers necessary to suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy, if it--
(1) so hinders the execution of the laws of that State, and of the United States within the State, that any part or class of its people is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law, and the constituted authorities of that State are unable, fail, or refuse to protect that right, privilege, or immunity, or to give that protection; or
(2) opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws. In any situation covered by clause (1), the State shall be considered to have denied the equal protection of the laws secured by the Constitution. "

Oh no! He's trying to take over the country! He's establishing a monarchy by adding terrorist attacks and natural disasters to the list of reasons the Armed Forces can be deployed in a State! Wow! What a tyrant! What an evil action! OMFG OMFG BUSHCHIMPHITLER!!!!!!!! HE"S GOING TO ARREST ALL DEMOCRATS!!! THROW ALL NON-CHRISTIANS IN JAIL!!!!

So, in 2009, when, as expected, the office of the President transfers to the winner of the election, I fully expect every single one of you who are acting like teenage girls who've been grounded the weekend of the Homecoming dance to stand up and admit that, yes, you were over-reacting simpletons whose understanding of politics and the law is about as extensive as my own personal knowledge of the female orgasm. That would be the _responsible_ thing to do.

Then again, judging from the tenor of the previous comments, maybe you'll just explain how, really, Dick Cheney is sitting in a secret room 33 floors below the Pentagon controlling the new President with a mind-control device that Halliburton made for him, built from the same technology as his hurricane-making machine and his vote-suppression machine.

Dolts.

Re:Hysterics Make Me So Smart!

[Curunir_wolf]

How is parent flaimbait? ... No, I won't slow down, and don't call me "cowboy".

Come to South Africa

[bruce_the_loon]

You might get hijacked, robbed blind, raped, pillaged, mutilated and poor, but dang, the government won't bother you, surveil you or even care that you exist as long as you pay your taxes.

Or even if you don't pay your taxes, they won't give a sh*t. Even the cops don't know where you live.

Much better country than any of the Western Alliance lands.

Re:frist psot

[FuzzyBad-Mofo]

Can I get a Hallelujah?

Close. We got Fallujah.

Re:Text of the old section

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode10/us c_sec_10_00000333----000-.html
333. Interference with State and Federal law

The President, by using the militia or the armed forces, or both, or by any other means, shall take such measures as he considers necessary to suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy, if it--
(1) so hinders the execution of the laws of that State, and of the United States within the State, that any part or class of its people is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law, and the constituted authorities of that State are unable, fail, or refuse to protect that right, privilege, or immunity, or to give that protection; or
(2) opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws.
In any situation covered by clause (1), the State shall be considered to have denied the equal protection of the laws secured by the Constitution.

Now people can focus on what's actually changed and consider whether it's good or bad.

Link to the original text of the bill

[NetCow]

For people who try not to judge until they've seen their stuff first-hand, here's a direct (PDF!) link to the original text of the bill from the US Government Printing Office: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi ?dbname=109_cong_bills&docid=f:h5122enr.txt.pdf

What about the U.S. Coast Guard?

[Anonymous Cowhead]

It seems the U.S. Coast Guard was able render aid admirably without the need for any need for martial law. This is what makes the actions of the other "responders" so obviously lacking.

Re:What about the U.S. Coast Guard?

[Anonymous Coward]

The coast gaurd isn't part of the DoD and is classified as a police organization much like the FBI or ATF when it comes to operating within the US

Re:frist psot

[psykocrime]

Is anyone on /. familiar with Godwin's Law? People try to compare Bush to Hitler way too much here. Seems like Godwin's Law has been forgotten.

First of all, Godwin's "Law" says nothing more than:

As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one

Big deal.

Further:

Godwin's Law does not dispute whether, in a particular instance, a reference or comparison to Hitler or the Nazis might be apt. It is precisely because such a reference or comparison may sometimes be appropriate, Godwin argues in his book, Cyber Rights: Defending Free Speech in the Digital Age, that overuse of the Hitler/Nazi comparison should be avoided, as it robs the valid comparisons of their impact.

If you believe, as many of us do, that comparisons between Bush and Hitler *are* valid, then Godwin's Law is totally irrelevant in this context.

Beginning of the End

[sc0p3]

We are witnessing the downfall of the United States of America. It won't be long before China is the new super power. Don't struggle USA, it was determined long before now. I would welcome in China as our new Overlord, but I don't like it as an alternative.

Re:Beginning of the End

[RKBA]

With the excessive overcrowding of China, do you suppose the Chinese might like to purchase some extra real estate with all those US/China trade deficit dollars? How about cheap homes here in the USA whenever the housing market collapse really takes hold and foreclosures become commonplace? I have no objection to having Chinese neighbors, but wonder where those who are displaced will live?

Re:frist psot

[Anonymous Coward]

Godwin's Law does not dispute whether, in a particular instance, a reference or comparison to Hitler or the Nazis might be apt.

1) reading critically 2) actions, not words

[period]

Two points:

1) The post states that "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." This is misleading. The president doesn't sign anything he wants into law unilaterally; Congress - the Senate AND the House - must pass a bill before it goes to the president to sign. The quote is misleading as it's not Bush alone who's doing something "stealth[y]". If blame deserves to be attributed to someone, it's to everyone who passes such an act in Congress AS WELL AS to Bush. Regardless of whether you like a bill or not, regardless of whether you like Bush or not, blaming him alone does not hold Congressional representatives accountable for their conduct. It's that kind of lack of understanding about the political system that has led to many of the troubles we have today as a people.

2) There is a massive amount of commentary on this issue, as there should be. However, while Slashdot does have a pretty massive reach, commentary here alone is inadequate to reach most of the people who need the most to learn about what's really happening in our country. Congrats to those who do more than just talk here, and to those who don't, go out and do something to realize your ideas of what this country should be, whatever those ideas may be. Being a citizen is not a spectator sport.

Re:1) reading critically 2) actions, not words

[Cederic]

Plus of course Slashdot has a global audience of people who are also interested in this sort of thing.

Re:frist psot

[bhirsch]

Then there are the dolts on slashdot who get their history lessons from other dolts on slashdot.

Viva la revolution!

New definition for "initiated"

[cirby]

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:New definition for "initiated"

[MightyYar]

Thanks for that. It's easy to find trends with so few data points :)

Re:New definition for "initiated"

[Gooba42]

None of the aforementioned wars were "initiated" by the US, but they were all entered voluntarily and in some cases based on false information.

Korea had little or no interest for us except the abstract notion of defeating communism.

The Tonkin Gulf has been brought into harsh criticism, some even saying it was a fraud.

Did we have to enter WWI other than to line someone's coffers? WWII would arguably have not happened at all except for the harsh penalties visited on Germany after WWI.

Pearl Harbor was an attack we went to great trouble to make sure it happened the way it did, even withholding intelligence from the base command that would have prepared them for the attack. This was done specifically to give us an excuse to enter the war.

None of this was done with any sense of altruism, none of this "came to us" in any factual way.

Re:New definition for "initiated"

[cecil_turtle]

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

No, they qualified the statement with "involving more than a week of ground combat"; the Gulf War ended 100 hours after the official ground campaign began, hence the nickname "100 hour war".

It sounds like you're just disappointed that the GOP can't take credit for more wars...

Re:New definition for "initiated"

[ben there...]

Some sources for the documented foreknowledge that Pearl Harbor was about to be attacked and it was allowed to happen:

http://www.usni.org/NavalHistory/Articles99/NHborg quist6.htm
http://www.jbs.org/node/58

Re:New definition for "initiated"

[Anonymous Coward]

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

And forcing the Third Reich to declare war on the United States.

Re:New definition for "initiated"

[Fafnir43]

World War I, Germany was using a policy of unrestricted submarine warfare. After they sank the Lusitania (a US passenger ship) in 1915, the US threatened to enter the war if they didn't stop. They stopped. In 1917, they started again, so America attacked. World War I as a whole was a pointless, bloody massacre, but America at least had a good reason to get involved. World War II - the fact that it wouldn't have happened without World War I is irrelevant to the discussion. The point is that America was right to get involved in it when it did happen. And without even looking into whether the government orchestrated the Pearl Harbour attack (which seems highly unlikely) - are you really saying your country should have let Hitler take Europe? That a 'right-thinking' Republican candidate would not have taken the country into war? That seems to me like a viewpoint you should rethink. No idea about the other wars, just setting a couple of facts straight.

Re:New definition for "initiated"

[Anonymous Coward]

The US entered WWI as a result of Germany agitating to get Mexico to make trouble for the US. Read 'The Zimmerman Telegram' by Barabara Tuchmann (one of the US' very best historians [but no longer with us alas]).

Re:New definition for "initiated"

[dcam]

Did we have to enter WWI other than to line someone's coffers?

WTF? Learn some history. The US was making a mint selling to both sides in WWI. You were making more money by staying out of the war.

Re:New definition for "initiated"

[Doctor Faustus]

After they sank the Lusitania (a US passenger ship)
A US passenger ship full of British troops.

Re:New definition for "initiated"

[Fafnir43]

Actually, checking, it was a UK ship full of civilians (not troops), including quite a few American ones - hence America's reaction. Details here.

Re:If you didn't vote Libertarian, you ASKED FOR T

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, CLEARLY, the only solution to a republican held congress and presidency is not to vote for the democrats, but to vote for a third party that has no chance in hell of winning.

A vote for a libertarian candidate is
one less vote for a candidate that might actually defeat a republican.

Presidents have ALWAYS had this power ...

[slightlyspacey]

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. 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 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

Don't like... then DO something about it!

[Anonymous Coward]

Want to bring any government to it's knees?

Then STOP CONSUMING!

Thats correct,and it's the ONLY WAY to stop this crap.

TRASH the GNP, and WE WILL WIN our freedom back!

Buy as much locally produced food and products as possible.

CANCEL your newspaper, and cable TV, and ALL other forms of "enterainment".

STOP spending your money on mindless crap, and save it.

Re:Don't like... then DO something about it!

[DerProfi]

You first. How about starting with your net access?

Re:Don't like... then DO something about it!

[Plutonite]

I'm sorry, but I don' think any government has ever been "brought to it's knees" through lack of consuming. Revolution, yes. War..OK. But you are asking something that you yourself cannot take part in.

With your PC intact, that is.

Re:Don't like... then DO something about it!

[Anonymous Coward]

Let me get this straight, You wish to bankrupt the government by destroying the value of our currency, and thus, removing their spending power. What do we do when our local producers value our bills at their paper value?

Re:Don't like... then DO something about it!

[Jesrad]

Nonsense.

The only correct way to starve the government is to participate in Counter-economics. If you just stop using your money, the bank will use it in your place, whereas if you use your money outside of the scope of government, it won't profit from it.

Not Inflammatory or Misleading

[Space cowboy]

The "stealth" bit is that the bill is like 10 miles long, and the bit that allows martial law for "an other condition" is buried about 3/4 of the way into it.

If you're going to change something that affects democracy to the extent of being able to impose martial law, surely it can stand on its own, be its own bill, etc. You don't bury it, hoping that no-one will notice, at least not if you have any sense of ethics or morals...

Recently the administration has given itself these extra powers (amongst others...)

  - Removal of Habeus corpus for "enemy combatants"
  - Ability to declare anyone (American citizen or no) an "enemy combatant" at will and without any defence
  - Ability to declare martial law for "an other reason" ... it's chilling. What I don't get is that *I* would find it chilling if my own party were doing it. I don't see why people are defending it, unless they expect the government to give itself these powers, and then never use them (??)

Simon.

Re:Not Inflammatory or Misleading

[DerekLyons]

Recently the administration has given itself these extra powers (amongst others...)

What frightens me is that you might actually believe all that rubbish. The truth the current adminstration has added no powers the Presidency didn't already have. Habeus Corpus never existed for non citizens and belligerents in the first place. This martial law bill is is identical to existing law - except for the parts about natural disasters being expanded a bit, etc... etc...

Re:Not Inflammatory or Misleading

[rov4416444]

The purpose of riders like this isn't to be stealthy; the passage of a Bill is a long process and fairly transparent. They don't expect anyone to not notice. Please. The purpose is to tack one controversial issue onto an emotionally charged one, ostensibly to ease its passage; it doesn't matter if anyone *notices* or not. Yes, Democrats could oppose this Bill, refuse to sign it, filibuster. But with midterms coming up, no one wants "voted against a Bill that would prevent another Katrina disaster" smear with their name on it. You can blame our elected Congress all you want, but the fact is they are elected by a populace swayed by this sort of rhetoric. Surely you saw enough of it in 2004 "first he was for it, then he was against it" nonsense. Voting against a Bill that is poorly designed is equal to disagreeing with any premise behind the Bill. The Republican Party may be particularly adept at exploiting this, but it is by no means their invention. Blame the voters, and perhaps the media which blithley propagates smear campaign tactics with little or no scrutiny. Blaming Congress (hint: we elected them) or, of all people, Bush.. that's just absurd. And I am not certain why people think Democrats would be opposed to extending Executive power. Just because they do not control that branch now does not mean they don't expect to in the near future. How is this even a party issue?

Re:Not Inflammatory or Misleading

[Anonymous Coward]

Habeus Corpus never existed for non citizens and belligerents in the first place.

Like the other poster suggested, try reading the Constitution, you ignorant fuck. No person means just that... no person. The only valid question is whether this administration has abandoned five hundred years of civilized jurisprudence, or only fifty or so.

Re:Not Inflammatory or Misleading

[stinerman]

Lets assume that I agree with that for the purposes of this rebuttal.

President Bush has the authority to declare anyone in the United States (citizen or otherwise) an enemy combatant. He may then hold them without charge indefinitely. If he does feel like charging them, he can coerce a confession using torture, and then use that information at a military tribunal. This is all done without the oversight of congress.

Do you believe this is consistent with the 5th amendment?

Also note while Congress (and Congress alone) has the power to suspend habeas corpus, it only has the power to do so in times of rebellion, invasion, or when the public safety would require it. There is no armed rebellion. We haven't been invaded by a foreign power, and the public safety certainly doesn't require it.

Oh come on!

[__aailob1448]

See, it's stuff like this that turns people off of politics. One can only take so many frustrations and disappointments without starting to get ulcers and herpes.

Re:frist psot

[Anonymous Coward]

I won't give you a Halleljuah but you can have a Zeig Heil!

You blew my cover! Now where was I?...

[arcite]

Oh yes...Allow me first to apologize for this interruption. I do, like many of you, appreciate the comforts of every day routine- the security of the familiar, the tranquility of repetition. I enjoy them as much as any bloke. But in the spirit of commemoration, thereby those important events of the past usually associated with someone's death or the end of some awful bloody struggle, a celebration of a nice holiday, I thought we could mark this November the 5th, a day that is sadly no longer remembered, by taking some time out of our daily lives to sit down and have a little chat. There are of course those who do not want us to speak. I suspect even now, orders are being shouted into telephones, and men with guns will soon be on their way. Why? Because while the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth. And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn't there? Cruelty and injustice, intolerance and oppression. And where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission. How did this happen? Who's to blame? Well certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror. I know why you did it. I know you were afraid. Who wouldn't be? War, terror, disease. There were a myriad of problems which conspired to corrupt your reason and rob you of your common sense....

Oh excuse me, I think I hear several knocks at the door...and is that a helicopter?...wait a second I think I smell tear gas.

::fumbling:: Now where did I put that damned gas mask!?? :::::gagggggggasss accckkkk ::: FREEDOM FOREVER!

Terrorism under Bush

[Anonymous Coward]

We haven't had single terrorist attack since 9/11. Not a single one.

I've seen hundreds of reports. That recent massacre of Amish schoolkids for example. And "When a father of two can be shot and stabbed to death for absolutely no reason while walking home from an LIRR station" - report - this is something that everyone would call terrorism if it happened in IRAQ.

Re:Terrorism under Bush

[Anonymous Coward]

You didn't read the last two sentences of Lawpoop's post, did you?

Appropriate William Adama Quote

[Laven]

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"

Re:Appropriate William Adama Quote

[sam991]

I was about to say the exact same thing myself.

As always, BSG tackles the important issues, even before they become issues. Now that's good TV!

Re:Appropriate William Adama Quote

[Anonymous Coward]

It is good policy to not use the military for police work, if at all possible.

But when it is the only way to enforce the law, then the government has no choice, if it is to remain a government at all. As Abraham Lincoln said:

Are all the laws, but one, to go unexecuted, and the government itself to go to pieces, lest that one be violated?

Or, to pick a rather shocking case, George Washington himself, while President of the United States, personally led the army in battle to put down a rebellion in Pennsylvania and re-establish civil order. [reference]

Re:Appropriate William Adama Quote

[Eljas]

And corollary to that statement is:
When the police becomes both, then the police tends to serve and protect the enemies of the State.

I think that makes some kind of sense, but I have no idea which kind...

Re:frist psot

[Anonymous Coward]

"unprecedented power" as in power that existed in the law already? That's flamebait, not informative.

END GAME

[Intangion]

game over guys

LYING

[Doc Ruby]

During the Katrina Flood who was saying that "Federal Troops should have been in Lousiania on Day one"? Let's have a citation for that assertion. Where are these "mostly Democrats"?

The fact, unaddled by "hapless Democrats" nonsense, is that the (Democrat) governor of Louisiana, Blanco, accepted an offer from the (Democrat) governor of New Mexico, Richardson, for NM National Guard troops to come into LA. The National Guard is very much not Federal, they're under control of their state's governor. But even so, if National Guard are to cross state lines, not only must the incoming governor request or accept an offer, with other legal restrictions (such as declaring official emergencies, etc, which trigger other actions). Also, the president must officially receive the offer from (in this case) NM, ensure it's legal, send it to LA for confirmation. Otherwise, a governor could fight a war in their own state with out of state troops, even if their in-state Guard troops refuse - the president is responsible for ensuring that doesn't happen.

In the case of Katrina, LA made the declarations, NM made the offer, and LA said it would accept, all before the storm hit. Then NM and LA had to wait for the president to process the request. Which, in this case, was an obvious case for doing it right away - within minutes, or maybe hours.

Instead, Bush sat on the legal papers for a week. The NM troops couldn't go into LA, or it would legally be an invasion. Do you think the fact that both governors trying to send in the Guard were Democrats had anything to do with Bush's decision? While he waited, he tried to instead get LA to agree that he could "Federalize" all the Guard troops, LA and NM. A rarely used provision, that would take the governors out of control of their troops, and put Bush in charge. We see what that kind of "Bush is in charge" control did to New Orleans and the rest of the Gulf Coast.

Now Bush has taken that power anyway. And lost New Orleans (and hundreds of miles of the rest of the Gulf Coast) to Katrina. And killed thousands of Guards in Iraq.

Bush is even more evil than you say. And it's got nothing to do with "Democrats". It's all Bush and his Republican gang. Turning America into the kind of state our old Soviet Russian and Chinese enemies would envy.

Re:LYING

[civilizedINTENSITY]

Few people actually seem to know the history. Somehow sound bites are ruling the minds of most citizens. Thanks for saving me the time to dig it out. Moderators, someone please up this *informative*

thanks :-)

Re:LYING

[leemer]

when i was down there in MS there was 82nd MP's on the corners where there was no Red Lights and other stragic places as the Black Hawk Helicopters where flying over. And also the Marines where transporting fuel that I seen, And you said Bush sat on papers for a week how come 82nd AA, Hoooay was in MS and if National Guard is not Federal seems to me it would be a states right dont you think to have who ever they want there. For Dems that did complain New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin was one that was very upset when he caused some of the situations they had there in the aftermath of the hurricane. "Mr. Frist differed with the Democrats' description of the Federal Emergency Management Agency as a total failure, saying that he had seen dedicated work by FEMA people in Louisiana. But Mr. Reid and Representative Nancy Pelosi of California, the House Democratic minority leader, said that FEMA had failed miserably and that its leadership should be fired." NY Times Saturday, August 27: President Bush officially declares that a "state of emergency" exists in Louisiana and orders Federal aid to the affected areas to complement state and local relief efforts. Sunday, August 28: President Bush declares a state of emergency for both Mississippi and Alabama, and declared Florida a federal disaster area in light of damage done by Hurricane Katrina. Also in MS if i remeber correctly the governor Declared a state of emergency before the Hurricane even hit there. Also when speaking to many MS's that lost homes where in fact pretty happy considering the devastation at hand but I did not speak to everyone. Now sense there was a break down in Communcations and Offical people doing what they officaly should have been doing that didn't get done that is why there was a response to try to make the situation more efficent, But it is NOT meant to Opress people But, It can be used against you if the situation is right. Martial Law has been around for a long time and Now this makes it even easier for corrupt powers to use. And Big Central Goverment gives all power to the Goverment and not to the People. And Socialism one way of getting there as well.

Re:LYING

[Doc Ruby]

Moderation -1
    100% Overrated

Republican TrollMods can't stand the truth. They wish New Orleans was totally destroyed without a trace, rather than remaining as testimony to Bush's dictatorship. Even now, as Bush marches forward on the plan revealed when he tried to pull it in the Katrina crisis.

Re:LYING

[Doc Ruby]

Not just soundbites. Active suppression of history is another tool the Bush army uses to rule the minds of most citizens.

Re:LYING

[Doc Ruby]

The Army (and its 82nd Airborne Division) is not the National Guard. Regardless of what it seems to you, the president's OK is required for one state to send its Guard into another, even if the recipient state's governor agrees, to prevent the scenario I described.

Ray Nagin is a Republican.

It was very difficult to understand your long, unstructured, unpunctuated post. Especially your citations of Democrats during Katrina. And whatever is your point about "Socialism".

The fact is that New Orleans was left to drown by Bush, despite the efforts of the governor, and the (Republican) mayor's incompetence. And just as Bush showed his agenda trying to blackmail LA Governor Blanco into letting Bush federalize the National Guard, Bush is now following through with this covert law enabling martial law.

Re:LYING

[leemer]

Ray Nagin is a Democrat and was a Republican most of his adult life but, was a Democrat before his election in 2002 he succeeded his fellow democrat Marc Morial.but In a January 13, 2006 interview on the Tavis Smiley show, Nagin himself denied these rumors, stating that he "never was a Republican" and that he has been a "life-long Democrat",and several of the news sources reporting that he was a Republican have since issued retractions. and where did I indicate that the 82nd was a national guard unit? I think I would know there not a national guard unit since I was in active duty. I was saying they have permission to have any national guard in there own state but,they way it was that they had to have permission for Federal Troops to march right on in to a state or more proper to be involved in police action of state matters but, if FEMA becomes involved it becomes a Federal matter. and FEMA will control the disaster area and be the head Echelon Nothing comes in and out without there blessing at least the way it suppose to go but, if communications are knocked out it makes it very hard to do anything. All states have there own EMA and every county should have a EMA as well That is why EMA entities should have emergency communication building to help out during disasters. to be able to answer to and support FEMA .
If there was a wide range of Disaster like on the scale of Katrina in 4 states plus where disaster area was so huge and massive off of the scale that the united states have ever seen. Martial Law helps to provide assurance that the United States survives and also a speedy recovery of aiding the innocent but, as a prime example during disaster you will always have some bad people that like to make problems and also to free lance to also cause problems as well. If 50 different people have a different idea on how to do anything there will never be nothing done very efficiently. People complained about the speed of aid to New Orleans ,People complain about this and that and seems to Blame Bush (yep Bush causes storms to appear he causes terrorists to fly planes etc etc.) Did you know the Federal Government can not protect you and did you know the Federal Government will never be able to protect your family it is impossible for Federal Government to be every where and it is impossible to think Bush is the cause of every thing. If you are worried about Martial Law rules and regs you had 20 years to do something about it and didn't I would be careful in what you ask for. And some advise be self efficient for any disaster or foreign invasions. also Other Countries have issued martial law (also the united states has issued martial law in the 1800's), and most them countries are still here today. Well this is my last post have a great life and remember when it comes from the heart for the whole it is good . if it comes from a way to oppress people and from a corrupt government and we are not there yet but possibly in the future

Re:LYING

[Doc Ruby]

Nagin calls himself a Democrat to win elections in hugely Democratic New Orleans, but is a Republican - as you'd see, if you'd click my link documenting his personal donations to Republicans. Or if, like me, you had lived in New Orleans - and voted for him, like I did once.

You replied to my facts about the National Guard being prevented from coming from NM to LA, leaving LA without the help they requested, by talking about the 82nd Airborne. That's either an implication that the National Guard is federal, or just extremely bad logic.

Since you now come out in favor of invoking martial law, despite our getting by just fine without it for over 200 years, and have now revealed that you're a veteran, and are now parroting the Republican spin that "the Federal government cannot protect you", it's clear that you've got the worst combination of baseless implication and extremely bad logic.

You're a fascist. Keep out of my state with your jackboots and your excuses that your boy Bush sent you "to help". I live in NYC, where I'm from, having livedin New Orleans knowing a flood was inevitable, and in California through earthquakes. I don't need any advice on how to prepare for disasters. Certainly not from someone like you, whose writing makes my head hurt, whose logic makes my head spin, whose Bush worshipping opportunism to turn the country into fascism makes my head call you out. Take your love of the master of disaster to the Republican fantasyworld you all live in.

Yes, please MOD parent up.

[Concerned Onlooker]

I don't usually do these kinds of posts, but the readers are missing some key points here if they overlook the parent post. The grandparent post is a bit disingenuous.

Oh [insert random deity], not this one again

[Space cowboy]

"On a personal note, I've met some folks in Arizona that are armed better than a small National Guard unit. In many states it's not very hard to obtain a Class 3 Firearms license. I wish you luck trying to take away any of these folks rights..."

Um, if Martial law is declared, a small posse of helicopter gunships could quite easily wipe out just about any citizen, no matter how they were holed up or armed. The citizenry can have ground-to-air missiles or rocket-propelled grenades and it makes no difference if the gunship is over the horizon with an AWACS up-top.

And if you want to see what an Apache can do against individuals, just look at this. I'd warn you about clicking on that link if you're squeamish, there's no doubt what's happening is the ruthless and efficient killing of men (even those wounded and trying to get away), as well as the destruction of vehicles. In that link, they didn't even use any air-to-ground missiles or cruise-missiles, just the Apache's cannon. If you don't think US soldiers would do this to US citizens, think again. Under martial law, they can be executed themselves for not performing their "duty".

It never ceases to amaze me that people don't grok this basic fact: you are at the mercy of your government - that's why it is important to choose it well. Even if (by some miracle) you managed to repulse the first-wave of government soldiers, they can escalate WAY better than you can, and they will. The only solution would be guerrilla warfare, and for that you need organisation, supplies, intelligence, and purpose - a lot more than can be expected by a few Arizonian gun-lovers.

Simon.

Re:Oh [insert random deity], not this one again

[Control Group]

It's just a matter of scale. If it's the US armed forces against a small group of survivalists in AZ, then yeah, they're screwed.

If it's the US armed forces against every American who owns a gun (estimated at almost 100,000,000 people), it's a whole different ball game. If nothing else, we only have so many Warthogs, Apaches, M1A1s, F-22s, etc. They can't be everywhere at once. If it was really so easy to take care of widespread resistance, why are Iraq and Afghanistan still such pains in the ass?

The problem, of course, is that the armed civilians have to be willing to take the casualties necessary to win the inevitable war of attrition. And that's not going to happen in the foreseeable future unless there's a sudden and drastic something that makes it happen.

The problem with bread and circuses is that the policy works just fine.

Re:frist psot

[g1zmo]

Hell, even those pieces of legislation had sunset clauses. Our honorable leaders had enough balls to drop the facade of "temporary wartime measures".

Re:Stealth maneuvers and the story of Double-O Bus

[jamstar7]

And so it happened that Bush signed an evil law without any assistance from an inept Congress.

Bzzt. Incorrect. But thank you for playing our game.

In order for that law to even get to his desk, it had to pass through Congress. BOTH House and Senate. Bush may have pulled the trigger, but Congress loaded the gun and handed it to him.

Remember that on Election Day.

Lovely...

[AVee]

When democracy finally ended and the US started it own destruction, nobody noticed, because the site was slashdotted. What a way to get into the history books...

Wise forsight

[amightywind]

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.

I am glad the President has the foresight to establish legal mechanisms to quell violent insurrection instigated by the liberals. He is a very wise man. I only wish he could run for 3 terms. Given the war on terror he would be justified.

Re:Wise forsight

[dbIII]

I think the Republicans can find several better canditates - it is a pity that the US system does not allow the majority party which is even the same party as the President to replace him without the certainty of losing the next election. There are many in the Republican party that do not condone torture and corruption.

Re:Wise forsight

[dbIII]

What I meant above is not putting up a new canditate for the next term but removal midterm of a President that is working against the interests of the nation and the party. The perversion of McCain's torture bill is a prime example, as is defying the laws on domestic surveilance.

Re:Wise forsight

[Anonymous Coward]

I am glad the President has the foresight to establish legal mechanisms to quell violent insurrection instigated by the liberals.

Even left-behind American children learn such simple rhetoric devices in high school english class. What excuse do you have for your inability to make the connection between the elections and a "revolution" of casting out the ruling party? Where did this "violent insurrection" come from, other than your imagination?

Re:Wise forsight

[Qzukk]

I only wish he could run for 3 terms. Given the war on terror he would be justified.

Is that so? Is that the only justification you seek? The only reason he should be allowed to run again?

Re:Wise forsight

[Doc Ruby]

Lame troll.

Consider how the next president, likely Democratic, will use this law to squash the "2nd Amendment" gun fetishists when gun control laws provoke them, escalating the conflict to forced universal disarmament.

I ignore the rest of your nonsense about liberals, to starve your bizarre desire to get slapped for spouting insanity in public.

If martial law backfires, American Revolution v2.0

[Anonymous Coward]

Bush Family Planning Escape to Paraguay:
http://tinyurl.com/txhtl
http://www.wonkette.com/politics/george-w.-bush/we -hate-to-bring-up-the-nazis-but-they-fled-to-south -america-too-208549.php

Re:If you didn't vote Libertarian, you ASKED FOR T

[Anonymous Coward]

olol

De Facto

[Original Replica]

Marshal law is more than just putting troops in the street. Marshal law is the suspension of civil authority, and the imposition of military authority on civillians.
Power flows from the barrel of a gun, my friend. Troops on the street is Martial Law. I've seen riot armored cops herding angry protesters into "first amendment zones". The imposition of military authority on civilians happens quite regularly. And don't try to tell me that because they were NYPD, their orders didn't originate with the Feds.

Re:De Facto

[monkeydo]

If that's going to be your argument, then we are already under martial law, since every police officer in America carries a gun. But that's not what martial law means. Even if it had been federal troops hearding protesters into designated protest zones, it still wouldn't be martial law. No more than four LA cops beating Rodney King is the imposition of martial law. Martial law is not the extralegal imposition of military force against civilians. It's also a lot more than using military troops to enforce the law. It is in fact the legal imposition of military law on civilians, including courts martial for civilians. Martial law cannot even be declared in the US as long as the civilian courts are operating.

the Second Amendment is a fig leaf in a snow storm

[Anonymous Coward]

Right to bear arms my ass. Can you have a nuke? A tank? An Apache Tomcat with a belly full of Sidewinders? Do you have the right to wire-tap every govenment phone and subpoena the records? Do you have secret prisons tucked away to torture Senators? Well, then, I guess your little gun isn't going to do shit, is it? Go tote it up to the steps of the White House and we'll be reading tomorrow about your "terrorist attack".

That's the only beef I have ever had with the Second Amendment. It didn't keep pace with the arms race. Useless.

But is it really still relevant?

[Coryoth]

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

I'm curious as to what you expect to be achieved on that front - ever since the US started having a permanent well equipped standing military the question of bearing arms to defend yourself against the government has become increasingly moot. Any small to medium homegrown insurgency is going to be efficiently denounced as terrorists (how much sympathy did McVeigh and friends recieve?) throughout the media and largely crushed by US military. I expect some sort of running insurgency as in Iraq could be maintained, but it would be, lets be honest, a thorn in the governments side (the Iraqi government is not about to be overthrown as long as US support remains). Should it go on long enough you'll find the rest of the US public (who will be suitably indoctrinated by the media to view the insurgency as radical terrorists killing innocents - let's face it, a certain amount of collateral damage in the long term campaign is inevitable, and you'll always get some extremists who won't mind killing civilians anyway) will happily support the sort of extreme measures (seeing as they're being the ones threatened now) to put down the insurgency that aren't being seen in Iraq: currently the US public is averse to serious troop commitment and potential serious loss of life in Iraq - were this happening in the US I doubt you would find such aversion.

So what does that leave? Well a large scale insurrection could work. The question I put to you, however, is whether, once you get to the scale required, being armed makes a difference anymore. If the anti-government sentiment is sufficiently strong and sufficiently widespread that it gives the US military a serious run for their money and can't easily be labelled as terrorists and face harsh measures then you'll probably find that (1) A reasonable portion of the US military will defect to the insurgency anyway, and (2) Civil disobedience and protest will quite probably get the job done. If the military is already divided then calling them in to provide martial law is going to be tricky. Moreover even if you do, with the scale of unrest we're talking about then all the people simply standing up and saying no is going to be as effective as anything - what are the military going to do, open fire on what amounts to maybe a third of the entire civilian population of the US? I think you'd have most military on the ground cave long before they did that. And really, who is a military grunt more likely to fire on, a mob of unarmed protesting civilians, or a mob of armed protetsing civilians? I think you'll stand a much better chance with the former than the latter.

Sure, you'll find military grunts who will senselessly follow orders and open fire on crowds of innocent civilians and a number of people will likely die. I doubt, however, in the face of mass peaceful opposition, that such incidents will be anything but a minority. And are you really going to claim that the loss of life in that approach will be greater than a mass armed insurrection with violent pitched battles all over the country?

Let's be honest, in this day and age, with modern military hardware (which is restricted - know many people with fully armed tanks, helicopter gunships, or cruise missles), a vast and incredibly well equipped permanent standing army, and the current sheer scale of the Federal government, the point where "the right to bear arms" had a signficant impact on the success of failure of an insurrection has been long passed. I fully believe there was a time when it made sense, but the Federal government grew bigger and bigger, and the army became permanent and well equipped - far better than any civilian could ever hope to be. If you wanted to make your stand, you should have done it a long time ago. Or, if you want it put another way - it's too late, you've already lost.

Re:But is it really still relevant?

[Broken scope]

You have several good points.

Please note, the situation in which I speak of would be Bush using this law to create a dictatorship. That is the only eventual end of this law if used once. It would escalate.

However, an armed resistance, because frankly in all cases that what it is, can be effective. It would be more effective here.

First there would be mass desertions.

Then there is the issue of bring back a fighting force from the middle east. While a short time it would be time none the less.

It would still be a restrained war, maybe even more restrained in Iraq. We don't fight total war in Iraq, I don't see it happening here.

The military would not have the people to fight an insurgency in the United States.

Also, we do not have a "vast" military.

Sorry, but most of those "grunts" are not mindless.

Re:But is it really still relevant?

[Coryoth]

You're really just making my point for me. Yes, the vast majority of "grunts" are far from mindless. More importantly they're also far less likely to fire on peaceful unarmed protestors than on insurgents who are armed and potentially firign at them. If we take your postulated scenario, that Bush uses this, or a similar law to become a dictator and suspend elections, then I think it is entirely reasonable to expect a significant portion of the US population to stand up in peaceful nationwide protest and say "no". And what is to happen then? Bush is going to have a hard time telling the military to fire on innocent civilians - they simply won't follow that order, and will, instead be forced to align with the protestors. And there ends Bush's attempted takeover. No guns required. If we take your alternate approach - that a significant portion of the public turns up armed and ready to fight - well, you'll still end up with the same result, but I suspect you'll have a lot more fighting from military who are prepared to fire on armed and potentially aggressive civilians. So really all the guns buy you is a few more casualties before the inevitable. I see no benefit.

Re:But is it really still relevant?

[Broken scope]

Sorry, maybe I didn't make something clear in my earlier posts. This has spawned alot of branches, so I may not have said something in yours.

It would requires that Bush does not accept the protests and orders soldiers to shoot them or suppress them in some way. If you really want to be a dictator an order like that isn't that much of a big deal to you anymore.

Re:But is it really still relevant?

[Coryoth]

Again, you're just making my point - in the face of peaceful but firm protest the only option would be to order to military to kill or suppress the protestors. However, the more severe/harsh the suppression ordered, the less likely the military is to follow those orders. It is a lot harder justifying the violent suppression of peaceful protest than it is to rationalise suppression of violent insurrection - and it is that dilemma that is going to be faced by every level of the military that is ordered to suppress whatever opposition there is. Which is to say, orders to violently suppress peaceful protest are far less likely to ever get followed, and as soon as the military stops following orders from on high, any "dictatorship" is over. In short, you get to the result faster and with less loss of life by not using guns.

Re:But is it really still relevant?

[XO]

I'd like to say that I wish this were true, but how many armies around the world have opened fire into vast crowds of unarmed civilians?

Many. Many, many, many.

Re:But is it really still relevant?

[mink]

One possibility you do not explore is to have a plant in the crowd of protesters who shoots at the troops and causes things to get out of hand. I believe this happened once in Iraq (or was it Afghanistan). I remember hearing a news report about the incident.

Touch Screen Voting

[Marc_Hawke]

So...does Congress vote with Diebold machines?

Re:Touch Screen Voting

[Jeremy Erwin]

Congress is fully complicit in its abdication of duty.

Too little, too late!

[Anonymous Coward]

Duh... When the idiot Bush started this campaign of hate and destruction many people yelled and warned but no one would listen so it seemed. Even when Darth Bush started with the inmortal speech about "if you're not with us, you're with the terrorists" and as such dividing the world into a black/white situation leaving no room for any comment what so ever (note: just like Adolf Hitler did. Yeah, go flame me. Read up on your history first you morons) some part of the world cried out in terror but was simply ridiculed. No.. We'll name them "Freedom Fries". No.. We'll ignore the Spanish population and send out support to their goverment. No.. we'll make sure that no one gets to hear the real stories on Iraq and Afghanistan.

Now the web of lies is slowly decaying and we have only tipped at the surface of the horror which the Bush administration is laying upon us. The only comfort I have, as a very fanatic (in speech) opposer of this idiocy, is to see that he is hurting his own country just as much as he's hurting the outside world. Still. The only thing worrying me now is what a future goverment will do with the infrastructure paved away by Bush and his morons. Will they tear the whole thing apart because it simply isn't ethical or will they keep quiet about it trusting that eventually everyone will forget and then start using it to push the buttons? And to all Americans who now cry out that I am the idiot for saying that they might forget about all this I'd like to remind them about the time where a major majority of the US population was behind Bush while most of Europe was turning against him. Instead of opening their ears to reasoning it seems to me as if some people simply kept listening to that which they wanted to believe. I could be wrong, sure, but its still how it all looked to me.

So... nice how you all start acting appaled and such. Better question being; what are your plans to prevent a future event from occuring? In Holland this might happen as well now that we get an increase of Muslim people who are also finding their way into the goverment. Fortunatly for us we don't allow one supreme ruler to simply make up the rules as he or she seems fit. Thats democracy people....

Ending with, and you may flame me for this but I can't help it: Some of us told you so! Just before you were almost steamed up enough to send the Statue of Liberty home to Paris just because you couldn't stand some people actually speaking up and using their freedom to question your actions. Guess this makes me a terrist eh? Funny, all I want is to protest against my freedom but it seems the Land of the Free has no room for those kinds of people. Not under the Bush administration anyway.

