Bush Signs Bill Enabling Martial Law

An anonymous reader writes to point us to an article on the meaning of a new law that President Bush signed on Oct. 17. It seems to allow the President to impose martial law on any state or territory, using federal troops and/or the state's own, or other states', National Guard troops. From the article: "In a stealth maneuver, President Bush has signed into law a provision which, according to Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont), will actually encourage the President to declare federal martial law. It does so by revising the Insurrection Act, a set of laws that limits the President's ability to deploy troops within the United States. The Insurrection Act (10 U.S.C.331 -335) has historically, along with the Posse Comitatus Act (18 U.S.C.1385), helped to enforce strict prohibitions on military involvement in domestic law enforcement. With one cloaked swipe of his pen, Bush is seeking to undo those prohibitions." Here is a link to the bill in question. The relevant part is Sec. 1076 about 3/4 of the way down the page.

Comments

Oh My.

[Meagermanx]

My initial reaction to this is "Oh My."
Sometimes, people in power should have checks and balances to their ability to oppress their own people. After all, a little revolution now and again is a good thing.

Re:Oh My.

[Rachel Lucid]

Yes, I'm pretty sure when the elections get 'cancelled indefinitely' we'll be all primed for revolution. Provided we're not all distracted by the new consoles first.

Re:Oh My.

[daeg]

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

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

Re:Oh My.

[HotBlackDessiato]

Yes, I'm pretty sure when the elections get 'cancelled indefinitely' we'll be all primed for revolution. Provided we're not all distracted by the new consoles first.

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

Re:Oh My.

[bgfay]

The biggest concern I have as an American is that the checks and balances simply are not working and the administration just keeps demanding that we trust them. We won't torture--wink, wink. We won't tap your phone-line--nod, nod. And so on.

My brother and I were just talking about how for the first time in a long time the midterm elections are of paramount importance. With three branches of government sufficiently controlled by the administration's party, we are going down the drain. If we take the House and maybe (oh please, oh please) the Senate, we have the chance to do something that matters: nothing.

That sounds odd I know. But the real goal of putting the Congress in Democratic hands is to keep the administration from doing more of the same. Nothing would be preferable to the damage being done at the moment.

Re:Oh My.

[Broken scope]

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

Re:Oh My.

[TerranFury]

Well, there's always Jeb.

*shudder*

Re:Oh My.

[jnf]

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

Re:Oh My.

[lawpoop]

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

Who says Americans don't remember history?

Re:Oh My.

[Teilo]

As far as such executive orders go, this administration, as well as the prior two, have been extremely prolific. Look up the powers that the Clinton administration granted FEMA in case of a national emergency, and which Bush has extended.

The interesting question is not why Republicans do not object when their Republican president issues these orders, but why these same Republicans also held their peace when Clinton was signing them like mad, and why the Democrats are silent about the executive orders which Bush is currently issuing, when they are so vocal about everything else this President does.

When the Presidency makes a power grab, suddenly bi-partisanship is the name of the game? This is clearly not a republican vs. democrat issue. It's freedom vs. fascism which cuts across all party lines.

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

Re:Oh My.

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:Oh My.

[Yusaku Godai]

As a 'leftist gun grabber' (at least, what I think you mean, is someone who wants to take your guns away) I did have this epiphany not too long ago. Maybe a year or so ago, if not less.

I used to think that citizen militias were all a bunch of kooks (and let's face it, a lot of them are), but they seem to have the right idea as far as defending themselves from their government. I still think that gun laws should be strictly enforced and that gun ownership should be limited. I think that it's silly to own a gun for "protection", unless, as I've realized, it's to protect yourself from the government. I do fear there may come a day when Americans are forced to rise against the federal government. I wouldn't *like* that, but when I see news stories like this, my paranoid side really kicks in and tells me to go out and buy a gun (and learn how to use it).

Re:Oh My.

[Yusaku Godai]

Whenever a Republican brings up the "you want the terrorists to win" talking point, I usually ask them "would you want Hillary Clinton to declare anyone an enemy combatant and detain them indefinately?"

I have yet to receive a response to that question.

Re:Oh My.

[hb253]

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

Re:Oh My.

[Original Replica]

You actually think a bunch of untrained civilians with guns would stand an ounce of a chance against the most powerful military in the world?
They see to be holding their own in Iraq.

Re:Oh My.

[jbrader]

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

Re:Oh My.

[Doc Ruby]

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

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

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

Re:Oh My.

[Anonymous Coward]

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

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

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

Re:Oh My.

[wrf3]

I don't know why parent was modded funny. As a right winger I'm so mad at the big spending, big government Republicans that I've almost talked myself into staying home in November. I don't know which is worse: how much I absolutely despise the Democrats or my anger at the Republicans. I wish ballots had "none of the above" which, if it "won", would force new elections with new candidates.

Re:Oh My.

[fimbulvetr]

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

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

Re:Oh My.

[BlindFate]

Are you saying the current elections arent pretend?

Re:Oh My.

[Tony Hoyle]

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

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

Re:Oh My.

[Broken scope]

I find it funny.

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

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

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

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

Re:Oh My.

[Ucklak]

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

Re:Oh My.

[S.O.B.]

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

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

Re:Oh My.

[flamingnight]

At the point when you're "scared enough to buy a gun," it will probably be too late for you to do so.

Re:Oh My.

[Ucklak]

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

Re:Oh My.

[Waffle Iron]

Here's a clue for you: the Iraqi insurgency doesn't use weapons that are legal for you to own. So much for the 2nd amendment.

Re:Oh My.

[Sancho]

You (and people like you) are exactly why we are in this mess to begin with.

You look at the American government through polarized lenses. You "despise Democrats" and are "angry at the Republicans" rather than looking at the individuals in the various parties as individuals. Not all Democrats vote along party lines. Nor do all Republicans, yet you're willing to stay home from the elections rather than looking at the issues, who supports what, and making a decision. Worse, you don't even seem willing to vote for third-party candidates (their presence next election depends upon their votes in this one).

That is the true disease of American politics: a combination of partisan behavior and apathy. It's why They win, every time. It's why our elections are largely for show. It's why, no matter who wins next November, we'll probably be in exactly the same boat.

Re:Oh My.

[lonesome phreak]

Actually, probably so. Many in the armed forces would not take up arms against their fellow countrymen without a damn good reason. It's one thing doing disaster recovery...it's another to tell them to go "house to house" in New York or Chicago. Even using troops from different areas of the country probably wouldn't work too well. I would expect the officer corp would be very much against it to.

A decent chunk of the US's population is former military too. They know how to fight, know what equipment to sabatoge, and could easily make life a living hell for the troops who didn't just flat walk out and quit when the pacification order was given.

Currently, there are 499,000 active duty Army troops, backed up by 700,000 National Guard and Army reservists. There are, as of 2005, 67,742,879 males age 18-49 and 67,070,144 females age 18-49. 12 million vs. 1.2 million. Many of the active duty / reserve troops are dissatisfied due to Iraq already...what do you think their reaction would be to have to come home to enforce martial law?

If it actually came to the point of using artillary or ordinace against US citizens, then whatever administration started it has already lost. They would probably accomplish hastening the end of our current civilization too.

This isn't even bringing the UN or EU into the fray. A highly destablized and civil-warring US would be horrible news for the rest of the globe too. Something tells me everyone wouldn't just sit by and watch us nuke ourselves 10,000 times over.

Re:Oh My.

[LindseyJ]

Poor voter turnout is noticed.

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

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

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

Re:Oh My.

[Dark_MadMax666]

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

Re:Oh My.

[minion]

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

Re:Oh My.

[vcalzone]

Give me a fiscally responsible, small government, pro-life candidate who supports the war on terror (appeasers need not apply) and I'll consider voting for them.

How can the government possibly be small if they involve themselves with personal issues rooted in subjective morality like a woman's reproductive rights, and how can an open-ended war on an intangible opponent be considered fiscally responsible? Either you have a government that maintains the right to curb liberties as they see fit and can spend billions of dollars on something that will never see any returns, or you can have a government that conserves money and doesn't interfere in the private lives of its citizens. I don't think the war on terror is a bad idea, and I have never seen any quote from any Democratic party member saying so, either. The problem is that Bush is wasting all our money, our resolve, and our international credibility on a war that didn't have much to do with terror in the first place.

Re:Oh My.

[Urza9814]

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

Re:Oh My.

[jonom]

As a right winger I'm so mad at the big spending, big government Republicans that I've almost talked myself into staying home in November.

The worst possible thing you could do is stay home.

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

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

Re:Oh My.

[dircha]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re:Oh My.

[Penguin Follower]

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

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

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

Re: Oh my.

[Thomas Shaddack]

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

Re:Oh My.

[MKalus]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re:Oh My.

[toddestan]

As a right winger I'm so mad at the big spending, big government Republicans that I've almost talked myself into staying home in November.

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

Re:Oh My.

[TapeCutter]

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

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

Re:Oh My.

[TapeCutter]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re:Oh My.

[stinerman]

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

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

Re:Oh My.

[srmalloy]

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

Re:Oh My.

[killjoe]

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

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

Re:Oh My.

[Lorkki]

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

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

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

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

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

Re:Oh My.

[Fafnir43]

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

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

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

You put forward two main arguments:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re:Oh My.

[Fafnir43]

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

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

Two points:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re:Oh My.

[b0s0z0ku]

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

"Arms" means "weapons." The 2nd amendment, as originally written, didn't qualify this as "to keep and bear *small* arms." This is just a later interpretation.

-b.

"Posse Comitatus" and "Insurrection"

[gardyloo]

I'm quite certain that Bush thinks those are some conditions to be fixed with 5iaGRa.

In a stelthier move...

[LordEd]

... the white house quickly slashdots the article alerting people to the bill.

Hurricane and winter storms

[flyingfsck]

This probably has more to do with the hurricanes and winter storms. During Katrina, the Feds were criticised for *not* bringing in the defence force to render aid.

Re:Hurricane and winter storms

[majutsu]

Or that is one way to justify it.

Re:Hurricane and winter storms

[Xeth]

I'm sure that's a reasonable justification. But the granted powers are considerably beyond the scope of rendering aid in an emergency. Why would you grant government powers so incredibly far-reaching when the solution requires something much narrower?

Re:frist psot

[EGSonikku]

http://news.pacificnews.org/news/view_article.html ?article_id=eed74d9d44c30493706fe03f4c9b3a77

Coincidence ? I'm not normally part of the tinfoil brigade but now I calls it like I see's it.

