Slashdot Mirror
Bush Signs Bill Enabling Martial Law
An anonymous reader writes to point us to an article on the meaning of a new law that President Bush signed on Oct. 17. It seems to allow the President to impose martial law on any state or territory, using federal troops and/or the state's own, or other states', National Guard troops. From the article: "In a stealth maneuver, President Bush has signed into law a provision which, according to Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont), will actually encourage the President to declare federal martial law. It does so by revising the Insurrection Act, a set of laws that limits the President's ability to deploy troops within the United States. The Insurrection Act (10 U.S.C.331 -335) has historically, along with the Posse Comitatus Act (18 U.S.C.1385), helped to enforce strict prohibitions on military involvement in domestic law enforcement. With one cloaked swipe of his pen, Bush is seeking to undo those prohibitions." Here is a link to the bill in question. The relevant part is Sec. 1076 about 3/4 of the way down the page.
My initial reaction to this is "Oh My."
Sometimes, people in power should have checks and balances to their ability to oppress their own people. After all, a little revolution now and again is a good thing.
This probably has more to do with the hurricanes and winter storms. During Katrina, the Feds were criticised for *not* bringing in the defence force to render aid.
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
"People should not be afraid of their government - Governments should be afraid of their people"
How much more are people going to take before they realize what is going on here? Seriously, we're only a step away from open revolution.. Will it actually take having troops parade around your hometown enforcing martial law before people stand up for their rights?? (which we don't have many anymore). I'm not saying there should be a call-to-arms, but I AM saying that people need to wake up and see what's going on before it's too late! First Patriot Act, Patriot Act II, Military Commissions Act, and now THIS?! All in the name of "terrorism". We're just letting the government trample all over our constitution, because people don't understand why it was written in the first place, TO LIMIT GOVERNMENT! When will people realize that FREEDOM is NOT letting your government take away all your rights...
- Aetheral Research -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enabling_Act
I feel like I'm bent over, my pants are down, and the illiterate president is hard at work behind me.
Considering the statement "Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it" and the quality of education in US public schools, I get the feeling of inevitability.
Peak of cold war jumps to mind, except now instead of communism, it's called terrorism.
Are we doomed? Is slavery at hand?
Unless people would stop choosing their leaders based on their tie quality, we will all suffer.
there is no issue with my network
Rather than having everyone load a huge bill... here is the text of the section:
The formatting sucks, but hey, it's congress.
=========
SEC. 1076. USE OF THE ARMED FORCES IN MAJOR PUBLIC EMER-
GENCIES.
(a) USE OF THE ARMED FORCES AUTHORIZED.--
(1) IN GENERAL.--Section 333 of title 10, United States
Code, is amended to read as follows:
" 333. Major public emergencies; interference with State and
Federal law
"(a) USE OF ARMED FORCES IN MAJOR PUBLIC EMERGENCIES.--
(1) The President may employ the armed forces, including the
National Guard in Federal service, to--
"(A) restore public order and enforce the laws of the United
States when, as a result of a natural disaster, epidemic, or
other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or
incident, or other condition in any State or possession of the
United States, the President determines that--
"(i) domestic violence has occurred to such an extent
that the constituted authorities of the State or possession
are incapable of maintaining public order; and
"(ii) such violence results in a condition described in
paragraph (2); or
"(B) suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic
violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy if such insurrec-
tion, violation, combination, or conspiracy results in a condition
described in paragraph (2).
"(2) A condition described in this paragraph is a condition
that-- "(A) so hinders the execution of the laws of a State or
possession, as applicable, and of the United States within that
State or possession, that any part or class of its people is
deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named
in the Constitution and secured by law, and the constituted
authorities of that State or possession are unable, fail, or refuse
to protect that right, privilege, or immunity, or to give that
protection; or
"(B) opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the
United States or impedes the course of justice under those
laws.
"(3) In any situation covered by paragraph (1)(B), the State
shall be considered to have denied the equal protection of the
laws secured by the Constitution.
"(b) NOTICE TO CONGRESS.--The President shall notify Congress
of the determination to exercise
I 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:::
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.
Did anyone get a delivery for a g. fox by accident? Anyone?
