PDA

View Full Version : Oh, shit.


MrINBN
10-29-2006, 02:17 AM
The Article (http://towardfreedom.com/home/content/view/911/)


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.

The Dark Monarch
10-29-2006, 02:38 AM
Could someone please explain this to me better than the article? I understand what its saying but hearing it spoken in a simpler wording would help solidize my ideas.

MrINBN
10-29-2006, 02:46 AM
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.

Basically bad news for anyone who opposes Bush.

Xiph0
10-29-2006, 02:49 AM
And some still plan to vote Republican. STILL.

Do you realize what kind of legislation these people are passing? This is very near Roman.

Inquisition
10-29-2006, 02:57 AM
And some still plan to vote Republican. STILL.

The ones that don't see their rights just slipping away, or the one profiting from the loss of rights. It amazes me how blind some people can really be.

Xiph0
10-29-2006, 03:06 AM
Furthermore, I just noticed this (http://www.wonkette.com/politics/iraq/stop-abusing-our-marines-210428.php) story. God damnit. -_-


Funny comment:
Maf54 (http://www.wonkette.com/commenter/Colonel%20Forbin/) says: the army wants to make sure the public recieves its ass-fucking news the right way: the republican way (with little boys).

the-caitiff
10-29-2006, 03:15 AM
I can think of only one word to describe how I feel about this; SHIT!

Jon
10-29-2006, 03:20 AM
Not living in America ftw.

Mordecai
10-29-2006, 08:45 AM
You know, I think I might just revise my life plans, as in, never go to America. I had planned on moving to the US after Uni if I could get a job with one of the Space Agencies. Methinks thats not such a good idea.

Giovanni
10-29-2006, 12:45 PM
The real irony here is that we revolted from Great Britain over less patently offensive things than this.

The Northeast and California should secede from the Union -- and link up with Canada.

Fuegodefuerza
10-29-2006, 12:53 PM
Texas independence FTW!

Secession from the Union++

We've already seceded once, who says we can't do it again? Maybe if Kinky Friedman becomes our Governor...with a name like Kinky, he's gotta have some balls.

Myst
10-29-2006, 01:20 PM
This... is going to suck. I agree with Gio about the Northeast linking up with Canada. :p

Moloch
10-29-2006, 02:11 PM
You know, the last time we screwed with Canada, they burned down the White House (circa 1812AD, Planet Earth). Ever since then, they've been sitting up there...waiting... Waiting for us to let down our guard...I wouldn't be caught dead saying anything bad about those brave, handsome psychopathic pyros up in the Great White North. Not when we're 0 for 1. - 8 Bit Theatre. :)

And to tell the truth, I never thought Bushwanker would actually go this far. >_<

World
10-29-2006, 02:14 PM
[quoite][...]facilities already contracted for and under construction by Halliburton.[/quote]
Does the name Haliburton ring any bell? Yet more money for those with connections to powerful republicans (and thus, in turn, more money for said republicans).

The only question that poses itself to me is when the republican government will act on it. Probably not during Bush's term, he is not important to it. I guess in the term after or thereafter.
As for the next general election, I already fear a rise in popularity for the republicans in due time.

Not living in America ftw.

Xiph0
10-29-2006, 03:24 PM
The real irony here is that we revolted from Great Britain over less patently offensive things than this.

The Northeast and California should secede from the Union -- and link up with Canada.


United States of Canada ftw.

I'd be all for it so long as we removed ourselves from the Commonwealth.

jbern
10-29-2006, 03:25 PM
Okey-dokey before we all start running for the hills and moving the family into our little concrete bunkers to await the jackbooted thugs coming to take our land, lets look at the section of this 'dangerous' legislation. It is in fact the entire 2007 Defense Appropriation Bill. Section 1076 is the portion that Senator Leahy objects to. It should be noted that according to govtrack the ammended bill passed the house by a vote of 398 Yes votes 23 Nos and 12 Abstains. Meaning in short that Most every Republican and Democrat signed off on this bill.

