Stomping Freedom - Inside the Martial Law Act of 2006

[WhiteFeather]

Once the power is created, any future president can abuse it, and say good bye to your Constitutional rights especially including 2nd.

http://www.counterpunch.org/bovard01092008.html

Stomping Freedom
Inside the Martial Law Act of 2006
By JAMES BOVARD

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 naive.

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 Laycock commented,

"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,

"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:

"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 serves as a policy advisor for The Future of Freedom Foundation and is the author of Attention Deficit Democracy, The Bush Betrayal, Terrorism and Tyranny, and other books.

[sjl127]

Any sane member of our armed forces will never turn on another American.

[sluggie24]

Anyone want to say we still live in a free country? The blocks are being layed to build the steps to an oppressive government or even possibly a dictatorship. Little by little more laws are passed that chip away at our rights. Little rules like this are passed with most of the country none the wiser. I admit that this is the first that I have heard of this. One day we will all wake up and wonder what happened to the land of the free. They are getting ready to stop what they think the public might try to do when they take the next step. Don't be foolish. Get ready because what is comming couldn't get any clearer if it was a flashing neon sign on the wall in front of you! Laws like this have nothing to do with public safety and everything to do with suppressing a rebellion when they decide to take your last freedoms.

I don't pretend to know everything but I do know that the federal laws of late were exactly the type the the founding fathers tried to protect us from. The federal government is becoming what they fought against for our freedom. Would they be suprised? Or disgusted? How are you?

Personally I've already started changing some of my investments from mutual funds to ammo and MREs.

[PA Rifleman]

Originally Posted by sjl127

Any sane member of our armed forces will never turn on another American.

I wish you were right, but unfortunately they *will* fire on us without hesitation. Watch this video, particularly after 1 min 52 seconds.

[sjl127]

That soldier at the end, is not a soldier - to even suggest that he would turn on an American. Shame on him. SHAME ON HIS SPINELESS SOUL. (like I said above, any SANE member...)

There's even a hand full of guys in my unit with the same thinking, and it just blows my mind - but, the majority DO NOT THINK LIKE THIS.

[sluggie24]

What would you all do if they were comming to take you? I have been reading up on some of the Acts that were passed last year and are now law and I'm getting worried. Tin foil hat on....in bunker mode now. What do all of you think about these?

Martial Law Act
The President now has the power without the need for Congress to declare martial law across the entire nation for an indefinate period of time for any reason he deams it needed. During this time the Constitution will be suspended along with the Bill of Rights. Federal troops will carry out law enforcement across the country with the ability to use lethal force to solve ANY issue where they deem it required.

Military Commission Act
This one allows the US government to proclaim ANY US citizen a terrorist for any reason. No proof is needed and the person will instantly be considered an enemy combatant and lose any protections of the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. Said person can be held indeffinately and any trial that may take place will be under a different set of rules than currents US laws. There is way too much to write down but basically you will be guilty until proven innocent but the trial will be an immense uphill battle if you actuall get one and there will be no jury of your peers.

I'm still at work so I can't post any links but a quick Google search will give you everything you want to read.

[ShakeyDad]

Originally Posted by sluggie24

What would you all do if they were comming to take you? I have been reading up on some of the Acts that were passed last year and are now law and I'm getting worried. Tin foil hat on....in bunker mode now. What do all of you think about these?

Martial Law Act
The President now has the power without the need for Congress to declare martial law across the entire nation for an indefinate period of time for any reason he deams it needed. During this time the Constitution will be suspended along with the Bill of Rights. Federal troops will carry out law enforcement across the country with the ability to use lethal force to solve ANY issue where they deem it required.

Military Commission Act
This one allows the US government to proclaim ANY US citizen a terrorist for any reason. No proof is needed and the person will instantly be considered an enemy combatant and lose any protections of the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. Said person can be held indeffinately and any trial that may take place will be under a different set of rules than currents US laws. There is way too much to write down but basically you will be guilty until proven innocent but the trial will be an immense uphill battle if you actuall get one and there will be no jury of your peers.

I'm still at work so I can't post any links but a quick Google search will give you everything you want to read.

I don't know what is scarier, the fact that these "acts" are in existance, or the fact that ol' Georgie is crazy enough to use them !

[General Ripper.]

Hello Sluggie24,the issues you have made light too in your post are no big suprise to people who have had their eyes and ears open to the ever creeping "Global"movement that so many embrace today.I heard the same issues discussed by a member of the defamed Michigan Militia 15 years ago,his name is Mark Kornkee,back then,he was dubbed as a "TOTAL NUT"!!!!!!!!!!!!!.I recieved an audio tape made by "Mark",he predicted alot of the things we are seeing today,I have been "Preparing" ever since,AND I AM STILL PREPARING!!!!!!!!!!!!!.I have not buried any guns yet,but I have had Marks predictions in the back of my mind since at least 1993???????????,just enjoy life Sluggie,shoot your guns,eat a donut,watch football,go see the new Rambo movie,dont worry about it.The "Globalists" are waiting for "Our Generation' to pass away,the "Trans Texas Corridor' isnt supposed to be finished for at least another 50 years,(www.keeptexasmoving.com),in 50 years there will be noboby left that cares about that old country,"The United States of America".EAT,DRINK,and be MERRY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!,there is nothing to worry about,Thank You,General Ripper.

[Shawn.L]

Originally Posted by sjl127

Any sane member of our armed forces will never turn on another American.

just following orders comes to mind.
plenty of nazi's where good, god-fearing, family men.
I have many friends that serve our country right now, so dont take this in some kind of me calling our troops nazis troop bashing way. Some would do what me and you would think of as morally right. But they are just people.

[Eugene V. Debs]

Originally Posted by sjl127

Any sane member of our armed forces will never turn on another American.

Unfortunately, there is all too much historical evidence that, when push comes to shove, normally decent human beings will turn their weapons on their own compatriots when ordered to do so by a commanding officer. It's already happened in this country several times and even worse examples can be found elsewhere in the world.

No one wants to believe a soldier would do such a thing, but history shows that soldiers refusing such orders tend to be the exception rather than the rule. This why the Founding Fathers were suspicious of large standing armies and we really didn't have a large standing military until after WWII.