Inside the Martial Law Act of 2006

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.

..........

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

They hate America.

and indefinately extend his second term.

Sure, it might force the administration's hand on this matter, but if Bush declared martial law in response to impeachment I doubt that he could make it stick. The public, and especially the military would not stand for it.

:yoiks:

can you say police state?

:mad:

:mad:

:bounce:

:kick:

Act in the recently passed defense authorization act. If you have evidence to the contrary,I'd like to see it. If not, you might think twice before making assertions like that.

First, let's cut to the chase. Yes, in 2006, Congress passed, and the president signed, legislation (called the Defense Authorization Act for 2007) containing a provision that amended to Insurrection Act to expand the listed circumstances in which the president could order US military forces deployed within the USA. (More on exactly what the bill did later). BUT...the 2006 amendment was REPEALED by the recently enacted Defense AUthorization Act for 2008. The law is back to what it was before the amendments that have everyone responding to the OP up in arms. In fact, the repeal of the 2006 amendments is one of the specific reasons that chimpy is trying, through the back door, to veto the 2007 bill.

Now, as to how bad the 2006 amendments really were. Admittedly, before the amendments, the Insurrection Act only came into play in cases of "insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy" while the amended version (the one Congress repealed) adds "natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident or other condition" to the list. Clearly the new law is broader and that in and of itself is a source of concern and reason to support its repeal. But let's not pretend that the existing law (which dates back to the beginning of th3e 19th century) is all that narrow. After all, "conspiracy" and "unlawful combination" are pretty ambiguous terms. Also, under both the new and old versions, the law only applied if, in connection with one of the listed occurences, domestic violence was occurring to such an extent that state-level authorities are incapable of maintaining public order AND such violence so hinders the execution of state or federal law that any part or class of the state's citizenry is deprived of a constitutional right, privilege, immunity or protection.

Again I'm happy that the changes from 2006 are being repealed (and hope Congress sticks to its guns in the face of chimpy's veto effort.

BTW you can look up words in google by using the keyword define: before the word in question.

(This act was passed after the depredations of the U.S. military throughout the Southern states during Reconstruction.)

define: depredation
# Refers to predation on domestic animals or animals that a predator would not normally encountered or killed in natural habitat.

# The act of predation; eating or destroying.

# an act of plundering and pillaging and marauding
# ravage: (usually plural) a destructive action; "the ravages of time"; "the depredations of age and disease"