You totally missed the point

[EMC_CJ]

Divided government doesn't give you "restraint." It gives you a "failure to reach consensus." It means "paralysis." I, for one, feel lucky that we had a unified government during those times when the sovereignty of our Nation came under fire, be it abroad, in Hawaii, or in New York City. Because we had a unified government, we were able to act to protect ourselves, and to prevent further tragedies.

Re:You totally missed the point

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, you've missed the point. It was the "unified" government that diverted attention from the "war on terror" to the war on Iraq. No, they were not connected until Bush turned Iraq into the terrorist incubator that it is today.

Rather than going wholeheartedly after Bin Laden and the Taleban who sheltered him, Bush took a left turn and attacked Iraq as a target of opportunity. "There's no good targets in Afghanistan" as Rumsfeld himeslf said. So what if Bin Laden is the one who attacked us?

Look at the disaster that Afghanistan has become: back to being the #1 heroin producer in the world, resurgence in Taleban and Taleban support among the people, all thanks to Bush wanting to get Saddam. And where is Bin Laden? Since Bush was too busy pushing the Iraq war down everyone's throats, he just let Bin Laden slip through his fingers.

Look at what happens when you get efficiency of government. No thank you, that way lies fascism.

Re:You totally missed the point

[Eideewt]

It's big trouble when a government moves too fast. Paralysis is healthy.

Re:You totally missed the point

[Sage Gaspar]

When America comes under fire from an external threat, consensus is not an issue. I don't care if Congress and the Senate had been 100% staunch frothing-at-the-mouth anti-Bush pacifists, he would've had the go-ahead to push into Afghanistan and root out al-Qaeda. If a country sent over bombers in an overt act of war? Fogeddaboudit.

It's the muddled issues that a divided government would hopefully raise some questions about: the Patriot Acts, the internment camps, the Guantanamo Bays, the Iraqi invasions. It's during times of crisis that leaders have the most political capital. I'd say it's more important then than during any other time.

Re:You totally missed the point

[rjstanford]

When America comes under fire from an external threat, consensus is not an issue. I don't care if Congress and the Senate had been 100% staunch frothing-at-the-mouth anti-Bush pacifists, he would've had the go-ahead to push into Afghanistan and root out al-Qaeda. If a country sent over bombers in an overt act of war? Fogeddaboudit.

In that vein, its worth noting that the US had the support of the world when we went after Afghanistan as well. Something that the "The world hates us," crowd conveniently ignore. Almost nobody was saying that the USA shouldn't defend themselves, or shouldn't pursue our attackers and those who sheltered them. They just made the very real point that Iraq fit neither of those definitions.

Finally slashdotted!

[taubz]

Should I celebrate that my website was finally /.'ed? (the link to the bill text) Apologies that my poor server couldn't handle the attention.

I kind of wish /. would automatically replace links in articles to Coral Cache pages when the site stops responding. That would be a lot better for everyone, I think.

Re:frist psot

[Anonymous Coward]

Um, obviously you don't see the +5 informative. Are you questioning the ability of 4 of our well qualified moderators here at Slashdot? Surely they wouldn't upmod a post for purely personal or political reasons, right?

Keith Olbermann: Death of Habeas Corpus

[Teacher's Pet]

"Olbermann: And lastly, as promised, a Special Comment tonight on the signing of the Military Commissions Act and the loss of Habeas Corpus...We have handed a blank check drawn against our freedom..."

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/10/18/countdown -special-comment-death-of-habeas-corpus-your-words -are-lies-sir/#more-11142

Reminds me of the good ole days

[Gone84]

Hippie Bowl 1970 National Guard 4 Kent State 0 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_State_shootings

dumbass

[foreverdisillusioned]

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:dumbass

[Waffle Iron]

Yes, they might "make examples" on occasion, but on the whole the populace must be not be annihilated, otherwise who will they rule?

The population doesn't have to be totally annihilated to be pacified. Killing or imprisoning just 20% of them (using collective punishment reprisals for each incident involving those pathetic private firearms) would effectively wipe out all resistance, while still leaving most of the people available for work. This approach worked great for Joseph Stalin.

Re:dumbass

[chriso11]

Yeah, but how would you organize? He's already got the NSA hooked into the phone systems and the internet. The ironic part is that the militia types are the ones who generally voted for him twice.

Re:dumbass

[jesboat]

Though if the militia wanted to effectively take down the government, they'd need to storm military facilities, and those are (literally and figuratively) the military's turf...

Re:dumbass

[Malakusen]

Between my military training and my study of guerilla and unconventional warfare, I'm unconvinced that a civilian uprising in the US would be doomed to failure, and I'm relatively certain that, if it came down to the wire and the balloon went up, I could make a decent accounting of myself. There's ways around the technology.

Re:dumbass

[Runestaff]

-
With nerve-rattling information bombarding us daily from world hot spots such as Iraq, North Korea or Iran, long-running state-sponsored genocide in the Darfur region of western Sudan barely makes a blip on our radar. This is unfortunate, because there is a continuing effort on the part of the Sudan's Arab-controlled government of Omar al-Bashir to systematically eradicate non-Arab Muslims in Darfur. (Oct 24, 2006)
-

Yeap.. tell that to the People of Darfur, the US administration has known about this on going genocide for years and still Bush is unable or unwilling to do anything about it.

Could this be because it's Muslim's that are being wiped out in the hundreds of thousands! Or maybe because there's no economical incentive involved. There's little political ground to be made out of intervention apart from saving a few million people, bush wasn't able to save a few million of his own people with ample warning from Katrina.. Or maybe the US really is spreading her troops too thin and should listen to some of the more rational isolationists and pull her nose out of the rest of the world and deal with problems in his own nation. eg Education, health, poverty, rampant disease. Then again, with the internal striff lingering in the background with the Latino and Black issues. Along with growing internal unrest over the War's in the middle east. Bush maybe preparing for major civil unrest. Revolution is all state's would be a little bad inscription on his memorial statue in Washington, right along side an icon born in a log cabin and created into a myth.

I remember just after 9/11 a joke went around about a young child and his father visiting the memorial in NY and the son reading the inscription.. "in memory of those first who fell in the war with the muslims..." the boy turns to his father and asks "what's a Muslim?" maybe the world needs to ask it's self what's an American, will the next Darfur, Rwanda, Yugoslavia and Kurdistan be Louisiana, Mississippi, Waco, Texas.

Washington Post
Secretary of State Colin L. Powell said for the first time yesterday that genocide has taken place in Sudan and that the government in Khartoum and government-sponsored Arab militias known as Janjaweed "bear responsibility" for rapes, killings and other abuses that have left 1.2 million black Africans homeless. (2004)

London:
120 survivors from the Holocaust and genocides in Cambodia, Rwanda and Bosnia have today called on UK Prime Minister, Tony Blair, to impose sanctions on the Sudanese government to stop the conflict in Darfur. (Oct 19, 2006)

The Observer
MPs from the influential House of Commons foreign affairs committee are urging British businesses with investments in Sudan to withdraw from the war-torn African country. The call for disinvestment is aimed at companies including Shell, Rolls-Royce and British Airways. It is intended to put pressure on the government in Khartoum, which is accused of supporting a civil war that has led to hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths in Darfur. - Conal Walsh (Oct 1, 2006)

The Observer
'I will kill them all with chemical weapons,' announced Saddam Hussein's cousin, Ali Hassan al-Majid, as he prepared to gas the Iraqi Kurds in 1988. 'Who is going to say anything? The international community? Fuck them!'

Since Kurdistan, genocide has increased. There have been campaigns of terror that were either full attempts at ethnic extermination or near enough as to make no difference in the former Yugoslavia from 1991 to 1995, Rwanda in 1994 and Darfur from 2002 to the present day. In all cases, the United Nations has promised to uphold the highest principles of international law and then committed sins of omission which were so grievous it has been close to being an accessory to mass murder. - Nick Cohen (Oct 29, 2006)

Re:dumbass

[benzapp]

"Yeap.. tell that to the People of Darfur, the US administration has known about this on going genocide for years and still Bush is unable or unwilling to do anything about it. "

You know, you could volunteer with the French Foreign Legion or something. No one is stopping you from buying a nice rifle and taking a trip to Africa. Have you ever considered the possibility that the average American doesn't really feel that Darfur or it's people are worth spilling any blood?

I haven't met a single person who want to fight over there. And chances are, you're another pussy liberal who has never shot a gun in his life, let alone actually killed someone or had someone try and kill you. Iraq is fucked up, but it doesn't mean it's time for WWIII to stop every injustice known to man.

Let's secure Baghdad, the capital city of a country we conquered 3.5 years ago. Then we can talk about other military adventures.

Re:dumbass

[foreverdisillusioned]

Did Stalin really kill 20% of his populace? I'm pretty sure that he didn't imprison nearly that many people, because I've often heard it said that the United States currently has a larger percentage of its population in prison (around 1%) than any other country in the past 100 years, including Soviet Russia,

And in any case, I don't think Stalin carpet-bombed his own cities (perhaps the cities of countries he wanted to invade.) The point wasn't whether a government could bully its own people into submission, it was whether that government could effectively use cruise missiles and bombs to do so. I think that there's a limit to the level of collateral damage citizens will tolerate. Tanks can work, but bombs?

I also wouldn't mind knowing what kind of weapontry your average non-government Russian had access to back in the 30s-50s. Did Stalin ban privately-owned firearms like Hitler did? What kind of weapon did your average Soviet hunter own? A muzzle-loading black powder rifle would've been nigh-useless against the Soviet army, but even in this day and age a decent bolt-action can be very effective... however, again, even if the firearms existed, I must wonder whether Stalin allowed the sale of the shells to private individuals.

The poster I was replying to was alluding to that oft-repeated "well, the right to bear arms in order to overthrow a tyranical government is really outdated and useless, because nothing can stop the military's weapons" horseshit. If you're going to bring up Stalin as a counterexample, I think you must first give me some links that show the Soviets had the right to bear arms under his rule.

Re:dumbass

[Anonymous Coward]

otherwise who will they rule?
The other countries.

Who will pay their salaries
Microsoft, Enron, Halliburton, other countries...

who will build their weapons?
Foreign sweatshops...

Re:dumbass

[aminorex]

> A government will never desire to annihilate its own population.

Unless that government is operated as part of a plan to reduce the global population to "sustainable" levels, in order to create a better world for their children to rule.

Re:dumbass

[Ardipithecus]

"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."

That is of course what Hamas and Hezbollah have been doing, however as we have seen it's no big deal, within some minds, to carpet bomb civilians in return.

Re:dumbass

[acb]

A government will never desire to annihilate its own population.

Pol Pot did.

Granted, that was a pathological government, and not sustainable.

Re:dumbass

[foreverdisillusioned]

But they haven't wiped them out, have they? They can bomb and bomb and bomb and Hamas and Hezbollah have yet to be wiped out. For all we know. the bombing campaigns may have inspired enough hatred to replace every fallen with two new recruits.

Re:dumbass

[amper]

Seriously? You posted this on Slashdot? Come on, don't you know *anything* about technology?

Do you really think there aren't quite a lot of people out there that could build communications systems that the government would have a lot of difficult interfering with?

Re:dumbass

[Dun Malg]

Though if the militia wanted to effectively take down the government, they'd need to storm military facilities, and those are (literally and figuratively) the military's turf...

As a former member of the US Army, I can assure you that the only thing the military is prepared to do in garrison ("on its turf") is mow lawns and pick up litter. With the exception of a tiny contingent of MP's (the post's police force) an army post is essentially full of unarmed soldiers who have no means of accessing weapons in a timely manner, and no ammo readily available even if they could organize quickly enough to draw small arms from the armory. CONUS military bases aren't armed forts waiting for attack; they're "slack zones" where Generals have men march in pretty formations to gratify their tiny officer egos. With effective planning, an armed group of 2 dozen civilians could pretty easily take out the minimal MP presence and loot a sizable quantity of weaponry.

Two Words....

[sloth jr]

President Cheney....

Re:Two Words....

[Anonymous Coward]

Impeach him, too. Then get started on Dennis "my staff did not tell me anything about Foley I swear" Hastert.

Re:Two Words....

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

Impeachment is available for "any civil officer" of the United States. Nothing except lack of will stops Congress from impeaching, for example, Rumsfeld tomorrow.

Re:Two Words....

[NoOneInParticular]

Having the puppet-master in full vision is preferable to him in the corner. People might actually see who is governing them.

Re:Two Words....

[Doc Ruby]

There's no reason not to impeach Cheney. Impeach him first. Most of the most serious Articles of Impeachment would be conspiracies that Cheney originated or headed.

We're not just facing a runaway president. We're facing a Republican criminal gang, with several bosses.

But even if we impeach just Bush, that just means a trial, which would paralyze Cheney, too, in defending himself before his own impeachment got underway. Bush most likely wouldn't be convicted without a Senate Democrat majority of 66%, which they won't have. And he won't resign - above all, Bush is too dumb to quit.

And finally, Cheney is already the president. Putting him in the actual office will screw his game. Keep him busy with other work, including politics and public appearances. And fill his VP office with someone else, with their own agenda, with all Cheney's old office's powers. And with Hastert gone, and a Democratic House, a Democrat would become VP. Now that makes impeachment look like a real solution.

Fact is, impeachment is our obligation. Letting their team stay intact to do its work is by far the worst option. Impeachment offers many ways out, many good options. Let's use them all.

Hey again

[BeeBeard]

Mr. Fox, relax! It's me, Bob! Listen, I brought your mask thingy and your forks and all that. Do you have my package? Mr. Fox? Hello? Hellloooooo??

This is news?

[Anonymous Coward]

Erm....

In order for a group to declare martial law, it simply needs control of the strongest military force.

It doesn't need to put anything in writing. It doesn't need 'clearance'. It imposes the force it has at its disposal.

Welcome to reality.

Re:This is news?

[Anonymous Coward]

For an excellent documented example of this, please see:
"The Revolution Will Not be Televised"
http://www.torrentspy.com/download.asp?id=791596

Too late.

[NineNine]

While people like you (and me) have been busy buying guns, handguns have become irrelevant. The US has a militarized police force, using military tactics and equipment. I don't care how many rednecks with shotguns come out of the woods, they're no match for a SWAT Team. Sneaky, how they got that powerful without anybody knowing, huh? Now the people can't even rise up against their own government, like other countries do from time to time.

Re:Too late.

[Yusaku Godai]

First of all, I haven't bought any guns yet. My point was just that I'm glad the option is there should I feel that it's become necessary.

Second of all, as another commenter pointed out, all the modern military equipment the US has doesn't seem to have been terribly effective against Iraqi insurgents. They just keep coming. Similarly, regardless of the effectiveness of SWAT teams, I really doubt there are enough of them to deal with *MILLIONS* of rednecks with guns without being overwhelmed.

Re:Too late.

[Trailwalker]

The US has a militarized police force, using military tactics and equipment. I don't care how many rednecks with shotguns come out of the woods..

As a Southerner, I would like to point out that "Rednecks" and the "Police" are usually one and the same.

Re:Too late.

[Original Replica]

Think less of standoffs with the cops and more like 100 hunting rifles on 100 grassy knolls. Fight the people in power, not their stooges.

Re:Too late.

[Bing Tsher E]

As a scholar, I would like to point out that 'Redneck' is a term that can describe stereotypical behavior which members of all races engage in. Particularly, modern 'ghetto culture' has it's roots in redneck culture. (Sowell himself is Black)

Re:Too late.

[edward2020]

Yeah, I'm sure all those good ol' boys who deer hunt and grow dope in the same woods they've lived around all their life would fall like grain to the sythe of the special weapons and tactics folks (sarcasm). And I'm not talking a Ruby Ridge "lets be stupid and hole up in a cabin." Yeah, I'm sure a SWAT team could sneak down an old country road in their truck emblazened with a SWAT logo. No one would see 'em I"m sure. The point is - I don't think the "readnecks" would be leaving the woods - the SWAT team would have to go after them. And national forests are generally pretty large. A lot of space for ambushed and the like.

Re:Too late.

[Firehed]

If you're going to go down, you might as well go down trying. That said, I'd be surprised if some good communication with some decently trained snipers couldn't cause a hell of a hubbub in the land of politics. I'm against using violence for things like this, but desperate times call for desperate measures. Of course with the government monitoring all of our communications to make sure that we don't try just that, having something organized will be a bit tricky.

At this point, though, I'm really just hoping that someone will take one for the team and do something pretty drastic down in DC. You think that with all the corruption within the government, it would be easy to get a nutter into the secret service...

we the people

[darth_linux]

allow our gov't to write the laws. we expect/assume any politician we elect will write laws WE want in place. While 'W' doesn't have that track record anyway, we have to remember that we (USA) are not a democracy in the true sense. We don't get to vote on an incredible amount of law that governs us. We also allow those we thought would represent us to do whatever career-advancing thing they want.

conspiracies

[Anonymous Coward]

How come every post here that talks about a conspiracy is labeled flame bait or troll. I think slashdot works for the illuminati.

Eeeek.

[nurb432]

I can hardly believe this is happening.

Time to head to the store for ammo and rations. Bad times are coming.

HAHAHAHA!!!

[HangingChad]

Good luck with that. Bush can't control Baghdad with 140,000 troops, what makes him think he could control Rhode Island if they were pissed off? Though it could be scary power in the hands of someone competent it's going to be expensive to use.

America is too big, too open and way too easy to sabotage to try and control by martial law. Besides, we're almost bankrupt now, where they going to get the money to occupy an area the size of a state? Especially if the people in that state don't want to be occupied.

Re:frist psot

[HiThere]

No. In order to be a quisling one must be in a position of power. Troll is more accurate.

Wait....

[jwiegley]

Let me get this straight... You all bitch and moan when Katrina hits and the federal government does not step in to help. But one reason that federal governement does not help at that time is that it can't send federal troops into Louisiana without that state's permission.

The federal leader is villified eight ways to Sunday for his lack of participation. So he gets passed a bill which does grant him the right to act with troops in just such an emergency as the people seem to have demanded he should have done in the first place.

And then you bitch again!

Geesus, get a clue. The federal government shouldn't have this new right AND it shouldn't be expected to help with disasters such as Katrina which are primarily a local state issue. And yes... I do believe this; go ahead label me cruel and incompassionate; I've just thought out a situation logically whereas others react with what makes them feel good. I live in California on top of primary earthquake zones. I'm *EXPECTING* a disasterous earthquake in my lifetime. Gulf coast residents and leaders are idiots if they don't similarly expect hurricane disasters and adequately prepare for it. I expect my state and county governments to be planning and saving for earthquakes and it is their responsibility to handle it; not the federal government.

I'm still waiting for people to wake up and realize that we're NOT suppose to have a large and powerful federal government. That it's NOT supposed to be responsible for the properity and welfare if its citizens. It's suppose to be a federation of sovereign states who, aside from basic inalienable human rights and military protection against foreign aggressors. take care of themselves. That people are expected to take care of themselves too.

As long as we continue to vote for socialist politicians of the ilk we have been for the past 100 years then you get exactly this... A loss of rights, of freedoms, of control and you support and encourage inefficiency, waste and sloth in everyone.

But don't worry. There is an end coming... You just won't like it; but you will pay for it and you will pay for it with every last penny you have.

Remember Katrina?

[CppDeveloper]

How many of you blamed the slow federal response to Hurricane Katrina on President Bush? And of those how many now are upset about this action? Can you say "just desserts"?

Re:Remember Katrina?

[ivoras]

You would be right if the new law specified exactly to what emargencies it applies. Since the site is down, I can't say if it does. Something like "a natural disaster" needs to be spelled out in the text of the law so it doesn't end up applying to "the president's imaginary enemy".

Re:Remember Katrina?

[CppDeveloper]

I do not see how that makes a difference. Whether it can be abused or not its clearly in reaction to the charges that the Federal Government failed to act fast enough. This clearly gives the President the authority to do so in a future Katrina style situation. As I said implied before if you are going to blame him for not doing it quick enough then you have no right to get upset when he changes the rules so that he can next time.

Re:Remember Katrina?

[ivoras]

Because a Katrina-class disaster is much harder to stage than a bunch of thungs paid to wear turbans and do something nasty in public. In other words, I'll tend to agree that it's good to have something bypassing the red tape in case of natural emergencies, but not "social" ones (including terrorism).

Of course, the real problem is why people keep electing untrustworthy leaders.

Re:Remember Katrina?

[ralphdaugherty]

How many of you blamed the slow federal response to Hurricane Katrina on President Bush?

      slow federal response from FEMA. No one wanted martial law except Bush.

  rd

Re:Remember Katrina?

[Anonymous Coward]

Katrina was bungled on purpose so that this law could be passed. The point being to give more power (military troops under presidential control on the streets of US cities) to whichever republicrat is in office. They'll trade a few poor people's lives for that power, no problem. They're not as stupid as John Stewart would have you believe. Nucular, The Google, slashesdots...

It's in the name of theocracy

[AndOne]

I know this is a bit late in the game to even get seen on slashdot but if you start tracing the evangical christian right's role in the bush admin and lately even republican parties you'll start to see a driving goal towards theocracy. Bush has always had support from and worked closely with the evangalists in power. Focus on the Family leaders brag that they can control votes simply with a phone call since they have nearly 40 some million voters behind them and about 70million people total. That's right, close to a third of the country, buys into the ideas that the government should incorporate God heavily. Maybe I'm all fired up cause I just got done reading a bunch of stuff about this movement(and actually believe in the seperation of church and state) but the roots of this campaign towards power start in the 70's actually with groups like the heritage thinktank and others. Mostly founded by weinrych(think that's the spelling) with money from Coors. They down play the role heavily but it all got started as an attempt to combat the grass roots momentum of the Democratic party in the 60's. This isn't an attack on religion but regilion is staging an attack on the rest of society. They have millions of dollars which are tax free since the are churches( and nominally non political) but they spend a large amount of time "getting the vote out". In fact Focus on the Family has set up a front for their political actions so they can mask the money in the church side and formally shill for the party they want.

Ask yourself if you really think it's a good idea that currently 39 senators in power have voted 100% the way the Christian Coalition would've wanted them to on the issues that concern it. Not to seem too out there but everytime I read about them (or seen them trying to intervene in local matters in my hometown) i've always just sat there thinking to myself "wow, just wow these people are crazy"

Okies I'm done ranting but if you're concerned about the state of this country and don't want it to become a giant morass of a theocracy you really should go read about these people and their agendas. They've been working on this for 30 years and they're crazy.

Re:Stealth maneuvers and the story of Double-O Bus

[Anonymous Coward]

Hmm... Someone here needs some help...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satire

There. That should do it.

Re:frist psot

[MightyYar]

Holy shit, you can't be serious. People demanded that the federal government go into New Orleans to keep order, but they couldn't because of the law. And now when the government actually follows through they get compared to Nazi Germany? Bush is not Hitler. He will be gone in two years to be replaced by another egomaniac.

This is what you wanted

[Curunir_wolf]

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!

Re:This is what you wanted

[RAMMS EIN]

``So - you *wanted* this - you *cried* for it!''

A friend of mine has a pretty funny theory about this. He says that there is more than one person in the world, and that these multiple persons can have entirely different views on the same things. It's interesting to consider the consequences: one people can be in favor of more powers to the president, so that he can do more to help, whereas another person can be against more powers for the president, fearing that these powers will be abused.

Personally, I think my friend is full of it. The issue is much simpler: wanting the federal government to provide more effective disaster relief does not equal wanting to give the president more power to deploy the military.

Re:This is what you wanted

[Tuirn]

Bull. At best that's a weak excuse, yanked from Bush apologists talking points. This is simply a raw power grab that is far too broadly designed for just handling local regional emergencies.

Re:This is what you wanted

[Xyrus]

You are correct. People did want it. But instead of getting what they asked for, they got something that was a part of what they asked for and a whole hell of a lot more than they asked for.

This is like asking your town for trash pickup service, and you come home one day to find your house is gone.

~X~

Re:This is what you wanted

[trytoguess]

Hmm.. perhapses I'm being a idiot who doesn't RTFA, (yay Slashdot!) but how did you come to this conclusion?

Re:This is what you wanted

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, grow up. You leftist SHITS always talk about how the world isn't black-and-white but shades of grey. But when it comes down to it, you look at things the right does in terms of absolutes. They're absolutely wrong, no matter what.

You communist SHITSTAINS asked for it. No use trying to deny it. It's all there in black & white (ha, ha) for all the world to see.

You wanted it, and now that you've GOT it you don't like it. Well fuck you, slappy. You get to live with it just like the rest of us.

Re:This is what you wanted

[ralphdaugherty]

because this gives the the authority to do something,

      No one gave him permission to declare martial law then, even though he demanded it, and we will not allow him to declare martial law in the future. Well, he can declare it, but the country will tell him to shove it.

  rd

Re:This is what you wanted

[KilljoyAZ]

Bullshit. We demanded competence, not dictatorship.

Let's ignore the fact that Bush sent half of the Louisiana National Guard, complete with their best equipment, over to his misbegotten, illegal war in Iraq.

Bush nominated the comically inept Michael Brown to head FEMA, not because being the head of the Internationa Arabian Horse Association in any way qualified him to lead the nation's disaster relief agency, but as yet another act of political patronage. In the space of 4 years, he turned one of the best run federal agencies into an punchline on the late night talk show circuit.

Bush had three days warning about the devastating effect Katrina could have on New Orleans from the National Hurricane Center. Rather than making sure the government was mobilized to deal with the aftermath of an epic national disaster, he was cutting birthday cake with John McCain in Arizona, strumming a guitar in San Diego, and making yet another speech comparing the Iraq War with World War II and himself with FDR. A poor comparison if ever there was one. Michael Chertoff, the cabinet secretary who's responsible for FEMA, decided giving a speech at a conference on bioterror was more important than the likely destruction of an American city.

The federal government's problem in New Orleans was not a lack of authority. It was a mindboggling lack of foresight and, more disturbingly, an appalling lack of concern. That apathy was on display in the days immediately after the disaster struck, when the upper echelons of federal government spent more energy on creating the illusion that it was doing something and shifting responsibility onto the city of New Orleans and state of Louisiana, rather than actually doing something. The circumstances on the ground got so bad, even Fox News was unwilling to carry water for him. As a result, we were treated to the spectacle we saw on television and the humiliation on the international stage, the culmination of which was having to accept aid convoys from Mexico.

It is a continuing and disturbing pattern with George W. Bush: every time he fails miserably as president, he tries to shift blame on the law and the Constitution for binding his hands. In his eyes, he cannot fail: our system of government must have failed. He did it with 9/11 and he did it with Katrina. Not only is it a convenient excuse for him to forestall any discussion on his complete unsuitability to occupy the office of the presidency, but it accomplishes his true goal of concentrating more power in the executive branch. The moniker of "worst president ever" has long since crossed from the realm of empty hyperbole into apt description of this man's qualities.

Re:This is what you wanted

[DigiShaman]

The issue is much simpler: wanting the federal government to provide more effective disaster relief does not equal wanting to give the president more power to deploy the military.

Ahh! But you know, you can't have one without the other!

Re:This is what you wanted

[SarekOfVulcan]

Besides, the devil is in the details.

(2) A condition described in this paragraph is a condition that--

(A) so hinders the execution of the laws of a State or possession, as applicable, and of the United States within that State or possession, that any part or class of its people is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law, and the constituted authorities of that State or possession are unable, fail, or refuse to protect that right, privilege, or immunity, or to give that protection; or

(B) opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws.

We're all geeks, so we know what "OR" means. He can send in the troops for a violation of any federal law he chooses. I'd really like to get this resolved before the troops have to choose whether to obey an illegal order or not...

Re:This is what you wanted

[gebbeth]

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

Hurricane Katrina wasn't a natural disaster...it was a government conspiracy to use as ammunition for the passage of this bill!

Khmer Rouge were that crazy

[billstewart]

The Chinese Cultural Revolution sort of pointed in that direction, but even it had limits. The Khmer Rouge were murderous total batshit crazy. Their leader said at one point that the Revolution could continue even if there were only a million Cambodians - this was at a time that there were about 8 million, and yes, he thought that killing 7/8 of them would be ok.

Now, I don't think that Bush is *that* bad. But he's clearly opposed to all of the core values that made America. Also, with television and competent propaganda, occasional actions like another Waco attack can help keep the population in line. For a while.

Rebuilding America's going to take a long time - there's too much institutionalized police state infrastructure and the attitudes that support it.

Stakes are higher in American Idol...

[7Prime]

after all, more people vote in it.

A question for the "rationalists"

[petrus4]

There have been people who have maintained that the idea of George W Bush seeking to become a dictator is, "unhinged," and the thinking of a "tin foil underwear wearing conspiracy nut."

Please explain to me then...if that is true, and if all Bush seeks to do is protect people from terrorists...and that he does not, in fact, have an earnest desire to become a dictator...why does he continue to seek legal measures such as this one and the Military Commission Act?

If I am a "conspiracy nut," in thinking that Bush's reasoning for seeking laws such as this is that he desires to become a dictator, then please...I am begging for someone to enlighten me. If such a theory is schizophrenic in nature, what is the sane explanation for this?

Liar or fool

[ChrisMaple]

The idea that most Americans want Bush impeached is laughable.

Where are the journalists?

[ivoras]

Aren't situations like this like a dream come true for journalists? I can't really imagine why there's no a big nation-wide show (in any nation, not just the US) when a power change is about to happen that reviews the current goverment's promises and results. Something like "before president X there was no war, now there is - what has changed?" and "president X used rethoric Y to get in power and it proved to be a lie - why should we believe candidate Z when he does the same?" should be very popular debate points, especially if the journalist is cynical enough. It's a pity journalists don't read Slashdot :)

On the other hand, isn't there a law in US that prohibits saying "the president sucks" under threat of imprisonment as a terrorist?

Re:Where are the journalists?

[crazygamer]

On the other hand, isn't there a law in US that prohibits saying "the president sucks" under threat of imprisonment as a terrorist?

No, there isn't. You are protected by the 1st Amendment to state your opinion. If you are a journalist and make such a claim, you must be able to back it up with evidence in order for it to not be considered libel. Saying that, however, wouldn't classify you as a terrorist in either case.

Re:Where are the journalists?

[MrNougat]

Aren't situations like this like a dream come true for journalists?

You'd think they would be. The problem here is twofold:

1. There is no journalistic integrity left in America. It's about money. Ratings get money. Sensationalism, extremism, violence, tits and ass get ratings. Journalistic integrity does not.

2. The White House press corps has to play nice with the White House. If you're a journalist, and you manage to get an interview with someone high up in the administration, and you ask them real hard questions and then follow up with proof that the answer they just gave you is A) contradictory to what they said last week and/or B) a boldfaced lie, you will never get to talk to anyone in the administration ever again. When you're paying bills with the salary you make as a journalist, you've got no incentive to jeopardize that by making your interviewees uncomfortable.

Re:Where are the journalists?

[TheGavster]

On the other hand, isn't there a law in US that prohibits saying "the president sucks" under threat of imprisonment as a terrorist?

The Alien and Sedition Act expired at the turn of the 19th century, and has largely been found unconstitutional in any case. The tricky bit is that in modern times, there's a general consensus that "terrorists have no rights" without a very clear indication of what a terrorist is exactly, or the due process that transfers a citizen to terrorist status.

That's not rule number 1!

[rubmytummy]

No, no, no, no, no! Rule number 1 is: Do not act incautiously when confronting a little bald wrinkly smiling man!

Re:That's not rule number 1!

[Anonymous Coward]

obligatory discworld counter-reference

Re:That's not rule number 1!

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, rule 1 is "All guns are always loaded." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Cooper_(colonel) #Firearms_safety

Section 2 *already* applies

[Anonymous Coward]

Because of the abrogation of our rights to habeas corpus and fair trial in the event we're deemed an enemy collaborator, I'd say the conditions of 1076(a)(2) already apply (cited below for your remembering convenience)

"(2) A condition described in this paragraph is a condition
that-- "(A) so hinders the execution of the laws of a State or
possession, as applicable, and of the United States within that
State or possession, that any part or class of its people is
deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named
in the Constitution and secured by law, and the constituted
authorities of that State or possession are unable, fail, or refuse
to protect that right, privilege, or immunity, or to give that
protection; or
"(B) opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the
United States or impedes the course of justice under those
laws.

Ballots always win out over Bullets

[Cappadonna]

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

Re:Ballots always win out over Bullets

[the_womble]

Because the legal means have several shortcoming:

1) It requires lots of hard work and organisation
2) You have to convince other people and communicate with them
3) You have to be old enough to vote
4) It does not give you quite the same feeling that being an armchair commando does

Surely these are reasons enough for a large proportion of Slashdot readers?

Do you seriously expect either Slashdotters or the public at large to be rational and engage in hard thinking?

Sadly most people want bread and circuses. Their revolutionary fantasies are just part of the circus.

Re:Ballots always win out over Bullets

[Anonymous Coward]

An informed, engaged electorate always win out over yahoos with Ammo, anyday.

Your belief is valid only to the extent that the votes are actually counted. When the votes are not counted, the elections don't matter. The party in power has the responsibility to count the votes. The actual votes don't matter. What matters is the result of the count. The result doesn't have to match the actual votes, if the counting is dishonest. When there are no paper ballots, the elections can be rigged at will. The will to retain power is a very strong motivation.

The problem is the next step. After it becomes very obvious to everyone that the votes are not actually counted, the remaining option is a bloody revolution. Posse Comitatus was enacted, specifically, to minimize the bloodshed of a revolution. By repealing Posse Comitatus, the corrupt government has announced that it is willing to kill millions of our own citizens to retain power.

Re:Ballots always win out over Bullets

[MacWiz]

A "revolution" in the civil, political sense would be simply to vote against the incumbent in every race.

I'm holding my ballot (we have mail-in ballots in Arizona) and the choices for Senator are: clown, clown, wacko. For US Representative: clown, clown, wacko. Each candidate has spent more on nasty, negative publicity than they will earn in their entire term of office if elected. Not one of them appears to represent me.

I've been voting since 1972. The choices are always the same -- clown, clown, wacko.

There is no intelligent vote. You can vote one clown out of office, but then your choice is between another clown and a wacko. It's an exercise in trying to predict which clown would do the least damage. We are usually wrong in determining the clown's true nature from the face they are wearing.

Clowns are funny that way.

Re:Ballots always win out over Bullets

[schmappy1105]

Citizen voting is hopeless - because of electoral college -- there's always somebody with a say over the citizens who chooses the winner.

Re:Ballots always win out over Bullets

[SoulRider]

The second ammendment not only gives you the right to bear arms but also gives you the right to form private militias to combat the government should it become corrupt.

Re:Ballots always win out over Bullets

[amper]

No. It does not. Until you understand the true meaning of the Second Amendment, you will not be an effective advocate, either for or against it.

Re:Ballots always win out over Bullets

[SoulRider]

So then its probably a good thing I am neither and advocate for or against it. I believe the right to bear arms is important, people should have the ability to use them for sport and self protection. But at the same time I feel things are out of control, the US has a magnitude of 1000x the amount of gun related homicides than any other country, there is definately something wrong. We already have laws controlling the usage of guns and we should be more proactive in enforcing them, so we dont need more, we definately need to make punishments more severe for people who break those laws. We also need to make the gun manufacturers more accountable, for gods sake they sell guns on the fact that they are fingerprint resistant (give me a break, who would REALLY be interested in a gun that is fingerprint resistant, there are more than enough cleaning agents to remove the oils left from touching the gun). I do know that the democrats do NOT want to take our guns away (this is a lie spread by the Republicans), and Al Gore said it best when he said "Any politician who would try and take away our right to own guns would be committing suicide, both politically and literally." Gun control isnt about taking the guns away, its about tracking the guns that are out there. In the end the way the Republicans are taking our freedoms away and stomping all over the constitution and bill of rights they wont have any choice but to repeal the 2nd ammendment because there wont be any more freedoms to take away.

CMP

[Kadin2048]

I think the Civilian Marksmanship Program is still selling some M1s at reduced prices to members of CMP affiliated clubs; the only special requirements (aside from being eligible to own a firearm and ponying up the cash) are a demonstration that you can hit a paper plate at 50 yards or something similarly easy. It's really quite a neat program. Back in the day you could get an M1 or M1 Carbine for a few bucks, shipped in the mail. Now it has to go through a dealer, but it's still a good way to get your hands on one.

Sadly, several Presidents, culimating with President Clinton, effectively gutted the program and ensured that once it runs out of WWII and Korea surplus Garands, it will effectively cease to exist (military surplus M14s and M16s cannot be sold to the public, even if the full-auto capabilities are permanently disabled; even surplus ammunition is destroyed rather than sold surplus, though it would be worth millions of dollars).

Get them while you still can. Up until a few years ago you could even specify a manufacturer preference for your M1, they had some International Harvester ones that were neat, but I think now you have to deal with whatever's left.

You can sign up to be sent a sales catalog on their website: http://www.odcmp.com/

Well I for one....

[Eric Damron]

I for one believe that we should trust our new Emperor. Yes Emperor Bush may have taken away a few unimportant rights but this is only to keep us safe. It is much better to give away our rights to privacy, to protest, to habeas corpus than to let "THE TERRORISTS" ruin our way of life!

Let's look more closely at the habeas corpus right. Do "THE TERRORISTS" really need the right to be heard in a court of law when they are detained? Should we allow "THE TERRORISTS" due process? Should Emperor Bush allow "THE TERRORISTS" a chance to prove that they should not be held? Absolutely not! For God's sake man... They are "THE TERRORISTS!" And how do we know this?? Emperor Bush says so and if you question his divine knowledge than you are evil and probably one of "THE TERRORISTS!"

God has chosen Emperor Bush to save us all. We should trust our Emperor... Or is he a God?

Imagine My Not Surprise

[DannyO152]

If you listened closely, one of the "problems" with the Katrina response was that Louisiana wouldn't let Bush & Co federalize the national guard and posse comitatus got in the way of putting the army in. Sort of gives one perspective on the motives, and maybe the sources, of those "rescuers were getting shot at" reports. (According to one news account I heard, it was the allegations of shootings which made Bush realize there was a problem and step up his "efforts", as opposed to all those folks stranded and all the water on the wrong side of the flood walls.)

New moderation option?

[DragonHawk]

"I'm looking forward to this election shaking up the entire political establishment."

We need a "-1, Naive" moderation option.

War on drugs?

[laurensv]

Afghanistan is no longer run by Islamic fascists, and it is no longer hiding/accomodating/sponsering terrorists.
No, it's just producing more drugs then ever; isn't there a war on drugs in the USA?
The US led the relief effort after the tsunami. No, they didn't; and the USA gave a lot less by capita or percent of GNP than many other countries.

Re:War on drugs?

[BiggerBoat]

No, they didn't; and the USA gave a lot less by capita or percent of GNP than many other countries.

Isn't that only true if you count just official government contributions, and not private/corporate too?

Regardless, consider this: let's say your house burned to the ground and through some weird circumstance you weren't covered by insurance. Some of your neighbors pitch in to help you rebuild. Many give a good chunk of their income, but let's say that doesn't amount to a whole lot because most of your neighbors aren't rich. One rich neighbor, however, gives ten times what any other neighbor did, but it's not nearly as much as any of the other neighbors in terms of percentage of their income. Are you really going to look down your nose at that rich neighbor?

You see, I judge the value of charity mostly by how much good it does the recipients, not how much it hurts the givers.

Re:War on drugs?