Obligatory....

[LordPhantom]

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

Re:Obligatory....

[quigonn]

You still have the right to bear arms. Or were yours forcefully amputated already?

Oh Jesus..

[yamamushi]

How much more are people going to take before they realize what is going on here? Seriously, we're only a step away from open revolution.. Will it actually take having troops parade around your hometown enforcing martial law before people stand up for their rights?? (which we don't have many anymore). I'm not saying there should be a call-to-arms, but I AM saying that people need to wake up and see what's going on before it's too late! First Patriot Act, Patriot Act II, Military Commissions Act, and now THIS?! All in the name of "terrorism". We're just letting the government trample all over our constitution, because people don't understand why it was written in the first place, TO LIMIT GOVERNMENT! When will people realize that FREEDOM is NOT letting your government take away all your rights...

Re:Oh Jesus..

[dkmeans]

Get a clue -- the American public is very heavily armed last time I checked...the government doesn't like us owning 200 million plus firearms...be glad for the 2nd amendment...that's what it's ther for. We can, and will shoot back. One day you might actually be glad there's the NRA protecting your rights to not be opressed at teh end of a rifle from your government....

Calling Godwin

[rolfwind]

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

Well, it USED to be about freedom

[slidersv]

I feel like I'm bent over, my pants are down, and the illiterate president is hard at work behind me.
Considering the statement "Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it" and the quality of education in US public schools, I get the feeling of inevitability.
Peak of cold war jumps to mind, except now instead of communism, it's called terrorism.

Are we doomed? Is slavery at hand?
Unless people would stop choosing their leaders based on their tie quality, we will all suffer.

Re:Well, it USED to be about freedom

[Anonymous Coward]

Slavery is nigh, actually. It's just of a different form. These days, it's economic slavery. People being seduced into buying all sorts of crap they don't need and putting it on credit. People seduced into buying cars on extended credit. People suckered into drawing down the equity in their houses the moment they actually start to see daylight. The goal is to keep you all perpetually shackled to debt, and keep sucking on the cigarette of consumerism. Keep buying; keep digging yourselves deeper into debt; never stop. Keeping everyone up to their eyeballs in debt is the only way to achieve wealth for all. Yeah, right.

Text of the section

[Anonymous Coward]

Rather than having everyone load a huge bill... here is the text of the section:
The formatting sucks, but hey, it's congress.

=========

SEC. 1076. USE OF THE ARMED FORCES IN MAJOR PUBLIC EMER-
GENCIES.
(a) USE OF THE ARMED FORCES AUTHORIZED.--
(1) IN GENERAL.--Section 333 of title 10, United States
Code, is amended to read as follows:
" 333. Major public emergencies; interference with State and
Federal law
"(a) USE OF ARMED FORCES IN MAJOR PUBLIC EMERGENCIES.--
(1) The President may employ the armed forces, including the
National Guard in Federal service, to--
"(A) restore public order and enforce the laws of the United
States when, as a result of a natural disaster, epidemic, or
other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or
incident, or other condition in any State or possession of the
United States, the President determines that--
"(i) domestic violence has occurred to such an extent
that the constituted authorities of the State or possession
are incapable of maintaining public order; and
"(ii) such violence results in a condition described in
paragraph (2); or
"(B) suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic
violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy if such insurrec-
tion, violation, combination, or conspiracy results in a condition
described in paragraph (2).
"(2) A condition described in this paragraph is a condition
that-- "(A) so hinders the execution of the laws of a State or
possession, as applicable, and of the United States within that
State or possession, that any part or class of its people is
deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named
in the Constitution and secured by law, and the constituted
authorities of that State or possession are unable, fail, or refuse
to protect that right, privilege, or immunity, or to give that
protection; or
"(B) opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the
United States or impedes the course of justice under those
laws.
"(3) In any situation covered by paragraph (1)(B), the State
shall be considered to have denied the equal protection of the
laws secured by the Constitution.
"(b) NOTICE TO CONGRESS.--The President shall notify Congress
of the determination to exercise

Re:Text of the section

[Lawrence_Bird]

Oh so shocking that the Senator from VT would cry about the bill after it is passed. Where were the Dems when it was voted on? Where was the fillibuster? And all you Katrina 'why didn't the feds do more' whiners are now getting exactly what you deserve.

Re:Text of the section

[ben there...]

Oh so shocking that the Senator from VT would cry about the bill after it is passed. Where were the Dems when it was voted on?

TFA is slashdotted, but I news.google'd it, and here were Leahy's objections prior to the signing of the bill:

Despite the unprecedented and shocking nature of this act, there has been no outcry in the American media, and little reaction from our elected officials in Congress. On September 19th, a lone Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont) noted that 2007's Defense Authorization Act contained a "widely opposed provision to allow the President more control over the National Guard [adopting] changes to the Insurrection Act, which will make it easier for this or any future President to use the military to restore domestic order WITHOUT the consent of the nation's governors."

Senator Leahy went on to stress that, "we certainly do not need to make it easier for Presidents to declare martial law. Invoking the Insurrection Act and using the military for law enforcement activities goes against some of the central tenets of our democracy. One can easily envision governors and mayors in charge of an emergency having to constantly look over their shoulders while someone who has never visited their communities gives the orders."

A few weeks later, on the 29th of September, Leahy entered into the Congressional Record that he had "grave reservations about certain provisions of the fiscal Year 2007 Defense Authorization Bill Conference Report," the language of which, he said, "subverts solid, longstanding posse comitatus statutes that limit the military's involvement in law enforcement, thereby making it easier for the President to declare martial law." This had been "slipped in," Leahy said, "as a rider with little study," while "other congressional committees with jurisdiction over these matters had no chance to comment, let alone hold hearings on, these proposals."

In a telling bit of understatement, the Senator from Vermont noted that "the implications of changing the (Posse Comitatus) Act are enormous". "There is good reason," he said, "for the constructive friction in existing law when it comes to martial law declarations. Using the military for law enforcement goes against one of the founding tenets of our democracy. We fail our Constitution, neglecting the rights of the States, when we make it easier for the President to declare martial law and trample on local and state sovereignty."

Senator Leahy's final ruminations: "Since hearing word a couple of weeks ago that this outcome was likely, I have wondered how Congress could have gotten to this point. It seems the changes to the Insurrection Act have survived the Conference because the Pentagon and the White House want it."

It seems Leahy was objecting to the bill. Your favorite news source just didn't tell you he was.

Re:If you didn't vote Libertarian, you ASKED FOR T

[Xeth]

Um, alternatively, a vote against a Libertarian candidate is a show of disbelief about the benefits of a largely unregulated economy. Yes, the Libertarians have a few right ideas. But I think that the mercantile right is, in fact, one of the less-important rights, and sometimes it must be lessened to ensure that other rights are safeguarded and society is bettered.

OCTOBER SURPRISE!!!!

[arcite]

SURPRISE!

I for one welcome our new illustrious and infallible world leader for life.

I humbly volunteer to be a mole for the new empire Pax america.

Perhaps I could spit polish Karl Rove's shoes? Your sires? :::cowers away:::

Gzipped version

[mgkimsal2]

I'm already getting hammered here - not sure how many people are using gzip in the browser to pull from my web server, but http://fosterburgess.com/kimsal/martiallaw.html.gz would definitely give you a gzipped version, lightening the load on my bandwidth a bit :)

Open revolution??

[daninaustin]

Come on now. Most of the people who oppose Bush are also the same ones for gun control. What are you going to revolt with, rocks and sticks? Remember rule #1... You need a gun for a gunfight.

Re:Open revolution??

[Mr. Slippery]

Most of the people who oppose Bush are also the same ones for gun control.

Actually gun control attitudes correspond better to urban/rural than lef/right. There are a significant number of leftists with guns out there, and a lot of conservatives who favor gun control.

Remember, it was conservative icon Ronald Reagan who signed the first modern gun control law, California's 1967 Mulford Act, to disarm the leftist Black Panthers.

Re:Open revolution??

[thrillseeker]

For every 20 gun control moms in minivans, there's a crazy anarchist hippie with an arsenal ready to be passed around

Dad?

Remember remember the 5th of november...

[arcite]

Oh #hit! It's almost here and I haven't gotten my Fedex with my mask and cape yet!

Did anyone get a delivery for a g. fox by accident? Anyone?

Well, that's one way...

[jafo]

That's one way to get around those pesky two term limits.

Sean

Re:Law

[__aaclcg7560]

You mean to tell me that NO Democrat and NO Republican read the bill, and after the bill was passed they found out what they voted for?

A lot of these bills are not properly vetted and stuff get put in them all the time. Don't forget that this is the same Congress that approved a "Highway to Nowhere" in Alaska and practically done nothing that the people wanted but chased after stuff that only the Beltway talking heads were talking about. I'm looking forward to this election shaking up the entire political establishment.

Mod parent up!

[khasim]

Even Saddam had elections.

It isn't whether you have elections, it's who counts the votes.

Re:Mod parent up!

[Alpha Prime]

And with Diebold counting the vote, we're screwed!

Re:Mod parent up!

[Monchanger]

In these fake democracies, it's probably not really a matter of counting votes as much as the combination of opposition suppression and voter intimidation.

The "democratically elected" government (a de facto dictatorship), will outlaw other parties from running for oddball reasons. "Coincidentally", this happens to any party that even begins to show signs of popular support. The easiest way of doing this is by suppressing free speech (hey China! how's it going?), and jailing those who speak up against the government (Egypt has always been great at that, and they're the most democratic Arab country in the region, except perhaps now Turkey).

Incidentally, we have both (though to lesser degrees) right here in the good old USA:
* The Democrats actively take the Green party to court to stop them from running. I'm not sure if the Republicans do the same to the Liberatarian party, but I wouldn't be surprised. People are really fed up with both of these corrupt parties, but have no alternative since once a third party seems to be viable, they'll be shot in the head before the people have the chance to hear about it.
* Both Democrats but more often Republicans employ advertising intended to scare people into voting for them. In the Republican case, they'll even stoop to veiled religious threats ("if you don't vote for XYZ, you'll go to hell...").

Legal inconsistencies?

[BeeBeard]

I will only agree to this if it doesn't interfere with my right to be beaten, tortured, and detained against my will. Otherwise, the President can just count me out of this. No thank you, sir!

Voluntary or involuntary

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

States and localities could request military assistance already. Governor Bianco invoked the Stafford Act on August 27, and Mayor Nagin less formally said "We need troops, man!".

