I thought that this would be worthy of discussion. It has appeared to me for some time that the Martial Law provisions (via Executive Order) have been well laid out in the event of either any sort of terror attack (which could easily be staged) or civil disturbance.
I was just over at www.lewrockwell.com and here's what one of their contributer's has to say about it:
The Martial Law Act of 2006
by James Bovard
April 10, 2008
Martial law is perhaps the ultimate stomping of freedom. And yet, on September 30, 2006, Congress passed a provision in a 591-page bill that will make it easy for President Bush to impose martial law in response to a terrorist �incident.� It also empowers him to effectively declare martial law in response to what he or other federal officials label a shortfall of �public order� � whatever that means.
It took only a few paragraphs in a $500 billion, 591-page bill to raze one of the most important limits on federal power. Congress passed the Insurrection Act in 1807 to severely restrict the president�s ability to deploy the military within the United States. The Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 tightened those restrictions, imposing a two-year prison sentence on anyone who used the military within the United States without the express permission of Congress. (This act was passed after the depredations of the U.S. military throughout the Southern states during Reconstruction.)
But there is a loophole: Posse Comitatus is waived if the president invokes the Insurrection Act.
The Insurrection Act and Posse Comitatus Act aim to deter dictatorship while permitting a narrow window for the president to temporarily use the military at home. But the 2006 reforms basically threw any concern about dictatorial abuses out the window.
Section 1076 of the Defense Authorization Act of 2006 changed the name of the key provision in the statute book from �Insurrection Act� to �Enforcement of the Laws to Restore Public Order Act.� The Insurrection Act of 1807 stated that the president could deploy troops within the United States only �to suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy.� The new law expands the list of pretexts to include �natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident, or other condition� � and such a �condition� is not defined or limited.
One might think that given the experience with the USA PATRIOT Act and many other abuses of power, Congress would be leery about giving this president his biggest blank check yet to suspend the Constitution. But that would be na�ve.
The new law was put in place in response to the debacle of the federal response to Hurricane Katrina. There was no evidence that permitting a president far more power would avoid future debacles, but such a law provides a comfort blanket to politicians. The risk of tyranny is irrelevant compared with the reduction of risk of embarrassment to politicians. According to Washington, the correct response to Katrina is not to recognize the failure of relying on federal agencies a thousand miles away but rather to vastly increase the power of the president to dictate a solution, regardless of whether he knows what he is doing and regardless of whether local and state rights are trampled.
The new law also empowers the president to commandeer the National Guard of one state to send to another state for as many as 365 days. Bush could send the South Carolina National Guard to suppress anti-war protests in New Haven. Or the next president could send the Massachusetts National Guard to disarm the residents of Wyoming, if they resisted a federal law that prohibited private ownership of semi-automatic weapons. Governors� control of the National Guard can be trumped with a simple presidential declaration.
Section 1076 had bipartisan support on Capitol Hill, including support from Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), Sen. John Warner (R-Va.), Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.), and Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.), chairman of the House Armed Services Committee. Since the law would give the feds more power, it was very popular inside the Beltway.
On the other hand, every governor in the country opposed the changes. Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), the ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, warned on September 19, 2006, that �we certainly do not need to make it easier for presidents to declare martial law.� Leahy�s alarm got no response. Ten days later, he commented in the Congressional Record, �Using the military for law enforcement goes against one of the founding tenets of our democracy.�
A U.S. Enabling Act
The new law vastly increases the danger from the actions of government provocateurs. If there is an incident now like the first bombing of the World Trade Center in February 1993, it would be far easier for the president to declare martial law � even if, as then, it was an FBI informant who taught the culprits how to make the bomb. Even if the FBI masterminds a protest that turns violent, the president could invoke the �incident� to suspend the Constitution.
�Martial law� is a euphemism for military dictatorship. When foreign democracies are overthrown and a junta establishes martial law, Americans usually recognize that a fundamental change has occurred. Perhaps some conservatives believe that the only change when martial law is declared is that people are no longer read their Miranda rights before they are locked away. �Martial law� means: Obey soldiers� commands or be shot. The abuses of military rule in Southern states during Reconstruction were legendary, but they have been swept under the historical rug.