That's one way to get around those pesky two term limits.
Sean
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.
Even Saddam had elections.
It isn't whether you have elections, it's who counts the votes.
Bush Moves Toward Martial Law
Frank Morales
October 26, 2006
In a stealth maneuver, President Bush has signed into law a provision which, according to Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont), will actually encourage the President to declare federal martial law (1). It does so by revising the Insurrection Act, a set of laws that limits the President's ability to deploy troops within the United States. The Insurrection Act (10 U.S.C.331 -335) has historically, along with the Posse Comitatus Act (18 U.S.C.1385), helped to enforce strict prohibitions on military involvement in domestic law enforcement. With one cloaked swipe of his pen, Bush is seeking to undo those prohibitions.
Public Law 109-364, or the "John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007" (H.R.5122) (2), which was signed by the commander in chief on October 17th, 2006, in a private Oval Office ceremony, allows the President to declare a "public emergency" and station troops anywhere in America and take control of state-based National Guard units without the consent of the governor or local authorities, in order to "suppress public disorder."
President Bush seized this unprecedented power on the very same day that he signed the equally odious Military Commissions Act of 2006. In a sense, the two laws complement one another. One allows for torture and detention abroad, while the other seeks to enforce acquiescence at home, preparing to order the military onto the streets of America. Remember, the term for putting an area under military law enforcement control is precise; the term is "martial law."
Section 1076 of the massive Authorization Act, which grants the Pentagon another $500-plus-billion for its ill-advised adventures, is entitled, "Use of the Armed Forces in Major Public Emergencies." Section 333, "Major public emergencies; interference with State and Federal law" states that "the President may employ the armed forces, including the National Guard in Federal service, to restore public order and enforce the laws of the United States when, as a result of a natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident, or other condition in any State or possession of the United States, the President determines that domestic violence has occurred to such an extent that the constituted authorities of the State or possession are incapable of ("refuse" or "fail" in) maintaining public order, "in order to suppress, in any State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy."
For the current President, "enforcement of the laws to restore public order" means to commandeer guardsmen from any state, over the objections of local governmental, military and local police entities; ship them off to another state; conscript them in a law enforcement mode; and set them loose against "disorderly" citizenry - protesters, possibly, or those who object to forced vaccinations and quarantines in the event of a bio-terror event.
The law also facilitates militarized police round-ups and detention of protesters, so called "illegal aliens," "potential terrorists" and other "undesirables" for detention in facilities already contracted for and under construction by Halliburton. That's right. Under the cover of a trumped-up "immigration emergency" and the frenzied militarization of the southern border, detention camps are being constructed right under our noses, camps designed for anyone who resists the foreign and domestic agenda of the Bush administration.
An article on "recent contract awards" in a recent issue of the slick, insider "Journal of Counterterrorism & Homeland Security International" reported that "global engineering and technical services powerhouse KBR [Kellog, Brown & Root] announced in January 2006 that its Government and Infrastructure division was awarded an Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract to support U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) facilities in the event of an emergency." "With a maximum total value of
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
And I apologise if it sparks off a huge flame war, it's not my intention. I assure you it's a serious question.
Sitting here in the UK (and yes, it's hardly a shining example for the rest of the world, most of us are all too aware of it), it's easy to get the impression that George W. Bush has bumbled his way through office for six years or whatever and not done a single thing right.
Is this impression correct? Seriously, has he done anything good?
In the words of William A. Niskanen:1 0.niskanen.html#Byline
"It's not that unified governments love to purchase bombers, but, rather, that they tend to draw us into war. This may sound improbable at first, but consider this: In 200 years of U.S. history, every one of our conflicts involving more than a week of ground combat has been initiated by a unified government. Each of the four major American wars during the 20th century, for example--World War I, World War II, the Korean War, and the Vietnam War--was initiated by a Democratic president with the support of a Democratic Congress. The current war in Iraq, initiated by a Republican president and backed by a Republican Congress, is consistent with this pattern. It also stands as the only use of military force involving more than a week of ground combat that has been initiated by a Republican president in over a century. Divided government appears to be an important constraint on American participation in war. "
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2006/06
We are all just people.
