Slashdot Mirror
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.
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.
- "Scientia non habet inimicum nisp ignorantem"
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
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
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 :)
creation science book
For people who don't understand this reference fully, the wikipedia article about the Reichstag Fire and it's background could be helpful:
r ound
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichstag_fire#Backg
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.
Shop as usual. And avoid panic buying.
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
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
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
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?
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
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":
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.
... 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 (??)
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"
Simon.
Physicists get Hadrons!
Well then vote Libertarian, if anything, just to get a third party available.
if you steal from one source, that is plagiarism, if you steal from many, well, that's just research.
Last I read, they're not using guns and rifles, they're using RPGs, and IEDs. Basically, military weaponry.
if you steal from one source, that is plagiarism, if you steal from many, well, that's just research.
``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.
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
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.
-- If we don't stand up for our rights, now, there will be no right to stand up for them later.
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.
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.
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
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
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.
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...
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.
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
Everyone is entitled to his own opinions, but not his own facts.
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.
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
Rush Limbaugh is a perfect real world example of an oxycontinmoron
From The Congressional Record of September 29, 2006:
Senators Kennedy, Sessions and McCain in support; Senator Leahy's Dissent
Rush Limbaugh is a perfect real world example of an oxycontinmoron
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.
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
t us/senator-revisits-posse-comitatus-after-katrina. txt
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-comita
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.
ISO 8601 uses separators:
2001-09-11
It is in fact the type of separator used that helps identify the format used.
"I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend unto the death your right to say it." -- Voltaire
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.
"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.