Bush says noooo. Does he want Joe?

The latest shocking news about the state of our country.

If you have the inclination take a look at what follows. I’d be interested in your reaction(s).

*Bush Moves Toward Martial Law** Frank Morales ::/ The incoming address of this article is : // towardfreedom.com/home/content/view/911/
/ *

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 eencourage 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, aas 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, in other words.

The law also facilitates militarized police round-ups and detention of protesters, “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 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 $385 million over a five year term,” the report notes, “the contract is to be executed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers … for establishing temporary detention and processing capabilities to augment existing ICE Detention and Removal Operations
(DRO) – in the event of an emergency influx of immigrants into the U.S., or to support the rapid development of new programs.” The report points out that “KBR is the engineering and construction subsidiary of Halliburton.” (3) So, in addition to authorizing another $532.8 billion for the Pentagon, including a $70-billion “supplemental provision” which covers the cost of the ongoing military maneuvers in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other places, the new law, signed by the president in a private White House ceremony, further collapses the historic divide between the police and the military: a tell-tale sign of a rapidly consolidating police state in America, all accomplished amidst ongoing U.S. imperial pretensions of global domination, sold to a gullible public as a “global war on terrorism.”

The defacto repeal of the Posse Comitatus Act is an ominous assault on American democratic tradition and jurisprudence. The 1878 Act, which reads, “Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uuses any part of the Army or Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both,” is the only U.S. criminal statute that outlaws military operations directed against the American people under the cover of ‘law enforcement.’ As such, it has been the best protection we’ve had against the power-hungry intentions of an unscrupulous executive intent on using force to enforce its will.

Unfortunately, this past week, the president dealt posse comitatus, along with American democracy, a near fatal blow. Consequently, it will take an aroused citizenry to undo the damage wrought by this horrendous act, part and parcel, as we have seen, of a long train of abuses and outrages perpetrated by this authoritarian administration.

Despite the unprecedented change created by this act, there has been no outcry in the American media, and little reaction from our elected officials in Congress. On September 19th, a lone Senator Patrick Leahy
(D-Vermont) noted that 2007’s Defense Authorization Act contained a “widely opposed provision to allow the President more control over the National Guard [adopting] changes to the Insurrection Act, which will make it easier for this or any future President to use the military to restore domestic order WITHOUT the consent of the nation’s governors.”

Senator Leahy went on to stress that, “we certainly do not need to make it easier for Presidents to declare martial law. Invoking the Insurrection Act and using the military for law enforcement activities goes against some of the central tenets of our democracy. One can easily envision governors and mayors in charge of an emergency having to constantly look over their shoulders while someone who has never visited their communities gives the orders.”

A few weeks later, on the 29th of September, Leahy entered into the Congressional Record that he had “grave reservations about certain provisions of the fiscal Year 2007 Defense Authorization Bill Conference Report,” the language of which, he said, “subverts solid, longstanding posse comitatus statutes that limit the military’s involvement in law enforcement, thereby making it easier for the President to declare martial law.” This had been “slipped in,” Leahy said, “as a rider with little study,” while “other congressional committees with jurisdiction over these matters had no chance to comment, let alone hold hearings on, these proposals.”

In an understatement, the Senator from Vermont noted that “the implications of changing the (Posse Comitatus) Act are enormous”. “There is good reason,” he said, “for the constructive friction iin existing law when it comes to martial law declarations. Using the military for law enforcement goes against one of the founding tenets of our democracy. We fail our Constitution, neglecting the rights of the States, when we make it easier for the President to declare martial law and trample on local and state sovereignty.”

Senator Leahy’s final ruminations: “Since hearing word a couple of weeks ago that this outcome was likely, I have wondered how Congress could have gotten to this point. It seems the changes to
the Insurrection Act have survived the Conference because the Pentagon and the White House want it.”

The historic and ominous re-writing of the Insurrection Act, accomplished in the dead of night, which gives Bush the legal authority to declare martial law, is now an accomplished fact.

The Pentagon, as one might expect, plays an even more direct role in martial law operations. Title XIV of the new law, entitled, “Homeland Defense Technology Transfer Legislative Provisions,” authorizes “the Secretary of Defense to create a Homeland Defense Technology Transfer Consortium to improve the effectiveness of the Department of Defense
(DOD) processes for identifying and deploying relevant DOD technology to federal, State, and local first responders.”

