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.
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.
I'm quite certain that Bush thinks those are some conditions to be fixed with 5iaGRa.
... the white house quickly slashdots the article alerting people to the bill.
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.
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
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"
"People should not be afraid of their government - Governments should be afraid of their people"
They're just prepairing for the next presidential election when Cheney miraculously pulls another victory for them. So, just in case people get up in arms over it, they'll have the law on their side. (Though I doubt that they'd need it, Cheney is a crack shot himself, I hear.)
If you don't know what AltaVista is (was), get off my lawn.
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 -
http://fosterburgess.com/kimsal/martiallaw.html
creation science book
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"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enabling_Act
http://news.pacificnews.org/news/view_article.html ?article_id=eed74d9d44c30493706fe03f4c9b3a77
or
http://tinyurl.com/9aqnn
- "Scientia non habet inimicum nisp ignorantem"
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
Why not do it publicly? Something to hide? Is this a law the public wants/needs?
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?
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 didn't mirror all the javascript, png files and such - just the basic HTML.
creation science book
In five years, when a Democrat is in charge (yeah, right), it'll be fun to hear about how obvious our Republican bias is with our constant criticizing and conspiracy-theorizing.
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.
If your theory is different from practice, then your theory is wrong.
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:::
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
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.
So, did you read the bill? Start to finish? It's absolutely huge. And it's certainly not the only bill before Congress this year or month or week. It's stealthy in the sense that a poison needle in a haystack sitting in the public square is stealthy.
If your theory is different from practice, then your theory is wrong.
Is Bush "seeking" these new powers, or are they pushed onto the Executive branch because people in the CIA want to use other provisions of them (no habeus corpus, etc) ? Is he really twirling his moustache over this, or is he the patsy?
Either way it sucks, but don't give him more credit than he deserves. He's no Sith Lord.
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
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.
Did anyone get a delivery for a g. fox by accident? Anyone?
That's one way to get around those pesky two term limits.
Sean
Digg also covered the story:M artial_Law_2/
http://duggmirror.com/politics/Bush_Moves_Toward_
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.
Well instead of bitching why don't you post some constructive examples of what you believe in.
It's my firm personal opinion that the American political system is out of tune. Hell, Bush may be the best thing to happen. I think that his policies and actions have weakened America. Thus providing a stimulus to vote his ass out and fix shit. In terms of promoting terror the current administration has real terrorists outflanked. Constant fear mongering emanates from the White House instilling in average Americans the opinion that something must be done now. It's sick when you have a reactionary administration that seems to care more about polls and spin instead of providing the vision to lead their country.
So all-in-all let Bush do what he wants, I think history will judge him harshly.
Shh.
Even Saddam had elections.
It isn't whether you have elections, it's who counts the votes.
I will only agree to this if it doesn't interfere with my right to be beaten, tortured, and detained against my will. Otherwise, the President can just count me out of this. No thank you, sir!
It was and is a big deal to us. It was a pivitol moment in our collective history and hopefully it will never happen again!
Political thought should have more to it than rooting for the local sportsteam. This isn't about cheering on a party or hoping the Democrats go to the World Series.
I'm reading these Slashdot comments, and I don't understand why all these people are so against getting married. Marriage is a fine institution and...oh no, I think I've misread something.
...to buy a few guns and a lot of ammo, just in case.
The parent blows up Leaky Leahy's conspiracy theory.
Martial Law would have been a step up from anything New Orleans has had for a couple of centuries.
If i could only mod you +5 Funny :) I'm not sure how many got that ;)
Sammo Hung rules!
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.
He's the one who signed the bill, so perhaps you should direct your complaints to him and his enablers. For my part, I'll admit that I have a little OCD thing about freedom. There are worse obsessions, I think.
Shop as usual. And avoid panic buying.
More shenanigans
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.
Dear Mr. Fox,
Hey Mr. Fox. Name's Bob. Listen, I think our deliveries got mixed up and I've got your mask thing or whatever. It also came with two of those crazy 3-pronged Japanese forks, you know--like that ninja turtle uses? Is your real name Raphael?! Because if so, I can totally keep a secret! Cowabunga! Also, if you got a 30-count box of cherry flavored edible underwear, then you just hang onto that. That's, um, for a science experiment I'm conducting for the Nobel...um..Committee...um...Administration for Forwardness. That's right. The Nobel Comittee Administration for Forwardness. Yes. Just email me your phone number and we can arrange to swap these boxes out tomorrow.
-Bob "Beebeard" Beekowski
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..."
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?
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.
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.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
The critics I heard were more aimed at the lack of national guard units, who are supposed to deal with this sort of thing, but could not because they were tied up in Iraq.
I don't think anybody was seriously saying "we need to have the Army, Navy, and Air Force ready and able to mobilize inside the US so that the National Guard can stay focused on invading foreign countries."
--MarkusQ
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
The terrorist have won. America is gone.
We are all just people.
To hear the writer of the article on the cover of Rolling Stone (don't remember his name) tell it, even voting 80% of congress out of office won't help, because the congressional process is broken. No longer are the parties willing to work together, now whoever is in power wields it like a club and freshmen coming in think it's odd that an oldtimer would talk to someone across the isle.
I'm not sure what we can do to fix it, but I think that Debt of Honor had the right idea...
Awesome furniture, accessories and cabinetry in Santa Rosa, CA: http://humanity-home.com/
I wonder how this will be used (if at all), take for instance a state like California, which has routinely violated federal law by passing state laws for medicinal marijuana/etc; furthermore with things like that gathering momentum in other states (colorado? nevada? etc) it could seem in DC that certain aspects of their official line are under official attack. I wonder if it will get used for things like that, or if it would be used only in response to a natural disaster/terrorist attack/'act of god'.
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?
The Republican went into this midterm claiming how invincible they are and how they were going to wipe out the girly Democrats from office. Now that all changed with blood in the water from them whipping themselves over the page scandal, Iraq and everything else. It's very shocking to see Republicans behave like Democrats.
No, it's about preserving our national values and our constitution, something I think is a bit more important and would hope that even "Nerds" have a bit of an interest in.
Besides, if you don't like the political artcles, you can always choose not to read them, unless you're too stupid to find the preference page and click a checkbox.
That is all.
I am a Libertarian, for the simple reason that the Libertarian Party platform is the closest to my own personal principles. However, they do not mesh exactly, and Libertarians in some ways go too far, just as do the Democrats and Republicans. For example, some Libertarians would lessen or remove Antitrust laws, despite the evidence we have had in recent years that they are more necessary than ever. Ideals are wonderful... they have driven all the good changes in the world. But when your ideals clash with reality, perhaps they need to be rethought.
I heard from Lou Dobbs on CNN that the Big Guys (corporations, lobbyists, think-tanks, etc.) are going to spring on us a "United States of North America" with Mexico, Canada, and the US comprising an economic entity to rival the European Union. All this without consulting the public or the Congress.
Perhaps this legislation, or at least the motive for it, is the probable insurrection of the American (and I hope) Canadian citizenry.
Further, I predict "W" will find a way to head up this new entity, thereby making the 2008 elections moot.
I can't believe I'm writing this; God, as a lapsed atheist, Please let me be wrong...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6057734.stm the fact that your suggestion would prove Dr. Curry right...
every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
The Coast guard was there right away and was flying rescue helicopters before the winds died down. Apparently they didn't wait for orders...
Just like child porn is used to justify many moves that are done to be able to monitor people's correspondence over the net or for censoring attempts.
Read radical news here
In Soviet America, Martial Law is Enabling Bush!
"Enabling". It's a fascists 'comfort word'.
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
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?
Obama likes poor people so much, he wants to make more of them.
I don't think you have a leg to stand on. Your guys are doing it all themselves. I laugh in your general AC direction.
...both of which bodies are currently under Republican control, and both of which have shown for decades a disappointing tendancy toward supporting an imperial presidency.
We know they did that with the "USA PATRIOT" Act.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
>GWB is simultaneously the stupidest president ever and is engineering a most Machiavellian evil plan to take over the world.
Two words: Sock. Puppet.
The stage was set. Congress had received a copy of the law. The Congress leaders had discussed it:
"This could end our democracy."
"It's a bad idea!"
"We cannot let Bush sign it! Such dangerous things must be locked away in the deepest dungeon of the backest backroom of the Congress!"
And so they agreed to lock it safely away in Mark Foley's closet, where no one could acknowledge its existence, let alone sign it. Or so they thought.
Little did they know that Double-O Bush was on the case. During the State of the Union, while the President distracted all of the Congressers, Double-O Bush snuck in to the closet, found (amid the bodies of various dead girls and living boys) a copy of the law. His hand shot fluidly to his ankle, and -- in a well-practiced maneuver -- pulled a pen from his ankle holster. Then he... signed the law!
And so it happened that Bush signed an evil law without any assistance from an inept Congress.
Quoting this is seems very possible that stuff like that could have been passed unnoticed:
Instead of dealing with its chief constitutional duty -- approving all government spending -- Congress devotes its time to dumb bullshit. "This Congress spent a week and a half debating Terri Schiavo -- it never made appropriations a priority," says Hughes. In fact, Congress leaves itself so little time to pass the real appropriations bills that it winds up rolling them all into one giant monstrosity known as an Omnibus bill and passing it with little or no debate. Rolling eight-elevenths of all federal spending into a single bill that hits the floor a day or two before the fiscal year ends does not leave much room to check the fine print. "It allows a lot more leeway for fiscal irresponsibility," says Hughes.
A few years ago, when Democratic staffers in the Senate were frantically poring over a massive Omnibus bill they had been handed the night before the scheduled vote, they discovered a tiny provision that had not been in any of the previous versions. The item would have given senators on the Appropriations Committee access to the private records of any taxpayer -- essentially endowing a few selected hacks in the Senate with the license to snoop into the private financial information of all Americans.
"We were like, 'What the hell is this?' ?says one Democratic aide familiar with the incident. "It was the most egregious thing imaginable. It was just lucky we caught them."
I believe you meant Fawkes.
What sound do people on rollercoasters make? Hint: it's not Xbox 360.
the white house quickly passes the law to cover the upcoming draft...
google "32 trillion offshore needs IRS attention"
is not the civilian armament, but that if the government does push things so far as to evoke an armed response, that enough of the military would join en masse the revolutionaries, from all branches of the military (sea, air, land). It's true that situations like Iraq demonstrate that civilian armament is enough to give a royal headache to even advanced military forces, ultimately it achieves little if the oppressing force doesn't care about collateral damage, and even if they do (like our forces at least try to make a show of in Iraq), tactically speaking it hasn't changed things significantly, only significantly impacted civilian support of the American troop presence. And the armament being brought to bear in Iraq includes a fair amount of heavy-duty stuff left over from before the occupation, stuff beyond nearly all non-military personnel in the US.
You could fight the normal police force with typical arms (and even some atypical), but even just SWAT being called severely limits the effectiveness of your hypothetical revolt, and if the military got called in and didn't revolt any, it's over.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
I voted for the NAMBLA candidate. NAMBLA is all for strict limitations on government.
... First, Bush gets slammed because he didn't take over the various state National Guard units right off the bat after Katrina (after being refused authority by the Louisiana governor, which was her right to refuse). Now he signs a law that will let him do that and he gets slammed. WTF?
People were complaining that the Feds weren't responding quickly enough, and people I know (including relatives) thought the Feds should have simply taken everything over with little or no regard to the states' own sovreignty and rights. One could argue that the incompetence of inbred Louisiana government could justify such takings, but I find that dishonest. So those same people who _demanded_ that the Feds send their black helicopters and jackbooted thugs in to take matters out of the hands of the local yokels now complain when the President signs a law that gives him the authority to do so?
Think there's any politicking going on here?
Martial Law - when imposed against the will of the people is not very effective, especially in a country where many of it's citizens are armed to their teeth. Even in states with rigid gun laws (California), you can bet your ass the vast majority of homeowners own a firearm. In other states (Texas, Michigan, Florida), forget about it!
On a personal note, I've met some folks in Arizona that are armed better than a small National Guard unit. In many states it's not very hard to obtain a Class 3 Firearms license. I wish you luck trying to take away any of these folks rights...
I'm not fat, just big boned...
You are a quisling.
Too bad that won't help you get extra blankets, when you are put in the same camp with us.
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
is a piece of paper.i cle_7779.shtml
http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/art
We are all just people.
The fact that a few people had some pistols because of the Second Amendment is entirely irrelevant, no?
LOAD "SIG",8,1
Very sorry to hear you are going down the shitter.
Yours sincerely,
rest-of-the-world
P.S can i have your stereo?
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?
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.
--
make install -not war
I'm looking forward to this election shaking up the entire political establishment. Yeah, like instead of a "Highway to Nowhere" in Alaska, the new political establishment will approve a "Highway to Nowhere" in New York. That's the kind of shakeup this country needs. Sadly, no matter what the outcome of November, there will be no shakeup in the political establishment.
1940s germany all over again. we had our reichtag fire (911) and now we have the enabling act. bush has absolute power now. he can lock up, torture, kill, have disappeared or assassinated anyone he wants at his sole discretion, and with no oversight. now he has direct control over all military / police in the us.
we already invaded poland (afganistan) and czeckoslovakia (iraq). france (iran) is next. the secret service now has global unlimited police powers (ss), we have dhs (gestapo). we didn't learn, and now its happening all over. sadly, the end game looks similar too.
absolute power for anyone is a bad idea. especially a trained monkey (bush) and his handler (dirty dick cheny)
good luck to us all
-.no
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)
FRA: STFU GTFO
The President of the US has been able to ignore inconvienent laws for quite some time.
The Insurrection Act (10 U.S.C.331 -335) has historically, along with the Posse Comitatus Act (18 U.S.C.1385), helped to enforce strict prohibitions on military involvement in domestic law enforcement. With one cloaked swipe of his pen, Bush is seeking to undo those prohibitions."
Bill Clinton was quite able to ignore Posse Comitatus in order to enforce his will.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
It being close to the elections, there's naturally a flurry of activity as people try to either 1) make themselves look good, or 2) do their dirty deeds before they get booted.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
"Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty." -Thomas Jefferson
You might get hijacked, robbed blind, raped, pillaged, mutilated and poor, but dang, the government won't bother you, surveil you or even care that you exist as long as you pay your taxes.
Or even if you don't pay your taxes, they won't give a sh*t. Even the cops don't know where you live.
Much better country than any of the Western Alliance lands.
Trying to become famous by taking photos. Visit my homepage please.
Can I get a Hallelujah?
Close. We got Fallujah.
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
It seems the U.S. Coast Guard was able render aid admirably without the need for any need for martial law. This is what makes the actions of the other "responders" so obviously lacking.
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.
// TODO: Insert Cool Sig
We are witnessing the downfall of the United States of America. It won't be long before China is the new super power. Don't struggle USA, it was determined long before now. I would welcome in China as our new Overlord, but I don't like it as an alternative.
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.
Then there are the dolts on slashdot who get their history lessons from other dolts on slashdot.
Viva la revolution!
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).
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":
>Hells Bells, you know that the guy can't win with this crowd. Interestingly enough, GWB is
>simultaneously the stupidest president ever and is engineering a most Machiavellian evil
>plan to take over the world.
Um, no... GWB is an idiot, obviously a lush, obviously an inveterate fratboy redneck. The Machiavellian (sp?) plots are coming from his backers -- the Cheney/Rumsfeld/Rove and their corporate cronies, and some of these old men have been working on these plots since pre-Reagan times. It's like boiling a frog -- as long as you increase the temperature *slowly enough*, he won't notice until it's far too late.
>I will admit that he certainly seems to have been fairly ineffective--but I wonder how
>history will judge him. I personally just think that he's ineffectual because he speaks *as
>if* he's an idiot, which keeps him from being able to clearly communicate what he's trying
>to do. I wouldn't be surprised if he just had some sort of undiagnosed dyslexia or reading
>disorder.
Actually, I think I've read somewhere that it's almost provable that he's functionally illiterate, just based on the way he *routinely* garbles words. He is certainly ignorant of higher ethical concerns, or chooses to be.
>Either way, I will probably be relieved when Hillary's president--heaven knows that the
>Clinton cabal has never tried anything shifty.
Screw Hillary. She will never get elected, there are too many folks with a knee-jerk repulsion to her. And the Clintons WERE shifty. Just because the GOP is evil doesn't mean that the Dems are the *lesser* of the two evils. Sure, there is the occasional semi-honest president -- and they either get lambasted (i.e., Jimmy Carter) or shot (i.e., JFK).
By the way, if there ARE any committed liberal assassins out there, start by taking out the Carlyle Group, THEN get the idiot at the helm. Take out the true Axis of Evil before knocking the figurehead off the Death Ship.
(DISCLAIMER: Please note that I cannot personally endorse killing anyone, Mr. Secret Service Man, and I don't even own a gun and certainly would not even discuss plans for really assassinating anyone. Especially since you bastards took away Habeus Corpus.)
crappy triceratops
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!
See, it's stuff like this that turns people off of politics. One can only take so many frustrations and disappointments without starting to get ulcers and herpes.
Oh excuse me, I think I hear several knocks at the door...and is that a helicopter?...wait a second I think I smell tear gas.
Enacting the draconian "War Measures Act" (not the Riot Act*) is considered former Prime Minister Trudeau's greatest mistake.
The next government that was in power for a substanial amount of time (Mulroney, not Clark) repealed the Act and created the "Emergencies Act" in 1988.
*The Riot Act is in the Criminal Code and only covers limited circumstances.
Am I open minded towards open source, or closed minded towards closed source?
"unprecedented power" as in power that existed in the law already? That's flamebait, not informative.
game over guys
I don't usually do these kinds of posts, but the readers are missing some key points here if they overlook the parent post. The grandparent post is a bit disingenuous.
http://www.rootstrikers.org/
OK, I'm a Bush hater. On the other hand, the likely Democrat front runners for our next presidential election suck, too. H. Clinton already saying things she clearly doesn't believe in, just to appease the religious fruitcakes, and get into office. Even McCain (I'm a vet too, same timeframe, and somewhat prejudiced in his favor) has sold us down the river.