The Insurrection Act is about using Federal troops to coerce a local government. For example, President Eisenhower used it on Little Rock when they violated a court order to desegregate.

Re:Law

[BorgCopyeditor]

Not to mention the way the "USA PATRIOT Act" was rushed through. People react to this sort of news as though the Congress' rules are somehow fair and would prevent this kind of manipulation. People, that is, who haven't studied how Congress actually works.

I've got your package

[BeeBeard]

Dear Mr. Fox,

Hey Mr. Fox. Name's Bob. Listen, I think our deliveries got mixed up and I've got your mask thing or whatever. It also came with two of those crazy 3-pronged Japanese forks, you know--like that ninja turtle uses? Is your real name Raphael?! Because if so, I can totally keep a secret! Cowabunga! Also, if you got a 30-count box of cherry flavored edible underwear, then you just hang onto that. That's, um, for a science experiment I'm conducting for the Nobel...um..Committee...um...Administration for Forwardness. That's right. The Nobel Comittee Administration for Forwardness. Yes. Just email me your phone number and we can arrange to swap these boxes out tomorrow.

-Bob "Beebeard" Beekowski

Re:frist psot

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

Bush Moves Toward Martial Law
Frank Morales

October 26, 2006

In a stealth maneuver, President Bush has signed into law a provision which, according to Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont), will actually encourage the President to declare federal martial law (1). It does so by revising the Insurrection Act, a set of laws that limits the President's ability to deploy troops within the United States. The Insurrection Act (10 U.S.C.331 -335) has historically, along with the Posse Comitatus Act (18 U.S.C.1385), helped to enforce strict prohibitions on military involvement in domestic law enforcement. With one cloaked swipe of his pen, Bush is seeking to undo those prohibitions.

Public Law 109-364, or the "John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007" (H.R.5122) (2), which was signed by the commander in chief on October 17th, 2006, in a private Oval Office ceremony, allows the President to declare a "public emergency" and station troops anywhere in America and take control of state-based National Guard units without the consent of the governor or local authorities, in order to "suppress public disorder."

President Bush seized this unprecedented power on the very same day that he signed the equally odious Military Commissions Act of 2006. In a sense, the two laws complement one another. One allows for torture and detention abroad, while the other seeks to enforce acquiescence at home, preparing to order the military onto the streets of America. Remember, the term for putting an area under military law enforcement control is precise; the term is "martial law."

Section 1076 of the massive Authorization Act, which grants the Pentagon another $500-plus-billion for its ill-advised adventures, is entitled, "Use of the Armed Forces in Major Public Emergencies." Section 333, "Major public emergencies; interference with State and Federal law" states that "the President may employ the armed forces, including the National Guard in Federal service, to restore public order and enforce the laws of the United States when, as a result of a natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident, or other condition in any State or possession of the United States, the President determines that domestic violence has occurred to such an extent that the constituted authorities of the State or possession are incapable of ("refuse" or "fail" in) maintaining public order, "in order to suppress, in any State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy."

For the current President, "enforcement of the laws to restore public order" means to commandeer guardsmen from any state, over the objections of local governmental, military and local police entities; ship them off to another state; conscript them in a law enforcement mode; and set them loose against "disorderly" citizenry - protesters, possibly, or those who object to forced vaccinations and quarantines in the event of a bio-terror event.

The law also facilitates militarized police round-ups and detention of protesters, so called "illegal aliens," "potential terrorists" and other "undesirables" for detention in facilities already contracted for and under construction by Halliburton. That's right. Under the cover of a trumped-up "immigration emergency" and the frenzied militarization of the southern border, detention camps are being constructed right under our noses, camps designed for anyone who resists the foreign and domestic agenda of the Bush administration.

An article on "recent contract awards" in a recent issue of the slick, insider "Journal of Counterterrorism & Homeland Security International" reported that "global engineering and technical services powerhouse KBR [Kellog, Brown & Root] announced in January 2006 that its Government and Infrastructure division was awarded an Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract to support U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) facilities in the event of an emergency." "With a maximum total value of

This sounds like a troll

[Bertie]

And I apologise if it sparks off a huge flame war, it's not my intention. I assure you it's a serious question.

Sitting here in the UK (and yes, it's hardly a shining example for the rest of the world, most of us are all too aware of it), it's easy to get the impression that George W. Bush has bumbled his way through office for six years or whatever and not done a single thing right.

Is this impression correct? Seriously, has he done anything good?

Re:This sounds like a troll

[LaughingCoder]

Seriously, has he [Bush] done anything good?

Well, we haven't had a terrorist attack on our soil in 6 years. And the economy is chugging along nicely. The Dow hit another a series of all time highs last week. Unemployment is very low. Obesity is a big problem, so we aren't starving by any means ;-) Libya (largely due to what happened to Iraq) has backed down and become more reasonable, making amends for past transgressions. Afghanistan is no longer run by Islamic fascists, and it is no longer hiding/accomodating/sponsering terrorists. NASA put two rovers on Mars and they have vastly outperformed their original mission. Much progress has been made on the International Space Station. The US led the relief effort after the tsunami. And in 2 years there will be (yet another) orderly transition of power to the next president.

The list of good things that have occurred during Bush's 2 terms is fairly long (as, sadly, is the list of bad things). Now most here will say that Bush had nothing to do with those successes, but then they blame him for everything bad. In my view you can't have it both ways. Anyhow, in the end history will judge this presidency. It is impossible to judge it whilst we are in the middle of it.

Re:This sounds like a troll

[Bertie]

See, in my view your economy's only chugging along nicely because your government's running up astronomical debts without a thought for how they'll ever be repaid. I think they know they Democrats will get in next time, and they're going to hand them a mountain of debt, which they'll try and sort out, causing a serious cooling of the economy. Then four years later, back will come the Republicans, saying "remember how good you had it under us?"

Look under the surface and you'll find that the dollar's very, very vulnerable, and that China's busy buying up your bond markets piece by piece, using the money you're sending them for all those cheap imports you love so much. Sure, everything's rosy now, but I think it's going to get very ugly soon.

Re:This sounds like a troll

[LaughingCoder]

Who's to say the first one was a terrorist attack and not an attack planned out by the current administration?

As soon as you write this, 75% of the readers (and 100% of the rational readers) stop reading. I only read on because I was looking forward to you further embarrassing yourself with ludicrous statements. You should have saved this silly statement for last.

Speaking of silly statements, let's continue to examine your undeniably false, post:

NASA's budget has gone up during Bush's 6 years. It went down during the Clinton years http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_Budget And the vast majority of NASA's budget has been for the shuttle, which is used mostly to build the space station, not military missions (sorry - you are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts)

debateable on whether they've backed down, or are playing their cards

Yeah, it's a coincidence it happened weeks after we caught Sadam (after Libya was a "rogue" nation for the better part of 2 decades)

The economy started to rebound, and the market began to jump, shortly after the tax cuts and the changes to the tax code reducing the rate at which dividends would be taxed.

Why is it that the brainless invariably post AC?

Re:This sounds like a troll

[RAMMS EIN]

``The Dow hit another a series of all time highs last week.''

In US dollars or in Real money? If you adjust for inflation, the Dow has seen it's last high in 2000.

Re:This sounds like a troll

[LaughingCoder]

He's given dozens of tax benefits to the rich.

Oh, this is "rich". OK, let's address this tired liberal mantra. First of all, the 2005 tax cuts INCREASED the percentage of tax revenues paid by the top 1%, top 5%, top 20% and top 50% of the taxpayers. It REDUCED the percentage paid by the bottom 50%. And, in terms of percentage cuts, it most favored the lower rung taxpayers because the increased child tax credits (what's a measly $1000 to a millionaire?) disproportionately benefited the "poor". Second of all, the top 50% of taxpayers pay over 94% of ALL TAXES. So, here's a little riddle for you .... is it possible to give a tax cut to PEOPLE WHO DON'T PAY TAXES? You can't give a tax cut to the poor in this country because they don't pay taxes (well, not federal taxes anyhow - the states and towns still get 'em). By definition, then, all tax cuts are "for the rich", since they pay almost all the taxes.

Opposition makes for Good Government

[Original Replica]

In the words of William A. Niskanen:
"It's not that unified governments love to purchase bombers, but, rather, that they tend to draw us into war. This may sound improbable at first, but consider this: In 200 years of U.S. history, every one of our conflicts involving more than a week of ground combat has been initiated by a unified government. Each of the four major American wars during the 20th century, for example--World War I, World War II, the Korean War, and the Vietnam War--was initiated by a Democratic president with the support of a Democratic Congress. The current war in Iraq, initiated by a Republican president and backed by a Republican Congress, is consistent with this pattern. It also stands as the only use of military force involving more than a week of ground combat that has been initiated by a Republican president in over a century. Divided government appears to be an important constraint on American participation in war. "
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2006/061 0.niskanen.html#Byline

One cloaked swipe of a pen?

[Sloppy]

Um, you guys know that bills don't just magically appear on the president's desk, right? One swipe of the pen?! If he was able to sign something that screws you, it's because hundreds of people, working against your interest, put it there. Yes, blame Bush for not vetoing it, but don't stop there. If you can only count ONE pen, you're retarded.

You're voting if the midterms in a few days, right? Everybody in the House who voted for this, is up for re-election. About a third of the people who voted for it in the Senate, are up for re-election. Are you going to say "no, stop doing this"? Or are you going to say "woohoo! Keep up the good work, government"? The government is waiting to hear your response. Their favorite response is silence: there is no better way to register your enthusiastic approval.

Federal vs. State forces

[MarkusQ]

This probably has more to do with the hurricanes and winter storms. During Katrina, the Feds were criticised for *not* bringing in the defence force to render aid.

The critics I heard were more aimed at the lack of national guard units, who are supposed to deal with this sort of thing, but could not because they were tied up in Iraq.

I don't think anybody was seriously saying "we need to have the Army, Navy, and Air Force ready and able to mobilize inside the US so that the National Guard can stay focused on invading foreign countries."

--MarkusQ

rewatch the movie "The Siege"

[Original Replica]

The terrorist have won. America is gone.

Inflammatory and Misleading

[crucini]

In a stealth maneuver, President Bush has signed into law...

Before the president can sign a bill, it has to get passed by both houses of congress. It's one of the least stealthy processes on the planet.

And once a bill has been passed by Congress, the president normally signs it. To refuse to sign it is the exceptional event. So why does this writeup make it sound like Bush magically created this law himself?

