Bush signs bill enabling martial law

This is the first time I've heard of it.

H.R. 5122 appears to be the defense spending bill. The Library of Congress Thomas search confirms that: H.R.5122. The govtrack.us link hasn't yet worked for me. It must be slashdotted.

According to the WaPo, Votes Database, it passed the House, 398-23, with 12 not voting. Looking at the party breakdown, the lone independent in the House Bernie Sanders voted yes. I'm hard pressed to imagine that he would have voted for martial law - but that doesn't mean that he did.

Sen. Leahy rocks so, I'd have to go with his assessment if he said those things. Here's what he said: Remarks Of Sen. Patrick Leahy National Defense Authorization Act For Fiscal Year 2007 It also should concern us all that the Conference agreement includes language that 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.

Quote:

... Not only does this Conference Report unfortunately drop the Empowerment amendment entirely, it adopts some incredible changes to the Insurrection Act, which would give the President more authority to declare martial law. Let me repeat: The National Guard Empowerment Act, which is designed to make it more likely for the National Guard to remain in State control, is dropped from this conference report in favor of provisions making it easier to usurp the Governors control and making it more likely that the President will take control of the Guard and the active military operating in the States. The changes to the Insurrection Act will allow the President to use the military, including the National Guard, to carry out law enforcement activities without the consent of a governor. When the Insurrection Act is invoked posse comitatus does not apply. Using the military for law enforcement goes against one of the founding tenets of our democracy, and it is for that reason that the Insurrection Act has only been invoked on three — three — in recent history. The implications of changing the Act are enormous, but this change was just slipped in the defense bill as a rider with little study. Other congressional committees with jurisdiction over these matters had no chance to comment, let alone hold hearings on, these proposals. While the Conference made hasty changes to the Insurrection Act, the Guard Empowerment Bill was kicked over for study to the Commission on the National Guard and Reserve, which was established only a year ago and whose recommendations have no real force of law. I would have never supported the creation of this panel — and I suspect my colleagues would agree with me — if I thought we would have to wait for the panel to finish its work before we passed new laws on the Guard and Reserve. In fact, we would get nothing done in Congress if we were to wait for every commission, study group, and research panel to finish its work. I have been around here over 30 years, and almost every Senator here knows the National Guard as well as any commission member. We don’t need to wait, and we don’t need to study the question of enhancing the Guard further. This is a terrible blow against rational defense policy-making and against the fabric of our democracy. ...

Wow! Serious stuff.

I have to disagree with something Frank Morales wrote, Bush Moves Toward Martial Law.

Quote:

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."

As we discussed last week, and as Keith Olbermann made clear on his show, the MCA doesn't just apply overseas [1] If you are pulled off the street tomorrow, and they call you an alien or an undocumented immigrant or an “unlawful enemy combatant”—exactly how are you going to convince them to give you a court hearing to prove you are not? The MCA gives the President the power to detain without charges or judicial review anyone he deems a terrorist. See also: Damage Control.

Not good, not good. I knew there was a reason I nearly got sick listening to God Bless America during the World Series...

Bill text mirror.

The bill text mirror is 345 pages long. It's not so easy to find the odious parts.

Here is the House Report on the bill - 712 pages. The Appendices are more interesting viz the OP. For example, under "Amendments Proposed But Not Offered" - "Reaffirmation of Posse Comitatus". It's quite likely that amendment didn't make it because it was proposed by Cynthia McKinney.

Meh. Seems like the gradual slide of the US towards authoritarianism continues. Move along, nothing to see here.

/despises the Bush administration

Now-- what would happen if there actually is an insurrection? That's what I'd like to find out. I wonder how the state representatives would appreciate their residences turning into war zones while kids with automatic weapons and kids with molotov cocktails kill each other.

I wouldn't worry too much, we've still got the Third Amendment. (ha)

It's a little disturbing, especially coupled with the "no habeas corpus for enemy combatants" development...if you're resisting the armed forces in their attempts at martial law, you are probably going to be an enemy combatant. Is something big coming up? If it does, I'm going camping for awhile in the country. I'm not living under martial law.

That said, I'm not too worried. I think it will be a little longer before our armed forces have the will to violently occupy America, and commit the sort of heinous crimes that necessitate resistance.

Quote:

Original post by I Like Bread Now-- what would happen if there actually is an insurrection? That's what I'd like to find out. I wonder how the state representatives would appreciate their residences turning into war zones while kids with automatic weapons and kids with molotov cocktails kill each other.