It's the system that's at risk, and a damned noble experiment it has been. If you value Thomas Jefferson's thoughts, anyway. Some (not most, but an important fraction) of it probably has to do with everyone knowing that our congressional reps are mostly criminals. If we could ever get our power back, drag the sons of bitches into court, and try them...
We are nowhere, until we limit the power of lobbyists. They've been around since this country was founded, but lately, their power is unbounded--on both sides of the aisle. Unfortunately, I don't see any limit on their influence happening. Where's the bill? When is it going to be voted on? Who's taking what position? Those are the important questions, and they aren't being asked, by either party.
There's nothing going on, and the populace is numb. Extremely busy watching Survivor, no doubt. We get the government we deserve. Does anyone really believe the government has our best interests at heart? With resistance to things as basic as food labelling laws (other examples abound)? Does the image of a BK Whopper in your last commercial look *anything* like your last *actual* BK Whopper? Why do we allow corporations this huge latitude of obviously false advertising, and just accept it as business as usuall? You've accepted the fact that corporations can lie to you, and manipulate you, with *complete* impunity. No penalty whatsoever, for something we all know is a marketing hallucination.
Does anyone see this as a fundamental flaw? Vote your conscience, for once in your lives. Take a fucking stand. If you don't, well, content youself with knowing that you get the government you deserve.
What you do with a computer does not constitute the whole of computing.
"On a personal note, I've met some folks in Arizona that are armed better than a small National Guard unit. In many states it's not very hard to obtain a Class 3 Firearms license. I wish you luck trying to take away any of these folks rights..."
Um, if Martial law is declared, a small posse of helicopter gunships could quite easily wipe out just about any citizen, no matter how they were holed up or armed. The citizenry can have ground-to-air missiles or rocket-propelled grenades and it makes no difference if the gunship is over the horizon with an AWACS up-top.
And if you want to see what an Apache can do against individuals, just look at this. I'd warn you about clicking on that link if you're squeamish, there's no doubt what's happening is the ruthless and efficient killing of men (even those wounded and trying to get away), as well as the destruction of vehicles. In that link, they didn't even use any air-to-ground missiles or cruise-missiles, just the Apache's cannon. If you don't think US soldiers would do this to US citizens, think again. Under martial law, they can be executed themselves for not performing their "duty".
It never ceases to amaze me that people don't grok this basic fact: you are at the mercy of your government - that's why it is important to choose it well. Even if (by some miracle) you managed to repulse the first-wave of government soldiers, they can escalate WAY better than you can, and they will. The only solution would be guerrilla warfare, and for that you need organisation, supplies, intelligence, and purpose - a lot more than can be expected by a few Arizonian gun-lovers.
Simon.
Physicists get Hadrons!
Hell, even those pieces of legislation had sunset clauses. Our honorable leaders had enough balls to drop the facade of "temporary wartime measures".
I have found there are just two ways to go.
It all comes down to livin' fast or dyin' slow. -REK, Jr.
Bzzt. Incorrect. But thank you for playing our game.
In order for that law to even get to his desk, it had to pass through Congress. BOTH House and Senate. Bush may have pulled the trigger, but Congress loaded the gun and handed it to him.
Remember that on Election Day.
Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
When democracy finally ended and the US started it own destruction, nobody noticed, because the site was slashdotted. What a way to get into the history books...
I am glad the President has the foresight to establish legal mechanisms to quell violent insurrection instigated by the liberals. He is a very wise man. I only wish he could run for 3 terms. Given the war on terror he would be justified.
an ill wind that blows no good
Marshal law is more than just putting troops in the street. Marshal law is the suspension of civil authority, and the imposition of military authority on civillians.
Power flows from the barrel of a gun, my friend. Troops on the street is Martial Law. I've seen riot armored cops herding angry protesters into "first amendment zones". The imposition of military authority on civilians happens quite regularly. And don't try to tell me that because they were NYPD, their orders didn't originate with the Feds.
We are all just people.
I'm curious as to what you expect to be achieved on that front - ever since the US started having a permanent well equipped standing military the question of bearing arms to defend yourself against the government has become increasingly moot. Any small to medium homegrown insurgency is going to be efficiently denounced as terrorists (how much sympathy did McVeigh and friends recieve?) throughout the media and largely crushed by US military. I expect some sort of running insurgency as in Iraq could be maintained, but it would be, lets be honest, a thorn in the governments side (the Iraqi government is not about to be overthrown as long as US support remains). Should it go on long enough you'll find the rest of the US public (who will be suitably indoctrinated by the media to view the insurgency as radical terrorists killing innocents - let's face it, a certain amount of collateral damage in the long term campaign is inevitable, and you'll always get some extremists who won't mind killing civilians anyway) will happily support the sort of extreme measures (seeing as they're being the ones threatened now) to put down the insurgency that aren't being seen in Iraq: currently the US public is averse to serious troop commitment and potential serious loss of life in Iraq - were this happening in the US I doubt you would find such aversion.
So what does that leave? Well a large scale insurrection could work. The question I put to you, however, is whether, once you get to the scale required, being armed makes a difference anymore. If the anti-government sentiment is sufficiently strong and sufficiently widespread that it gives the US military a serious run for their money and can't easily be labelled as terrorists and face harsh measures then you'll probably find that (1) A reasonable portion of the US military will defect to the insurgency anyway, and (2) Civil disobedience and protest will quite probably get the job done. If the military is already divided then calling them in to provide martial law is going to be tricky. Moreover even if you do, with the scale of unrest we're talking about then all the people simply standing up and saying no is going to be as effective as anything - what are the military going to do, open fire on what amounts to maybe a third of the entire civilian population of the US? I think you'd have most military on the ground cave long before they did that. And really, who is a military grunt more likely to fire on, a mob of unarmed protesting civilians, or a mob of armed protetsing civilians? I think you'll stand a much better chance with the former than the latter.
Sure, you'll find military grunts who will senselessly follow orders and open fire on crowds of innocent civilians and a number of people will likely die. I doubt, however, in the face of mass peaceful opposition, that such incidents will be anything but a minority. And are you really going to claim that the loss of life in that approach will be greater than a mass armed insurrection with violent pitched battles all over the country?
Let's be honest, in this day and age, with modern military hardware (which is restricted - know many people with fully armed tanks, helicopter gunships, or cruise missles), a vast and incredibly well equipped permanent standing army, and the current sheer scale of the Federal government, the point where "the right to bear arms" had a signficant impact on the success of failure of an insurrection has been long passed. I fully believe there was a time when it made sense, but the Federal government grew bigger and bigger, and the army became permanent and well equipped - far better than any civilian could ever hope to be. If you wanted to make your stand, you should have done it a long time ago. Or, if you want it put another way - it's too late, you've already lost.
Craft Beer Programming T-shirts
So...does Congress vote with Diebold machines?
--Welcome to the Realm of the Hawke--
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.
Divided government doesn't give you "restraint." It gives you a "failure to reach consensus." It means "paralysis." I, for one, feel lucky that we had a unified government during those times when the sovereignty of our Nation came under fire, be it abroad, in Hawaii, or in New York City. Because we had a unified government, we were able to act to protect ourselves, and to prevent further tragedies.
"The early bird gets the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese."
Should I celebrate that my website was finally /.'ed? (the link to the bill text) Apologies that my poor server couldn't handle the attention.
/. would automatically replace links in articles to Coral Cache pages when the site stops responding. That would be a lot better for everyone, I think.
I kind of wish
Who do you vote for ? In the UK there is no one I want to vote for, all elections should have a box 'None of the above' and if that wins it forces a re-election. How many people don't vote because 'what is the point' or if they do vote choose the least bad option. NONE OF THE ABOVE would be great They would never dare do it.
I promise to be different...
Hippie Bowl 1970 National Guard 4 Kent State 0 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_State_shootings
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.
President Cheney....
Mr. Fox, relax! It's me, Bob! Listen, I brought your mask thingy and your forks and all that. Do you have my package? Mr. Fox? Hello? Hellloooooo??
While people like you (and me) have been busy buying guns, handguns have become irrelevant. The US has a militarized police force, using military tactics and equipment. I don't care how many rednecks with shotguns come out of the woods, they're no match for a SWAT Team. Sneaky, how they got that powerful without anybody knowing, huh? Now the people can't even rise up against their own government, like other countries do from time to time.
The Riot Act was read in 1854 in Ballarat, Victoria, Australia. Many Australians (though not all) consider the battle that followed to be the birth of democracy in this country. Note that in this case the At was used principly as a political weapon, and not as a means of restoring order in a time of calamity.
I can hardly believe this is happening.
Time to head to the store for ammo and rations. Bad times are coming.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Good luck with that. Bush can't control Baghdad with 140,000 troops, what makes him think he could control Rhode Island if they were pissed off? Though it could be scary power in the hands of someone competent it's going to be expensive to use.
America is too big, too open and way too easy to sabotage to try and control by martial law. Besides, we're almost bankrupt now, where they going to get the money to occupy an area the size of a state? Especially if the people in that state don't want to be occupied.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
No. In order to be a quisling one must be in a position of power. Troll is more accurate.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Few people actually seem to know the history. Somehow sound bites are ruling the minds of most citizens. Thanks for saving me the time to dig it out. Moderators, someone please up this *informative*
:-)
thanks
Only if you give me a one day moratiorium on all the facist shit the Bush camp is doing. Let the enemy-combatants off the waterboard to enjoy this beautiful day of yours. Go drive your SUV to WalMart and buy some sand to bury your head in.
We are all just people.
I know this is a bit late in the game to even get seen on slashdot but if you start tracing the evangical christian right's role in the bush admin and lately even republican parties you'll start to see a driving goal towards theocracy. Bush has always had support from and worked closely with the evangalists in power. Focus on the Family leaders brag that they can control votes simply with a phone call since they have nearly 40 some million voters behind them and about 70million people total. That's right, close to a third of the country, buys into the ideas that the government should incorporate God heavily. Maybe I'm all fired up cause I just got done reading a bunch of stuff about this movement(and actually believe in the seperation of church and state) but the roots of this campaign towards power start in the 70's actually with groups like the heritage thinktank and others. Mostly founded by weinrych(think that's the spelling) with money from Coors. They down play the role heavily but it all got started as an attempt to combat the grass roots momentum of the Democratic party in the 60's. This isn't an attack on religion but regilion is staging an attack on the rest of society. They have millions of dollars which are tax free since the are churches( and nominally non political) but they spend a large amount of time "getting the vote out". In fact Focus on the Family has set up a front for their political actions so they can mask the money in the church side and formally shill for the party they want.
Ask yourself if you really think it's a good idea that currently 39 senators in power have voted 100% the way the Christian Coalition would've wanted them to on the issues that concern it. Not to seem too out there but everytime I read about them (or seen them trying to intervene in local matters in my hometown) i've always just sat there thinking to myself "wow, just wow these people are crazy"
Okies I'm done ranting but if you're concerned about the state of this country and don't want it to become a giant morass of a theocracy you really should go read about these people and their agendas. They've been working on this for 30 years and they're crazy.
I don't care what you say, all I need is my Wumpabet soup.
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.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
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!
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
You would be right if the new law specified exactly to what emargencies it applies. Since the site is down, I can't say if it does. Something like "a natural disaster" needs to be spelled out in the text of the law so it doesn't end up applying to "the president's imaginary enemy".
-- Sig down
Now, I don't think that Bush is *that* bad. But he's clearly opposed to all of the core values that made America. Also, with television and competent propaganda, occasional actions like another Waco attack can help keep the population in line. For a while.
Rebuilding America's going to take a long time - there's too much institutionalized police state infrastructure and the attitudes that support it.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
I do not see how that makes a difference. Whether it can be abused or not its clearly in reaction to the charges that the Federal Government failed to act fast enough. This clearly gives the President the authority to do so in a future Katrina style situation. As I said implied before if you are going to blame him for not doing it quick enough then you have no right to get upset when he changes the rules so that he can next time.
"I wouldn't be surprised if he just had some sort of undiagnosed dyslexia or reading disorder."
I think so too. Bush the Elder seemed to have similar problems when he would go off script, though not as bad as his son.
Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
-- Pablo Picasso
after all, more people vote in it.
Multiplayer Gaming (defined): Sitting around, discussing single-player games with my friends, at the bar.
There have been people who have maintained that the idea of George W Bush seeking to become a dictator is, "unhinged," and the thinking of a "tin foil underwear wearing conspiracy nut."
Please explain to me then...if that is true, and if all Bush seeks to do is protect people from terrorists...and that he does not, in fact, have an earnest desire to become a dictator...why does he continue to seek legal measures such as this one and the Military Commission Act?
If I am a "conspiracy nut," in thinking that Bush's reasoning for seeking laws such as this is that he desires to become a dictator, then please...I am begging for someone to enlighten me. If such a theory is schizophrenic in nature, what is the sane explanation for this?
The idea that most Americans want Bush impeached is laughable.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
Aren't situations like this like a dream come true for journalists? I can't really imagine why there's no a big nation-wide show (in any nation, not just the US) when a power change is about to happen that reviews the current goverment's promises and results. Something like "before president X there was no war, now there is - what has changed?" and "president X used rethoric Y to get in power and it proved to be a lie - why should we believe candidate Z when he does the same?" should be very popular debate points, especially if the journalist is cynical enough. It's a pity journalists don't read Slashdot :)
On the other hand, isn't there a law in US that prohibits saying "the president sucks" under threat of imprisonment as a terrorist?
-- Sig down
when i was down there in MS there was 82nd MP's on the corners where there was no Red Lights and other stragic places as the Black Hawk Helicopters where flying over. And also the Marines where transporting fuel that I seen, And you said Bush sat on papers for a week how come 82nd AA, Hoooay was in MS and if National Guard is not Federal seems to me it would be a states right dont you think to have who ever they want there. For Dems that did complain New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin was one that was very upset when he caused some of the situations they had there in the aftermath of the hurricane. "Mr. Frist differed with the Democrats' description of the Federal Emergency Management Agency as a total failure, saying that he had seen dedicated work by FEMA people in Louisiana. But Mr. Reid and Representative Nancy Pelosi of California, the House Democratic minority leader, said that FEMA had failed miserably and that its leadership should be fired." NY Times Saturday, August 27: President Bush officially declares that a "state of emergency" exists in Louisiana and orders Federal aid to the affected areas to complement state and local relief efforts. Sunday, August 28: President Bush declares a state of emergency for both Mississippi and Alabama, and declared Florida a federal disaster area in light of damage done by Hurricane Katrina. Also in MS if i remeber correctly the governor Declared a state of emergency before the Hurricane even hit there. Also when speaking to many MS's that lost homes where in fact pretty happy considering the devastation at hand but I did not speak to everyone. Now sense there was a break down in Communcations and Offical people doing what they officaly should have been doing that didn't get done that is why there was a response to try to make the situation more efficent, But it is NOT meant to Opress people But, It can be used against you if the situation is right. Martial Law has been around for a long time and Now this makes it even easier for corrupt powers to use. And Big Central Goverment gives all power to the Goverment and not to the People. And Socialism one way of getting there as well.
No, no, no, no, no! Rule number 1 is: Do not act incautiously when confronting a little bald wrinkly smiling man!
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 - CappadonnaBecause a Katrina-class disaster is much harder to stage than a bunch of thungs paid to wear turbans and do something nasty in public. In other words, I'll tend to agree that it's good to have something bypassing the red tape in case of natural emergencies, but not "social" ones (including terrorism).
Of course, the real problem is why people keep electing untrustworthy leaders.
-- Sig down
I think the Civilian Marksmanship Program is still selling some M1s at reduced prices to members of CMP affiliated clubs; the only special requirements (aside from being eligible to own a firearm and ponying up the cash) are a demonstration that you can hit a paper plate at 50 yards or something similarly easy. It's really quite a neat program. Back in the day you could get an M1 or M1 Carbine for a few bucks, shipped in the mail. Now it has to go through a dealer, but it's still a good way to get your hands on one.
Sadly, several Presidents, culimating with President Clinton, effectively gutted the program and ensured that once it runs out of WWII and Korea surplus Garands, it will effectively cease to exist (military surplus M14s and M16s cannot be sold to the public, even if the full-auto capabilities are permanently disabled; even surplus ammunition is destroyed rather than sold surplus, though it would be worth millions of dollars).
Get them while you still can. Up until a few years ago you could even specify a manufacturer preference for your M1, they had some International Harvester ones that were neat, but I think now you have to deal with whatever's left.
You can sign up to be sent a sales catalog on their website: http://www.odcmp.com/
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
I for one believe that we should trust our new Emperor. Yes Emperor Bush may have taken away a few unimportant rights but this is only to keep us safe. It is much better to give away our rights to privacy, to protest, to habeas corpus than to let "THE TERRORISTS" ruin our way of life!
Let's look more closely at the habeas corpus right. Do "THE TERRORISTS" really need the right to be heard in a court of law when they are detained? Should we allow "THE TERRORISTS" due process? Should Emperor Bush allow "THE TERRORISTS" a chance to prove that they should not be held? Absolutely not! For God's sake man... They are "THE TERRORISTS!" And how do we know this?? Emperor Bush says so and if you question his divine knowledge than you are evil and probably one of "THE TERRORISTS!"
God has chosen Emperor Bush to save us all. We should trust our Emperor... Or is he a God?
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
If you listened closely, one of the "problems" with the Katrina response was that Louisiana wouldn't let Bush & Co federalize the national guard and posse comitatus got in the way of putting the army in. Sort of gives one perspective on the motives, and maybe the sources, of those "rescuers were getting shot at" reports. (According to one news account I heard, it was the allegations of shootings which made Bush realize there was a problem and step up his "efforts", as opposed to all those folks stranded and all the water on the wrong side of the flood walls.)
"I'm looking forward to this election shaking up the entire political establishment."
We need a "-1, Naive" moderation option.
dragonhawk@iname.microsoft.com
I do not like Microsoft. Remove them from my email address.