Um, you guys know that bills don't just magically appear on the president's desk, right? One swipe of the pen?! If he was able to sign something that screws you, it's because hundreds of people, working against your interest, put it there. Yes, blame Bush for not vetoing it, but don't stop there. If you can only count ONE pen, you're retarded.
You're voting if the midterms in a few days, right? Everybody in the House who voted for this, is up for re-election. About a third of the people who voted for it in the Senate, are up for re-election. Are you going to say "no, stop doing this"? Or are you going to say "woohoo! Keep up the good work, government"? The government is waiting to hear your response. Their favorite response is silence: there is no better way to register your enthusiastic approval.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
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?
In Soviet America, Martial Law is Enabling Bush!
"Enabling". It's a fascists 'comfort word'.
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
Coincidence you say?
1) In 1933 "terrorists" destroyed German Reichstag
2) To begin war on terror, the German "Patriot" act was passed getting rid of habeas corpus
3) The German congress passed the Enabling Act to help the president's "war on terror".
4) Hitler consumated the powers granted to him by the Congress through this legal process.
And the countless sheeple cheered on.
Bush is about to sign Step 3)
Can I get a Hallelujah?
Obama likes poor people so much, he wants to make more of them.
We already have a series of escalating revolutions built into our government. Elections and impeachment.
In a couple of weeks, on TUE November 7, 2006, you can go to the polls to fire your Representative in the House. A good first move, especially if they're Republican, because the House is supposed to stop the president from abuses. Through oversight in committees overseeing all the president's executive actions and agencies. Through hearings, to which Congress can legally force people to appear and explain their actions, facing penalties for lying like "contempt of Congress", "making a false statement", and the usual perjury and other penalties for lying. Republicans in the House have failed to oversee Bush's actions, instead just keeping each other reelected and sending $TRILLIONS each year to their favorite bribers^Wsponsors.
The House is also not supposed to send laws to Bush that misrepresent their constituents, like laws encouraging martial law or destroying posse comitatus, etc. The Republican House has instead sent these laws to Bush, secretly or just quietly.
You'll probably have a chance to fire one of your senators, too, that Tuesday. Odds are they're a Republican, and have worked together with the Republican House to keep the Republican government, headed by Bush, rolling in dollars, without accountability, while he moves us further from freedom and closer to tyranny. These elections are our version of regularly scheduled revolutions, so no one gets hurt, but change is part of the programme.
But the House is even more important. Because the House, representing the people, has the responsiblity to impeach a president out of control. Especially a criminal president. Impeachment is like indictment for civilians: it's the formal accusation of specific charges against the president, and beginning of a trial in the Senate. Actual conviction in the Senate might not happen, or take too long, but impeachment itself, once begun, is a strong way to stop presidents like Bush from doing anything more. Meanwhile, Congress can pass and repeal bad laws to fix what the president has done. If the president persists, conviction in the Senate is even more likely to be prompt. Unless Republicans really do buy into Bush's gang, and rush to do more damage while their boy is still running things. Most Americans want Congress to impeach Bush.
We all want a revolution. The last few revolutions have been nonstarters, in 2004, 2002, and 2000 - the bad guys won. It's probably time for industrial-strength revolution, impeachment, because the regular revolutions, elections, aren't enough. We'll have the regular revolution first, then see how much we can fix without lowering the boom on Bush. But since he's hell-bent on tyranny, we'll probably have to impeach him, too.
Not a minute too soon.
--
make install -not war
Can I get a Hallelujah?
Close. We got Fallujah.
Is anyone on /. familiar with Godwin's Law? People try to compare Bush to Hitler way too much here. Seems like Godwin's Law has been forgotten.
First of all, Godwin's "Law" says nothing more than:
As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one
Big deal.
Further:
Godwin's Law does not dispute whether, in a particular instance, a reference or comparison to Hitler or the Nazis might be apt. It is precisely because such a reference or comparison may sometimes be appropriate, Godwin argues in his book, Cyber Rights: Defending Free Speech in the Digital Age, that overuse of the Hitler/Nazi comparison should be avoided, as it robs the valid comparisons of their impact.
