America, Is it Spooky to Speak Out? It Shouldn't Be!
Bush Moves Toward Martial Law: See How!
The [Republican] party that supposedly champions states rights seeks to eliminate every state governor's role in the deployment of National Guard troops to control "domestic" unrest or, in essence, dissent. Bush was first paranoid about foreign terror and now he fear you and me. If you protest his policies he no longer needs you governor's approval to deploy National Guard troops to silence the dissent. If your state's citizenry decries this president he now can declare martial law and send in the troops to silence you and your fellow citizens... anywhere, anytime he chooses.
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."
The least that can be said and perhaps the most important thing to say about this is, "Don't Be Afraid!" Fear, more than bad law itself, is what paralyzes justice. A bad law is only as strong as its subjects are weak. It remains law only as long as its subjects remain complacent.
Perhaps we should we take notes from Nelson Mandela. There is no end to our ability to disagree with our leadership... unless we *acquiesce. We should never see "an end" to our ability to disagree and to do so publicly. Generations of U.S. citizens have not only allowed but have cheered for our young men and women to go "over there" and fight our battles. Are we spoiled? We seem to be so eager to send our own flesh and blood to fight and die "over there" so we don't have to fight here at home. Perhaps this Bush embraced idea that if we fight "over there" so we don't have to fight "over here" is not such a good idea after all. Really, don't we home bodies end up spoiled rotten? The first sign of resistance here at home and we shut our mouths and our minds to avoid the discomfort that would surely accompany the expression of our true feelings, thoughts, and beliefs.
The vast majority of our 300 million strong citizens appear, to me, to be spoiled. For so long, we have done all our fighting "over there" with little cost to us "over here." To date and since the beginning of his invasion of Iraq the greatest Bush challenge to U.S. citizens is to keep shopping. Why send our youth to possibly die "over there" when we are as scared as lost puppies "over here" of our own president. Why are we so scared? We the people are the government but we act as if we are powerless. Frankly, the whole mess sickens me. I was never a good citizen until year 2000. When I saw the Chinese Fire Drill of an Election take place (no offense to the Chinese) I first truly realized our nation was in trouble. I was confused, angry, and determined to do more than "vote and then shut the hell up" as our leaders love for us to do. Politicians have placed such a high premium on voting that U.S. citizens, just like I had done for years, feel the crown jewel of their duty as a citizen is the act of voting. Voting is vital but in today's political climate voting my be at best a good start toward citizenship; at worst a well-intended but meaningless act. We must speak out.
Our leaders love nothing more than for us to vote and then to "shut the hell up."
If you allow your employer to disallow your (total) freedom of speech your employer becomes a proxy censorship police force for the government. Consider this carefully. Who owns our government? Business. In particular, big business. It is the rule, not the exception that employees are not to talk politics at work... unless, of course it is politics in favor of the companies' political goals and agendas. Friends, an employer is an employer. Have we forgotten what this relationship is really about? You are paid to provide work (a service) to your employer. You are not an indentured servant. You are not paid to be a political pundit, a shill, or a walking blob of silence. You are an employee, a free employee... and as such remain a free man or woman. Free to think independently. Free to speak to another employee about who "you" are and what "you" think about any given topic. This is America, is it not? Employers who strong-arm their employees into silence should be challenged. You have every right to do so. Recent decades of politics have elevated, especially, large corporate employers to god-like status while rendering employees little more than throw away robots. This is wrong and a first step into corporate fascism. CEO and upper rmanagement wages go up and up while everyone else's wages go down and down. How much clearer must the trend be made before working U.S. citizens say enough? If you cannot work free... you cannot play free, if you cannot play free... you cannot pray free, and on and on goes the domino list of can nots.
I have to backed up the following words in demonstrative terms. No law (written, spoken, or unspoken) that violates our Constitution or the spirit of its preamble will shut me up. I write. I will continue to write. I don't support sending kids over seas to become men and women "over there" but none-the-less I feel obligated to never shut up because so many of our mostly young soldiers have died "over there" so we "over here" retain rights we are guaranteed in our constitution. How cowardly to allow our kids to die "over there" when we older, more mature, citizens "over here" are not only afraid to fight wars our generation starts but cower at the first sign of oppression from within our own borders. Osama bin Laden achieved at least part of his goal on 9/11 and has been chipping away at greater goals ever since and via Bush's increasingly paranoic domestic policies. Bin Laden silenced the average U.S. citizen, our entire press, and even Congress in Bush's bid for war on Iraq. The Bush administration was Osama's greatest tool and ally in the process. Bush turned anyone who disagreed with him openly into treasonous villains. Now the U.S. citizenry, congress, and our press sit by quietly as Osama bin Laden guides Bush's hands as they tighten the screws on liberty as we know and love it. Don't you see the irony? Bush condemns Osama for that which he (Bush) is guilty. It is impossible to give up rights to protect them. It is insane to think giving up our rights will somehow preserve them. It might be spooky to be speaky but nontheless speak out and speak out loud.