[quax]

Sorry, pal but your claim, that the US lead in the Tsunami effort just does not hold up to scrutiny. Bush the elder and Clinton did a nice job of tapping into the wonderful generosity of Americans but Bush the junior needed much cajoling from abroad to get US military assets on the scene in Indonesia. This administration created a whole department headed by Karen Hughes to try to improve the image of the USA in the Islamic world. And then there is a huge televised catastrophe hitting the largest Islamic nation in Asia and this administration did not figure out by themselves that no money in the world could buy them as much goodwill as a massive US military relief effort. Same when a huge quake hit Pakistan. Who was on the scene and helped? Afghani Taliban for crying out loud. Just pathetic.

Write in Vote.

[Original Replica]

Write me in on your ballot. any ballot. Adam H. Bair. I'll demand impeachment hearings every time I can get the floor, and I'll vote "no" on any bill that doesn't reduce government size and spending.

Re:frist psot

[Tim C]

He will be gone in two years to be replaced by another egomaniac.

If I were a conspiracy nut (which I'm not), I'd likely counter that with theories about the election being suspended due to imposition of martial law, or the fact that you're at war, or possibly a (staged?) terrorist attack in the run-up to the elections.

Of course, I'm not, so I won't.

Liar

[ChrisMaple]

Here's the timeline: http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/katrina/katrina_ timeline.html

Re:Liar

[Anonymous Coward]

Liar is a pretty strong word, given that just about everyone was misinformed at the time. I remember a far-right wing rag clapping themselves on the back for Bush getting 2000 guardsmen on the ground over three states in the days after katrina. Amusingly enough given your source, at the time I compared it to the Canadian force taking Juno beach on D-Day. IIRC my exact words were "The Canadians landed fifteen thousand soldiers on one of the heaviest defended beaches at D-Day, and all the "best" army in the world can do is 2000 men against some wind and rain". Hell, it took months of bush stuttering around before anyone pointed out that the media was wrong, and he had long since taken the blame for the so-called "failure". If even the president of the US didn't know about the 10,000 guardsmen there, did it really happen?

Federalist Balances?

[the_REAL_sam]

Considering that Bush launched unnecessary, unprovoked military operations in Iraq / Afghanistan, and undermined the constitutional rights of U.S. citizens, I find it deceitful that he would presume to assign U.S. troops to protect constitutional rights within U.S. Borders; I find it deeply troubling that he would pursue that power at a time when there is no mandate.

I ask why such a bill was even written, considering there are historical examples of the U.S. president already HAVING and USING the right to domestically use troops: (1) Able Lincoln and the U.S. Civil War, and (2) Eisenhower sending federal troops to counteract the national guard troops in Little Rock during the civil rights movement, when the governor of Arkansas tried to block integration of schools.

There are two potential problems with the act:

First, IF Federal Law changed to something REALLY obnoxious, any state(s) that openly and actively opposed the undesired change due to their own democratic process, as is their consittutional right (due to federalism and seperation of powers), they would potentially be subject to suppression from the U.S. Armed Forces. For instance, if the feds wanted sweeping "terrorist holding camps" and gestapo tactics (Guantanamo, washboards, secret lists, secret detentions, secret trials), any state that openly opposed it would be subject to invasion.

Secondly, if a state had passed a benign law that happened to be at odds with federal law, but only in some minor way, the president could STILL potentially use troops (or not) on whim, effectively putting the state at the mercy of the president, and forcing them to a position of meekness due to his discretionary power. For instance, if California wanted pot clubs and gay marriage, and ignored federal law in persuit of legalizing those things, the ?act? would give the President the right to invade California with U.S. troops. He might decide not to do it, but his ability to choose so, or not, amounts to a huge amount of bullying power. If I liked Bush's policies I might think it was harmless, but I hate Bush's policies*, and there's no promise about who will be the next president.

Assuming the act is here to stay, and in light of those objections, the important question becomes, "WHO DECIDES WHETHER A MAJOR PUBLIC EMERGENCY HAS HAPPENED?" I'm curious whether the determination that the state, or condition(s) therein, has violated the constitutional rights of its citizens, or that it has systematically blocked federal law, or the enforcement thereof, would first be submitted to the Supreme Court.

The president, I claim, should NOT have total discretion. I cite the examples of:

*Bush launching unprovoked wars in Iraq / Afghanistan, and striking a terrible blow against the constitutional rights of U.S. citizens.

It is prepostrous that he would then "ask for more power" to "protect us" _in the rights he trampled_, _with the army he misused_.

Re:Federalist Balances?

[RKBA]

The government needs the power to declare martial law in order to keep the angry mobs in check when the US Dollar tanks and widespread repossession of homes (among other things) becomes commonplace.

Re:Federalist Balances?

[the_REAL_sam]

I don't see how the bankers could possibly want broadstrokes foreclosures. Reposessed homes don't make mortgage payments.

I'll try to look forward to a brighter future. =)

It already is a monarchy...

[chocolatetrumpet]

Even better than a monarchy is a "democracy" where it's not who votes that counts; but rather who counts the votes. ...electronic voting, anyone?

Re:Law

[Anonymous Coward]

"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?"

Exactly - this happens all the time and they admit it. I would turn this around on you and ask if you truly believe our legislators read all, or even most, of the bills they vote on. If you do, you are very naive.

How many of your congresscritters publically admitted to not reading the P.A.T.R.I.O.T. act before voting on it? The most cursory of google searches reaveals 7 that said so in the Washington Post.

Wake. The. Fuck. Up.

Iraqis

[Mark_MF-WN]

It works for the Iraqis because they're willing to die to take out their enemies. How many Americans are willing to die for anything The few that actually have that level of dedication are in the military, and have already been trained to support the government and obery orders no matter how evil and fascist its dictates.

If even a few million Americans would be willing to die to take out military assets and politicians, the tyrant-government wouldn't stand a chance. A few million people with rifles and shotguns, taking potshots at anyone with a shred of authority? A terrifying notion. And America's advanced industrial and chemical industries mean that it's not at all difficult for people to get the materials necessary to make IEDs, rockets, and hell, maybe even some auto-turrets and other things that you just don't see on battlefields yet. A trip to Home Depot would be enough to equip someone with the tools necessary to make life hell for the government -- if that person is willing to die in the process.

Re:Iraqis

[Darkman, Walkin Dude]

It works for the Iraqis because they're willing to die to take out their enemies.

Tell that to the IRA.

Killing US Citizens

[Original Replica]

Cops shoot citizens all the time.

Debt incurred during various presidential terms

[jesterzog]

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?"

Here's an interesting chart.

Re:Debt incurred during various presidential terms

[LaughingCoder]

That is an interesting chart. I see that during Clinton's years, the debt went up about 50% ($4T to $6T). During Bush's years (so far) it has gone up about 33% ($6T yo $8T). Thanks for bringing that to my attention.

Re:Debt incurred during various presidential terms

[radtea]

That is an interesting chart. I see that during Clinton's years, the debt went up about 50% ($4T to $6T). During Bush's years (so far) it has gone up about 33% ($6T yo $8T).

Thanks for that fascinating glimpse into the partisan mind.

It must be difficult, being unable to make value-judgments without first ascertaining which party is responsible for the action you are judging.

You know, you might be interested in knowing that some of us try to make judgments based on the facts of what was done rather than who was doing doing it. It's so much less primitive that way.

Re:Debt incurred during various presidential terms

[Tim Doran]

Just how far up your ass does your head have to be to draw THAT conclusion from THAT chart?

What I see is:

Reagan - Large, mostly uncontrolled deficit
Bush I - Large, completely uncontrolled deficit
Clinton - Severe deficit wrestled down to near-zero
Bush II - Return to uncontrolled deficits

Surely you're not so hopelessly married to the Republican party that you're willing to deny what's plainly in front of your face.

By the way, the chart isn't difficult to read:

Clinton - national debt increased from ~$4.2T to ~$5.8B, or about 38%
Bush II - Increased from ~$6T to ~$8T, or about 33% with TWO YEARS LEFT IN HIS TERM

The chart projects Bush will increase the national debt by almost 66% overall. Clinton inherited massive deficits and fixed them. Bush inherited a surplus and flushed it.

Re:Debt incurred during various presidential terms

[LaughingCoder]

Clinton - national debt increased from ~$4.2T to ~$5.8B, or about 38%
Bush II - Increased from ~$6T to ~$8T, or about 33% with TWO YEARS LEFT IN HIS TERM

On Bush II we both have the same numbers - 33%. But you conveniently omit Clinton's first year in computing his "contributions". The debt was $4T, not $4.2T when Clinton took over. So Clinton's number is (5.8-4.0)/4.0, or 45%.

As far as projections to Bush's 8 year number, those are projections. In fact, as the economy gains steam we are seeing frequent down-scoping of the projected deficits for the next two years, so we'll just have to see what the number ends up as, won't we?

http://travel2.nytimes.com/2005/07/13/business/13d eficit.html?ex=1162357200&en=434fd1179d80d6c5&ei=5 070
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/09/washington/09eco n.html?ei=5088&en=ec2d242da8699725&ex=1310097600&p artner=rssnyt&emc=rss

Re:Debt incurred during various presidential terms

[Tim Doran]

You do understand that the tilde (~) indicates "approximately", right? So whether Clinton started at $4.0B or $4.2B is really kinda missing the point, innit?

The point is that three of the last three republican presidents have presided over massive accumulation of federal debt. Only the Democratic president tackled the deficit and he reduced it to near-zero.

Surely THAT is the overarching lesson in that chart. Surely you can't deny my point.

Incidentally, Bush routinely plays games with his deficit projections, such excluding the cost of war. He has also clearly indicated that he will not expend effort to reduce the deficit. Anyone waiting for some miracle to relieve the Bush fiscal nightmare is in complete la-la land.

Re:Debt incurred during various presidential terms

[LaughingCoder]

Well first off, the difference between a 45% increase in the debt and a 38% increase in the debt ain't chicken feed. In fact, if Bush's next 2 years match his previous six, his total contribution will be ~(33/6)*8 or about 44% (plus a smidge for compounding). This would be basically identical to Clinton's 45%. Now admittedly under Clinton the trend was downward - in fact the budget was nearly balanced at the end (mostly thanks to the massive tax receipts from the bubble-induced capital gains). Significantly, Bush's deficits (as those NYTimes articles showed) are also dropping steeply, and those drops are also due to supply-side gains (ie more revenue due to economic activity, not cuts in spending). Clearly Bush will not get close to a balanced budget in 2 years, and in fact the annual deficit will most likely exceed that of Clinton as he left office. We could talk about the reasons for that, like 9/11 (terrorist's fault), Iraq (Bush's fault), Katrina (nature's fault), stock market bubble burst (greed's fault), or we could be intellectually lazy and say it's all Bush's "taxcuts for the rich" that caused it.

As regards "Bush routinely playing games with his deficit projections", those numbers come from the Congressional Budget Office, not from Bush.

Re:Debt incurred during various presidential terms

[Tim Doran]

I don't follow your math - I see federal debt at ~$6T at the start of Bush's term, projected to wind up at ~$10T. That's a 66% increase, hardly "identical" to Clinton's increase. Not chicken feed, indeed. Grossly irresponsible, one could argue.

And you seem determined to pooh-pooh Clinton's elimination of the Reagan/Bush deficit while making (at least partial) excuses for Bush. The fact is that Clinton controlled federal discretionary spending AND didn't start any unnecessary wars of aggression. Bush, OTOH, presided over the largest growth in domestic discretionary spending in the last 40 years AND drove massive tax cuts for the rich AND started an unnecessary war that has already cost hundreds of billions of dollars.

Domestic spending growth (warning, PDF): http://www.cato.org/pubs/tbb/tbb-0510-26.pdf
More on Bush the Big Spender: http://www.slate.com/id/2095237/

Honestly, your assessment is so slanted it's laughable. 'Clinton was just lucky, but it mostly wasn't Bush's fault!' It just kills you conservatives that the only fiscal responsibility of the last 25 years has been that hippie Democrat Clinton.

Re:Debt incurred during various presidential terms

[LaughingCoder]

... AND drove massive tax cuts for the rich

And here by repeating that tired left-wing mantra you reveal your partisanship as well. Not that it was a mystery since the chart you referenced labeled the two gulf conflicts the "Oil Wars". Funny how your perspective is supposedly unbiased and fact-based, but anything I say is assumed to be slanted, partisan and delusional. I have written much in this thread about the "taxcuts for the rich" so I won't bother to repeat it here.

The numbers are the numbers. However, there are two kinds of numbers. There are those from the past, and projections for the future. The book on Clinton is closed; the national debt increased 45% during his 2 terms. Fact. So far Bush has increased the debt by 33%. Fact. *If* your highly partisan chart's projections are correct he will indeed have increased the debt by 66%. But that is a big if. In fact as the NYTime's articles I referenced indicate, the deficit is dropping rather quickly, so we will just have to wait and see where it all ends up. Since I am not as biased as you I am not willing just to accept partisan projections as gospel truth. Funny, you use a partisan projection to defend your position, but were quick to point out that the NYTimes numbers came from the White House (which they didn't, they came from the CBO). To quote you:

Incidentally, Bush routinely plays games with his deficit projections

Now why is one partisan projection suspect, but YOUR partisan projection the indisputable truth?

Clinton was just lucky

The only thing I said about this was that a major contributor to the deficit reduction during Clinton's terms was a huge increase in federal tax receipts, driven largely by the stock market bubble induced capital gains taxes. Do you really deny this is true? Is it so hard for you to admit that it was the "supply-side" that grew us out of the deficit much more than it was due to reduced spending? In fact spending went up every year of Clinton's administration. It's just that tax receipts went up faster, again due to capital gains. You do realize that the federal tax revenues peaked in 2000 (Clinton's last year) at $2.02T, and never again reached the $2T mark until 2005, right? http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/TaxFacts/TFDB/TFTem plate.cfm?Docid=200

Partisan cuts both ways.

Re:Debt incurred during various presidential terms

[Tim Doran]

So if I understand you correctly, you're saying "partisan partisan partisan", backed up by "left-wing biased poo-poo head!".

First: I agree, labeling a chart with "Oil Wars" reflects a bias BUT it doesn't change the data.
Second: it wasn't my chart. Remember?

On Bush's tax cuts for the rich AND their effect on the deficit (hint: they disproportionately favour the rich and it's a big effect), see here for a well-documented assessment: http://www.cbpp.org/4-14-04tax-sum.htm

On Bush's deficit projection game, the difference lies in whose projection you're talking about. Of course the CBO makes a projection and it's generally very accurate. And every year the Bush political team makes its own *very high* projection, so when the results come in, the Bush admin can claim the deficit is less than *their* projection. Guess which tactic gets the (politically-favourable) headlines?

On Clinton - of *course* government spending grew under Clinton. Once again, my point was that Clinton held spending to modest growth. And of course tax revenues grew during that time and that helped him balance the budget. It doesn't change the fact that he balanced the budget.

Bush on the other hand, has allowed government spending to grow unchecked under his watch - you'll recall I provided a couple of sources for that. At the same time, he chose massive tax cuts (regardless of who they benefit, they were a massive reduction in federal revenues). The result is a ballooning deficit, especially when you throw in the cost of a voluntary war.

Whether Bush increases federal debt by 66%, 60% or 58%, the fact is that he inherited a balanced budget and chose massive deficits. 9/11 was a factor, Katrina was a factor, but neither measures up to Bush's incredible growth in government spending nor his huge tax cuts nor his war.

Clinton: good management
Bush: poor management

And that just f*cking kills you Republicans, doesn't it?

And, like you say, the book on Clinton is closed: he won't add any more to the federal debt. Bush, OTOH, has 2 years left in which to, say, initiate a nuclear attack on Iran, invade North Korea... heck, the guy has a solid track record of pissing away money and no credibility whatsoever on fiscal discipline. The book not being closed on Bush cuts both ways, depending on how much faith you have in the man.

So aside from calling me "partisan" (which could only be considered an insult by a Republican devotee), can you address these points at all?

Oh, and BTW, "Since I am not as biased as you..."

You can just cram that. Just who do you think you are?

Re:Debt incurred during various presidential terms

[LaughingCoder]

Forgive me for taking these out of order. I simply had to respond to your last slam first for obvious reasons.

Please review the history of this thread. Better yet, let me summarize (in chronological order) all of the unfortunate barbs that have been traded:

You (starting the name calling on 10-29):

Just how far up your ass does your head have to be to draw THAT conclusion from THAT chart?

I replied with an explanation, but no attacks on 10/30

You (on 10/30):

You do understand that the tilde (~) indicates "approximately", right?

and

Anyone waiting for some miracle to relieve the Bush fiscal nightmare is in complete la-la land.

I replied again with my views, no attacks.

You (11/01):

Honestly, your assessment is so slanted it's laughable.

Me (finally responding in kind on 11/1):

And here by repeating that tired left-wing mantra you reveal your partisanship as well.

and

Since I am not as biased as you I am not willing just to accept partisan projections as gospel truth.

You (11/3):

You can just cram that. Just who do you think you are?

And now my response to your eloquently phrased query:

I think the transcript speaks for itself. I believe I come off as a reasonable person interested in discussing the issues, and you come off as someone so driven by hate that they cannot think straight. I suspect I am wasting my time by reiterating what I have said, but I feel I need to do it because it appears by your accusations that you *think* I've said things that I simply have not written:

- I never said Clinton was a bad manager. Nor did I say he was "lucky" to reduce the deficit. I said the biggest (but not only) component of that deficit reduction was supply-side growth in federal revenues.

- I never said Bush was a good manager. I never said he was holding the line on spending. In fact I blamed him for the war.

- I pointed out that three of the major causes of the larger deficits (the 4th being the war that Bush chose) were 9/11 ($1T is one oft heard estimate of the costs), Katrina (hundreds of billions at least), and the bubble burst (I pointed out how federal revenues did not return to 2000 levels until 2005 - a loss of many hundreds of billions of tax revenues). [Incidentally, the tax cuts were in 2003 and they were an attempt to jumpstart an economy that was in recession following the bubble burst; the steep drop in federal revenues was initially caused by the severe drop in capital gains taxes, not by Bush policies. And the improving economy we are now seeing (with the attendant falling deficits) may in fact be due to those taxcuts (hard to say).].

- I explained that there are facts and there are projections. I treat the two differently. I am willing to wait to see with projections. I added that lately due to economic growth driving increased tax revenues, the projected deficits are dropping (not insignificantly).

- I illustrated how the "rich" (depending on how you define that loaded word) pay a disproportionate share of the taxes in this country, so if you have a taxcut that reduces in a meaningful way federal taxes, you must by definition reduce the taxes of "the rich". To call it a "taxcut for the rich" is simply inflamatory and meant to drive a wedge between people. While technically accurate, it is certainly not helpful in promoting understanding and discussion.

You know, it's ironic how this whole thread started. Basically I made the seemingly innocuous statement that I don't believe we can properly judge the Bush presidency whilst in the middle of it. This should not be construed as a biased or partisan statement. It makes no judgement whatsoever about Bush's years in office. The idealogues on the left however would have no

Two more

[dbIII]

President Rumsfeld

Re:frist psot

[Anonymous Coward]

If the governer of New Orleans didn't want to call up the National Guard to stop the looting, the fault lays with him. If the cops of New Orleans left, the fault lays with them. Where the federal government failed was not in the preparation for the disaster (for which the fault lies entirely with New Orleans citizenry, government and police force) but in the clean up effort. Can u say FEMA sucks? The levy system failures (or lack of proper shoring with a clear indication of likely failure) is equally blameable on both state and federal government. Lastly, if citizens don't want their stuff looted, why didn't they do like the Koreans when it came the riots in LA; shoot looters.

In any event, where exactly is the accountability? I don't see a single person coming forward to take responsibility for the fuckups... Certes a powergrab (which this is) is not what I would call accountability.

Yeah, you saw it on Slashdot first... wonder why?

[Anonymous Coward]

The president does not need to impose martial law since he is already the head of the armed forces. That's right, the president. Not congress, not the senate. The president says, "go in and kick ass", that's exactly what the forces do. There is no need whatsoever to pause for the nicety of declaring "martial law".

This silly Slashdot article is trying to claim the president is angling for powers he already has!

Silly liberal, trix are for kids.

The next disaster...

[CptNerd]

Now, the President won't have to wait days for the local governments to declare natural disasters before sending in troops, as in New Orleans.

Oh, wait, that doesn't play into the paranoid fantasies. Sorry. Forget I said anything.

Re:The next disaster...

[dreamer-of-rules]

Troll. ..or ditto-head. LA governor Blanco declared a state of emergency 2 days before landfall when predictions upgraded the severity of Katrina. The day before landfall, Bush, Chertov, and Brown were warned about the possibility of the levee failures. Brown and Chertov were the incompetent asses that botched the response, and Bush was the incompetent ass who hired him, and put FEMA under the DoHS against the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission.

(2 days before landfall) GOV. BLANCO ASKS BUSH TO DECLARE FEDERAL STATE OF EMERGENCY IN LOUISIANA: "I have determined that this incident is of such severity and magnitude that effective response is beyond the capabilities of the State and affected local governments, and that supplementary Federal assistance is necessary to save lives, protect property, public health, and safety, or to lessen or avert the threat of a disaster.

You may want to read up on a good FEMA director. James Lee Witt was the FEMA director during the Clinton administration, and is credited with turning FEMA into a top-notch emergency response team. Possibly because he had real emergency preparedness experience. <snark>

By 1996 an Atlanta Journal-Constitution editorial said that "FEMA has developed a sterling reputation for delivering disaster-relief services, a far cry from its abysmal standing before James Lee Witt took its helm in 1993. How did Witt turn FEMA around so quickly? Well, he is the first director of the agency to have emergency-management experience. He stopped the staffing of the agency by political patronage. He removed layers of bureaucracy. Most important, he instilled in the agency a spirit of preparedness, of service to the customer, of willingness to listen to ideas of local and state officials to make the system work better."

Witt's term of office saw approximately 348 Presidential declared disaster areas in more than 6,500 counties and in all 50 states and territories. Witt supervised the response to the most costly flood disaster in the nation's history at that time, the most costly earthquake, and a dozen serious hurricanes.

Amazingly, Bush has declared his intention to disregard a law passed by Congress that requires real emergency preparedness experience when hiring a FEMA director with one of his infamous signing statements.

Live up to your anthem!

[Brickwall]

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:Live up to your anthem!

[ozbird]

The real question for Americans (and Australians, for that matter) is: What are you going to do about it at the next election? Wring your hands and say "Oh my", or send them a message at the ballot box?

"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance." - Thomas Jefferson.

Re:Live up to your anthem!

[Anonymous Coward]

well, greatest _modern_ nation.

America as 'Roma Nova' would be kinda appropriate.

Next thing to watch for:

[Ralph Spoilsport]

The loss of the intelligensia. When the smart people start leaving to "do research abroad" for some open ended amount of time, then you know it's time to stick a fork in America.

This will primarily benefit other English speaking countries, especially Canada, but look for a number of very smart people moving to Ireland, the UK, Australia, or "retiring" to New Zealand. If you have any sense, you'll start making inquiries NOW, while you can...

RS

Re:Next thing to watch for:

[AaronLawrence]

Interesting, then, that Slashdot recently ran an Ask Slashdot called if not the US, then where

Re:Next thing to watch for:

[haakondahl]

Yeah, we'll all just stand at the shores and guard the beach while the sneaky intelligentsia* soar overhead in their sleek aero-liners. Too bad we're not smart enough to prevent the "flight" of the intelligentsia* to their overseas utopiae. We long for the old overlords to show us how they did it in Paris, currently burning at the hands of youths (of no particular distinguishing common thread, in fact a broad strata of society), under the enlightened leadership of the best Socialist intelligentsia* the world has seen.

I'll stay here with my non-intelligentsia* shotgun and my non-Socialist Republican VRWC membership card.

You sound like a pretty fart smeller, though--you'd better git on that aero-plane with yore intelligentsia chums.

*In trendy Liberal Soviet vocabulary, right-winger spell-checks YOU!

Re:Next thing to watch for:

[Sardaukar86]

Ugh, I wouldn't hold out much hope of New Zealand being a viable option for very long.. we're enjoying our own version of 1984 down here thanks to the concerted efforts of a tight group of academic idealist socialists running the country.

Most impressive of all is the almost total media blackout the New Zealand Labour Party has managed to impose, whereby the activities of the other parties and most notably the main Opposition party somehow manage to evade coverage. Other than paid-for advertising, the other parties essentially fall off the face of the planet during the run-up to the election.

Just recently there's been a bit of a stink about improper spending by all parties in the last election. Labour's overspending was by far the greatest by a factor of 10 over the next largest overspender. The Opposition and the minor parties mostly agreed to stump up to repay the improper expenditure, with the funds coming directly from MPs salaries, believe it or not.

Labour's response? Why, they simply pushed an 'emergency resolution' through to make future overspending lawful, then applied it retroactively to let themselves off the hook. Genius, really.

This is Labour's third term and they'll likely be handed the keys again in the next election, certainly in part due to the remarkable control they appear to have over the New Zealand media.

An old quote that seems appropriate: "Not to be a socialist at twenty is proof of want of heart; to be one at thirty is proof of want of head." -Georges Clemenceau

World Wars

[Mark_MF-WN]

You know that England was never particularly at risk in either world war, right? In WW2, England's worst prospect by the time America was attacked was having to make peace with Germany. They had won the Battle of Britain, they controlled the Atlantic, and were being well-supplied by Australia, Canada, and other assorted allies. In WW1, the worst that could possibly have happened is that France might have lost some territory.

America participated in the World Wars BECAUSE AMERICA WAS ATTACKED. WW1, Germany sank American civilian ships and tried to incite Mexico to invade America (you'll note that Mexicans, being sane, refused). WW2, Japan bombed Pearl Harbour and Germany began sinking civilian ships ... again. America joined the World Wars strictly in self-defense. There was no altruism about it, they weren't trying to save anything other than their own asses.

Re:World Wars

[orkysoft]

WW1, Germany sank American civilian ships and tried to incite Mexico to invade America (you'll note that Mexicans, being sane, refused).

No, the inciting letter was delayed by 90 years ;-]

Re:World Wars

[Anonymous Coward]

So, in other words, you are pissed cause the USA saved your Country's ass in WWI & II?

Re:World Wars

[Anonymous Coward]

So, in other words, you're country has nothing to be proud about other than entering into the worlds biggest worst war in the fifth of its five years and claiming victory for the entire war? Do I need to remind you of all the wars America has gotten into and lost? Oh, sorry, I meant, made "strategic withdrawals" from.

Re:World Wars

[Red Flayer]

You know that England was never particularly at risk in either world war, right? In WW2, England's worst prospect by the time America was attacked was having to make peace with Germany. In WW1, the worst that could possibly have happened is that France might have lost some territory.

Are you kidding? I'm not a gung-ho "America is teh hawt!" guy, but without the financial support of the US Government and, through it, US Banks, Britain could not have fought the Battle of Britain, let alone won it. Without lend-lease etc in WWII, Britain would have been eventually starved out. Without US Financial support in WWI, Britain's economy would have crumbled, leading to eventual annhiliation.

They had won the Battle of Britain, they controlled the Atlantic,

Huh? The Allies controlled the Atlantic? Was that with or without the destroyers the US traded for bases in 1940, even prior to lend-lease? It wasn't until '43 that Allied shipping was anything close to safe, and that had to do with American materiel and Hitler's choice to fight on two+ fronts.

Re:World Wars

[Mark_MF-WN]

Lend-lease was certainly a very important factor in the Allied victory, but that too was simply self-preservation. And like any other factor, it is -- at best -- simply a very significant one. England did receive substantial amounts of supply from the rest of the commonwealth. Allied shipping may not have been safe -- German submarines were certainly a serious issue throughout most of the war. But notice how Germany had no marine vehicles in the Atlantic, and successfully kept operation SeaLion nothing more than a delusional fantasy? My saying they controlled the Atlantic doesn't imply that it was completely safe; but Germany's supply problems were definitely worse. Limited food, desperately little oil, no natural rubber -- Germans were definitely living the scanty life, even before the war. The English were comparitively well off.

As for World War I, Germanies chances of being able to ever invade England were zero. In no war was combat EVER more seriously skewed in favour of defence -- and that makes islands veritable fortresses. At that point, England could have held off an invasion from the entire world combined (not that this is a unique attribute -- imagine how ghastly a land invasion of Japan in WW2 would have been, look how badly the pseudo-invasion of Cuba went, and the phrase "fortress North America" isn't just tossed around for giggles). Their economy, of course, almost certainly WOULD have been crushed. War sucks that way. That's the difference between being mutual losers and maybe being not quite as much of a loser when all is said and done. But they were never in danger of being invaded. Germany couldn't get any marine action in that war either. Britain was just too damn powerful navally, and is a great nation to fight air-battles over (since when you eject, you land in friendly territory, while if your foe ejects, he gets to spend the next decade in the furthest regions of the North West Territories enjoying Canadian hospitality while fighting off polar bears and rabid walruses).

Re:frist psot

[KKlaus]

The point isn't whether you think bush, as a singular individual, is going to be the man that breaks american democracy. The point is:

If we had another 9/11, and _a_ president said (doesn't need to be bush) huge national emergency, we think they're about to strike again far worse (Which is a claim that would need no real evidence to make, as we've seen), and on these grounds I'm declaring martial law nationwide until we can clamp down on this threat(indeterminate length of time), would we have to all sit down and say, well I'll be damned, I guess he's allowed to do that?

What if they just kept saying martial law needs to continue?

It's not a problem because bush is somehow obviously going to do this, its a problem because we'd like our democracy and way of life to be a little less fragile than this. Remember, that's what the constitution was for. Let's not erode that any more than we already have.

Re:frist psot

[JustOK]

You must be new here.

Re:frist psot

[N1EY]

I agree with you! This is not a new authority for the President to exercise power. n1ey

Re:frist psot

[scotch]

Why don't you two cowards get a room?

"comparisons between Bush and Hitler *are* valid"

[Anonymous Coward]

If you're right, Bush won't leave office in January 2009.

If he does leave office, will you be posting in February 2009 that you have a history of being a moonbat dumbass?

Why do I have the sneaking suspicion that you won't ever post that? That you'll be making up all sorts of lame excuses to justify your extremism?

Makes Sense

[Mark_MF-WN]

It makes perfect sense though. The Army, Navy, and Air Force are all basically under the thumb of the feds. The national guard, on the other hand, is state run, and there's a pale, shabby, outside chance that national guards members would defend their state. So, if you want to sieze total power, you need to send the national guard away to die somewhere, and keep the federal forces at home to quell dissent.

Did your Congressman vote for this?

[Anonymous Coward]

I went looking for who voted for this, and here is what I have found so far.

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/109/ho use/2/votes/510/

I clicked on the options and got the list for my state. It looks like it was overwhelmingly voted for. I wonder how many of them actually read or understand what they voted for.

You mean the way the Russians won in Chechnya?

[Anonymous Coward]

And Afghanistan?

Chechnya is 100 miles x 60 miles. 1M people at the beginning, way down from that now.

The Russians flattened it twice with artillery barrages, no standing structures in the entire country.

The Chechyans didn't even have outside aid from the US, and the Russians have been reduced to rounding up 15-year-old boys and killing them, because at 16 they join the rebels and start killing Russians.

The Russians have had to replace their puppet gov 3 times and counting. They still lose a few soldiers a week, at the height of the rebellion it was about 20 per week.

Read John Ross's "Unintended Consequences" for how to run a revolution in a US context. He didn't even have the advantage of the idiots in Homeland Security.

Lew

Re:frist psot

[crazygamer]

Yes, but Hitler was trying to exterminate Jews, who were completely innocent. On the other hand, Bush is going after terrorists who have murdered countless numbers of people. I don't see how anyone in their right mind can compare Hitler to anyone.

Need to brush-up on your constitution

[Space cowboy]

In the first 10 amendments to the constitution (the "Bill of Rights"), the areas of the constitution that are limited to citizens are very explicitly stated as such. From Wikipedia

In its most basic form, the writ of habeas corpus serves as the final chance a prisoner has to challenge his conviction, and it will be granted based on only constitutional issues.

The relevant part here is the 5th amendment:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Note the use of the phrase "No person", not "No citizen". The supreme court holds that any offence that involves incarceration is to be considered an "infamous crime".

The fifth amendment is generally considered to be the one that protects "persons" from brutal interrogation. And, in case it escaped your notice, when pressed for whether an American citizen could be considered an "enemy combatant", the President just dodged the issue (this was on TV, so it's probably on U-tube somewhere, but I don't have a URL). Citizenship is irrelevant in this debate.

Simon

Re:Need to brush-up on your constitution

[DerekLyons]

You need to brush up on your law - because the Supreme Court has long held habeas corpus does not always apply to non-citizens and belligerents. The remainder of your comment (starting with: 'In the first 10 amendments'), is nothing but irrelevant noise.

Re:frist psot

[garylian]

I don't think you really understand what happened with FEMA there, pal.

FEMA was rolled into the dreaded Department of Homeland Security. They had much of their power to do things they wanted to do taken away from them. They also had their budget firmly wrapped up in stopping terrorist activities, instead of planning and deploying for natural/manmade disasters.

You have to remember what FEMA was created for. The cleanup of disasters and the planning and prevention of their ramifications. It should have never been moved into DHS, because some of its functions need to be kept seperate.

I'm sorry, but FEMA wasn't the bad guys. The bad guys were DHS, the POTUS, the govenor of LA, and the mayor of the city. FEMA was handcuffed from the beginning, and kept handcuffed by petty political bickering. FEMA is supposed to be above that. Wrapped into DHS, it won't be.

Re:frist psot

[bendodge]

For your information, there are thousands of moderators.

so called "illegal aliens"?

Alien: foreigner
Illegal: breaking the law
I don't see the problem.

trumped-up "immigration emergency"

Immigration Stats
Ask any southern hospital why they are having financial trouble. Now, President Bush is somewhat to blame for this, by requiring hospitals to care for illegal aliens free.

Also, I think it is reasonable to force quarantines and vaccinations in a bio-terror attack. The whole article is flame bait.

Sidebar: IEDs aren't military weapons..

[davecb]

IED is short for improvided explosive device, such as a large quantity of commerial explosive in a 3" diameter iron pipe, with the detonator connected to a cell-phone ringer circuit.

--dave

Re:Sidebar: IEDs aren't military weapons..

[Fulcrum of Evil]

Yeah, and what it really is is a remote detonated bomb. Cheap, too. If it comes down to it, you'd be well advised to make some of your own and get some prepaid cell phones (or whatever), since it's a lot harder to find out who detonated one compared to a sniper.

Re:If you didn't vote Libertarian, you ASKED FOR T

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you really think John Kerry would have done different if he were president? Do you really thing the Democans would be any different than the Republicrats? if you do then you are just as much of a sheep like a good portion of the US is. The cure for that is to look at this or any other abuse of government power, before drinking the kool-aid.

______________________________________
A vote against a Libertarian candidate is
a vote to abolish the Constitution itself

Clarity

[Mark_MF-WN]

Care to clarify that remark? Are you suggesting that IRA members are willing to die to take out their enemies but fail to make a difference, or that they're not willing to die but make a difference anyway? I don't recall any tales of IRA suicide bombings, but they did make at least a small difference. But I'm talking about government-crushing, revolution-enabling violence. The kind that Iraqi insurgents are employing now, that the Taliban used against the Soviets (and has generally failed to employ against NATO this time, now that the Afghan people have an option better than communism and psycho-relgious-extremism). The kind that drove the Nazis out of Yugoslavia, and made their invasion of Greece such a disastrous mistake that it ruined their entire plan for the remainder of the war.

Before you go blaming Republicans

[Hercules Peanut]

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.

Let us not forget that there are more than enough Democrats in the house to make noise. If the Democrats were of a mind to save us from this, we might have heard about it before now.

I'm all for firing every incumbant in the government that means Republican or Democrat. That's the way to send a message IMHO. Unless there has been some voice crying out in the wilderness that I missed (very possible).

What I'd like to know is how the vote went but I still cannot get to the links above and my hands are too full to search at the moment.

Re:Before you go blaming Republicans

[Doc Ruby]

No, the Democrats are in the minority. So they have no power. Not just under the usual system where the majority Republicans control all the committees, though they have only a bare majority. But because those Republican committees don't even let Democrats read the hundreds of pages of bills up for vote until hours before the vote. They often don't even announce the vote until the day before. They don't let Democrats insert amendments anywhere in the process. Over 80% of Democratic bills, amendments and motions were defeated by a Republican majority this year. Of course, Republicans include each other on the entire process. And of course they have Republican lobbyists from their bribing^Wsponsoring corporations write the bills that Republicans vote through Congress.

Meanwhile, Democrats have to make deals to get scraps to send home to their constituents and the rest of the country. Republicans attack Democrats as traitors and worse whenever there's any Democratic opposition getting any traction. The Congress has never been run this partisan before, even to the point of Republicans rewriting centuries-honored rules to block Democrats from any minority rights. Just last year Republicans tried to rip out the fillibuster rules, because they were shoving judges through the Senate without making them answer questions.

There are lots of incumbent Democrats who are useless or worse. In every case of which I know, their Republican opponent is much worse - and part of the Republican gang abusing Congress. Throwing out the Democrats will just leave Republicans with even less to worry about as they screw us.

John Ross "Unintended Consequences"

[Anonymous Coward]

Describes how to do a revolution in a US context, gives a very nice history of the gun culture in the US.

Great book.

Lew

Now that I think about it...

[petrus4]

...I honestly have to wonder why Bush would even bother doing something like this. We all know revolution isn't going to happen. The few people who do know what's going on also know perfectly well what would happen to them if they tried it, (namely that they'd get mown down as they exited their homes) and the rest of the population are too busy watching Survivor, American Idol, or coverage of Paris Hilton's latest activities to care.

Although the other thing I have never understood about fascism is why it has this weird cycle which seems to inevitably result in it self-destructing. I would have thought that if a group of people attained absolute power (especially in a country that is supposedly as wealthy as the US) they'd want to actually take some time to enjoy it...but no...they for some inexplicable reason have to rush madly straight to the concentration camp phase.

Why is that?

Re:Now that I think about it...

[tftp]

they for some inexplicable reason have to rush madly straight to the concentration camp phase.

Because of the same reason why a stone that is rolling down from a mountain doesn't stop mid-way to enjoy the scenery.

Re:frist psot

[Anonymous Coward]

Very clever. I suppose this is the best you could come up with. Instead of, you know, maybe discussing the point as to whether or not anything in this bill is significantly different from what the law was before.

Moo

[Chacham]

It seems to allow the President to impose martial law on any state or territory,

Actually, the Constitution allows that, in Article 1, section 9.

The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.

Re:Moo

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, Article 1 Section 9 deals with the limitations on Congress, not the President. The President cannot suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus.

Re:Moo

[gravij]

It seems to allow the President to impose martial law on any state or territory,

Actually, the Constitution allows that, in Article 1, section 9.
The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.

It may surprise you to learn that martial law and habeas corpus are infact not the same thing.

Re:Moo

[Chacham]

It may surprise you to learn that martial law and habeas corpus are infact not the same thing.

In practicality, they indeed are.

The Revolution Will Not be Televised

[RKBA]

Also on Google video at: The Revolution Will Not be Televised

3 branches

[amightywind]

I think the Republicans can find several better canditates - it is a pity that the US system does not allow the majority party which is even the same party as the President to replace him without the certainty of losing the next election.

You mean like the parlimentary system where citizens abdicate the elective powers to party insiders? Please. The US system of 3 branches has functioned well enough thoughout history, don't you think? As for torture, those islamist rats have earned every lash.

Re:3 branches

[dbIII]

The US system of 3 branches has functioned well enough thoughout history, don't you think?