If you believe, as many of us do, that comparisons between Bush and Hitler *are* valid, then Godwin's Law is totally irrelevant in this context.
// TODO: Insert Cool Sig
Then there are the dolts on slashdot who get their history lessons from other dolts on slashdot.
Viva la revolution!
Yeah, it was pretty awful of those Democrats in 1941 to start things off by attacking Pearl Harbor.
And the author kinda forgot Iraq War I (non-unified administration).
You see, "initiated" kinda requires the US to have actually started the war, not just responding to an attack on one of our allies (which is the situation in the other wars mentioned).
Some of these Executive Orders have been around since the days of JFK. The umbrella EO 12919 was signed by President Clinton when he was in office back in 1994.
A fictional memo written to President Clinton back in 1999 gives a nice legal summary, history, and analysis of the laws already in place that would permit him or any president to declare martial law. From the "memo":
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.
Everyone is entitled to his own opinions, but not his own facts.
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.
So - you *wanted* this - you *cried* for it! "Bush didn't act fast enough! He should have done more!" Ok, if you think so, we'll give him that authority. Remember the looting in the streets? The local police deserted, and the ones left couldn't maintain order. The governor refused to call in the troops. Next time, the president can do it.
Be careful what you ask for - you just might get it!
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
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 - CappadonnaAre you still the home of the brave, and the land of the free? Or have you been cowed into accepting a police state? In many ways, America has been the greatest nation in history. Are you going to give up that status now because of a single incident?
What was once true, is no longer so
That's a bit like saying that McDonalds will stop serving crappy food in 2009 because Ronald McDonald will be leaving.
Patrick Doyle
I mod down every jackass who puts his moderation policy in his sig. Oh, wait a sec....
It's not a new authority, but there used to be restrictions on the President's ability to use it. Before, the President could only order troops to move within a state for any duties outside federal property with the permission of that state's legislature, or if the legislature could not convene, that of the government.
Now Bush can order troops to do anything at all without the consent of local authorities, and not get impeached for it. And you can believe that governors would be calling for his head if he declared martial law in their states.
The following list of people voted to suspend the writ of Habeas Corpus and must NOT be allowed to violate their oath again.
Don Young (R-AK)
Robert Aderholt (R-AL) Spencer Bachus (R-AL) Jo Bonner (R-AL) Robert Cramer (D-AL) Artur Davis (D-AL) Terry Everett (R-AL) Michael Rogers (R-AL)
John Boozman (R-AR) Mike Ross (D-AR)
Jeff Flake (R-AZ) Trent Franks (R-AZ) J.D. Hayworth (R-AZ) Jim Kolbe (R-AZ) Rick Renzi (R-AZ) John Shadegg (R-AZ)