There have been insurrections in the United States before. We generally have called them riots (except for the Civil War which really was an insurrection). The last major riot happened in 1992 in response to the acquittal of the police officers that beat Rodney King. The History Channel and the Discovery Channel have recently aired some pretty good documentaries on the Los Angeles Police Department's failure to properly deal with those riots. If you get a chance to catch a re-run, check them out. They're informative - even if only to expose yourself to the excuses the people that were in charge back then use to cover their butts.

At any rate, riot surpression is the purview of the State National Guard, not the Pentagon. The changes to the relevant laws found in this bill will not improve a State's ability to surpress a riot. It's actually quite remarkable that a Republican Congress would pass a law so fundamentally opposed to states rights. I suppose that for them the Führerprinzip outweighs states rights as this is another massive power grab by the Bush administration.

Quote:

Original post by LessBread Quote: Original post by I Like Bread Now-- what would happen if there actually is an insurrection? That's what I'd like to find out. I wonder how the state representatives would appreciate their residences turning into war zones while kids with automatic weapons and kids with molotov cocktails kill each other. There have been insurrections in the United States before. We generally have called them riots (except for the Civil War which really was an insurrection). The last major riot happened in 1992 in response to the acquittal of the police officers that beat Rodney King. The History Channel and the Discovery Channel have recently aired some pretty good documentaries on the Los Angeles Police Department's failure to properly deal with those riots. If you get a chance to catch a re-run, check them out. They're informative - even if only to expose yourself to the excuses the people that were in charge back then use to cover their butts.

This is interesting. I typed in "los angeles riot" in Google, and this is what came up.

Quote:

Original post by Diodor Quote: Original post by Lessbread If you are pulled off the street tomorrow, and they call you an alien or an undocumented immigrant or an “unlawful enemy combatant”—exactly how are you going to convince them to give you a court hearing to prove you are not? Wouldn't an ID do it?

Not unless you carry your passport around with you all the time, or a birth certificate.

[EDIT] Lol, daylight savings bug. This post refers to the one underneath it.

Quote:

Original post by Promit Quote: Original post by Diodor Quote: Original post by Lessbread If you are pulled off the street tomorrow, and they call you an alien or an undocumented immigrant or an “unlawful enemy combatant”—exactly how are you going to convince them to give you a court hearing to prove you are not? Wouldn't an ID do it? Not unless you carry your passport around with you all the time, or a birth certificate.

Hmm, I didn't know there aren't ID cards in the US apart from driving licenses / passports - surprising... Regardless, I expect the organs are able to verify citizenship with ease.

Quote:

[EDIT] Lol, daylight savings bug. This post refers to the one underneath it.

Now the one underneath this one.

Quote:

Original post by Lessbread If you are pulled off the street tomorrow, and they call you an alien or an undocumented immigrant or an “unlawful enemy combatant”—exactly how are you going to convince them to give you a court hearing to prove you are not?

Wouldn't an ID do it?

Quote:

Original post by Diodor Quote: Original post by Lessbread If you are pulled off the street tomorrow, and they call you an alien or an undocumented immigrant or an “unlawful enemy combatant”—exactly how are you going to convince them to give you a court hearing to prove you are not? Wouldn't an ID do it?

lovely, let's everyone should always carry ID like in soviet union / russia. For no reason better than "OMG terrorism!" as if it would help anyhow.
Also, if cop want he can always lit up your ID after which you won't be able to prove you aren't "unlawful enemy combatant" and won't be able to have court hearing about cop burning your ID (which you will be able to if you are still have to be treated as citizen even if cop burned your ID).
Entire legal system relies on innocent until proven [or at least shown some evidence of being] guilty. It is totally and completely incompatible with "illegal enemy combatant until shown otherwise".

Seriously, Diodor, every single time when something about law inside USA is discussed, it's extremely easy to predict what change do you like - change from USA to some american sort of USSR-on-capitalism-but-otherwise-identical-to-USSR-we-lived-in.
You know, USA is better than USSR not just because of being located in different place. The "why it's better than USSR" is made from various small differencies you apparently don't like. You like USA to be better than USSR as abstract concept, but you don't like every small specific difference.

[Edited by - Dmytry on October 29, 2006 3:36:51 AM]

Quote:

Original post by Dmytry Quote: Original post by Diodor Quote: Original post by Lessbread If you are pulled off the street tomorrow, and they call you an alien or an undocumented immigrant or an “unlawful enemy combatant”—exactly how are you going to convince them to give you a court hearing to prove you are not? Wouldn't an ID do it? lovely, let's everyone should carry ID like in soviet union / russia. Also, if cop want he can always lit up your ID after which you won't be able to prove you aren't "unlawful enemy combatant" and won't be able to have court about cop burning your ID. Entire legal system relies on innocent until proven [or at least shown some evidence of being] guilty. It is totally and completely incompatible with "illegal enemy combatant until shown otherwise". Seriously, Diodor, every single time when something inside USA is discussed, it's extremely easy to predict what change do you like - change from USA to some american sort of USSR-on-capitalism-but-otherwise-identical-to-USSR-we-lived-in. You know, USA is better than USSR not just because of being located in different place. The "why it's better than USSR" is made from various small differencies you apparently don't like.

