Bush Signs Bill Enabling Martial Law 1594
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.
Oh Jesus.. (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
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
Re:Open revolution?? (Score:1, Interesting)
Sock it up. (Score:1, Interesting)
>GWB is simultaneously the stupidest president ever and is engineering a most Machiavellian evil plan to take over the world.
Two words: Sock. Puppet.
Re:Open revolution?? (Score:4, Interesting)
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: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).
Re:Inflammatory and Misleading (Score:3, Interesting)
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
Re:frist psot (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:Oh My. (Score:2, Interesting)
Well, the Patriot act changed my mind. Now I've got a 9mm and 1000 rounds (which when delivered, the FedEx guy asked, "Here's your ammo. You going to go back east and shoot the president now?" with a hopeful tone. And that was sometime in 2003), in addition to my wife's 12 gauge.
I've always felt that everyone should know how to use a gun, at least a long gun, but in this day and age, I feel that everyone (of sound mind) should own one. After all, you never know if/when someone will hack the voting machines and put Democrats in charge of the government, with all the powers that the republicans have now. See, no matter which party you prefer, I think it's better that the government have the least power necessary to do their job.
Re:Oh My. (Score:2, Interesting)
Keith Olbermann: Death of Habeas Corpus (Score:2, Interesting)
HAHAHAHA!!! (Score:3, Interesting)
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:Oh My. (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:Oh My. (Score:3, Interesting)
A better way to protest a lack of options is to not vote. Poor voter turnout is noticed.
Federalist Balances? (Score:3, Interesting)
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:frist psot (Score:1, Interesting)
In any event, where exactly is the accountability? I don't see a single person coming forward to take responsibility for the fuckups... Certes a powergrab (which this is) is not what I would call accountability.
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.
Next thing to watch for: (Score:4, Interesting)
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
Re:frist psot (Score:0, Interesting)
Alien: foreigner
Illegal: breaking the law
I don't see the problem.
Immigration Stats [uscis.gov]
Ask any southern hospital why they are having financial trouble. Now, President Bush is somewhat to blame for this, by requiring hospitals to care for illegal aliens free.
Also, I think it is reasonable to force quarantines and vaccinations in a bio-terror attack. The whole article is flame bait.
Moo (Score:3, Interesting)
Actually, the Constitution [loc.gov] allows that, in Article 1, section 9.
Re:frist psot (Score:0, Interesting)
You dolt. Bush and his administration has led the US into a badly thought out clusterfuck of an operation in Iraq alone, violating international law (under the letter of the law committing atrocities as it wasn't a war but an aggressive act against another country making the US the bad guys). He's not going after the bad guys, while he may truly believe that is what he is doing. Rather that's what he naively and idiotically intended, according to his pubic speeches. Instead, he's going after entire countries and eroding international support for the efforts abroad, and further destabilizing the Middle East. Meanwhile at home US citizens in the wake of 11/09/2001 have had so many personal liberties eroded that the Administration's efforts are as a series of counter productive measures. Furthermore now martial law seems a possibility in future, and for all that it seems like anti-US militants would not only be just as capable of carrying out an attack on the US, they've more motive than ever.
Fine, it's childish and pointless to compare someone to Hitler, most people who aren't historians are badly or partially informed (myself included) and couldn't hold a discourse World War II for an extended period and get a fact determinably correct, let alone display enough clarity of thought to make that clicheed comparison in a coherent manner. But just because that's inane, doesn't mean Bush is somehow fighting the good fight. He's just throwing US citizens' lives at a problem he's never properly devoted thought to. He is bereft of any nous nor military leadership, and he's a lousy orator. In fairness, as a leader Hitler was more effective*, but also more of a crackpot. But Hitler is no longer a problem looking for a solution, Bush is still costing people their lives and freedoms and making the US a more likely target.
*up to a point, Hitler was a strong military leader - however, he did not have military savvy himself, but managed to delegate effectively - when he brought his intentions onto the battlefield the outstanding losses of the German troops at Stalingrad came about
Re:Oh My. (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
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 [veteranstoday.com] 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.
Your talking points are out of date (Score:3, Interesting)
And what you left out is that this claim has already been debunked. [alternet.org]
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 (Score:3, Interesting)
The Bill Doesnt Say This At All (Score:5, Interesting)
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 [uruknet.biz]
> 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 [wikipedia.org]
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 [senate.gov]
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:Oh My. (Score:4, Interesting)
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:frist psot (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Oh My. (Score:1, Interesting)
Yes the fucking terrorists HAVE won. They don't have to hate our freedom -- they got the slimeball in the White House to take it away for them.
So far the wars he's started have cost close to half a trillion. By the time we've finished ignoring our own schools to rebuild the Iraqi educational system and the rest of their sand warrens, we'll be well beyond that amount.
It's estimated that already 40% of those returning from Iraq have PTSD. I spend a good part of my time helping out a Vienam vet who still suffers from it 30 years later. And the VA has done precious little for him. His nephew got bitten by sand fleas in Iraq and, as a result, had to come home to be treated for flesh-eating bacteria, from which he lost a large amount of leg tissue. He's also being treated for radiation burns from the fucking oh-so-safe DU ammunition we've used over there.
Finally, it s been estimated that, by the time we've put that Humpty Dumpty off a failed state back together and taken whatever care we will of our new vets (not a good record since Vietnam and Daddy's version of Iraq), we'll have gone through about two trillion dollars.
They may hate out capitalism, but for their two million dollar investment in 9/11, that comes to about return of $1,000,000 on the dollar -- in any industry, a healthy return on investment.
Re:Mod parent up! (Score:2, Interesting)
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...").
Re:Oh My. (Score:2, Interesting)
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.
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. (Score:2, Interesting)
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. (Score:2, Interesting)
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:In COBN3T AM3RNKA (Score:3, Interesting)
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.