Section 1076 is an Enabling Act-type legislation � something which purports to preserve law and order while formally empowering the president to rule by decree.
Bush can commandeer a state�s National Guard any time he declares a �state has refused to enforce applicable laws.� Does this refer to the laws as they are commonly understood � or to the �laws� after Bush �fixes� them with a signing statement? Unfortunately, it is not possible for Americans to commandeer the federal government even when Bush admits that he is breaking a law (such as the Anti-Torture Act).
Section 1076 is the type of �law� that would probably be denounced by the U.S. State Department�s Annual Report on Human Rights if enacted by a foreign government. But when the U.S. government does the same thing, it is merely another proof of benevolent foresight. The �comfort blanket� on Section 1076 is that the powers will not be abused because the president will show more concern with the Bill of Rights than Congress did when it rubberstamped this provision. This is the same �pass the buck on the Constitution� that worked so well with the PATRIOT Act, the McCain Feingold Campaign Reform Act, and the Military Commissions Act. As long as there is hypothetically some branch of the government that will object to oppression, no one has the right to fear losing his liberties.
The military on the home front
Section 1076 is more ominous in light of the Bush administration�s long record of Posse Comitatus violations. Since 2001, the Bush administration has accelerated a trend of using the military as a tool in the nation�s domestic affairs. From its support of the Total Information Awareness surveillance vacuum cleaner, to its use of Pentagon spy planes during the Washington-area sniper shootings in 2002, to the Pentagon�s seizures of Americans� financial and other private information without a warrant, the Bush administration has not hesitated to use military force and intimidation at home whenever convenient. And Americans may have little or no idea of how far the military has actually gone on the home front, given the Bush team�s obsessive secrecy.
The Pentagon has sent U.S. military intelligence agents on domestic fishing expeditions. In 2004, two U.S. Army intelligence agents descended on the University of Texas�s law school in Austin. They entered the office of the Journal of Women and the Law and demanded that the editors turn over a roster of the people who attended a recent conference on Islam and women. The editors denied having a list; the behavior of one agent was described as intimidating. The agents then demanded contact information for the student who organized the conference, Sahar Aziz. University of Texas law professor Douglas Laycommented,
quote:
We certainly hope that the Army doesn�t believe that attending a conference on Islamic law or Islam and women is itself ground for investigation.
Military officials later declared that U.S. Army intelligence agents had overstepped their bounds. But this did not stop the Bush administration from having a provision inserted in a bill passed in secret session by the Senate Intelligence Committee that would allow military intelligence agents to conduct surveillance and recruit informants in the United States. Wired.com reported,
quote:
Pentagon officials say the exemption would not affect civil liberties and is needed so that its agents can obtain information from sources who may be afraid of government agents.
The provision would authorize military agents to go undercover and never inform their targets that they were dealing with a G-man. Kate Martin, director of the Center for National Security Studies, denounced the provision:
quote:
This ... is giving them the authority to spy on Americans. And it�s all been done with no public discussion, in the dark of night.
The controversy over the amendment scuttled its enactment, though it is unclear whether that has deterred the military from expanding its domestic spying.
There is no Honesty-in-Absolute-Power mandate in the federal statute books. The more power government seizes, the more easily it can suppress the truth. There is nothing to prevent a president from declaring martial law on false pretexts � any more than there is to prevent him from launching a foreign war on false pretenses. And when the lies become exposed years later, it could be far too late to resurrect lost liberties.
James Bovard is the author of the just-released Attention Deficit Democracy, The Bush Betrayal, and Terrorism & Tyranny: Trampling Freedom, Justice, and Peace to Rid the World of Evil. He serves as a policy advisor for The Future of Freedom Foundation. Visit his website.
Originally posted by Trancer-X
I thought that this would be worthy of discussion. It has appeared to me for some time that the Martial Law provisions (via Executive Order) have been well laid out in the event of either any sort of terror attack (which could easily be staged) or civil disturbance.
I was just over at www.lewrockwell.com and here's what one of their contributer's has to say about it:
Seeing as you are clearly well read and full of opinions on the dangers of administrative authoritative aggression, how should such an act be worded?
