Slashdot Log In
Bush Signs Bill Enabling Martial Law
Posted by
kdawson
on Sat Oct 28, 2006 03:42 PM
from the maybe-sweden dept.
from the maybe-sweden dept.
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.
Related Stories
[+]
Politics: Pentagon Reveals News Correction Unit 757 comments
Jonas Wisser writes "BBC is reporting that a newly created Pentagon unit has a mandate to fight 'inaccurate' news stories. From the article: 'The Pentagon has set up a new unit to focus on promoting its message across 24-hour rolling news outlets, and particularly on the internet. [...] A Pentagon memo seen by the Associated Press news agency said the new unit will "develop messages" for the 24-hour news cycle and aim to "correct the record". A spokesman said the unit would monitor media such as weblogs and would also employ "surrogates", or top politicians or lobbyists who could be interviewed on TV and radio shows.'"
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Oh My. (Score:5, Insightful)
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. (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Oh My. (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Mod parent up! (Score:5, Insightful)
It isn't whether you have elections, it's who counts the votes.
Parent
Re:Mod parent up! (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
In COBN3T AM3RNKA (Score:5, Funny)
"Enabling". It's a fascists 'comfort word'.
Parent
Re:Oh My. (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Oh My. (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Oh My. (Score:5, Interesting)
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).
Parent
Re:Oh My. (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
dumbass (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re:Oh My. (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Oh My. (Score:5, Insightful)
They see to be holding their own in Iraq.
Parent
Re:Oh My. (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Parent
Re:Oh My. (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Oh My. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re:Oh My. (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Oh My. (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Revolution, American Style (Score:5, Insightful)
In a couple of weeks, on TUE November 7, 2006, you can go to the polls to fire your Representative in the House [congress.org]. 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 [afterdowningstreet.org].
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.
Parent
Re:Oh My. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Opposition makes for Good Government (Score:5, Interesting)
"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
Parent
New definition for "initiated" (Score:5, Insightful)
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).
Parent
Re:Oh My. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Live up to your anthem! (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Parent
Re:Oh My. (Score:5, Insightful)
I have yet to receive a response to that question.
Parent
Re:Oh My. (Score:5, Funny)
Who says Americans don't remember history?
Parent
Obligatory.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Remember remember the 5th of november... (Score:5, Funny)
Did anyone get a delivery for a g. fox by accident? Anyone?
Parent
Calling Godwin (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, it USED to be about freedom (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Well, that's one way... (Score:5, Funny)
Sean
This sounds like a troll (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re:This sounds like a troll (Score:5, Informative)
In US dollars or in Real money? If you adjust for inflation [dogsofthedow.com], the Dow has seen it's last high in 2000.
Parent
One cloaked swipe of a pen? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Inflammatory and Misleading (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Presidents have ALWAYS had this power ... (Score:5, Informative)
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 [wjopc.com] 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":
Appropriate William Adama Quote (Score:5, Insightful)
This is what you wanted (Score:5, Insightful)
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!
Ballots always win out over Bullets (Score:5, Insightful)
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 - CappadonnaOpen revolution?? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Open revolution?? (Score:5, Funny)
Dad?
Parent
Re:Law (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re:Hurricane and winter storms (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:frist psot (Score:5, Informative)
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
Parent
Re:frist psot (Score:5, Insightful)
1) In 1933 "terrorists" destroyed German Reichstag [wikipedia.org]
2) To begin war on terror, the German "Patriot" act [wikipedia.org] was passed getting rid of habeas corpus
3) The German congress passed the Enabling Act [wikipedia.org] 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?
Parent
Re:frist psot (Score:5, Funny)
Can I get a Hallelujah?
Close. We got Fallujah.
Parent
Re:frist psot (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re:frist psot (Score:5, Insightful)
Viva la revolution!
Parent