Re:Inflammatory and Misleading

[paitre]

It might be one of the least stealthy processes on the planet, but it's horribly broken in that, due to the volume (both in number and number of lines) of bills passed each year, that it is impossible for all legislators to actually read the legislation brought before them.

Secondly : Bush is abnormal in that he has singularly refused to veto ANYTHING (ok, with ONE exception). Look at the numbers :
Clinton issued 37 in two terms.
GHWB issued 44 in ONE term.
Reagan issued 78 in his two terms.

That's the last 26 years worth of presidents. GWB has issued -one- veto on 1 and a half terms. The last time a president issued so few vetoes was Garfield, and he was assassinated 8 months into his term (ok - he was actually shot about 6 months into the term, and died 2ish months later). Garfield was President in 1881, so it's been 125 years.

Prior to Garfield, Taylor and Fillmore BOTH failed to issue a single veto. Both, it should be noted, held the office within a decade of the Civil War, so there was an intense amount of appeasement being made towards both Southern and Northern interests. It comes as no surprise. (Note: Taylor died from a food-borne illness in 1850 allowing Fillmore to assume the office).

In general, vetoes were uncommon prior to 1860 (Abraham Lincoln's election to the Presidency). The Congress had a tendency to not over govern, and to actually apply their common sense. Something which has been increasingly uncommon since 1890 (Garfield vetoed 414 bills in his single term of office, FDR 616 in his 4 terms, and Truman followed FDR up with 250 - these three presidents combing for just under half of all vetoes issued, ever).

What we -need- is a president willing to follow all three's example and force Congress to pass legislation that is actually -necessary-, and not what is politically expedient. A President that vetoed entire bills because of a single Rider added would quite a powerful force to be reckoned with. Shutting down the Federal Government for a year or two would be interesting, to say the least :D

Re:Inflammatory and Misleading

[TubeSteak]

Before the president can sign a bill, it has to get passed by both houses of congress. It's one of the least stealthy processes on the planet.

To pretend that the legislative process is transparent, is delusional. Sure, it's supposed to be transparent, but the rules don't actually enforce it.

Provisions frequently get inserted at the last minute, for the express purpose of preventing anyone from reading it (or debating it) before voting.

It's a dirty trick and it subverts the legislative process.

I'm not saying that is what happened for this particular piece of law, but the passing of laws is not "one of the least stealthy processes on the planet." Not by a long shot.

Re:You're obviously not a Canadian

[mofomojo]

No, I believe it was called the War Measures Act. I've never heard of the Riot Act. The War Measures act was used to defuse quickly escalating FLQ seperatist tensions in the summer of 1969 to find those responsible for murdering a kidnapped minister or something or other. The FLQ was a terrorist group that was supposedly responsible for several mail bombs and the previously mentioned murder. It's still a very controversial moment in our history when Trudeau used that act. There was troops on the streets of Montreal and over 500 people were arrested and detained without charges. But, what Bush is doing is different. The United States is not in an imminent crisis, seperatist uprising or is on the verge of a civil war.

Somebody mentioned that this was to be used for use in natural disasters, I don't know, I've heard stories of people getting shot on the streets of New Orleans by police and the National Guard. Arguably, the headline is sensationalist. Irrelevant of the motives, this type of leglislation only get hearts beating, brows narrowing, mouths shouting and fists and debris - and maybe even bullets (knowing Americans) flying - directly at authorities, of course. People are angry, I know it and you guys know it. The president couldn't have picked a worser time to put this into law, that's my opinion. And I also think the president is horribly incompetent at his job. I'm not sure if he's evil, though. Anyways, the real debate here is not whether Bush is a good president or not - we all know he's terrible - but whether he is criminal and power hungry or just an outright incompetent opportunist with he and his pals.

We all know Nixon and Reagan were criminals, but is Dubya?

In COBN3T AM3RNKA

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

In Soviet America, Martial Law is Enabling Bush!

"Enabling". It's a fascists 'comfort word'.

Re:In COBN3T AM3RNKA

[DarkVader]

There was absolutely nothing prohibiting the national guard or any other military branch from going into New Orleans and providing search and rescue, help sandbagging, or any other non-law-enforcement aid.

The only thing these laws prevented is keeping a branch of the military, which has no business doing law enforcement since that's not their function and they're not trained for it, from playing cop.

As far as I'm concerned, any branch of the military has no business ever being put in a law enforcement role, no matter what the circumstances. Enabling it is helping to pave the road to dictatorship.

Re:frist psot

[megaditto]

Coincidence you say?

1) In 1933 "terrorists" destroyed German Reichstag
2) To begin war on terror, the German "Patriot" act was passed getting rid of habeas corpus
3) The German congress passed the Enabling Act to help the president's "war on terror".
4) Hitler consumated the powers granted to him by the Congress through this legal process.

And the countless sheeple cheered on.

Bush is about to sign Step 3)
Can I get a Hallelujah?

Re:frist psot

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

You are a quisling.

Too bad that won't help you get extra blankets, when you are put in the same camp with us.

Revolution, American Style

[Doc Ruby]

We already have a series of escalating revolutions built into our government. Elections and impeachment.

In a couple of weeks, on TUE November 7, 2006, you can go to the polls to fire your Representative in the House. A good first move, especially if they're Republican, because the House is supposed to stop the president from abuses. Through oversight in committees overseeing all the president's executive actions and agencies. Through hearings, to which Congress can legally force people to appear and explain their actions, facing penalties for lying like "contempt of Congress", "making a false statement", and the usual perjury and other penalties for lying. Republicans in the House have failed to oversee Bush's actions, instead just keeping each other reelected and sending $TRILLIONS each year to their favorite bribers^Wsponsors.

The House is also not supposed to send laws to Bush that misrepresent their constituents, like laws encouraging martial law or destroying posse comitatus, etc. The Republican House has instead sent these laws to Bush, secretly or just quietly.

You'll probably have a chance to fire one of your senators, too, that Tuesday. Odds are they're a Republican, and have worked together with the Republican House to keep the Republican government, headed by Bush, rolling in dollars, without accountability, while he moves us further from freedom and closer to tyranny. These elections are our version of regularly scheduled revolutions, so no one gets hurt, but change is part of the programme.

But the House is even more important. Because the House, representing the people, has the responsiblity to impeach a president out of control. Especially a criminal president. Impeachment is like indictment for civilians: it's the formal accusation of specific charges against the president, and beginning of a trial in the Senate. Actual conviction in the Senate might not happen, or take too long, but impeachment itself, once begun, is a strong way to stop presidents like Bush from doing anything more. Meanwhile, Congress can pass and repeal bad laws to fix what the president has done. If the president persists, conviction in the Senate is even more likely to be prompt. Unless Republicans really do buy into Bush's gang, and rush to do more damage while their boy is still running things. Most Americans want Congress to impeach Bush.

We all want a revolution. The last few revolutions have been nonstarters, in 2004, 2002, and 2000 - the bad guys won. It's probably time for industrial-strength revolution, impeachment, because the regular revolutions, elections, aren't enough. We'll have the regular revolution first, then see how much we can fix without lowering the boom on Bush. But since he's hell-bent on tyranny, we'll probably have to impeach him, too.

Not a minute too soon.

No need to cancel

[The Creator]

According to precedent set by the supreme court, adding another 10 years untill the next election every ninth years does not count as setting it off indefinitely. (For reference see the whole extension of copyrights debacle)

Re:frist psot

[FuzzyBad-Mofo]

Can I get a Hallelujah?

Close. We got Fallujah.

Link to the original text of the bill

[NetCow]

For people who try not to judge until they've seen their stuff first-hand, here's a direct (PDF!) link to the original text of the bill from the US Government Printing Office: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi ?dbname=109_cong_bills&docid=f:h5122enr.txt.pdf

Re:frist psot

[psykocrime]

Is anyone on /. familiar with Godwin's Law? People try to compare Bush to Hitler way too much here. Seems like Godwin's Law has been forgotten.

First of all, Godwin's "Law" says nothing more than:

As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one

Big deal.

Further:

Godwin's Law does not dispute whether, in a particular instance, a reference or comparison to Hitler or the Nazis might be apt. It is precisely because such a reference or comparison may sometimes be appropriate, Godwin argues in his book, Cyber Rights: Defending Free Speech in the Digital Age, that overuse of the Hitler/Nazi comparison should be avoided, as it robs the valid comparisons of their impact.

If you believe, as many of us do, that comparisons between Bush and Hitler *are* valid, then Godwin's Law is totally irrelevant in this context.

1) reading critically 2) actions, not words

[period]

Two points:

1) The post states that "In a stealth maneuver, President Bush has signed into law a provision which, according to Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont), will actually encourage the President to declare federal martial law." This is misleading. The president doesn't sign anything he wants into law unilaterally; Congress - the Senate AND the House - must pass a bill before it goes to the president to sign. The quote is misleading as it's not Bush alone who's doing something "stealth[y]". If blame deserves to be attributed to someone, it's to everyone who passes such an act in Congress AS WELL AS to Bush. Regardless of whether you like a bill or not, regardless of whether you like Bush or not, blaming him alone does not hold Congressional representatives accountable for their conduct. It's that kind of lack of understanding about the political system that has led to many of the troubles we have today as a people.

2) There is a massive amount of commentary on this issue, as there should be. However, while Slashdot does have a pretty massive reach, commentary here alone is inadequate to reach most of the people who need the most to learn about what's really happening in our country. Congrats to those who do more than just talk here, and to those who don't, go out and do something to realize your ideas of what this country should be, whatever those ideas may be. Being a citizen is not a spectator sport.

Re:frist psot

[bhirsch]

Then there are the dolts on slashdot who get their history lessons from other dolts on slashdot.

Viva la revolution!

New definition for "initiated"

[cirby]

Yeah, it was pretty awful of those Democrats in 1941 to start things off by attacking Pearl Harbor.

And the author kinda forgot Iraq War I (non-unified administration).

You see, "initiated" kinda requires the US to have actually started the war, not just responding to an attack on one of our allies (which is the situation in the other wars mentioned).

Re:New definition for "initiated"

[Gooba42]

None of the aforementioned wars were "initiated" by the US, but they were all entered voluntarily and in some cases based on false information.

Korea had little or no interest for us except the abstract notion of defeating communism.

The Tonkin Gulf has been brought into harsh criticism, some even saying it was a fraud.

Did we have to enter WWI other than to line someone's coffers? WWII would arguably have not happened at all except for the harsh penalties visited on Germany after WWI.