How do you suggest the co-ordination of emergency services be carried out in the event of a nuclear explosion in either New York or LA? Who would be the boss?
DJ Shibby
quote:
Originally posted by atbell
Seeing as you are clearly well read and full of opinions on the dangers of administrative authoritative aggression, how should such an act be worded?
How do you suggest the co-ordination of emergency services be carried out in the event of a nuclear explosion in either New York or LA? Who would be the boss?
You bet they've got shoot-to-kill plans ready to roll; the federal government is an organism and it seeks to survive just like any other organism.
The question is when does it come at the expense of the people?
Perhaps it's already come heavily at the expense of the people, because you didn't even mention DC as being a target for a nuclear blast. We've ed up so badly overseas that everyone wants us dead, but yet you mentioned New York and LA, the two most liberal fronts in our country, as opposed to the core, being DC.
jerZ07002
quote:
10 USC � 333. Interference with State and Federal law
The President, by using the militia or the armed forces, or both, or by any other means, shall take such measures as he considers necessary to suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy, if it--
(1) so hinders the execution of the laws of that State, and of the United States within the State, 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 are unable, fail, or refuse to protect that right, privilege, or immunity, or to give that protection; or
(2) opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws.
In any situation covered by clause (1), the State shall be considered to have denied the equal protection of the laws secured by the Constitution.
a troubling law nonetheless, however, i wonder the constitutionality of this law. it appears to me that the law infringes on state rights. i also wonder how difficult it will be to to invoke this law because of clause one. that's a pretty steep burden to satisfy. if a president every invokes this right, i am 99% sure that the states will bring this suit in the supreme court the next day.
EDIT: one good thing about trancer is that his posts always seem to have me reading the constitution.
See Article 1 Section 8: The Congress shall have power....
To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
It seems to me, Trancer, that this so-called "martial law" is being implemented as your forefathers intended. As part of the constitution, the people you hold so dear in your 2nd amendment rights argument, give congress the power to "provide for" the militia to execute the laws of the US in times of insurrection. The constitution also allows congress to govern the militias (which as i'm aware, specifically refers to state military units). It seems this law is being enacted as was the intend of the founding fathers. Congress has provided for this occurrence by giving the commander-in-chief the power to suppress insurrection (which is an internal struggle).
Trancer-X
quote:
Originally posted by atbell
Seeing as you are clearly well read and full of opinions on the dangers of administrative authoritative aggression, how should such an act be worded?
How do you suggest the co-ordination of emergency services be carried out in the event of a nuclear explosion in either New York or LA? Who would be the boss?
Those measures have been in place for a long time.
The main difference between then and now, though, is that the newest plans don't seem to include the Legislative branch of government.
Here's a good excerpt from a Salon.com article from five years ago, before the new, ultra-secretive CoG plans were even on the books:
quote:
Even some National Guard officers have expressed concern about encroaching federal control of their work. "One of the things they're doing in the Office of Homeland Security is working to unite the separate state authorities over the state Guard into a national command," says Michael Leventhal, a lieutenant colonel in the New York National Guard. "What they're doing is establishing the precursor to a national domestic military command, which is scary."
State National Guard divisions are technically considered to be state militias, under the authority of state governors, not the president, even if they are being paid by the federal government and are performing their duty across the nation. But Leventhal says they are actually already acting as a kind of national police force. He points to the national call-up of Guard units to patrol the nation's airports and inspect passengers and crews. Reports of excessive force and abusive treatment of passengers and crewmembers, some of whom have been pulled from flights and even detained at gunpoint by some of those M16-toting soldiers, make some people worry about what military rule might be like.
"It's a short step from having a national domestic military command to having martial law," says Leventhal, a self-described libertarian Republican whose unit was put on active duty after Sept. 11 to guard New York City-area military armories. "All it would take at this point would be another major terrorist attack or two in the heartland, and that would do it."
