Finally, about five months too late, some “respectable” people are beginning to understand the implications of what happened on October 17, when Bush doodled his signature onto two measures that effectively destroyed our republic.
The first was the Military Commissions Act, which effectively abolished habeas corpus and laid the foundation for a military tribunal system to try those designated “unlawful enemy combatants.” Those provisions apply primarily to non-citizens, but can be applied to U.S. Citizens. Key elements of that act were upheld yesterday by a federal court. And Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez has insolently stated that the ancient Anglo-Saxon principle of habeas corpus – which is literally the foundation of the American concept of due process of law – isn't protected by the Constitution.
The second republic-killer signed on October 17 was a provision in the Defense Authorization Act – call it the Martial Law Codicil -- permitting the president to seize control of state National Guard units for use in “natural or man-made disasters” -- the latter referring to disruptions of social order, including insurrection and rebellion or any activity the Regime chooses to describe as such. This measure revised two obscure but indispensable laws, the Insurrection Act of 1807 and the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878; those statutes provided a critical bulwark against the centralization and militarization of law enforcement.
In a house editorial a couple of days ago, the New York Times noted that because of what happened on October 17, the president can now “override local control of law enforcement and declare martial law” by using “military troops as a domestic police force.”
Some of us less-than-respectable folks pointed this out months ago.
What makes all of this “fit to print now” is the existence of a measure co-sponsored by Senators Patrick Leahy of Vermont and Christopher Bond of Missouri that would repeal the Martial Law Codicil. Exhausting its annual quota of sensible conclusions, the Times editorial board urges passage of the Leahy-Bond bill, which is the very least that must be done. The MCA should likewise be demolished immediately, and Senator Leahy has co-sponsored another measure – this one with Republican Arlen Specter – entitled the “Habeas Corpus Restoration Act of 2007” that would accomplish this, as well.
But the most important action that could be taken to prevent our descent into full-fledged despotism would be to prevent the war in Iraq from metastasizing into a regional conflict involving Iran. The Martial Law measures enacted last October make perfect sense as preparations for a broader and more painful war that would involve economic hardship, social upheaval, and at least a measure of regimentation.
“Try as I might, I cannot imagine martial law in the US, except as something the population would agree to under threat from...from whom?” writes liberal commentator Jane Smiley. “Correct me if I am wrong (I know you will), but the last time martial law was declared was during the Civil War, and Americans, though the threats to the Union were profound and omnipresent, didn't like it then. I can't even imagine what would happen now.”
Without minimizing the significance of last October's Martial Law provisions, Smiley continues, “I have to wonder who Bush, Cheney [et. al.] think they are governing. Were they planning to spring these things on us? One day, we were supposed to wake up, and martial law would be declared, and we were supposed to actually pay attention to it? Where are they keeping the troops who were going to patrol our neighborhoods? Who was it who was going to disarm the population? Who was their base going to be, when they sought public support for martial law? Who was going to round us up and where were they going to put us?”
These are eminently sensible questions that are relatively easy to answer. Let's take several of them in turn:
*Where are the troops who would patrol our neighborhoods? Well, some of them are already patrolling our neighborhoods. Those particular “troops” are from nominally local police departments that are appendages of the national Homeland Security system. As I pointed out not long ago, many of them are receiving material aid through the Pentagon's Law Enforcement Support Organization (LESO), including combat weaponry, armored personnel carriers, and other assets entirely incompatible with law enforcement operations – but entirely suitable for martial law.
In the event of martial law, militarized “local” police would work in tandem with National Guard units acting under presidential orders, as well as other elements of the Homeland Security apparatus: the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement would likely play a large role, as would federally subsidized mercenary outfits like Blackwater.
*Who will disarm the population? See the answer above. Recall as well that “local” police, backed by National Guard units, confiscated firearms in New Orleans when the city was placed under martial law following Hurricane Katrina.
*Who would support martial law? When examining the antic parade of authoritarian misfits constituting the “conservative” movement, the question becomes: Who among this sorry lot would not support martial law? When neo-Trotskyite fanatics like Frank Gaffney describe criticism of the Regime's escalation strategy (commonly called the “surge”) in Iraq as a literal hanging offense, and GOP-aligned “legal scholars” like Hugh Hewitt endorse assassination of civilians by presidential decree, why does it seem unlikely that martial law would find a constituency?
*Who will round us up, and were would we be put? To answer the first question, see the first bullet item above. The correct answer to the second question is: We would be put anywhere that's convenient for those doing the round-ups. And it should be understood that this has already happened, after a fashion, in any community that has been blighted by a presidential visit in the last several years. The mechanism used to provide “security” for those visits would serve the needs of martial law quite well.