Pearl Harbor was an attack we went to great trouble to make sure it happened the way it did, even withholding intelligence from the base command that would have prepared them for the attack. This was done specifically to give us an excuse to enter the war.

None of this was done with any sense of altruism, none of this "came to us" in any factual way.

Presidents have ALWAYS had this power ...

[slightlyspacey]

See 10 U.S.C. 331, 10 U.S.C. 332, and 10 U.S.C. 333. If they need any additional powers they'll just use Executive Orders. I'm not saying that it's right or consitutional, I'm just saying that it is the height of naivete and ignorance to believe that previous administrations, Democrat and Republican, have NOT had or used this authority.

Assignment of Emergency Preparedness Functions, October 11, 2004

The following EOs all fall under EO 12919: [7]

* EO 10990: "allows the government to take over all modes of transportation and control of highways and seaports." [8]
* EO 10995: Federal seizure of all communications media in the US.
* EO 10997: Federal seizure of all electric power, fuels, minerals, public and private.
* EO 10998: Federal seizure of all food supplies and resources, public and private and all farms and equipment.
* EO 10999: Federal seizure of all means of transportation, including cars, trucks, or vehicles of any kind and total control over all highways, seaports and water ways.
* EO 11000: Federal seizure of American people for work forces under federal supervision, including the splitting up of families if the government so desires.
* EO 11001: Federal seizure of all health, education and welfare facilities, both public and private.
* EO 11002: Empowers the Postmaster General to register every single person in the US.
* EO 11003: Federal seizure of all airports and aircraft.
* EO 11004: Federal seizure of all housing and finances and authority to establish forced relocation. Authority to designate areas to be abandoned as 'unsafe,' establish new locations for populations, relocate communities, build new housing with public funds.
* EO 11005: Seizure of all railroads, inland waterways and storage facilities, both public and private.
* EO 11051: Provides FEMA complete authorization to put above orders into effect in times of increased international tension of economic or financial crisis (FEMA will be in control incase of 'National Emergency').

* EO 12919 "Apparently Allows Cabinet Heads to Make Direct Loans to Government Contractors." [9]

Some of these Executive Orders have been around since the days of JFK. The umbrella EO 12919 was signed by President Clinton when he was in office back in 1994.

A fictional memo written to President Clinton back in 1999 gives a nice legal summary, history, and analysis of the laws already in place that would permit him or any president to declare martial law. From the "memo":

You have statutory authority to intervene with military force in a state's domestic disputes, upon request from the state legislature (or governor), at 10 U.S.C. 331:

Whenever there is an insurrection in any State against its government, the President may, upon the request of its legislature or of its governor if the legislature cannot be convened, call into Federal service such of the militia of the other States, in the number requested by that State, and use such of the armed forces, as he considers necessary to suppress the insurrection. [Emphasis added.]

Similar statutory authority permits you to use military force without any state request to address circumstances whenever and wherever you determine that the laws of the United States cannot be enforced (10 U.S.C. 332):(1)

Whenever the President considers that

Not Inflammatory or Misleading

[Space cowboy]

The "stealth" bit is that the bill is like 10 miles long, and the bit that allows martial law for "an other condition" is buried about 3/4 of the way into it.

If you're going to change something that affects democracy to the extent of being able to impose martial law, surely it can stand on its own, be its own bill, etc. You don't bury it, hoping that no-one will notice, at least not if you have any sense of ethics or morals...

Recently the administration has given itself these extra powers (amongst others...)

  - Removal of Habeus corpus for "enemy combatants"
  - Ability to declare anyone (American citizen or no) an "enemy combatant" at will and without any defence
  - Ability to declare martial law for "an other reason" ... it's chilling. What I don't get is that *I* would find it chilling if my own party were doing it. I don't see why people are defending it, unless they expect the government to give itself these powers, and then never use them (??)

Simon.

Appropriate William Adama Quote

[Laven]

There's a reason why we separate military and the police: one fights the enemy of the State, the other serves and protects the people. When the military becomes both, then the enemies of the State tend to become the people.

William Adama from Battlestar Galactica Episode S01E02 "Water"

Re:So let me get this straight...

[dreamer-of-rules]

Bush was allowed to send in troops. The LA governor had declared a state of emergency and requested troops, but delays and in FEMA and the Bush administration made the response lackluster. It didn't help that the competent and experienced FEMA director had been replaced by a total boob.

And of course, we blame Bush for sending our troops off to Iraq, meaning that we didn't have them at home where they actually could have helped Americans. If Iraq were actually making "weapons of mass distraction", or had been buying nuclear arms on the black market, we wouldn't blame Bush for the lack of troops in America. But since he pushed and pushed to go to war without a just cause, he can accept responsibility for all the outcomes.

Lovely...

[AVee]

When democracy finally ended and the US started it own destruction, nobody noticed, because the site was slashdotted. What a way to get into the history books...

Keith Olbermann: Death of Habeas Corpus

[Teacher's Pet]

"Olbermann: And lastly, as promised, a Special Comment tonight on the signing of the Military Commissions Act and the loss of Habeas Corpus...We have handed a blank check drawn against our freedom..."

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/10/18/countdown -special-comment-death-of-habeas-corpus-your-words -are-lies-sir/#more-11142

dumbass

[foreverdisillusioned]

What a load of bullshit. Every single person who's used this retarded line of thinking needs to be rounded up and forced to watch every single Vietnam movie ever made (or hell, as someone else pointed out, footage from Iraq.) There is a big big BIG difference between fighting to control and fighting to annihilate. A government will never desire to annihilate its own population. Yes, they might "make examples" on occasion, but on the whole the populace must be not be annihilated, otherwise who will they rule? Who will pay their salaries, who will build their weapons?

Seems like there are millions of people who've simply never heard of guerilla (or asymmetrical) warfare. The point is, there would be no centralized locations to drop your bombs on. The point is, most of the time there would be no visible difference between the militia and the civilians. The milita would blend in with the population--the only reliable way to find them and destroy them is on foot, on their terms. On those terms, most of the military's advantages evaporate. They might have better tech and training, but they will be severely vulnerable to ambush. Even if they outnumber the (armed) rebels by a great deal, if the majority of the populace is willing to support and shelter those rebells I would venture a guess that the military would *eventually* be compelled to withdraw after repeated harassment attacks. If the armed rebels are few in number and the majority of the populace cooperates with the military, I would venture a guess that the rebels would either be wiped out or ignored as irrelevant. The military's infrastructure and tech do make a difference, but their most potent weapons are simply inapplicable in a war where indiscriminately annihilating civilians isn't a viable option.

HAHAHAHA!!!

[HangingChad]

Good luck with that. Bush can't control Baghdad with 140,000 troops, what makes him think he could control Rhode Island if they were pissed off? Though it could be scary power in the hands of someone competent it's going to be expensive to use.

America is too big, too open and way too easy to sabotage to try and control by martial law. Besides, we're almost bankrupt now, where they going to get the money to occupy an area the size of a state? Especially if the people in that state don't want to be occupied.

Re:frist psot

[MightyYar]

Holy shit, you can't be serious. People demanded that the federal government go into New Orleans to keep order, but they couldn't because of the law. And now when the government actually follows through they get compared to Nazi Germany? Bush is not Hitler. He will be gone in two years to be replaced by another egomaniac.

This is what you wanted

[Curunir_wolf]

Despite the commentator's interpretation, the impetus of this bill was the New Orleans Katrina disaster. Everyone blamed Bush and the Feds for not doing enough, even though the responsibility for disaster planning and mobilizing the national guard rested solely with the local and state governments. Well, this bill fixes that - the next time there is a disaster the the feds don't act fast enough, it really *will* be their fault, because this gives the the authority to do something, which they did *not* have during Katrina.

So - you *wanted* this - you *cried* for it! "Bush didn't act fast enough! He should have done more!" Ok, if you think so, we'll give him that authority. Remember the looting in the streets? The local police deserted, and the ones left couldn't maintain order. The governor refused to call in the troops. Next time, the president can do it.

Be careful what you ask for - you just might get it!

Re:This is what you wanted

[RAMMS EIN]

``So - you *wanted* this - you *cried* for it!''

A friend of mine has a pretty funny theory about this. He says that there is more than one person in the world, and that these multiple persons can have entirely different views on the same things. It's interesting to consider the consequences: one people can be in favor of more powers to the president, so that he can do more to help, whereas another person can be against more powers for the president, fearing that these powers will be abused.

Personally, I think my friend is full of it. The issue is much simpler: wanting the federal government to provide more effective disaster relief does not equal wanting to give the president more power to deploy the military.

Re:This is what you wanted

[KilljoyAZ]

Bullshit. We demanded competence, not dictatorship.

Let's ignore the fact that Bush sent half of the Louisiana National Guard, complete with their best equipment, over to his misbegotten, illegal war in Iraq.

Bush nominated the comically inept Michael Brown to head FEMA, not because being the head of the Internationa Arabian Horse Association in any way qualified him to lead the nation's disaster relief agency, but as yet another act of political patronage. In the space of 4 years, he turned one of the best run federal agencies into an punchline on the late night talk show circuit.

Bush had three days warning about the devastating effect Katrina could have on New Orleans from the National Hurricane Center. Rather than making sure the government was mobilized to deal with the aftermath of an epic national disaster, he was cutting birthday cake with John McCain in Arizona, strumming a guitar in San Diego, and making yet another speech comparing the Iraq War with World War II and himself with FDR. A poor comparison if ever there was one. Michael Chertoff, the cabinet secretary who's responsible for FEMA, decided giving a speech at a conference on bioterror was more important than the likely destruction of an American city.

The federal government's problem in New Orleans was not a lack of authority. It was a mindboggling lack of foresight and, more disturbingly, an appalling lack of concern. That apathy was on display in the days immediately after the disaster struck, when the upper echelons of federal government spent more energy on creating the illusion that it was doing something and shifting responsibility onto the city of New Orleans and state of Louisiana, rather than actually doing something. The circumstances on the ground got so bad, even Fox News was unwilling to carry water for him. As a result, we were treated to the spectacle we saw on television and the humiliation on the international stage, the culmination of which was having to accept aid convoys from Mexico.

It is a continuing and disturbing pattern with George W. Bush: every time he fails miserably as president, he tries to shift blame on the law and the Constitution for binding his hands. In his eyes, he cannot fail: our system of government must have failed. He did it with 9/11 and he did it with Katrina. Not only is it a convenient excuse for him to forestall any discussion on his complete unsuitability to occupy the office of the presidency, but it accomplishes his true goal of concentrating more power in the executive branch. The moniker of "worst president ever" has long since crossed from the realm of empty hyperbole into apt description of this man's qualities.