The stealth manuever and cloaked swipe of the pen is reported imply some sort of cloak and dagger hidden star chamber ceremony, except of course for the whitehouse press release, defenselink news article and many other sources. Simply google it.


SEC. 1076. USE OF THE ARMED FORCES IN MAJOR PUBLIC EMERGENCIES.
(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
H. R. 5122--323

``(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 the authority in subsection (a)(1)(A)
as soon as practicable after the determination and every 14 days
thereafter during the duration of the exercise of that authority.''.
(2) PROCLAMATION TO DISPERSE.--Section 334 of such title
is amended by inserting ``or those obstructing the enforcement
of the laws'' after ``insurgents''.
(3) HEADING AMENDMENT.--The heading of chapter 15 of
such title is amended to read as follows:
``CHAPTER 15--ENFORCEMENT OF THE LAWS TO
RESTORE PUBLIC ORDER''.
(4) CLERICAL AMENDMENTS.--(A) The tables of chapters
at the beginning of subtitle A of title 10, United States Code,
and at the beginning of part I of such subtitle, are each
amended by striking the item relating to chapter 15 and
inserting the following new item:
``15 Enforcement of the Laws to Restore Public Order ....................................... 331''.
(B) The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 15
of such title is amended by striking the item relating to sections
333 and inserting the following new item:
``333. Major public emergencies; interference with State and Federal law.''.
(b) PROVISION OF SUPPLIES, SERVICES, AND EQUIPMENT.--
(1) IN GENERAL.--Chapter 152 of such title is amended
by adding at the end the following new section:
`` 2567. Supplies, services, and equipment: provision in major
public emergencies
``(a) PROVISION AUTHORIZED.--In any situation in which the
President determines to exercise the authority in section
333(a)(1)(A) of this title, the President may direct the Secretary
of Defense to provide supplies, services, and equipment to persons
affected by the situation.
``(b) COVERED SUPPLIES, SERVICES, AND EQUIPMENT.--The sup-
plies, services, and equipment provided under this section may
include food, water, utilities, bedding, transportation, tentage,
search and rescue, medical care, minor repairs, the removal of
debris, and other assistance necessary for the immediate preserva-
tion of life and property.
``(c) LIMITATIONS.--(1) Supplies, services, and equipment may
be provided under this section--
``(A) only to the extent that the constituted authorities
of the State or possession concerned are unable to provide
such supplies, services, and equipment, as the case may be;
and ``(B) only until such authorities, or other departments or
agencies of the United States charged with the provision of
such supplies, services, and equipment, are able to provide
such supplies, services, and equipment.
H. R. 5122--324

``(2) The Secretary may provide supplies, services, and equip-
ment under this section only to the extent that the Secretary
determines that doing so will not interfere with military prepared-
ness or ongoing military operations or functions.
``(d) INAPPLICABILITY OF CERTAIN AUTHORITIES.--The provision
of supplies, services, or equipment under this section shall not
be subject to the provisions of section 403(c) of the Robert T.
Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C.
5170b(c)).''.
(2) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.--The table of sections at the
beginning of such chapter is amended by adding at the end
the following new item:
``2567. Supplies, services, and equipment: provision in major public emergencies''.
(c) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.--Section 12304(c)(1) of such title
is amended by striking ``No unit'' and all that follows through
``subsection (b),'' and inserting ``Except to perform any of the func-
tions authorized by chapter 15 or section 12406 of this title or
by subsection (b), no unit or member of a reserve component may
be ordered to active duty under this section''.


Alrighty then so what does all this mumbo jumbo mean. It means that if the State cannot or even worse will not obey federal laws or the constitiution the President can nationalize the National Gaurd over the governor's objections. The executive branch must determine if the Major Public Emergency meets several criteria and lays it out.

Eisenhower took a good deal of heat in the 1950's for nationalizing the Arkansas National Gaurd to end school segregation.