Happy Halloween! Don't Be Afraid! Halloween comes and goes, as do bad laws.
Note: Below is a sample sentence used to define "acquiesce" from the Oxford American Dictionary Thesaurus that came with my computer. I mention this because I have noted several such examples referring to Bush. Most of these examples seem to expose some rather disturbing Bush traits and practices. Interesting, is it not?
The article below explains precisely how Bush is stealing your liberty, bit by precious bit.
-----------------------------
Bush Moves Toward Martial Law
Frank Morales
October 26, 2006
In a stealth maneuver, President Bush has signed into law a provision which, according to Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont), will actually encourage the President to declare federal martial law (1).
It does so by revising the Insurrection Act, a set of laws that limits the President's ability to deploy troops within the United States. The Insurrection Act (10 U.S.C.331 -335) has historically, along with the Posse Comitatus Act (18 U.S.C.1385), helped to enforce strict prohibitions on military involvement in domestic law enforcement. With one cloaked swipe of his pen, Bush is seeking to undo those prohibitions.
Public Law 109-364, or the "John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007" (H.R.5122) (2), which was signed by the commander in chief on October 17th, 2006, in a private Oval Office ceremony, allows the President to declare a "public emergency" and station troops anywhere in America and take control of state-based National Guard units without the consent of the governor or local authorities, in order to "suppress public disorder."
President Bush seized this unprecedented power on the very same day that he signed the equally odious Military Commissions Act of 2006. In a sense, the two laws complement one another. One allows for torture and detention abroad, while the other seeks to enforce acquiescence at home, preparing to order the military onto the streets of America. Remember, the term for putting an area under military law enforcement control is precise; the term is "martial law."
Section 1076 of the massive Authorization Act, which grants the Pentagon another $500-plus-billion for its ill-advised adventures, is entitled, "Use of the Armed Forces in Major Public Emergencies." Section 333, "Major public emergencies; interference with State and Federal law" states that "the President may employ the armed forces, including the National Guard in Federal service, to restore public order and enforce the laws of the United States when, as a result of a natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident, or other condition in any State or possession of the United States, the President determines that domestic violence has occurred to such an extent that the constituted authorities of the State or possession are incapable of ("refuse" or "fail" in) maintaining public order, "in order to suppress, in any State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy."
For the current President, "enforcement of the laws to restore public order" means to commandeer guardsmen from any state, over the objections of local governmental, military and local police entities; ship them off to another state; conscript them in a law enforcement mode; and set them loose against "disorderly" citizenry - protesters, possibly, or those who object to forced vaccinations and quarantines in the event of a bio-terror event.
The law also facilitates militarized police round-ups and detention of protesters, so called "illegal aliens," "potential terrorists" and other "undesirables" for detention in facilities already contracted for and under construction by Halliburton.
That's right. Under the cover of a trumped-up "immigration emergency" and the frenzied militarization of the southern border, detention camps are being constructed right under our noses, camps designed for anyone who resists the foreign and domestic agenda of the Bush administration.
An article on "recent contract awards" in a recent issue of the slick, insider "Journal of Counterterrorism & Homeland Security International" reported that "global engineering and technical services powerhouse KBR [Kellog, Brown & Root] announced in January 2006 that its Government and Infrastructure division was awarded an Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract to support U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) facilities in the event of an emergency." "With a maximum total value of $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, mad 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 an "emergency managed" and seemingly willfully gullible public as a "global war on terrorism."
Make no mistake about it: the de-facto repeal of the Posse Comitatus Act (PCA) 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 uses 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 and reckless executive, an 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 and shocking nature of 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 a telling bit of 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 in 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)
It has become clear in recent months that a critical mass of the American people have seen through the lies of the Bush administration; with the president's polls at an historic low, growing resistance to 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.
:: Article nr. 27769 sent on 27-oct-2006 03:18 ECT
:: The address of this page is : www.uruknet.info?p=27769
:: The incoming address of this article is :
towardfreedom.com/home/content/view/911/
:: The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Uruknet .
The [Republican] party that supposedly champions states rights seeks to eliminate every state governor's role in the deployment of National Guard troops to control "domestic" unrest or, in essence, dissent. Bush was first paranoid about foreign terror and now he fear you and me. If you protest his policies he no longer needs you governor's approval to deploy National Guard troops to silence the dissent. If your state's citizenry decries this president he now can declare martial law and send in the troops to silence you and your fellow citizens... anywhere, anytime he chooses.