Ballots always win out over Bullets

[Cappadonna]

An informed, engaged electorate always win out over yahoos with Ammo, anyday. I find it funny that NOBODY is talking about cleaning up Congress, running for office, petitioning our elected officials to impeach this nitwit -- you know, legal and responsible means to take care of power-hungry bastards in Washington. Nope, we're all ready to grab our flack jackets and shot guns talking about going medieval on the US Army. Uhm, let me get this straight.... you're not going to bother to vote (which is still legal, and still pretty damn hard to steal, even with Diebold) which cost you no money and won't get you shot. But, everyone's willing to go commando on the US government?! Que?! Have we slashdot geeks been reading WAAY too much of the turner diaries?

In less than 2 weeks, we have a very legal, effective and powerful to take this clown out of office and reign these jokers. Vote. Vote early, vote intelligently (base your decisions on the candidate platform and whether they're just going to be Bush flunkies. After the election, get involved and nage your elected officials to impeach this creep before we all end up in the gulags. This is a mess we got ourselves in for not thinking rationally and demanding our elected officials are actual law abiding and sane. Nope, we chased one president's member and let our mathematically irrational fear of terrorists throwing nukes stop us from thinking rationally. It took years of political indifference, social apathy and outright stupidit to put us here. Its going to hard thinking, hard choices and direct action (beyond protests and fantasies about gunfights with the national guard) to get us out.

We can sit here and talk about how we're going to go underground to fight "The Man" (and subsequentially get our collective asses kicked) or we can use our ballots to make truly frightening revolution -- Americans actually taking politics seriously and voting these clowns out of office. The choices is yours/ours.

Peace - Cappadonna

Federalist Balances?

[the_REAL_sam]

Considering that Bush launched unnecessary, unprovoked military operations in Iraq / Afghanistan, and undermined the constitutional rights of U.S. citizens, I find it deceitful that he would presume to assign U.S. troops to protect constitutional rights within U.S. Borders; I find it deeply troubling that he would pursue that power at a time when there is no mandate.

I ask why such a bill was even written, considering there are historical examples of the U.S. president already HAVING and USING the right to domestically use troops: (1) Able Lincoln and the U.S. Civil War, and (2) Eisenhower sending federal troops to counteract the national guard troops in Little Rock during the civil rights movement, when the governor of Arkansas tried to block integration of schools.

There are two potential problems with the act:

First, IF Federal Law changed to something REALLY obnoxious, any state(s) that openly and actively opposed the undesired change due to their own democratic process, as is their consittutional right (due to federalism and seperation of powers), they would potentially be subject to suppression from the U.S. Armed Forces. For instance, if the feds wanted sweeping "terrorist holding camps" and gestapo tactics (Guantanamo, washboards, secret lists, secret detentions, secret trials), any state that openly opposed it would be subject to invasion.

Secondly, if a state had passed a benign law that happened to be at odds with federal law, but only in some minor way, the president could STILL potentially use troops (or not) on whim, effectively putting the state at the mercy of the president, and forcing them to a position of meekness due to his discretionary power. For instance, if California wanted pot clubs and gay marriage, and ignored federal law in persuit of legalizing those things, the ?act? would give the President the right to invade California with U.S. troops. He might decide not to do it, but his ability to choose so, or not, amounts to a huge amount of bullying power. If I liked Bush's policies I might think it was harmless, but I hate Bush's policies*, and there's no promise about who will be the next president.

Assuming the act is here to stay, and in light of those objections, the important question becomes, "WHO DECIDES WHETHER A MAJOR PUBLIC EMERGENCY HAS HAPPENED?" I'm curious whether the determination that the state, or condition(s) therein, has violated the constitutional rights of its citizens, or that it has systematically blocked federal law, or the enforcement thereof, would first be submitted to the Supreme Court.

The president, I claim, should NOT have total discretion. I cite the examples of:

*Bush launching unprovoked wars in Iraq / Afghanistan, and striking a terrible blow against the constitutional rights of U.S. citizens.

It is prepostrous that he would then "ask for more power" to "protect us" _in the rights he trampled_, _with the army he misused_.

Re:Too late.

[Trailwalker]

The US has a militarized police force, using military tactics and equipment. I don't care how many rednecks with shotguns come out of the woods..

As a Southerner, I would like to point out that "Rednecks" and the "Police" are usually one and the same.

Live up to your anthem!

[Brickwall]

I've occasionally heard Americans disparage the "Star Spangled Banner", but I think its beauty and wisdom are contained in the last line: "Does that star spangled banner yet wave o'er the land of the free and the home of the brave?". Keys, wittingly or not, poses a three part question - is your flag still there (the easy part), but also he asks what type of America it's waving over.

Are you still the home of the brave, and the land of the free? Or have you been cowed into accepting a police state? In many ways, America has been the greatest nation in history. Are you going to give up that status now because of a single incident?

Next thing to watch for:

[Ralph Spoilsport]

The loss of the intelligensia. When the smart people start leaving to "do research abroad" for some open ended amount of time, then you know it's time to stick a fork in America.

This will primarily benefit other English speaking countries, especially Canada, but look for a number of very smart people moving to Ireland, the UK, Australia, or "retiring" to New Zealand. If you have any sense, you'll start making inquiries NOW, while you can...

RS

World Wars

[Mark_MF-WN]

You know that England was never particularly at risk in either world war, right? In WW2, England's worst prospect by the time America was attacked was having to make peace with Germany. They had won the Battle of Britain, they controlled the Atlantic, and were being well-supplied by Australia, Canada, and other assorted allies. In WW1, the worst that could possibly have happened is that France might have lost some territory.

America participated in the World Wars BECAUSE AMERICA WAS ATTACKED. WW1, Germany sank American civilian ships and tried to incite Mexico to invade America (you'll note that Mexicans, being sane, refused). WW2, Japan bombed Pearl Harbour and Germany began sinking civilian ships ... again. America joined the World Wars strictly in self-defense. There was no altruism about it, they weren't trying to save anything other than their own asses.

Before you go blaming Republicans

[Hercules Peanut]

The House is also not supposed to send laws to Bush that misrepresent their constituents, like laws encouraging martial law or destroying posse comitatus, etc. The Republican House has instead sent these laws to Bush, secretly or just quietly.

Let us not forget that there are more than enough Democrats in the house to make noise. If the Democrats were of a mind to save us from this, we might have heard about it before now.

I'm all for firing every incumbant in the government that means Republican or Democrat. That's the way to send a message IMHO. Unless there has been some voice crying out in the wilderness that I missed (very possible).

What I'd like to know is how the vote went but I still cannot get to the links above and my hands are too full to search at the moment.

Moo

[Chacham]

It seems to allow the President to impose martial law on any state or territory,

Actually, the Constitution allows that, in Article 1, section 9.

The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.

Figureheads

[p3d0]

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

Re:frist psot

[dhasenan]

It's not a new authority, but there used to be restrictions on the President's ability to use it. Before, the President could only order troops to move within a state for any duties outside federal property with the permission of that state's legislature, or if the legislature could not convene, that of the government.

Now Bush can order troops to do anything at all without the consent of local authorities, and not get impeached for it. And you can believe that governors would be calling for his head if he declared martial law in their states.

My god.

[NeutrinoLite]

I read some of the comments here now and then to get a good laugh or learn something from someone working in the field the article is about. Today I see this news piece, and I glance over the information. The first thing I notice is that the news bit is full of terminology that is bias and unnecessary:

"In a stealth maneuver" - How stealth is release on slashdot?
"encourage the President to declare federal martial law." - What with free votes and cookies?
"With one cloaked swipe of his pen," - What is this? A novel? This isn't news...
"Bush is seeking to undo those prohibitions." - And this I presume this is based of The President's personal statements?

This is not a news article. This is total crap. Facts presented in opinion and filled with biased wording should not be considered news.

Next, I noticed the responses to the article. Normally there are intelligent or at least semi-intelligent responses. That doesn't seem to be the case here. Most of the responses that I have read that are rated at 3 or higher, are retarted. Is slashdot's community full of fools who only aspire to be like the people they read about in the science and technology articles? I swear that some of the posts gave the impression that the poster needs serious therapy. Think before you post. Comparing Hilter and President Bush...

What do I get from this article? I see that for more than 5 months after Hurricane Katrina hit in the south, The President was unfairly bashed for the total failure of the local governments in the disaster area. They failed to ask the president for assistance from the Active Military until far to late in the disaster. I see a plan to solve that problem in allowing The President (not just Bush, the law will still be there during Democrat Presidencies) to send the troops in to aid in the disaster recovery without having to wait for the incompetent local leaders to ask for it.

As for the article mentioned in the first response, I see a plan to house some 400,000 people in the event that a second Hurricane Katrina style event were to occur. I see a plan to quickly evacuate masses to a safe location where they may have to live for an indefinate amount of time. I see a plan to hopefully prevent a future occurance of what happened during Katrina.

How can you be so cynical as to take both of these forward movie plans, and turn them around and compare them to Hitler? Do you have a better plan for moving half a million disaster refugees to some or multiple other locations in the United States? Do you have a better plan for overcoming the possible incompetence of local government officials when a natural disaster or other event occurs and extra policing is required? I would like to hear your plans or more positive advice and less hatred and bashing. This is a community of nerds, not a community of fools. Voicing your opinion is great, but if its in the negative at least voice a better method. Help the world don't waste oxygen (well, finger strength).

Obivously you believe anything you hear

[Bananas]

I oppose Bush. I am also what you would call liberal. I also support gun control.

Hitting your target and killing it with one shot is my definition of gun control.

Questions, dumbass?

Re:"comparisons between Bush and Hitler *are* vali

[MKalus]

You're assuming that Bush is actually the one behind all this.

Sorry, he may be the president of the United States, but I am pretty sure he's the puppet, not the puppeteer.

Which leaves another question: What will Cheney do in 2009? They already considered postponing the 2004 election, maybe if they don't think they can win the 2008 one they will "delay" it? Bush gave himself the right to do so a while ago.

The problem with Katrina response was at DHS

[Animats]

There was no lack of legislative authority to deal with Katrina. The real problem was that 1) the FEMA director slot was being filled by a jerk, and 2) the FEMA director wasn't allowed to exercise his statutory authority.