Afghanistan is no longer run by Islamic fascists, and it is no longer hiding/accomodating/sponsering terrorists.
No, it's just producing more drugs then ever; isn't there a war on drugs in the USA?
The US led the relief effort after the tsunami. No, they didn't; and the USA gave a lot less by capita or percent of GNP than many other countries.
Write me in on your ballot. any ballot. Adam H. Bair. I'll demand impeachment hearings every time I can get the floor, and I'll vote "no" on any bill that doesn't reduce government size and spending.
We are all just people.
He will be gone in two years to be replaced by another egomaniac.
If I were a conspiracy nut (which I'm not), I'd likely counter that with theories about the election being suspended due to imposition of martial law, or the fact that you're at war, or possibly a (staged?) terrorist attack in the run-up to the elections.
Of course, I'm not, so I won't.
It's official. Most of you are morons.
Here's the timeline: http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/katrina/katrina_ timeline.html
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
Problem was that the feds didn't do what they could have, why would they do any more when given more powers?
If you live in:
- California -- vote for Debra Bowen for Secretary of State. The Republican SoS has a "nice old guy" image, but he's evil (e.g. re-approved Diebold machines, after the last SoS ruled against them).
- New Jersey -- a tight senate race where the Republicans are spending on ads like crazy: vote Democrat; with the Democrats in control of the house we'll have a check on the Bush regime
- Missouri -- another tight Senate race.
- Virgina -- another tight Senate race.
- Tennessee -- another tight Senate race.
The Democrats are far from perfect, but it's not like you don't have a clear choice (i.e. between incompetence and evil).Considering that Bush launched unnecessary, unprovoked military operations in Iraq / Afghanistan, and undermined the constitutional rights of U.S. citizens, I find it deceitful that he would presume to assign U.S. troops to protect constitutional rights within U.S. Borders; I find it deeply troubling that he would pursue that power at a time when there is no mandate.
I ask why such a bill was even written, considering there are historical examples of the U.S. president already HAVING and USING the right to domestically use troops: (1) Able Lincoln and the U.S. Civil War, and (2) Eisenhower sending federal troops to counteract the national guard troops in Little Rock during the civil rights movement, when the governor of Arkansas tried to block integration of schools.
There are two potential problems with the act:
First, IF Federal Law changed to something REALLY obnoxious, any state(s) that openly and actively opposed the undesired change due to their own democratic process, as is their consittutional right (due to federalism and seperation of powers), they would potentially be subject to suppression from the U.S. Armed Forces. For instance, if the feds wanted sweeping "terrorist holding camps" and gestapo tactics (Guantanamo, washboards, secret lists, secret detentions, secret trials), any state that openly opposed it would be subject to invasion.
Secondly, if a state had passed a benign law that happened to be at odds with federal law, but only in some minor way, the president could STILL potentially use troops (or not) on whim, effectively putting the state at the mercy of the president, and forcing them to a position of meekness due to his discretionary power. For instance, if California wanted pot clubs and gay marriage, and ignored federal law in persuit of legalizing those things, the ?act? would give the President the right to invade California with U.S. troops. He might decide not to do it, but his ability to choose so, or not, amounts to a huge amount of bullying power. If I liked Bush's policies I might think it was harmless, but I hate Bush's policies*, and there's no promise about who will be the next president.
Assuming the act is here to stay, and in light of those objections, the important question becomes, "WHO DECIDES WHETHER A MAJOR PUBLIC EMERGENCY HAS HAPPENED?" I'm curious whether the determination that the state, or condition(s) therein, has violated the constitutional rights of its citizens, or that it has systematically blocked federal law, or the enforcement thereof, would first be submitted to the Supreme Court.
The president, I claim, should NOT have total discretion. I cite the examples of:
*Bush launching unprovoked wars in Iraq / Afghanistan, and striking a terrible blow against the constitutional rights of U.S. citizens.
It is prepostrous that he would then "ask for more power" to "protect us" _in the rights he trampled_, _with the army he misused_.
"Forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us." -Jesus Christ The Lord's Prayer
Even better than a monarchy is a "democracy" where it's not who votes that counts; but rather who counts the votes. ...electronic voting, anyone?
Spoon not. Fork, or fork not. There is no spoon.
If even a few million Americans would be willing to die to take out military assets and politicians, the tyrant-government wouldn't stand a chance. A few million people with rifles and shotguns, taking potshots at anyone with a shred of authority? A terrifying notion. And America's advanced industrial and chemical industries mean that it's not at all difficult for people to get the materials necessary to make IEDs, rockets, and hell, maybe even some auto-turrets and other things that you just don't see on battlefields yet. A trip to Home Depot would be enough to equip someone with the tools necessary to make life hell for the government -- if that person is willing to die in the process.
Cops shoot citizens all the time.
We are all just people.
Here's an interesting chart.
President Rumsfeld
"Could you list actual and specific cases where the Patriot Act, Patriot Act II, or Military Commissions Act have resulted in an American being unduly persecuted or oppressed? Any?"
Isn't that the scary thing about losing habeus corpus? How could anyone list actual or specific cases, when people could be spirited away in the dead of night without any requirements to acknowledge said abduction? However, I would suggest that american lawyers have been oppressed in their attempts to do their jobs, and this is fairly well documented. Or don't they count?
If the governer of New Orleans didn't want to call up the National Guard to stop the looting, the fault lays with him. If the cops of New Orleans left, the fault lays with them. Where the federal government failed was not in the preparation for the disaster (for which the fault lies entirely with New Orleans citizenry, government and police force) but in the clean up effort. Can u say FEMA sucks? The levy system failures (or lack of proper shoring with a clear indication of likely failure) is equally blameable on both state and federal government. Lastly, if citizens don't want their stuff looted, why didn't they do like the Koreans when it came the riots in LA; shoot looters.
In any event, where exactly is the accountability? I don't see a single person coming forward to take responsibility for the fuckups... Certes a powergrab (which this is) is not what I would call accountability.
Now, the President won't have to wait days for the local governments to declare natural disasters before sending in troops, as in New Orleans.
Oh, wait, that doesn't play into the paranoid fantasies. Sorry. Forget I said anything.
By the taping of my glasses, something geeky this way passes
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?
What was once true, is no longer so
This will primarily benefit other English speaking countries, especially Canada, but look for a number of very smart people moving to Ireland, the UK, Australia, or "retiring" to New Zealand. If you have any sense, you'll start making inquiries NOW, while you can...
RS
Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
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.
The point isn't whether you think bush, as a singular individual, is going to be the man that breaks american democracy. The point is:
If we had another 9/11, and _a_ president said (doesn't need to be bush) huge national emergency, we think they're about to strike again far worse (Which is a claim that would need no real evidence to make, as we've seen), and on these grounds I'm declaring martial law nationwide until we can clamp down on this threat(indeterminate length of time), would we have to all sit down and say, well I'll be damned, I guess he's allowed to do that?
What if they just kept saying martial law needs to continue?
It's not a problem because bush is somehow obviously going to do this, its a problem because we'd like our democracy and way of life to be a little less fragile than this. Remember, that's what the constitution was for. Let's not erode that any more than we already have.
Relax I just want some peanuts.
You must be new here.
rewriting history since 2109
I agree with you! This is not a new authority for the President to exercise power. n1ey
Why don't you two cowards get a room?
XML causes global warming.
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?
It makes perfect sense though. The Army, Navy, and Air Force are all basically under the thumb of the feds. The national guard, on the other hand, is state run, and there's a pale, shabby, outside chance that national guards members would defend their state. So, if you want to sieze total power, you need to send the national guard away to die somewhere, and keep the federal forces at home to quell dissent.
Yes, but Hitler was trying to exterminate Jews, who were completely innocent. On the other hand, Bush is going after terrorists who have murdered countless numbers of people. I don't see how anyone in their right mind can compare Hitler to anyone.
The relevant part here is the 5th amendment:
Note the use of the phrase "No person", not "No citizen". The supreme court holds that any offence that involves incarceration is to be considered an "infamous crime".
The fifth amendment is generally considered to be the one that protects "persons" from brutal interrogation. And, in case it escaped your notice, when pressed for whether an American citizen could be considered an "enemy combatant", the President just dodged the issue (this was on TV, so it's probably on U-tube somewhere, but I don't have a URL). Citizenship is irrelevant in this debate.
Simon
Physicists get Hadrons!
I don't think you really understand what happened with FEMA there, pal.
FEMA was rolled into the dreaded Department of Homeland Security. They had much of their power to do things they wanted to do taken away from them. They also had their budget firmly wrapped up in stopping terrorist activities, instead of planning and deploying for natural/manmade disasters.
You have to remember what FEMA was created for. The cleanup of disasters and the planning and prevention of their ramifications. It should have never been moved into DHS, because some of its functions need to be kept seperate.
I'm sorry, but FEMA wasn't the bad guys. The bad guys were DHS, the POTUS, the govenor of LA, and the mayor of the city. FEMA was handcuffed from the beginning, and kept handcuffed by petty political bickering. FEMA is supposed to be above that. Wrapped into DHS, it won't be.
You first. How about starting with your net access?
3000+ comments meta-modded. 0 mod points awarded.
Lesson for other meta-suckers: Don't believe the hype!
How is parent flaimbait? ... No, I won't slow down, and don't call me "cowboy".
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
IED is short for improvided explosive device, such as a large quantity of commerial explosive in a 3" diameter iron pipe, with the detonator connected to a cell-phone ringer circuit.
--dave
davecb@spamcop.net
Care to clarify that remark? Are you suggesting that IRA members are willing to die to take out their enemies but fail to make a difference, or that they're not willing to die but make a difference anyway? I don't recall any tales of IRA suicide bombings, but they did make at least a small difference. But I'm talking about government-crushing, revolution-enabling violence. The kind that Iraqi insurgents are employing now, that the Taliban used against the Soviets (and has generally failed to employ against NATO this time, now that the Afghan people have an option better than communism and psycho-relgious-extremism). The kind that drove the Nazis out of Yugoslavia, and made their invasion of Greece such a disastrous mistake that it ruined their entire plan for the remainder of the war.
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.
...I honestly have to wonder why Bush would even bother doing something like this. We all know revolution isn't going to happen. The few people who do know what's going on also know perfectly well what would happen to them if they tried it, (namely that they'd get mown down as they exited their homes) and the rest of the population are too busy watching Survivor, American Idol, or coverage of Paris Hilton's latest activities to care.
Although the other thing I have never understood about fascism is why it has this weird cycle which seems to inevitably result in it self-destructing. I would have thought that if a group of people attained absolute power (especially in a country that is supposedly as wealthy as the US) they'd want to actually take some time to enjoy it...but no...they for some inexplicable reason have to rush madly straight to the concentration camp phase.
Why is that?
Actually, the Constitution allows that, in Article 1, section 9.
Have you read my journal today?
Also on Google video at: The Revolution Will Not be Televised
9/11 Eyewitnesses to Explosive WTC Demolition 1 of 2
I'm sorry, but I don' think any government has ever been "brought to it's knees" through lack of consuming. Revolution, yes. War..OK. But you are asking something that you yourself cannot take part in.
With your PC intact, that is.
You mean like the parlimentary system where citizens abdicate the elective powers to party insiders? Please. The US system of 3 branches has functioned well enough thoughout history, don't you think? As for torture, those islamist rats have earned every lash.
an ill wind that blows no good
I agree with your sentiment. However, this law does not erode the constitution at all - it operates entirely within it. This law simply amends a previous law.
I'm not even in support of this law. I'm against it... I just don't think it has such dire consequences, and it WAS created in response to popular demand. I just happen to feel that the populous is largely comprised of morons. At risk of scratching open Katrina again, I think that what FEMA was expected to do is ridiculous. FEMA should have shown up to a nearly empty city where they could help with the cleanup and rebuilding, not be expected to take full control from incompetent local officials and idiotic citizenry who apparently hadn't turned on The Weather Channel for a week.
Ironically, the military response is the only thing that kept the post-Katrina mess from becoming a humanitarian disaster. Tens of thousands of stupid or unfortunate people were rescued. The Coast Guard and National Guard seem to have pulled of the largest aerial search and rescue mission in history. Though the public perception seems to be that Federal control would have improved the situation, I'm not so certain and I think that this law is probably unnecessary. I also think, as you seem to agree, that it removes a protection that was put in place for a reason (though that reason was fear of abuse during Civil War reconstruction).
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
With a quick swipe of his god like pen, he can modify any bill however he sees fit with near impunity before he signs it.
Klein bottle for rent - inquire within.
Uh, no, the state did request help, New Mexico was willing to respond with National Guard units before the storm struck. It was four days before the feds responded, legally allowing New Mexico National Guardsman to legally cross the border. Now the law has changed, but if they wouldn't respond in the first scenario, why would they now?
If that happens, I'll be the first one to stand up and compare him to Hitler :)
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Your local party headquarters needs people to make reminder calls to people who vote intermittently, to do office work, and probably a zillion other things. You could add to your own vote the N additional people you got to the polls. Call and volunteer.
Unfortunately (fortunately??) Lib platforms are too extreme for my views. There are a couple of values that I agree with, but far too many I don't and would find too damaging to waist my vote.
Klein bottle for rent - inquire within.
I see a lot of comments mentioning Katrina and why or why not the federal government didn't do more or on time etc.
I'm an outsider (Aussie) and I am talking from experience having been in the Emergency services here for over 10 years.
The problem in the US is that the emergency management (from my perspective, so take the following comment with some salt) is completely disorganised and not clearly demarcated.
Let me explain:
In Australia there emergencies are classified as follows:
1- Storm, Tempest and Floods (Katrnina fits here) is managed by the SES (correct term is Combat Agency)
2- Bush Fires: Combat Agency is the rural/country fire service
3- Man made/urban disasters (building collapses etc.): Combat agency is the "regular" fire brigade
There are others, but these are the "major" ones.
By the way, the majority of emergency service agencies are made up of volunteers (unpaid) except for the "regular" or metro fire brigades who are paid employees.
A combat agency means they are the only and sole coordinating agency, regardless of the scale. Almost all major emergencies require the cooperation of all emergency services, under the direction of the Combat Agency. The chain of command is very clear.
An example, about 4 years ago a, major storm hit sydney damaging over 10000 homes. Once local area alone had over 4000 damaged homes. This area's emergency service unit consisted of no more that 40 members. However, all the state's resources were at it's disposal. In a matter of hours, through the right channels, the fire brigades, parks services, the police and a few other organisations had stationed liaison officers in their HQ to start receiving orders.
Even with an operation of this scale, the State did not interfere except to declare a "state of emergency" which give the "combat agency" extra powers, like forcibly remove residents, employment protection etc.
The scenario was replicated across the several other regions that were affected. The operation worked flawlessly (in general terms) even though most of the people involved were not experienced in such large scale operations (it lasted for over two weeks and an extra week or so of tidy up work) because everyone knew the correct chain of command, and the government responses available.
Everything worked in this operation because everyone respected the supremacy of the combat agency in their own operation, unlike a year or so earlier.
That time, i think it was 1999 or 2000, another freak storm hit a different part of sydney and caused a similar amount of damage, but there was so much jostling for the media limelight and the actions of a couple of very politically powerful "shock jocks" or talkback radio hosts. The government started interfering and some of the non-combat agencies wanted to assume responsibility etc. It caused a lot of confusion among the rank and file of the emergency services volunteers and the result was a shambles. The operation took 3 months to complete, although the bulk was done in under 4 weeks.
The investigations aftwerards reaffirmed the need to respect the supremacy of the Combat Agency.
Long message I know, but the point i'm trying to make is a clear mandate for a "combat agency" would have minimised the damaage of the Katrina huricane. It was not how slow or fast the feds moved or who did what. It was because no one single person was in charge. In my examples above, if the scale was the same as Katrina, then the state's Director General would've been the person in charge, and everyone else: police, army, FBs, the governor you name, would have had to defer to him. What we saw on the news was a shambles, it was politicians running an emergency. Politicians are not trained or experienced to run an emergency.
But, anyway, it appears to us outsiders that there are too much framentation in your civil structures to work cooperatively together. An example is communications, here in NSW, there is one emergency radio network called GRM (Government Radio Network) with pretty much all police, SES, Fire Brigades (soo I think) and even the ambulance service owning parts of the spectrum, and there is also the ability to interlink because it is a digital network. Makes it much easier to talk the same language.
That's a bit like saying that McDonalds will stop serving crappy food in 2009 because Ronald McDonald will be leaving.
Patrick Doyle
I mod down every jackass who puts his moderation policy in his sig. Oh, wait a sec....
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.
Have you ever been to Chicago?
XML causes global warming.
With the exception of Senator Chaffee, may his name be held in honor by all free people, every single Republican in the Senate voted for the Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Legalization Act.
Take a look at the handicaps the Democrats are under. A rules change a few years ago prevents congressman from demanding information from executive branch agencies, except with the permission of their committee chairperson (guess what party that person's from). "The Hastert Rule decrees that the House will consider only bills approved by the GOP caucus". Put the Democrats in the majority, with a mandate to put the brakes on, and you'll have our best hope.
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).
See how it was done in Venezuela: The Revolution Will Not be Televised
9/11 Eyewitnesses to Explosive WTC Demolition 1 of 2
Perhaps the fact that few legislators ever read all the laws they sign signifies a greater problem?
I remember reading (not sure where) an article comparing the US Legislature with that of other countries. In one case, the US Congress specifically sought out to pass a specific law whose text would be as concise as possible. The resulting bill was at least several dozen pages long. Other legislatures in comparison pass laws that on average are less than a page in length (probably not counting budgets).
US Laws are consistently filled with volumes of excess wording designed to obscure meaning and provide loopholes for specific purposes, individuals, or politicians. In many cases, the obscurity may mean that nobody can even decipher the meaning of a given phrase, unless they hold the hidden key/meaning to a highly obscure description of a specific entity. It may not humanly possible for every law to be analyzed in its entirety by any single office before it is voted upon.