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."
The least that can be said and perhaps the most important thing to say about this is, "Don't Be Afraid!" Fear, more than bad law itself, is what paralyzes justice. A bad law is only as strong as its subjects are weak. It remains law only as long as its subjects remain complacent.
Perhaps we should we take notes from Nelson Mandela. There is no end to our ability to disagree with our leadership... unless we *acquiesce. We should never see "an end" to our ability to disagree and to do so publicly. Generations of U.S. citizens have not only allowed but have cheered for our young men and women to go "over there" and fight our battles. Are we spoiled? We seem to be so eager to send our own flesh and blood to fight and die "over there" so we don't have to fight here at home. Perhaps this Bush embraced idea that if we fight "over there" so we don't have to fight "over here" is not such a good idea after all. Really, don't we home bodies end up spoiled rotten? The first sign of resistance here at home and we shut our mouths and our minds to avoid the discomfort that would surely accompany the expression of our true feelings, thoughts, and beliefs.
The vast majority of our 300 million strong citizens appear, to me, to be spoiled. For so long, we have done all our fighting "over there" with little cost to us "over here." To date and since the beginning of his invasion of Iraq the greatest Bush challenge to U.S. citizens is to keep shopping. Why send our youth to possibly die "over there" when we are as scared as lost puppies "over here" of our own president. Why are we so scared? We the people are the government but we act as if we are powerless. Frankly, the whole mess sickens me. I was never a good citizen until year 2000. When I saw the Chinese Fire Drill of an Election take place (no offense to the Chinese) I first truly realized our nation was in trouble. I was confused, angry, and determined to do more than "vote and then shut the hell up" as our leaders love for us to do. Politicians have placed such a high premium on voting that U.S. citizens, just like I had done for years, feel the crown jewel of their duty as a citizen is the act of voting. Voting is vital but in today's political climate voting my be at best a good start toward citizenship; at worst a well-intended but meaningless act. We must speak out.
Our leaders love nothing more than for us to vote and then to "shut the hell up."
If you allow your employer to disallow your (total) freedom of speech your employer becomes a proxy censorship police force for the government. Consider this carefully. Who owns our government? Business. In particular, big business. It is the rule, not the exception that employees are not to talk politics at work... unless, of course it is politics in favor of the companies' political goals and agendas. Friends, an employer is an employer. Have we forgotten what this relationship is really about? You are paid to provide work (a service) to your employer. You are not an indentured servant. You are not paid to be a political pundit, a shill, or a walking blob of silence. You are an employee, a free employee... and as such remain a free man or woman. Free to think independently. Free to speak to another employee about who "you" are and what "you" think about any given topic. This is America, is it not? Employers who strong-arm their employees into silence should be challenged. You have every right to do so. Recent decades of politics have elevated, especially, large corporate employers to god-like status while rendering employees little more than throw away robots. This is wrong and a first step into corporate fascism. CEO and upper rmanagement wages go up and up while everyone else's wages go down and down. How much clearer must the trend be made before working U.S. citizens say enough? If you cannot work free... you cannot play free, if you cannot play free... you cannot pray free, and on and on goes the domino list of can nots.
I have to backed up the following words in demonstrative terms. No law (written, spoken, or unspoken) that violates our Constitution or the spirit of its preamble will shut me up. I write. I will continue to write. I don't support sending kids over seas to become men and women "over there" but none-the-less I feel obligated to never shut up because so many of our mostly young soldiers have died "over there" so we "over here" retain rights we are guaranteed in our constitution. How cowardly to allow our kids to die "over there" when we older, more mature, citizens "over here" are not only afraid to fight wars our generation starts but cower at the first sign of oppression from within our own borders. Osama bin Laden achieved at least part of his goal on 9/11 and has been chipping away at greater goals ever since and via Bush's increasingly paranoic domestic policies. Bin Laden silenced the average U.S. citizen, our entire press, and even Congress in Bush's bid for war on Iraq. The Bush administration was Osama's greatest tool and ally in the process. Bush turned anyone who disagreed with him openly into treasonous villains. Now the U.S. citizenry, congress, and our press sit by quietly as Osama bin Laden guides Bush's hands as they tighten the screws on liberty as we know and love it. Don't you see the irony? Bush condemns Osama for that which he (Bush) is guilty. It is impossible to give up rights to protect them. It is insane to think giving up our rights will somehow preserve them. It might be spooky to be speaky but nontheless speak out and speak out loud.