Critics see other signs that the government may be preparing for a military role in domestic affairs. Wayne Madsen, a former communications security specialist for the National Security Agency during the Reagan and first Bush administrations, describes a convention he attended in Washington in early February, hosted by the National Defense Industrial Association, where military special forces and special operations soldiers mingled freely with Justice Department officials, discussing urban warfare and crowd-control techniques and equipment. "There was a lot of talk about things like shooting Spiderman-type nets and about mass arrest techniques," he says, "none of which would be of much use in the mountains of Afghanistan or the deserts of Iraq. It was pretty clear that the Posse Comitatus Act was being completely ignored there."
While the "continuity of government" program has never before been put into effect, the idea of declaring martial law was raised recently as a serious possibility by someone who ought to know what he's talking about : Clinton administration Secretary of Defense William Cohen. In an Oct. 27, 1998, Army Times article headlined "U.S. Martial Law Coming? Cohen Predicts Army Will Patrol Streets," Cohen warned: "Terrorism is escalating to the point that Americans soon may have to choose between civil liberties and more intrusive means of protection." He added that the specter of armored vehicles surrounding civilian hotels or governments "could happen here."
It's also not the first time the idea has been seriously explored by government officials in recent years.
At the end of the Nixon administration in the mid-1970s, there were reports in the media -- most notably a 1975 New Times magazine article by award-winning investigative reporter Ron Ridenhour -- that the president, about to be ousted because of the Watergate scandal, actually went so far as to approach some top Pentagon brass to ask if they would support a declaration of martial law, which would have kept him in power. Fortunately, the generals that he reportedly contacted turned him down. More testimony about Nixon's desperate gambit came out during the Senate Watergate hearings, but the allegations weren't pursued by investigators.
The hearings also featured testimony about a series of Pentagon war games run during Nixon's second term, which included mock martial-law exercises and mock mass roundups of dissidents. The code name of those exercises was reportedly Operation Garden Plot, the same name given to the current Pentagon plan being worked on at the Office of Homeland Security, FEMA and the Pentagon. (...)
We also had Congresssman DeFazio speaking about it on the U.S. House floor
pkcRAISTLIN
quote:
Originally posted by jerZ07002
a troubling law nonetheless, however, i wonder the constitutionality of this law. it appears to me that the law infringes on state rights. i also wonder how difficult it will be to to invoke this law because of clause one. that's a pretty steep burden to satisfy. if a president every invokes this right, i am 99% sure that the states will bring this suit in the supreme court the next day.
EDIT: one good thing about trancer is that his posts always seem to have me reading the constitution.
See Article 1 Section 8: The Congress shall have power....
To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
It seems to me, Trancer, that this so-called "martial law" is being implemented as your forefathers intended. As part of the constitution, the people you hold so dear in your 2nd amendment rights argument, give congress the power to "provide for" the militia to execute the laws of the US in times of insurrection. The constitution also allows congress to govern the militias (which as i'm aware, specifically refers to state military units). It seems this law is being enacted as was the intend of the founding fathers. Congress has provided for this occurrence by giving the commander-in-chief the power to suppress insurrection (which is an internal struggle).
that's an excellent post.
atbell
quote:
Originally posted by Trancer-X
Those measures have been in place for a long time.
The main difference between then and now, though, is that the newest plans don't seem to include the Legislative branch of government.
Here's a good excerpt from a Salon.com article from five years ago, before the new, ultra-secretive CoG plans were even on the books:
So in the event of a catastrophy, brought on by man or mother nature, the apropriate response would be to have the power centered on a body made up of the administrative and legislative branches of government? Is that where you're comming from?
Would the body be made up of a group of delegates or people who already hold positions in these branches of government?
atbell
quote:
Originally posted by jerZ07002
See Article 1 Section 8: The Congress shall have power....
To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
It seems to me, Trancer, that this so-called "martial law" is being implemented as your forefathers intended. As part of the constitution, the people you hold so dear in your 2nd amendment rights argument, give congress the power to "provide for" the militia to execute the laws of the US in times of insurrection. The constitution also allows congress to govern the militias (which as i'm aware, specifically refers to state military units). It seems this law is being enacted as was the intend of the founding fathers. Congress has provided for this occurrence by giving the commander-in-chief the power to suppress insurrection (which is an internal struggle).
