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.

[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.

[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.

[Broken scope]

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

Re:Oh My.

[jnf]

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

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.

[Anonymous Coward]

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

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.

[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.

[jbrader]

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

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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

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

[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.

Obligatory....

[LordPhantom]

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

Re:Obligatory....

[he-sk]

swooosh!

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.

Calling Godwin

[rolfwind]

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

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?

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.

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....

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:::

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.

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: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.

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: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: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.

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: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.

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

[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

[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

[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

[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.

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.

rewatch the movie "The Siege"

[Original Replica]

The terrorist have won. America is gone.

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

[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: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?

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.

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...

[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.

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.

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

[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.

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: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"

[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.

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.

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"

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.

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:frist psot

[HiThere]

No. In order to be a quisling one must be in a position of power. Troll is more accurate.

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

[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.

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: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.

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?

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.

"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?

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.

Figureheads

[p3d0]

That's a bit like saying that McDonalds will stop serving crappy food in 2009 because Ronald McDonald will be leaving.

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: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:"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.

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

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: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?

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.