scary stuff
Feb. 21st, 2007 02:48 pmWhy would a President make it significantly easier for himself to delare martial law, if he had no intention of doing so?

--------
New York Times Editorial
Making Martial Law Easier
Full article
Published: February 19, 2007
A disturbing recent phenomenon in Washington is that laws that strike to the heart of American democracy have been passed in the dead of night. So it was with a provision quietly tucked into the enormous defense budget bill at the Bush administration’s behest that makes it easier for a president to override local control of law enforcement and declare martial law.
The provision, signed into law in October, weakens two obscure but important bulwarks of liberty. One is the doctrine that bars military forces, including a federalized National Guard, from engaging in law enforcement. Called posse comitatus, it was enshrined in law after the Civil War to preserve the line between civil government and the military. The other is the Insurrection Act of 1807, which provides the major exemptions to posse comitatus. It essentially limits a president’s use of the military in law enforcement to putting down lawlessness, insurrection and rebellion, where a state is violating federal law or depriving people of constitutional rights.
The newly enacted provisions upset this careful balance. They shift the focus from making sure that federal laws are enforced to restoring public order. Beyond cases of actual insurrection, the president may now use military troops as a domestic police force in response to a natural disaster, a disease outbreak, terrorist attack or to any “other condition.”
Changes of this magnitude should be made only after a thorough public airing. But these new presidential powers were slipped into the law without hearings or public debate. The president made no mention of the changes when he signed the measure, and neither the White House nor Congress consulted in advance with the nation’s governors.
There is a bipartisan bill, introduced by Senators Patrick Leahy, Democrat of Vermont, and Christopher Bond, Republican of Missouri, and backed unanimously by the nation’s governors, that would repeal the stealthy revisions. Congress should pass it. If changes of this kind are proposed in the future, they must get a full and open debate.
--------
New York Times Editorial
Making Martial Law Easier
Full article
Published: February 19, 2007
A disturbing recent phenomenon in Washington is that laws that strike to the heart of American democracy have been passed in the dead of night. So it was with a provision quietly tucked into the enormous defense budget bill at the Bush administration’s behest that makes it easier for a president to override local control of law enforcement and declare martial law.
The provision, signed into law in October, weakens two obscure but important bulwarks of liberty. One is the doctrine that bars military forces, including a federalized National Guard, from engaging in law enforcement. Called posse comitatus, it was enshrined in law after the Civil War to preserve the line between civil government and the military. The other is the Insurrection Act of 1807, which provides the major exemptions to posse comitatus. It essentially limits a president’s use of the military in law enforcement to putting down lawlessness, insurrection and rebellion, where a state is violating federal law or depriving people of constitutional rights.
The newly enacted provisions upset this careful balance. They shift the focus from making sure that federal laws are enforced to restoring public order. Beyond cases of actual insurrection, the president may now use military troops as a domestic police force in response to a natural disaster, a disease outbreak, terrorist attack or to any “other condition.”
Changes of this magnitude should be made only after a thorough public airing. But these new presidential powers were slipped into the law without hearings or public debate. The president made no mention of the changes when he signed the measure, and neither the White House nor Congress consulted in advance with the nation’s governors.
There is a bipartisan bill, introduced by Senators Patrick Leahy, Democrat of Vermont, and Christopher Bond, Republican of Missouri, and backed unanimously by the nation’s governors, that would repeal the stealthy revisions. Congress should pass it. If changes of this kind are proposed in the future, they must get a full and open debate.
no subject
Date: 2007-02-21 08:35 pm (UTC)Such as, for example, a lightly cloudy day?
no subject
Date: 2007-02-21 08:46 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-02-21 08:49 pm (UTC)You guys need to emigrate. :( *worries about you all*
no subject
Date: 2007-02-21 08:50 pm (UTC)move over here!
no subject
Date: 2007-02-21 08:52 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-02-21 09:45 pm (UTC)Same argument applies to public schools versus private schools, in my opinion.
no subject
Date: 2007-02-22 03:22 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-02-22 03:57 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-02-22 04:37 pm (UTC)Here is my latest attempt to get paypal to unfreeze the account. I am sending this message to all donors:
Thank you for your generous donation to the Corafund. We are currently experiencing problems with paypal and would appreciate it if you could send a separate email to corafund@yahoo.com confirming that you understand that the money you have sent is “not for goods or services” but is a gift to help pay for Cora Anderson’s health care. Please include your paypal transaction number (I can send it to you if you don't have a record readily available). Please urge Paypal to release the funds so that they may go toward their intended use. I will fax a copy of your email to paypal along with similar emails from other donors.
Thanks,
--Onyx
no subject
Date: 2007-02-23 06:29 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-02-23 06:59 pm (UTC)