Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?

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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Bush Signs Bill Enabling Martial Law

Comments Filter:
  • Oh My. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Meagermanx ( 768421 ) on Saturday October 28, 2006 @04:44PM (#16624744)
    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. (Score:5, Funny)

      by Rachel Lucid ( 964267 ) on Saturday October 28, 2006 @04:49PM (#16624774) Homepage Journal
      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. (Score:5, Insightful)

        by HotBlackDessiato ( 842220 ) on Saturday October 28, 2006 @05:02PM (#16624910)
        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. (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Broken scope ( 973885 ) on Saturday October 28, 2006 @05:15PM (#16625032) Homepage
        Suddenly the 1 reason for the 2nd amendment becomes crystal clear.
        • Re:Oh My. (Score:5, Insightful)

          by jnf ( 846084 ) on Saturday October 28, 2006 @05:24PM (#16625128)
          indeed, the framers out of the bill of rights recognized two forms of a citizens vote.
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Doc Ruby ( 173196 )
          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 vo
          • 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.
    • by Doc Ruby ( 173196 ) on Saturday October 28, 2006 @05:53PM (#16625446) Homepage Journal
      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.
  • by gardyloo ( 512791 ) on Saturday October 28, 2006 @04:45PM (#16624752)
    I'm quite certain that Bush thinks those are some conditions to be fixed with 5iaGRa.
  • by LordEd ( 840443 ) on Saturday October 28, 2006 @04:46PM (#16624758)
    ... the white house quickly slashdots the article alerting people to the bill.
  • by flyingfsck ( 986395 ) on Saturday October 28, 2006 @04:48PM (#16624770)
    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: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by majutsu ( 1018766 )
      Or that is one way to justify it.
    • by Xeth ( 614132 ) on Saturday October 28, 2006 @05:08PM (#16624970) Journal
      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?
    • 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.
    • 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 focus

  • Obligatory.... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by LordPhantom ( 763327 ) on Saturday October 28, 2006 @04:50PM (#16624790)
    "People should not be afraid of their government - Governments should be afraid of their people"
  • Oh Jesus.. (Score:4, Interesting)

    by yamamushi ( 903955 ) <[yamamushi] [at] []> on Saturday October 28, 2006 @04:53PM (#16624812) Homepage
    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...
  • Calling Godwin (Score:5, Insightful)

    by rolfwind ( 528248 ) on Saturday October 28, 2006 @04:55PM (#16624832)
  • by slidersv ( 972720 ) on Saturday October 28, 2006 @04:56PM (#16624844) Journal
    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.
    • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 28, 2006 @05:12PM (#16624996)
      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 (Score:4, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 28, 2006 @04:58PM (#16624866)
    Rather than having everyone load a huge bill... here is the text of the section:
    The formatting sucks, but hey, it's congress.


    (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
    (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
    "(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: (Score:3, Insightful)

      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.
  • by arcite ( 661011 ) on Saturday October 28, 2006 @05:00PM (#16624890)

    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:::

  • by jafo ( 11982 ) * on Saturday October 28, 2006 @05:05PM (#16624928) Homepage
    That's one way to get around those pesky two term limits.

  • by BeeBeard ( 999187 ) on Saturday October 28, 2006 @05:07PM (#16624954)
    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!
  • by Bertie ( 87778 ) on Saturday October 28, 2006 @05:23PM (#16625116)
    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: (Score:3, Insightful)

      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/accomod

      • by Bertie ( 87778 ) on Saturday October 28, 2006 @05:51PM (#16625428)
        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.
      • by RAMMS+EIN ( 578166 ) on Saturday October 28, 2006 @07:59PM (#16626594) Homepage Journal
        ``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.
  • by Sloppy ( 14984 ) on Saturday October 28, 2006 @05:24PM (#16625132) Homepage Journal

    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.

  • by crucini ( 98210 ) on Saturday October 28, 2006 @05:28PM (#16625176)
    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: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by paitre ( 32242 )
      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 y
    • by TubeSteak ( 669689 ) on Saturday October 28, 2006 @06:04PM (#16625550) Journal
      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.
    • 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...
  • by slightlyspacey ( 799665 ) on Saturday October 28, 2006 @06:15PM (#16625638)
    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

  • by Laven ( 102436 ) on Saturday October 28, 2006 @06:27PM (#16625756)
    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"
  • Lovely... (Score:4, Funny)

    by AVee ( 557523 ) <> on Saturday October 28, 2006 @06:36PM (#16625842) Homepage
    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...
  • HAHAHAHA!!! (Score:3, Interesting)

    by HangingChad ( 677530 ) on Saturday October 28, 2006 @07:17PM (#16626188) Homepage

    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.

  • by Curunir_wolf ( 588405 ) on Saturday October 28, 2006 @07:26PM (#16626260) Homepage Journal
    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!

    • by RAMMS+EIN ( 578166 ) on Saturday October 28, 2006 @08:52PM (#16627120) Homepage Journal
      ``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.
  • by Cappadonna ( 737133 ) on Saturday October 28, 2006 @07:41PM (#16626398) Journal

    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
  • by Ralph Spoilsport ( 673134 ) on Saturday October 28, 2006 @08:12PM (#16626730) Journal
    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...


  • by RenderSeven ( 938535 ) on Sunday October 29, 2006 @12:41AM (#16628824)
    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 : []

    > 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. []

    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: []

    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!!"

It is not for me to attempt to fathom the inscrutable workings of Providence. -- The Earl of Birkenhead