The dying Wilson, the corrupt Nixon, the isolated second term Reagan, the far more isolated Bush - IMHO these are all situations where the nation was not governed effectively and a Westminster system democracy would have replaced the President with little upset for the benefit of the nation.

As for your comments on torture - a more mature and Christian inspiried attitude should be considered. I'm surprised the very loud God botherers in the USA never seem to have read the book they are talking about.

Re:3 branches

[fourchannel]

As for your comments on torture - a more mature and Christian inspiried attitude should be considered.

First off, I am not disagreeing with you on torture - but I think the simple humanitarian compassion we as a race can show would be enough. There's no need to throw Christian morals in the mix, when compassion would do the job just as well.

Not to be insulting towards Christians (or any other religion), but what we don't need to do, is to allow the separation of Church and State to crumble in the efforts of returning order to the Nation.

Re:frist psot

[MightyYar]

I agree with your sentiment. However, this law does not erode the constitution at all - it operates entirely within it. This law simply amends a previous law.

I'm not even in support of this law. I'm against it... I just don't think it has such dire consequences, and it WAS created in response to popular demand. I just happen to feel that the populous is largely comprised of morons. At risk of scratching open Katrina again, I think that what FEMA was expected to do is ridiculous. FEMA should have shown up to a nearly empty city where they could help with the cleanup and rebuilding, not be expected to take full control from incompetent local officials and idiotic citizenry who apparently hadn't turned on The Weather Channel for a week.

Ironically, the military response is the only thing that kept the post-Katrina mess from becoming a humanitarian disaster. Tens of thousands of stupid or unfortunate people were rescued. The Coast Guard and National Guard seem to have pulled of the largest aerial search and rescue mission in history. Though the public perception seems to be that Federal control would have improved the situation, I'm not so certain and I think that this law is probably unnecessary. I also think, as you seem to agree, that it removes a protection that was put in place for a reason (though that reason was fear of abuse during Civil War reconstruction).

You forget signing statements...

[Tuirn]

With a quick swipe of his god like pen, he can modify any bill however he sees fit with near impunity before he signs it.

section from http://thomas.loc.gov/

[Anonymous Coward]

SEC. 1076. USE OF THE ARMED FORCES IN MAJOR PUBLIC EMERGENCIES.

(a) Use of the Armed Forces Authorized-

(1) IN GENERAL- Section 333 of title 10, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:

`Sec. 333. Major public emergencies; interference with State and Federal law

`(a) Use of Armed Forces in Major Public Emergencies- (1) The President may employ the armed forces, including the National Guard in Federal service, to--

`(A) 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--

`(i) domestic violence has occurred to such an extent that the constituted authorities of the State or possession are incapable of maintaining public order; and

`(ii) such violence results in a condition described in paragraph (2); or

`(B) suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy if such insurrection, violation, combination, or conspiracy results in a condition described in paragraph (2).

`(2) A condition described in this paragraph is a condition that--

`(A) so hinders the execution of the laws of a State or possession, as applicable, and of the United States within that State or possession, that any part or class of its people is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law, and the constituted authorities of that State or possession are unable, fail, or refuse to protect that right, privilege, or immunity, or to give that protection; or

`(B) opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws.

`(3) In any situation covered by paragraph (1)(B), the State shall be considered to have denied the equal protection of the laws secured by the Constitution.

`(b) Notice to Congress- The President shall notify Congress of the determination to exercise the authority in subsection (a)(1)(A) as soon as practicable after the determination and every 14 days thereafter during the duration of the exercise of that authority.'.

(2) PROCLAMATION TO DISPERSE- Section 334 of such title is amended by inserting `or those obstructing the enforcement of the laws' after `insurgents'.

(3) HEADING AMENDMENT- The heading of chapter 15 of such title is amended to read as follows:

`CHAPTER 15--ENFORCEMENT OF THE LAWS TO RESTORE PUBLIC ORDER'.

(4) CLERICAL AMENDMENTS- (A) The tables of chapters at the beginning of subtitle A of title 10, United States Code, and at the beginning of part I of such subtitle, are each amended by striking the item relating to chapter 15 and inserting the following new item:

331'.

Re:frist psot

[Anonymous Coward]

Bush is going after terrorists who have murdered countless numbers of people.

You dolt. Bush and his administration has led the US into a badly thought out clusterfuck of an operation in Iraq alone, violating international law (under the letter of the law committing atrocities as it wasn't a war but an aggressive act against another country making the US the bad guys). He's not going after the bad guys, while he may truly believe that is what he is doing. Rather that's what he naively and idiotically intended, according to his pubic speeches. Instead, he's going after entire countries and eroding international support for the efforts abroad, and further destabilizing the Middle East. Meanwhile at home US citizens in the wake of 11/09/2001 have had so many personal liberties eroded that the Administration's efforts are as a series of counter productive measures. Furthermore now martial law seems a possibility in future, and for all that it seems like anti-US militants would not only be just as capable of carrying out an attack on the US, they've more motive than ever.

Fine, it's childish and pointless to compare someone to Hitler, most people who aren't historians are badly or partially informed (myself included) and couldn't hold a discourse World War II for an extended period and get a fact determinably correct, let alone display enough clarity of thought to make that clicheed comparison in a coherent manner. But just because that's inane, doesn't mean Bush is somehow fighting the good fight. He's just throwing US citizens' lives at a problem he's never properly devoted thought to. He is bereft of any nous nor military leadership, and he's a lousy orator. In fairness, as a leader Hitler was more effective*, but also more of a crackpot. But Hitler is no longer a problem looking for a solution, Bush is still costing people their lives and freedoms and making the US a more likely target.

*up to a point, Hitler was a strong military leader - however, he did not have military savvy himself, but managed to delegate effectively - when he brought his intentions onto the battlefield the outstanding losses of the German troops at Stalingrad came about

Re:frist psot

[MightyYar]

If that happens, I'll be the first one to stand up and compare him to Hitler :)

Do not wait until Election Day to act

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

Your local party headquarters needs people to make reminder calls to people who vote intermittently, to do office work, and probably a zillion other things. You could add to your own vote the N additional people you got to the polls. Call and volunteer.

Re:Do not wait until Election Day to act

[Doc Ruby]

I've been volunteering my time, skills and tech to Congressional races to beef up their telecom operations, to good effect.

On Election Day, I'll probably be out driving people to their polling place.

I think of it as voting many times, legally and with good reason.

Slashdotters are ignorant fools

[Anonymous Coward]

Wasn't this the law that prohibited Bush from sending in troops during Katrina since the do nothing Democrats in Louisiana wouldn't ask for help?

Seems like it might have proved the need for some powers to be extended again or maybe it just proved the need that the Democrats in Louisiana just didn't give a shit about their constituents.

Libs too extreme

[Tuirn]

Unfortunately (fortunately??) Lib platforms are too extreme for my views. There are a couple of values that I agree with, but far too many I don't and would find too damaging to waist my vote.

Re:Katrina

[sasha328]

I see a lot of comments mentioning Katrina and why or why not the federal government didn't do more or on time etc.
I'm an outsider (Aussie) and I am talking from experience having been in the Emergency services here for over 10 years.
The problem in the US is that the emergency management (from my perspective, so take the following comment with some salt) is completely disorganised and not clearly demarcated.
Let me explain:
In Australia there emergencies are classified as follows:

1- Storm, Tempest and Floods (Katrnina fits here) is managed by the SES (correct term is Combat Agency)
2- Bush Fires: Combat Agency is the rural/country fire service
3- Man made/urban disasters (building collapses etc.): Combat agency is the "regular" fire brigade
There are others, but these are the "major" ones.
By the way, the majority of emergency service agencies are made up of volunteers (unpaid) except for the "regular" or metro fire brigades who are paid employees.

A combat agency means they are the only and sole coordinating agency, regardless of the scale. Almost all major emergencies require the cooperation of all emergency services, under the direction of the Combat Agency. The chain of command is very clear.
An example, about 4 years ago a, major storm hit sydney damaging over 10000 homes. Once local area alone had over 4000 damaged homes. This area's emergency service unit consisted of no more that 40 members. However, all the state's resources were at it's disposal. In a matter of hours, through the right channels, the fire brigades, parks services, the police and a few other organisations had stationed liaison officers in their HQ to start receiving orders.
Even with an operation of this scale, the State did not interfere except to declare a "state of emergency" which give the "combat agency" extra powers, like forcibly remove residents, employment protection etc.
The scenario was replicated across the several other regions that were affected. The operation worked flawlessly (in general terms) even though most of the people involved were not experienced in such large scale operations (it lasted for over two weeks and an extra week or so of tidy up work) because everyone knew the correct chain of command, and the government responses available.
Everything worked in this operation because everyone respected the supremacy of the combat agency in their own operation, unlike a year or so earlier.
That time, i think it was 1999 or 2000, another freak storm hit a different part of sydney and caused a similar amount of damage, but there was so much jostling for the media limelight and the actions of a couple of very politically powerful "shock jocks" or talkback radio hosts. The government started interfering and some of the non-combat agencies wanted to assume responsibility etc. It caused a lot of confusion among the rank and file of the emergency services volunteers and the result was a shambles. The operation took 3 months to complete, although the bulk was done in under 4 weeks.

The investigations aftwerards reaffirmed the need to respect the supremacy of the Combat Agency.

Long message I know, but the point i'm trying to make is a clear mandate for a "combat agency" would have minimised the damaage of the Katrina huricane. It was not how slow or fast the feds moved or who did what. It was because no one single person was in charge. In my examples above, if the scale was the same as Katrina, then the state's Director General would've been the person in charge, and everyone else: police, army, FBs, the governor you name, would have had to defer to him. What we saw on the news was a shambles, it was politicians running an emergency. Politicians are not trained or experienced to run an emergency.
But, anyway, it appears to us outsiders that there are too much framentation in your civil structures to work cooperatively together. An example is communications, here in NSW, there is one emergency radio network called GRM (Government Radio Network) with pretty much all police, SES, Fire Brigades (soo I think) and even the ambulance service owning parts of the spectrum, and there is also the ability to interlink because it is a digital network. Makes it much easier to talk the same language.

Figureheads

[p3d0]

That's a bit like saying that McDonalds will stop serving crappy food in 2009 because Ronald McDonald will be leaving.

Re:frist psot

[dhasenan]

It's not a new authority, but there used to be restrictions on the President's ability to use it. Before, the President could only order troops to move within a state for any duties outside federal property with the permission of that state's legislature, or if the legislature could not convene, that of the government.

Now Bush can order troops to do anything at all without the consent of local authorities, and not get impeached for it. And you can believe that governors would be calling for his head if he declared martial law in their states.

Re:frist psot

[scotch]

Have you ever been to Chicago?

But they're not acting

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

With the exception of Senator Chaffee, may his name be held in honor by all free people, every single Republican in the Senate voted for the Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Legalization Act.

Take a look at the handicaps the Democrats are under. A rules change a few years ago prevents congressman from demanding information from executive branch agencies, except with the permission of their committee chairperson (guess what party that person's from). "The Hastert Rule decrees that the House will consider only bills approved by the GOP caucus". Put the Democrats in the majority, with a mandate to put the brakes on, and you'll have our best hope.

My god.

[NeutrinoLite]

I read some of the comments here now and then to get a good laugh or learn something from someone working in the field the article is about. Today I see this news piece, and I glance over the information. The first thing I notice is that the news bit is full of terminology that is bias and unnecessary:

"In a stealth maneuver" - How stealth is release on slashdot?
"encourage the President to declare federal martial law." - What with free votes and cookies?
"With one cloaked swipe of his pen," - What is this? A novel? This isn't news...
"Bush is seeking to undo those prohibitions." - And this I presume this is based of The President's personal statements?

This is not a news article. This is total crap. Facts presented in opinion and filled with biased wording should not be considered news.

Next, I noticed the responses to the article. Normally there are intelligent or at least semi-intelligent responses. That doesn't seem to be the case here. Most of the responses that I have read that are rated at 3 or higher, are retarted. Is slashdot's community full of fools who only aspire to be like the people they read about in the science and technology articles? I swear that some of the posts gave the impression that the poster needs serious therapy. Think before you post. Comparing Hilter and President Bush...

What do I get from this article? I see that for more than 5 months after Hurricane Katrina hit in the south, The President was unfairly bashed for the total failure of the local governments in the disaster area. They failed to ask the president for assistance from the Active Military until far to late in the disaster. I see a plan to solve that problem in allowing The President (not just Bush, the law will still be there during Democrat Presidencies) to send the troops in to aid in the disaster recovery without having to wait for the incompetent local leaders to ask for it.

As for the article mentioned in the first response, I see a plan to house some 400,000 people in the event that a second Hurricane Katrina style event were to occur. I see a plan to quickly evacuate masses to a safe location where they may have to live for an indefinate amount of time. I see a plan to hopefully prevent a future occurance of what happened during Katrina.

How can you be so cynical as to take both of these forward movie plans, and turn them around and compare them to Hitler? Do you have a better plan for moving half a million disaster refugees to some or multiple other locations in the United States? Do you have a better plan for overcoming the possible incompetence of local government officials when a natural disaster or other event occurs and extra policing is required? I would like to hear your plans or more positive advice and less hatred and bashing. This is a community of nerds, not a community of fools. Voicing your opinion is great, but if its in the negative at least voice a better method. Help the world don't waste oxygen (well, finger strength).

Re:My god.

[petrus4]

Comparing Hilter and President Bush...

The comparison is entirely apt. How much do you know about Hitler?

In particular, I invite you to study the history of the German Reichstag fire and the resulting legislation passed by Hitler, and compare such with 9/11 and the resulting legislation there. Unless you're completely mired in denial, you might find the contrast interesting.

Then there are such wonderful things as this.

But of course...I (and anyone else who would believe Bush seeks dictatorship) am merely a tinfoil hat wearing, schizoid nutcase. Pay me no mind.

You'd better damn well hope that's true...for your sake.

Re:My god.

[An Onerous Coward]

I'm sorry if you find it so absurd and offensive that, after seeing a dictator plunge a democratic country into totalitarianism, purge ten million people, and launch a war of conquest, people might be a little concerned about it happening again.

While I see all sorts of disturbing, totalitarian crap from this administration, I don't think it will be the next Third Reich. If nothing else, they haven't shown the competence to pull off such a feat. But Bush, like Hitler, has demonstrated that he finds any check on his power to be repugnant (see: signing statements, "unitary executive," secret prisons, questioning the patriotism of his detractors). Like Hitler, he feels a need for broad powers to fight an evil and tenacious enemy. That's why he wants everyone to think of him as a wartime president, even when war has not been declared, and even when the nature of the enemy is such that we cannot ever claim that the war has been won.

Those who say comparisons to Hitler are always wrong, or at least always in poor taste, often say that Hitler's crimes against humanity were so unprecedented in scale and intent that such comparisons can only poison reasoned debate. The problem with that is, by that criteria nothing Hitler did during his rise to power warranted a comparison with Hitler either. We want to pretend that such people as Hitler are abberations, entirely cut off from the human condition. Nonetheless, he happens. "Never again" was supposed to be a call to arms, not a statement of certainty or complacency.

Human nature being what it is, another Hitler is destined to rise. The difference is, the next one will have nukes. But even if this is not that time or place, our country has been edging towards totalitarianism for a while now. If dropping the H-word a few times could do anything to stem the tide, to remind us of the fragility of democracy, then I say go to it, and be happy in your work.

If you think it can't happen here...

[RKBA]

See how it was done in Venezuela: The Revolution Will Not be Televised

Re:Law

[Digicrat]

Perhaps the fact that few legislators ever read all the laws they sign signifies a greater problem?

I remember reading (not sure where) an article comparing the US Legislature with that of other countries. In one case, the US Congress specifically sought out to pass a specific law whose text would be as concise as possible. The resulting bill was at least several dozen pages long. Other legislatures in comparison pass laws that on average are less than a page in length (probably not counting budgets).

US Laws are consistently filled with volumes of excess wording designed to obscure meaning and provide loopholes for specific purposes, individuals, or politicians. In many cases, the obscurity may mean that nobody can even decipher the meaning of a given phrase, unless they hold the hidden key/meaning to a highly obscure description of a specific entity. It may not humanly possible for every law to be analyzed in its entirety by any single office before it is voted upon.

Re:frist psot

[Dravik]

I'm surprised nobody else has pointed out that the Democrats asked for this. Remember all the complaints about the Katrina response? The hoops put in place by these laws significantly delayed the response in Louisiana. Everyone on the left whined and complained that the feds took to long. Now the feds are removing the legal roadblocks. You get what you ask for.

Inflammatory and Misleading (describes your post)

[heli0]

"Secondly : Bush is abnormal in that he has singularly refused to veto ANYTHING (ok, with ONE exception). Look at the numbers :
Clinton issued 37 in two terms.
GHWB issued 44 in ONE term.
Reagan issued 78 in his two terms."

You are missing the key differentiator. All of those Presidents were vetoing bills sent by a Congress controlled by the opposite party. In fact 100% of those veotes were for bills submitted by the opposing party. 0% of those vetoed bills were submitted by the President's own party. During the two years that Clinton presided over a Democratic controlled Congress he vetoed ZERO bills.

Here are a list of Clinton vetoes: http://rules.house.gov/archives/98-147.pdf

Notice that none occur until after January 1995, two years after he took office, when Republicans gained a majority in congress.

You are either ignorant of these facts or purposely omitting them in an attempt to mislead people.

Julius Ceasar, Napoleon?

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe Hitler is just too recent. Julius Caesar applied similar tactics, but people are kind of over the whole "Caesar is teh evil" thing, because he did his evil business more than 2000 years ago. People are more likely to view his actions in an objective manner.

Compare Posse Comitatus to roman generals not crossing the Rubicon. Not so different!

Re:Julius Ceasar, Napoleon?

[Venik]

I seriously doubt comparisons to any such memorable historical characters are called for in the case of our fearless leader. The man is a dangleberry soon to disappear into the ass crack of history.

That's Bush Spin Talking

[Doc Ruby]

During Katrina, the (Democratic) New Mexico governor (Richardson) tried to send his National Guards to Louisiana, offering help formally accepted by the (Democratic) Louisiana governor (Blanco). All kinds of laws require not only both governors to agree, along with legal requirements they do other things (declare official emergencies, try other things first), but also require that the president OK the plan. Otherwise it's an invasion: one scenario has an unpopular governor supported by a "foreign" governor accepting troops from out of state to put down "revolts" that the local National Guards would not attack. It's the kind of problem that China's mafia government uses to abuse its people, like after the Tiennamen Square revolt, when rural troops were brought into Beijing to shoot people who the local troops wouldn't have shot.

Bush did not give his OK for a week. The OK arrived on Thursday, although the NM/LA offers/acceptances were all completed by the Friday before - the storm hit on Sunday, the flood on Monday. The catastrophe was all over TV by Tuesday, but Bush didn't send the OK until Thursday. Meanwhile, he was trying to force LA Governor Blanco to allow Bush to "federalize" the LA National Guard (about 25% of which was busy in Bush's Iraq, along with lots of their equipment). Federalizing is rare, puts Bush in control of the state's Guard, and keeps the governor from controlling anything that happens next. Bush was blackmailing Blanco by withholding NM Guard while Louisiana was drowning. Bush's "control" of the rest of the catastrophe gave even more reason not to allow federalization. And the past year has shown just how wise were our American predecessors who not only made laws standing in the way of that power grab, but also those who didn't cave in to the kind of terrorism Bush is using to scare people into giving him that power.

Bush is using these disasters to justify a power grab. The "winter storms" are BS. Bush wants more power. Especially if his Republicans keep their hold on power with another rigged election, but this time Americans go nuts because the margin's too large to cover with machines, or the story gets out, or we've just had too much bullshit from these criminals. Or if Bush gets impeached, but doesn't cooperate. Or if any of a number of things happen in Bush's two final years without a Republican Congress, and Bush needs to wield power without anyone getting in the way.

Let's not hear more Bush spin about the weather. That mobster is stil denying the Greenhouse - any move to grab martial law power at the same time is an obvious move towards... martial law.

Re:That's Bush Spin Talking

[will_die]

There is no truth to what you heard.
According the governor of New Mexico they had people leaving for Lousiana the night that Gov. Blanco asked for them.. There were a few delays but they were caused by EMAC.
There were a few delays in getting help from other states which according to the Gov of West Virginia were also caused by EMAC/NEMA and paperwork from the the states needing help. EMAC is a state run pact for requesting and supplying help, NEMA is organization of state emergency organizers who run and approve EMAC requests. The only time the federal government comes in is if FEMA makes an active request and the paperwork has been signed by the local governor that make FEMA the centralized controlling organization for managing support.

You also had problem with medical support caused by the Mississippi and lousiana governors not approving help for outside source, so some early medical helper had to work under the good samaritan laws. As a medical worker that just starts working in a different state during an emergency you can be sued and are libel. However if the governor signes the EMAC paperwork the state assumes all liability, this is what took some time. Because of the legal liability the states are assuming they do now have some additional training you have to take if you want to help with theses emergencies; this has caused some non-trained people to be turned away.

Re:That's Bush Spin Talking

[Doc Ruby]

That's bullshit. You're just peddling the lies you heard on Fox News.

Problems this, problems that. Bush prevented the NM Guard from going to LA by sitting on the required paperwork for a week. The "states needing help", at least in Louisiana which I'm talking about, did everything they were supposed to do. EMAC was blocked by Bush's failure to send the legal OK.

The National Guard is not allowed to just go in from one state to another, even if the receiving state OK's it. The president must also ensure that the sending state isn't invading the receiving state with the complicity of the governor of the receiving state.

Those are the facts. The lies, no matter where you get them, are part of Bush's grabbing martial law powers, and his murder of Louisianans while trying to get some of them once Katrina offered the opportunity.

Just like Bush exploited the 9/11/2001 planebombings supported by Afghanistan to instead invade Iraq, because that's the power grab Bush wanted. He used the Afghanistan War budget to start bombing Iraq even before Congress agreed to let him invade Iraq (if necessary, yet another bait & switch exploitation opportunity). And he's cut off money and support to NYC in every way, including health coverage for WTC rescue/recovery workers now dying of lung disease and the poverty it caused. Just like he exploited Katrina to try to grab National Guard powers, which he's now got the Congress to give him.

I used to live in Louisiana, and I've been back several times since the storm. I know what happened. I'm not interested in bullshit that pretends that it was Blanco's fault, when it was Bush strangling her and killing Louisianans in the process.

Re:That's Bush Spin Talking

[will_die]

So the governor of New Mexico and West Virginia, both Democrates, are all under the control of Bush and Rove and lieing to protect him.

Wait that would also include the governor of Louisiana since if goto the New Mexico state site you find a letter from her thanking them for thier quick response and help.

Re:That's Bush Spin Talking

[Doc Ruby]

No, those governors were stopped by Bush, though they did respond quickly with help, which the LA governor accepted and appreciated, despite the deaths and destruction which Bush caused.

This story isn't complicated. You're just so addicted to lying to protect Bush that you can't stop, even when talking to someone like me who knows the facts, and won't accept your Bushwhoring. Give it up, Bushtroll.

Re:That's Bush Spin Talking

[will_die]

Why do you think it is the federal government responsibility to handle the health care of NYC employees especially since NYC is already doing it?

Re:That's Bush Spin Talking

[will_die]

Wow already with the name calling. While it is not complicated there was/is alot of rumors and guesses that were floating around and are still accepted as facts.

Under Posse Comitatus Act the president can't use the national guard for law enforcement absent congressional directive or if requested by a governor he president can invoke the Insurrection Act and Katrina was no rebellion or insurrection. Law enforcement was what the Blanco and Nagin wanted from the National Guard. So unless there was some unknown congressional directive or Blanco was calling the the hurricane a insurrectionist the President had no way of limiting or calling out the National Guard. All the stuff about the National Guard requiring federal approval is wrong.
Please remember that EMAC is not a federal agency.
Since no help could come from the Federal government the Governor needed to use outside agreements mainly the EMAC. So she went out and requested help. So now you need to transport all theses people and supplies into the area and that is where the Pentagon comes in, the Pentagon is allowed to fill out the paperwork and transport the national guard. The majority of the false stories of the delays say that it was here that the pentagon, on bush's orders, caused the delayed of sending in the troops. However the Pentagon cannot transport people until they have orders on where they are needed, caring about thier welfare,etc which was suppose to be supplied by the EMAC coming from the governor, it took time to get that paperwork and some coordination from EMAC. Troops using thier own transportation, such a New Mexico, made it with no transportion delays be some once in the areas got delayed because know one knew where to send them.
Or in the words of General Blum,Chief, National Guard Bureau,

GEN. BLUM: It was not foreseen. When they put the original EMAC together it was really for disaster response. Law enforcement was not envisioned. So it has to be handled as a separate process. The governors may get together and modify their EMAC in the future so that it is all-inclusive, but this fills that gap and it makes the activity of the National Guard in this regard totally legally sufficient and supportable.

Q: Does that explain why it took several days to get to this point?

GEN. BLUM: No, there was no delay. The fortunate thing is with modern technology they faxed the agreement back and forth, the two governors signed it. It was a matter of moments. That was not the delay.

The delay was in, if you want to call it a delay. I really don't call it a delay, I'll be honest about that. When we first went in there law enforcement was not the highest priority, saving lives was. You have to remember how this thing started. Before the hurricane hit there were 5,000 National Guardsmen in Mississippi and 5,000 National Guardsmen -- excuse me. Let me correct the record. There were 2,500 National Guardsmen in Mississippi and almost 4,000 National Guardsmen in Louisiana that were sheltered and taken out of the affected area so as soon as the storm passed they could immediately go into the area and start their search and lifesaving work, and stand up their command and control apparatus, and start standing up the vital functions that would be required such as providing food, water, shelter and security for the people of the town. So it was phased in. There was no delay.

Re:That's Bush Spin Talking

[Doc Ruby]

The governors didn't create the delay, Bush did.

Yeah, the name calling. You're a fascist. Fascist liar.

Re:That's Bush Spin Talking

[Doc Ruby]

OK, so now that you can't peddle your bullshit lies hiding Bush's National Guard blackmail of LA during Katrina, putting the blood of hundreds more Americans on his hands, you want to change the subject.

To some other bullshit lie protecting Bush. This time, weaseling out of Bush's obligation to protect the people who volunteered in the worst Disaster in American history.

You hate America. You're doing whatever you can to back its conversion to fascism. Fuck you.

Re:frist psot

[Shawn is an Asshole]

Meanwhile at home US citizens in the wake of 11/09/2001 have had so many personal liberties eroded that the

What happened on November 9th 2001?

Who is really the moonbbat dumbass??

[Eric Damron]

Even if Bush does leave office in 2009 it doesn't mean that many things he has done doesn't mirror Hitler. It doesn't have to be a complete match to still be true and valid.

Perhaps you should be the one admitting to being a moonbat dumbass?

What else do you expect?

[jasenj1]

1) This is part of the "Federalization" of the US. The States used to have a lot more responsibilty and autonomy. As communication, migration, and such have shrunk the size and diversity in our country, things that used to be local are now federal. Few people used to know or care that Mississippi had atrocious schools, that was their problem. Now, it's EVERYONE'S problem. The Federal government can't allow any State to deviate from some national norm in any area. Also, the rise of 24 hour national news networks speeds this along. Reporting on any local event brings it to national attention, and it becomes a national problem.

2) IMHO, party loyalty has become more important than constituent loyalty. I'm not enough of a history student to know if this was always so, but it seems that breaking from the Party line is VERY BAD - and will hurt a politician's chances of reelection. So while some Republicans may not like this legislation, they'd rather support it than be branded a traitor to their Party.

3) Bills are way too long and complex for legislators to accurately vet. The summary they read, or their staffers give them, may make complex bills like this seem good ideas. But buried in them are little clauses and legalese that grant WAY more power than (hopefully) they intended. I guess the best we can hope for is if/when a President attempts to exercise these powers in an unsavory manor the Congress in power at the time will reign him in (unless one Party controls both the Executive and Legislative Branches. See 2 above).

4) The mass media won't report this kind of stuff because it's too complex. The legal ramifications of a small clause in a big bill will just go over the heads of the eighth grade education they're targetting. (At least so they think.) There's no good video footage to go along with reporting the story. It's boring TV. MAYBE some obscure PBS station would to cover it, but don't look to CNN, Fox, et al.

I've decided not to vote for either major party anymore. They both are bent on maintaining power and excluding any other parties from the process. They both are utterly corrupted by lobbyist and corporate money (read bribes and kick-backs). Anyone with a real life, and a hint of dirt in a closet will be dragged out and flogged by the media and the opposition - Look! This candidate once looked at a dirty magazine, and/or rented an X-rated movie! He hates children! He wants to have sex with your daughter! It's just sad. (Here in VA, the Demo. candidate for Senator is a historical fiction author. The Rep. candidate's campaign is pulling quotes out of his books to show what a terrible person the Demo candidate is. I just can't tolerate stupidity like that.)

- Jasen.

I'm for the ownership of weapons for self defense.

[Ayanami Rei]

But there is no way you can take on an, say an APC, full of soldiers with automatic weapons and body armor, without anti-personnel explosive or chemical weapons. Or fortifications.
Trying to arm yourself against the government is an excercise in futility and can only lead to people looking at you kinda funny in the street.

Better find a plot of BLM property and build a bunker and a moat.

Plus, during a home invasion, you have a higher chance of you or a family member getting shot in cross-fire, or due to an assailant obtaining one of the many weapons from its storage location or an overpowered family member.

Oh, really.

[Grendel Drago]

And could you explain why? Or is it just a given that those Darn Scary Democrats are bad, bad, bad, so bad in fact that we'll legalize disappearances and torture just to keep them from... well, from whatever it is they'd do in power if they got into office. Probably something involving gay people. Woo, scary.

Re:Oh, really.

[Xonstantine]

And could you explain why?

Sure: Because Kennedy is an unreformed hard left socialist. Take almost any position, be it immigration, foreign policy, gun control, tax policy, and yes, gay issues, and Kennedy is far to the left of mainstream America. He's probably to the left of the average Massachusets voter as well, but gets elected because of his name. His certainly far to te left of John F. Kennedy.

And Kennedy is typical of the well known national Democrats. Out of Hillary Clinton, Diane Feinstein, Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry, Howard Dean, Dennis Kucinich, Hillary is the most ring wing by a long shot and she's an unrequited left wing radical.

The formula for the death of the Democratic party is pretty simple. Keep doing what they are doing and keep nominating the same type of people they nominate. Given the level of discontent with Republicans, both inside and outside the party, this election should be a slam dunk sweep for the Democrats. But it isn't. Because Democrats, by and large, have trouble fielding good candidates (John Kerry is a perfect case in point), and they have a very hard time connecting with independent voters outside left-wing bastions like Massachusets, LA, San Fransisco, Chicago, and NYC.

The formula for potential Democratic dominance is pretty simple too. All they have to do is move to the middle, and only a little bit, on positions that are their big vote losers with independents like gun rights, abortion rights, immigration, and national security. The vast majority of the American public isn't comfortable with civilian disarmament, abortion on demand through the third trimester, or open borders and a demilitarized US. Hell, if the Democrats came out with a strong immigration stance (other than let the floodgates open and leave them open), they could cleave the Republican party right in half.

We did it before!!

[pablo_max]

Remember england? That was hard, but we did it.

Sovereignty of our nation?!

[Grendel Drago]

In New York City? You mean how the al Qaeda bombers were about to reanimate their corpses and march on Washington any second if George hadn't invaded Iraq and stopped 'em? Goddamn, that's stupid.

Look, no matter what the President says, the crazy-ass headchoppers aren't going to invade the States and overthrow our government. The only way we're going to end up living in a paranoid state where the big man on top can order you disappeared, tortured and executed all in secret and by his say-so, is if Congress give it the okay. Which they kinda did. Still feeling lucky about that unified government?

Hate to burst your bubble but...

[Eric Damron]

Iraq didn't attack us. We illegally INVADED another country.

Yes, yes Saddam is a tyrant but there are many tyrants in the world. That doesn't give us the right to do what we did.

Allow me to tap you with a clue stick: THE ATTACK ON IRAQ IS PART OF AN AGENDA! Killing hundreds of thousands of innocent people and occupying their country isn't Christian. This is wrong, this is evil, this is Bush.

You obviously don't live in Flordia!

[absinthminded64]

I understand I'm supposed to put comments here.

Re:You obviously don't live in Flordia!

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think anybody lives in Flordia...

That's "martial".

[Grendel Drago]

Just to be nitpicky here---it's "martial law", meaning military. Marshall was a general famous for proposing to reconstruct Europe after the second world war. Probably a very martial fellow. But the legalism isn't named after him. (Also, the military rank is "Marshal".)

There were plenty of national guard units

[porkchop_d_clown]

but the governor of Louisiana didn't authorize their use and once she did, the guard was actively hampered by the press reporting imaginary riots and snipers which redirected the guard from actually helping people.

Seriously, why do you think Mississippi, where the storm surge went right over the shore counties, didn't have the kinds of problems they had in New Orleans?

Re:There were plenty of national guard units

[MarkusQ]

but the governor of Louisiana didn't authorize their use

Wrong.

and once she did, the guard was actively hampered by the press reporting imaginary riots and snipers which redirected the guard from actually helping people.

I'm not about to start defending our press (or rather, the entertainment industry hive mind corporate pod-people who replaced it while we were sleeping), and undoubtedly a few of them wasted time following up false leads. But many more (over a third of their number and about half their equipment) were unable to do anything because they were in Iraq.

Seriously, why do you think Mississippi, where the storm surge went right over the shore counties, didn't have the kinds of problems they had in New Orleans?

Perhaps because they were above sea level and thus not dependent on levies to keep them from flooding?

--MarkusQ

Rocks and sticks and treetrunks, oh my!

[TiggertheMad]

You need a gun for a gunfight.

Tell that to the Ewoks, my friend. Tell that to the Ewoks....

It's pretty goddamn funny that you think

[porkchop_d_clown]

Improvised Explosive Devices are "military hardware", or that hunting rifles can't be used by snipers.

Invalid bill number

[Anonymous Coward]

When searching Thomas for 5122 and H109-5122, it says {H109-}5122 is an invalid bill number.

All sites Google is showing are down.

mod parent up!

[Travoltus]

one of the Best of Slashdot.

Katrina Side Effect

[Anonymous Coward]

Jeez, this thread reads like the collected work of alt.x-files.fanfic.

I haven't RTFA, but the basis for these changes is probably the aftermath of Katrina, when everyone discovered that the military was the best organized and equipped to provide aid, transportation, and security after a natural disaster. It was difficult to deploy the military after Katrina because of the restrictions that this bill addresses. I seem to remember that most people were happy to see the military rolling in to straighten out the mess, rather than picking up arms to fight off the shackles of government.

You can argue whether it is a good idea to make these changes, but at least start the conversation in a basis of reality instead of immediately jumping to the start chamber explanations.

!! congress allowed to enact slavery!

[Anonymous Coward]

by amending the constitution!

you mftherucking idiots. take to the streets when martial law is imposed (which it won't be)

Kudos for one uber-Republican, Ron Paul

[Travoltus]

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/member s/p000583/

Republican Ron Paul voted against this bill. He was the ONLY Republican to vote against it.

Ron Paul is the kind of honorable Libertarian who, though I disagree with him on many issues, I'd want to stay in office. When the Left takes over we'll need him as a counterweight.

Insurrection, Terrorism or Natural Disaster?

[Anonymous Coward]

Some part of the motivation for this bill may in fact not come from fear of insurrestion or terrorism, but natural disaster response. The federal executive took a good deal of criticism after Katrina for their slow response to the conditions in the gulf coast; lawful prohibitions to the deployment of federal troops notwithstanding. Just a thought.

Re:"comparisons between Bush and Hitler *are* vali

[Anonymous Coward]

More to the point, how many of these "ZOMG FASCISM HITLIER!!!1" comments are you going to cut and paste as your own work when Hillary Clinton takes office in January 2009 and starts emulating her predecessor?

Yeah. I thought so.

Fear not, fellow citizens!

[John Pfeiffer]

If, sometime next week, you roll out of bed amidst a bit of noise, pay it no mind. It just means that our beneficient leader has seen fit to deploy M1A1 tanks in your neighborhood to ensure your safety while on your way to vote republican this fine election day!

I wanted that to be funny, but obviously it isn't terribly. I'm moving to Japan. You poor bastards can deal with him, when he starts dicking around on the other side of the Pacific, the Japanese will deploy bipedal mecha and put this shit to rest once and for all. SIEG ZEON! ,o/

LYING FOOL

[Doc Ruby]

If you'd bothered to click on the link I helpfully offered, you'd have seen that the majority of Americans want Bush impeached.

Your laughter is the hysterics of a demented raver who can't distinguish reality.

Re:LYING FOOL

[Anonymous Coward]

ah yes, a poll from the same organization that reported the "flushing of the koran". They are certainly a credible news organization now, just like CBS after their little "Rather-gate".

Re:LYING FOOL

[Doc Ruby]

Criticism from an Anonymous LYING FOOL Coward of the Republican corporate mass media finally caving to the overwhelming public pressure to get rid of Bush.
You Republican zombies are dumb as dirt - you don't even know you're already dead.

I can't seem to RTFA

[pseudorand]

Has anyone actually read this new bill? Both the Govtrack.us and towardsfreedom.com links above seem to be broken, but I found (thanks Google, Wikipedia) Senator Leahy's comments and what I think is the bill in question (National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 Report to Accompany H.R. 5122 ). I can't find the part that the good (as in good witch, bad witch) Senator mentions that amends the Insurrection Act. Does anyone else have a clue that could help us judge for ourselves exactly what's changed in the law from a first-hand source?

Re:So what else is new?

[Anonymous Coward]

wat does n/t mean?

non /.'ed bill link

[gladbach]

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c109:6:./tem p/~c109e2fGAa:e939907:

Re:non /.'ed bill link

[gladbach]

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:H.R.+51 22: oops, looks like that was a temporary search link... use the bottom john warner link as passed by both house and senate.

Re:frist psot

[Asklepius M.D.]

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.'

They had an Air Force in 1878? Wow, they told me when I enlisted that we were founded in 1947.

So this is how liberty dies...

[truckaxle]

quietly embedded 3/4's the way down in an obscure bill.

Re:So what else is new?

[XnavxeMiyyep]

It stands for "note topic", which means that the topic summarizes the entire article.

Obivously you believe anything you hear

[Bananas]

I oppose Bush. I am also what you would call liberal. I also support gun control.

Hitting your target and killing it with one shot is my definition of gun control.

Questions, dumbass?

Full Text of the Act ...

[Selanit]

... is FAR too large to post in its entirety. Here's a link. You're looking for section 1076. You may also be interested in President Bush's signing statement.

Here's the full text of section 1076:

SEC. 1076. USE OF THE ARMED FORCES IN MAJOR PUBLIC EMERGENCIES.

(a) Use of the Armed Forces Authorized-

(1) IN GENERAL- Section 333 of title 10, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:

`Sec. 333. Major public emergencies; interference with State and Federal law

`(a) Use of Armed Forces in Major Public Emergencies- (1) The President may employ the armed forces, including the National Guard in Federal service, to--

`(A) 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--

`(i) domestic violence has occurred to such an extent that the constituted authorities of the State or possession are incapable of maintaining public order; and

`(ii) such violence results in a condition described in paragraph (2); or

`(B) suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy if such insurrection, violation, combination, or conspiracy results in a condition described in paragraph (2).