Under the Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5170b(c)), the Director of FEMA had the statutory authority to task other federal agencies to provide specific assistance to states overwhelmed by disaster. But when Homeland Security was established, FEMA was put under DHS and deemphasized. So, while Brown had the statutory authority to call up DoD and tell them to get moving, he wasn't allowed by his boss, Chertoff, to do it. And Chertoff didn't issue that authority to Brown unti 36 hours after Katrina hit.

Clinton's former FEMA director, Witt, spoke after Katrina of how they did things when he was in charge: "We had all the resources of the federal government. We didn't have to ask anyone to activate the Department of Defense. I did that. I called up the President." Reagan's FEMA director, a former general, also had and used that authority. Brown wasn't even allowed to call up the President.

Part of the problem was that Brown, personally, was a nobody. His previous career peak was chief of horse show judges for the Arabian Horse Association. Clinton's and Reagan's FEMA directors had track records; Clinton's was respected by everyone, and Reagan's was a former general. Both of them would have had no problem calling up people at DoD and telling them to start loading up, with official orders to follow as necessary.

Brown could have gotten things moving even without the authority if he'd had a clue. He could have called up people at the Pentagon and subordinate commands and said "This is the FEMA director. You've seen CNN; New Orleans is under water. You're going to be tasked to go there and do ... as soon as we get the paperwork done in Washington. Meanwhile, I'm giving you a heads-up; get loaded up and ready to move." The military understands back-channel stuff like that. In the military, if there's big trouble coming, subordinate commanders are expected to crank up and get ready to roll, with or without orders, so if and when the go order comes, things happen fast.

List of who voted

[bussdriver]

The following list of people voted to suspend the writ of Habeas Corpus and must NOT be allowed to violate their oath again.
Don Young (R-AK)

Robert Aderholt (R-AL) Spencer Bachus (R-AL) Jo Bonner (R-AL) Robert Cramer (D-AL) Artur Davis (D-AL) Terry Everett (R-AL) Michael Rogers (R-AL)
John Boozman (R-AR) Mike Ross (D-AR)

Jeff Flake (R-AZ) Trent Franks (R-AZ) J.D. Hayworth (R-AZ) Jim Kolbe (R-AZ) Rick Renzi (R-AZ) John Shadegg (R-AZ)

Brian Bilbray (R-CA) Mary Bono (R-CA) Ken Calvert (R-CA) John Campbell (R-CA) John Doolittle (R-CA) David Dreier (R-CA) Elton Gallegly (R-CA) Wally Herger (R-CA) Duncan Hunter (R-CA) Darrell Issa (R-CA) Jerry Lewis (R-CA) Dan Lungren (R-CA) Howard McKeon (R-CA) Gary Miller (R-CA) Devin Nunes (R-CA) Richard Pombo (R-CA) Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) Ed Royce (R-CA) William Thomas (R-CA)

Bob Beauprez (R-CO) Joel Hefley (R-CO) Marilyn Musgrave (R-CO) John Salazar (D-CO) Thomas Tancredo (R-CO)

Nancy Johnson (R-CT) Christopher Shays (R-CT) Robert Simmons (R-CT)

Michael Bilirakis (R-FL) F. Allen Boyd (D-FL) Ginny Brown-Waite (R-FL) Ander Crenshaw (R-FL) Lincoln Diaz-Balart (R-FL) Mario Diaz-Balart (R-FL) Tom Feeney (R-FL) Mark Foley (R-FL) Katherine Harris (R-FL) Connie Mack (R-FL) John Mica (R-FL) Jeff Miller (R-FL) Adam Putnam (R-FL) Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL) E. Clay Shaw (R-FL) Cliff Stearns (R-FL) Dave Weldon (R-FL) C.W. Bill Young (R-FL)

John Barrow (D-GA) Sanford Bishop (D-GA) Nathan Deal (R-GA) Phil Gingrey (R-GA) Jack Kingston (R-GA) John Linder (R-GA) Jim Marshall (D-GA) Charles Norwood (R-GA) Tom Price (R-GA) David Scott (D-GA) Lynn Westmoreland (R-GA)

Leonard Boswell (D-IA) Steve King (R-IA) Tom Latham (R-IA) Jim Nussle (R-IA)

C.L. Otter (R-ID) Mike Simpson (R-ID)

Melissa Bean (D-IL) Judy Biggert (R-IL) J. Dennis Hastert (R-IL) Henry Hyde (R-IL) Timothy Johnson (R-IL) Mark Kirk (R-IL) Ray LaHood (R-IL) Donald Manzullo (R-IL) John Shimkus (R-IL) Jerry Weller (R-IL)

Dan Burton (R-IN) Steve Buyer (R-IN) Chris Chocola (R-IN) John Hostettler (R-IN) Mike Pence (R-IN) Mike Sodrel (R-IN) Mark Souder (R-IN)

Dennis Moore (D-KS) Jim Ryun (R-KS) Todd Tiahrt (R-KS)

Ben Chandler (D-KY) Geoff Davis (R-KY) Ron Lewis (R-KY) Anne Northup (R-KY) Harold Rogers (R-KY) Edward Whitfield (R-KY)

Rodney Alexander (R-LA) Richard Baker (R-LA) Charles Boustany (R-LA) Bobby Jindal (R-LA) Jim McCrery (R-LA) Charlie Melancon (D-LA)

Michael Michaud (D-ME)

Dave Camp (R-MI) Vernon Ehlers (R-MI) Peter Hoekstra (R-MI) Joseph Knollenberg (R-MI) Thaddeus McCotter (R-MI)

Candice Miller (R-MI) Michael Rogers (R-MI) Joe Schwarz (R-MI) Fred Upton (R-MI)

Gil Gutknecht (R-MN) Mark Kennedy (R-MN) John Kline (R-MN) Collin Peterson (D-MN) Jim Ramstad (R-MN)

Todd Akin (R-MO) Roy Blunt (R-MO) Jo Ann Emerson (R-MO) Sam Graves (R-MO) Kenny Hulshof (R-MO)

Charles Pickering (R-MS) Gene Taylor (D-MS) Roger Wicker (R-MS)

Dennis Rehberg (R-MT)

Howard Coble (R-NC) Bob Etheridge (D-NC) Virginia Foxx (R-NC) Robin Hayes (R-NC) Patrick McHenry (R-NC) Mike McIntyre (D-NC) Sue Myrick (R-NC) Charles Taylor (R-NC)

Earl Pomeroy (D-ND)

Jeff Fortenberry (R-NE) Tom Osborne (R-NE) Lee Terry (R-NE)

Charles Bass (R-NH) Jeb Bradley (R-NH)

Robert Andrews (D-NJ) Michael Ferguson (R-NJ) Rodney Frelinghuysen (R-NJ) Scott Garrett (R-NJ) Frank LoBiondo (R-NJ) Jim Saxton (R-NJ) Christopher Smith (R-NJ)

Steve Pearce (R-NM) Heather Wilson (R-NM)

James Gibbons (R-NV) Jon Porter (R-NV)

Sherwood Boehlert (R-NY) Vito Fossella (R-NY) Brian Higgins (D-NY) Sue Kelly (R-NY) Peter King (R-NY) Randy Kuhl (R-NY) John McHugh (R-NY) Thomas Reynolds (R-NY) John Sweeney (R-NY) James Walsh (R-NY)

John Boehner (R-OH) Sherrod Brown (D-OH) Steve Chabot (R-OH) Paul Gillmor (R-OH) David Hobson (R-OH) Michael Oxley (R-OH) Deborah Pryce (R-OH) Ralph Regula (R-OH) Jean Schmidt (R-OH) Patrick Tiberi (R-OH) Michael Turner (R-OH)

Dan Boren (D-OK) Tom Cole (R-OK) Ernest Istook (R-O

Your talking points are out of date

[MarkusQ]

What you left out is that the reason Bush didn't send them in for a week is that the governor of Louisiana did not ask for a week - routing around idocy in state government is what this bill is about, being able to send in the national guard to assist without having to wait for the governor to say it is OK.

And what you left out is that this claim has already been debunked.

Specifically, Blanco had already declared a state of emergency on 26 August, and even if she hadn't, the Department of Homeland Security (under which FEMA operates) took over primary responsibility as of March 1 of 2005, needing only a Presidential declaration of Emergency, which they got on 29 August.

In case you don't remember, Homeland Security was the big federal Washington-knows-best project that was created specifically to deal with major disasters at the federal level, and cut the states out of the picture. So turning around and trying to blame the states because it didn't do its job just doesn't pass the laugh test.

--MarkusQ

Re:frist psot

[mabhatter654]

Another poster mentioned that FEMA was rolled into DHS, buy doing that FEMA became a "law enforcement" agency subject to all the rules and power struggles. FEMA had the right to forcibly remove people from their homes in disaster situations they should have been activated by federal agents the moment the federally maintained levies were topped. They're supposed to be THE go to guys to respond to disasters first, whether it's criminal or a natural disaster... they should have been waiting at the boarder of Louisiana before the state even approved them. FEMA's not supposed to be ASKED, but they also aren't supposed to be pressed into anti-terrorist, anti-citizen work either. Remember back to X-Files, much was of course conspiracy, but there the talk of FEMA being the route to martial law was based on real laws and powers already on the books.

The Bill Doesnt Say This At All

[RenderSeven]

I hate to rain on a great Fuck-Bush fest and all, but...

The referred article seems to have been posted originally on Saddam Hussein's supporter's website. It doesn't make it wrong of course but it doesn't lend to credibility or unbiased reporting :

http://www.uruknet.biz/?p=m27769&hd=0&size=1&l=e

> The author, Frank Morales ("morals", get it?) is a priest activist with a history of CIA conspiracy theories. He also hates the police and just about anything in uniform. If you want to hate your government, he makes great reading.

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

More interesting is Leahy's and Bond's joint statement on it (of course it must be half lies because Bond is a republican and all) and its here:

http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200609/091906a.html

Reads to me more of a response to Katrina. Remember Katrina? Thats where we blamed the FEDERAL government for not sending in the state national guard when they had no authority to do it. And this bill directly addresses that. Damned if you do, damned if you dont, I guess. The bill also gives the National Guard more authority and recognition in the Pentagon.

Now, let the hate mail continue. Here, let me get you all going again: "BUSH SUCKS! He killed puppies!!"

Re:frist psot

[Wovel]

A stealth move by the president approved by a vote of 398 to 23 in the House. Is there no end to the lunacy that conspiracy theorists are capable of believing.

Re:Full Text of the Act ...

