Truth being stranger than fiction, as they say, the Indymedia organization reports that President Bush has secretly gutted long-standing protections from tyranny and given himself the authority to declare martial law:
Public Law 109-364, or the “John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007” (H.R.5122) (2), which was signed by the commander in chief on October 17th, 2006, in a private Oval Office ceremony, allows the President to declare a “public emergency” and station troops anywhere in America and take control of state-based National Guard units without the consent of the governor or local authorities, in order to “suppress public disorder.”
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.”
We could speculate about all the reasons Bush might be doing the EXACT OPPOSITE of what he promised to the American voters during his election campaign. Or we could just acknowledge the fact that the consequences of his decisions have been and continue to be disasterous for the welfare of Americans.
Make no mistake about it: the de-facto repeal of the Posse Comitatus Act (PCA) is an ominous assault on American democratic tradition and jurisprudence. The 1878 Act, which reads, “Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both,” is the only U.S. criminal statute that outlaws military operations directed against the American people under the cover of ‘law enforcement.’ As such, it has been the best protection we’ve had against the power-hungry intentions of an unscrupulous and reckless executive, an executive intent on using force to enforce its will.
Unfortunately, this past week, the president dealt posse comitatus, along with American democracy, a near fatal blow. Consequently, it will take an aroused citizenry to undo the damage wrought by this horrendous act, part and parcel, as we have seen, of a long train of abuses and outrages perpetrated by this authoritarian administration.
Despite the unprecedented and shocking nature of this act, there has been no outcry in the American media, and little reaction from our elected officials in Congress. On September 19th, a lone Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont) noted that 2007’s Defense Authorization Act contained a “widely opposed provision to allow the President more control over the National Guard [adopting] changes to the Insurrection Act, which will make it easier for this or any future President to use the military to restore domestic order WITHOUT the consent of the nation’s governors.”
Let me say this again. This is the EXACT OPPOSITE of Bush’s promise in 2001 to Governors that he would be a strong advocate for state’s rights:
Bush called for the federal government to grant more power to the states. “While I believe there’s a role for the federal government, it’s not to impose its will on states and local communities [emphasis added],” Bush said. “It’s to empower states and people and local communities to be able to realize the vast potential of this country.”
There you have Bush himself saying that federal control of the states will disempower them — prevent them from realizing the potential of the country. What’s changed? How did this self-proclaimed friend of the state (a former governor himself) become its enemy? Actually, nothing really changed, according to how Bush was portrayed by some in 1999:
His critics say Bush is poll-driven, ideologically shallow and a natural-born waffler. Bush fostered the criticism by giving vague or conflicting opinions on national issues while overseeing the state’s legislative session this year.
That all sounds perfectly accurate. Perhaps it is his poll-driven nature that drives him to use his secret orders instead of working to bring others to the table. I suspect his secret motto is “if you can’t beat ’em, cheat”. So the real question is who is the man behind the Bush curtain? His waffles all add up to far too much executive power to be random. Is this the Cheney policy engine at work?
Some amusing analysis of the exact language is available here:
It appears that signing of H.R. 5122 does more than what President Bush stated:
“…authorizes funding for the defense of the United States and its interests abroad, for military construction, for national security-related energy programs, and for maritime security-related transportation programs.”
In his statement he cites various ‘provisions’ but forgets one–Section 1076, which:
“allows the President to declare a ‘public emergency’ and station troops anywhere in America and take control of state-based National Guard units without the consent of the governor or local authorities, in order to ‘suppress public disorder.'”
In essence Martial Law with such implementations…
1. This wasn’t signed in secret. It was signed very publicly, since it was the 2007 Defense Appropriations Bill. It got exactly the same amount of attention as any other bill.
2. People are grossly misreading the changes. Here’s something I wrote up on the changes below:
[editor note: text of the before/after by Dave shortened for the sake of brevity…especially since Dave was kind enough to cut-and-paste the same exact comment on just about every other blog in the world]
As you can see, the wording REQUIRES that the identical conditions be met (included in paragraph 2), as well as both requirements under (a)(1)(A). The only real difference is allowing the conditions to be met during “a natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident, or other condition” as opposed to “insurrection” specifically. (Besides, can’t it be argued that “insurrection” can be broadly defined, too, if the real interest is to declare martial law?)
Just because there is now “or other condition” wording in the revised statute does NOT mean they can just arbitrarily decide there is an “other condition” and deploy the military or national guard. The condition still MUST meet the guidelines above; it’s just that now it’s not an “insurrection” that also meets those conditions, it’s any event that meets those conditions. But the conditions themselves are specific, and are actually carefully worded to guarantee Constitutional protections.
Regards,
Dave Schroeder
University of Wisconsin – Madison
das@doit.wisc.edu
http://das.doit.wisc.edu/
Dave, thanks for the text (which I found suspiciously present on just about every other blog on this topic — at least when I follow the query you are using), but your comment has some problems. You quote some very notable differences between old/new, but you then contradict yourself when you beg us to agree with you that “the only real difference” doesn’t mean much.
The contradiction is unfortunate for two reasons:
1) If your assessment is correct why would anyone have bothered with the “carefully worded” changes? That’s the big question, and you’ve left it unanswered. Clearly someone (e.g. the authors) considered the change necessary for the President to expand his/her power, right?
2) Why should we trust an opinion about “guarantees” and “significance” of the changes? Perhaps the opinion favors martial law and tries to downplay real consequences? Perhaps the opinion originates from Dallas, Texas? Maybe the opinion is that states and their governors do not deserve what Bush himself once referred to as the ability “to be able to realize the vast potential of this country”. What is clear is that a change was made secretly and piggy-backed on a defense appropriation bill to kill any opposition. That’s not the meaning of “very publicly” in most quarters.
You might personally discount the significance of the expansion of executive power, and plead for us to take your position with you, but you fail to actually dispute the expansion and the reported death of the important Posse Comitatus Act.
Dave, also, please note that as much as I enjoy you copying the same text to my blog from all the other blogs you have been pasting to this evening, I do not really see the point. I’m not trying to win any contest to see who can get the most Dave comments in a night. And I can read what you’ve written on a thousand other pages (unfortunately all identical, at this point). Some people would write a script to run the sort of campaign you are on, but perhaps you prefer the joy of Cmd-C, Cmd-V (being the mac advocate you are).
Actually speaking of enjoyable comments. I found these other opinions of yours quite telling:
“It’s mind-numbingly clear that Iraq had WMD.”
Well, if you mean your mind has to be numb to believe Iraq had WMD when Bush said they did and the US could not wait another day for UN support for an invasion…you might have a point. Are you a spokesperson for the mind numbing perspective?
“I don’t have any problems with PATRIOT II”
I see. Why would you? I mean are these issues judged solely on merits/faults to you personally? Do you also find yourself saying: “Hey, I don’t get the big deal with torture? No torture here so who needs the Geneva Convention?” You appear to have a history downplaying erosion of constitutional rights. That could explain why you don’t have any problems continuing a trend…
Ah, but no, you tell everyone not to immediately judge election fraud as a bad thing:
“Why must negative motives ALWAYS be ascribed [to news about electronic voting security flaws]?”
Incidentally, I like the comment in response to yours by Kenja:
Frankly, it seems to me you are doing a fine job spreading your seeds of executive power love (“get the truth out” as you call it) elsewhere so if you don’t mind I’ll just read it there instead of here.
Hope you understand it’s nothing personal, just the same decision I make when I enable spam filters. Good luck with your sales pitch getting through someone else’s filters. Or, for pete’s sake, if you are really a system administrator then get a blog.