“When President Bush travels around the United States, the Secret Service visits the location ahead of time and orders local police to set up `free speech zones' or `protest zones,' where people opposed to Bush policies (and sometimes sign-carrying supporters) are quarantined,” explains the irreplaceable James Bovard. Those who dare to display unapproved sentiments, either on signs or t-shirts, have been arrested and prosecuted.
The Feds command, and “local” police obey in the name of “presidential security.”
Furthermore, notes Bovard, these efforts to suppress protests “become more disturbing in light of the Homeland Security Department's recommendation that local police departments view critics of the war on terrorism as potential terrorists. In a May 9 [2003] terrorist advisory, the Homeland Security Department warned local law enforcement agencies to keep an eye on anyone who `expressed dislike of attitudes and decisions of the US government.' If police vigorously followed this advice, millions of Americans could be added to the official lists of terrorist suspects.”
Which is to say: If that view of dissent were taken literally, martial law would be considered a viable policy.
Bear in mind the date of that Homeland Security advisory; it was issued just weeks after the Regime began its war in Iraq. Should the war spread to Iran – as the Bu'ushists intend – it's reasonable to believe that dissenters would once again be viewed as gulag fodder.
This time, however, Bush would have the powers he arrogated to himself on October 17 – the ability to seize control of the National Guard, and to imprison – and torture – anyone he designates an “enemy combatant.”
Repealing the Martial Law measures is imperative, but the immediate task is to stop the Regime's plans for war with Iran.
DownsizeDC.org is campaigning against the Military Commissions Act. You can send a message to your Senators and Representatives here.
ReplyDeleteHey Wayne -- that wasn't a typo, it was a Freudian slip!
ReplyDeleteThanks for the editorial help!
“Try as I might, I cannot imagine martial law in the US, except as something the population would agree to under threat from...from whom?” writes liberal commentator Jane Smiley. “Correct me if I am wrong (I know you will), but the last time martial law was declared was during the Civil War, and Americans, though the threats to the Union were profound and omnipresent, didn't like it then. I can't even imagine what would happen now.”
ReplyDeleteHahaha! Smiley (☻) is obviously clueless about today's commoners or the culture when she "can't even imagine what would happen now" as if to imply today's commoners are somehow of greater freedom-minded caliber than those of yore [Laughing so hard, I'm cryin']. She's demonstrating her blissful ignorance of our current cultural reality and even more of the cultural reality of 144 years ago.
As for the last time it was declared, no Smiley, the Civil War was not the last time. During WWII, the entirety of what in 1959 became the state of Hawaii was under martial law from 1941-45. How do you miss that?! I can see folk having memory lapses about the city of New Orleans being under martial law 60 years from now, but an entire future state?
Perhaps, Smiley's blissfully unaware that the entitlement mentality was nonexistent and that today's cultural environment does not resemble in any way the 19th century cultural environment. There are other dissimilarities, but those are the most glaringly obvious.
You usually do better, but you chose a "fine" candidate to quote here for your piece, Will. I guess I can understand why she's perhaps ignorant of the aggregate 19th century mindset versus today's aggregate mindset. Could it be because she's one of those who contributes to the cultural decay? Hmmm.
Lastly, yes, I sincerely hope the Habeas Corpus Restoration Act of 2007 will pass both houses and I agree that the MCA itself should be repealed outright, not just the martial law subsections extracted.
I'm not optimistic, but I still do, perhaps vainly at this point, pray that WE THE PEOPLE will see the light that God has already provided for us before it's too late.
will, can it be that you have so understated the case? So Jane believes it "can't happen here, well as least not now". Hogwash.
ReplyDeleteFolks need to do a little homework regarding the status of freedom in the Union during the War of Northern Aggression. Lincoln was throwing anyone he didn't like behind bars.
The book The Great Influenza gives great info as to how it spread - Wilson was locking people up for anything that took away from his little war charade.
And where will the troops come from? Well, like DrFix says, look for the Blue Helmets - perhaps donated by our Mexican neighbor - you know, out of concern for all their citizens that live here.
Fact is the Iraq war is just a feint to allow for the North American Union to move forward, and an Iran war will be the excuse to take away our guns.
Step-by-step the conspirators move forward with what has to be a master plan.
As many have said, it definitely is time to pray, but it is also time to wake up our friends, and yes, even those neighbors you have never met. You may need one of them to learn the practical aspects of "Lock and Load".