I'm surprised nobody else has pointed out that the Democrats asked for this. Remember all the complaints about the Katrina response? The hoops put in place by these laws significantly delayed the response in Louisiana. Everyone on the left whined and complained that the feds took to long. Now the feds are removing the legal roadblocks. You get what you ask for.
The purpose of language is communication, If the idea is clear the grammar ain't important
"Secondly : Bush is abnormal in that he has singularly refused to veto ANYTHING (ok, with ONE exception). Look at the numbers :
Clinton issued 37 in two terms.
GHWB issued 44 in ONE term.
Reagan issued 78 in his two terms."
You are missing the key differentiator. All of those Presidents were vetoing bills sent by a Congress controlled by the opposite party. In fact 100% of those veotes were for bills submitted by the opposing party. 0% of those vetoed bills were submitted by the President's own party. During the two years that Clinton presided over a Democratic controlled Congress he vetoed ZERO bills.
Here are a list of Clinton vetoes: http://rules.house.gov/archives/98-147.pdf
Notice that none occur until after January 1995, two years after he took office, when Republicans gained a majority in congress.
You are either ignorant of these facts or purposely omitting them in an attempt to mislead people.
Whenever the offence inspires less horror than the punishment, the rigour of penal law is obliged to give way...
During Katrina, the (Democratic) New Mexico governor (Richardson) tried to send his National Guards to Louisiana, offering help formally accepted by the (Democratic) Louisiana governor (Blanco). All kinds of laws require not only both governors to agree, along with legal requirements they do other things (declare official emergencies, try other things first), but also require that the president OK the plan. Otherwise it's an invasion: one scenario has an unpopular governor supported by a "foreign" governor accepting troops from out of state to put down "revolts" that the local National Guards would not attack. It's the kind of problem that China's mafia government uses to abuse its people, like after the Tiennamen Square revolt, when rural troops were brought into Beijing to shoot people who the local troops wouldn't have shot.
Bush did not give his OK for a week. The OK arrived on Thursday, although the NM/LA offers/acceptances were all completed by the Friday before - the storm hit on Sunday, the flood on Monday. The catastrophe was all over TV by Tuesday, but Bush didn't send the OK until Thursday. Meanwhile, he was trying to force LA Governor Blanco to allow Bush to "federalize" the LA National Guard (about 25% of which was busy in Bush's Iraq, along with lots of their equipment). Federalizing is rare, puts Bush in control of the state's Guard, and keeps the governor from controlling anything that happens next. Bush was blackmailing Blanco by withholding NM Guard while Louisiana was drowning. Bush's "control" of the rest of the catastrophe gave even more reason not to allow federalization. And the past year has shown just how wise were our American predecessors who not only made laws standing in the way of that power grab, but also those who didn't cave in to the kind of terrorism Bush is using to scare people into giving him that power.
Bush is using these disasters to justify a power grab. The "winter storms" are BS. Bush wants more power. Especially if his Republicans keep their hold on power with another rigged election, but this time Americans go nuts because the margin's too large to cover with machines, or the story gets out, or we've just had too much bullshit from these criminals. Or if Bush gets impeached, but doesn't cooperate. Or if any of a number of things happen in Bush's two final years without a Republican Congress, and Bush needs to wield power without anyone getting in the way.
Let's not hear more Bush spin about the weather. That mobster is stil denying the Greenhouse - any move to grab martial law power at the same time is an obvious move towards... martial law.
--
make install -not war
What happened on November 9th 2001?
"It ain't a war against drugs.it's a war against personal freedom" --Bill Hicks
Even if Bush does leave office in 2009 it doesn't mean that many things he has done doesn't mirror Hitler. It doesn't have to be a complete match to still be true and valid.
Perhaps you should be the one admitting to being a moonbat dumbass?
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
1) This is part of the "Federalization" of the US. The States used to have a lot more responsibilty and autonomy. As communication, migration, and such have shrunk the size and diversity in our country, things that used to be local are now federal. Few people used to know or care that Mississippi had atrocious schools, that was their problem. Now, it's EVERYONE'S problem. The Federal government can't allow any State to deviate from some national norm in any area. Also, the rise of 24 hour national news networks speeds this along. Reporting on any local event brings it to national attention, and it becomes a national problem.
2) IMHO, party loyalty has become more important than constituent loyalty. I'm not enough of a history student to know if this was always so, but it seems that breaking from the Party line is VERY BAD - and will hurt a politician's chances of reelection. So while some Republicans may not like this legislation, they'd rather support it than be branded a traitor to their Party.
3) Bills are way too long and complex for legislators to accurately vet. The summary they read, or their staffers give them, may make complex bills like this seem good ideas. But buried in them are little clauses and legalese that grant WAY more power than (hopefully) they intended. I guess the best we can hope for is if/when a President attempts to exercise these powers in an unsavory manor the Congress in power at the time will reign him in (unless one Party controls both the Executive and Legislative Branches. See 2 above).
4) The mass media won't report this kind of stuff because it's too complex. The legal ramifications of a small clause in a big bill will just go over the heads of the eighth grade education they're targetting. (At least so they think.) There's no good video footage to go along with reporting the story. It's boring TV. MAYBE some obscure PBS station would to cover it, but don't look to CNN, Fox, et al.
I've decided not to vote for either major party anymore. They both are bent on maintaining power and excluding any other parties from the process. They both are utterly corrupted by lobbyist and corporate money (read bribes and kick-backs). Anyone with a real life, and a hint of dirt in a closet will be dragged out and flogged by the media and the opposition - Look! This candidate once looked at a dirty magazine, and/or rented an X-rated movie! He hates children! He wants to have sex with your daughter! It's just sad. (Here in VA, the Demo. candidate for Senator is a historical fiction author. The Rep. candidate's campaign is pulling quotes out of his books to show what a terrible person the Demo candidate is. I just can't tolerate stupidity like that.)
- Jasen.
But there is no way you can take on an, say an APC, full of soldiers with automatic weapons and body armor, without anti-personnel explosive or chemical weapons. Or fortifications.
Trying to arm yourself against the government is an excercise in futility and can only lead to people looking at you kinda funny in the street.
Better find a plot of BLM property and build a bunker and a moat.
Plus, during a home invasion, you have a higher chance of you or a family member getting shot in cross-fire, or due to an assailant obtaining one of the many weapons from its storage location or an overpowered family member.
THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON
And could you explain why? Or is it just a given that those Darn Scary Democrats are bad, bad, bad, so bad in fact that we'll legalize disappearances and torture just to keep them from... well, from whatever it is they'd do in power if they got into office. Probably something involving gay people. Woo, scary.
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
Remember england? That was hard, but we did it.
In New York City? You mean how the al Qaeda bombers were about to reanimate their corpses and march on Washington any second if George hadn't invaded Iraq and stopped 'em? Goddamn, that's stupid.
Look, no matter what the President says, the crazy-ass headchoppers aren't going to invade the States and overthrow our government. The only way we're going to end up living in a paranoid state where the big man on top can order you disappeared, tortured and executed all in secret and by his say-so, is if Congress give it the okay. Which they kinda did. Still feeling lucky about that unified government?
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
Iraq didn't attack us. We illegally INVADED another country.
Yes, yes Saddam is a tyrant but there are many tyrants in the world. That doesn't give us the right to do what we did.
Allow me to tap you with a clue stick: THE ATTACK ON IRAQ IS PART OF AN AGENDA! Killing hundreds of thousands of innocent people and occupying their country isn't Christian. This is wrong, this is evil, this is Bush.
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
I understand I'm supposed to put comments here.
Just to be nitpicky here---it's "martial law", meaning military. Marshall was a general famous for proposing to reconstruct Europe after the second world war. Probably a very martial fellow. But the legalism isn't named after him. (Also, the military rank is "Marshal".)
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
but the governor of Louisiana didn't authorize their use and once she did, the guard was actively hampered by the press reporting imaginary riots and snipers which redirected the guard from actually helping people.
Seriously, why do you think Mississippi, where the storm surge went right over the shore counties, didn't have the kinds of problems they had in New Orleans?
Clear, Dark Skies
You need a gun for a gunfight.
Tell that to the Ewoks, my friend. Tell that to the Ewoks....
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
Improvised Explosive Devices are "military hardware", or that hunting rifles can't be used by snipers.
Clear, Dark Skies
one of the Best of Slashdot.
--- Grow a pair, liberals... stop letting the Republicans bully you!
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/member s/p000583/
Republican Ron Paul voted against this bill. He was the ONLY Republican to vote against it.
Ron Paul is the kind of honorable Libertarian who, though I disagree with him on many issues, I'd want to stay in office. When the Left takes over we'll need him as a counterweight.
--- Grow a pair, liberals... stop letting the Republicans bully you!
If, sometime next week, you roll out of bed amidst a bit of noise, pay it no mind. It just means that our beneficient leader has seen fit to deploy M1A1 tanks in your neighborhood to ensure your safety while on your way to vote republican this fine election day!
,o/
I wanted that to be funny, but obviously it isn't terribly. I'm moving to Japan. You poor bastards can deal with him, when he starts dicking around on the other side of the Pacific, the Japanese will deploy bipedal mecha and put this shit to rest once and for all. SIEG ZEON!
Friend: "The NIC is misconfigured..." Me: "No prob, I'll just telnet in and fix it." *Silence*
If you'd bothered to click on the link I helpfully offered, you'd have seen that the majority of Americans want Bush impeached.
Your laughter is the hysterics of a demented raver who can't distinguish reality.
--
make install -not war
Has anyone actually read this new bill? Both the Govtrack.us and towardsfreedom.com links above seem to be broken, but I found (thanks Google, Wikipedia) Senator Leahy's comments and what I think is the bill in question (National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 Report to Accompany H.R. 5122 ). I can't find the part that the good (as in good witch, bad witch) Senator mentions that amends the Insurrection Act. Does anyone else have a clue that could help us judge for ourselves exactly what's changed in the law from a first-hand source?
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c109:6:./tem p/~c109e2fGAa:e939907:
"Computer games don't affect kids; I mean if Pac-Man affected us as kids, we'd all be running around in darkened rooms,
They had an Air Force in 1878? Wow, they told me when I enlisted that we were founded in 1947.
He who would be a man, must be a nonconformist. -- Emerson
quietly embedded 3/4's the way down in an obscure bill.
It stands for "note topic", which means that the topic summarizes the entire article.
I put the 't' in electrical engineering.
I oppose Bush. I am also what you would call liberal. I also support gun control.
Hitting your target and killing it with one shot is my definition of gun control.
Questions, dumbass?
Here's the full text of section 1076:
You wonder, sometimes, what they hell we're paying these people for. I'm a town meeting member. No pay, no lobbyists offering to buy me dinner or tickets to a ball game, and I read the junk I vote on, and so do a lot of other people in town meeting. Of course, we're not voting on these damnable phonebook-sized bills, but if someone handed me one of those, I would just vote no, unless it all really did pertain to a single issue (which they don't). It's 17 layers of logrolling and backscratching and earmarks and nonsense.
Hah, the Obama supporters are clamouring for their guy as the next leader. Somehow but I don't think the Hillary camp's going to go for that.
What's at fault here is the 2-party system.
2-party = too limited.
Why should there only be a choice between 2 monopolies?
That'd be insightful, if it were true, which it unfortunately is not.
Bush often attaches "signing statements" to bills, offering his "interpretation" of the bill. Although there is debate about the legality of these signing statements, the important thing isn't their legality, but whether Bush treats them as legally binding. If he behaves as if they are legally binding, then his actions reflect that, and they are in effect legal, at least until someone grows a pair and takes Bush to task.
Actions speak louder than words, and Bush
s actions scares the fuck out of me.
Now, this doesn't necessarily apply to this bill, as I don't know about any signing statements. However, I just wanted to point out that Bush does indeed single-handedly alter laws as he signs them.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
in Cambodia, the government saved them the trouble and expense of leaving the country with their intelligensia early retirement plan
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.
If you want to e-mail me, use my PGP Key.
Pardon me, but I don't remember anybody putting Katrina in GITMO and torturing her.
... Well...anyway... since neither Katrina, nor any of her brothers and sisters in hurricanedom are likely going to be brought to GITMO, the perceived need on the part of the neo-cons for martial law and torture is clearly something other than a hurricane.
Admittedly... I'd probably like to kick Katrina a few times in the stomach myself if they did manage to capture her
1) In 1861 "terrorists" opened fire on Fort Sumter
.gov could seize your property and said neighbor would get a cut. Who wouldn't cheer in an environment like that.
2) To begin war on terror, Abraham Lincoln suspended habeas corpus
3) The Republican controlled congress rubber-stamped Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus
(as well as turned a blind eye to his trampling of the Bill of Rights)
4) Lincoln used the explicit and implicit powers granted to him by the Congress to pursue an
immoral* war.
And the countless sheeple cheered on**.
Do you see how easy this is?
* Immoral in the sense that Lincoln directed his generals to ignore the rules of war that were well understood at that time.
** The "sheeple" cheered because Lincoln was throwing peoples' asses into military prisons for writing critical editorials. In fact, if your neighbor informed on you, the
Most of the rest of the world abbreviates dates in day/month/year format.
Three days from now?? Thats tomorrow!! ~Peter Griffin
Nuff said.
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.
Pardon me again, but I don't remember anybody putting Katrina in GITMO and torturing her.
Since neither Katrina, nor any of her brothers and sisters in hurricanedom are likely going to be brought to GITMO, the perceived need on the part of the neo-cons for martial law and torture is clearly something other than a hurricane.
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
If there are no Bush's or other obvious Haliburton controlled individuals in the white house on January 2nd, 2009, then I will post a public apology.
Unfotunately, if we get Hillary in office, i don't think we are going to be any better off; I think we'll quickly lose the rights that Bush wouldn't touch, Like the 2nd amendment, while not reganing the ones already lost.
Why, yes, I AM a Pagan Libertarian.
How about the estimated 5000 Afghani civilians killed during the US invasion (that number excludes indirect deaths and is a 2002 figure). Are they innocent human life?
So you're saying we should kill people because they may wish us harm but either haven't yet acted to or actually have no intention of doing so?
If so, all I can say is you are a sociopath who watches too much TV.
The only crime Iraq truely commited is having too much oil!
You need a broad solution so the military can assist civilians sooner in many different kinds of emergences.
Unless you were fine with Katrina as it was. Then it's all cool.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
That *only* works when the government and the people have equal footing when armed.
Bah. I could take Bush in an arm-wrestling contest. He looks like a pussy to me.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
And the NM national guard units, who couldn't legally respond because crossing a state line required Bush's OK, which was withheld for a week.
What you left out is that the reason Bush didn't send them in for a week is that the governor of Louisiana did not ask for a week - routing around idocy in state government is what this bill is about, being able to send in the national guard to assist without having to wait for the governor to say it is OK.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
It's sort of refreshing though, to see Bush passing a bill that doesn't involve wire tapping. Throwing curve balls, keeps the lefty nut jobs on their toes.
Now they can say 'uh oh! It's just like Nazi Germany, except I still enjoy my freedom to act like an asshole'
Amen. I've been saying the same thing for years, & would add that if "None of the Above" wins the losers should be barred from running for anything for 10 years. Radical centrist, here: strong defense, balanced budget, & Uncle Sammy should keep his nose out of everyone's personal life. [OT:love spell-check in ffx 2.0]
If you want your life to be different, live it differently.
1c1
< In COBN3T AM3RNKA
---
> In COBET AMEPUKA
wait, wait, that should be
> B COBETCKOM AMEPUKE
$META_SIG_JOKE
And what you left out is that this claim has already been debunked.
Specifically, Blanco had already declared a state of emergency on 26 August, and even if she hadn't, the Department of Homeland Security (under which FEMA operates) took over primary responsibility as of March 1 of 2005, needing only a Presidential declaration of Emergency, which they got on 29 August.
In case you don't remember, Homeland Security was the big federal Washington-knows-best project that was created specifically to deal with major disasters at the federal level, and cut the states out of the picture. So turning around and trying to blame the states because it didn't do its job just doesn't pass the laugh test.
--MarkusQ
Lots of armies shoot their own countrymen.
Just because our current military probably wouldn't shoot citizens (though I'm not sure-- I live about 75 miles away from Kent State), one that is controlled by fear, and "traitors" shot, probably would.
If Bush seriously makes a power grab in two years, that's the kind of army he'll have. He'll pass down orders to declare as an "enemy combatant" anyone who refuses orders to shoot civilians. He'll make a few public displays, execute a couple, and then we'll have a military willing to shoot civilians.
It's an unlikely scenario, I agree. But it's dreadfully frightful to consider.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
And you'll be the third one into the camps.
If it wasn't for half of the people in this country, the other half would be all of them -- Col. Stoopnagle
exactly, this is where a "Jar-Jar" politician will stand up and "pull the trigger" to let some future president have full control... they will then be rounded up and shot so they don't endanger the govt by trying to remove the new "dictator". I always find it funny that the people claiming the most to be protecting the country can't see what they're doing. If it wasn't life and death it'd make good comedy.
Another poster mentioned that FEMA was rolled into DHS, buy doing that FEMA became a "law enforcement" agency subject to all the rules and power struggles. FEMA had the right to forcibly remove people from their homes in disaster situations they should have been activated by federal agents the moment the federally maintained levies were topped. They're supposed to be THE go to guys to respond to disasters first, whether it's criminal or a natural disaster... they should have been waiting at the boarder of Louisiana before the state even approved them. FEMA's not supposed to be ASKED, but they also aren't supposed to be pressed into anti-terrorist, anti-citizen work either. Remember back to X-Files, much was of course conspiracy, but there the talk of FEMA being the route to martial law was based on real laws and powers already on the books.
The 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!!"
remember remember the 5th of november...