`(2) A condition described in this paragraph is a condition that--

`(A) so hinders the execution of the laws of a State or possession, as applicable, and of the United States within that State or possession, that any part or class of its people is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law, and the constituted authorities of that State or possession are unable, fail, or refuse to protect that right, privilege, or immunity, or to give that protection; or

`(B) opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws.

`(3) In any situation covered by paragraph (1)(B), the State shall be considered to have denied the equal protection of the laws secured by the Constitution.

`(b) Notice to Congress- The President shall notify Congress of the determination to exercise the authority in subsection (a)(1)(A) as soon as practicable after the determination and every 14 days thereafter during the duration of the exercise of that authority.'.

(2) PROCLAMATION TO DISPERSE- Section 334 of such title is amended by inserting `or those obstructing the enforcement of the laws' after `insurgents'.

(3) HEADING AMENDMENT- The heading of chapter 15 of such title is amended to read as follows:

`CHAPTER 15--ENFORCEMENT OF THE LAWS TO RESTORE PUBLIC ORDER'.

(4) CLERICAL AMENDMENTS- (A) The tables of chapters at the beginning of subtitle A of title 10, United States Code, and at the beginning of part I of such subtitle, are each amended by striking the item relating to chapter 15 and inserting the following new item:

331'.

(B) The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 15 of such title is amended by

Re:Full Text of the Act ...

[DrRevotron]

Thank you for posting that. Now, anyone who actually takes the time to read the bill will see that it makes NO mention of martial law of any kind, all it does is allow for the provisioning of medical aid and preservation of life and freedom. *mumble* Bunch of freakin' conspiracy theorist morons...

Re:Full Text of the Act ...

[MagusSlurpy]

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. How long will it take for declaration of "potential terrorists" to break down completely? I'm gonna stockpile ammunition tomorrow, and hope that the sale (which will undoubtedly be tracked by the FBI, since I'm a registered Libertarian) does not classify as one of the first wave of potential terrorists to be picked up. . .

Re:Full Text of the Act ...

[DrRevotron]

Idiots who hoard weapons and ammunition like you with no apparent use, plus all those idiots making pipebombs in their garage, would sure as hell look like terrorists to me. "Terrorist" doesn't just mean someone with brown skin and a turban. It means anyone who is determined to do harm to another person (or people in general) for any kind of gain, especially political gain. So, since you're threatening to stockpile ammunition and weapons, you would obviously intend to use that ammunition against others (I doubt you're an avid ammunition collector), which obviously classifies you as a terrorist. Just another example of "How dare you call me a terrorist! I shall kill you all!"

Re:Full Text of the Act ...

[MagusSlurpy]

Notice how you said, "threatens to harm another person." Yet I never threatened anyone! Sounds like you just classified me as a terrorist anyway. Good job, little Bush.

Re:Full Text of the Act ...

[Legion303]

"Idiots who hoard weapons and ammunition like you with no apparent use, plus all those idiots making pipebombs in their garage, would sure as hell look like terrorists to me."

I have a conservative cop friend in Texas who regularly orders ammo in boxes of around 10,000. If you like, I can try to get you two together so you can explain to him how he's an idiot and a terrorist.

Re:Full Text of the Act ...

[DrRevotron]

Because he's a police officer. He's a law enforcement official.

Besides, you all seem to be missing the most important discovery regarding this article, which I found out by personally reading the entirety of H.R.5122, the bill in question - there is no Section 1076 in H.R.5122, which means this article is a fake. Don't believe me? Go read the actual bill in its entirety on the House.gov website. This is probably why all the major media networks have nothing on their websites or on TV that's discussing this.

http://www.house.gov/hasc/HR5122(v2).pdf

Somebody's watching us and laughing at us all as we are turned against each other it a fit of fake political madness. Congratulations, we're all idiots. :/

Re:Full Text of the Act ...

[ralphdaugherty]

Now, anyone who actually takes the time to read the bill will see that it makes NO mention of martial law of any kind, all it does is allow for the provisioning of medical aid and preservation of life and freedom.

      I read it. Here's the title of the section in question:

CHAPTER 15--ENFORCEMENT OF THE LAWS TO
RESTORE PUBLIC ORDER

USE OF ARMED FORCES IN MAJOR PUBLIC EMERGENCIES

  rd

Re:Law

[dr2chase]

You wonder, sometimes, what they hell we're paying these people for. I'm a town meeting member. No pay, no lobbyists offering to buy me dinner or tickets to a ball game, and I read the junk I vote on, and so do a lot of other people in town meeting. Of course, we're not voting on these damnable phonebook-sized bills, but if someone handed me one of those, I would just vote no, unless it all really did pertain to a single issue (which they don't). It's 17 layers of logrolling and backscratching and earmarks and nonsense.

Re:Oh bama

[sanman2]

Hah, the Obama supporters are clamouring for their guy as the next leader. Somehow but I don't think the Hillary camp's going to go for that.

What's at fault here is the 2-party system.
2-party = too limited.

Why should there only be a choice between 2 monopolies?

He does it all the time

[Tony]

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.

That'd be insightful, if it were true, which it unfortunately is not.

Bush often attaches "signing statements" to bills, offering his "interpretation" of the bill. Although there is debate about the legality of these signing statements, the important thing isn't their legality, but whether Bush treats them as legally binding. If he behaves as if they are legally binding, then his actions reflect that, and they are in effect legal, at least until someone grows a pair and takes Bush to task.

Actions speak louder than words, and Bush
s actions scares the fuck out of me.

Now, this doesn't necessarily apply to this bill, as I don't know about any signing statements. However, I just wanted to point out that Bush does indeed single-handedly alter laws as he signs them.

Enjoy this.

[Anonymous Coward]

This really bothers me. The non-chalant "go out and do something about it" horse shit. Your the type that doesn't even realize that at this point you cant even do anything about it (good luck starting a revolution - the only solution remaining). Now you are instantly a terrorist or the like. 9-11 was a godsend for a power-hungry upper class. America is a broken system that is staying alive by removing civil liberties every chance they get.

You even declare that voting for a third party is as good as losing. I for one don't play if I know I'm going to lose. Is that laziness? Its called choosing your battles. The average american is a pack mule with a full load. He is overburdened and cannot take risks - he will lose everything he has (Why do you think the passengers on 9-11 didn't take back the planes?? 2 or 3 box cutters vs. 20+ people?). It is forced pacifism created by governmental policies. As long as he feels that he has something to lose he cant take the necessary steps to change the system. Now the government realizes that discontentment is increasing and is therefore making it easier to mobilize troops inside its own borders.

Now we have to deal with the fact that voting itself is a problem. Florida. Florida. Florida. Boxes of votes for democrats aren't counted. Yeah, that WASN'T a scam *cough*. But hey, your vote matters *SARCASM HERE*. The only mistake so far is that figures for voter turnout are probably accurate.

Bottom line: Low voter turnout means that people have lost faith in this democratic system. Every year more and more unreasonable policies and precedents are adopted. Fairness and equality never existed.

Self-interest first and foremost? When was the goverment ever supposed to be about anyone else other than the people in the government? Here's exactly where the system is wrong. Politicians should be a different breed of people - but they aren't.

that's one possible sign, there is a variation

[iggymanz]

in Cambodia, the government saved them the trouble and expense of leaving the country with their intelligensia early retirement plan

Re:"comparisons between Bush and Hitler *are* vali

[MKalus]

You're assuming that Bush is actually the one behind all this.

Sorry, he may be the president of the United States, but I am pretty sure he's the puppet, not the puppeteer.

Which leaves another question: What will Cheney do in 2009? They already considered postponing the 2004 election, maybe if they don't think they can win the 2008 one they will "delay" it? Bush gave himself the right to do so a while ago.

Did he use the "Internets" and "The Google"?

[Anonymous Coward]

That sly fox!

Nobody's torturing Katrina

[leftie]

Pardon me, but I don't remember anybody putting Katrina in GITMO and torturing her.

Admittedly... I'd probably like to kick Katrina a few times in the stomach myself if they did manage to capture her ... Well...anyway... since neither Katrina, nor any of her brothers and sisters in hurricanedom are likely going to be brought to GITMO, the perceived need on the part of the neo-cons for martial law and torture is clearly something other than a hurricane.

Re:frist psot

[coredog64]

1) In 1861 "terrorists" opened fire on Fort Sumter
2) To begin war on terror, Abraham Lincoln suspended habeas corpus
3) The Republican controlled congress rubber-stamped Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus
(as well as turned a blind eye to his trampling of the Bill of Rights)
4) Lincoln used the explicit and implicit powers granted to him by the Congress to pursue an
immoral* war.

And the countless sheeple cheered on**.

Do you see how easy this is?

* Immoral in the sense that Lincoln directed his generals to ignore the rules of war that were well understood at that time.
** The "sheeple" cheered because Lincoln was throwing peoples' asses into military prisons for writing critical editorials. In fact, if your neighbor informed on you, the .gov could seize your property and said neighbor would get a cut. Who wouldn't cheer in an environment like that.

Re:frist psot

[donaggie03]

Most of the rest of the world abbreviates dates in day/month/year format.

George W. Bush is a Traitor

[dcarvell]

Nuff said.

The problem with Katrina response was at DHS

[Animats]

There was no lack of legislative authority to deal with Katrina. The real problem was that 1) the FEMA director slot was being filled by a jerk, and 2) the FEMA director wasn't allowed to exercise his statutory authority.

Under the Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5170b(c)), the Director of FEMA had the statutory authority to task other federal agencies to provide specific assistance to states overwhelmed by disaster. But when Homeland Security was established, FEMA was put under DHS and deemphasized. So, while Brown had the statutory authority to call up DoD and tell them to get moving, he wasn't allowed by his boss, Chertoff, to do it. And Chertoff didn't issue that authority to Brown unti 36 hours after Katrina hit.

Clinton's former FEMA director, Witt, spoke after Katrina of how they did things when he was in charge: "We had all the resources of the federal government. We didn't have to ask anyone to activate the Department of Defense. I did that. I called up the President." Reagan's FEMA director, a former general, also had and used that authority. Brown wasn't even allowed to call up the President.

Part of the problem was that Brown, personally, was a nobody. His previous career peak was chief of horse show judges for the Arabian Horse Association. Clinton's and Reagan's FEMA directors had track records; Clinton's was respected by everyone, and Reagan's was a former general. Both of them would have had no problem calling up people at DoD and telling them to start loading up, with official orders to follow as necessary.

Brown could have gotten things moving even without the authority if he'd had a clue. He could have called up people at the Pentagon and subordinate commands and said "This is the FEMA director. You've seen CNN; New Orleans is under water. You're going to be tasked to go there and do ... as soon as we get the paperwork done in Washington. Meanwhile, I'm giving you a heads-up; get loaded up and ready to move." The military understands back-channel stuff like that. In the military, if there's big trouble coming, subordinate commanders are expected to crank up and get ready to roll, with or without orders, so if and when the go order comes, things happen fast.

Re:The problem with Katrina response was at DHS

[Anonymous Coward]

"""Under the Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5170b(c)), the Director of FEMA had the statutory authority to task other federal agencies to provide specific assistance to states overwhelmed by disaster.""

Except Military forces. To use Military forces inside the US Without declaring Marshal law NATION WIDE is in violation of current law. This bill changes this and allows for the Military forces in smaller areas ie.. States, Cities, and 7-11 stores.

Again, nobody is torturing Katrina

[leftie]

Pardon me again, but I don't remember anybody putting Katrina in GITMO and torturing her.

Since neither Katrina, nor any of her brothers and sisters in hurricanedom are likely going to be brought to GITMO, the perceived need on the part of the neo-cons for martial law and torture is clearly something other than a hurricane.

List of who voted

[bussdriver]

The following list of people voted to suspend the writ of Habeas Corpus and must NOT be allowed to violate their oath again.
Don Young (R-AK)

Robert Aderholt (R-AL) Spencer Bachus (R-AL) Jo Bonner (R-AL) Robert Cramer (D-AL) Artur Davis (D-AL) Terry Everett (R-AL) Michael Rogers (R-AL)
John Boozman (R-AR) Mike Ross (D-AR)

Jeff Flake (R-AZ) Trent Franks (R-AZ) J.D. Hayworth (R-AZ) Jim Kolbe (R-AZ) Rick Renzi (R-AZ) John Shadegg (R-AZ)

Brian Bilbray (R-CA) Mary Bono (R-CA) Ken Calvert (R-CA) John Campbell (R-CA) John Doolittle (R-CA) David Dreier (R-CA) Elton Gallegly (R-CA) Wally Herger (R-CA) Duncan Hunter (R-CA) Darrell Issa (R-CA) Jerry Lewis (R-CA) Dan Lungren (R-CA) Howard McKeon (R-CA) Gary Miller (R-CA) Devin Nunes (R-CA) Richard Pombo (R-CA) Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) Ed Royce (R-CA) William Thomas (R-CA)

Bob Beauprez (R-CO) Joel Hefley (R-CO) Marilyn Musgrave (R-CO) John Salazar (D-CO) Thomas Tancredo (R-CO)

Nancy Johnson (R-CT) Christopher Shays (R-CT) Robert Simmons (R-CT)

Michael Bilirakis (R-FL) F. Allen Boyd (D-FL) Ginny Brown-Waite (R-FL) Ander Crenshaw (R-FL) Lincoln Diaz-Balart (R-FL) Mario Diaz-Balart (R-FL) Tom Feeney (R-FL) Mark Foley (R-FL) Katherine Harris (R-FL) Connie Mack (R-FL) John Mica (R-FL) Jeff Miller (R-FL) Adam Putnam (R-FL) Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL) E. Clay Shaw (R-FL) Cliff Stearns (R-FL) Dave Weldon (R-FL) C.W. Bill Young (R-FL)

John Barrow (D-GA) Sanford Bishop (D-GA) Nathan Deal (R-GA) Phil Gingrey (R-GA) Jack Kingston (R-GA) John Linder (R-GA) Jim Marshall (D-GA) Charles Norwood (R-GA) Tom Price (R-GA) David Scott (D-GA) Lynn Westmoreland (R-GA)

Leonard Boswell (D-IA) Steve King (R-IA) Tom Latham (R-IA) Jim Nussle (R-IA)

C.L. Otter (R-ID) Mike Simpson (R-ID)

Melissa Bean (D-IL) Judy Biggert (R-IL) J. Dennis Hastert (R-IL) Henry Hyde (R-IL) Timothy Johnson (R-IL) Mark Kirk (R-IL) Ray LaHood (R-IL) Donald Manzullo (R-IL) John Shimkus (R-IL) Jerry Weller (R-IL)

Dan Burton (R-IN) Steve Buyer (R-IN) Chris Chocola (R-IN) John Hostettler (R-IN) Mike Pence (R-IN) Mike Sodrel (R-IN) Mark Souder (R-IN)

Dennis Moore (D-KS) Jim Ryun (R-KS) Todd Tiahrt (R-KS)

Ben Chandler (D-KY) Geoff Davis (R-KY) Ron Lewis (R-KY) Anne Northup (R-KY) Harold Rogers (R-KY) Edward Whitfield (R-KY)

Rodney Alexander (R-LA) Richard Baker (R-LA) Charles Boustany (R-LA) Bobby Jindal (R-LA) Jim McCrery (R-LA) Charlie Melancon (D-LA)

Michael Michaud (D-ME)

Dave Camp (R-MI) Vernon Ehlers (R-MI) Peter Hoekstra (R-MI) Joseph Knollenberg (R-MI) Thaddeus McCotter (R-MI)

Candice Miller (R-MI) Michael Rogers (R-MI) Joe Schwarz (R-MI) Fred Upton (R-MI)

Gil Gutknecht (R-MN) Mark Kennedy (R-MN) John Kline (R-MN) Collin Peterson (D-MN) Jim Ramstad (R-MN)

Todd Akin (R-MO) Roy Blunt (R-MO) Jo Ann Emerson (R-MO) Sam Graves (R-MO) Kenny Hulshof (R-MO)

Charles Pickering (R-MS) Gene Taylor (D-MS) Roger Wicker (R-MS)

Dennis Rehberg (R-MT)

Howard Coble (R-NC) Bob Etheridge (D-NC) Virginia Foxx (R-NC) Robin Hayes (R-NC) Patrick McHenry (R-NC) Mike McIntyre (D-NC) Sue Myrick (R-NC) Charles Taylor (R-NC)

Earl Pomeroy (D-ND)

Jeff Fortenberry (R-NE) Tom Osborne (R-NE) Lee Terry (R-NE)

Charles Bass (R-NH) Jeb Bradley (R-NH)

Robert Andrews (D-NJ) Michael Ferguson (R-NJ) Rodney Frelinghuysen (R-NJ) Scott Garrett (R-NJ) Frank LoBiondo (R-NJ) Jim Saxton (R-NJ) Christopher Smith (R-NJ)

Steve Pearce (R-NM) Heather Wilson (R-NM)

James Gibbons (R-NV) Jon Porter (R-NV)

Sherwood Boehlert (R-NY) Vito Fossella (R-NY) Brian Higgins (D-NY) Sue Kelly (R-NY) Peter King (R-NY) Randy Kuhl (R-NY) John McHugh (R-NY) Thomas Reynolds (R-NY) John Sweeney (R-NY) James Walsh (R-NY)

John Boehner (R-OH) Sherrod Brown (D-OH) Steve Chabot (R-OH) Paul Gillmor (R-OH) David Hobson (R-OH) Michael Oxley (R-OH) Deborah Pryce (R-OH) Ralph Regula (R-OH) Jean Schmidt (R-OH) Patrick Tiberi (R-OH) Michael Turner (R-OH)

Dan Boren (D-OK) Tom Cole (R-OK) Ernest Istook (R-O

Re:List of who voted

[Dachannien]

Actually, only 23 members of the House voted against the conference report, and the conference report passed the Senate by unanimous consent (which includes Patrick Leahy).

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:HR051 22:@@@X

Re:"comparisons between Bush and Hitler *are* vali

[paganizer]

If there are no Bush's or other obvious Haliburton controlled individuals in the white house on January 2nd, 2009, then I will post a public apology.
Unfotunately, if we get Hillary in office, i don't think we are going to be any better off; I think we'll quickly lose the rights that Bush wouldn't touch, Like the 2nd amendment, while not reganing the ones already lost.

655,000 dead Iraqis are not innocent?

[bushwhacker2000]

What should be stopped is the deliberate taking of an innocent human life.

The estimated number of dead Iraqis since the U.S. invasion in Iraq is 655,000. The vast majority of those deaths are likely to be Iraqis fighting a foreign occupation (illegal and based on lies), are they innocent? What about the tens of thousands of children kill or orphaned, they are terrorists? They are "worth the price"?

How about the estimated 5000 Afghani civilians killed during the US invasion (that number excludes indirect deaths and is a 2002 figure). Are they innocent human life?

First, I don't consider (insert politically correct modifier here)-Islam to be an intangible opponent.

So you're saying we should kill people because they may wish us harm but either haven't yet acted to or actually have no intention of doing so?

If so, all I can say is you are a sociopath who watches too much TV.

The only crime Iraq truely commited is having too much oil!

Define a solution

[SuperKendall]

You need a broad solution so the military can assist civilians sooner in many different kinds of emergences.

Unless you were fine with Katrina as it was. Then it's all cool.

Re:Define a solution

[ralphdaugherty]

You need a broad solution so the military can assist civilians sooner in many different kinds of emergences.

Unless you were fine with Katrina as it was. Then it's all cool.

      In "military", you appear to be unable to distinguish between the U.S. Army, which is federal, and controlled by the president, and the National Guard, which is state and controlled by a governor, but which has been backdoor drafted into the Army for the neocon's Iraq invasion.

  rd

Re:Define a solution

[Copid]

So the disaster that was Katrina was the result of the *lack* of Presidential powers? Do tell.

I've got two arms

[Tony]

That *only* works when the government and the people have equal footing when armed.

Bah. I could take Bush in an arm-wrestling contest. He looks like a pussy to me.

Louisiana had to ask first

[SuperKendall]

And the NM national guard units, who couldn't legally respond because crossing a state line required Bush's OK, which was withheld for a week.

What you left out is that the reason Bush didn't send them in for a week is that the governor of Louisiana did not ask for a week - routing around idocy in state government is what this bill is about, being able to send in the national guard to assist without having to wait for the governor to say it is OK.

Re:Louisiana had to ask first

[ralphdaugherty]

What you left out is that the reason Bush didn't send them in for a week is that the governor of Louisiana did not ask for a week -

      This is a Republican lie. Bush demanded of Blanco that he declare martial law, and she refused. He blackmailed her for a week, is what you mean, or should mean.

  rd

It's too late!

[Anonymous Coward]

Well-meaning, well intentioned people like yourself have helped create a network of laws that make it next to impossible for anyone to obtain a firearm without the government knowing about it. The "right wing kooks" you mentioned having been saying for years that registration is the first step in confiscation. Well, thanks to this change in the law, if us "right wing kooks" try to vote with our triggers, we'll only provide the excuse needed to send in troops against us. I dunno about you, but I don't think a civilian ad-hoc militia would be very effective at confronting the US forces. (others have mentioned how well the Iraqi's are doing against the troops over there, those posters miss several key points a) The Iraqi army, feared by it's neighbors, well equipped, well trained and experienced fell in mere days b)The whole middle east has a more violent recent history than anything US civilians have experienced, thus there is a more common body of knowledge of I.E.D's and guerrilla warfare. c)Iraq had been weakened in advance by ruinous military spending and international embargoes before a coalition of forces moved in d)I have not heard of any revolutionary front that was able to successfully change governments without outside help. What country would be willing and able to help the "new Minute Men" against the current U.S. administration?

Well uhh...

[Asrynachs]

It's sort of refreshing though, to see Bush passing a bill that doesn't involve wire tapping. Throwing curve balls, keeps the lefty nut jobs on their toes.
Now they can say 'uh oh! It's just like Nazi Germany, except I still enjoy my freedom to act like an asshole'

What slavery?

[Anonymous Coward]

I found living a middle class life was too over-rated anyway.
 
Hey, did you want fries with that?

Re: None of the Above.

[KwKSilver]

I wish ballots had "none of the above" which, if it "won", would force new elections with new candidates.

Amen. I've been saying the same thing for years, & would add that if "None of the Above" wins the losers should be barred from running for anything for 10 years. Radical centrist, here: strong defense, balanced budget, & Uncle Sammy should keep his nose out of everyone's personal life. [OT:love spell-check in ffx 2.0]

That's COBET AMEPUKA

[LandruBek]

1c1
< In COBN3T AM3RNKA
---
> In COBET AMEPUKA

wait, wait, that should be

> B COBETCKOM AMEPUKE

Re:"comparisons between Bush and Hitler *are* vali

[Anonymous Coward]

May President Hillary "disappear" all you vacuous Bush apologists to Gitmo as her first act in office. Thanks to Dumya eviscerating Habeas Corpus, it's legal. Hope you like torture!

Maybe American Troops.

[Anonymous Coward]

The soldiers of other western nations are usually so well trained that they do as they are told. That's how it works with them. But ask an American to hunker down anywhere that doesn't have a PX and Macdonalds nearby and see how fast they start fragging their officers and going AWOL. Raping and murdering Iraqi civilians is the kind of thing American's signed up for, but being shot at makes them whine like a spoiled child.

Any illusion of discipline and training our boys appear to manifest always evaporates quickly whenever the shit hits the fan. In fact, taking on civilians is the one time American troops would obey orders, since the perceived threat-level would be low. Order a US soldier into what they think of as real danger and they'll be looking for the first opportunity to cut and run. Order him to mow down women and kids in the street and he'll gladly obey.

Your talking points are out of date

[MarkusQ]

What you left out is that the reason Bush didn't send them in for a week is that the governor of Louisiana did not ask for a week - routing around idocy in state government is what this bill is about, being able to send in the national guard to assist without having to wait for the governor to say it is OK.

And what you left out is that this claim has already been debunked.

Specifically, Blanco had already declared a state of emergency on 26 August, and even if she hadn't, the Department of Homeland Security (under which FEMA operates) took over primary responsibility as of March 1 of 2005, needing only a Presidential declaration of Emergency, which they got on 29 August.

In case you don't remember, Homeland Security was the big federal Washington-knows-best project that was created specifically to deal with major disasters at the federal level, and cut the states out of the picture. So turning around and trying to blame the states because it didn't do its job just doesn't pass the laugh test.

--MarkusQ

Might be too late

[Tony]

Lots of armies shoot their own countrymen.

Just because our current military probably wouldn't shoot citizens (though I'm not sure-- I live about 75 miles away from Kent State), one that is controlled by fear, and "traitors" shot, probably would.

If Bush seriously makes a power grab in two years, that's the kind of army he'll have. He'll pass down orders to declare as an "enemy combatant" anyone who refuses orders to shoot civilians. He'll make a few public displays, execute a couple, and then we'll have a military willing to shoot civilians.

It's an unlikely scenario, I agree. But it's dreadfully frightful to consider.

Re:frist psot

[DrLazer]

And you'll be the third one into the camps.

Re:frist psot

[mabhatter654]

exactly, this is where a "Jar-Jar" politician will stand up and "pull the trigger" to let some future president have full control... they will then be rounded up and shot so they don't endanger the govt by trying to remove the new "dictator". I always find it funny that the people claiming the most to be protecting the country can't see what they're doing. If it wasn't life and death it'd make good comedy.

Sometimes I wish...

[Anonymous Coward]

That technical people were as fair talking about politics as they are at evaluating technology... HR 5122 passed the House with a vote of 396 to 31, and passed the Senate unanimously (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:HR05 122:@@@R) . What this means, all you anti-Bush conspiracy theorists, is that this was a bipartisan bill signed into law by the duly elected President of the United States. Wanna bitch?! Then bitch to your Democrat Senators and Congressmen first for betraying your trust. But don't try to pin the entire burden on the President whose only Constitutional power regarding laws is to sign them.

Re:frist psot

[mabhatter654]

Another poster mentioned that FEMA was rolled into DHS, buy doing that FEMA became a "law enforcement" agency subject to all the rules and power struggles. FEMA had the right to forcibly remove people from their homes in disaster situations they should have been activated by federal agents the moment the federally maintained levies were topped. They're supposed to be THE go to guys to respond to disasters first, whether it's criminal or a natural disaster... they should have been waiting at the boarder of Louisiana before the state even approved them. FEMA's not supposed to be ASKED, but they also aren't supposed to be pressed into anti-terrorist, anti-citizen work either. Remember back to X-Files, much was of course conspiracy, but there the talk of FEMA being the route to martial law was based on real laws and powers already on the books.

The Bill Doesnt Say This At All

[RenderSeven]

I hate to rain on a great Fuck-Bush fest and all, but...

The referred article seems to have been posted originally on Saddam Hussein's supporter's website. It doesn't make it wrong of course but it doesn't lend to credibility or unbiased reporting :

http://www.uruknet.biz/?p=m27769&hd=0&size=1&l=e

> The author, Frank Morales ("morals", get it?) is a priest activist with a history of CIA conspiracy theories. He also hates the police and just about anything in uniform. If you want to hate your government, he makes great reading.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Morales

More interesting is Leahy's and Bond's joint statement on it (of course it must be half lies because Bond is a republican and all) and its here:

http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200609/091906a.html

Reads to me more of a response to Katrina. Remember Katrina? Thats where we blamed the FEDERAL government for not sending in the state national guard when they had no authority to do it. And this bill directly addresses that. Damned if you do, damned if you dont, I guess. The bill also gives the National Guard more authority and recognition in the Pentagon.

Now, let the hate mail continue. Here, let me get you all going again: "BUSH SUCKS! He killed puppies!!"

Re:The Bill Doesnt Say This At All

[ralphdaugherty]

Thats where we blamed the FEDERAL government for not sending in the state national guard when they had no authority to do it.

      The governors refused to allow Bush to declare martial law, if that's what you mean. They wanted FEMA, not Bush's martial law.

  rd

my sig exactly

[L0k11]

i've had it for a while now too

remember remember the 5th of november...

Re:my sig exactly

[psiXaos]

perfect quote! it sounds even more perfect considered the person who has said it.

You don't know how good you have it

[Anonymous Coward]

Our government is so dirty and so "elitist" that the common man is not represented, and our elected officials have absolutely no idea what the average American experiences everyday.

Voter apathy is good for your country.

In my country, almost everyone votes. A turnout between 85 and 90% is common. Do you know what the result of this is? A more than 50% income tax, all of it spent on generous unemployment benefits, subsidies and disability pay and cheap for all, quality for noone healthcare.

About half the people work, to support the other half who do nothing, while work that pays minimum wage in your country simply cannot be done here. For anyone with below average intelligence or below average ambition, there is no point in working, because the benefits are almost as high as the wage they would be making if they worked.

Think about this situation next time you ever think of encouraging 'the common man' to go and vote

Re:You don't know how good you have it

[Eljas]

You shall not feed the trolls, but whatever...

Ever heard of progressive tax? I don't belive that there is a country with 50% flat income tax rate in world. If you have 50% tax rate in progressive tax country you are probably doing very well.

Half of the people work? Then you probably are from one of these countries:
Afghanistan
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Cocos (Keeling) Islands
Djibouti
East Timor
Kenya
Lesotho
Liberia
Nauru
Senegal
Swaziland
Turkmenistan
Zambia
Zimbabwe

Note that most of those countries hardly are democratic so no voting really happens and 85% turnout is just unbelivable.

So stop drooling over your keyboard, create an account and get your facts straight. (I must be new here...)

Re:You don't know how good you have it

[rve]

No, I live in a western European country. The highest tax bracket (over 50%) starts at roughly 50,000 euro. That is not as much as it sounds like, as the cost of living here is far higher than it is on your side of the Atlantic. And that is just income tax, it's far from the only tax. For example there is a 100% tax (really no exaggeration) on the purchase of a car, plus a monthly tax on any motorised vehicle. The beauty is that poor people vote, but receive more money in subsidies and benefits than they pay in taxes.

You can't use stats like those to compare different countries, only to show trends in the same country, because you're not comparing the same measurements. The million on disability pay are not included in the unemployment stats released by the government. The students, living on student benefits and not working aren't included. House wives are not included. Part-time employees, who work more than two hours a week are not included. People over 65 are not included. In full-time equivalents, only half the people work. The other half works to support them and hardly sees any benefit from their tax money, because nearly all of it is spent on free stuff for poor people. Roads are in disrepair, healthcare is in disrepair, higher education is in disrepair.

Yes, the 80% to 90% turnout is a reality: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_turnout

Remember that in any sufficiently large group, half the people are dumber than average. When they turn up to vote en masse, the situation above is what you get.

Re:You don't know how good you have it

[adinb]

Er, that sounds quite a bit like Denmark. And that 100% tax on cars has gone towards clean power generation through wind (& now wave) power. While the taxes are high, as a citizen you're getting quite a return--your country is one of the few that has a fairly rosy outlook for the next century or so.

And I heard that everyone goes down to Hamburg to buy their cars anyways...and while you pay a tax on bringing the car in from Germany, it isn't near 100%.

Oh, and you have a first class educational system, and some *really* kick-ass clubs. (My favorites actually being in Aalborg, not Copenhavn.

Re:You don't know how good you have it

[VTBassMatt]

I don't have much to say about your overall conclusions or arguments, but this struck me as needing some explanation:

Remember that in any sufficiently large group, half the people are dumber than average.

Where "sufficiently large" means "2-member or larger". After all, what is an average? (Well, OK, if someone were silly enough to use the mean when they look at an average, then half the people wouldn't necessarily be "below the average".)

Re:You don't know how good you have it

[rve]

No, you are mistaken.

If you have a group of 4 people with an IQ of 40 and one person with an IQ of 200, 80% have a below average IQ.

Re:You don't know how good you have it

[VTBassMatt]

Only if you use the mean. The only people who use the mean are the ignorant and people trying to twist the numbers around (politicians, mostly, I would think). Although there are a lot of ignorant people, through no fault of their own... I remember being taught "mean, median, and mode" in school, and thinking "OK, this mode thing is crap, but why would you have both mean AND median?". No one pointed out to me how bad mean really is for most applications... it gives almost NO information, and for the reason you stated.

While I'll grant you that in popular usage, the word "average" often means "mean", it shouldn't, and my post was intended to gently point that out:

Well, OK, if someone were silly enough to use the mean when they look at an average...

Using your example and median, the "average" IQ is 40, so 80% have the average and 1 person is above the average, with the bonus that the "average" better represents the entire group's properties!

as Wesley Willis would say...

[Anonymous Coward]

suck a buffalo's ass fucking jerk!!

Re:And at that rate...

[sillybilly]

That's one of the first amendments that's going to be "canceled" or "mistranslated" when the Constitution is rewritten in Spanish and Spanish becomes the official language of the US and the World. Esperanto just doesn't cut it, English is too nonphonetically spelled (spelling bees are possible) and while Spanish has genders for even house and table and chair, it's the leastest worstest of all the choices, because it's already spread to most of South America anyway, plus it's a romance language with most of Europe and the rest of the Americas/Australia easily adapting, and it's easier on the tongues of most Asians and Africans too, plus computer speech recognition might be easier, though I can think of even better languages for speech recognition. So to shoot two birds with one stone, when the Constitution is translated, watch out for the "untranslatable" or "improperly translatable" material.

By the way one of the questions on taking a US Citizenship test is: have you ever advocated overthrowing a government? No, but what does the 2nd amendment say? Governments and just power entities in general are paranoid of being overthrown, and they are like elephants, record and archive everything and never forget, and even that's not enough, there is need for even more cameras and data on everyone, just in case - so don't be touting or throwing around this option as something of a matter of fact, because it's at least 10x as hard or messy as you imagine, plus who wants bloodshed when you can just do a million man march on a capital and set up tents and not go home til the tanks show up and run your tents over? Tear gas? Rubber bullets? Ouch.. Water cannons? Yipee what fun! Wet t-shirt contest! If you can get change, or "social progress" without bloodshed but instead with "sex, drugs and rock and roll", with people holding hands and dancing in a circle, girls with flowers in their hair, wearing peace sign t-shirts and necklaces, singing "imagine all the people living life in peace, wheooh-hoo-oo-oooh, you may say I'm a dreamer, but i'm not the only one, I hope some day you'll join us and the wo-o-o-orld will be as one." See, music is the weapon of the future, it only claims a few martyrs instead of masses of people dying or getting wounded. So let's arm ourselves up by secretly creating songs that have the power to move masses, in case we have to use it as a last resort.

The prospects...

[diorcc]

of the possibilities here are really scary!
As another post mentioned above, this could lead to a Hitler-like situation.

Firearms restrictions vary between states

[Bowling Moses]

What exactly is "legal" (ignoring a little thing called the Bill of Rights for a minute) varies from state to state. If you live in New Jersey, you have to go and be fingerprinted at the police station like a common criminal if you own so much as a pellet gun. Conversely in some other states (such as Vermont) you can own a machinegun, although restrictions vary from state to state. Many more states allow assault rifles. But even in the least free states, fertilizer and fuel is perfectly legal and go boom very nicely. A couple of bombs like that at some armories and you might see American revolutionaries/insurgents/terrorists/whatever armed with something similar to the Iraqi's IEDs. Of course one can't really see many Americans taking up arms against the government, especially since the ones who are the angriest right now are also the ones who've demanded that the government free them from their right to bear arms.

Re:Firearms restrictions vary between states

[Waffle Iron]

But even in the least free states, fertilizer and fuel is perfectly legal and go boom very nicely.

They're not legal to mix. Nor are they as compact and effective as actual military weapons. The Iraqis aren't wasting their time making home-brewed concoctions like that; they've got real explosives.

Anyway, who the hell cares about what ineffective popguns joe sixpack might have? Even in the most poverty-stricken 3rd world countries, rebel forces have no problems getting their hands on real military weapons. Why do so many people here fantasize that they could try using their Wal-Mart ordnance in a real war and have any chance to survive? If it ever comes to pass, every American rebel would acquire serious weapons that definitely aren't legal in any state.

Re:Firearms restrictions vary between states

[XO]

I suppose there's also the possibility of enlisting the help of other nations. The rebels against the Brits had a bit of help from other nations, and I'd hardly be surprised if there were other people willing to help again, especially if it were difficult to track it down (otherwise a nuke could be heading their way, y'know)

Re:Firearms restrictions vary between states

[Bowling Moses]

"They're not legal to mix. Nor are they as compact and effective as actual military weapons. The Iraqis aren't wasting their time making home-brewed concoctions like that; they've got real explosives."

If somebody's going to try and overthrow the government, they don't give a damn about legality. For the second part I wrote that an insurgency would knock off armories to obtain heavy weapons in quantity. Also in a revolution, the military and police aren't necessarily going to be the enemy in every case--that certainly is true of the situation in Iraq. Even without heavy weapons from the military, a car laden with a couple hundred pounds of fertilizer and fuel would be able to disable even a tank, or obliterate a HMMWV, which in an urban environment wouldn't be too hard to pull off.

"Anyway, who the hell cares about what ineffective popguns joe sixpack might have? Even in the most poverty-stricken 3rd world countries, rebel forces have no problems getting their hands on real military weapons. Why do so many people here fantasize that they could try using their Wal-Mart ordnance in a real war and have any chance to survive?

You're also missing out that we're not talking about a "real war." We're talking about a revolution/insurgency. That means, just like in Iraq, you don't go toe-to-toe with the military. You harrass them, attack isolated and vulnerable positions, patrols, convoys, and then slip away into the population. You don't need military weapons to do this, although before long you'll have them from taking out a few positions and patrols. Think about the Beltway sniper attacks in 2002 and how terrorized DC was, how many people were killed and injured, and how long it took for Malvo and Muhammad to be captured. Imagine that multiplied by a few thousand who are specifically targeting military, police, and government officials. Those kinds of attacks could be done by anyone with reasonable skill and with any kind of rifle.

Re:Firearms restrictions vary between states

[Waffle Iron]

If somebody's going to try and overthrow the government, they don't give a damn about legality.

That's my whole point. The 2nd amendment is irrelevant because people are going to ignore any laws and acquire effective hardware as soon as the conflict starts.

Imagine that multiplied by a few thousand who are specifically targeting military, police, and government officials.

Without independent media coverage, a few thousand snipers aren't going to put a dent in a national army. A totalitarian government will just absorb the losses and respond with mass reprisals against nearby civilians. If this weren't the case, we could have toppled Sadaam's regime by sending over some snipers.

Moreover, recent technology is making sniping less and less viable. In the near future, advances in sonar and radar monitoring, along with 24x7 unmanned drones in the sky, could make the life expectency of a sniper about 20 seconds past pulling the trigger. The feds were already thinking about deploying today's anti-sniper military technology against the Beltway sniper; that technology will continue to improve over time.

Re:Firearms restrictions vary between states

[b0s0z0ku]

lso in a revolution, the military and police aren't necessarily going to be the enemy in every case--that certainly is true of the situation in Iraq.

(Mod parent up insightful!)

Not necessarily true of the regular military, but the Guard, police, and Coast Guard are mostly composed of average working blue-collar Joes, often with strong ties to the local community. No way that they'd side with some clowns in Washington while their friends and neighbors were getting their asses kicked.

-b.

Re:Firearms restrictions vary between states

[Anonymous Coward]

When one has decided to commit to revolution, one no longer cares that it's illegal to mix ANFO.

And the legal guns would be used to obtain real military weapons, probably fairly quickly. That's how revolutions work.

Of course, most of the people who would be likely to start a revolution would be interested in turning the US into an xian theocracy, and they're well on the way to accomplishing that with no guns needed.

Oh, pure bullshit.