Most of the stuff the bloggers and the lone Senator from Vermont are objecting to falls under the Major Public Emergencies part from what I can interpt. It requires that the president notify congress as soon as practical and every 14 days to tell congress why the executive branch will continue to excercise this authority.

So, is it possible for the law to be abused? Yes. Any law can be abused, but like any con artist a president trying to use this will have to sell the general public and congress that the State where emergency/epidemic/terrorist incident/insurrection is incapable or unwilling to deal with the situation.

Remember congress drafts the laws, not the president. The executive branch may ask for certain language to be inserted, but that's it. Just about everyone in both parties signed off on this one too. The compromise committee that drafts the final bill between House and Senate is not comprised solely of republicans.

If you are going to blame the federal government for poor response to Hurricane Katrina, then you shouldn't be surprised to see the federal government take actions to allow them more control and the ability to override the governor of a state to mobilize the troops to enforce the law. Look at all the follow on measures that talk about empowering the Secretary of Defense to provide materials goods and services to the affected area.

I don't like reading an article about someone elses opinion of a law. If it worries you enough and you are a US citizen, then read the law and draw your own conclusions about it's possiblity for abuse. If after you read it, you feel that it is a bad law - then call/email your representatives and ask why they voted for it or what they are going to do about it?

Face facts people, the first step to controlling a population is to encourage apathy amongst the populace. If they are uninformed, they are more apt to believe whatever you say. If you don't want to be someone else's pawn than make an effort to educate yourself on what is going on around you.


Jim

Nukular Winter
10-29-2006, 03:49 PM
Jim is correct.

As much as I dislike Bush*, the first thing I thought of when I first heard about this was Bush sitting with his thumb in his ass during Katrina, then having his lackeys later claim that posse comitatus prevented them from actually doing anything.

While I don't have a lot of faith left in my fellow Americans, I believe that the surest way to accomplish a regime change would be for Bush to declare martial law and try to set himself up as some sort of dictator (which is what the worst of the tinfoil hat crowd are claiming). The military would never go along with that.

-Sean

*Dislike = active hatred. I pray every night that Bush and Cheney will realize what complete and utter wastes of skin they are and do the world a favor by drowning themselves in the nearest White House urinal... my efforts have been singularly unsucessful to date, but I'm keeping hope alive.

Xiph0
10-29-2006, 03:51 PM
If you are going to blame the federal government for poor response to Hurricane Katrina, then you shouldn't be surprised to see the federal government take actions to allow them more control and the ability to override the governor of a state to mobilize the troops to enforce the law.
Federal Government needs to bow and help the State Government in said cases, imho.

The military would never go along with that.

Blah, there's tons of undeniably treasonous things police forces and military forces have and do go along with all throughout our history. I'd hope they wouldn't, but I certainly wouldn't be counting on it.

Rob
10-29-2006, 03:53 PM
The real irony here is that we revolted from Great Britain over less patently offensive things than this.

The Northeast and California should secede from the Union -- and link up with Canada.

Sweet. We'd get free oranges and raisins. Hurry up!

jbern
10-29-2006, 03:59 PM
*Dislike = active hatred. I pray every night that Bush and Cheney will realize what complete and utter wastes of skin they are and do the world a favor by drowning themselves in the nearest White House urinal... my efforts have been singularly unsucessful to date, but I'm keeping hope alive.

Sean, you should have prayed for a larger pretzel for Bush to choke on instead!

Jim

Nukular Winter
10-29-2006, 04:11 PM
Blah, there's tons of undeniably treasonous things police forces and military forces have and do go along with all throughout our history. I'd hope they wouldn't, but I certainly wouldn't be counting on it.

Totally disagree. I come from a military family and I know a lot of active duty and retired military personnel (not to mention that I work for one of the branches of the military), and no matter how much you hear about how "the military turns people into mindless drones," it's been my overwhelming experience that the people in uniform are just like everybody else.