Brian Bilbray (R-CA) Mary Bono (R-CA) Ken Calvert (R-CA) John Campbell (R-CA) John Doolittle (R-CA) David Dreier (R-CA) Elton Gallegly (R-CA) Wally Herger (R-CA) Duncan Hunter (R-CA) Darrell Issa (R-CA) Jerry Lewis (R-CA) Dan Lungren (R-CA) Howard McKeon (R-CA) Gary Miller (R-CA) Devin Nunes (R-CA) Richard Pombo (R-CA) Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) Ed Royce (R-CA) William Thomas (R-CA)
Bob Beauprez (R-CO) Joel Hefley (R-CO) Marilyn Musgrave (R-CO) John Salazar (D-CO) Thomas Tancredo (R-CO)
Nancy Johnson (R-CT) Christopher Shays (R-CT) Robert Simmons (R-CT)
Michael Bilirakis (R-FL) F. Allen Boyd (D-FL) Ginny Brown-Waite (R-FL) Ander Crenshaw (R-FL) Lincoln Diaz-Balart (R-FL) Mario Diaz-Balart (R-FL) Tom Feeney (R-FL) Mark Foley (R-FL) Katherine Harris (R-FL) Connie Mack (R-FL) John Mica (R-FL) Jeff Miller (R-FL) Adam Putnam (R-FL) Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL) E. Clay Shaw (R-FL) Cliff Stearns (R-FL) Dave Weldon (R-FL) C.W. Bill Young (R-FL)
John Barrow (D-GA) Sanford Bishop (D-GA) Nathan Deal (R-GA) Phil Gingrey (R-GA) Jack Kingston (R-GA) John Linder (R-GA) Jim Marshall (D-GA) Charles Norwood (R-GA) Tom Price (R-GA) David Scott (D-GA) Lynn Westmoreland (R-GA)
Leonard Boswell (D-IA) Steve King (R-IA) Tom Latham (R-IA) Jim Nussle (R-IA)
C.L. Otter (R-ID) Mike Simpson (R-ID)
Melissa Bean (D-IL) Judy Biggert (R-IL) J. Dennis Hastert (R-IL) Henry Hyde (R-IL) Timothy Johnson (R-IL) Mark Kirk (R-IL) Ray LaHood (R-IL) Donald Manzullo (R-IL) John Shimkus (R-IL) Jerry Weller (R-IL)
Dan Burton (R-IN) Steve Buyer (R-IN) Chris Chocola (R-IN) John Hostettler (R-IN) Mike Pence (R-IN) Mike Sodrel (R-IN) Mark Souder (R-IN)
Dennis Moore (D-KS) Jim Ryun (R-KS) Todd Tiahrt (R-KS)
Ben Chandler (D-KY) Geoff Davis (R-KY) Ron Lewis (R-KY) Anne Northup (R-KY) Harold Rogers (R-KY) Edward Whitfield (R-KY)
Rodney Alexander (R-LA) Richard Baker (R-LA) Charles Boustany (R-LA) Bobby Jindal (R-LA) Jim McCrery (R-LA) Charlie Melancon (D-LA)
Michael Michaud (D-ME)
Dave Camp (R-MI) Vernon Ehlers (R-MI) Peter Hoekstra (R-MI) Joseph Knollenberg (R-MI) Thaddeus McCotter (R-MI)
Candice Miller (R-MI) Michael Rogers (R-MI) Joe Schwarz (R-MI) Fred Upton (R-MI)
Gil Gutknecht (R-MN) Mark Kennedy (R-MN) John Kline (R-MN) Collin Peterson (D-MN) Jim Ramstad (R-MN)
Todd Akin (R-MO) Roy Blunt (R-MO) Jo Ann Emerson (R-MO) Sam Graves (R-MO) Kenny Hulshof (R-MO)
Charles Pickering (R-MS) Gene Taylor (D-MS) Roger Wicker (R-MS)
Dennis Rehberg (R-MT)
Howard Coble (R-NC) Bob Etheridge (D-NC) Virginia Foxx (R-NC) Robin Hayes (R-NC) Patrick McHenry (R-NC) Mike McIntyre (D-NC) Sue Myrick (R-NC) Charles Taylor (R-NC)
Earl Pomeroy (D-ND)
Jeff Fortenberry (R-NE) Tom Osborne (R-NE) Lee Terry (R-NE)
Charles Bass (R-NH) Jeb Bradley (R-NH)
Robert Andrews (D-NJ) Michael Ferguson (R-NJ) Rodney Frelinghuysen (R-NJ) Scott Garrett (R-NJ) Frank LoBiondo (R-NJ) Jim Saxton (R-NJ) Christopher Smith (R-NJ)
Steve Pearce (R-NM) Heather Wilson (R-NM)
James Gibbons (R-NV) Jon Porter (R-NV)
Sherwood Boehlert (R-NY) Vito Fossella (R-NY) Brian Higgins (D-NY) Sue Kelly (R-NY) Peter King (R-NY) Randy Kuhl (R-NY) John McHugh (R-NY) Thomas Reynolds (R-NY) John Sweeney (R-NY) James Walsh (R-NY)
John Boehner (R-OH) Sherrod Brown (D-OH) Steve Chabot (R-OH) Paul Gillmor (R-OH) David Hobson (R-OH) Michael Oxley (R-OH) Deborah Pryce (R-OH) Ralph Regula (R-OH) Jean Schmidt (R-OH) Patrick Tiberi (R-OH) Michael Turner (R-OH)
Dan Boren (D-OK) Tom Cole (R-OK) Ernest Istook (R-O
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
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!!"