Happy Halloween! Don't Be Afraid! Halloween comes and goes, as do bad laws.
Note: Below is a sample sentence used to define "acquiesce" from the Oxford American Dictionary Thesaurus that came with my computer. I mention this because I have noted several such examples referring to Bush. Most of these examples seem to expose some rather disturbing Bush traits and practices. Interesting, is it not?
*acquiesceFreedom of speech, including to express dissent, is the foundation of all other rights. Shake the foundation and the crumbling begins. Bush seeks to crumble our rights in the name of fighting terror and while supposedly delivering democracy to Iraq.
verb
Bush wants to ensure that Beijing will acquiesce in a possible American war against Iraq accept, consent to, agree to, allow, concede, assent to, concur with, give the nod to; comply with, cooperate with, give in to, bow to, yield to, submit to; informal go along with.
verb [ intrans. ]
accept something reluctantly but without protest : Sara acquiesced in his decision.
The article below explains precisely how Bush is stealing your liberty, bit by precious bit.
-----------------------------
Bush Moves Toward Martial Law
Frank Morales
October 26, 2006
In a stealth maneuver, President Bush has signed into law a provision which, according to Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont), will actually encourage the President to declare federal martial law (1).
It does so by revising the Insurrection Act, a set of laws that limits the President's ability to deploy troops within the United States. The Insurrection Act (10 U.S.C.331 -335) has historically, along with the Posse Comitatus Act (18 U.S.C.1385), helped to enforce strict prohibitions on military involvement in domestic law enforcement. With one cloaked swipe of his pen, Bush is seeking to undo those prohibitions.
Public Law 109-364, or the "John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007" (H.R.5122) (2), which was signed by the commander in chief on October 17th, 2006, in a private Oval Office ceremony, allows the President to declare a "public emergency" and station troops anywhere in America and take control of state-based National Guard units without the consent of the governor or local authorities, in order to "suppress public disorder."
President Bush seized this unprecedented power on the very same day that he signed the equally odious Military Commissions Act of 2006. In a sense, the two laws complement one another. One allows for torture and detention abroad, while the other seeks to enforce acquiescence at home, preparing to order the military onto the streets of America. Remember, the term for putting an area under military law enforcement control is precise; the term is "martial law."
Section 1076 of the massive Authorization Act, which grants the Pentagon another $500-plus-billion for its ill-advised adventures, is entitled, "Use of the Armed Forces in Major Public Emergencies." Section 333, "Major public emergencies; interference with State and Federal law" states that "the President may employ the armed forces, including the National Guard in Federal service, to restore public order and enforce the laws of the United States when, as a result of a natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident, or other condition in any State or possession of the United States, the President determines that domestic violence has occurred to such an extent that the constituted authorities of the State or possession are incapable of ("refuse" or "fail" in) maintaining public order, "in order to suppress, in any State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy."
For the current President, "enforcement of the laws to restore public order" means to commandeer guardsmen from any state, over the objections of local governmental, military and local police entities; ship them off to another state; conscript them in a law enforcement mode; and set them loose against "disorderly" citizenry - protesters, possibly, or those who object to forced vaccinations and quarantines in the event of a bio-terror event.
The law also facilitates militarized police round-ups and detention of protesters, so called "illegal aliens," "potential terrorists" and other "undesirables" for detention in facilities already contracted for and under construction by Halliburton.
That's right. Under the cover of a trumped-up "immigration emergency" and the frenzied militarization of the southern border, detention camps are being constructed right under our noses, camps designed for anyone who resists the foreign and domestic agenda of the Bush administration.
An article on "recent contract awards" in a recent issue of the slick, insider "Journal of Counterterrorism & Homeland Security International" reported that "global engineering and technical services powerhouse KBR [Kellog, Brown & Root] announced in January 2006 that its Government and Infrastructure division was awarded an Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract to support U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) facilities in the event of an emergency." "With a maximum total value of $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, mad 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 an "emergency managed" and seemingly willfully gullible public as a "global war on terrorism."
Make no mistake about it: the de-facto repeal of the Posse Comitatus Act (PCA) 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 uses 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 and reckless executive, an 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 and shocking nature of 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 a telling bit of 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 in 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)
It has become clear in recent months that a critical mass of the American people have seen through the lies of the Bush administration; with the president's polls at an historic low, growing resistance to 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.
:: Article nr. 27769 sent on 27-oct-2006 03:18 ECT
:: The address of this page is : www.uruknet.info?p=27769
:: The incoming address of this article is :
towardfreedom.com/home/content/view/911/
:: The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Uruknet .
posted by Duane Short | 10/31/2006 12:27:00 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home