The right of habeas corpus—or rather, the right to petition for the writ—has long been celebrated as the most efficient safeguard of the liberty of the subject. Dicey wrote that the Habeas Corpus Acts "declare no principle and define no rights, but they are for practical purposes worth a hundred constitutional articles guaranteeing individual liberty". In most countries, however, the procedure of habeas corpus can be suspended in time of national emergency. The key words are NATIONAL EMERGENCY!
ReplyDeleteOn September 30, 2006, the Congress modified the Insurrection Act as part of the 2007 Defense Authorization Bill. Section 1076 of the new law changes Sec. 333 of the "Insurrection Act," and widens the President's ability to deploy troops within the United States to enforce the laws. Under this act, the President may also deploy troops as a police force during a natural disaster, epidemic, serious public health emergency, terrorist attack, or other condition, when the President determines that the authorities of the state are incapable of maintaining public order. The bill also modified Sec. 334 of the Insurrection Act, giving the President authority to order the dispersal of either insurgents or "those obstructing the enforcement of the laws."
The new law changed the name of the chapter from "Insurrection" to "Enforcement of the Laws to Restore Public Order".
I imagine that you were one of many screaming at the top of your lungs..."Where is the FEMA?!!" So what does FEMA stand for?
Federal EMERGENCY Management Agency.
In the case of New Orleans, some of the good citizens decided to take pot-shots at law enforcement,(of those who were still there) that were trying to protect property and people in a stituation, where neither the mayor or govenor were willing to step in and lead. Hundreds of buses not used. Didn't even use their own Emergency procedures.The mayor never asked the governor to call in the guard, and the governor was busy playing politics, as she didn't want the federal government in control. I would for one call this incompetence.(refering to this....Under this act, the President may also deploy troops as a police force during a natural disaster, epidemic, serious public health emergency, terrorist attack, or other condition, when the President determines that the authorities of the state are incapable of maintaining public order.)
I also question why would you not want some force to maintain some order until the people of the community can get back in a calm state? Any other method would be anarchy.
So it just seems to me, that you feel it is wrong to implement security mesures prior to a visit of a president or canidate for presidency? Or do you actually realize that as recently as the 1980's the were attempts on presidents life? I would think that if one of you family became president you position would change.
On your position on Iran, if and when they develope nuclear weapons, they WILL use them, or sell them to who knows. Your stick your head in the sand approach is sad at best. Is looking out for your country and allies in a proactive manner bad?
The right of habeas corpus—or rather, the right to petition for the writ—has long been celebrated as the most efficient safeguard of the liberty of the subject. Dicey wrote that the Habeas Corpus Acts "declare no principle and define no rights, but they are for practical purposes worth a hundred constitutional articles guaranteeing individual liberty".
ReplyDeletedwt, I echo rick in that you misunderstand or are ignorant of the substance and spirit of the U.S. Constitution, the supreme law of the land. Do you think it's inapplicable with regards to the Führer? As Article I, Section 9 states:
The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.
Do you grok that? Especially the "...unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it." That's quite clear and concise ain't it? If there's no rebellion or invasion [by a foreign military force is the obvious implication], then Der Führer cannot confine folk without just cause, a specifically defined cause at that, or on any whimsical arbitrary notion such as declaring you an enemy combatant which he's doing already. It cannot be suspended unless those two specific scenarios are occurring, according to Article I, Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution.
In most countries, however, the procedure of habeas corpus can be suspended in time of national emergency. The key words are NATIONAL EMERGENCY!
No, the key is the dearth of specificity and the vagueness of terms so many folk, especially the politicos, sling about like "NATIONAL EMERGENCY" among others. Who defines exactly and precisely what would constitute a "NATIONAL EMERGENCY?" The President alone? Please! He could (and no doubt would given the opportunity to either promulgate, or manufacture outright, the optimal panic and alarmism) to declare myriad NATIONAL EMERGENCIES! until he's satisfied with the level of plenary authority he has attained.
America is not "most countries." It is unique or at least the foundation upon which it was formed was unique. No other country in the world has a national constitution like America's. Some nations have indeed attempted to imitate or copy much of it into new constitutions for those nations over the years since 1789, but that inevitably doesn't work and fails miserably. Why? Simple, because without virtue, and moreover the Judeo-Christian foundation, in place and the majority of the populace exhibiting it, regardless of what's written on paper, the baser side of humanity will naturally reign. Ron Paul explains some aspects of it, as it pertains to statist dependency, in his A Republic, If You Can Keep It. BTW, Ben Franklin answered with those words in responding to a question from a woman concerning what kind of government the men had crafted.
John Adams (second prez): "Our Constitution was made for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other." Without virtue, our constitution is unworkable because it is premised upon the ability to self-govern. And one who possesses no virtue cannot adequately self-govern or control themselves so the State naturally will increasingly take control and regulate our lives.
