Giving Democracy The Bird: Bush Asks Congress for Martial Law

[Guest guest]

S

Fri, 14 Oct 2005 09:47:15 -0700 (PDT)

Giving Democracy The Bird: Bush Asks Congress for Martial Law

 

 

 

 

Giving Democracy The Bird: Bush Asks Congress for Martial Law

 

http://bellaciao.org/en/article.php3?id_article=8783

 

 

Soldiers brandishing automatic weapons, a defining characteristic of

life in Third World dictatorships, have become commonplace at

airports, bus and train stations, government offices and highway

checkpoints since 9/11. Now troops are becoming our first responders

to situations, such as natural disasters and flu outbreaks, which

normally fall under civilian jurisdiction.

 

 

 

Everything's gone topsy-turvy: The National Guard, charged with

keeping order here at home and legally under the control of state

governors, has been shipped off to Iraq and Afghanistan, shanghaied by

the federal government. Here in the U.S., whatever comes up, the Bush

Administration's first reaction is to send in the regular army troops

who are supposed to be in Iraq. Whether it's a sinister plot against

American democracy or the most sustained large-scale foolishness in

history, the Bush Administration is tearing down the traditional wall

between overseas military action and domestic law enforcement.

 

Creeping militarism leapt into full view with Bush's October 4 request

to Congress to repeal the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, which prohibits

the use of the military in domestic policing except for the purpose of

quelling a revolution. Citing the theoretical possibility that Asian

avian flu, now only transmittable from bird to human, could mutate

into a human-to-human form, Bush said: " If we had an outbreak

somewhere in the United States, do we not then quarantine that part of

the country? And who best to be able to effect a quarantine? One

option is the use of a military that's able to plan and move. I think

it's an important debate for Congress to have. "

 

Overturning Posse Comitatus would allow troops to break into houses

and apartments and sweep the streets for flu victims, and forcibly

contain them in Guantánamo-style camps. They could seal off cities or

whole states. These extreme measures could also be deployed against

U.S. citizens after hurricanes, tornados, earthquakes, or even

election disputes--whenever and wherever a president decides they are

necessary.

 

Bush laid the groundwork for his assault on Posse Comitatus on

September 26, when he explained his decision to unleash the 82nd

Airborne upon Hurricane Katrina-devastated New Orleans: " I want there

to be a robust discussion about the best way for the federal

government, in certain extreme circumstances, to be able to rally

assets for the good of the people. " The Louisiana National Guard,

meanwhile, was stuck in Iraq.

 

" The translation of this is martial law in the United States, " said

Dr. Irwin Redlener, associate dean of Columbia University's School of

Public Health and director of its National Center for Disaster

Preparedness. Redlener called Bush's proposal to deploy troops on

American soil an " extraordinarily Draconian measure. " Even Gene Healy,

senior editor at the right-wing Cato Institute, said Bush's proposal

would undermine " a fundamental principle of American law " that

" reflects America's traditional distrust of using standing armies to

enforce order at home, a distrust that's well-justified. "

 

All this over avian flu, which to date has killed fewer than 100

people worldwide.

 

Travel to other countries and you'll find that a society's freedom is

inversely related to the number of guys wearing camouflage,

brandishing big guns and pulling people over at roadblocks. Blurring

the distinction between policing and soldiering, as do the military

police in the former Soviet republics of Central Asia and Middle

Eastern countries like Syria and Jordan, is a defining characteristic

of repressive states.

 

Civilian cops may be rude or even abusive, but they're not supposed to

shoot you without a good reason. You're their boss, or at least they

work for the mayor you elected. Not so with soldiers. Military troops

are responsible only to their chain of command, which is likely to end

thousands of miles away in Washington. They shoot sooner and quicker

than cops, and they have much bigger guns. Regimes that use the

military to maintain order tell their citizens: do what we tell you,

or else. They rely upon violence rather than tacit consensus to stay

in charge.

 

Rule under the point of a gun is not democracy.

 

James Pinkerton of the New America Foundation argues for efficiency

over freedom. " When you absolutely, positively, have to get something

done right away, " he writes in USA Today, " you call in the military.

By their very nature, men and women in uniform are oriented toward

getting things done. They are trained to complete their mission, or

die trying. And as Hurricane Katrina made clear, the rest of the

government doesn't hold to such a high standard. So why not the best? "

 

Federal agencies muffed Katrina because of inadequate budgets and

mismanagement, not because they're intrinsically incompetent.

Moreover, there's little evidence that militarizing domestic functions

makes the trains run on time. The military controls everything from

road construction to trash collection, yet Pakistan remains a nation

that suffers from systemic corruption, a staggering drug problem and

crippling disparity of wealth--

 

not to mention an endless low-intensity civil war. Most European

democracies, by contrast, enjoy a higher standard of living--and more

efficient government--

 

than the U.S. And they do it without pointing automatic rifles at

flood victims lining up for food and water.

 

But what if military dictatorship could be proven a more efficient

form of government than old-fashioned democracy? What if a standing

army could do what a bunch of namby-pamby bureaucrats can't? Would it

be worth it?

 

That's the choice George W. Bush is asking Congress, and thus us, to

make. The fact that he hasn't been impeached for daring to ask it

highlights the dictatorial tendencies of those who share his contempt

for personal liberty.