About the time Bush (or any other President) gives an order for the Army to go house to house in an American city to root out the turr'ists, or to neutralize a crowd of American protesters you'd see mass desertions and probably a coup. While the military generally does the bidding of the Executive branch, they're oath-bound to disobey illegal orders.

-Sean

p.s. Jim, we were so close, no? Even after the pretzel couldn't get it done, I was hopeful that he'd suffered brain damage falling off his mountain bike (of course, how would even tell if he had? *badda bing*)

Mercenary
10-29-2006, 04:26 PM
A revolution! TO THE CAPITAL! FOR THE REVOLUTION!


In all seriousness... this is bad, very bad. Suddenly my future doesnt look so good as I will be eligible for Selective Service(SS) in two years. So not good.

Hadoren
10-29-2006, 05:03 PM
The real irony here is that we revolted from Great Britain over less patently offensive things than this.

The Northeast and California should secede from the Union -- and link up with Canada.

You know, there was another revolt 1 and 1/2 centuries ago where a section of the U.S. was pissed off by the unfair election of an extremist president who was threatening their lifestyle, right to property, and states' rights (in their opinion). And it was crushed, and then the worst possible thing ever happened - the president's power was increased greatly. And the extremist president and his policies are widely seen as heroic (despite some violations of civil rights such as habeas corpeas), with the region of the U.S. being stereotyped as evil.

If seccession happens, the states that take this action will be crushed by the federal branch (the majority of the U.S. would side with the feds despite their reservations about Bush), and George W. Bush and his policies will be seen as heros after winning because the winner of a war is always seen as good. And the U.S. will lose its superpower status from the fighting, while the people and region who seceded will be demonized.

I imagine that a textbook would say:

George W. Bush had to make a hard choice between keeping all civil rights and winning the war, and he was not always successful in keeping them. However, today he is remembered as the president who saved the union.

Xiph0
10-29-2006, 05:09 PM
And the U.S. will lose its superpower status from the fighting,

Not to mention it's economy would be seriously fractured.

Nukular Winter
10-29-2006, 05:29 PM
If seccession happens, the states that take this action will be crushed by the federal branch (the majority of the U.S. would side with the feds despite their reservations about Bush), and George W. Bush and his policies will be seen as heros after winning because the winner of a war is always seen as good. And the U.S. will lose its superpower status from the fighting, while the people and region who seceded will be demonized.

Due respect, but I don't think you've really thought about this. For the sake of argument, let's suppose that there was a secession by one of the Western states... I'm from Washington (state), so we'll go with that one.

Washington the country would inherit the entire Pacific fleet of SSBNs (at Bangor), a couple of the new SSGNs (the Ohio is also at Bangor), a major shipyard (PSNS), a couple of aircraft carriers and two naval air wings. Not to mention Fort Lewis (Army) and two Air Force bases (McCord and Fairchild). That's a military presence that makes North Korea look like a bunch of kids playing with wiffleball bats...

Just like when the USSR split up, a breakup of the US would result in a bunch of nuclear states, and the only hard and fast rule of modern warfare is that you don't invade countries that have nukes.

Edit: You don't even want to think about the military power represented by a California that wanted to leave the Union...

Jamven
11-05-2006, 08:39 PM
I was reading the Armed Forces Installations on Wiki about North Carolina.
Fort Bragg, near Fayetteville; it is the largest and most comprehensive military base in the United States and is the headquarters of the XVIII Airborne Corps, 82nd Airborne Division, and the U.S. Army Special Operations Command.
Pope Air Force Base in Fayetteville, NC.
Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune which, when combined with nearby Marine bases MCAS Cherry Point, Camp Geiger, Camp Johnson, Stone Bay and Courthouse Bay, makes up the largest concentration of Marines and sailors in the world.
MCAS Cherry Point in Cherry Point, NC is home of the MC Harrier, USN F/A-18 Hornet, and USN F/A-18E/F Super Hornet squadrons
Seymour Johnson Air Force Base in Goldsboro, NC
Coast Guard (Part of District 5)
That is a little bit of fire power.