With regards to IDs, I believe your point would have been less poignant if you'd have used Spain as the police state example. I wasn't advocating change, I was asking about the current state of facts - isn't there some easy failproof way to prove citizenship?

[EDIT]By the way, the best strategy to advocate any measure that gets one closer to the Soviet Union is to search for a respectable EU country that did it first - one's bound to find one. [grin]

Quote:

Original post by Diodor Quote: Original post by Dmytry Quote: Original post by Diodor Quote: Original post by Lessbread If you are pulled off the street tomorrow, and they call you an alien or an undocumented immigrant or an “unlawful enemy combatant”—exactly how are you going to convince them to give you a court hearing to prove you are not? Wouldn't an ID do it? lovely, let's everyone should carry ID like in soviet union / russia. Also, if cop want he can always lit up your ID after which you won't be able to prove you aren't "unlawful enemy combatant" and won't be able to have court about cop burning your ID. Entire legal system relies on innocent until proven [or at least shown some evidence of being] guilty. It is totally and completely incompatible with "illegal enemy combatant until shown otherwise". Seriously, Diodor, every single time when something inside USA is discussed, it's extremely easy to predict what change do you like - change from USA to some american sort of USSR-on-capitalism-but-otherwise-identical-to-USSR-we-lived-in. You know, USA is better than USSR not just because of being located in different place. The "why it's better than USSR" is made from various small differencies you apparently don't like. With regards to IDs, I believe your point would have been less poignant if you'd have used Spain as the police state example. I wasn't advocating change, I was asking about the current state of facts - isn't there some easy failproof way to prove citizenship? [EDIT]By the way, the best strategy to advocate any measure that gets one closer to the Soviet Union is to search for a respectable EU country that did it first - one's bound to find one. [grin]

I just seen you posting in this thread and before clicking predicted what you gonna advocate.
in EU states requiring IDs (germany comes as example lol.) if you don't carry ID with you, they can't do much to you anyway as far as i know.
Just for other examples of what i mean, consider warrantless searches and monitoring of phone/etc. Your position on this topic also follows general rule of "if it's USSR like but with capitalizm and in USA then it's good".

Quote:

Original post by Dmytry I just seen you posting in this thread and before clicking predicted what you gonna advocate. in EU states requiring IDs (germany comes as example lol.) if you don't carry ID with you, they can't do much to you anyway as far as i know. Just for other examples of what i mean, consider warrantless searches and monitoring of phone/etc. Your position on this topic also follows general rule of "if it's USSR like but with capitalizm and in USA then it's good".

The point is, can "they" take US citizens off the street and hold them without trial without breaking the law? Why don't you focus on that instead of exposing my secret agenda of adding SR to the US. :)

Quote:

Original post by Diodor isn't there some easy failproof way to prove citizenship?

not in a world where ID theft is huge and most things can be faked.

For a not so easy but closer to fool proof way, you could always at birth have the goverment store a massive file on your biometric data (including DNA sequencing, iris parterns, retener (sp?) scans, finger prints and other 'unique' data), which is update often... then when you are pulled off the street they can check this data... of course, corruption is still a loophole but no system is perfect...

(and for the record, I'm very much against this kind of idea)

Quote:

Original post by Dmytry in EU states requiring IDs (germany comes as example lol.)

not true anymore.

Quote:

Original post by LessBread Quote: Original post by I Like Bread Now-- what would happen if there actually is an insurrection? That's what I'd like to find out. I wonder how the state representatives would appreciate their residences turning into war zones while kids with automatic weapons and kids with molotov cocktails kill each other. There have been insurrections in the United States before. We generally have called them riots (except for the Civil War which really was an insurrection). The last major riot happened in 1992 in response to the acquittal of the police officers that beat Rodney King. The History Channel and the Discovery Channel have recently aired some pretty good documentaries on the Los Angeles Police Department's failure to properly deal with those riots. If you get a chance to catch a re-run, check them out. They're informative - even if only to expose yourself to the excuses the people that were in charge back then use to cover their butts.

Or just play GTA: San Andreas. [grin]

Quote:

Original post by maximAL Quote: Original post by Dmytry in EU states requiring IDs (germany comes as example lol.) not true anymore.

Really? Congrats for abolishing that nazi artifact