"Those who cast the votes decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide everything" -- Josef Stalin
That's one of the first amendments that's going to be "canceled" or "mistranslated" when the Constitution is rewritten in Spanish and Spanish becomes the official language of the US and the World. Esperanto just doesn't cut it, English is too nonphonetically spelled (spelling bees are possible) and while Spanish has genders for even house and table and chair, it's the leastest worstest of all the choices, because it's already spread to most of South America anyway, plus it's a romance language with most of Europe and the rest of the Americas/Australia easily adapting, and it's easier on the tongues of most Asians and Africans too, plus computer speech recognition might be easier, though I can think of even better languages for speech recognition. So to shoot two birds with one stone, when the Constitution is translated, watch out for the "untranslatable" or "improperly translatable" material.
By the way one of the questions on taking a US Citizenship test is: have you ever advocated overthrowing a government? No, but what does the 2nd amendment say? Governments and just power entities in general are paranoid of being overthrown, and they are like elephants, record and archive everything and never forget, and even that's not enough, there is need for even more cameras and data on everyone, just in case - so don't be touting or throwing around this option as something of a matter of fact, because it's at least 10x as hard or messy as you imagine, plus who wants bloodshed when you can just do a million man march on a capital and set up tents and not go home til the tanks show up and run your tents over? Tear gas? Rubber bullets? Ouch.. Water cannons? Yipee what fun! Wet t-shirt contest! If you can get change, or "social progress" without bloodshed but instead with "sex, drugs and rock and roll", with people holding hands and dancing in a circle, girls with flowers in their hair, wearing peace sign t-shirts and necklaces, singing "imagine all the people living life in peace, wheooh-hoo-oo-oooh, you may say I'm a dreamer, but i'm not the only one, I hope some day you'll join us and the wo-o-o-orld will be as one." See, music is the weapon of the future, it only claims a few martyrs instead of masses of people dying or getting wounded. So let's arm ourselves up by secretly creating songs that have the power to move masses, in case we have to use it as a last resort.
of the possibilities here are really scary!
As another post mentioned above, this could lead to a Hitler-like situation.
I seriously doubt comparisons to any such memorable historical characters are called for in the case of our fearless leader. The man is a dangleberry soon to disappear into the ass crack of history.
What exactly is "legal" (ignoring a little thing called the Bill of Rights for a minute) varies from state to state. If you live in New Jersey, you have to go and be fingerprinted at the police station like a common criminal if you own so much as a pellet gun. Conversely in some other states (such as Vermont) you can own a machinegun, although restrictions vary from state to state. Many more states allow assault rifles. But even in the least free states, fertilizer and fuel is perfectly legal and go boom very nicely. A couple of bombs like that at some armories and you might see American revolutionaries/insurgents/terrorists/whatever armed with something similar to the Iraqi's IEDs. Of course one can't really see many Americans taking up arms against the government, especially since the ones who are the angriest right now are also the ones who've demanded that the government free them from their right to bear arms.
You people are fucking conspiracy theorists. Honestly, first you people are bitching about Bush not handling Katrina (A duty that, BY LAW, IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS). And now, this law is enabling the president to respond to public emergencies by deploying appropriate authorities to restore order, and you people go psycho. Nothing is ever good enough for you idiots.
All you bleeding-heart liberals who want a revolution, go ahead and start one. Just don't start crying for pardons when you're arrested for slaughtering Republicans and right-wingers in the streets. (You all seem to be so desperate to shed right-wing blood.)
All of you need not forget that everybody who passed this bill (CONGRESSMEN) were voted into office *by the public*! If you don't fucking like it, why don't you get your asses out there and vote this November? And if your candidate loses, tough shit. It's what the American people vote for.
As for your Nazi conspiracy theories, utter bullshit. There was no such terrorism in Germany. The Jews were viewed as scapegoats for Germany's failing economy and they were persecuted for it, first by being moved into ghettos, and then by being placed in concentration camps.
And you SURE as hell better not forget that the USAPATRIOT Act was passed almost UNANIMOUSLY in the Senate (98 to 1) and by a considerable landslide in the House (357 to 66). So don't you all go blaming this on the Republicans. If you don't like it, blame both parties and get your lazy ass off of the computer and VOTE.
Your idea is stupid mostly because the third parties in the USA are stupid.
If the Libertarians want to win the presidency they have to stop running for president. They need to take control of some cities as Mayors and city councils to prove that they can run small governments, then move up to state levels and prove they can run more complex governments whilst building up popular support then move into the houses(senate and congress) proving that they can actually make a difference there before they should even think of running for president.
All that their running for president in the last election did was leave them open to mockery and derision for the party as a whole for not having any qualified candidates.
The problem with the method I'm outlining is that it takes decades, which is how it should work, it should take a long bloody time to go from a fringe group to the leaders of the most powerful nation on Earth and no-one in politics has the patience to do it that way.
Voting for Libertarians in the presidential election or the senate/congress before they've even come close to proving themselves at a local level is stupidity. Sadly given the current state of the US government there isn't much else you can do.
Read Errant Story.
Doesn't the president pretty much have martial law power as it is already? What did this bill change, exactly?
but have you considered the following argument: shut up.
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.
Nonsense.
The only correct way to starve the government is to participate in Counter-economics. If you just stop using your money, the bank will use it in your place, whereas if you use your money outside of the scope of government, it won't profit from it.
Maybe we deserve this world ?
That's a shame. We're losing our democracy because people can't be bothered. Unfortunately life is often about making choices between distasteful alternatives. But the lesser of two evils is better in the here and now than some pie in the sky candidate who exists only in fantasy land. No politician is going to mirror any thinking person's views on every single subject, just like no job is ever going to be perfect, no spouse is ever perfect, and no individual voter is going to be perfect.
People who are waiting for the perfect circumstances before they vote are hiding behind the easy cover of cynicism. If you're too good for the real world of rough and tumble democratic processes, don't yap later about how disgusted you are with the state of politics. You don't participate, you can complain all you want, but those of us who voted don't have to listen.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
You mean to tell me that NO Democrat and NO Republican read the bill, and after the bill was passed they found out what they voted for?
Republican leaders routinely withhold the bill and what they have slipped into it until the vote. Democrats routinely note for the record that they have no idea what is in the bill that is up for vote, but given that the vote includes something huge, like money for our troops, to vote against it because they don't know what's in it is to be branded a traitor.
Just like they do in Russia. Republicans are getting it down pat.
rd
is that many who criticize the rush to war in iraq criticize the manipulation of fear uncertainty and denial in the general public following 9/11 to foist flimsy half-baked justifications like WMDs to rationalize the war
because as we all know, those who oppose the war are paragons of well-informed levelheaded analysis, right?
and then you see screaming FUD like this story: "BUSH GIVEN MARTIAL LAW RIGHTS! SOMEBODY THINK OF THE CHILDREN!"
so in the end it seems that FUD is an equal opportunity idiocy, on either side of the partisan divide
pathetic, on the right
pathetic, on the left
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
The attitudes do correspond to urban/rural, but if you take a look at the maps from the last elections you will see that they are pretty much the same. There are gun control laws that go back farther than 1967 (Reagan did a lot of good things, but support for the second amendment wasn't one of them. In addition to the Mulford act he also supported the Brady bill & assault weapon ban. Reagan was originally a DEMOCRAT, he unfortunately kept some of the bad habits after he converted in 1962 :)
You have the 1934 National Firearms act of 1934 which was originally intended to ban handguns (along with machine guns, short barreled rifles and short barreled shotguns), by putting imposing a $200 tax, or $5 for an AOW/Pistol. The tax on pistols was pulled before the law was passed. (I don't think the taxes have changes. These are the current values but I'm not sure if they were ever less.) Luckily for us this was changed before the law was passed. FDR would have probably gone farther and actually banned the weapons if he could have but members of the supreme court let him know that they would not allow it.
Also, look at the origins for state and local prohibitions against carrying handguns. Many (if not most) in the south came about because the white southerners did not want blacks to have guns.
BTW, most of the "Liberals" that oppose gun control are really not Liberals, they are libertarians.
In the Senate, it passed by unanimous consent.
In the House, 398 Yeas, 23 Nays. No suprise Ron Paul (TX) was the only Republican against.
The Democrats:
Baldwin
Capps
Conyers
Filner
Frank (MA)
Holt
Inslee
Jackson (IL)
Kucinich
Lee
McDermott
McKinney
Michaud
Miller, George
Owens
Pallone
Payne
Schakowsky
Serrano
Stark
Velázquez
Woolsey
roll call
Ben Masel: 51,282 votes for US Senate in the Wisconsin Democratic Primary
If this was a democratic president doing this the republican congress would howl. The fact that they don't tells us that they care more about their party then the country, the citizens, or the constitution.
On top of all that they are stupid because they don't seem to realize that one day, even after the voting machines have been rigged, even after the rolls have been wiped of blacks and young people the country might still elect a democrat president. Maybe they think no democrat would declare a martial law.
evil is as evil does
Here's the official White House signing statement, which also comes with a nice picture attached, showing Dick Cheney, a California congressional equivocator of torture, Rep. Duncan Hunter, Donald Rumsfeld, Sen. John 'Count Vlad' Warner, and General Peter Pace.
-------------{begin release}-------------
President's Statement on H.R. 5122, the "John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007"
Today, I have signed into law H.R. 5122, the "John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007" (the "Act"). The Act authorizes funding for the defense of the United States and its interests abroad, for military construction, for national security-related energy programs, and for maritime security-related transportation programs.
President George W. Bush signs into law H.R. 5122, the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007, Tuesday, Oct. 17, 2006, in the Oval Office. Joining him are from left: Vice President Dick Cheney, Rep. Duncan Hunter of California, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Sen. John Warner of Virginia, and General Peter Pace, Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff. White House photo by Eric Draper Several provisions of the Act call for executive branch officials to submit to the Congress recommendations for legislation, or purport to regulate the manner in which the President formulates recommendations to the Congress for legislation. These provisions include sections 516(h), 575(g), 603(b), 705(d), 719(b), 721(e), 741(e), 813, 1008, 1016(d), 1035(b)(3), 1047(b), and 1102 of the Act, section 118(b)(4) of title 10, United States Code, as amended by section 1031 of the Act, section 2773b of title 10 as amended by section 1053 of the Act, and section 403 of the Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 (Public Law 108-375) as amended by section 403 of the Act. The executive branch shall construe these provisions in a manner consistent with the President's constitutional authority to supervise the unitary executive branch and to recommend for the consideration of the Congress such measures as the President deems necessary and expedient.
The executive branch shall construe sections 914 and 1512 of the Act, which purport to make consultation with specified Members of Congress a precondition to the execution of the law, as calling for but not mandating such consultation, as is consistent with the Constitution's provisions concerning the separate powers of the Congress to legislate and the President to execute the laws.
A number of provisions in the Act call for the executive branch to furnish information to the Congress or other entities on various subjects. These provisions include sections 219, 313, 360, 1211, 1212, 1213, 1227, 1402, and 3116 of the Act, section 427 of title 10, United States Code, as amended by section 932 of the Act, and section 1093 of the Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 (Public Law 108-375) as amended by section 1061 of the Act. The executive branch shall construe such provisions in a manner consistent with the President's constitutional authority to withhold information the disclosure of which could impair foreign relations, the national security, the deliberative processes of the Executive, or the performance of the Executive's constitutional duties.
The executive branch shall construe as advisory section 1011(b)(2) of the Act, which purports to prohibit the Secretary of the Navy from retiring a specified warship from operational status unless, among other things, a treaty organization established by the U.S. and foreign nations gives formal notice that it does not desire t
Rush Limbaugh is a perfect real world example of an oxycontinmoron
AMEN. You took the words right out of my mouth. I couldn't have said it any better.
Which is why you don't take on an APC if you don't have the weapons needed for it. That's the basis of asymetric and guerilla warfare. The biggest lesson from the Iraq insurgency, a lesson which was taught by Sun Tzu hundreds of years ago, is that you do not attack your enemy at his strongest point, but at his weakest.
Wrong. Find an apartment complex in a crowded city. Safety in numbers. "Here we see the importance of not being seen" and all that.
Not if you live alone. Or if you're smart and you have a plan beforehand. And you keep the gun on the other side from where an assailant will come from. Simple tactics. I have one door into my apartment, if I was going to use a handgun for defense I'd have it next to the bed, on the other side from the door.
Any problem can be solved if you plan.
Never give in--never, never, never, never, in nothing great or small, large or petty, never give in except to conviction
Why does this shit always get modded up? Be more of a stereotype, please. Bush's rise, and abuse, of his power is hardly a novel thing in American history. Creating an enemy and then using it to shape political policy is not new, and while Bush has made some startling alterations to the law, this has all been done before. And guess what? It's never lasted. People pay a lot of attention to our dear George W., and laws like this will not remain in effect for long.
Two things are required to make a dictator:
1. The People, offering him support and control over them in exchange for security and success.
2. Followers who protect him and support him regardless of his actions, hoping to gain a portion of his power once he's become unstoppable.
Bush isn't exactly popular anymore. Have you taken a look at the polls recently? The vast majority of the country is dissatisfied with Bush's handling of the War, which is the single biggest issue of his presidency. The most people are dissatisfied with his performance altogether. The upcoming elections are not looking to be a kind one to the Republicans, and more Republicans are opposing Bush's policies then ever before. If Bush is making a bid for a dictatorship, he's doing a piss-poor job at it. Hitler was far more charismatic, expedient, and successful then Bush could ever hope to be, and had a damaged and hungry country to support him. Don't even try to compare Modern America with Post-WWI Germany... our country is hardly in the kind of state necessary for a dictator to take power.
Comparisons between Bush and Hitler are not only weak, but they damage the dialogue within our country, and by extension, our country itself. When you tell people that Bush is comparable to Hitler, how can you expect them to take you seriously? Let's assume you're not talking to people who agree with you. How do you propose compromises? How do you find results that transcend the "us-against-them" mentality that's paralyzing our politics? If you honestly believe that one side of our political spectrum is evil and bent on domination, how can you possibly have a productive relationship with them? I have bad news for you- this is real life. Our country is populated by real people, not caricatures that make morality black-and-white. In reality, issues have far more complex then most people want to think they are. In reality, people don't always fall into your neat little boxes and labels. And while there are definitely evil people in our government, I'm tired of seeing one side demonize the other; all they're doing is dulling your brain to make you think that there's only two sides of an issue, and you're fighting for the morally righteous one. This doesn't accomplish anything. Well, it does make people feel good about themselves, that's for sure.
What a tool. If you can make such sweeping generalizations, then you're far too gone to rationalize with. This kind of thinking is bad for America. This kind of thinking is making this country sick. Being critical of our government is absolutely necessary to keep it in balance, but polarizing our politics is damaging what little open-discourse we still have.
I hope you're proud of yourself: you've joined the other flock of sheeple plaguing American politics.
"A mind, once expanded by a new idea, never returns to it's original dimensions." -a Super King Buffet fortune cookie
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.
Being branded a traitor tends to work better as a fear-installation device if you're deathly afraid of it.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
I've read a number of posts here arguing that jumping ship to third parties is going to solve the problem, but the reality of politics in the US is that there can only be two parties. The rules dictate how the game is played, and in the US, we have a winner take all system. The existence of three parties in this system reduces the power of the two groups with the most similar ideologies, allowing the minority opinion to gain control. Because of this, it's no surprise that the only independent candidate in the House is from a small state - Vermont, and he works with the democrats.
If people really want more options, they should fight to do away with the winner take all system first. There's a reason why European governments have a lot more parties in the mix - they divide seats up by percentage of the popular vote. With that sort of system, given the current number of seats in the House, you would only have to rally about 700,000 people in the US (.23%) to your cause to get a chance to participate in Congress.
But, you can't do that without a lot of thought either... because there's the potential for giving party leaders way too much power in that system. Anyway, my two cents.
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.
As said above (and below), poor voter turnout is noticed, but easily put down as lazyness, apathy or just plain ignorance on the part of the "general public" of the "important issues at stake".
In my experience, you usually only get political analysts and former politicians saying that disappointing voter turnout could also be attributed to the parties lack of ability in getting their message across (if they even HAVE a message at all besides bashing the opponent every chance they get) or the public's general distrust of the political class after so many years' worth of scandals and disappointments, as an afterthought.. You know, a couple of hours into the day's election breakdown in a sort of a "..oh yeah, and then there's the parties own shortcommings".
I don't know how you do it in the US, but do they count "spoilt" (null? what is the "legal" term for it?) votes along with blank ones? As in, does the final tally count the two apart or together? 'Cause IMO a spoilt vote is just that: spoilt. It can be someone's idea of a joke or a "stick it to the man", or just an honest fuck-up by a clueless/careless voter (I've no idea how your voting machines work, not being a US citizen, but from what I've heard and read so many times, both the machines themselves, and your ballots seem to be way too impractical/considerably hard to operate).
Whereas a blank vote sends a clearer message: it says "I took the time and trouble of going to the voting assembly, I cared, but no candidate/party was deserving of my vote". A blank vote can hardly be construed as non-intentional, and if a ballot is intentionally left blank, then that means something. Ok, so in most countries I know, blank votes, no matter the percentage, have no legal meaning. But it shouldn't be too hard to change that as those same countries demand a 50%+ voter turnout for a referendum's outcome to be legally binding, although I always thought that any form of rewarding absentism is counter-productive (it should be changed to blank votes).
Voting is more then a right, or a civic duty. It is a priviledge for which many people gave their lives over the years. It should be as obligatory as paying taxes (no, I don't like paying taxes, I just have to). After all, both are important ways of contributing to the state.
"No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."
"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter."
-- both from Sir Winston Churchill (yeah, the guy was full of himself.. doesn't mean he wasn't right, though)
Err the House and the Senate, but you get the point :P
Fox and CNN are surprisingly quiet regarding this issue. This is really something that CNN would go nuts over. I smell a hoax, as well. :/
If a bill is too big to read, it should be voted against. There is absolutely no excuse for voting for this shit. Either read the entire bill or vote against it. Period. Only a fucking idiot would sign their name adding new laws to the land without bothering to actually read it. Sadly, I think fucking idiots make up the vast majority of the legislative branch of the government. I am pointing my finger at the democrats too, not just the republicans. There are some assholes with a (D) next to their name that signed off on this bill.