[DrRevotron]

You people are fucking conspiracy theorists. Honestly, first you people are bitching about Bush not handling Katrina (A duty that, BY LAW, IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS). And now, this law is enabling the president to respond to public emergencies by deploying appropriate authorities to restore order, and you people go psycho. Nothing is ever good enough for you idiots.

All you bleeding-heart liberals who want a revolution, go ahead and start one. Just don't start crying for pardons when you're arrested for slaughtering Republicans and right-wingers in the streets. (You all seem to be so desperate to shed right-wing blood.)

All of you need not forget that everybody who passed this bill (CONGRESSMEN) were voted into office *by the public*! If you don't fucking like it, why don't you get your asses out there and vote this November? And if your candidate loses, tough shit. It's what the American people vote for.

As for your Nazi conspiracy theories, utter bullshit. There was no such terrorism in Germany. The Jews were viewed as scapegoats for Germany's failing economy and they were persecuted for it, first by being moved into ghettos, and then by being placed in concentration camps.

And you SURE as hell better not forget that the USAPATRIOT Act was passed almost UNANIMOUSLY in the Senate (98 to 1) and by a considerable landslide in the House (357 to 66). So don't you all go blaming this on the Republicans. If you don't like it, blame both parties and get your lazy ass off of the computer and VOTE.

Re:Oh, pure bullshit.

[Legion303]

"first you people are bitching about Bush not handling Katrina (A duty that, BY LAW, IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS)."

The state government formally requested federal aid 2 days before landfall:

http://gov.louisiana.gov/index.cfm?md=newsroom&tmp =detail&articleID=862

Bush had already declared a state of emergency in Alabama and Florida under the Stafford Act (http://www.fema.gov/about/stafact.shtm), but couldn't be bothered to do it for Louisiana. If the FEDERAL Emergency Management Agency isn't responsible for helping out during an emergency when requested to do so, then I'd like my tax dollars to be reallocated to paying someone to kick you in the balls for being such an ignorant fucking douchebag.

"And now, this law is enabling the president to respond to public emergencies by deploying appropriate authorities to restore order,"

It's called the Stafford Act, and the appropriate authorities would be FEMA. Don't get your panties in a wad because your hero Bush couldn't appoint someone competent to head up the Katrina effort, douchebag. A true conservative would use the laws already on the books instead of expanding government in a transparent power grab.

"the USAPATRIOT Act was passed almost UNANIMOUSLY in the Senate (98 to 1)"

Please use a reliable dictionary to look up the definition of "unanimously," douchebag.

Speaking of which, it looks like Firefox 2.0's dictionary doesn't include "douchebag." That's a shame. It's such a versatile word.

Re:If you didn't vote Libertarian, you ASKED FOR T

[actor_au]

Your idea is stupid mostly because the third parties in the USA are stupid.
If the Libertarians want to win the presidency they have to stop running for president. They need to take control of some cities as Mayors and city councils to prove that they can run small governments, then move up to state levels and prove they can run more complex governments whilst building up popular support then move into the houses(senate and congress) proving that they can actually make a difference there before they should even think of running for president.
All that their running for president in the last election did was leave them open to mockery and derision for the party as a whole for not having any qualified candidates.
The problem with the method I'm outlining is that it takes decades, which is how it should work, it should take a long bloody time to go from a fringe group to the leaders of the most powerful nation on Earth and no-one in politics has the patience to do it that way.
Voting for Libertarians in the presidential election or the senate/congress before they've even come close to proving themselves at a local level is stupidity. Sadly given the current state of the US government there isn't much else you can do.

Re:frist psot

[Anonymous Coward]

Bring on the Governator!

Prez Has Martial Law Power...and This is News?

[severoon]

Doesn't the president pretty much have martial law power as it is already? What did this bill change, exactly?

Re:Prez Has Martial Law Power...and This is News?

[ralphdaugherty]

Doesn't the president pretty much have martial law power as it is already?

      No.

What did this bill change, exactly?

      Gave him martial power by Republicans, with no debate.

  rd

Re:"comparisons between Bush and Hitler *are* vali

[stinerman]

If there are no Bush's or other obvious Haliburton controlled individuals in the white house on January 2nd, 2009, then I will post a public apology.

Start that apology now. The new president's term will start at noon on January 20, 2009.

Slashdot Bush Smoosh Game

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't remember anybody putting Katrina in GITMO and torturing her.

Wow combining the best of a bad bush. Cmon /. reactionaries! Let's all play the smooshing bushing game by combining bad things bush as done in one sentence!

Bush is friends with Afghani Enron bosses.

The oil bush likes is oil to burn the non-repenting heathens in.

Hsub Egroeg is what bush sees when he puts his name in a mirror. He also sees a no-fly terrorist name.

Don't forget to add your favorite!

Re:frist psot

[Wovel]

A stealth move by the president approved by a vote of 398 to 23 in the House. Is there no end to the lunacy that conspiracy theorists are capable of believing.

Re:the Second Amendment is a fig leaf in a snow st

[Tsagadai]

snip Can you have a nuke? A tank? An Apache Tomcat with a belly full of Sidewinders snip

Yes http://tomcat.apache.org/

Re:"comparisons between Bush and Hitler *are* vali

[Anonymous Coward]

The first thing we do, let's kill all the Republicans!

(with apologies to William Shakespeare)

Re:frist psot

[Anonymous Coward]

I never said FEMA was a bad guy; just their response was incompetent, and hence reprehensible -- the reasons *why* their response sucked is not part of *my* job description, and hence do not concern me. The fact that I *pay them* to do a good job, and get crap for the 50% of my salary thats extorted yearly, *DOES*. And for the record the Department of Homeland Security can suck my wang; I have no idea why that department was started in this country given this countries founding history but I can tell you certes it is not welcome in my viewpoint. I view them one step below the Gestapo (who were more efficient).

You need a little remedial math.

[biendamon]

Oh, this is "rich". OK, let's address this tired liberal mantra. First of all, the 2005 tax cuts INCREASED the percentage of tax revenues paid by the top 1%, top 5%, top 20% and top 50% of the taxpayers.

But not the actual dollar amount. Let's say you cut taxes by 10% for everyone who makes more than $300,000, and 15% for everyone who makes less. You'll come out with the $300,000+ earners paying a larger percentage of what's left, but they still got a tax cut, not a tax hike. This is really, really basic math, and you either already know this and are being intentionally disingenuous, or you need to hit the books.

It REDUCED the percentage paid by the bottom 50%.

Of course it did. If everyone's paying less, but the bottom 50% got a bigger cut, then the top 50% pay a larger percentage of what's left. Doesn't mean they didn't get a huge ol' tax cut. And I guarantee you, their buying power ("Oh boy, I can get another Lexus!") increased more than my buying power ("Oh boy, I can get another sandwich!") with Bush's cuts.

And, in terms of percentage cuts, it most favored the lower rung taxpayers because the increased child tax credits (what's a measly $1000 to a millionaire?) disproportionately benefited the "poor". Second of all, the top 50% of taxpayers pay over 94% of ALL TAXES.

And that would be because they make a hell of a lot more money than you or me.

So, here's a little riddle for you .... is it possible to give a tax cut to PEOPLE WHO DON'T PAY TAXES? You can't give a tax cut to the poor in this country because they don't pay taxes (well, not federal taxes anyhow - the states and towns still get 'em). By definition, then, all tax cuts are "for the rich", since they pay almost all the taxes.

I'm sorry, but that's bullshit. You pay payroll taxes and 10% income tax even if you only make $7,500 a year. And that's poor.

Life is a bitch, isn't it?

[Infonaut]

...don't want to have to choose the 'lesser of two evils', so just don't vote

That's a shame. We're losing our democracy because people can't be bothered. Unfortunately life is often about making choices between distasteful alternatives. But the lesser of two evils is better in the here and now than some pie in the sky candidate who exists only in fantasy land. No politician is going to mirror any thinking person's views on every single subject, just like no job is ever going to be perfect, no spouse is ever perfect, and no individual voter is going to be perfect.

People who are waiting for the perfect circumstances before they vote are hiding behind the easy cover of cynicism. If you're too good for the real world of rough and tumble democratic processes, don't yap later about how disgusted you are with the state of politics. You don't participate, you can complain all you want, but those of us who voted don't have to listen.

Re:Law

[ralphdaugherty]

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?

      Republican leaders routinely withhold the bill and what they have slipped into it until the vote. Democrats routinely note for the record that they have no idea what is in the bill that is up for vote, but given that the vote includes something huge, like money for our troops, to vote against it because they don't know what's in it is to be branded a traitor.

      Just like they do in Russia. Republicans are getting it down pat.

  rd

So now Slashdot hates him for this.

[kinglink]

People have to make up their mind. This is a great tool at times, and no president is just going to remove it. Yes it sounds dangerous but unlike what those who can't stand bush (yet still live in America after threatening to leave... go figure) say, he's not the tyrant everyone is pretending he is. This rule will likely never be used except for emergencies. What's the alternative? Wait til there's a need to use this type of law and blame the president because he couldn't declare martial law?

Want to know why the shit hit the fan in Louisiana? Simple, because the governor and Mayor screwed it up. There's checks and balances, and it's fucked over people twice. But of course we'll just blame Bush for that right? If we want to blame the president then give him the power you say he has. Don't completely revamp an organization so it's not ready for the next year's problems.

Bush isn't going to abuse this, Bush is trying to make America safer, and isn't helped by everyone trying to second guess his intentions. If he uses this against the public interest then you have something, but if he uses this when there's the next major disaster that's he's about to be blamed for, or instead does it before the hurricane (rather then waiting for the mayor and governors permission, and watching as they make enormous mistakes according the the plans set forth) maybe more life might be saved.

Everyone is so afraid of Bush, but when you look at what he does, it's not the sign of a dictator, it's the sign of a president trying to protect the American people and solve problems ignored by his predecessors. Dear god, he cares about Americans more than his legacy or chasing a intern around the Oval Office, but let's crucify him because he's a republican, or because we disagree with his policy, or because we're so paranoid that we think we're the ones being watched.

Re:So now Slashdot hates him for this.

[DrRevotron]

AMEN. You took the words right out of my mouth. I couldn't have said it any better.

Re:So now Slashdot hates him for this.

[dreamer-of-rules]

Bush isn't going to abuse this, Bush is trying to make America safer ...
Everyone is so afraid of Bush, but when you look at what he does, it's not the sign of a dictator, it's the sign of a president trying to protect the American people and solve problems ignored by his predecessors.

Iraq war was started because of his lies (alleged Weapons of Mass Distraction, outing of Valerie Plame, alleged Yellow cake, alleged Al Quida connection)
Bush refused to discuss exit plans with his generals.
Bush refused to accept the CIA claims that Saddam was not involved with 9/11 and not a threat.
Osama Bin Laden is still at large, which apparently matters to Bush only during election times.
We now have 2,800 dead US soldiers, ten times that wounded.
Our Iraq Plan For Success was written by a lobbyist after the invasion.
Our military has been weakened in numbers and in character from this immoral war.
Bush gutted FEMA before Katrina hit, and placed FEMA under the DoHS against the 9/11 Commission's recommendations.
Bush delayed the federal response to Katrina disaster.
Bush has been wiretapping US phone calls since 2001.
Bush is disregarding the Geneva Convention.
Utilized torture since 2001. (What kind of person uses TORTURE!?)
Bush's appearance attendees must sign loyalty oaths.
Bush has paid journalists to repeat his propaganda.
Routinely sensors scientific reports and studies in the Executive Branch.
Ignores (the few) requests by Congress for information.
Bush continually uses terror to keep Americans afraid and under control.
that's just off the top of my head...

Not to mention.. he's polarized this country more than any other president. He recently announced that if the Democrats took the House or the Senate that it would be a disaster for National Security. Gosh, what could he mean by that?

George W. Bush doesn't give a damn about the average American citizen.
He has greatly weakened our national security.
It will take decades to recover from his Presidency and the .

Re:So now Slashdot hates him for this.

[DrRevotron]

No, YOU are forgetting that there is more to the executive branch than Bush. Nice little arrangement of words. "Bush has been wiretapping US phone calls"... hah. As if he's sitting in the oval office listening to your conversation with your mother. The NSA has been tapping suspected terrorist phone calls. They don't care if you're ordering a pizza, but they sure as hell would care if you're ordering fifty pounds of explosives, a detonator and a vest. Bush has paid journalists to repeat his propaganda? Bullshit. Show me your source for that. Routinely censors scientific reports? Strike 2. Source, please. BUSH delayed the federal response? Strike 3. Bush didn't delay anything. Coordinating response to Katrina was legally the responsibility of the state and local governments. Both failed to execute the plans they had set in place, and Bush did not have the legal authority to just send in the National Guard immediately. THIS bill gives him that right. Osama Bin Laden is still at large? Yes, he is. Why? Because he has multiple Middle-Eastern states cooperating with him and Al-Queda. The search for Bin Laden is still ongoing. We haven't forgotten at all. Troops are still in Afghanistan and we're opening relations with Middle-Eastern states to ensure their cooperation. Christ, this bill isn't allowing Bush to shoot civilians in the street. This bill is allowing President Bush to step in national emergencies, when state and local governments are caught with their pants down. First you yell about lack of power to step in during Katrina, now you're yelling about Bush having the power to do so? Bush isn't politically polarizing the United States. The Democrats are politically polarizing the United States. You know why? Nancy Pelosi even said it herself, on the record... the goal of the Democrats is to oppose everything that the Republicans try to do. Everything. And the mindless masses follow her in lock-step. You know what you need to do? You need to turn off your computer, turn your chair around and step outside. Maybe even take off that little tinfoil hat if you feel like it. Go see what your life is actually like. Go enjoy the freedoms that the American government is protecting, and that those dead soldiers (God rest their souls) have given their lives to preserve. Go buy a gun. Go to a political rally. Hell, even go to a protest (They're getting to be one in the same.) Go run down the street and yell "Bush Sucks" if you so please. Then come back and continue to tell all the other people in the world, who don't have as many freedoms as you do, how oppressed you are.

Re:So now Slashdot hates him for this.

[Legion303]

First off, let's link to a reputable site:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:HR051 22:@@@K

Second:

"This rule will likely never be used except for emergencies."

You must live in a fantasy land of unicorns and rainbows and government officials who don't use every opportunity to abuse the power they have. I want to move there someday.

Re:So now Slashdot hates him for this.

[dreamer-of-rules]

Nice little arrangement of words. "Bush has been wiretapping US phone calls"... hah. As if he's sitting in the oval office listening to your conversation with your mother. The NSA has been tapping suspected terrorist phone calls.

Wow. This is inane. I didn't think I needed to specify that Bush wasn't personally wiretapping US phone calls without a warrant. But it was done on his orders. Or are you suggesting that there was a conspiracy to wiretap without Bush's approval? I did forgot to mention that the problem with the wiretapping was that the wiretapping wasn't being approved by the Judicial Branch as required by law. Remember the Judicial Branch? Remember the checks-and-balances-thing to prevent the abuse of power by one branch of government?

Bush has paid journalists to repeat his propaganda? Bullshit. Show me your source for that.

• WASHINGTON - Columnist Armstrong Williams has reached a settlement with prosecutors regarding payments he received by the Education Department to promote President Bush's agenda.
• Education and Medicare policies...
• 1.4 billion dollars spent on spin.. also regarding "the global war on terrorism" and the "dangers of buying drugs from non-US sources"
• Wherein Bush is 'concerned' about reports that the US military is writing propaganda in occupied Iraq. (Either he knew about it, or he has double-standards.)

Routinely censors scientific reports? Strike 2. Source, please.

• Climate research..
• Cosmology...
• Sex education...
• Endangered salmon..
• Medical benefits.."
• Reproductive medicine.."

BUSH delayed the federal response? Strike 3. Bush didn't delay anything.

• House Republicans plan to issue a blistering report on Wednesday that says the Bush administration delayed the evacuation of thousands of New Orleans residents by failing to act quickly on early reports that the levees had broken during Hurricane Katrina.

Osama Bin Laden is still at large? Yes, he is. Why? Because he has multiple Middle-Eastern states cooperating with him and Al-Queda. The search for Bin Laden is still ongoing. We haven't forgotten at all.

• "I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority." - G.W. Bush, 3/13/02"
• "I am truly not that concerned about him." - G.W. Bush, repsonding to a question about bin Laden's whereabouts, 3/13/02 (The New American, 4/8/02)
• "I don't spend much time on him." -G.W. Bush, six months after 9/11 event. [video]
• Bush withdrew the majority of our troop

Re:So now Slashdot hates him for this.

[stanleypane]

"yet still live in America after threatening to leave... go figure"

I'm hoping those same poeple stay and vote.

Re:So now Slashdot hates him for this.

[kalidasa]

FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY. What the *hell* does "management" in this title mean if not "coordinate response?" Bush didn't need the repeal of the Posse Comitatus act to help with Katrina, he just needed someone who could identify what New Orleans would need to recover and how to get things there as soon as possible - and the local government begged for exactly that help! Now, both of your arguments on this subject - first, that the Federal government has no role to play in such local disasters (even though the laws that created FEMA made it clear that FEMA's purpose was to assist and coordinate disaster response), and second, that Bush was hamstrung by the Posse Comitatus Act (as though he needed to Federalize the Guard to get fresh water into New Orleans), are mutually exclusive. But logical inconsistency is one of the hallmarks of today's Republican Party!

You've got your fellow Republicans going on TV saying they're "scared of what America will become if the Democrats win" - like America was so bad a place to live from 1955 to 1994 when the Democrats controlled the House? Let's face it - Iraq was less of a threat than Iran or Korea, and certainly less of a threat than Afghanistan (a country that really was hosting al Qaida, and which indisputably provided material support to the attacks against the United States in September 2001). But we have 145,000 troops in Iraq, and only about 21,000 troops in Afghanistan (by comparison, the Soviets couldn't hold Afghanistan with an occupation force that varied in size between 80,000 and 100,000!!!): and while Saddam Hussein is in custody, neither Bin Laden nor "Mullah Omar," the head of the now resurgent Taliban, was ever captured. Do you know what "Middle Eastern" states are assisting Bin Laden? Along with various groups within and outside the governing coalition in Afghanistan, most of Bin Laden's support is coming from our supposed ally Pakistan (specifically, the Pakistani intelligence service, which supports al Qaida because it helps to train and arm insurgents fighting the Indian government in Kashmir - you know, India, the one with the elected government, unlike Musharraf's coup-imposed government - and whose support for the Taliban goes back to the Soviet invasion). We're wasting the lives of our brave men and women so that Georgie can prove that he's a good boy to his daddy (read the beginning of Woodward's new book on why James Baker was left out in the cold and Cheney's and Rumsfeld's advice was heeded in direct contradiction to Powell's, by the way).

I suppose, too, that your side has forgotten that they were trying to impeach Clinton for lying about a blowjob while he was bombing Afghanistan to try to force them to stop assisting Bin Laden, didn't you? (Oh, yeah, I forgot - when a Democrat bombs somebody, it's wag the dog; when a Republican bombs somebody, it's Heroism. All I know is that there were some "radical" Democrats outside the government arguing for an invasion of Afghanistan to overthrow the Taliban because they were a clear and present danger in *March* of 2001, after the destruction of Bamiyan and the beginnings of genocidal actions against non-Muslims and non-Pashtu, but you people only caught up with the program *after* thousands of Americans died). If there had been an impeachment in 2004 instead of 1998, you'd be calling for treason trials. Back then, you were calling for a return to values - values being defined, I suppose, as humiliating young fellows who were born in the US just because they happen to be Indian (as one Conservative hero, the beloved Senator Allen, decided to do), or taking money in exchange for changing legislation to aid a slimy lobbyist who cheated his own clients, or laundering money so they could transfer "soft money" into "hard money" accounts for state legislative campaigns, or covering up the behavior of a borderline pedophile congressman (at least Gerry Studds was censured by the scary Democrat-controlled Congress!).

what i love

[circletimessquare]

is that many who criticize the rush to war in iraq criticize the manipulation of fear uncertainty and denial in the general public following 9/11 to foist flimsy half-baked justifications like WMDs to rationalize the war

because as we all know, those who oppose the war are paragons of well-informed levelheaded analysis, right?

and then you see screaming FUD like this story: "BUSH GIVEN MARTIAL LAW RIGHTS! SOMEBODY THINK OF THE CHILDREN!"

so in the end it seems that FUD is an equal opportunity idiocy, on either side of the partisan divide

pathetic, on the right

pathetic, on the left

Good point but it goes back farther than that...

[daninaustin]

The attitudes do correspond to urban/rural, but if you take a look at the maps from the last elections you will see that they are pretty much the same. There are gun control laws that go back farther than 1967 (Reagan did a lot of good things, but support for the second amendment wasn't one of them. In addition to the Mulford act he also supported the Brady bill & assault weapon ban. Reagan was originally a DEMOCRAT, he unfortunately kept some of the bad habits after he converted in 1962 :) You have the 1934 National Firearms act of 1934 which was originally intended to ban handguns (along with machine guns, short barreled rifles and short barreled shotguns), by putting imposing a $200 tax, or $5 for an AOW/Pistol. The tax on pistols was pulled before the law was passed. (I don't think the taxes have changes. These are the current values but I'm not sure if they were ever less.) Luckily for us this was changed before the law was passed. FDR would have probably gone farther and actually banned the weapons if he could have but members of the supreme court let him know that they would not allow it. Also, look at the origins for state and local prohibitions against carrying handguns. Many (if not most) in the south came about because the white southerners did not want blacks to have guns. BTW, most of the "Liberals" that oppose gun control are really not Liberals, they are libertarians.

Is the site www.govtrack.us real?

[constantnormal]

I would have expected a government site to end with .gov

Doing a Whois on www.govtrack.us turned up that the domain name was issued by godaddy.com -- is the US government getting its domain names from GoDaddy.com?

Methinks I smells a hoax.

Re:Is the site www.govtrack.us real?

[DrRevotron]

Fox and CNN are surprisingly quiet regarding this issue. This is really something that CNN would go nuts over. I smell a hoax, as well. :/

Who voted for this?

[bmasel]

In the Senate, it passed by unanimous consent.

In the House, 398 Yeas, 23 Nays. No suprise Ron Paul (TX) was the only Republican against.

The Democrats:
Baldwin
Capps
Conyers
Filner
Frank (MA)
Holt
Inslee
Jackson (IL)

Kucinich
Lee
McDermott
McKinney
Michaud
Miller, George
Owens
Pallone
Payne
Schakowsky
Serrano
Stark
Velázquez
Woolsey

roll call

Re:frist psot

[killjoe]

If this was a democratic president doing this the republican congress would howl. The fact that they don't tells us that they care more about their party then the country, the citizens, or the constitution.

On top of all that they are stupid because they don't seem to realize that one day, even after the voting machines have been rigged, even after the rolls have been wiped of blacks and young people the country might still elect a democrat president. Maybe they think no democrat would declare a martial law.

Re:frist psot

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think you really understand what happened with FEMA there, pal.

No, FEMA fiddled while N. Orleans flooded.

From the White House

[vague_ascetic]

Here's the official White House signing statement, which also comes with a nice picture attached, showing Dick Cheney, a California congressional equivocator of torture, Rep. Duncan Hunter, Donald Rumsfeld, Sen. John 'Count Vlad' Warner, and General Peter Pace.

-------------{begin release}-------------

• For Immediate Release
• Office of the Press Secretary
• October 17, 2006

President's Statement on H.R. 5122, the "John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007"

Today, I have signed into law H.R. 5122, the "John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007" (the "Act"). The Act authorizes funding for the defense of the United States and its interests abroad, for military construction, for national security-related energy programs, and for maritime security-related transportation programs.

President George W. Bush signs into law H.R. 5122, the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007, Tuesday, Oct. 17, 2006, in the Oval Office. Joining him are from left: Vice President Dick Cheney, Rep. Duncan Hunter of California, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Sen. John Warner of Virginia, and General Peter Pace, Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff. White House photo by Eric Draper Several provisions of the Act call for executive branch officials to submit to the Congress recommendations for legislation, or purport to regulate the manner in which the President formulates recommendations to the Congress for legislation. These provisions include sections 516(h), 575(g), 603(b), 705(d), 719(b), 721(e), 741(e), 813, 1008, 1016(d), 1035(b)(3), 1047(b), and 1102 of the Act, section 118(b)(4) of title 10, United States Code, as amended by section 1031 of the Act, section 2773b of title 10 as amended by section 1053 of the Act, and section 403 of the Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 (Public Law 108-375) as amended by section 403 of the Act. The executive branch shall construe these provisions in a manner consistent with the President's constitutional authority to supervise the unitary executive branch and to recommend for the consideration of the Congress such measures as the President deems necessary and expedient.

The executive branch shall construe sections 914 and 1512 of the Act, which purport to make consultation with specified Members of Congress a precondition to the execution of the law, as calling for but not mandating such consultation, as is consistent with the Constitution's provisions concerning the separate powers of the Congress to legislate and the President to execute the laws.

A number of provisions in the Act call for the executive branch to furnish information to the Congress or other entities on various subjects. These provisions include sections 219, 313, 360, 1211, 1212, 1213, 1227, 1402, and 3116 of the Act, section 427 of title 10, United States Code, as amended by section 932 of the Act, and section 1093 of the Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 (Public Law 108-375) as amended by section 1061 of the Act. The executive branch shall construe such provisions in a manner consistent with the President's constitutional authority to withhold information the disclosure of which could impair foreign relations, the national security, the deliberative processes of the Executive, or the performance of the Executive's constitutional duties.

The executive branch shall construe as advisory section 1011(b)(2) of the Act, which purports to prohibit the Secretary of the Navy from retiring a specified warship from operational status unless, among other things, a treaty organization established by the U.S. and foreign nations gives formal notice that it does not desire t

Re:I'm for the ownership of weapons for self defen

[Malakusen]

But there is no way you can take on an, say an APC, full of soldiers with automatic weapons and body armor, without anti-personnel explosive or chemical weapons. Or fortifications.

Which is why you don't take on an APC if you don't have the weapons needed for it. That's the basis of asymetric and guerilla warfare. The biggest lesson from the Iraq insurgency, a lesson which was taught by Sun Tzu hundreds of years ago, is that you do not attack your enemy at his strongest point, but at his weakest.

Better find a plot of BLM property and build a bunker and a moat.

Wrong. Find an apartment complex in a crowded city. Safety in numbers. "Here we see the importance of not being seen" and all that.

Plus, during a home invasion, you have a higher chance of you or a family member getting shot in cross-fire, or due to an assailant obtaining one of the many weapons from its storage location or an overpowered family member.

Not if you live alone. Or if you're smart and you have a plan beforehand. And you keep the gun on the other side from where an assailant will come from. Simple tactics. I have one door into my apartment, if I was going to use a handgun for defense I'd have it next to the bed, on the other side from the door.

Any problem can be solved if you plan.

Re:frist psot

[Mindspider]

Why does this shit always get modded up? Be more of a stereotype, please. Bush's rise, and abuse, of his power is hardly a novel thing in American history. Creating an enemy and then using it to shape political policy is not new, and while Bush has made some startling alterations to the law, this has all been done before. And guess what? It's never lasted. People pay a lot of attention to our dear George W., and laws like this will not remain in effect for long.

Two things are required to make a dictator:
1. The People, offering him support and control over them in exchange for security and success.
2. Followers who protect him and support him regardless of his actions, hoping to gain a portion of his power once he's become unstoppable.

Bush isn't exactly popular anymore. Have you taken a look at the polls recently? The vast majority of the country is dissatisfied with Bush's handling of the War, which is the single biggest issue of his presidency. The most people are dissatisfied with his performance altogether. The upcoming elections are not looking to be a kind one to the Republicans, and more Republicans are opposing Bush's policies then ever before. If Bush is making a bid for a dictatorship, he's doing a piss-poor job at it. Hitler was far more charismatic, expedient, and successful then Bush could ever hope to be, and had a damaged and hungry country to support him. Don't even try to compare Modern America with Post-WWI Germany... our country is hardly in the kind of state necessary for a dictator to take power.

Comparisons between Bush and Hitler are not only weak, but they damage the dialogue within our country, and by extension, our country itself. When you tell people that Bush is comparable to Hitler, how can you expect them to take you seriously? Let's assume you're not talking to people who agree with you. How do you propose compromises? How do you find results that transcend the "us-against-them" mentality that's paralyzing our politics? If you honestly believe that one side of our political spectrum is evil and bent on domination, how can you possibly have a productive relationship with them? I have bad news for you- this is real life. Our country is populated by real people, not caricatures that make morality black-and-white. In reality, issues have far more complex then most people want to think they are. In reality, people don't always fall into your neat little boxes and labels. And while there are definitely evil people in our government, I'm tired of seeing one side demonize the other; all they're doing is dulling your brain to make you think that there's only two sides of an issue, and you're fighting for the morally righteous one. This doesn't accomplish anything. Well, it does make people feel good about themselves, that's for sure.

What a tool. If you can make such sweeping generalizations, then you're far too gone to rationalize with. This kind of thinking is bad for America. This kind of thinking is making this country sick. Being critical of our government is absolutely necessary to keep it in balance, but polarizing our politics is damaging what little open-discourse we still have.

I hope you're proud of yourself: you've joined the other flock of sheeple plaguing American politics.

sounds like the Democrats need some balls

[Trepidity]

Being branded a traitor tends to work better as a fear-installation device if you're deathly afraid of it.

Re:sounds like the Democrats need some balls

[ralphdaugherty]

Being branded a traitor tends to work better as a fear-installation device if you're deathly afraid of it.

      It's difficult to defend against in an election with a Republican claiming you're a traitor because you voted against money for the troops, when in fact it was a martial law provision slipped in with money for the troops that was voted against. Traitor Traitor Traitor is just easier to say, isn't it?

  rd

Third parties

[Stalus]

I've read a number of posts here arguing that jumping ship to third parties is going to solve the problem, but the reality of politics in the US is that there can only be two parties. The rules dictate how the game is played, and in the US, we have a winner take all system. The existence of three parties in this system reduces the power of the two groups with the most similar ideologies, allowing the minority opinion to gain control. Because of this, it's no surprise that the only independent candidate in the House is from a small state - Vermont, and he works with the democrats.

If people really want more options, they should fight to do away with the winner take all system first. There's a reason why European governments have a lot more parties in the mix - they divide seats up by percentage of the popular vote. With that sort of system, given the current number of seats in the House, you would only have to rally about 700,000 people in the US (.23%) to your cause to get a chance to participate in Congress.

But, you can't do that without a lot of thought either... because there's the potential for giving party leaders way too much power in that system. Anyway, my two cents.

Cast a blank vote?

[!coward]

As said above (and below), poor voter turnout is noticed, but easily put down as lazyness, apathy or just plain ignorance on the part of the "general public" of the "important issues at stake".

In my experience, you usually only get political analysts and former politicians saying that disappointing voter turnout could also be attributed to the parties lack of ability in getting their message across (if they even HAVE a message at all besides bashing the opponent every chance they get) or the public's general distrust of the political class after so many years' worth of scandals and disappointments, as an afterthought.. You know, a couple of hours into the day's election breakdown in a sort of a "..oh yeah, and then there's the parties own shortcommings".

I don't know how you do it in the US, but do they count "spoilt" (null? what is the "legal" term for it?) votes along with blank ones? As in, does the final tally count the two apart or together? 'Cause IMO a spoilt vote is just that: spoilt. It can be someone's idea of a joke or a "stick it to the man", or just an honest fuck-up by a clueless/careless voter (I've no idea how your voting machines work, not being a US citizen, but from what I've heard and read so many times, both the machines themselves, and your ballots seem to be way too impractical/considerably hard to operate).

Whereas a blank vote sends a clearer message: it says "I took the time and trouble of going to the voting assembly, I cared, but no candidate/party was deserving of my vote". A blank vote can hardly be construed as non-intentional, and if a ballot is intentionally left blank, then that means something. Ok, so in most countries I know, blank votes, no matter the percentage, have no legal meaning. But it shouldn't be too hard to change that as those same countries demand a 50%+ voter turnout for a referendum's outcome to be legally binding, although I always thought that any form of rewarding absentism is counter-productive (it should be changed to blank votes).

Voting is more then a right, or a civic duty. It is a priviledge for which many people gave their lives over the years. It should be as obligatory as paying taxes (no, I don't like paying taxes, I just have to). After all, both are important ways of contributing to the state.

"No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."
"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter."
-- both from Sir Winston Churchill (yeah, the guy was full of himself.. doesn't mean he wasn't right, though)

Congress and the Senate both!

[Sage Gaspar]

Err the House and the Senate, but you get the point :P

Re:"comparisons between Bush and Hitler *are* vali

[Anonymous Coward]

The first thing we do, let's kill all the Republicans!

The sad thing is, I agree with that sentiment.... and I am a Republican!

What's next?

[Anonymous Coward]

What's next declaring himself Emperor? And then disbanding the senate... Ave Bush...

No Excuse

[Shihar]

If a bill is too big to read, it should be voted against. There is absolutely no excuse for voting for this shit. Either read the entire bill or vote against it. Period. Only a fucking idiot would sign their name adding new laws to the land without bothering to actually read it. Sadly, I think fucking idiots make up the vast majority of the legislative branch of the government. I am pointing my finger at the democrats too, not just the republicans. There are some assholes with a (D) next to their name that signed off on this bill.

Re:frist psot

[ralphdaugherty]

People demanded that the federal government go into New Orleans to keep order, but they couldn't because of the law.

      You are quite wrong. Bush tried to declare martial law and none of the governors would give him permission. No one demanded he send in federal troops, they wanted the National Guard, which Bush had federalized, and FEMA, which Bush had decimated.

  rd

Added the USA to the list of dictatorships

[Eternal Annoyance]

(in the long run) this will result in civil war. In effect Mr. Bush can send the army to do his bidding... without anyone being able to stop him, this includes imprissoning members of the government itself and election candidates he dislikes, without statement of reason (in other words: terrorism).

Re:Added the USA to the list of dictatorships

[DrRevotron]

Added you to the list of idiots who actually fell for this hoax.

Re:frist psot

[ralphdaugherty]

I'm not even in support of this law. I'm against it... I just don't think it has such dire consequences, and it WAS created in response to popular demand.

      You've got to be kidding me. Popular demand? Why do you think this was sneaked in at the last minute? Popular demand? Bush demanded to be able to declare martial law and all three governors told him no way. Nor would anyone else but a neocon support this.

  rd

Re:frist psot

[cptgrudge]

Remember back to X-Files, much was of course conspiracy, but there the talk of FEMA being the route to martial law was based on real laws and powers already on the books.

I remember back to Deus Ex (the first one). Had an awesome storyline, with FEMA taking a large role. There was a terrorist attack on the Statue of Liberty in the game's history, and even more weird was the lack of the Twin Towers in the New York background.

Intellectual Plaigiarism

[Anonymous Coward]

Y'know, this is totally going to be a troll, but I'm going to say it anyway...

I don't care how relevant a quote is, modding it +5 Insightful is ridiculous if the poster in question doesn't contribute any thought to it.

I come to /. all the time for good insight into the things that posters write. And a lot of times, they say things that are smart and make a whole lot of sense.

Regurgitating someone else's words doesn't make a poster extra-smart or extra-insightful. In fact, just the opposite. It's just as bad as posting "I hate George Bush" over and over again. It's not an original thought, it's not something that took a whole lot of neurons to formulate. It's just intellectual plaigiarism.

Re:Intellectual Plaigiarism

[LordPhantom]

Says the AC. But I'll "byte"....

I was actually shooting for "funny" here. And quoting someone in quotes isn't intellectual plaigiarism, it's simply a quote. I assumed (perhaps incorrectly) that making the reference would be... superfluous?

Trash the mods, perhaps, but that quote was hardly worthy of your ire :)

Oh, and
And a lot of times, they say things that are smart and make a whole lot of sense.
Have you been reading the same website I have? ;)

Re:frist psot

[Frodrick]

Is anyone on /. familier with Godwin's Law? People try to compare Bush to Hitler way too much here. Seems like Godwin's Law has been forgotten.

Aesop's corollary to Godwin's Law: "Then, when the wolf really came, no one believed the little boy."

Re:frist psot

[ralphdaugherty]

I'm surprised nobody else has pointed out that the Democrats asked for this. Remember all the complaints about the Katrina response?

      ummm, no, we didn't. All three governors, Democrat and Republican, refused Bush's demand to declare martial law. The guy is a nutcase, and so are his neocon henchmen.

  rd

Election season

[zoftie]

It is so, and this move can be construed as something to help with the election campaign, nothing more. The fire will be lit under his ass, to be impeached way out of the house, so he's trying to look good, but there is no money in treasury anymore to do such things. Even if there was, it is just hand waving, as some pointed to relief for disasters like a Katrina. I think Bush is obtuse, rather then malicious. Political spinsters firing off right left and center. I think equating him to hitler is a bit too much. I don't like the guy, he fucked alot of things up, but if you really know campaigns, this is in line with self promotion, the usurpation. He already crossed may constitutional lines, and now trying to make up for it.

It is election season, spinsters about. Whatever news says, you bet it will be bent in every 'legal' way to misrepresent one or other side. Welcome to the twilight zone :) This election will be interesting, with all malfunctioning Diebolds. Think hanging chads were bad... wait until you see this one.
2c

Re:Election season

[zoftie]

This should be a scratch copy, so many things just don't make sense. And flow is all broken up :)

Republicans aren't better Protecting America

[vague_ascetic]

How times have changed. What the Republicans refused to give the Clinton administration has been extended exponentially to bhe Bush Administration. The Republicans are not better at protecting America, they are just partisan hacks. On April 16, 1996 Sen. Hatch (R-Utah) explained why posse comitatus would not be excepted even in the event of a terrorist biological or chemical attack upon the USA in the 1995 terror Prevention bill:

--------Begin Congressional Record excerpt---------

From this country's earliest days, the American people have sought to limit military involvement in civilian affairs. In the wake of the terrible tragedy in Oklahoma, with the heightened sensitivity to the threat of terrorism this country faces, some feel like giving the military a more prominent role in combating terrorism both here and abroad. This is not a policy we should rush into.

I must add, I support the provision, which is known as the Nunn- Thurmond provision, in the Senate bill. Americans have always been suspicious of using the military in domestic law enforcement, and rightly so. Civilian control of the military and separation of the military from domestic law enforcement feature prominently in the early history of this country, from the Declaration of Independence to the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Indeed, the Declaration of Independence listed among our grievances against the King of England that he had "kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislature," and had "affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power."

It was abuse of military authority in domestic affairs, especially in the South after the Civil War, that motivated Congress to impose the first so-called posse comitatus statute. The term "posse comitatus" means power of the country and has as its origin the power of the sheriff through common law to call upon people to help him execute the law.

The statute, in 18 U.S.C. 1385, prevents the Federal Government from using the Army or Air Force to execute the law, except where Congress expressly creates an exception. Domestic law enforcement thus remains as is, in the hands of local communities.

Currently, as I understand it, Congress has created only limited exceptions to the Posse Comitatus Act. The President can call out the military if terrorists threaten the use of nuclear weapons or if the rights of any group of people are denied and the State in which they reside is unable or unwilling to secure their lawful rights.

The military is also authorized to share intelligence information with Federal law enforcement in attempts to combat drug trafficking. These are limited exceptions to the act, however, and do not generally empower the military to be actively involved in the enforcement of domestic laws. We have done well with a separation between military authority and domestic law enforcement. Although this proposal seems sensible and appears simply to expand upon the military's preexisting authority, to become involved if the use of nuclear weapons or biological or chemical weapons is threatened, it may, in fact, be unnecessary.

