Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Bush Moves Toward Martial Law

Expand Messages
  • C Hamilton
    Is it time to hold Bush and the Republicans accountable for their excesses? Think about these things when you go to vote Issues to consider...fascism in
    Message 1 of 1 , Nov 2, 2006
      Is it time to hold Bush and the Republicans accountable for their
      Think about these things when you go to vote
      Issues to consider...fascism in America?

      Growing fascism in America under the George W. Bush administration


      Bush Moves Toward Martial Law
      by Frank Morales
      Toward Freedom
      Oct. 28, 2006

      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

      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.

      (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.


      Turning the Corner Into Madness
      Oct 31, 2006
      By Robert Scheer

      The dire predictions President Bush is making about "cutting and
      running" from Iraq are almost identical to the horrifically inaccurate
      ones Presidents Johnson and Nixon made about Vietnam.

      Every time I hear President Bush railing against those who would "cut
      and run" in Iraq instead of pursuing "victory," as he does almost daily,
      I think back to similar claims being made for the Vietnam debacle when I
      reported from Saigon in the mid-'60s. Back then, the U.S. troop presence
      was lower and casualties fewer than now in Iraq, but the carnage, on all
      sides, would escalate for the next decade, as we waited miserably for
      the corner to be turned.

      Then, as now, calls for setting a timetable for an orderly withdrawal
      were rejected as emboldening our enemy to attack America. Instead of a
      dignified withdrawal, we plunged ever deeper into the quagmire, leaving
      59,000 U.S. troops and 3.4 million Indochinese dead as tribute to our
      stupidity. Finally, there was nothing to do but "cut and run" in the
      most ignominious fashion. With our U.S. personnel being lifted by
      helicopter from roofs near our embassy, it seemed like a low point for
      U.S. influence, and there were dire predictions of communism's global
      dominance-just as there is today for the "Islamo-fascist" bogeyman the
      president has seized upon.

      Those predictions, however, proved dead wrong. Communism did not advance
      as a worldwide force after our defeat in Vietnam. On the contrary, a
      victorious communist-run Vietnam soon went to war with the China-backed
      communists of Cambodia-overthrowing Pol Pot's evil Khmer Rouge-and with
      communist China itself, in a bloody border war.

      Today communist Vietnam is still battling communist China-but now it is
      for shelf space in Wal-Mart and Costco. The United States, meanwhile,
      spending itself silly under the haplessly irresponsible President Bush,
      is now dependent on China both to carry its debt and contain communist
      North Korea's nuclear threat.

      So why accept the president's shrill insistence that a U.S. withdrawal
      from Iraq would be a disaster? Surely our departure would compel Iraq's
      neighbors in Iran, Syria and Jordan to get serious about quelling the
      civil war that they have abetted and which, in the absence of the U.S.
      occupation, would threaten to breach Iraq's borders. Why not assume, as
      turned out to be the case with Vietnam, that the Iraqis are best
      qualified to make their own history?

      The astounding arrogance that underwrites Bush's smug determination to
      keep killing and maiming tens, perhaps hundreds, of thousands of people
      is no different than that of Presidents Lyndon Johnson and Richard
      Nixon. Both knew the war was a failure but determined to "stay the
      course" for a decade out of a misguided belief in protecting an image of
      American infallibility that was paired with shameful political motives.

      Now, as in Vietnam, our arrogance has created disaster in Iraq. Our
      soldiers continue to kill and die, at enormous cost to the U.S.
      taxpayers and in international influence and moral standing, but the
      cause is already lost, doomed by the ignorance, lies and bad faith that
      launched it.

      Astonishingly, considering our history and the stakes, our leaders show
      not the slightest interest in understanding the fierce nationalism and
      deep religious divisions that have marked the Mideast since long before
      the United States existed as a nation. And thus we have repeated the
      decisive folly of Vietnam, where our "experts" ignored a thousand-year
      history of Chinese occupation in assuming that the fierce nationalist Ho
      Chi Minh was a puppet of masters in Red Beijing.

      This time, we are led by a false warrior who insists on playing the
      simpleton, ignoring his prestigious education at Andover and Yale in
      favor of what he presumes are the prejudices of Middle America. Or is
      this giving Bush, the son of a president, too much credit? After all, we
      know from the various insider memoirs that Bush was unaware that Islam
      is roughly divided into two rival sects, Sunni and Shiite, while just
      last week he bizarrely announced that our Iraq policy had never been
      "stay the course"-as if he was unaware of the invention of
      video-recording equipment that had captured him saying just that
      countless times.

      Whatever you call it, his approach is a sham and a disaster. It is long
      past time to let pragmatic realpolitik find a patchwork solution that
      the region and Iraqis can accept, peacefully. That is the expected
      advice from Bush family consigliere and troubleshooter James Baker and
      his Iraq Study Group, which is to report soon after the election. Truly
      frightening on this Day of the Dead, though, is that Bush probably won't
      listen to reason, unless the voters first soundly repudiate him in next
      week's election.

      Copyright © 2006 Truthdig, L.L.C.


      Analysis of political ads by Fiore

      A report card for your representatives in Congress
      If they voted against the rule of law (for the Military Commissions Act)
      you will want to see that they are not elected again as they are no
      friend of your freedoms.
      Bush says they hate us for our freedoms.
      Republican response: take away our freedoms.

      Olbermann Addresses the Military Commissions Act in a Special Comment
      http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/101906L.shtml (video link)
      "A government more dangerous to our liberty than is the enemy it claims
      to protect us from," says Keith Olbermann. "We have accepted that the
      only way to stop the terrorists is to let the government become...like
      the terrorists."

      When you have no habeas corpus rights, the government can disappear you
      This could be you or your daughter.

      When your daughter becomes a detainee...

      Bush owes troops the apology, not Kerry
      Bush started and lost two illegal unnecessary wars in a failed "war on

      War on Terror is doing more harm than good...
      George Soros interview on Fox...(video links)

      NOTICE: Due to Presidential Executive Orders, the National Security
      Agency (NSA) and FISA laws may have been ignored, and this email read
      and placed in your file without warning, warrant, or notice. They may do
      this without any judicial or legislative oversight. You have no
      recourse, nor protection from this intrusion on your personal freedoms.
      You may not review your file which is secret. The President reserves the
      right to use "signing statements" to give himself permission to ignore
      the law, as he is above accountability. As Nixon said, "If the president
      does it, it is not illegal." If you are not with us, you are for the
      terrorists; be aware that dissent is considered sedition: resistance to
      lawful authority. It may be considered treason to question authority; as
      it is un-American and unpatriotic to criticize the actions of your
      President. You could be designated as giving material support to the
      enemy, subject to indefinite incarceration without charges or trial,
      under Republican law.

      Note: a Federal court has ordered the Bush administration to stop the
      illegal warrentless spying, handing down 30 felony convictions. The
      illegal activity continues during an appeal, Bush says he has the right
      to ignore US and International laws. Note: The Supreme Court has ruled
      that Bush policies violated US and International laws. That could mean
      a trial for war crimes if justice follows that verdict. Note: the
      Republican Congress has passed a law to allow torture, and retroactively
      clear Bush of war crimes. The Congress has not held Bush accountable
      for starting and losing two illegal unnecessary wars.

      It is time for a change. Enough of these Republicans who have enabled
      Bush to rise above US and International law, and make the USA less safe
      with mistaken policies.

      C Hamilton
      a moderator of
      adult humor/opinion/pictures

      If you want to change what your government is doing,
      contact those who are acting in your name:
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.