How many of you blamed the slow federal response to Hurricane Katrina on President Bush?
slow federal response from FEMA. No one wanted martial law except Bush.
rd
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
I'm not even in support of this law. I'm against it... I just don't think it has such dire consequences, and it WAS created in response to popular demand.
You've got to be kidding me. Popular demand? Why do you think this was sneaked in at the last minute? Popular demand? Bush demanded to be able to declare martial law and all three governors told him no way. Nor would anyone else but a neocon support this.
rd
Remember back to X-Files, much was of course conspiracy, but there the talk of FEMA being the route to martial law was based on real laws and powers already on the books.
I remember back to Deus Ex (the first one). Had an awesome storyline, with FEMA taking a large role. There was a terrorist attack on the Statue of Liberty in the game's history, and even more weird was the lack of the Twin Towers in the New York background.
Qualitas edurus commercium, nullus penitus net rimor, nullus deus beneficium
You shall not feed the trolls, but whatever...
Ever heard of progressive tax? I don't belive that there is a country with 50% flat income tax rate in world. If you have 50% tax rate in progressive tax country you are probably doing very well.
Half of the people work? Then you probably are from one of these countries:
Afghanistan
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Cocos (Keeling) Islands
Djibouti
East Timor
Kenya
Lesotho
Liberia
Nauru
Senegal
Swaziland
Turkmenistan
Zambia
Zimbabwe
Note that most of those countries hardly are democratic so no voting really happens and 85% turnout is just unbelivable.
So stop drooling over your keyboard, create an account and get your facts straight. (I must be new here...)
Added you to the list of idiots who actually fell for this hoax.
I'm surprised nobody else has pointed out that the Democrats asked for this. Remember all the complaints about the Katrina response?
ummm, no, we didn't. All three governors, Democrat and Republican, refused Bush's demand to declare martial law. The guy is a nutcase, and so are his neocon henchmen.
rd
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.
:) This election will be interesting, with all malfunctioning Diebolds. Think hanging chads were bad... wait until you see this one.
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
2c
How times have changed. What the Republicans refused to give the Clinton administration has been extended exponentially to bhe Bush Administration. The Republicans are not better at protecting America, they are just partisan hacks. On April 16, 1996 Sen. Hatch (R-Utah) explained why posse comitatus would not be excepted even in the event of a terrorist biological or chemical attack upon the USA in the 1995 terror Prevention bill:
--------Begin Congressional Record excerpt---------
From this country's earliest days, the American people have sought to limit military involvement in civilian affairs. In the wake of the terrible tragedy in Oklahoma, with the heightened sensitivity to the threat of terrorism this country faces, some feel like giving the military a more prominent role in combating terrorism both here and abroad. This is not a policy we should rush into.
I must add, I support the provision, which is known as the Nunn- Thurmond provision, in the Senate bill. Americans have always been suspicious of using the military in domestic law enforcement, and rightly so. Civilian control of the military and separation of the military from domestic law enforcement feature prominently in the early history of this country, from the Declaration of Independence to the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Indeed, the Declaration of Independence listed among our grievances against the King of England that he had "kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislature," and had "affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power."
It was abuse of military authority in domestic affairs, especially in the South after the Civil War, that motivated Congress to impose the first so-called posse comitatus statute. The term "posse comitatus" means power of the country and has as its origin the power of the sheriff through common law to call upon people to help him execute the law.
The statute, in 18 U.S.C. 1385, prevents the Federal Government from using the Army or Air Force to execute the law, except where Congress expressly creates an exception. Domestic law enforcement thus remains as is, in the hands of local communities.
Currently, as I understand it, Congress has created only limited exceptions to the Posse Comitatus Act. The President can call out the military if terrorists threaten the use of nuclear weapons or if the rights of any group of people are denied and the State in which they reside is unable or unwilling to secure their lawful rights.
The military is also authorized to share intelligence information with Federal law enforcement in attempts to combat drug trafficking. These are limited exceptions to the act, however, and do not generally empower the military to be actively involved in the enforcement of domestic laws. We have done well with a separation between military authority and domestic law enforcement. Although this proposal seems sensible and appears simply to expand upon the military's preexisting authority, to become involved if the use of nuclear weapons or biological or chemical weapons is threatened, it may, in fact, be unnecessary.
The premise underlying this amendment is that there does not exist among civilian law enforcement the expertise to deal effectively with chemical or biological agents. However, I believe that such expertise is available outside of the military. Particularly in the area of chemical agents, civil authorities and even the private sector have considerable experience in containing these substances.
Moreover, the military can already assist civil authorities in all aspects of responding to the type of crisis contemplated by this amendment but one: The actual use of military personnel to disable or contain the device. The military can lend equipment, it can provide instructions and technical advice on how to disable or contain a chemical or biologi
Rush Limbaugh is a perfect real world example of an oxycontinmoron
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
First off, let's link to a reputable site:
1 22:@@@K
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:HR05
Second:
"This rule will likely never be used except for emergencies."
You must live in a fantasy land of unicorns and rainbows and government officials who don't use every opportunity to abuse the power they have. I want to move there someday.
> looking forward to this election shaking up the entire political establishment.
I guess you missed the law they changed a few months back that allowed free gerrymandering. Between that and diebold I can't see any serious shakeup happening.
For starters, he faked an election and had his corrupt brother rig a statewide vote.
Then he played a shit load of golf and ignored terrorist threats until 9/11.
Then he invaded Afghanistan so we could put a pipeline from the middle east to Russia.
Then he ruined the constitution.
Then he bombed the shit out of Iraq, including casualties across every demographic.
Then he let a bunch of black people drown.
Then he approved torture, and eliminated basic laws that have been in place for centuries, like Habeas Corpus.
So he's done plenty good. If you are a person who enjoys fascism, hates people in other countries, particularly Arabs, are not a fan of any of our founding fathers, like torture, hate black people, like genocide, and hate the rule of law. If you are that person, he is a sure-fire winner!
Vote W again in 2008! Let's really show those fuckin' towel heads!
rhY
I hold very few opinions. I hold information based on observation and fact. If you wish to disagree, please use facts.
What does it mean to support the "war on terror"? What the hell is an appeaser You're using a loaded term, and I have no idea what you're saying. Are you referring to the war in Iraq? If so, you are begging the question, because you refuse to acknowledge than people can disagree with you on whether or not a particular strategy will help or hurt the efforts against terrorism. Ispo facto, anyone who disagrees with the policies you believe in must be an "appeaser." Bullshit. Many, many people have seen the obvious, and acknowledge that our occupation of Iraq is a galvanizing force that draws people INTO the war against us. Our actions in Iraq are helping recruit people for a long war against us. Several government-funded studies have already arrived at this conclusion.
Don't fall for the talking-head BS that tells you that anyone who opposes the war in Iraq must be a terrorist appeaser. The idea that "liberals" are sitting around saying "how can we help the terrorists" may sell for Coulter, but it's stupid on its face. I can disagree with you on whether or not we should be in Iraq, just as I opposed our coddling and financing of Saddam in the 80s, without it meaning that I hate America. I realize that talking heads like Coulter and O'Reilly entertain their audiences with grossly oversimplified worldviews like that, but in reality hardly anyone who disagrees with you on something as complex as the occupation of a country is trying to "appease" the opponent.
You could get Michael Moore, Babs Streisand, and whichever of those Baldwin brothers O'Reilly hates so much together, and I promise you, sincerely, that not one of them actually want to help the terrorists kill Americans. Really. People who tell you that are simpletons if they believe it and manipulative demagogues if they're just saying it to entertain their audience. They are doing a disservice to their country, either way.
The US population is 300 million people. Therefore there are over 200 million adults who can take it to the streets. Even if the whole United States Army, Navy and Air Force was thrown against those 200 million, they wouldn't stand a chance; which is highly unlikely, because the army is formed by people, not robots.
You're goddamn right this is flamebait. It might be a few of us need a fire lit. It provides light and heat, and can show the way.
You are welcome on my lawn.
but only muskets.
You and I have very different ideas of the Federal government's role. I do not want the Federal government involved in my local affairs until the local government is unable to cope. FEMA was INSIDE Louisiana, ready to help. All of the infrastructure along the coast was wiped out. How do you truck in supplies when there are no passable roads? This stuff all takes time. The levies did not burst until AFTER the hurricane wiped out the surrounding infrastructure, and in any case it only took a few hours to swamp the city after their breech - far too short a time to do any kind of an organized evacuation. Maybe YOU want the Federal government forcing you out of your home when there is a disaster coming, but I don't want that. The people who were still in New Orleans fall into two categories - those who are impossibly stupid (staying behind for their pets?) and those who couldn't leave because of some disability, no transportation, etc. Anyone who WANTED to stay behind deserves whatever they got. They are very lucky that this country has so many helicopters laying around.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Maybe you and I live on different planets, but I remember seeing 24/7 news coverage of Katrina for about 3 months - almost all of it critical of the "slow response" of the federal government. I don't doubt that the governors didn't want their power taken away by the feds - and I'm inclined to agree with them. But the governors (at least one of which who is quite incompetent, by the way) do not represent popular opinion. This law solves the problem of the federal government seeming ineffective - next time they can just storm right in. This is a shame for states that actually have good local disaster plans, but probably good for the people of Louisiana - who's governor basically cried through the crises. Her and that Nagen guy were happy to blame the feds, though, even though they didn't let them take over. The "great people of New Orleans" ever re-elected Nagen. Wow.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
This is quite similar to your other comment. Yes, people wanted the National Guard called in to fill in for the missing/ineffective police department, which the governor declined to do. This law would have allowed Bush to overrule the governor and let the National Guard act as law enforcement. This is exactly what people have been demanding. Federal troops (mostly Air Force), National Guard troops, and Coast Guard were all on the scene immediately. Within 3 days, they had a decent base camp set up. If that doesn't impress you from a logistics standpoint, then you've never read anything about the logistics of moving troops around and keeping them alive when there are no roads, fuel, water, or electricity - all while providing aid to hundreds of thousands of refugees. I like to see Bush attacked in the news media as much as anybody, but in the case of Katrina it was a little unfair. His reaction didn't help him any. We don't like Bush so we let the media roll on him and this is the result. We reap what we sow, and the federal government has simply responded to popular criticism.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Nothing is more important with an election around the corner
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6051532545 854068491
I don't know who the hell the "AL-Rashedeen Army" is but they claim they are responsible for 2% of IED attacks. It's disturbing but worth watching. It has lots of footage from insurgent attacks so it's a bit disturbing at times to see bodies get blown apart. You have to remember though, these people are fighting for *their* country, that we illegally invaded.
No, I live in a western European country. The highest tax bracket (over 50%) starts at roughly 50,000 euro. That is not as much as it sounds like, as the cost of living here is far higher than it is on your side of the Atlantic. And that is just income tax, it's far from the only tax. For example there is a 100% tax (really no exaggeration) on the purchase of a car, plus a monthly tax on any motorised vehicle. The beauty is that poor people vote, but receive more money in subsidies and benefits than they pay in taxes.
You can't use stats like those to compare different countries, only to show trends in the same country, because you're not comparing the same measurements. The million on disability pay are not included in the unemployment stats released by the government. The students, living on student benefits and not working aren't included. House wives are not included. Part-time employees, who work more than two hours a week are not included. People over 65 are not included. In full-time equivalents, only half the people work. The other half works to support them and hardly sees any benefit from their tax money, because nearly all of it is spent on free stuff for poor people. Roads are in disrepair, healthcare is in disrepair, higher education is in disrepair.
Yes, the 80% to 90% turnout is a reality: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_turnout
Remember that in any sufficiently large group, half the people are dumber than average. When they turn up to vote en masse, the situation above is what you get.
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
Wow. This is inane. I didn't think I needed to specify that Bush wasn't personally wiretapping US phone calls without a warrant. But it was done on his orders. Or are you suggesting that there was a conspiracy to wiretap without Bush's approval? I did forgot to mention that the problem with the wiretapping was that the wiretapping wasn't being approved by the Judicial Branch as required by law. Remember the Judicial Branch? Remember the checks-and-balances-thing to prevent the abuse of power by one branch of government?
Bush has paid journalists to repeat his propaganda? Bullshit. Show me your source for that.
Routinely censors scientific reports? Strike 2. Source, please.
BUSH delayed the federal response? Strike 3. Bush didn't delay anything.
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.
Everyone is entitled to his own opinions, but not his own facts.
I've got a spare room, if you guys want to come over for a while?
Because you can - or because you should?
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?
chown -R us
The President may employ the armed forces .. the President determines .. the constituted authorities of that State or possession are unable, fail, or refuse to protect that right, privilege, or immunity ..
The President shall notify Congress of the determination to exercise the authority in subsection (a)(1)(A) as soon as practicable after the determination and every 14 days thereafter during the duration of the exercise of that authority.".'
was Re:Text of the section
davecb5620@gmail.com
"yet still live in America after threatening to leave... go figure"
I'm hoping those same poeple stay and vote.
Here is the official Presidential statement on the signing:
0 061017-9.html
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/10/2
Could somebody translate please?
I'm a 2000 man.
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.
Plus, during a home invasion, you have a higher chance of you or a family member getting shot in cross-fire, or due to an assailant obtaining one of the many weapons from its storage location or an overpowered family member.
/. - but seriously, try harder.
I know making shit up is like a passtime on
The President should not be able to call out the guard of a state; that is a governor's job.
One of the biggest problems encountered by Louisiana's National Guard in the aftermath of Katrina was that their specialised equipment, designed to operate in flooded urban areas was being torn up in an unecessary war's desert environment, instead of being close to home to do what it was designed to do.
Bush should be criticised for getting a guitar lesson in Crawford after the levees had been breeched, for trying to put blame on anything other than his own self, and for promising to rebuild Trent Lott's Gulf vacation home before he'd even seen the devastation on the ground.
Rush Limbaugh is a perfect real world example of an oxycontinmoron
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.
How foolish. The American electorate often prefers divided government. Some of our most prosperous periods have been marked by it. The idea that an elite deciding the length of a term for a high office to avoid "upset" is repugnant to Americans. The peaceful transfer of power is one of our greatest acheivements and sets an examnple for the world, rarely followed.
The Bible inspires different people in different ways. You in Europe may offer your throats to the Islamists if you like. They will be happy to oblige you. In the US we realise we are in a knife fight with these degenerates. They will not find it easy to operate here again.
an ill wind that blows no good
You're doing it again, making up your own quotes. I make no such point
"I dont get that. The only common factor is that you both hate the president"
You're doing it again, making up your own quotes. I make no such point. I don't really want to engage with a professional troll but since when did opposing presidential legisgation make for a bush hater.
"waving around an Iraqi propaganda story isnt going to sway many people."
Haa haaaaa haaaaaaa. Point me to the text of "John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007" that mentions Irag.
"And yes there is no mention of Katrina. There is also no mention of Bush taking over the country."
Some believe this legislation bares an uncanny similarity to Martial Law. But there is mention of the President arbitrary suspending peoples rights. How is this any different than declaring Martial Law, which is what this is really about. Bt invoking Sadam, Iraq and president haters you're just engaging in another form of shit throwing.
davecb5620@gmail.com
"Every single person who's used this retarded line of thinking needs to be rounded up and forced to watch every single Vietnam movie ever made (or hell, as someone else pointed out, footage from Iraq.)"
"A government will never desire to annihilate its own population."
You sir, need to learn about Stalinist USSR.
If you need text styles to communicate then you don't have a message.
2) The idea isn't to walk around festooned with arms and tell the whole world how much you hate the government and how they're putting mind control devices in everyone's breakfast cereal. That, I agree, puts you into tinfoil-hat territory. The idea is to have a backup option to protect yourself in case of disaster.* Think of it as an antivirus package, if you like.
* "Disaster" need not be a government crackdown - natural disasters and riots tend to spawn looters and other criminal trash, and those can be quite effectively deterred by a show of force. In fact, the weapon need not even be loaded - one of the most effective ways to stop a home invasion is to indicate that you're armed, and nothing scares off a burglar faster than the sound of someone racking a shotgun.
First rule of trauma: Bleeding always stops.
Almost all of the world is wrong, since the correct way is year-month-day. (20010911), making it sortable.
I'll be voting pretty much straight Democrat (with one local exception) in the election because I trust the Democrats a heck of a lot more than the Republicans at this point, and because the Democrat's policies are generally a lot closer (key word is "closer") to mine than the Republicans. So my vote is worth something.
....If they hear from enough of us it does make a difference.
But you raise a good point. It's not enough just to vote. We still have to keep the politicians honest. Case in point, my own (Democrat) Senator voted for this bill, and has yet to give me a good reason why.
So today I am sending her a third email - quite a bit more strongly worded then the last two:
I did not see "essential liberties", "balance of powers", or "creeping fascism" as options in the drop down list of subjects. So I have chosen, "Civil Liberties", which I suppose is close enough.
My question is, why? Why did you help Bush do this...
http://towardfreedom.com/home/content/view/911/
This is a direct erosion of the checks and balances that, so far, have kept our country free.
I wrote you urging you not to vote for this bill and you replied...
"As you may know, the House and Senate versions of the Fiscal Year 2007 National Defense Authorization bill included a provision that would allow the President to deploy the National Guard in specified instances of public emergencies. The President could exercise this authority only in instances when state responders are unable to maintain public order after a natural disaster, epidemic, or terrorist attack."
This response is misleading. For one thing, please correct me if I am wrong, but I believe the bill actually states, "in order to suppress, in any State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy."
Who is to define what counts as an "insurrection" or "domestic violence"? And "unlawful combination"? Really! We have a President that thinks he can legally justify torture and warrantees wire tapping, and you hand him this?!
I am not naive enough to think that a power mad chief executive might not use this bill to further their own goals - at the expense of freedom and against the will of the people of our state.
And I find it impossible to believe you are this naive either. So, again, why did you vote for this bill?
The final authority over the National Guards should be held by the States. Not only so the National Guard will be there to help the people of their state, but to act as a check on federal power - forcing the president to ask for, rather than demand, the use of the Guard.