The premise underlying this amendment is that there does not exist among civilian law enforcement the expertise to deal effectively with chemical or biological agents. However, I believe that such expertise is available outside of the military. Particularly in the area of chemical agents, civil authorities and even the private sector have considerable experience in containing these substances.

Moreover, the military can already assist civil authorities in all aspects of responding to the type of crisis contemplated by this amendment but one: The actual use of military personnel to disable or contain the device. The military can lend equipment, it can provide instructions and technical advice on how to disable or contain a chemical or biologi

URL for CRS Report

[vague_ascetic]

Congressional Research Service Report for Congress, "The Use of Federal Troops for Disaster Assistance: Legal Issues," by Jennifer K. Elsea, Legislative Attorney, August 14, 2006

Re:Law

[forgotten_my_nick]

> looking forward to this election shaking up the entire political establishment.

I guess you missed the law they changed a few months back that allowed free gerrymandering. Between that and diebold I can't see any serious shakeup happening.

He's done LOTS good!

[crhylove]

For starters, he faked an election and had his corrupt brother rig a statewide vote.

Then he played a shit load of golf and ignored terrorist threats until 9/11.

Then he invaded Afghanistan so we could put a pipeline from the middle east to Russia.

Then he ruined the constitution.

Then he bombed the shit out of Iraq, including casualties across every demographic.

Then he let a bunch of black people drown.

Then he approved torture, and eliminated basic laws that have been in place for centuries, like Habeas Corpus.

So he's done plenty good. If you are a person who enjoys fascism, hates people in other countries, particularly Arabs, are not a fan of any of our founding fathers, like torture, hate black people, like genocide, and hate the rule of law. If you are that person, he is a sure-fire winner!

Vote W again in 2008! Let's really show those fuckin' towel heads!

rhY

you're begging the question

[misanthrope101]

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.

What does it mean to support the "war on terror"? What the hell is an appeaser You're using a loaded term, and I have no idea what you're saying. Are you referring to the war in Iraq? If so, you are begging the question, because you refuse to acknowledge than people can disagree with you on whether or not a particular strategy will help or hurt the efforts against terrorism. Ispo facto, anyone who disagrees with the policies you believe in must be an "appeaser." Bullshit. Many, many people have seen the obvious, and acknowledge that our occupation of Iraq is a galvanizing force that draws people INTO the war against us. Our actions in Iraq are helping recruit people for a long war against us. Several government-funded studies have already arrived at this conclusion.

Don't fall for the talking-head BS that tells you that anyone who opposes the war in Iraq must be a terrorist appeaser. The idea that "liberals" are sitting around saying "how can we help the terrorists" may sell for Coulter, but it's stupid on its face. I can disagree with you on whether or not we should be in Iraq, just as I opposed our coddling and financing of Saddam in the 80s, without it meaning that I hate America. I realize that talking heads like Coulter and O'Reilly entertain their audiences with grossly oversimplified worldviews like that, but in reality hardly anyone who disagrees with you on something as complex as the occupation of a country is trying to "appease" the opponent.

You could get Michael Moore, Babs Streisand, and whichever of those Baldwin brothers O'Reilly hates so much together, and I promise you, sincerely, that not one of them actually want to help the terrorists kill Americans. Really. People who tell you that are simpletons if they believe it and manipulative demagogues if they're just saying it to entertain their audience. They are doing a disservice to their country, either way.

Re:you're begging the question

[wrf3]

What does it mean to support the "war on terror"?

For starters: to acknowledge that there is a war, to identify who/what the enemy is, and to agree that something must be done.

What the hell is an appeaser

Someone who placates an enemy. while incorrectly hoping that said placation will remove the source of enmity.

... because you refuse to acknowledge than people can disagree with you on whether or not a particular strategy will help or hurt the efforts against terrorism.

I did? Where?

Many, many people have seen the obvious, and acknowledge that our occupation of Iraq is a galvanizing force that draws people INTO the war against us. Our actions in Iraq are helping recruit people for a long war against us. Several government-funded studies have already arrived at this conclusion.

And why is this a bad thing? One could argue, for example, that flypaper is an effective tactic against flies. Once could also argue from history that the West has been at war with Islam for a long time and that the longer we delay, the less successful we will be. Please note that I don't necessarily agree with these statements, but they have been made. What I will say is that I believe that Islam is fundamentally incompatible with the Western liberties of freedom of speech and religion. I will also say that Islam is an expansionist state building religion. In the long run, the two systems cannot co-exist and the world is getting smaller every day.

Don't fall for the talking-head BS that tells you that anyone who opposes the war in Iraq must be a terrorist appeaser. The idea that "liberals" are sitting around saying "how can we help the terrorists" may sell for Coulter, but it's stupid on its face. I can disagree with you on whether or not we should be in Iraq, just as I opposed our coddling and financing of Saddam in the 80s, without it meaning that I hate America. I realize that talking heads like Coulter and O'Reilly entertain their audiences with grossly oversimplified worldviews like that, but in reality hardly anyone who disagrees with you on something as complex as the occupation of a country is trying to "appease" the opponent.

You've put words into my mouth that I would not say -- and have not said.

Re:you're begging the question

[misanthrope101]

For starters: to acknowledge that there is a war, to identify who/what the enemy is, and to agree that something must be done.

But a war with whom? Muslims? Religious fundamentalists? It's not so much that I don't think there's a war, but that we disagree on how clear it is who we're fighting against. "Terrorism" is a tactic more than a specific enemy. We can say that we're fighting against people who are fighting against us, but that's somewhat circular argument.

Someone who placates an enemy. while incorrectly hoping that said placation will remove the source of enmity.

If your tactics aren't working, changing them isn't "placating" an enemy. What we're doing is worsening the situation in Iraq, and helping out the terrorist recruitment process. You are still begging the question. I'm not trying to "placate" or "appease," but reduce the amount of world terrorism.

And why is this a bad thing?

Because if there are more terrorists now than when you started, and more terrorist attacks wnow than when you started, and you turned an entire country into a reruiting ground and training camp for terrorists, then perhaps your tactics are wrong. "Flypaper works for flys" sounds jaunty, but there is zero evidence, beyond it's bumper-sticker catchiness, to indicate that it works. All of the evidence we have indicates that our tactics are accomplishing the polar opposite of what we're claiming to want. I'm not asking you to trust me--the Pentagon has come to the same conclusion, as have other government studies on the issue. It's not unanimous, but it might be significant that the terrorists like what we're doing--http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/1006/p01s04-w oiq.html. We are helping them by creating converts. It also might be significant that the National Intelligence Assessment also indicates that the Iraq war is making terrorism worse.

I was largely criticizing your tone, which I admit is always risky because miscommunication on the internet is so easy. Frequently anyone who doesn't support the war in Iraq is characterized as an "appeaser" or "weak on terror," and the speaker doens't even address (much less refute) the contention that the war in Iraq is making the situation worse. It's just an assumption that the Iraq war is helping us, and thus anyone opposing the Iraq war must want the terrorists to win. If you aren't one of those stupid people who are unable to make that distinction, then I misjudged you and I apologize.

Re:you're begging the question

[graikor]

Bravo!

Pity that wrf3 has apparently drunk so much of the kool-aid, he doesn't realize how he's being played...

Guns are not really needed.

[master_p]

The US population is 300 million people. Therefore there are over 200 million adults who can take it to the streets. Even if the whole United States Army, Navy and Air Force was thrown against those 200 million, they wouldn't stand a chance; which is highly unlikely, because the army is formed by people, not robots.

I support the right to bear arms

[commodoresloat]

but only muskets.

Re:frist psot

[MightyYar]

You and I have very different ideas of the Federal government's role. I do not want the Federal government involved in my local affairs until the local government is unable to cope. FEMA was INSIDE Louisiana, ready to help. All of the infrastructure along the coast was wiped out. How do you truck in supplies when there are no passable roads? This stuff all takes time. The levies did not burst until AFTER the hurricane wiped out the surrounding infrastructure, and in any case it only took a few hours to swamp the city after their breech - far too short a time to do any kind of an organized evacuation. Maybe YOU want the Federal government forcing you out of your home when there is a disaster coming, but I don't want that. The people who were still in New Orleans fall into two categories - those who are impossibly stupid (staying behind for their pets?) and those who couldn't leave because of some disability, no transportation, etc. Anyone who WANTED to stay behind deserves whatever they got. They are very lucky that this country has so many helicopters laying around.

great idea

[commodoresloat]

f the US military were politically allowed to "take the gloves off" as it were, we'd have the mess cleaned up in 6 months. See "insurgents" going into a town or suburb? Smart bomb the town. None of this "door to door" stuff. Roadside IED go off and kill US troops? The neighborhood will suffer as a result. Teach the populace that all harboring and capitulation with the terrorists won't save them any trouble, and that they need to take care of their own problems if they want the US to leave.

Yeah, good idea. It works so well for Israel.

Re:frist psot

[MightyYar]

Maybe you and I live on different planets, but I remember seeing 24/7 news coverage of Katrina for about 3 months - almost all of it critical of the "slow response" of the federal government. I don't doubt that the governors didn't want their power taken away by the feds - and I'm inclined to agree with them. But the governors (at least one of which who is quite incompetent, by the way) do not represent popular opinion. This law solves the problem of the federal government seeming ineffective - next time they can just storm right in. This is a shame for states that actually have good local disaster plans, but probably good for the people of Louisiana - who's governor basically cried through the crises. Her and that Nagen guy were happy to blame the feds, though, even though they didn't let them take over. The "great people of New Orleans" ever re-elected Nagen. Wow.

Re:frist psot

[MightyYar]

This is quite similar to your other comment. Yes, people wanted the National Guard called in to fill in for the missing/ineffective police department, which the governor declined to do. This law would have allowed Bush to overrule the governor and let the National Guard act as law enforcement. This is exactly what people have been demanding. Federal troops (mostly Air Force), National Guard troops, and Coast Guard were all on the scene immediately. Within 3 days, they had a decent base camp set up. If that doesn't impress you from a logistics standpoint, then you've never read anything about the logistics of moving troops around and keeping them alive when there are no roads, fuel, water, or electricity - all while providing aid to hundreds of thousands of refugees. I like to see Bush attacked in the news media as much as anybody, but in the case of Katrina it was a little unfair. His reaction didn't help him any. We don't like Bush so we let the media roll on him and this is the result. We reap what we sow, and the federal government has simply responded to popular criticism.

Open your eyes

[Anonymous Coward]

"Did you really think that we want those laws to be observed?... We want them broken... We're after power and we mean it... There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted - and you create a nation of law-breakers - and then you cash in on guilt.

Re:frist psot

[Anonymous Coward]

Please credit Jay Leno for your quip!

MOD PARENT UP

[Carewolf]

Nothing is more important with an election around the corner

and missles apparently, watch this google video

[bushwhacker2000]

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6051532545 854068491

I don't know who the hell the "AL-Rashedeen Army" is but they claim they are responsible for 2% of IED attacks. It's disturbing but worth watching. It has lots of footage from insurgent attacks so it's a bit disturbing at times to see bodies get blown apart. You have to remember though, these people are fighting for *their* country, that we illegally invaded.

From Congressional Records

[vague_ascetic]

From The Congressional Record of September 29, 2006:
Senators Kennedy, Sessions and McCain in support; Senator Leahy's Dissent

the Bill does say that ..

[rs232]

Does it mention the 'Insurrection Act' what does the bill say in regard to the President suspending personal rights. Does Public Law 109-364 give the President power to .. take control of state-based National Guard units without the consent of the governor or local authorities. Yes or No. How is this different that declaring martial law. Could you point us to a working link so as we can judge for ourselves.

"The referred article seems to have been posted originally on Saddam Hussein's supporter's website. It doesn't make it wrong of course but it doesn't lend to credibility or unbiased reporting :", RenderSeven

The US was a one time fan of Hussein back when he was a low level assassin working for the CIA. Here's a picture of Donald Rumsfeld shaking hands with him.

"Reads to me more of a response to Katrina. Remember Katrina? Thats where we blamed the FEDERAL government for not sending in the state national guard when they had no authority to do it", RenderSeven

There is no mention of Katrina in the cited article

was The Bill Doesnt Say This At All (Score:5, Black Ops)

Re:the Bill does say that ..

[RenderSeven]

The US was a one time fan of Hussein back when he was a low level assassin working for the CIA.

So, your point is that since Saddam was associated with the CIA, and that his personal blog has an article from a professional CIA hater, that somehow that gets your automatic buy-in? I dont get that. The only common factor is that you both hate the president. Thats actually fine with me (the hate part) I guess, but waving around an Iraqi propaganda story isnt going to sway many people.

Morales's avocation in the early 80's was listing covert CIA operatives, and lots of them. This is your hero? Its OK when this clown does it but when (maybe) the current administration did it to Valerie Plame, its wrong? Where is your consistency? Its not fair constructiong you worldview from the bits of string that fit your mindset and throwing out the rest.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covert_Action_Quarter ly

And yes there is no mention of Katrina. There is also no mention of Bush taking over the country. You're seeing what you want to see in it and you dont appear willing to consider anything less nefarious.

Re:the Bill does say that ..

[rs232]

The US was a one time fan of Hussein back when he was a low level assassin working for the CIA.

"So, your point is that since Saddam was associated with the CIA, and that his personal blog has an article from a professional CIA hater, that somehow that gets your automatic buy-in?"

You're doing it again, making up your own quotes. I make no such point

"I dont get that. The only common factor is that you both hate the president"

You're doing it again, making up your own quotes. I make no such point. I don't really want to engage with a professional troll but since when did opposing presidential legisgation make for a bush hater.

"waving around an Iraqi propaganda story isnt going to sway many people."

Haa haaaaa haaaaaaa. Point me to the text of "John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007" that mentions Irag.

"And yes there is no mention of Katrina. There is also no mention of Bush taking over the country."

Some believe this legislation bares an uncanny similarity to Martial Law. But there is mention of the President arbitrary suspending peoples rights. How is this any different than declaring Martial Law, which is what this is really about. Bt invoking Sadam, Iraq and president haters you're just engaging in another form of shit throwing.

'The President may employ the armed forces .. the President determines .. the constituted authorities of that State or possession are unable, fail, or refuse to protect that right, privilege, or immunity ..'

Hey America

[Instine]

I've got a spare room, if you guys want to come over for a while?

Re:frist psot

[Flendon]

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."

After Katrina people screamed that Bush didn't activate the National Guard fast enough. Bush said he didn't have permission from the Governor. Now we have this <sarcasm>wonderful</sarcasm> law. When will people be careful what they wish for?

how's this different than declaring Martial Law ..

[rs232]

The President may employ the armed forces .. the President determines .. the constituted authorities of that State or possession are unable, fail, or refuse to protect that right, privilege, or immunity ..

The President shall notify Congress of the determination to exercise the authority in subsection (a)(1)(A) as soon as practicable after the determination and every 14 days thereafter during the duration of the exercise of that authority.".'

was Re:Text of the section

Translation please

[eples]

Here is the official Presidential statement on the signing:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/10/20 061017-9.html

Could somebody translate please?

Re:I'm for the ownership of weapons for self defen

[Xaositecte]

Plus, during a home invasion, you have a higher chance of you or a family member getting shot in cross-fire, or due to an assailant obtaining one of the many weapons from its storage location or an overpowered family member.

I know making shit up is like a passtime on /. - but seriously, try harder.

LA's National Guard

[vague_ascetic]

The President should not be able to call out the guard of a state; that is a governor's job.

One of the biggest problems encountered by Louisiana's National Guard in the aftermath of Katrina was that their specialised equipment, designed to operate in flooded urban areas was being torn up in an unecessary war's desert environment, instead of being close to home to do what it was designed to do.

Bush should be criticised for getting a guitar lesson in Crawford after the levees had been breeched, for trying to put blame on anything other than his own self, and for promising to rebuild Trent Lott's Gulf vacation home before he'd even seen the devastation on the ground.

"We've got a lot of rebuilding to do. First, we're going to save lives and stabilize the situation. And then we're going to help these communities rebuild. The good news is -- and it's hard for some to see it now -- that out of this chaos is going to come a fantastic Gulf Coast, like it was before. Out of the rubbles of Trent Lott's house -- he's lost his entire house -- there's going to be a fantastic house. And I'm looking forward to sitting on the porch. (Laughter.)"

White House Press release, "President Arrives in Alabama, Briefed on Hurricane Katrina", Mobile Regional Airport, Mobile, Alabama, September 2, 2005

Sorry, but we ASKED our government to enable this

[bluesangria]

Everyone is so busy Bush-bashing that they conveniently forget that Bush was roundly criticized for not mobilizing the Army to rush to the aid of Katrina victims in New Orleans. What people DO NOT REALIZE is that mobilizing the Army to use in civilan issues was strictly prohibited by the Posse Comitatus act. Why? Mainly so the government wouldn't abuse the army's power against it's populace. Of course, we all cry bitterly when then government doesn't marshall all of it's resources (including the army) to help citizen victims of a natural disaster. It couldn't, you see. It was illegal. From Wikipedia "The Posse Comitatus Act and the Insurrection Act substantially limit the powers of the Federal government to use the military for law enforcement." (emphasis mine)
That was the state's responsibility, but since everyone has pretty much accepted the incompetence and corruptness of Louisiana's government, we pretty much absolved them from being able to take care of themselves. Sooo, after much criticism about the government not jumping in to help out, Bush clears the way so that at the next natural disaster, the army can roll on in and restore order. That's what people ASKED for!

So everyone step away from the knee-jerk "ohmiGAWD!!! BUSH IS TRYING TO TAKE OVER THE WORLD!!!" reaction and realize that this is what the majority of the people wanted. Don't want your government to be your mother? Then don't ask it to pick up your mess, your city's mess, and your state's mess when lack of foresight leads to disaster. It's the mark of an adult that they can pick up after themselves.

Want links? Here's one blog on how long the Posse Comitatus act has been being undermined since the 1980's by both Republicans and Democrats alike http://www.thenationaldebate.com/blog/archives/200 5/09/katrina.html
Or how about another that predicts (in Sept of 2005) that the mandate against using federal troops will be loosened? http://newsmine.org/archive/security/posse-comitat us/senator-revisits-posse-comitatus-after-katrina. txt

Just do any google search on Posse Comitatus and Katrina and you'll see why government felt it was ok to edit the Comitatus act. We WANTED our government to do it.

Divided government

[amightywind]

The dying Wilson, the corrupt Nixon, the isolated second term Reagan, the far more isolated Bush - IMHO these are all situations where the nation was not governed effectively and a Westminster system democracy would have replaced the President with little upset for the benefit of the nation.

How foolish. The American electorate often prefers divided government. Some of our most prosperous periods have been marked by it. The idea that an elite deciding the length of a term for a high office to avoid "upset" is repugnant to Americans. The peaceful transfer of power is one of our greatest acheivements and sets an examnple for the world, rarely followed.

As for your comments on torture - a more mature and Christian inspiried attitude should be considered. I'm surprised the very loud God botherers in the USA never seem to have read the book they are talking about.

The Bible inspires different people in different ways. You in Europe may offer your throats to the Islamists if you like. They will be happy to oblige you. In the US we realise we are in a knife fight with these degenerates. They will not find it easy to operate here again.

This is not a change

[Anonymous Coward]

Everything posted in the parent was possible before this bill was passed. How many times do people have to point out that this replaced an existing bill that authorized the same thing?

Re:frist psot

[Anonymous Coward]

So let's get this straight. You're saying that because lot of other people in power were involved, it is therefore NOT a conspiracy?

you are the Re:dumbass

[SaberTaylor]

"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.)"

"A government will never desire to annihilate its own population."

You sir, need to learn about Stalinist USSR.

Re:you are the Re:dumbass

[foreverdisillusioned]

So Stalin bombed his own cities, did he?

Link? Oh yeah, and bombing OTHER nation's cities (such as the areas that were NOT originally part of the USSR) don't count.

Re:you are the Re:dumbass

[Concerned Onlooker]

I'm not sure how your original comment got modded up so high, unless I'm completely missing something. No, Stalin didn't bomb his own cities, he just had people killed right and left. Did you miss the news about Rwanda? How about Sudan? The Turkish genocide against the Armenians? And on and on. It seems like you're trying to apply logic where nothing more than raw human greed really applies. You don't have to be bombing to be killing indiscriminately.

Re:you are the Re:dumbass

[foreverdisillusioned]

Oh you are missing something alright--you completely ignored the post I was replying to. The discussion is about army weapontry vs. civilian weapontry in a miltary-coupe type situation, not "do governments ever commit genocide?" Yes, governments can commit racial genocide, but that's hardly relevant to the hypothetical situation where the president uses martial law as a power grab and there is a covert, armed civilian resistance. In a guerilla campaign, the government/army pretty much CANNOT win through brute force alone (assuming the non-rebel population is rebel-sympathetic.) They can burn and kill all they want, but the fact remains they cannot destroy all civilians because that would leave them with no one left to rule (and more importantly, no one left to support them.) You might suggest that if the military starts attacking on non-rebel civilian targets that might bully enough civilians into helping to root out the rebels, but the opposite could very easily occur and the military might alienate those civilian loyalists that remain.

But that's all tangential--the point you failed to grasp was, the guy I replied to was claiming that civilian guns were completely ineffective against bombs and guided missiles so therefore the second amendment (for the purposes of keeping the government in check) is pointless, and I countered that that's an incredibly stupid argument because you can't win a war against guerilla rebels with bombs (at least, not with bombs and missiles alone, though they might have a limited role.)

And if you disagree with this, then you are indeed a dumbass. Just look at Iraq and try to tell me with a straight face that those guerillas are completely ineffective. Also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guerilla_warfare#Exam ples_of_countries_and_wars_where_guerrilla_campaig ns_were_successful

Re:you are the Re:dumbass

[Concerned Onlooker]

My apologies. My point was that common sense never stopped a government from trying to win by brute force. Whoever wins in the end is pretty much immaterial to the thousands of tortured and murdered.

That, and your social skills are completely bereft.

Re:you are the Re:dumbass

[foreverdisillusioned]

This is slashdot, not your local country club. I happen to think that they do things right, here--better to be right than it is to be polite (or politically correct.)

This particular argument I am fighting against is so widespread even the ACLU uses it as an excuse for not supporting the second amendment. The time for politeness in fighting this horseshit has long since past--it's a completely wrong line of logic and it's being used to support the disarmament of the American people.

An incredible, astonishing solution!

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't buy what you can't afford.

"Informative" Try "ABSOLUTELY WRONG"

[Anonymous Coward]

The old law (linked at least once already):

333. Interference with State and Federal law
The President, by using the militia or the armed forces, or both, or by any other means, shall take such measures as he considers necessary to suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy, if it--
(1) so hinders the execution of the laws of that State, and of the United States within the State, that any part or class of its people is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law, and the constituted authorities of that State are unable, fail, or refuse to protect that right, privilege, or immunity, or to give that protection; or
(2) opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws.
In any situation covered by clause (1), the State shall be considered to have denied the equal protection of the laws secured by the Constitution.

Could you please point out where the it states that "the President could only order troops to move within a state for any duties outside federal property with the permission of that state's legislature, or if the legislature could not convene, that of the government"?

I didn't think so.

Re:I'm for the ownership of weapons for self defen

[AgentPaper]

But there is no way you can take on an, say an APC, full of soldiers with automatic weapons and body armor, without anti-personnel explosive or chemical weapons. Or fortifications.

I don't know, the Afghani and Iraqi insurgents seem to be doing a fabulous job with Soviet-era AKs and IEDs straight out of the Anarchist's Cookbook.

Trying to arm yourself against the government is an excercise in futility and can only lead to people looking at you kinda funny in the street.

1) It wasn't so futile against the British, nor against the Nazis, nor is it currently futile in the Middle East. Guerilla warfare is a fabulously effective doctrine for overcoming numerical and/or material superiority. Remember, a bomber or a tank can only destroy what it sees.
2) The idea isn't to walk around festooned with arms and tell the whole world how much you hate the government and how they're putting mind control devices in everyone's breakfast cereal. That, I agree, puts you into tinfoil-hat territory. The idea is to have a backup option to protect yourself in case of disaster.* Think of it as an antivirus package, if you like.

* "Disaster" need not be a government crackdown - natural disasters and riots tend to spawn looters and other criminal trash, and those can be quite effectively deterred by a show of force. In fact, the weapon need not even be loaded - one of the most effective ways to stop a home invasion is to indicate that you're armed, and nothing scares off a burglar faster than the sound of someone racking a shotgun.

Re:frist psot

[senatorpjt]

Almost all of the world is wrong, since the correct way is year-month-day. (20010911), making it sortable.

Not quite for show

[AndrewDavies]

I'll be voting pretty much straight Democrat (with one local exception) in the election because I trust the Democrats a heck of a lot more than the Republicans at this point, and because the Democrat's policies are generally a lot closer (key word is "closer") to mine than the Republicans. So my vote is worth something.

But you raise a good point. It's not enough just to vote. We still have to keep the politicians honest. Case in point, my own (Democrat) Senator voted for this bill, and has yet to give me a good reason why.

So today I am sending her a third email - quite a bit more strongly worded then the last two:

I did not see "essential liberties", "balance of powers", or "creeping fascism" as options in the drop down list of subjects. So I have chosen, "Civil Liberties", which I suppose is close enough.

My question is, why? Why did you help Bush do this...

http://towardfreedom.com/home/content/view/911/

This is a direct erosion of the checks and balances that, so far, have kept our country free.

I wrote you urging you not to vote for this bill and you replied...

"As you may know, the House and Senate versions of the Fiscal Year 2007 National Defense Authorization bill included a provision that would allow the President to deploy the National Guard in specified instances of public emergencies. The President could exercise this authority only in instances when state responders are unable to maintain public order after a natural disaster, epidemic, or terrorist attack."

This response is misleading. For one thing, please correct me if I am wrong, but I believe the bill actually states, "in order to suppress, in any State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy."

Who is to define what counts as an "insurrection" or "domestic violence"? And "unlawful combination"? Really! We have a President that thinks he can legally justify torture and warrantees wire tapping, and you hand him this?!

I am not naive enough to think that a power mad chief executive might not use this bill to further their own goals - at the expense of freedom and against the will of the people of our state.

And I find it impossible to believe you are this naive either. So, again, why did you vote for this bill?

The final authority over the National Guards should be held by the States. Not only so the National Guard will be there to help the people of their state, but to act as a check on federal power - forcing the president to ask for, rather than demand, the use of the Guard.

Sincerely,
Andrew Davies ....If they hear from enough of us it does make a difference.

Re:Not quite for show

[Sancho]

Glad you're trying correspondence. I may suggest writing a snail-mail letter--those sometimes get more attention than that newfangled e-mail....

Katrina

[Anonymous Coward]

I seem to remember a lot of people, even the network news folks, asking why federal troops were not sent in during Katrina. Not a single one of them seemed to realize that this would have been against the law. In fact, most people have the impression that martial law is something normal that the government has the power to do.

Re:frist psot

[Anonymous Coward]

Coincidence, I didn't know Leno said it.

Re:frist psot

[ralphdaugherty]

This law solves the problem of the federal government seeming ineffective - next time they can just storm right in.

      On my planet, the government will be effective when FEMA is there, not the U.S. Army. Bush will not be storming in next time - the National Guard will be taken away from him and given back to the states, this martial law thing will be cleansed by the light of day and repealed, and Bush can deal with foreign reality with a draft and larger army if justified... to deploy overseas.

  rd

Re:frist psot

[alcourt]

ISO 8601 uses separators:

2001-09-11

It is in fact the type of separator used that helps identify the format used.

Re:frist psot

[ralphdaugherty]

This law would have allowed Bush to overrule the governor and let the National Guard act as law enforcement.

      The dithering was entirely due to the White House refusing to aid unless Bush was given permission to declare martial law. I wouldn't have allowed him, no governor would have allowed him, and no governor will allow him once this provision that no knew about is stricken.

      Nothing that I have read specified the National Guard, even so the Republicans have federalized them and that has to stop, and will. Authorization to deploy the U.S. Army on our streets is martial law, and it will not be allowed, regardless of what the neocons think.

  rd

P.S. Sorry if I responded redundantly, more than a few saying this is what was demanded and it just wasn't. I am familiar with logistics and yes, you are right about the good work.

Damned if you do, Damned if you don't

[vinnymeyer]

It's funny - is this the same people screaming that the Federal Government didn't do enough in New Orleans, that George Bush didn't do ANYTHING to help, etc etc etc, that are now screaming that the one line in this bill that now makes it LEGAL for the National Guard to go in and maybe, oh, I don't know, maybe HELP OUT IN A NATIONAL EMERGENCY, is going to be the end of freedom and democracy as we know it? Totally foolish fearmongering.

Amputated?

[Anonymous Coward]

I've *never* had bear arms...

No you've got it all wrong

[mrraven]

Bush giving himself power to declare martial law and suspend the constitution is not some left right squabble like abortion rights or burning the flag, rather it is a concern to Americans of all political stripes. Whether you are a bircher, Libertarian, Green, Barry Goldwater Conservative, Pat Buchanan Supporter, or black block anarchist the president giving himself the power to declare military law in any locality is a very frightening prospect. It gives Bush the potential to be as vile as Hitler, that's not saying he's used that potential yet, but no president should be given the potential to utilize that much power, it's at fundamental odds with the freedom the founding fathers fought for. THAT is why people here are comparing Bush to Hitler unfortunately it's not a terribly flawed metaphor when he has signed into law the option to seize dictatorial powers.

Re:No you've got it all wrong

[Mindspider]

I totally agree- no president should give himself this power, and I think that the sooner Bush leaves office and his "adjustments" are corrected, the better. However, you still cannot, cannot compare Bush to Hitler if you have the remotest amount of objectivity in your logic. Allowing himself the power to possibly declare Martial Law is dangerous... however, there are plenty of examples in history of Martial Law being used by various governments that haven't crossed into Dictatorships. And like I said, Bush may be able to declare martial law, but he is a far cry away from being able to declare himself dictator, if was so inclined (and I don't think that he is). Being a dictator requires a lot more then military might, and he just doesn't have the popularity required to make a power grab so significant. Without the support of the people, there would have to be a mind-boggling amount of corruption in the government to allow for him to take control... and I'm just not cynical and prejudiced enough to believe that is the case. And let's assume the worse- what if Bush actually became a dictator? That would still be a long ways away from making him comparable to Hitler. Until Bush is responsible for an attempt at genocide and world-domination, resulting in the deaths of million, please, just stop. Don't try to avoid the fact that Hitler comparisons are nothing more then an immature ploy used for shock-effect and immediate emotional justification. There is no comparison here, people, so let's move on and try to be a bit more rational. And don't try to say something clever, like "you mean the war on terror isn't attempted genocide and world-domination?" It's really not as clever as you think.

Re:No you've got it all wrong

[mrraven]

Bush is already to the half million point in civilian deaths in Iraq. It may not be 6 million Jews, but it's certainly no walk in the park for the citizens of Iraq. The U.S. obviously through policies pre-dating Bush (I don't like Clinton much either) incarcerates both in numbers and per capita far more people than any other western country. Our cops have also tasered hundreds of people to death in the last decade, created unemployment and suffering for those who dare to speak out etc. Unfortunately I think Bush (and the U.S. government post WWII) on a scale of Hitler to Ghandi is far closer to Hitler than Ghandi

Re:No you've got it all wrong

[Mindspider]

Half a million civilian deaths is a terrible thing, and I'm not saying that the war in Iraq isn't a tragedy on a large scale... however, that wasn't half a million Iraqis placed into death camps, they were casualties of war. While the end result is the same, the moral culpability is inarguably different. Take into consideration that we've spent unprecedented amounts of money on precision weaponry, and also consider that a significant portion of the civilian deaths weren't caused by Americans, and I think that you can safely say that there is a small difference between what we've done in Iraq and what Hitler's done to the Jews. Remember, there were terrible leaders before Hitler, and there have been terrible leaders since... you can't use Hitler as a benchmark. He is one of the worst, period. Comparing a current leader to Hitler is sensationalist and immature. And to be honest, I totally lost track of what you were talking about when you brought up our incarceration record. Are you suggesting that our increased imprisonment rate is because of government oppression? Couldn't that be explained far better by saying that we have a higher crime rate? And what does taser-related deaths have to do with anything? I think that cops have killed far more people with their guns then with tasers. I'm sure that you could argue that many of those deaths are wrongfully earned, and I'd probably agree with you. However, you can't possibly claim that the majority of those deaths result from government oppression. That's just plain stupid. As for the government "creating unemployment and suffering for those who dare to speak out", I'd like to point out that people speak out ALL THE TIME. You're speaking out right now. This is America for christsakes, do you think that everyone agrees with each other here? Our government is characterized by being polarized to the point of inaction. I don't know what little world you live in, but our country is hardly oppressed and under the boot of the big-bad republican government. Try again.

Re:No you've got it all wrong

[mrraven]

It's people like you who write off half a million innocent civilians dead in Iraq with a shrug and justify the extreme levels of police brutality and incarceration here that make America a more shitty place to live, thanks asshole. BTW per capita half a million dead in Iraq would be equivalent to 5 million dead here. Imagine what the reaction would be if a foreign country invaded us, overthrew the government, and killed 5 million Americans. I can't even imagine, hell people are still whining about the 3000 dead from 911 which is .1% of 5 million dead. So America has a lot to answer for and to be VERY ashamed of and again we (as in the government) are closer to Hitler than Ghandi.

Re:No you've got it all wrong

[Mindspider]

It's people like you who write off half a million innocent civilians dead in Iraq with a shrug Did I not go to great lengths to say that the casualties of Iraq were tragic? I didn't say that they're inconsequential, I said that we haven't killed millions of people through systematic genocide. This is simple, buddy. hell people are still whining about the 3000 dead from 911 Wait, what's that sound? Oh yeah, that's you being a hypocritical asshole. You criticize me for "writing off" dead Iraqis (which I clearly didn't), then make an asinine comment writing off 9/11 victims. Just... wow. extreme levels of police brutality and incarceration here that make America a more shitty place to live I personally have yet to see these "extreme levels of police brutality" you keep talking about. Obviously police brutality exists, but it's not government sponsored, nor is it common. Usually it's a couple of redneck assholes who like to push people around, and happen to be wearing a badge while doing it. And unfortunately, this isn't something we can even debate about until you can provide proof that the majority of police brutality is created by our "fascist" government. So America has a lot to answer for and to be VERY ashamed of and again we (as in the government) are closer to Hitler than Ghandi. We do have a lot to answer for, and God knows we, just like every country on Earth, have a lot to be ashamed of. However, looking through history, we have a hell of a lot less dirty laundry then most countries. Look at Europe- how many wars and atrocities have been committed in that continent alone? How many people have been murdered in China throughout it's history? And don't even get me started on the atrocities the Japanese committed in WWII... they were worse then Germany in many ways. Bottom line is this: every country has committed crimes, and we need to make every attempt to retain the moral high-ground. However, you can't make the comparison between Bush and Hitler because Bush might over-step his boundaries and declare martial law. Until he's killed people on the same numerical-magnitude and with the same genocidal intent of Hitler, there is no comparison, period. That'd be like comparing someone to Einstein because they got a Bachelor's in Physics. They haven't earned the title, so it cannot apply to them.

Re:No you've got it all wrong

[mrraven]

For extensively documented long list of police brutality in the U.S. circa 1999 see:

http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGAMR5114719 99?open&of=ENG-USA

Police killed almost 10,000 people in a 20 year period between 1976 and 1998:

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines01/0428-04.ht m

Police have tasered 167 people to death in just the last 7 years, clearly when a taser is deployed death ought not to result.

http://www.azcentral.com/specials/special43/articl es/1224taserlist24-ON.html

According to Human Rights Watch an internationally respected human rights organization these conditions obtain in American prisons:

"In recent years, U.S. prison inmates have been beaten with fists and batons, stomped on, kicked, shot, stunned with electronic devices, doused with chemical sprays, choked, and slammed face first onto concrete floors by the officers whose job it is to guard them. Inmates have ended up with broken jaws, smashed ribs, perforated eardrums, missing teeth, burn scars--not to mention psychological scars and emotional pain. Some have died.

Both men and women prisoners--but especially women--face staff rape and sexual abuse. Correctional officers will bribe, coerce, or violently force inmates into granting sexual favors, including oral sex or intercourse. Prison staff have laughed at and ignored the pleas of male prisoners seeking protection from rape by other inmates."

http://hrw.org/english/docs/2004/05/14/usdom8583.h tm

And the use of restraint chairs as torture devices in U.S. jails and prisons:

" restraint chairs have been used for punishment of nonthreatening behavior;

children have been strapped into the chairs for nonviolent behaviors;

nude inmates and detainees have been strapped into restraint chairs;

prisoners have been left in restraint chairs for as long as eight days. In some cases, the jail staff failed to manipulate the prisoners' limbs to protect against blood clots;

prisoners have been required to testify while in restraint chairs;

prisoners have been interrogated while in restraint chairs;

prisoners have been injured while in restraint chairs;

prisoners have been tortured by being hooded, pepper-gassed, beaten, or threatened with electrocution while in the chairs;

at least eleven people have died under questionable circumstances after being strapped into a restraint chair.

Use of the restraint chair is widespread: Jails, state and federal prisons, the Immigration and Naturalization Service, the U.S. Marshals Service, state mental hospitals, juvenile detention centers, and foreign governments are all equipped with the chair.

Amnesty International has called for a federal investigation into use of the restraint chair. The device "is an issue of great concern to us," says Angela Wright, a researcher at Amnesty's headquarters in London. "It appears to be used in some jurisdictions as a front-line or even routine form of control, including as a punishment for disruptive or annoying behavior."

http://www.progressive.org/mag_cusacchair

And swat teams are being militarized and given ex-military hardware:

"It's unlikely that the officer who shot Culosi did so intentionally. But it's also unlikely that the investigation into this shooting will address why police sent a military-style unit to arrest an optometrist under investigation for a nonviolent crime and why the officers had their guns drawn when approaching a man with no history of violence.

Re:No you've got it all wrong

[Mindspider]

Seeing as this conversations' pretty much fizzled down to one issue, I'm not going to try and debate you on this because frankly I don't have the time to do research on the numerous examples you've given me. I think that this is definately something that people need to be concerned about, and I think that this is definately something that should be made into an issue that the general public would know about. The police are meant to "protect and serve", and instead of covering their butts when excessive force is used, they need to be honest and place the blame where it's deserved.

At the same time, however, I don't see this as an attempt by our government to oppress us. What would the government gain from arranging "wrong door raids"? Why would the government purposely send militarily-armed SWAT teams to take down armed and peaceful citizens using gambling warrents as a pretense? Gambling is hardly a pressing issue to the American public, and accidentally killing an unarmed citizen never generates good publicity for the police. In most of the examples you've given me, I just don't see how the government can stand to benefit from using excessive force. I don't doubt that the police are overstepping their boundaries, but I think it's far more likely that the problem is within the police force itself then a national conspiracy.

Re:No you've got it all wrong

[mrraven]

Whether it's intentional or not isn't even the point, the point is that the more laws and the more heavily armed police we have to enforce them we have the more police murders and thuggery we will have for that is the nature of peoples behavior when given nearly unlimited unaccountable power as the police have. Time to go back to the roots of the American idea a society dedicated to freedom, not one dedicated to "safety" at all costs. Time to say NO to more police powers whether it's a Republican like Bush giving himself unlimited power to declare martial law or a Dem like Clinton putting more cops on the streets and more people in prison for non violent victimless crimes like pot smoking.

Re:No you've got it all wrong

[Mindspider]

This is something I can agree with you 100% on. I personally believe that we need to maintain a smaller government, because every large government programs has a degree of unacountability, in addition to typically being very inefficient and financially irresponsible.