A comprehensive examination of the above is Steven Yate's piece on The Ten Commandments and the Clash of Worldviews in Alabama for a detailed examination. Although this particular piece is focused on Judge Roy Moore being cast out of the Alabama Supreme Court, the meat (big picture) of the matter as he posits throughout the entire piece is in essence what I said above.
On September 30, 2006, the Congress modified the Insurrection Act as part of the 2007 Defense Authorization Bill. Section 1076 of the new law changes Sec. 333 of the "Insurrection Act," and widens the President's ability to deploy troops within the United States to enforce the laws.
Troops to enforce the laws? That's precisely why we have the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878. The Act was basically for the purpose of preventing what transpired during the twelve long years of Reconstruction when the military occupied the southern states and basically acted alone as the police, judge, jury, and executioner from ever happening again. Soldiers, by definition, are not suited for the task of civilian law-enforcement; they're instead trained to kill people, break things, and to occupy and take possession of property or territory. They're certainly not in any sense of the phrase peace officers (law-enforcement at large even has largely lost that capacity as well...sigh). The military simply follow ORDERS and is not well-versed, or versed at all, in civil LAW. They can keep order, of course, by simply arresting folk and tossin' them into makeshift gulags, with no thought given to the LAW, or simply shoot folk who don't follow their ORDERS. The military only knows, thinks about, and cares about following ORDERS, not the LAW, irregardless of whether the LAW in question conflicts with their commander's (or commander-in-chief's) ORDERS. The military hierarchy itself is for all intents and purposes a dictatorship by necessity, so why should we think it will operate out of that context when utilized in dealing with civilians in a disaster scenario as opposed to a combat zone?
After all, a militaristic police state always experiences order as it were. Merely two "insignificant" concepts, liberty and freedom are the missing ingredients in such states. Not a big deal.
Under this act, the President may also deploy troops as a police force during a natural disaster, epidemic, serious public health emergency, terrorist attack, or other condition, when the President determines that the authorities of the state are incapable of maintaining public order. The bill also modified Sec. 334 of the Insurrection Act, giving the President authority to order the dispersal of either insurgents or "those obstructing the enforcement of the laws." (emphasis mine)
So you're basically saying we should simply acquiesce and give dem Führer plenary authority to decide what to do in every conceivable circumstance internally? The Federal government has no constitutional authority to provide assistance or aid during a natural disaster or even a man-made disaster. The national guard, who are under the authority of the governor of the state in question (that is, if they haven’t been otherwise procured by the Führer and sent off to play and die in offensive foreign wars), are plenty capable of handling the aid and relief within their own state as its governor sees fit. Also, nothing prevents other states from voluntarily sending their national guards, aid, relief, search and rescue parties, etc. to the state in desperate need of assistance. Most nearby states and many others from across the country do just that.
The new law changed the name of the chapter from "Insurrection" to "Enforcement of the Laws to Restore Public Order".
I see you read Wikipedia intently, dyt. My guess would be that the purpose of the name change is to help further obfuscate and confuse what the real intention of the original law was about. Instead of INSURRECTION, which is clear and concise, it's now for the purpose of "enforcing the laws" and "restoring public order," which can entail many other avenues beyond an actual insurrection. The addendums to the original 1807 Act giving the Führer expanded powers also make that clear as well.
I imagine that you were one of many screaming at the top of your lungs..."Where is the FEMA?!!" So what does FEMA stand for?
Federal EMERGENCY Management Agency.
Sigh, if Grigg was like me he probably screamed or thought about screaming something akin to, "Defund and dissolve FEMA now!" Yet another unconstitutional tax-fattened agency that hands out $2000 ATM cards to the Katrina “victims” to blow at Houston strip clubs and whatever other nefarious purposes.
In the case of New Orleans, some of the good citizens decided to take pot-shots at law enforcement,(of those who were still there) that were trying to protect property and people in a stituation, where neither the mayor or govenor were willing to step in and lead.
Law-enforcement (and the National Guard) was not there to protect people, but to confine and constrain people! Did you not see that all of the folk who were trying to move away and escape from the reeking crime-ridden Superdome by walking down the highway were quickly halted at gunpoint by National Guard troops and police? They were forced to turn back to the Superdome where rapists, murderers, and other savages were having a field day.
The folk taking pot-shots at workers (not law-enforcement) trying to shore up the levies were resident gangsters not folk who were armed for the purpose of protecting themselves and their property. There’s a difference. Again, the cops and the military only protect themselves and safeguard their own property and assets, not the private citizen's.