What's an insurrection? Is it two dudes on the corner with stones getting mad at a cop? What about the gangs in LA (which I've only heard speculation about) who aparently control chunks of the city? Or how about the cult in Waco that the FBI dispatched? Organized criminals might be considered insurrections.
I'm just wondering at what point people think the government might be "right" to superseed state / regional control of the authorities.
shaolin_Z
quote:
Originally posted by jerZ07002
a troubling law nonetheless, however, i wonder the constitutionality of this law. it appears to me that the law infringes on state rights. i also wonder how difficult it will be to to invoke this law because of clause one. that's a pretty steep burden to satisfy. if a president every invokes this right, i am 99% sure that the states will bring this suit in the supreme court the next day.
EDIT: one good thing about trancer is that his posts always seem to have me reading the constitution.
See Article 1 Section 8: The Congress shall have power....
To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
It seems to me, Trancer, that this so-called "martial law" is being implemented as your forefathers intended. As part of the constitution, the people you hold so dear in your 2nd amendment rights argument, give congress the power to "provide for" the militia to execute the laws of the US in times of insurrection. The constitution also allows congress to govern the militias (which as i'm aware, specifically refers to state military units). It seems this law is being enacted as was the intend of the founding fathers. Congress has provided for this occurrence by giving the commander-in-chief the power to suppress insurrection (which is an internal struggle).
Considering the uncontitutional legislation and bills passed during this presidentail term and the last (primarily the Patrior Act and the Military Commisions Act), is anything you said even remotely relevant to status quo or in a legitimate constitutional framework?
quote:
Fact Sheet: Military Commissions Act
The Military Commissions Act of 2006 gives the president absolute power to decide who is an enemy of our country and to imprison people indefinitely without charging them with a crime.
Eliminates due process.
This law removes the Constitutional due process right of habeas corpus for persons the president designates as unlawful enemy combatants. It allows our government to continue to hold hundreds of prisoners more than four years without charges, with no end in sight.
Rejects core American values.
Habeas corpus, the basic right to have a court decide if a person is being lawfully imprisoned, is what separates America from other countries. To do away with this American value makes us more like those we are fighting against. It is time to restore due process, defend the Constitution, and protect what makes us Americans.
The last Congress was asleep at the wheel.
The only thing scarier than a government that would take away our basic freedoms is a Congress that would let it happen. Congress must correct that mistake and restore habeas corpus and due process, and define enemy combatants as only those who engage in hostilities against the United States.
Permits coerced evidence.
The act permits convictions based on evidence that was literally beaten out of a witness, or obtained through other abuse by either the federal government or by other countries.
Turns a blind eye to past abuses.
Government officials who authorized or ordered illegal acts of torture and abuse would receive retroactive immunity for their crimes, providing them with a �get out of jail free' card.
Makes the president his own judge and jury.
Under the Military Commissions Act, the president has the power to define what is � and what is not � torture and abuse, even though the Geneva Conventions already provide us with a guide.
Congress must fix the Military Commissions Act.
By giving any president the unchallenged power to decide which non-citizen is an enemy of our country � and eliminating habeas corpus due process for them, we allow the government to imprison people indefinitely without charging them with a crime. It is time for Congress to restore due process, defend the Constitution and protect what makes us Americans.
Cassel: If the President deems that he�s got to torture somebody, including by crushing the testicles of the person�s child, there is no law that can stop him? Yoo: No treaty. Cassel: Also no law by Congress. That is what you wrote in the August 2002 memo. Yoo: I think it depends on why the President thinks he needs to do that.
I don't know about you, but it certainly doesn't sit well with me.
jerZ07002
quote:
Originally posted by shaolin_Z
Considering the uncontitutional legislation and bills passed during this presidentail term and the last (primarily the Patrior Act and the Military Commisions Act), is anything you said even remotely relevant to status quo or in a legitimate constitutional framework?
I don't know about you, but it certainly doesn't sit well with me.
i don't agree with it, but it appears that congress has the power to give the president this specific power. someone who argues intent of forefathers in a second amendment front can't now say that we should disregard their intent. i personally believe we shouldn't evaluate their intent when interpreting our laws, but that's just me.
