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.
How much more are people going to take before they realize what is going on here? Seriously, we're only a step away from open revolution.. Will it actually take having troops parade around your hometown enforcing martial law before people stand up for their rights?? (which we don't have many anymore). I'm not saying there should be a call-to-arms, but I AM saying that people need to wake up and see what's going on before it's too late! First Patriot Act, Patriot Act II, Military Commissions Act, and now THIS?! All in the name of "terrorism". We're just letting the government trample all over our constitution, because people don't understand why it was written in the first place, TO LIMIT GOVERNMENT! When will people realize that FREEDOM is NOT letting your government take away all your rights...
- Aetheral Research -
I feel like I'm bent over, my pants are down, and the illiterate president is hard at work behind me.
Considering the statement "Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it" and the quality of education in US public schools, I get the feeling of inevitability.
Peak of cold war jumps to mind, except now instead of communism, it's called terrorism.
Are we doomed? Is slavery at hand?
Unless people would stop choosing their leaders based on their tie quality, we will all suffer.
there is no issue with my network
In the words of William A. Niskanen:1 0.niskanen.html#Byline
"It's not that unified governments love to purchase bombers, but, rather, that they tend to draw us into war. This may sound improbable at first, but consider this: In 200 years of U.S. history, every one of our conflicts involving more than a week of ground combat has been initiated by a unified government. Each of the four major American wars during the 20th century, for example--World War I, World War II, the Korean War, and the Vietnam War--was initiated by a Democratic president with the support of a Democratic Congress. The current war in Iraq, initiated by a Republican president and backed by a Republican Congress, is consistent with this pattern. It also stands as the only use of military force involving more than a week of ground combat that has been initiated by a Republican president in over a century. Divided government appears to be an important constraint on American participation in war. "
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2006/06
We are all just people.
Actually gun control attitudes correspond better to urban/rural than lef/right. There are a significant number of leftists with guns out there, and a lot of conservatives who favor gun control.
Remember, it was conservative icon Ronald Reagan who signed the first modern gun control law, California's 1967 Mulford Act, to disarm the leftist Black Panthers.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
As a 'leftist gun grabber' (at least, what I think you mean, is someone who wants to take your guns away) I did have this epiphany not too long ago. Maybe a year or so ago, if not less.
I used to think that citizen militias were all a bunch of kooks (and let's face it, a lot of them are), but they seem to have the right idea as far as defending themselves from their government. I still think that gun laws should be strictly enforced and that gun ownership should be limited. I think that it's silly to own a gun for "protection", unless, as I've realized, it's to protect yourself from the government. I do fear there may come a day when Americans are forced to rise against the federal government. I wouldn't *like* that, but when I see news stories like this, my paranoid side really kicks in and tells me to go out and buy a gun (and learn how to use it).
Actually, probably so. Many in the armed forces would not take up arms against their fellow countrymen without a damn good reason. It's one thing doing disaster recovery...it's another to tell them to go "house to house" in New York or Chicago. Even using troops from different areas of the country probably wouldn't work too well. I would expect the officer corp would be very much against it to.
A decent chunk of the US's population is former military too. They know how to fight, know what equipment to sabatoge, and could easily make life a living hell for the troops who didn't just flat walk out and quit when the pacification order was given.
Currently, there are 499,000 active duty Army troops, backed up by 700,000 National Guard and Army reservists. There are, as of 2005, 67,742,879 males age 18-49 and 67,070,144 females age 18-49. 12 million vs. 1.2 million. Many of the active duty / reserve troops are dissatisfied due to Iraq already...what do you think their reaction would be to have to come home to enforce martial law?
If it actually came to the point of using artillary or ordinace against US citizens, then whatever administration started it has already lost. They would probably accomplish hastening the end of our current civilization too.
This isn't even bringing the UN or EU into the fray. A highly destablized and civil-warring US would be horrible news for the rest of the globe too. Something tells me everyone wouldn't just sit by and watch us nuke ourselves 10,000 times over.
Maybe we DID take the blue pill. You wouldn't remember anyway.
The referred article seems to have been posted originally on Saddam Hussein's supporter's website. It doesn't make it wrong of course but it doesn't lend to credibility or unbiased reporting :
http://www.uruknet.biz/?p=m27769&hd=0&size=1&l=e
> The author, Frank Morales ("morals", get it?) is a priest activist with a history of CIA conspiracy theories. He also hates the police and just about anything in uniform. If you want to hate your government, he makes great reading.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Morales
More interesting is Leahy's and Bond's joint statement on it (of course it must be half lies because Bond is a republican and all) and its here:
http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200609/091906a.html
Reads to me more of a response to Katrina. Remember Katrina? Thats where we blamed the FEDERAL government for not sending in the state national guard when they had no authority to do it. And this bill directly addresses that. Damned if you do, damned if you dont, I guess. The bill also gives the National Guard more authority and recognition in the Pentagon.
Now, let the hate mail continue. Here, let me get you all going again: "BUSH SUCKS! He killed puppies!!"