Sincerely,
Andrew Davies
FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY. What the *hell* does "management" in this title mean if not "coordinate response?" Bush didn't need the repeal of the Posse Comitatus act to help with Katrina, he just needed someone who could identify what New Orleans would need to recover and how to get things there as soon as possible - and the local government begged for exactly that help! Now, both of your arguments on this subject - first, that the Federal government has no role to play in such local disasters (even though the laws that created FEMA made it clear that FEMA's purpose was to assist and coordinate disaster response), and second, that Bush was hamstrung by the Posse Comitatus Act (as though he needed to Federalize the Guard to get fresh water into New Orleans), are mutually exclusive. But logical inconsistency is one of the hallmarks of today's Republican Party!
You've got your fellow Republicans going on TV saying they're "scared of what America will become if the Democrats win" - like America was so bad a place to live from 1955 to 1994 when the Democrats controlled the House? Let's face it - Iraq was less of a threat than Iran or Korea, and certainly less of a threat than Afghanistan (a country that really was hosting al Qaida, and which indisputably provided material support to the attacks against the United States in September 2001). But we have 145,000 troops in Iraq, and only about 21,000 troops in Afghanistan (by comparison, the Soviets couldn't hold Afghanistan with an occupation force that varied in size between 80,000 and 100,000!!!): and while Saddam Hussein is in custody, neither Bin Laden nor "Mullah Omar," the head of the now resurgent Taliban, was ever captured. Do you know what "Middle Eastern" states are assisting Bin Laden? Along with various groups within and outside the governing coalition in Afghanistan, most of Bin Laden's support is coming from our supposed ally Pakistan (specifically, the Pakistani intelligence service, which supports al Qaida because it helps to train and arm insurgents fighting the Indian government in Kashmir - you know, India, the one with the elected government, unlike Musharraf's coup-imposed government - and whose support for the Taliban goes back to the Soviet invasion). We're wasting the lives of our brave men and women so that Georgie can prove that he's a good boy to his daddy (read the beginning of Woodward's new book on why James Baker was left out in the cold and Cheney's and Rumsfeld's advice was heeded in direct contradiction to Powell's, by the way).
I suppose, too, that your side has forgotten that they were trying to impeach Clinton for lying about a blowjob while he was bombing Afghanistan to try to force them to stop assisting Bin Laden, didn't you? (Oh, yeah, I forgot - when a Democrat bombs somebody, it's wag the dog; when a Republican bombs somebody, it's Heroism. All I know is that there were some "radical" Democrats outside the government arguing for an invasion of Afghanistan to overthrow the Taliban because they were a clear and present danger in *March* of 2001, after the destruction of Bamiyan and the beginnings of genocidal actions against non-Muslims and non-Pashtu, but you people only caught up with the program *after* thousands of Americans died). If there had been an impeachment in 2004 instead of 1998, you'd be calling for treason trials. Back then, you were calling for a return to values - values being defined, I suppose, as humiliating young fellows who were born in the US just because they happen to be Indian (as one Conservative hero, the beloved Senator Allen, decided to do), or taking money in exchange for changing legislation to aid a slimy lobbyist who cheated his own clients, or laundering money so they could transfer "soft money" into "hard money" accounts for state legislative campaigns, or covering up the behavior of a borderline pedophile congressman (at least Gerry Studds was censured by the scary Democrat-controlled Congress!).
This law solves the problem of the federal government seeming ineffective - next time they can just storm right in.
On my planet, the government will be effective when FEMA is there, not the U.S. Army. Bush will not be storming in next time - the National Guard will be taken away from him and given back to the states, this martial law thing will be cleansed by the light of day and repealed, and Bush can deal with foreign reality with a draft and larger army if justified... to deploy overseas.
rd
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
This law would have allowed Bush to overrule the governor and let the National Guard act as law enforcement.
The dithering was entirely due to the White House refusing to aid unless Bush was given permission to declare martial law. I wouldn't have allowed him, no governor would have allowed him, and no governor will allow him once this provision that no knew about is stricken.
Nothing that I have read specified the National Guard, even so the Republicans have federalized them and that has to stop, and will. Authorization to deploy the U.S. Army on our streets is martial law, and it will not be allowed, regardless of what the neocons think.
rd
P.S. Sorry if I responded redundantly, more than a few saying this is what was demanded and it just wasn't. I am familiar with logistics and yes, you are right about the good work.
Bush giving himself power to declare martial law and suspend the constitution is not some left right squabble like abortion rights or burning the flag, rather it is a concern to Americans of all political stripes. Whether you are a bircher, Libertarian, Green, Barry Goldwater Conservative, Pat Buchanan Supporter, or black block anarchist the president giving himself the power to declare military law in any locality is a very frightening prospect. It gives Bush the potential to be as vile as Hitler, that's not saying he's used that potential yet, but no president should be given the potential to utilize that much power, it's at fundamental odds with the freedom the founding fathers fought for. THAT is why people here are comparing Bush to Hitler unfortunately it's not a terribly flawed metaphor when he has signed into law the option to seize dictatorial powers.
Tired of all the isms, don't exploit people as an employer, or a government, mmmmK?
If you care to look the CIA seized documents in one of Saddam's palaces that showed -
1) Ever since losing the first war in 1991 Saddam's forces concentrated on infantry special forces techniques(terrorism in other words -yes the SEALS are highly trained terrorists)
2) When the US invaded in 2003 Saddam gave out orders for only token resistance and ordered the mass of his army to take off their uniforms and melt into the populace and then fight a guerrilla war
3) The Iraqi military had prepared weapons caches of IEDs , RPGs etc to aid such a war fighting strategy so dont be surprised the insurgents seem to have an endless supply of small arms and explosives(Saddam had the 4th largest army in the world)
The US army estimates they havnt found even 10% of these caches
The US army has taken 25000 casualties till now out of which almost 3000 has been fatalities. Given that the US force in Iraq is around 125000 this means the Army and Marines have had to replace 1 in 5 of their men. Thats a casualty rate which no foreign army can sustain which is why they have started using local levees but the quality of the new Iraqi army is crappy as most of the men with a fighting spirit were in the old iraqi army and the Bremer administration alienated them. The casualty rates of the new Iraqi army are worse than those of the insurgency so they are not going to outlast the insurgency. Also the new iraqi army has to build its force strucutre from scratch while the old iraqi army has a well defined force structure. When someone gets an order from his seargent , leutnant , colonel, general they follow it irrespective of whether the commanders are now not wearing their uniforms.
**Life is too short to be serious**
FEMA does not, and should not, have the logistical capacity of the National Guard. It does not make sense to have such redundancy. I don't know why you think that FEMA would somehow NOT be used during wartime if they had any sort of logistical capacity. They are still part of the Federal government and they still available to the President.
Also, why would anybody advocate going back to the draft?
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
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.
Look what happens once there is an activation - nothing but pay issues broad and deep enough to ruin the budgets of a thousand patriotic, honest families. And it sucks. http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0201/p03s02-usmi.htm l
Wasn't a big reason this was enacted because the feds couldn't get the governor of Louisiana to authorize deployment of the National Guard or request federal assistance during Katrina until it was too late for them to do any good? The Bush administration got a lot of flak for not doing enough to help out. If you want the feds to be able to do more in an emergency, don't you have to give them these sorts of powers? Otherwise, they have to resort to begging local politicians to request their assistance so they can act.
Read Ron Paul, about how these votes get cast on UNREAD, UNDEBATED bills.
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
Divided government doesn't give you "restraint." It gives you a "failure to reach consensus."
when last I checked, Consensus by its nature meant that all sides were satisfied, though not necessarily thrilled, with the deal brokered..
I would not classify what the republicans have been doing as "consensus"... "consensus" means you actually speak with, consider valid, and address the concerns of any and all opposing points of view, not ram it through anyway and declare them 'unamerican' for opposing you.
When last I checked, the clinton administration kept republicans heavily involved throughout both terms to insure actual consensus... but consensus just wasn't good enough for shrill extremists, so they founded fox, a network dedicated to spreading outright propaganda.
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
See, this is the problem. Nowhere in this country could you get "abortion on demand through the third trimester"; though it's up to the state to determine what restrictions to put in place, there's nowhere that an eight month-pregnant woman can go into a Planned Parenthood, say "I've changed my mind; abort it" and get an abortion. And I don't recall any Democrat congresscritters saying that they want to change that.
Furthermore, the first poll I googled up (Pew Research Center, 2000) shows that the majority of Americans think gun control is more important than gun owners' rights, 57-38. Again, I don't recall the Democrat platform saying anything about doing away with any immigration controls whatsoever, or wanting to disband the military. These are terrible positions, and I'd be first in line to criticize people to held them.
It's held as a revealed truth among right-wingers that Hillary Clinton is just to the left of Che Guevara. But it's just not so. She backed military action in Iraq and in Afghanistan. She's introduced legislation to increase the size of the Army. She's been active in social issues like seeking congressional hearings into GTA: San Andreas; she co-introduced the Family Entertainment Protection Act along with Joe Lieberman and Evan Bayh.
Thanks for your concern, but given that you're not even attacking positions that the party actually holds, why on earth would the Democratic party want to move to the right? It's certainly not going to appease you or anyone like you. They could all stand on the southern border shooting Mexicans and you'd still claim they were far-left socialist radicals on immigration and gun control. It's rank nonsense, and utterly detached from the reality of the situation.
The gay issue seems a tricky one. (Even trickier given that you didn't exactly explain what you were talking about.) But consider that the Civil Rights Act was terribly unpopular in the south at the time. It was held, rightly in my opinion, that people have rights whether or not they belong to a currently-unpopular group. By your lights, we should have the state establish a religion, because that would probably pass popular muster as well. Heck, we should repeal the Civil Rights Act in those states where it's not widely supported, is that right?
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
I made my original post to counter the mindless Bush criticism on which readers reflexively squander their mod points. You call it trolling. I call it debate.
I am not really a 2nd amendment type, so I don't understand your rant. The next presidential election will be interesting. The demos will trot out their quadrennial carnival of fools for the primaries: Hillary, Kerry, Gore, Barack Obama. I like our chances!
an ill wind that blows no good
Really? I didn't realise home defense enthusiasts used C4 to defend their homes and property.
an ill wind that blows no good
Go to thomas.loc.gov. Enter "HR5122". See "There are 6 versions of Bill Number H.R.5122 for the 109th Congress". Click the last one, "John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Enrolled as Agreed to or Passed by Both House and Senate)[H.R.5122.ENR]". Notice section 1076, "Use of the Armed Forces in major public emergencies."
Remind me why this is informative, again?
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
Did you miss the link to thomas.loc.gov in the grandparent post? Did you not think that a bill is amended on its journey through Congress? Did you not look for yourself and find out that while the introduced bill lacks Section 1076, the passed bill does not?
The version on the house website predates the version that was passed. Learn how to do your research before you jump around calling everyone an idiot.
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
Bush won't be the next Hitler.
Hitler was a fairly bright man, and a good orator. The people believed in him.
Not so much with Bush on any of the 3.
No, if these powers get wielded like that, it will probably not be by Bush. The armed services aren't too happy with him to willingly throw away our constitutional rights for his whims.
If this is intentional plans to throw away our civil rights, then this is a set up for someone else down the line. Puppets, perhaps?
Hunt your preferred prey at Aliens vs Predator MUD. Join the war at avpmud.com port 4000
Select "bill number" on Thomas and enter "hr5122". It'll take you to the right place.
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
Moderation -1
100% Overrated
Republican TrollMods can't stand the truth. They wish New Orleans was totally destroyed without a trace, rather than remaining as testimony to Bush's dictatorship. Even now, as Bush marches forward on the plan revealed when he tried to pull it in the Katrina crisis.
--
make install -not war
Not just soundbites. Active suppression of history is another tool the Bush army uses to rule the minds of most citizens.
--
make install -not war
The Army (and its 82nd Airborne Division) is not the National Guard. Regardless of what it seems to you, the president's OK is required for one state to send its Guard into another, even if the recipient state's governor agrees, to prevent the scenario I described.
Ray Nagin is a Republican.
It was very difficult to understand your long, unstructured, unpunctuated post. Especially your citations of Democrats during Katrina. And whatever is your point about "Socialism".
The fact is that New Orleans was left to drown by Bush, despite the efforts of the governor, and the (Republican) mayor's incompetence. And just as Bush showed his agenda trying to blackmail LA Governor Blanco into letting Bush federalize the National Guard, Bush is now following through with this covert law enabling martial law.
--
make install -not war
Here is a simple example for you. Which president signed the Brady bill, restricting ones 2nd amendment rights?
Ill give you a hint, it was the last one that was impeached.
Now, which party did he belong to?
Figure it out yet? Or are you far to blind to see the truth?
---- Booth was a patriot ----
I'm wishing that everyone would vote every incumbent out of office. We'd lose a couple of good people, but many more bad ones. And it would send a huge dissatisfaction message. The largest in history. Maybe that would shake things up, and convince the next crop that they have exactly *one* term to prove themselves. Not special interest money, nor our own brand of religious fundamentalist fruitcakes.
There are no good choices. If The Shrub is a good example of the Republicans, it's fairly plain that they're evil, lying, lawbreaking, Constitution-destroying idiots. But then we have a sole surviving Kennedy as a powerful Democrat. A man that would have been locked up years ago, over the Chappaquiddick affair. And would have been, if he weren't a Kennedy. And is now busy trundling illegal aliens over the border as fast as he can, in hopes of votes, and the wellfare of the country be damned.
There's nothing good to be said for either party. Throw all of the incumbents out. We'll end up with a bunch of innexperienced people in office, but how can they *possibly* do worse than the current crop? Right now, there's some debate about whether Iraq should divide along ethic and religious boundaries. This country is now so divided that we may not have too many election cycles before we're thinking about whether we should do the same thing.
I'd vote in favor, on the theory that being associated with Kansans who seem to still have a problem with evolution, and believe in a 'born-again' *anything*, much less President, can't lead to anything good. Separation of church and state was built into our constitution for a *reason*. History has clearly shown that religious groups *will* legislate their beliefs into law, given half a chance, and you will be *screwed* if you don't subscribed to their beliefs. These fruitcakes now constitute a voting block so powerful that it has to be overcome, pretty much immediately, or it's time for people to choose up sides and get ultimately nasty.
I know that the next evangelist (Jehovah's Witness, S. Baptist, etc.) that knocks on my door is going to be seriously insulted. I'd as soon punch their lights out, to tell you the truth, but I suspect they come in pairs because they know they're an annoyance at best, hated in many places, and need a witness.
Fundies mean nothing good for our way of life, if you believe in the sparation of church and state. Next time you wonder how Muslim sects can kill each other with such joyous abandon, you might want to remember that our home-grown fundies have murdered doctors who performed legal abortions. If you have religion you don't need rationality, respect for secular law, or anything else. You're guided by your Higher Power, or Invisible Friend.
Organized religion is one of the last great evils. It's probably the single greatest cause of warfare in our shiny new 21st century, and has killed tens or hundreds of millions down through history. At what point do we decide that there's been enough of this religion weirdness, and at least recognize it as seriously delusional?
What you do with a computer does not constitute the whole of computing.
I see - I think that our point of disagreement is on whether or not their would have been popular support for martial law in New Orleans. I contend that it would have been tolerated, even cheered, by most outside of Louisiana - and even many within. I'm not saying that I agree with this sentiment, but it does seem like New Orleans would have benefited had the governor used the National Guard for law enforcement, which was within her power. It's just that I feel like it was a state matter and there is no reason for the feds to have been involved in law enforcement. The flip side to this is that if the state government is incompetent, well, you have Katrina.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
"War is Peace Slavery is Freedom Ignorance is Strength" --George Orwell
Mmmmm.... I can just picture it in my mind. It's so heart-warming - li'l Janie reloading by the fireplace for Grandma by the bay window in her rocker, so she can mow down more of the hordes. I don't recall seeing any Norman Rockwells like that, though.
... for YOU!
Come to think of it, most of the US Civil and Revolutionary battles were army vs. army, weren't they? On a battlefield, maybe? Not this family-in-a-house kind of stuff - that sounds more like Bonnie and Clyde style fighting. A family feud, perhaps.
But you make a valid point - have at least one weapon for potentially anyone that shows up, and a bunch of extras, so that the people at the back windows upstairs can have a fresh supply being reloaded by the designated non-combat member - who would be pretty busy, in anything but a one-room shack.
Lesson for today: buy more weapons - you never know how many will show up!
--
Each sig personally hand-crafted
Ah, but I did, and I effectively refuted the idea, you ninny.
an ill wind that blows no good
Er, that sounds quite a bit like Denmark. And that 100% tax on cars has gone towards clean power generation through wind (& now wave) power. While the taxes are high, as a citizen you're getting quite a return--your country is one of the few that has a fairly rosy outlook for the next century or so.
And I heard that everyone goes down to Hamburg to buy their cars anyways...and while you pay a tax on bringing the car in from Germany, it isn't near 100%.
Oh, and you have a first class educational system, and some *really* kick-ass clubs. (My favorites actually being in Aalborg, not Copenhavn.
Moderation is for Monks!
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.
Who is this delectable creature with an insatiable love of the dead?
Leftist magazine doesn't like what a non leftist President does.
Why is this news?
Everybody knows 3 people with my name.
This is the text of the bill passed by both the house and senate. This version of the bill DOES contain that section. I hope for the sake of anyone who reads your post that they also read this reply.
Also consider the difference between the US and other countries with despotic regimes. In many other countries you have a large pool of soldiers willing to blindly follow and enforce orders given by the dictator, because of poor education and basically very low moral standards, along with the fact that he country probably has very little precedent set for a strong democracy anyway.
In the case if the US, there is a relatively good educational system, and the vast majority of soldiers would be very much aware that they are causing damage to the country's democratic ideals by acting like gestapo. I believe there would be a sudden rise in conscientious objection if martial law were declared.
Who is this delectable creature with an insatiable love of the dead?
Martial law, "signing statements", redefining the Geneva convention, Patriot Act...