In other words, the law facilitates the “transfer” of the newest in so-called “crowd control” technology and other weaponry designed to suppress dissent from the Pentagon to local militarized police units.
The new law builds on and further codifies earlier “technology transfer”

agreements, specifically the 1995 DOD-Justice Department memorandum of agreement achieved back during the Clinton-Reno regime.(4)

With the president’s polls at an historic low, growing resistance tto the war Iraq, and the Democrats likely to take back the Congress in mid-term elections, the Bush administration is on the ropes. And so it is particularly worrying that President Bush has seen fit, at this juncture to, in effect, declare himself dictator.

*Source:*

(1) http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200609/091906a.html and http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200609/092906b.html See also, Congressional Research Service Report for Congress, “The Use of Federal Troops for Disaster Assistance: Legal Issues,” by Jennifer K. Elsea, Legislative Attorney, August 14, 2006

(2) http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill h109-5122

(3) Journal of Counterterrorism & Homeland Security International, “Recent Contract Awards”, Summer 2006, Vol.12, No.2, pg.8; See also, Peter Dale Scott, “Homeland Security Contracts for Vast New Detention Camps,” New American Media, January 31, 2006.

(4) “Technology Transfer from defense: Concealed Weapons Detection”, National Institute of Justice Journal, No 229, August, 1995, pp.42-43.

>>
>

Yes, I understand the argument. We vote for the lesser of two evils so we can get a Democratic majority made up of Blue dogs, make-believe Dems etc. Let’s just call them what they are– Republicans that happen to be running as Dems.
Then what have we accomplished? Maybe we get to set the agenda, have hearings etc. and more importantly (and I say this with my fingers crossed that it doesn’t happen under Bush) we are in position to force a moderate on the Supreme Court (forget about a liberal for balance). I would add that some legislation might have a more citizen-friendly tint to it. It would be naive to exaggerate the extent.
But as I look at the House races and the Dems running for the Senate, all I can think about is the 97% return rate that will give us a very conservative Congress for years to come.
Does anyone wonder why the majority of voters stay home? If we are going to have a two-party system, we have to offer choice. Then we have to convince, through the power of our ideas, the majority of Americans that we are right.
We have “Democrats” running on anti-choice, anti-estate tax, and school prayer platforms. Doesn’t that kind of make you stop to think?

_He added: “In hindsight, when Joe Lieberman was outspending me big-time on TV, defining me, I should have probably put up pieces that said: ‘Ned Lamont is not a career politician; he’s a guy who started up a business. Maybe that’s just the type of experience you want in Washington, D.C. He’s not beholden to either party — he’s an outsider.’ I think I should have gotten that message out sooner.”_

This is what I was talking about above. I don’t fault Ned with this. I fault those managing his campaign, who should have known better. I think they really thought that “people power” alone was going to push them to victory – which is nuts. I’m glad they are fast learners.

Personally, I thought it was a great article about Ned – I don’t see why people are looking at this as a negative.

I grew up in Greenwich and compared to most, Ned comes across as a moderate, down-to-earth guy who has grown up in a family that stresses social responsibility and giving back to the community.

Very Kennedy-esque actually (without all the Kennedy baggage.)

Interesting that Ned has given a number of fundraisers for Bill Clinton in the past, isn’t it?

Egregious: “Provided they make well-informed donation in lieu of comment, they also serve who only sit and lurk.”

Baby steps?

From what I’ve seen from a distance, Ned Lamont has run a great campaign. This ad is yet another example. You don’t get that without an intelligent, involved candidate. And while the Times Editorial Board may be direct in their support of Lamont, the political news staff hasn’t quite gotten the message. The only suprise was not reading Adam Nagourney’s name in the byline.

I’m a huge Lamont supporter but wouldn’t say he’s run a great campaign (and by “him” I’m not referring to Ned but those in charge of the campaign). They’ve gotten their sea legs back the past month or so – but were rather wobbly in September.

It will be interesting to do a post mortem after the campaign is over.

retirin at 76 — you are more than welcome. Of course, you know we’ll be blogging our butts off on election night, too — so hang out here with some popcorn. *G*

Christy, as long as we’re talkin’, in order to post here you ask three question: Name, Email, and Website, into which I put “huh?” I’m not adapt enough with this whole tubes thing to understand what you’re asking in that box. What is my “website?” (For not knowing “I blame myself” as those SNL guys might have said decades ago when we had just impeached Nixon’s sorry-ass thereby throwing Rumsfeld and Cheney out of work.)