[DrRevotron]

Thank you for posting that. Now, anyone who actually takes the time to read the bill will see that it makes NO mention of martial law of any kind, all it does is allow for the provisioning of medical aid and preservation of life and freedom. *mumble* Bunch of freakin' conspiracy theorist morons...

Re:So now Slashdot hates him for this.

[dreamer-of-rules]

Bush isn't going to abuse this, Bush is trying to make America safer ...
Everyone is so afraid of Bush, but when you look at what he does, it's not the sign of a dictator, it's the sign of a president trying to protect the American people and solve problems ignored by his predecessors.

Iraq war was started because of his lies (alleged Weapons of Mass Distraction, outing of Valerie Plame, alleged Yellow cake, alleged Al Quida connection)
Bush refused to discuss exit plans with his generals.
Bush refused to accept the CIA claims that Saddam was not involved with 9/11 and not a threat.
Osama Bin Laden is still at large, which apparently matters to Bush only during election times.
We now have 2,800 dead US soldiers, ten times that wounded.
Our Iraq Plan For Success was written by a lobbyist after the invasion.
Our military has been weakened in numbers and in character from this immoral war.
Bush gutted FEMA before Katrina hit, and placed FEMA under the DoHS against the 9/11 Commission's recommendations.
Bush delayed the federal response to Katrina disaster.
Bush has been wiretapping US phone calls since 2001.
Bush is disregarding the Geneva Convention.
Utilized torture since 2001. (What kind of person uses TORTURE!?)
Bush's appearance attendees must sign loyalty oaths.
Bush has paid journalists to repeat his propaganda.
Routinely sensors scientific reports and studies in the Executive Branch.
Ignores (the few) requests by Congress for information.
Bush continually uses terror to keep Americans afraid and under control.
that's just off the top of my head...

Not to mention.. he's polarized this country more than any other president. He recently announced that if the Democrats took the House or the Senate that it would be a disaster for National Security. Gosh, what could he mean by that?

George W. Bush doesn't give a damn about the average American citizen.
He has greatly weakened our national security.
It will take decades to recover from his Presidency and the .

Re:So now Slashdot hates him for this.

[DrRevotron]

No, YOU are forgetting that there is more to the executive branch than Bush. Nice little arrangement of words. "Bush has been wiretapping US phone calls"... hah. As if he's sitting in the oval office listening to your conversation with your mother. The NSA has been tapping suspected terrorist phone calls. They don't care if you're ordering a pizza, but they sure as hell would care if you're ordering fifty pounds of explosives, a detonator and a vest. Bush has paid journalists to repeat his propaganda? Bullshit. Show me your source for that. Routinely censors scientific reports? Strike 2. Source, please. BUSH delayed the federal response? Strike 3. Bush didn't delay anything. Coordinating response to Katrina was legally the responsibility of the state and local governments. Both failed to execute the plans they had set in place, and Bush did not have the legal authority to just send in the National Guard immediately. THIS bill gives him that right. Osama Bin Laden is still at large? Yes, he is. Why? Because he has multiple Middle-Eastern states cooperating with him and Al-Queda. The search for Bin Laden is still ongoing. We haven't forgotten at all. Troops are still in Afghanistan and we're opening relations with Middle-Eastern states to ensure their cooperation. Christ, this bill isn't allowing Bush to shoot civilians in the street. This bill is allowing President Bush to step in national emergencies, when state and local governments are caught with their pants down. First you yell about lack of power to step in during Katrina, now you're yelling about Bush having the power to do so? Bush isn't politically polarizing the United States. The Democrats are politically polarizing the United States. You know why? Nancy Pelosi even said it herself, on the record... the goal of the Democrats is to oppose everything that the Republicans try to do. Everything. And the mindless masses follow her in lock-step. You know what you need to do? You need to turn off your computer, turn your chair around and step outside. Maybe even take off that little tinfoil hat if you feel like it. Go see what your life is actually like. Go enjoy the freedoms that the American government is protecting, and that those dead soldiers (God rest their souls) have given their lives to preserve. Go buy a gun. Go to a political rally. Hell, even go to a protest (They're getting to be one in the same.) Go run down the street and yell "Bush Sucks" if you so please. Then come back and continue to tell all the other people in the world, who don't have as many freedoms as you do, how oppressed you are.

Re:frist psot

[ralphdaugherty]

People demanded that the federal government go into New Orleans to keep order, but they couldn't because of the law.

      You are quite wrong. Bush tried to declare martial law and none of the governors would give him permission. No one demanded he send in federal troops, they wanted the National Guard, which Bush had federalized, and FEMA, which Bush had decimated.

  rd

Re:frist psot

[Frodrick]

Is anyone on /. familier with Godwin's Law? People try to compare Bush to Hitler way too much here. Seems like Godwin's Law has been forgotten.

Aesop's corollary to Godwin's Law: "Then, when the wolf really came, no one believed the little boy."

Election season

[zoftie]

It is so, and this move can be construed as something to help with the election campaign, nothing more. The fire will be lit under his ass, to be impeached way out of the house, so he's trying to look good, but there is no money in treasury anymore to do such things. Even if there was, it is just hand waving, as some pointed to relief for disasters like a Katrina. I think Bush is obtuse, rather then malicious. Political spinsters firing off right left and center. I think equating him to hitler is a bit too much. I don't like the guy, he fucked alot of things up, but if you really know campaigns, this is in line with self promotion, the usurpation. He already crossed may constitutional lines, and now trying to make up for it.

It is election season, spinsters about. Whatever news says, you bet it will be bent in every 'legal' way to misrepresent one or other side. Welcome to the twilight zone :) This election will be interesting, with all malfunctioning Diebolds. Think hanging chads were bad... wait until you see this one.
2c

URL for CRS Report

[vague_ascetic]

Congressional Research Service Report for Congress, "The Use of Federal Troops for Disaster Assistance: Legal Issues," by Jennifer K. Elsea, Legislative Attorney, August 14, 2006

From Congressional Records

[vague_ascetic]

From The Congressional Record of September 29, 2006:
Senators Kennedy, Sessions and McCain in support; Senator Leahy's Dissent

Re:frist psot

[Flendon]

Section 1076 of the massive Authorization Act, which grants the Pentagon another $500-plus-billion for its ill-advised adventures, is entitled, "Use of the Armed Forces in Major Public Emergencies." Section 333, "Major public emergencies; interference with State and Federal law" states that "the President may employ the armed forces, including the National Guard in Federal service, to restore public order and enforce the laws of the United States when, as a result of a natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident, or other condition in any State or possession of the United States, the President determines that domestic violence has occurred to such an extent that the constituted authorities of the State or possession are incapable of ("refuse" or "fail" in) maintaining public order, "in order to suppress, in any State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy."

After Katrina people screamed that Bush didn't activate the National Guard fast enough. Bush said he didn't have permission from the Governor. Now we have this <sarcasm>wonderful</sarcasm> law. When will people be careful what they wish for?

Re:the Bill does say that ..

[RenderSeven]

The US was a one time fan of Hussein back when he was a low level assassin working for the CIA.

So, your point is that since Saddam was associated with the CIA, and that his personal blog has an article from a professional CIA hater, that somehow that gets your automatic buy-in? I dont get that. The only common factor is that you both hate the president. Thats actually fine with me (the hate part) I guess, but waving around an Iraqi propaganda story isnt going to sway many people.

Morales's avocation in the early 80's was listing covert CIA operatives, and lots of them. This is your hero? Its OK when this clown does it but when (maybe) the current administration did it to Valerie Plame, its wrong? Where is your consistency? Its not fair constructiong you worldview from the bits of string that fit your mindset and throwing out the rest.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covert_Action_Quarter ly

And yes there is no mention of Katrina. There is also no mention of Bush taking over the country. You're seeing what you want to see in it and you dont appear willing to consider anything less nefarious.

Sorry, but we ASKED our government to enable this

[bluesangria]

Everyone is so busy Bush-bashing that they conveniently forget that Bush was roundly criticized for not mobilizing the Army to rush to the aid of Katrina victims in New Orleans. What people DO NOT REALIZE is that mobilizing the Army to use in civilan issues was strictly prohibited by the Posse Comitatus act. Why? Mainly so the government wouldn't abuse the army's power against it's populace. Of course, we all cry bitterly when then government doesn't marshall all of it's resources (including the army) to help citizen victims of a natural disaster. It couldn't, you see. It was illegal. From Wikipedia "The Posse Comitatus Act and the Insurrection Act substantially limit the powers of the Federal government to use the military for law enforcement." (emphasis mine)
That was the state's responsibility, but since everyone has pretty much accepted the incompetence and corruptness of Louisiana's government, we pretty much absolved them from being able to take care of themselves. Sooo, after much criticism about the government not jumping in to help out, Bush clears the way so that at the next natural disaster, the army can roll on in and restore order. That's what people ASKED for!

So everyone step away from the knee-jerk "ohmiGAWD!!! BUSH IS TRYING TO TAKE OVER THE WORLD!!!" reaction and realize that this is what the majority of the people wanted. Don't want your government to be your mother? Then don't ask it to pick up your mess, your city's mess, and your state's mess when lack of foresight leads to disaster. It's the mark of an adult that they can pick up after themselves.

Want links? Here's one blog on how long the Posse Comitatus act has been being undermined since the 1980's by both Republicans and Democrats alike http://www.thenationaldebate.com/blog/archives/200 5/09/katrina.html
Or how about another that predicts (in Sept of 2005) that the mandate against using federal troops will be loosened? http://newsmine.org/archive/security/posse-comitat us/senator-revisits-posse-comitatus-after-katrina. txt

Just do any google search on Posse Comitatus and Katrina and you'll see why government felt it was ok to edit the Comitatus act. We WANTED our government to do it.

Re:frist psot

[alcourt]

ISO 8601 uses separators:

2001-09-11

It is in fact the type of separator used that helps identify the format used.

Interesting...

[Elbowgeek]

You've chosen to simply "despise Democrats," dismissing them out of hand, and have indicated that you would normally simply vote Republican - essentially along party lines without thought to the merits of the individual politicians.

The fact is that you waited until the very politicians you voted for started dismantling the very principles of the United States Constitution to suddenly start raising objections. If you'd not voted so blindly in previous elections, you wouldn't be in this mess, basically. But it appears to be a bit late now.

My suggestion: at the most local level, make sure that you only vote for politicians who you've thoroughly researched, completely ignoring such artificial boundaries as party names. And if the guy/gal you voted for turns out to be dishonest, make your voice known in the next election - or run for office yourself.

It's simple really.