That's not to say that the government doesn't help people with these programs, but I don't think that allowing the Police Force or Military to expand indefinately is helping people as much as they think it does.

Iraqi insurgents are ex-military

[ghoul]

If you care to look the CIA seized documents in one of Saddam's palaces that showed -

1) Ever since losing the first war in 1991 Saddam's forces concentrated on infantry special forces techniques(terrorism in other words -yes the SEALS are highly trained terrorists)
2) When the US invaded in 2003 Saddam gave out orders for only token resistance and ordered the mass of his army to take off their uniforms and melt into the populace and then fight a guerrilla war
3) The Iraqi military had prepared weapons caches of IEDs , RPGs etc to aid such a war fighting strategy so dont be surprised the insurgents seem to have an endless supply of small arms and explosives(Saddam had the 4th largest army in the world)
The US army estimates they havnt found even 10% of these caches

The US army has taken 25000 casualties till now out of which almost 3000 has been fatalities. Given that the US force in Iraq is around 125000 this means the Army and Marines have had to replace 1 in 5 of their men. Thats a casualty rate which no foreign army can sustain which is why they have started using local levees but the quality of the new Iraqi army is crappy as most of the men with a fighting spirit were in the old iraqi army and the Bremer administration alienated them. The casualty rates of the new Iraqi army are worse than those of the insurgency so they are not going to outlast the insurgency. Also the new iraqi army has to build its force strucutre from scratch while the old iraqi army has a well defined force structure. When someone gets an order from his seargent , leutnant , colonel, general they follow it irrespective of whether the commanders are now not wearing their uniforms.

Re:Iraqi insurgents are ex-military

[Ender_Wiggin]

I don't trust that, it's only rumors, like the rumor of Saddam captured having lists of every insurgent in Iraq.

Do you have a link?

Re:frist psot

[MightyYar]

FEMA does not, and should not, have the logistical capacity of the National Guard. It does not make sense to have such redundancy. I don't know why you think that FEMA would somehow NOT be used during wartime if they had any sort of logistical capacity. They are still part of the Federal government and they still available to the President.

Also, why would anybody advocate going back to the draft?

**READ THIS FOR THE TRUTH ABOUT THIS BILL!**

[DrRevotron]

You all seem to be missing the most important discovery regarding this article, which I found out by personally reading the entirety of H.R.5122, the bill in question - there is no Section 1076 in H.R.5122, which means this article is a fake. Don't believe me? Go read the actual bill in its entirety on the House.gov website. This is probably why all the major media networks have nothing on their websites or on TV that's discussing this.

http://www.house.gov/hasc/HR5122(v2).pdf [house.gov]

Somebody's watching us and laughing at us all as we are turned against each other it a fit of fake political madness. Congratulations, we're all idiots. :/

Re:**READ THIS FOR THE TRUTH ABOUT THIS BILL!**

[ahess247]

Dude. You're the one who's incorrect. Here it is courtesy of the Library of Congress Thomas system, which is the final word on current bills before Congress.
http://www.thomas.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c109:6:./tem p/~c109lMFmHP:e939907: and the full bill
http://www.thomas.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c109:6:./tem p/~c109lMFmHP::

Re:frist psot

[sgtpepper6344]

Look what happens once there is an activation - nothing but pay issues broad and deep enough to ruin the budgets of a thousand patriotic, honest families. And it sucks. http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0201/p03s02-usmi.htm l

Katrina related?

[John Jorsett]

Wasn't a big reason this was enacted because the feds couldn't get the governor of Louisiana to authorize deployment of the National Guard or request federal assistance during Katrina until it was too late for them to do any good? The Bush administration got a lot of flak for not doing enough to help out. If you want the feds to be able to do more in an emergency, don't you have to give them these sorts of powers? Otherwise, they have to resort to begging local politicians to request their assistance so they can act.

Re:frist psot

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

Read Ron Paul, about how these votes get cast on UNREAD, UNDEBATED bills.

new definition of "Consensus"?

[plasmacutter]

Divided government doesn't give you "restraint." It gives you a "failure to reach consensus."

when last I checked, Consensus by its nature meant that all sides were satisfied, though not necessarily thrilled, with the deal brokered..

I would not classify what the republicans have been doing as "consensus"... "consensus" means you actually speak with, consider valid, and address the concerns of any and all opposing points of view, not ram it through anyway and declare them 'unamerican' for opposing you.

When last I checked, the clinton administration kept republicans heavily involved throughout both terms to insure actual consensus... but consensus just wasn't good enough for shrill extremists, so they founded fox, a network dedicated to spreading outright propaganda.

Re:new definition of "Consensus"?

[EMC_CJ]

The original post essentially said that if we had a divided government, we essentially would have not acted in Iraq, because, as you describe, we didn't have consensus So are you saying that we didn't have consensus when we went into Iraq initially? George Schultz said, "President Clinton, in February 1998, declared that Saddam would have to comply with the U.N. resolutions or face American military force. Kofi Annan flew to Baghdad and returned with a new promise of cooperation from Saddam. But Saddam did not cooperate. Congress then passed the Iraq Liberation Act by a vote of 360 to 38 in the House of Representatives; the Senate gave its unanimous consent. Signed into law on October 31, it supported the renewed use of force against Saddam with the objective of changing the regime."

Isn't that consensus? You're assuming that Republicans, the war-mongers that they are, were all in agreement that Iraq was a convenient target and we should definitely waste billions over there. But Democrats didn't like the idea at all, but they still voted for it? Unanimously in the Senate? 360 to 38 in the House? So Demecrats vote yes on things that they know are wrong?

I'd really have a problem electing a Democrat knowing that were true. I elect someone who votes his conscience, not follows the herd. Your convenient recollection of recent history runs counter to the facts.

Re:new definition of "Consensus"?

[plasmacutter]

Your convenient recollection of recent history runs counter to the facts

don't you mean your convenient recollection?

I said nothing about Iraq, I spoke in general

See, you're detached from reality here.

[Grendel Drago]

See, this is the problem. Nowhere in this country could you get "abortion on demand through the third trimester"; though it's up to the state to determine what restrictions to put in place, there's nowhere that an eight month-pregnant woman can go into a Planned Parenthood, say "I've changed my mind; abort it" and get an abortion. And I don't recall any Democrat congresscritters saying that they want to change that.

Furthermore, the first poll I googled up (Pew Research Center, 2000) shows that the majority of Americans think gun control is more important than gun owners' rights, 57-38. Again, I don't recall the Democrat platform saying anything about doing away with any immigration controls whatsoever, or wanting to disband the military. These are terrible positions, and I'd be first in line to criticize people to held them.

It's held as a revealed truth among right-wingers that Hillary Clinton is just to the left of Che Guevara. But it's just not so. She backed military action in Iraq and in Afghanistan. She's introduced legislation to increase the size of the Army. She's been active in social issues like seeking congressional hearings into GTA: San Andreas; she co-introduced the Family Entertainment Protection Act along with Joe Lieberman and Evan Bayh.

Thanks for your concern, but given that you're not even attacking positions that the party actually holds, why on earth would the Democratic party want to move to the right? It's certainly not going to appease you or anyone like you. They could all stand on the southern border shooting Mexicans and you'd still claim they were far-left socialist radicals on immigration and gun control. It's rank nonsense, and utterly detached from the reality of the situation.

The gay issue seems a tricky one. (Even trickier given that you didn't exactly explain what you were talking about.) But consider that the Civil Rights Act was terribly unpopular in the south at the time. It was held, rightly in my opinion, that people have rights whether or not they belong to a currently-unpopular group. By your lights, we should have the state establish a religion, because that would probably pass popular muster as well. Heck, we should repeal the Civil Rights Act in those states where it's not widely supported, is that right?

Re:See, you're detached from reality here.

[Xonstantine]

Thanks for your concern, but given that you're not even attacking positions that the party actually holds, why on earth would the Democratic party want to move to the right?

You're kidding, right? Democrats moderated, slightly, there stance on gun control because in 1994 it cost them Congress and the Senate in the single largest turn out of incumbents in American history. Al Gore his home state of Tennesse, and hence, the election, in 2000 because he morphed from being a pro-gun Senator into being an anti-gun Vice President.

On abortion, the spectrum goes from "abortion on demand, at any point, for any reason" to "no abortion allowed, ever, for any reason". Most Americans fit in the middle of that spectrum with respect to allowing abortion. There is a sizeable fraction of people, however, that think that 3rd trimester abortions should be perfectly legal. Guess where their comfy home is? Guess who they influence to an undue degree? Yes, the Democratic party. I'm not saying the Democratic party has to change their position on abortion, because it'll never happen. But running a nominally anti-abortion Presidential candidate would take one of the largest wedge issues away from the Republicans.

On immigration, the person writing Democratic policy, more or less, is Ted Kennedy, who's an open borders advocate. His latest, greatest bill, the so-called Senate Amnesty Bill, grants illegal aliens TAX amnesty for 2 out of 5 years (something, btw, that mere subjects, I mean citizens, don't get, nor do legal immigrants either), and a guaranteed median wage for their work (something, again, that legal immigrants and US citizens don't get either). The Senate amnesty bill passed by DEMOCRATS voting en-bloc along with a few RINOs. It's hard to see a permissive immigration policy as anything but a Democratic position. The following is the House Report on Illegal Immigration: http://www.house.gov/mccaul/pdf/Investigaions-Bord er-Report.pdf. It's worth a read, regardless of what political party you belong to.

As for Clinton, sticking chicken feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken. She's a tremendous politician and a hell of a triangulator, but your examples are a thin patina on an otherwise thoroughly red core. The best that can be said for her is she's a statist interested in power for power's sake.

As for the gay issue, I'm talking principally about gay marriage, and gay adoption. And honestly, I'm ambivilent on it myself. I lean liberatarian, and it's hard to come up with an anti-gay marriage argument that is congruent with a libertarian philosophy. The "best" arguments are the slippery slope arguments (principally, bigamy, which has the same argument around consensual relations), heterosexual marriage and the organic family as a social good, and the rapid demise of intact families after the onset of legalized gay marriage in European countries (which may or may not be caused by other factors). Anyway, it's a bit like gun-rights. Republicans frequently shit on gun-owners, because honestly, where else are they going to go? Democrats could do the same to gays and get away with it as well. Not saying it's right, but parties frequently do the wrong thing for expedient political advantage during an election cycle.

By your lights, we should have the state establish a religion, because that would probably pass popular muster as well.

You and I both know that wouldn't and couldn't happen. By the same token, maybe we should just ignore the Second Ammendment and throw away gun owners rights, right (oh yeah, I forgot, it's the leftist canard that gun rights only apply to the government, not to citizens, despite the rest of the BoR applying to individuals...and since when has a government ever needed to enshrine its rights since given a monopoly of force, they can just take what they want?).

Look, you may not lik

Likely democratic

[amightywind]

I made my original post to counter the mindless Bush criticism on which readers reflexively squander their mod points. You call it trolling. I call it debate.

Consider how the next president, likely Democratic, will use this law to squash the "2nd Amendment" gun fetishists when gun control laws provoke them, escalating the conflict to forced universal disarmament.

I am not really a 2nd amendment type, so I don't understand your rant. The next presidential election will be interesting. The demos will trot out their quadrennial carnival of fools for the primaries: Hillary, Kerry, Gore, Barack Obama. I like our chances!

Re:Likely democratic

[Doc Ruby]

So you personally don't have a gun fetish, so you can't understand how that scenario works. Typical Republican self-absorption. The kind that blames this Bush power grab on "liberals".

You call it debate when it's trolling, and you probably call Fox "News" and Limbo "analysis". No wonder you like the Republican charade of government that's destroying the country.

Clueless

[amightywind]

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.

Really? I didn't realise home defense enthusiasts used C4 to defend their homes and property.

Re:Clueless

[Waffle Iron]

Apparently, you also didn't realize that the context of this thread is consumer-grade weapons vs. government forces. Fantasizing about snuffing burglars is a whole different topic.

Mods can't even do the footwork...

[Grendel Drago]

Go to thomas.loc.gov. Enter "HR5122". See "There are 6 versions of Bill Number H.R.5122 for the 109th Congress". Click the last one, "John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Enrolled as Agreed to or Passed by Both House and Senate)[H.R.5122.ENR]". Notice section 1076, "Use of the Armed Forces in major public emergencies."

Remind me why this is informative, again?

Oh, please. Do your own homework.

[Grendel Drago]

Did you miss the link to thomas.loc.gov in the grandparent post? Did you not think that a bill is amended on its journey through Congress? Did you not look for yourself and find out that while the introduced bill lacks Section 1076, the passed bill does not?

The version on the house website predates the version that was passed. Learn how to do your research before you jump around calling everyone an idiot.

Re:frist psot

[MaineCoon]

Bush won't be the next Hitler.

Hitler was a fairly bright man, and a good orator. The people believed in him.

Not so much with Bush on any of the 3.

No, if these powers get wielded like that, it will probably not be by Bush. The armed services aren't too happy with him to willingly throw away our constitutional rights for his whims.

If this is intentional plans to throw away our civil rights, then this is a set up for someone else down the line. Puppets, perhaps?

Use "hr5122" to search.

[Grendel Drago]

Select "bill number" on Thomas and enter "hr5122". It'll take you to the right place.

Simple Example

[nurb432]

Here is a simple example for you. Which president signed the Brady bill, restricting ones 2nd amendment rights?

Ill give you a hint, it was the last one that was impeached.

Now, which party did he belong to?

Figure it out yet? Or are you far to blind to see the truth?

Re:Simple Example

[Doc Ruby]

Here's a "hint": who was Brady ? The Republican official who was shot along with Republican Reagan. Which party controlled the Congress which passed the Brady Bill for Clinton to sign? Republican.

How many people get shot for you gun fetishists to have your dangerous toys? Too many. Talk about blind - you wrote the book.

The 2nd Amendment is a crock. But I won't waste my time explaining it to you. You're too far gone to care about reality.

Re:Simple Example

[nurb432]

Have a nice day. I can see this is pointless, your mind is far too clouded to continue this.

Re:frist psot

[MightyYar]

I see - I think that our point of disagreement is on whether or not their would have been popular support for martial law in New Orleans. I contend that it would have been tolerated, even cheered, by most outside of Louisiana - and even many within. I'm not saying that I agree with this sentiment, but it does seem like New Orleans would have benefited had the governor used the National Guard for law enforcement, which was within her power. It's just that I feel like it was a state matter and there is no reason for the feds to have been involved in law enforcement. The flip side to this is that if the state government is incompetent, well, you have Katrina.

Oceania

[Nexus_of_Aquarius]

"War is Peace Slavery is Freedom Ignorance is Strength" --George Orwell

Family Values

[The name is Dave. Ja]

Mmmmm.... I can just picture it in my mind. It's so heart-warming - li'l Janie reloading by the fireplace for Grandma by the bay window in her rocker, so she can mow down more of the hordes. I don't recall seeing any Norman Rockwells like that, though.

Come to think of it, most of the US Civil and Revolutionary battles were army vs. army, weren't they? On a battlefield, maybe? Not this family-in-a-house kind of stuff - that sounds more like Bonnie and Clyde style fighting. A family feud, perhaps.

But you make a valid point - have at least one weapon for potentially anyone that shows up, and a bunch of extras, so that the people at the back windows upstairs can have a fresh supply being reloaded by the designated non-combat member - who would be pretty busy, in anything but a one-room shack.

Lesson for today: buy more weapons - you never know how many will show up!

--
Each sig personally hand-crafted ... for YOU!

Effectively refuted

[amightywind]

you also didn't realize that the context of this thread is consumer-grade weapons vs. government forces.

Ah, but I did, and I effectively refuted the idea, you ninny.

Martial Law? Not exactly.

[Anonymous Coward]

Article I section 8 of the U.S. Constitution gives the federal government the right suppress insurrections.

Two this section of this new act simply amends an already extant section of U.S. Law called the Insurrection Act, which has been in force since 1807, and which has been amended several times since.

See its current version here

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode10/us c_sec_10_00000333----000-.html
and here
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode10/us c_sec_10_00000334----000-.html

The Insurrection Act was used to suppress the Bonus Marchers in 1932, the suppress a railroad strike in 1946, the suppress a Native American insurgency in 1973, to quell race riots in Los Angeles in 1992, and to enforce civil rights laws in 1957, and 1963.

Why has this law been passed? Hurricane Katrina. Pres. Bush expected Gov. Blanco to ask for federal help. She refused. Some discussion about why is in this article in The New Yorker from 2005 by New Orleans native Nicholas Lemann.

http://www.newyorker.com/talk/content/articles/050 926ta_talk_lemann

Here's an excerpt: "The Insurrection Act of 1807 outlines the script that the Administration evidently wanted Governor Blanco to follow: a governor asks the President to federalize local law enforcement in order to suppress an insurrection; the President issues a proclamation ordering the "insurgents to disperse"; they don't; the cavalry rides to the rescue.

"But the President has the option of sending in troops without being asked when the law isn't being enforced or the rights of a class of people are being denied--which was clearly the case in New Orleans, not just because crime was rampant but because so many people were trapped in hellish conditions."

What this law does is more clearly describes the conditions under which a president can call in federal military forces to impose order, specifically when the state and local authorities cannot, or interestingly, enough, will not do exactly that.

Also it imposes a 14-day period during after which the President must consult with Congress before extending the deployment another 14 days.

Please, get a grip.

[FranciscoC]

How could this be a stealth move if it passed the senate by unanamous consent? The house passed the bill with only 43 no votes. Of course, you could say that almost everyone in congress is not paying attention.

Interesting...

[Elbowgeek]

You've chosen to simply "despise Democrats," dismissing them out of hand, and have indicated that you would normally simply vote Republican - essentially along party lines without thought to the merits of the individual politicians.

The fact is that you waited until the very politicians you voted for started dismantling the very principles of the United States Constitution to suddenly start raising objections. If you'd not voted so blindly in previous elections, you wouldn't be in this mess, basically. But it appears to be a bit late now.

My suggestion: at the most local level, make sure that you only vote for politicians who you've thoroughly researched, completely ignoring such artificial boundaries as party names. And if the guy/gal you voted for turns out to be dishonest, make your voice known in the next election - or run for office yourself.

It's simple really.

What News

[YetAnotherBob]

Leftist magazine doesn't like what a non leftist President does.

Why is this news?

Wrong version of the bill.

[entrigant]

This is the text of the bill passed by both the house and senate. This version of the bill DOES contain that section. I hope for the sake of anyone who reads your post that they also read this reply.

That's a very good point you make...

[Elbowgeek]

Also consider the difference between the US and other countries with despotic regimes. In many other countries you have a large pool of soldiers willing to blindly follow and enforce orders given by the dictator, because of poor education and basically very low moral standards, along with the fact that he country probably has very little precedent set for a strong democracy anyway.

In the case if the US, there is a relatively good educational system, and the vast majority of soldiers would be very much aware that they are causing damage to the country's democratic ideals by acting like gestapo. I believe there would be a sudden rise in conscientious objection if martial law were declared.

Someone needs a patch

[Nanoda]

Martial law, "signing statements", redefining the Geneva convention, Patriot Act...

I think you yanks need to patch your constitution. That's one heck of a privilege execution bug you've got going there.

this is why the right wing needs to die...

[Scudsucker]

...because you refuse to hold Republican politicians to any standard, and because you keep defending the indefensible with ludicrous arguments and cries of "Bush bashing". Like your excuse for "My Pet Goat": "Bush didn't want to scare the kids in the classroom", as if he were unable to stand up and say "I'm sorry kids, something important has come up and I need to leave. I promise I'll come back and finish the story." Or, without even leaving his chair, he could have told his staff to

• Call Dick Cheney, his VP and a former Secretary of Defense.
• Call Donald Rumsfield, a two time Secretary of Defense.
• Call NORAD.

The fact that he didn't do any of things things is completely and utterly indefnsible. There is no excuse for the Commander in Chief sitting on his ass for 20 minutes while the nation is under attack. None. And yet right-wing Republicans went ahead and defended him anyway with their "didn't want to scare the kids" excuse.

Your argument is equally lame. Yes, those acts you mention restrict the use of the military for law enforcement operations in the United States. However, responding to a hurricane is not a law enforcement operation, it is a disaster responce operation. But even if there was rioting, the Posse Comitatus Act specifically makes exemptions for quelling "domistic violence", as during the L.A. riots of 1992. The Posse Comitatus Act also allows the President to use troops under the guidelines of the Insurrection Act, which has specific exemptions for natural disasters.

So, to quote one of the few journalists who have the guts to call the right wing on their bs: your words are lies, sir.

This would've been useful in New Orleans...

[mrbrown1602]

This act would've been very useful after Katrina in New Orleans. Governor Blanco refused to call out the national guard to do law enforcement functions, until days of looting occured. The President and FEMA were helpless to stop it.

Uh. Re-read that.

[Kuroji]

The only time that's in effect is when you've either got a civil war or a foreign army invading that.

lies

[Scudsucker]

even though the responsibility for disaster planning and mobilizing the national guard rested solely with the local and state governments

Lie number one. State and local authorities are completely incapable of handling a Katrina-sized disaster all on their own, not to mention the fact that they are going to need some federal authorization and assitance in using federal resources. I doubt that Republicans who (claim to) want small government and low taxes really want to raise taxes high enough so that every state and city can handle any disaster likely to fall on them, on their own, rather than have mobile, federal resources that can be used in multiple states.

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.

Lie number two. There are restrictions on the President using the military for domestic law enforcement operations, but Katrina required a disaster responce, not a law enforcment responce. Those acts specifically exempt natural disasters and "domestic violence" from the restrictions, like the L.A. riots in 1992.

If the Republicans were really concerned about there not being a repeat of their Katrina debacle, they would restore FEMA to being the well-run agency it was during the Clinton Administration, or coordinate with state and local autorities for planning mass evacuations in the event of large scale disasters. They have done neither.

This isn't about being prepared, this is just another power grab. Just like their "we need warrantless wiretapping to listen in on terrorists" was a complete lie, because they could already spy on supsected terrorists to their hearts content with FISA warrants. Shame on them, shame on you for peddling their nonsense, and shame on the Democrats for once again failing to have the backbone to stand up to right wing facism.

Big juju on DailyKos about this too

[bewert]

See http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/10/29/162837/62 A researcher for Jack Carter's NV Senate campaign has really taken this on, and wants to make some noise. Click to help out.

Re:frist psot

[nilbog]

Your comparison of Bush to HItler is interesting in that the people in Germany actually like Hitler, for the most part.

Who voted for this crap

[Lost Race]

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2006/roll145.xml

Only 32 nays... depressing.

Re:So what else is new?

[dreddnott]

Ten years ago, when I first used it on a now-defunct WWWBoard, n/t meant "no text". I'm thinking "note topic" might actually be folk etymology.

What's new?

[majorbozon]

Call me an old jaded dumb ass hippie if you like but what is really different about this? I remember four people in Ohio killed by National Guard troops back in 1970. A few more in Mississippi that year too. And a whole bunch of people offed at Waco just a few years ago. By the same government, kids. I just don't see Bush & Co. as any worse than some of his predecessors. It doesn't really seem to require a special law for the government to send out the troops and kill people they don't like.

Re:frist psot

[Anonymous Coward]

Hallelujah!

what a bunch of idiots

[Anonymous Coward]

This story is so fake this just another internet hoax done every year right before elections. The bill or law is fake the web site isnt even a government website. If you do go to the thomas.loc.gov and search you WONT FIND THE BILL!
Welcome to the internet scam and the moderator should take down this article is nothing more than flame bait!

My motto since the last presidential election.

[Anonymous Coward]

Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me... fool me more shame on all of us!

Re:"comparisons between Bush and Hitler *are* vali

[Anonymous Coward]

Er, actually that means no matter what the outcome of inauguration, GP still won't have to post a public apology, since Bush's administration will still be in power on the 2nd.

MOD parent UP

[Cocoshimmy]

Well said (I assume of course you are being sarcastic).

Re:frist psot

[megaditto]

I am not actually comparing Bush to Hitler. Rather, I focus on the legalistic resemblance of Hitler's rise to power and the recent working in Washington.

The fact that I (and most of my friends) like and completely trust Bush, and support most of his decisions, is completely irrelevant:

Once certain pre-conditions are met and a basic framework conductive of a dictatorship is in place, it only takes one bad person for such a dictatorship to arise. I am confident it will not be Bush; I am less confident it would not be Hillary; and I have no idea about John Doe that will come after them.

The point is, I am not willing to weaken our democracy to the point where it will be at a mercy of (and up for grabs by) a 2008 presidential winner.

And in a Related News Story

[LifesABeach]

First Lady, Mrs. Bush commented on how cute her Co-Dependent looks when smiling in the kitchen.

You can't have martial law impose martial law...

[cpudney]

...at home if your military are busy imposing democracy abroad.

Governors to Bush: As you please, magnificent one!

[Zhe Mappel]

And you can believe that governors would be calling for his head if he declared martial law in their states.

Why should I believe anything of the sort? The governors would be quick to save their own ass, as would any civil leader faced with troops and tanks in the street. Martial law does little to inspire courage and much to water the flowers of modesty and obsequiousness. Knowing better than to stick out their own neck, these putative Patrick Henrys would obey orders, lay low, shuffle papers and wait until the coast was clear for avarice-as-usual.

But we don't need to trade in hypotheticals. For a version-in-miniature of how American pols respond to strong arm tactics, just review the past six years of supplicatory response to Bushism by the Democratic Party. Do but prick them and they squeal! If I were Bush--which is to say, if I cared not one whit for constitutional law or democratic processes, if I thought patrimony and privilege gave me a quasi-divine right to rule--the consequences of a crackdown are the very last thing I'd worry about. A few tax credits to the middle class, and the TV-gazing fools would shut up fast enough. I'd even let ol' Olbermann go on doing his beetle-browed Murrow imitation for the few to whom it matters. If too many started paying attention, the CIA could take some photos of him and an orangutan in a hot tub.

We are relatively free, for now, even as the situation has grown more odious each year. The electoral charade, despite its acres of uncounted votes and its Third World-style intimidation, lurches on as clunkily as ever. Little in American experience today suggests that the majority cares if we remain this free or are less free, if we are governed by law or ruled by fiat, if we can chatter privately or are recorded, if our streets are policed or militarily occupied, and even less suggests that our dissipated millionaire political class will fight for us, ever. So let's put no faith in governors, but discover some in ourselves.

Re:Vote "Monster raving Loony"

[rdebath]

The guy from the monster raving loony party DOES have a chance at winning, if his votes get too high the "serious" candidates get nervous. God forbid that he wins, talk about media circus!!

clarification of the word "annihilate"

[foreverdisillusioned]

By "annihilate" I meant "annihilate" (as in "utterly wipe out"), not "kill some of." The only way to effectively secure a victory against such milita using large bombs (many have even mentioned nukes when talking about the alleged uselessness of the second amendment, though the GP didn't) is to destroy ALL the civilians right along with them. Now, you might make limited use of large bombs in a fear campaign against the people, but it must be used in combination with an effective propaganda campaign and even then it is not guaranteed to work--indeed, it could easily backfire and inspire more civilians to join the milita. Thus, in a guerilla-war type situation where truly annhilating the populace is not an option, you cannot rely on bombs alone to carry the day.

Re:frist psot

[Anonymous Coward]

heh, I'm writing some notes in my lab book here and reading your post reminded me that I'd written the date as 30/10/06, so I went and changed it to 2006-10-30. Thanks, I need to be more nerdy.

Re:frist psot

[PastaLover]

Ironically, the military response is the only thing that kept the post-Katrina mess from becoming a humanitarian disaster.

I don't know how exactly you classify a humanitarian disaster, but we're talking about more than a 1000 dead here; not to mention the horrendous stories of what went on in the superdome and on the streets of New Orleans. You can alway argue scale, but it seems to me the term 'humanitarian disaster' is quite suitable here.

Re:"comparisons between Bush and Hitler *are* vali

[stinerman]

Actually, yes. But I do believe that I said more along the lines of what he meant. :-)

Re:Sorry, but we ASKED our government to enable th

[SoulRider]

We shouldnt have to mobilize the army for disaster relief, that is what the national guard is for. The president has every right to mobilize the national guard in domestic emergency situations.

Re:frist psot

[MightyYar]

Maybe I should have said "more of". It would have been an order of magnitude worse without the military response. Tens of thousands were airlifted to safety from rooftops, hundreds of thousands were given water and MREs. Considering that a city that lies below sea level was not properly evacuated ahead of a hurricane, 1000 dead is a freakin' miracle.

No, not wrong.

[porkchop_d_clown]

And your ignorance is astonishing.

1) The storm surge that came up the Mississippi coast was 25 feet. It put entire counties under water. More than half a million Mississippians required FEMA assistance. Yet, somehow, their deaths were counted in the tens instead of the hundreds.

2) The behavior of the press in New Orleans had a huge effect on the relief operation. Among other things, the National Guard (who you claim wasn't there) blocked the Red Cross from entering the area because of press reports of snipers and looters. - Snipers and looters who turned out to not exist.

I will, however, concede that I can't find the timeline document I read (I think wikipedia's been changed since then) that pointed out that Blanco had made calls in the press for more troops but never actually sent the legally required documents request Bush to deploy troops in her state, and she refused to give Bush and FEMA control of the Louisiana National Guard units, which meant he had no ability to command them.

Indeed

[phorm]

In some cases, elections might be a good tool to see who your political enemies are. State X voted 80% against me, time to cut some federal funding!

Not even close

[phorm]

You know, there are probably quite a few once-slaves writhing in their small anonymous graves right now at that comment. Yes, a lot of people shackle themselves due to poor control, but it's in no way slavery. "Buying crap you don't need" is entirely voluntary, and an aspect of people's own lack of responsibility. If you want to make a monentary reference to slavery, perhaps you could consider those in poorer areas that work crappy/demeaning/low-paying jobs in order to scrape by, unable to afford a proper education for themselves (or their offspring) and thus produce offspring that work in the same cycle of low income, poor education, and low-grade employment.

Re:What Happened to News For Nerds??!!

[TerranFury]

>No, it's about preserving our national values and our constitution, something I think is a bit more important and would hope that even "Nerds" have a bit of an interest in.

Exactly. Which is why politics shouldn't be approached like watching football. The parent obviously viewed the article as an attack on Republicans -- "his team." I don't care who overturns the Bill of Rights or the Writ of Habeas Corpus; I care that they're gone. We need more intelligent political discourse.

One problem

[Maximilio]

Problem with your analysis: Hurricane Pam. This fictionalized exercise was basically the current plan for dealing with a hurricane. Most indications are that New Orleans followed it, but the feds, aided by Heckofa Job Brownie, sat there and emailed each other about whether they looked good in their outfits. And of course you can't forget those classic photos of Bush playing guitar and cutting cake.

In short, bullshit. There is a wealth of evidence to indicate that FEMA, DHS, and Bush himself simply sat on their hands and did jack shit while the water poured into the city.

Re:One problem

[MightyYar]

I'm not trying to get into a big long Katrina discussion - we could sit here and point fingers at just about every government official from the Gulf to DC until our fingers fall off. All I'm saying is that there was popular demand for the Federal government to get more directly involved then they were. This law allows that.

That's a red herring

[daninaustin]

The problem is that the crazy's on the far left have poisoned the well and we no longer believe them when they say they are only going to ban handguns/cheap guns/saturday night specials/assaultweapons/sniper rifles/high capacity weapons...

Support our Troops!!

[illlich]

Martial law gives a whole new meaning to "support our troops" ---"DUDE!? why are you arresting me? I SUPPORT our troops!" This may very well be intended to avoid another Katrina disaster, most of the problems of Katrina wouldn't have been solved by martial law (martial law woulnd't have saved the levees, martial law wouldn't have fed the people, martial law WOULD have stressed the survivors out more), and the law is worded so as to almost ensure future abuse. It reminds me of poorly written computer code, with a loophole that allows hackers an easy entrance-- it may not have been intended for that purpose, but someone sinister will find a way to use it that way.

Another obligatory quote

[aeoneal]

Haven't seen it here yet, but it bears repeating. From Nobel laureate Rabindranath Tagore:

Power takes as ingratitude the writhing of its victims.

Blah blah blah

[cj5]

Whatever! George W.'s presidential days are numbered. He'll be out of the White House in another year, and all his useless decisions won't make a difference anyhow. Sometimes I think he's made the decisions he had, simply because he needed to be noted in the history books. Let him declare martial law, because it would be the most useless, ineffective control of society ever. Take for example Iraq, martial law example one. Oh, and how about that nice LITTLE reinforcement effort in New Orleans after Katrina. Like most of the other a**holes in the world, he just wants to look good on legislative paper.

Re:1861 called

[Anonymous Coward]

>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.

Hello! Welcome to the Confederate States of America.

>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. 134 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?

Honestly? About the same as post-Katrina.
(Corrected your numbers to match your numbers.)
The way I understand it, soldiers are trained (read: conditioned) to follow orders and not become dissatisfied by them. Just as cubicle drones do not take up their nerf guns against management. Especially when management is saying the rebel/terror/sleepy drones are "seditious" and every good drone likes to feel like a company-line defender and not a thug.

The company shall determine policy and you will behave appropriately if you want your HMO plan and "casual Fridays". Otherwise, there's the door, you socialist.

Bottom line is the last 5,000 years of human history has not shown that the masses are inclined to think for themselves. If it happens, consider yourself enlightened. If it doesn't, consider yourself enlisted.

Yes, wrong.

[MarkusQ]

And your ignorance is astonishing.

Be careful where you point that thing.

1) The storm surge that came up the Mississippi coast was 25 feet. It put entire counties under water. More than half a million Mississippians required FEMA assistance. Yet, somehow, their deaths were counted in the tens instead of the hundreds.

• Storm surges typically last only days, or only hours, and subside on their own. Flooding of areas below sea level is esentially permanent, unless something is done.
• The coast of Louisiana is about three times longer than that of Mississipi, and roughly ten times as many people live(d) on it.
• A much larger fraction of the Mississipi population have access to private transportation.
• Which counties, exactly, were entirely under water? If you didn't just make that "fact" up, I'd be interested in where you got found it, as all the sources I can find state otherwise.
• The three coastal counties of Mississippi, populated by about 400,000 people had been mostly evacuated before the storm hit.
• Dispite all this, there were at least 235 dead in Mississippi, which I suppose could be "counted in the tens" but it would be a tad disingenuous to do so.

2) The behavior of the press in New Orleans had a huge effect on the relief operation. Among other things, the National Guard (who you claim wasn't there) blocked the Red Cross from entering the area because of press reports of snipers and looters. - Snipers and looters who turned out to not exist.

As I said before, I have no intention ofd defending the press here.

I will, however, concede that I can't find the timeline document I read (I think wikipedia's been changed since then) that pointed out that Blanco had made calls in the press for more troops but never actually sent the legally required documents request Bush to deploy troops in her state, and she refused to give Bush and FEMA control of the Louisiana National Guard units, which meant he had no ability to command them.

I would assume it was removed because it wasn't true. The assertions are not only factually incorrect (she had in fact formally declared a state of emergency days earlier) but the implications drawn from them (that something more was needed from her for FEMA to act) were wrong as well.

It was, in short, a failed attempt at exculpatory propaganda by the Bush administration that fell by the wayside once people started checking the "facts" behind it.

--MarkusQ

I didn't ask for this...

[Duggeek]

Partly correct; the citizenship of Louisiana wanted the restrictions loosened. If something that disatrous happened in my own state, I'd want something to be done as well... but there's more to consider than just manpower.

I live in Colorado, but I did pay attention last year. I don't remember thinking, "boy, I sure would like to see the Navy and Marines come and swoop-in whenever there's a domestic problem." I saw Katrina. I know what she did... I have family near Biloxi, for crissake! The fact is, we already have a domestic force for "troubles at home". It's not like it was ever "missing", but its numbers were weakened!

*I* remember thinking, "Dammit... there's not enough Guard or Reserve troops to handle a crisis of this magnitude be-CAUSE they're off fightin' a FOKKIN "war on ter'r". Mother Nature deals us a whopping blow, and do we re-organize to handle it? NO! (wtF?) It's the war-as-usual while we point our fingers at the nincompoop that was appointed by other nincompoops. Browning was called to be removed after Hurricane Frances... (gave $30 mil to Miami, unaffected by the hurricane) but it wasn't until the ultimate damage was done with Katrina that he was given permission to walk out. Bush said, "you're doing a heck of a job." source (Thanks for being such a stooge! Enjoy your summer home!)

There's a point where you have to look at these things as more than "unfortunate"... this may have been a carefully orchestrated stanza of chaos. Consider that it while it appears to be "rolling the dice"... in the end, Katrina did more to erode Civil Liberties than Bin Laden could ever do.

It's been nearly a hundred-fifty years since our last Civil War... are we due? Ironically, the issue of slavery may be back on the table after all. (different sort, however)

War IS Terror. There is no "fighting for peace".

Militias

[Darlantan]

Frankly, I think militias suffer from the 'hacker effect'. Pretty much everyone that reads /. should know what I'm talking about. The word 'militia' has a negative connotation now due to media coverage of radical groups that called themselves militias. It's just the same as how a "hacker" is now viewed by Joe Sixpack as being some l33t guy who can automagically steal credit card numbers with nothing more than a USB thumb drive and a blackberry. This has little to do with the original meaning of the word.

I'm all for the other sort of militia.
In my book, a militia should be comprised of a group of volunteers that are in no way compensated or supported by the government. They should be armed (at least on the individual level) with weaponry obtained and owned by the individual expected to use it. A militia member should be trained as best as possible, and should continue training in military techniques as part of being a member of the militia. This should all be done within the letter of the law.

A militia should also work closely with the local government to devise action plans for all sorts of major emergencies, such as earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, and hurricanes. In fact, a well-run militia should (at least from my perspective) resemble the national gaurd in many ways, except for the command structure. A militia should be made up of members of the local community, and as such have no authority above it in the chain of command -- the only orders should be generated by the militia itself, as a direct result of the needs of the local community, and should reflect those needs.

Good Bye Bill Of Rights

[Anonymous Coward]

Heres the exact section. Wow, look at our rights erode away.

SEC. 1076. USE OF THE ARMED FORCES IN MAJOR PUBLIC EMER-
GENCIES.
(a) USE OF THE ARMED FORCES AUTHORIZED.--
(1) IN GENERAL.--Section 333 of title 10, United States
Code, is amended to read as follows:
`` 333. Major public emergencies; interference with State and
Federal law
``(a) USE OF ARMED FORCES IN MAJOR PUBLIC EMERGENCIES.--
(1) The President may employ the armed forces, including the
National Guard in Federal service, to--
``(A) 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--
``(i) domestic violence has occurred to such an extent
that the constituted authorities of the State or possession
are incapable of maintaining public order; and
``(ii) such violence results in a condition described in
paragraph (2); or
``(B) suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic
violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy if such insurrec-
tion, violation, combination, or conspiracy results in a condition
described in paragraph (2).
``(2) A condition described in this paragraph is a condition
that-- ``(A) so hinders the execution of the laws of a State or
possession, as applicable, and of the United States within that
State or possession, that any part or class of its people is
deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named
in the Constitution and secured by law, and the constituted
authorities of that State or possession are unable, fail, or refuse
to protect that right, privilege, or immunity, or to give that
protection; or
H. R. 5122--323

``(B) opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the
United States or impedes the course of justice under those
laws.
``(3) In any situation covered by paragraph (1)(B), the State
shall be considered to