I think you yanks need to patch your constitution. That's one heck of a privilege execution bug you've got going there.
The fact that he didn't do any of things things is completely and utterly indefnsible. There is no excuse for the Commander in Chief sitting on his ass for 20 minutes while the nation is under attack. None. And yet right-wing Republicans went ahead and defended him anyway with their "didn't want to scare the kids" excuse.
Your argument is equally lame. Yes, those acts you mention restrict the use of the military for law enforcement operations in the United States. However, responding to a hurricane is not a law enforcement operation, it is a disaster responce operation. But even if there was rioting, the Posse Comitatus Act specifically makes exemptions for quelling "domistic violence", as during the L.A. riots of 1992. The Posse Comitatus Act also allows the President to use troops under the guidelines of the Insurrection Act, which has specific exemptions for natural disasters.
So, to quote one of the few journalists who have the guts to call the right wing on their bs: your words are lies, sir.
This act would've been very useful after Katrina in New Orleans. Governor Blanco refused to call out the national guard to do law enforcement functions, until days of looting occured. The President and FEMA were helpless to stop it.
The only time that's in effect is when you've either got a civil war or a foreign army invading that.
Ray Nagin is a Democrat and was a Republican most of his adult life but, was a Democrat before his election in 2002 he succeeded his fellow democrat Marc Morial.but In a January 13, 2006 interview on the Tavis Smiley show, Nagin himself denied these rumors, stating that he "never was a Republican" and that he has been a "life-long Democrat",and several of the news sources reporting that he was a Republican have since issued retractions. and where did I indicate that the 82nd was a national guard unit? I think I would know there not a national guard unit since I was in active duty. I was saying they have permission to have any national guard in there own state but,they way it was that they had to have permission for Federal Troops to march right on in to a state or more proper to be involved in police action of state matters but, if FEMA becomes involved it becomes a Federal matter. and FEMA will control the disaster area and be the head Echelon Nothing comes in and out without there blessing at least the way it suppose to go but, if communications are knocked out it makes it very hard to do anything. All states have there own EMA and every county should have a EMA as well That is why EMA entities should have emergency communication building to help out during disasters. to be able to answer to and support FEMA . ,People complain about this and that and seems to Blame Bush (yep Bush causes storms to appear he causes terrorists to fly planes etc etc.) Did you know the Federal Government can not protect you and did you know the Federal Government will never be able to protect your family it is impossible for Federal Government to be every where and it is impossible to think Bush is the cause of every thing. If you are worried about Martial Law rules and regs you had 20 years to do something about it and didn't I would be careful in what you ask for. And some advise be self efficient for any disaster or foreign invasions. also Other Countries have issued martial law (also the united states has issued martial law in the 1800's), and most them countries are still here today. Well this is my last post have a great life and remember when it comes from the heart for the whole it is good . if it comes from a way to oppress people and from a corrupt government and we are not there yet but possibly in the future
If there was a wide range of Disaster like on the scale of Katrina in 4 states plus where disaster area was so huge and massive off of the scale that the united states have ever seen. Martial Law helps to provide assurance that the United States survives and also a speedy recovery of aiding the innocent but, as a prime example during disaster you will always have some bad people that like to make problems and also to free lance to also cause problems as well. If 50 different people have a different idea on how to do anything there will never be nothing done very efficiently. People complained about the speed of aid to New Orleans
Nagin calls himself a Democrat to win elections in hugely Democratic New Orleans, but is a Republican - as you'd see, if you'd click my link documenting his personal donations to Republicans. Or if, like me, you had lived in New Orleans - and voted for him, like I did once.
You replied to my facts about the National Guard being prevented from coming from NM to LA, leaving LA without the help they requested, by talking about the 82nd Airborne. That's either an implication that the National Guard is federal, or just extremely bad logic.
Since you now come out in favor of invoking martial law, despite our getting by just fine without it for over 200 years, and have now revealed that you're a veteran, and are now parroting the Republican spin that "the Federal government cannot protect you", it's clear that you've got the worst combination of baseless implication and extremely bad logic.
You're a fascist. Keep out of my state with your jackboots and your excuses that your boy Bush sent you "to help". I live in NYC, where I'm from, having livedin New Orleans knowing a flood was inevitable, and in California through earthquakes. I don't need any advice on how to prepare for disasters. Certainly not from someone like you, whose writing makes my head hurt, whose logic makes my head spin, whose Bush worshipping opportunism to turn the country into fascism makes my head call you out. Take your love of the master of disaster to the Republican fantasyworld you all live in.
--
make install -not war
even though the responsibility for disaster planning and mobilizing the national guard rested solely with the local and state governments
Lie number one. State and local authorities are completely incapable of handling a Katrina-sized disaster all on their own, not to mention the fact that they are going to need some federal authorization and assitance in using federal resources. I doubt that Republicans who (claim to) want small government and low taxes really want to raise taxes high enough so that every state and city can handle any disaster likely to fall on them, on their own, rather than have mobile, federal resources that can be used in multiple states.
Well, this bill fixes that - the next time there is a disaster the the feds don't act fast enough, it really *will* be their fault, because this gives the the authority to do something, which they did *not* have during Katrina.
Lie number two. There are restrictions on the President using the military for domestic law enforcement operations, but Katrina required a disaster responce, not a law enforcment responce. Those acts specifically exempt natural disasters and "domestic violence" from the restrictions, like the L.A. riots in 1992.
If the Republicans were really concerned about there not being a repeat of their Katrina debacle, they would restore FEMA to being the well-run agency it was during the Clinton Administration, or coordinate with state and local autorities for planning mass evacuations in the event of large scale disasters. They have done neither.
This isn't about being prepared, this is just another power grab. Just like their "we need warrantless wiretapping to listen in on terrorists" was a complete lie, because they could already spy on supsected terrorists to their hearts content with FISA warrants. Shame on them, shame on you for peddling their nonsense, and shame on the Democrats for once again failing to have the backbone to stand up to right wing facism.
See http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/10/29/162837/62 A researcher for Jack Carter's NV Senate campaign has really taken this on, and wants to make some noise. Click to help out.
Your comparison of Bush to HItler is interesting in that the people in Germany actually like Hitler, for the most part.
or else!
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2006/roll145.xml
Only 32 nays... depressing.
Call me an old jaded dumb ass hippie if you like but what is really different about this? I remember four people in Ohio killed by National Guard troops back in 1970. A few more in Mississippi that year too. And a whole bunch of people offed at Waco just a few years ago. By the same government, kids. I just don't see Bush & Co. as any worse than some of his predecessors. It doesn't really seem to require a special law for the government to send out the troops and kill people they don't like.
Well said (I assume of course you are being sarcastic).
I am not actually comparing Bush to Hitler. Rather, I focus on the legalistic resemblance of Hitler's rise to power and the recent working in Washington.
The fact that I (and most of my friends) like and completely trust Bush, and support most of his decisions, is completely irrelevant:
Once certain pre-conditions are met and a basic framework conductive of a dictatorship is in place, it only takes one bad person for such a dictatorship to arise. I am confident it will not be Bush; I am less confident it would not be Hillary; and I have no idea about John Doe that will come after them.
The point is, I am not willing to weaken our democracy to the point where it will be at a mercy of (and up for grabs by) a 2008 presidential winner.
Obama likes poor people so much, he wants to make more of them.
First Lady, Mrs. Bush commented on how cute her Co-Dependent looks when smiling in the kitchen.
...at home if your military are busy imposing democracy abroad.
Why should I believe anything of the sort? The governors would be quick to save their own ass, as would any civil leader faced with troops and tanks in the street. Martial law does little to inspire courage and much to water the flowers of modesty and obsequiousness. Knowing better than to stick out their own neck, these putative Patrick Henrys would obey orders, lay low, shuffle papers and wait until the coast was clear for avarice-as-usual.
But we don't need to trade in hypotheticals. For a version-in-miniature of how American pols respond to strong arm tactics, just review the past six years of supplicatory response to Bushism by the Democratic Party. Do but prick them and they squeal! If I were Bush--which is to say, if I cared not one whit for constitutional law or democratic processes, if I thought patrimony and privilege gave me a quasi-divine right to rule--the consequences of a crackdown are the very last thing I'd worry about. A few tax credits to the middle class, and the TV-gazing fools would shut up fast enough. I'd even let ol' Olbermann go on doing his beetle-browed Murrow imitation for the few to whom it matters. If too many started paying attention, the CIA could take some photos of him and an orangutan in a hot tub.
We are relatively free, for now, even as the situation has grown more odious each year. The electoral charade, despite its acres of uncounted votes and its Third World-style intimidation, lurches on as clunkily as ever. Little in American experience today suggests that the majority cares if we remain this free or are less free, if we are governed by law or ruled by fiat, if we can chatter privately or are recorded, if our streets are policed or militarily occupied, and even less suggests that our dissipated millionaire political class will fight for us, ever. So let's put no faith in governors, but discover some in ourselves.
The guy from the monster raving loony party DOES have a chance at winning, if his votes get too high the "serious" candidates get nervous. God forbid that he wins, talk about media circus!!
By "annihilate" I meant "annihilate" (as in "utterly wipe out"), not "kill some of." The only way to effectively secure a victory against such milita using large bombs (many have even mentioned nukes when talking about the alleged uselessness of the second amendment, though the GP didn't) is to destroy ALL the civilians right along with them. Now, you might make limited use of large bombs in a fear campaign against the people, but it must be used in combination with an effective propaganda campaign and even then it is not guaranteed to work--indeed, it could easily backfire and inspire more civilians to join the milita. Thus, in a guerilla-war type situation where truly annhilating the populace is not an option, you cannot rely on bombs alone to carry the day.
I don't know how exactly you classify a humanitarian disaster, but we're talking about more than a 1000 dead here; not to mention the horrendous stories of what went on in the superdome and on the streets of New Orleans. You can alway argue scale, but it seems to me the term 'humanitarian disaster' is quite suitable here.
Actually, yes. But I do believe that I said more along the lines of what he meant. :-)
We shouldnt have to mobilize the army for disaster relief, that is what the national guard is for. The president has every right to mobilize the national guard in domestic emergency situations.
Maybe I should have said "more of". It would have been an order of magnitude worse without the military response. Tens of thousands were airlifted to safety from rooftops, hundreds of thousands were given water and MREs. Considering that a city that lies below sea level was not properly evacuated ahead of a hurricane, 1000 dead is a freakin' miracle.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
And your ignorance is astonishing.
1) The storm surge that came up the Mississippi coast was 25 feet. It put entire counties under water. More than half a million Mississippians required FEMA assistance. Yet, somehow, their deaths were counted in the tens instead of the hundreds.
2) The behavior of the press in New Orleans had a huge effect on the relief operation. Among other things, the National Guard (who you claim wasn't there) blocked the Red Cross from entering the area because of press reports of snipers and looters. - Snipers and looters who turned out to not exist.
I will, however, concede that I can't find the timeline document I read (I think wikipedia's been changed since then) that pointed out that Blanco had made calls in the press for more troops but never actually sent the legally required documents request Bush to deploy troops in her state, and she refused to give Bush and FEMA control of the Louisiana National Guard units, which meant he had no ability to command them.
Clear, Dark Skies
In some cases, elections might be a good tool to see who your political enemies are. State X voted 80% against me, time to cut some federal funding!
You know, there are probably quite a few once-slaves writhing in their small anonymous graves right now at that comment. Yes, a lot of people shackle themselves due to poor control, but it's in no way slavery. "Buying crap you don't need" is entirely voluntary, and an aspect of people's own lack of responsibility. If you want to make a monentary reference to slavery, perhaps you could consider those in poorer areas that work crappy/demeaning/low-paying jobs in order to scrape by, unable to afford a proper education for themselves (or their offspring) and thus produce offspring that work in the same cycle of low income, poor education, and low-grade employment.
Says the AC. But I'll "byte"....
:)
;)
I was actually shooting for "funny" here. And quoting someone in quotes isn't intellectual plaigiarism, it's simply a quote. I assumed (perhaps incorrectly) that making the reference would be... superfluous?
Trash the mods, perhaps, but that quote was hardly worthy of your ire
Oh, and
And a lot of times, they say things that are smart and make a whole lot of sense.
Have you been reading the same website I have?
>No, it's about preserving our national values and our constitution, something I think is a bit more important and would hope that even "Nerds" have a bit of an interest in.
Exactly. Which is why politics shouldn't be approached like watching football. The parent obviously viewed the article as an attack on Republicans -- "his team." I don't care who overturns the Bill of Rights or the Writ of Habeas Corpus; I care that they're gone. We need more intelligent political discourse.
In short, bullshit. There is a wealth of evidence to indicate that FEMA, DHS, and Bush himself simply sat on their hands and did jack shit while the water poured into the city.
My book, podcast
The problem is that the crazy's on the far left have poisoned the well and we no longer believe them when they say they are only going to ban handguns/cheap guns/saturday night specials/assaultweapons/sniper rifles/high capacity weapons...
Martial law gives a whole new meaning to "support our troops" ---"DUDE!? why are you arresting me? I SUPPORT our troops!" This may very well be intended to avoid another Katrina disaster, most of the problems of Katrina wouldn't have been solved by martial law (martial law woulnd't have saved the levees, martial law wouldn't have fed the people, martial law WOULD have stressed the survivors out more), and the law is worded so as to almost ensure future abuse. It reminds me of poorly written computer code, with a loophole that allows hackers an easy entrance-- it may not have been intended for that purpose, but someone sinister will find a way to use it that way.
Haven't seen it here yet, but it bears repeating. From Nobel laureate Rabindranath Tagore:
Power takes as ingratitude the writhing of its victims.
No, you are mistaken.
If you have a group of 4 people with an IQ of 40 and one person with an IQ of 200, 80% have a below average IQ.
Whatever! George W.'s presidential days are numbered. He'll be out of the White House in another year, and all his useless decisions won't make a difference anyhow. Sometimes I think he's made the decisions he had, simply because he needed to be noted in the history books. Let him declare martial law, because it would be the most useless, ineffective control of society ever. Take for example Iraq, martial law example one. Oh, and how about that nice LITTLE reinforcement effort in New Orleans after Katrina. Like most of the other a**holes in the world, he just wants to look good on legislative paper.
Only if you use the mean. The only people who use the mean are the ignorant and people trying to twist the numbers around (politicians, mostly, I would think). Although there are a lot of ignorant people, through no fault of their own... I remember being taught "mean, median, and mode" in school, and thinking "OK, this mode thing is crap, but why would you have both mean AND median?". No one pointed out to me how bad mean really is for most applications... it gives almost NO information, and for the reason you stated.
While I'll grant you that in popular usage, the word "average" often means "mean", it shouldn't, and my post was intended to gently point that out:
Using your example and median, the "average" IQ is 40, so 80% have the average and 1 person is above the average, with the bonus that the "average" better represents the entire group's properties!
Be careful where you point that thing.
As I said before, I have no intention ofd defending the press here.
I would assume it was removed because it wasn't true. The assertions are not only factually incorrect (she had in fact formally declared a state of emergency days earlier) but the implications drawn from them (that something more was needed from her for FEMA to act) were wrong as well.
It was, in short, a failed attempt at exculpatory propaganda by the Bush administration that fell by the wayside once people started checking the "facts" behind it.
--MarkusQ
Partly correct; the citizenship of Louisiana wanted the restrictions loosened. If something that disatrous happened in my own state, I'd want something to be done as well... but there's more to consider than just manpower.
I live in Colorado, but I did pay attention last year. I don't remember thinking, "boy, I sure would like to see the Navy and Marines come and swoop-in whenever there's a domestic problem." I saw Katrina. I know what she did... I have family near Biloxi, for crissake! The fact is, we already have a domestic force for "troubles at home". It's not like it was ever "missing", but its numbers were weakened!
*I* remember thinking, "Dammit... there's not enough Guard or Reserve troops to handle a crisis of this magnitude be-CAUSE they're off fightin' a FOKKIN "war on ter'r". Mother Nature deals us a whopping blow, and do we re-organize to handle it? NO! (wtF?) It's the war-as-usual while we point our fingers at the nincompoop that was appointed by other nincompoops. Browning was called to be removed after Hurricane Frances... (gave $30 mil to Miami, unaffected by the hurricane) but it wasn't until the ultimate damage was done with Katrina that he was given permission to walk out. Bush said, "you're doing a heck of a job." source (Thanks for being such a stooge! Enjoy your summer home!)
There's a point where you have to look at these things as more than "unfortunate"... this may have been a carefully orchestrated stanza of chaos. Consider that it while it appears to be "rolling the dice"... in the end, Katrina did more to erode Civil Liberties than Bin Laden could ever do.
It's been nearly a hundred-fifty years since our last Civil War... are we due? Ironically, the issue of slavery may be back on the table after all. (different sort, however)
War IS Terror. There is no "fighting for peace".This post © Copyrite Duggeek, all rights reversed.
Frankly, I think militias suffer from the 'hacker effect'. Pretty much everyone that reads /. should know what I'm talking about. The word 'militia' has a negative connotation now due to media coverage of radical groups that called themselves militias. It's just the same as how a "hacker" is now viewed by Joe Sixpack as being some l33t guy who can automagically steal credit card numbers with nothing more than a USB thumb drive and a blackberry. This has little to do with the original meaning of the word.
I'm all for the other sort of militia.
In my book, a militia should be comprised of a group of volunteers that are in no way compensated or supported by the government. They should be armed (at least on the individual level) with weaponry obtained and owned by the individual expected to use it. A militia member should be trained as best as possible, and should continue training in military techniques as part of being a member of the militia. This should all be done within the letter of the law.
A militia should also work closely with the local government to devise action plans for all sorts of major emergencies, such as earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, and hurricanes. In fact, a well-run militia should (at least from my perspective) resemble the national gaurd in many ways, except for the command structure. A militia should be made up of members of the local community, and as such have no authority above it in the chain of command -- the only orders should be generated by the militia itself, as a direct result of the needs of the local community, and should reflect those needs.
Fill in your four or five-letter word of wisdom here _ _ _ _ _.