Bush Signs Bill Enabling Martial Law

[Bob Hubbard]

Bush Signs Bill Enabling Martial Law

Posted by kdawson on Saturday October 28, @04:42PM
from the maybe-sweden dept.


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.
http://slashdot.org/

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Some interesting replies:

In the words of William A. Niskanen:
"It's not that unified governments love to purchase bombers, but, rather, that they tend to draw us into war. This may sound improbable at first, but consider this: In 200 years of U.S. history, every one of our conflicts involving more than a week of ground combat has been initiated by a unified government. Each of the four major American wars during the 20th century, for example--World War I, World War II, the Korean War, and the Vietnam War--was initiated by a Democratic president with the support of a Democratic Congress. The current war in Iraq, initiated by a Republican president and backed by a Republican Congress, is consistent with this pattern. It also stands as the only use of military force involving more than a week of ground combat that has been initiated by a Republican president in over a century. Divided government appears to be an important constraint on American participation in war. "
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2006/061 0.niskanen.html#Byline [washingtonmonthly.com]

Whenever a Republican brings up the "you want the terrorists to win" talking point, I usually ask them "would you want Hillary Clinton to declare anyone an enemy combatant and detain them indefinately?"

I have yet to receive a response to that question.

We already have a series of escalating revolutions built into our government. Elections and impeachment [afterdowningstreet.org].

In a couple of weeks, on TUE November 7, 2006, you can go to the polls to fire your Representative in the House [congress.org]. 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 [afterdowningstreet.org].

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.

All I can say is.....this.
If this new law is used, remember, warnings were sounded long in advance.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

For those interested, heres the bill:
=======

SEC. 1076. USE OF THE ARMED FORCES IN MAJOR PUBLIC EMER-
GENCIES.
(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
"(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.
"(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".

 

[Bob Hubbard]

A mirror of the original article is available here. Due to the original being overwhelmed with traffic, I am mirroring the article here as well.


==========

Bush Moves Toward Martial Law
Written by Frank Morales
Thursday, 26 October 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.

© Toward Freedom
Original URL: http://towardfreedom.com/home/content/view/911/

 

[Shizen Shigoku]

"Summer 2008
The "Defense of America" Act is passed authorizing the use of Military forces on American soil for the purpose of assisting underarmed and overwhelmed Civilian police forces."

Happened a little sooner than you thought, huh?

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Yup. Sad, eh?


Sadder will be the day that US troops are again used against it's own citizens...a day looking to be closer now, than a few weeks ago.

 

[FearlessFreep]

I thought of linking to that article but....cribbing the whole slashdot summary and some of the posts?

 

[michaeledward]

Wow ... I am so Surprised.

To think that George W. Bush would usurp more power.

Well, knock me over with a feather.


By the way, did I say I was voting against any incombent this cycle.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

I thought of linking to that article but....cribbing the whole slashdot summary and some of the posts?

We've pulled stuff from Slashdot before (same infos in their RSS feed), and I thought a few of the gazillion responses interesting.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Wow ... I am so Surprised.

To think that George W. Bush would usurp more power.

Well, knock me over with a feather.


By the way, did I say I was voting against any incombent this cycle.

My question is, is it too late to stop them?

 

[Hand Sword]

About 140 yrs too late. Mr. Lincoln's presidency, actions and results gave "federal" all the power, and a precedant to use.

 

[Makalakumu]

My question is, is it too late to stop them?

With 80% of the voting being done on electronic voting machines? Perhaps. Although, it doesn't seem to matter who is in power nowadays. The globalist agenda always seems to prevail.

 

[TonyMac]

Actually Mr. Jacksons actions did that. He shoud be impeached postumously so we can take power back from the executive branch.

 

[shesulsa]

My question is, is it too late to stop them?

Most likely, yes.

The very fact that the Supreme Court has gotten away with their ammending of the Laws of Eminent Domain without severe civil unrest indicates (to me, anyway) that we are all too lazy and too ill-prepared to fight our government on any level ever again.

It's all downhill from here, folks.

 

[mrhnau]

Most likely, yes.

The very fact that the Supreme Court has gotten away with their ammending of the Laws of Eminent Domain without severe civil unrest indicates (to me, anyway) that we are all too lazy and too ill-prepared to fight our government on any level ever again.

It's all downhill from here, folks.

There is that great American trait of optimism I've love and cherish LOL

If you are passionate about it, write your congressmen. Make a fuss. Tell them about it and get other people involved. No good sitting here crying about it if you refuse to do anything about it, including the minimal "write your congressmen".

Me, I'm not expecting the militia to bang down my door. I do find it disturbing that the reality of that situation is a bit more. What frightens me more is not this administrations handling of this law, but the next couple of administrations. Perhaps it can be dealt with/revoked before they get their hands on it. There is a little group out there called the Supreme Court that is supposed to handle these kinds of things. Its worked well for over 200 years so far. Had its bumps along the way, but its still working. And I'm wagering its going to work a while longer, despite rampant pessimism and negativity. They live in this country too, and they don't want it ruined (especially for when they do leave office).

I'm not going to spend alot of time wringing my hands and crying that "its all downhill from here". Sorry, I can't do that. Maybe thats the optimist side of me, but I have faith in the system of government we have in place. Its worked with Democrats, its worked with Republicans. Rough parts abound, but overall it works well.

 

[Stan]

What do we do from here? What if letter writing and attending local protests and talking to our neighbors doesn't work? Do we just give up then and say to ourselves, "Well, we gave it a good try. I guess we'll just have to live without freedom."

I mean it. Either this board is prone to massive and frequent hyperbole about the lengths the US government is willing to go to (which I do not believe), or we are very close to a situation where we will have to resist tyranny. What if speaking out isn't enough? Do we give up, or do we do something else?