I was reading this for one of my classes and thought that I would throw this information out there if anyone wants to know.

the-caitiff
11-06-2006, 01:21 AM
I'm not so much concerned about this one law as I am about the whole system. Combine it with the Military Commissions Act and the Patriot Act and you might find that the overlapping areas of authority allow them to do almost anything. Please don't mock me as I put on my tin foil hat for this next part...


Hypothetically speaking, if we had a terrorist cell acting in a major metropolitan area would you want the government to deal with it? I will assume everyone will agree with this. It's rather sensible, see a problem then deal with it. The problem for paranoid personal liberties nuts begins when we look at what constitutes Terrorism. According the The USA Patriot Act (HR3162) Sec 802 the crime of terrorism is defined as any activities that "(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State" or "(B) appear to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population, (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion." There are additional provisions of what may be defined terrorism but these are the ones I will argue. Under these laws it is important to note that the *appearance* of evil is sufficient to convict a person, another thing worthy of notice is the phrase "or of any State" and not "of the accused's State". If someone owns a shotgun in Texas and has "dragon's breath" rounds (flamethrower like shells that are pretty cool), should they be a terrorist because those items are illegal in New York? It is possible by these definitions to be guilty of terrorism though a person is guilty of no other crimes. The appearance of intimidation or coercion is a very subjective thing. I have often been described as "intimidating" because of my size and general appearance. I'll admit that my wild long hair and beard combined with my size and penetratig stare can be rather unnerving. I practice in front of a mirror to achieve the proper effect. Now if I were to wear one of those stupid "Vote or Die!" tshirts that were all the rage last election on this coming tuesday and stare at people as they enter the polls, that would be terrorism. Have I committed any other crimes? No, I'm just a creepy person standing in a public place. The polling site in my district does not have any "no loitering" signs and is a popular gathering place (a community center). There have been no actual crimes committed, in fact this is pretty close to my idea of amusing.

Lets add another piece of scary legislation (the one everyone else is talking about), Section 1076 or the 2007 Defense Appropriation Bill. Now since I started living in Florida, I've been through 14 hurricanes, a number of tropical storms, and a few supercells that spawned devastating tornados. In that time, I've lived in a "disaster zone" under an "emergency" three times. When there is no power, water, or food supplies to be had (except those that native floridians and the smarter imports like myself had stashed away before hand), such an emergency qualifies under the above law. Now I am a militant extremist (just look at any of the many times I've made a fool of myself in the politics forum) in a semi-police state. Oh, and I'm a terrorist. Section 809 of the Patriot Act says there is no statute of limitations for terrorists.

Add in the Commissions Act, and I am one step away from a free trip to Guantonamo Bay when the next storm rolls around. It would be a great time to clean out all the troublemakers. Under martial law, the government pretty much owns the media and all the "dirty evil terrorists" get what they deserve while the public applauds.


Am I honestly so arrogant and paranoid that I think being creepy and a libertarian will attract the government's attention? Not by a long shot. But could the laws be abused when a convenient set of circumstances occur? Possibly. I'll probably never have to worry about these laws being used against me, but I still don't like them. I'm not running for the border just yet, but I strongly dislike the policies of this administration and the precedents being laid that could be expanded or combined with other laws to create criminals where none existed before.

I am forever thankful that The Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003 never became law. That would have really screwed over dissenting Americans.

Xiph0
11-06-2006, 01:56 AM
Am I honestly so arrogant and paranoid that I think being creepy and a libertarian will attract the government's attention? Not by a long shot.

Ah, well yah see, I am. What was one of Hitlers first moves when he took control? He went after his opposition, publicly. He beat the Left-Wing members in the streets using the SA.

What was one of Mussolini's first moves? He took control of the economy. Oil anyone?

I'm sure if you check any dictators rise throughout history from Nero to Hitler you'll find them constantly attacking their opposition with false labels(Democrats support the terrorists!) and outright hostilities.

The main difference here is that it's on American soil. It was never, ever meant to be allowed to happen here.