Bush Moves Toward Martial Law

[Guest guest]

Well thanks to the SPP, it won't be long before Canada joins

the USA. Seems we will all be one unhappy family.

 

http://www.projectcensored.org/censored_2008/index.htm

 

#2 Bush Moves Toward Martial Law

Sources:

Uruknet, October 26, 2006

Title: “Bush Moves Toward Martial Lawâ€

Author: Frank Morales

http://www.uruknet.info/?p=27769

 

Student Researchers: Phillip Parfitt and Julie Bickel

Faculty Evaluator: Andy Merrifield, Ph.D.

 

The John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007, which was quietly signed

by Bush on October 17, 2006, the very same day that he signed the Military

Commissions Act, allows the president to station military troops anywhere in the

United States and take control of state-based National Guard units without the

consent of the governor or local authorities, in order to “suppress public

disorder.â€

 

By revising the two-century-old Insurrection Act, the law in effect repeals

the Posse Comitatus Act, which placed strict prohibitions on military

involvement in domestic law enforcement. The 1878 Act 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.†As the only US criminal statute that

outlaws military operations directed against the American people, it has been

our

best protection against tyranny enforced by martial law—the harsh system of

rules that takes effect when the military takes control of the normal

administration of justice. Historically martial law has been imposed by various

governments during times of war or occupation to intensify control of

populations in

spite of heightened unrest. In modern times it is most commonly used by

authoritarian governments to enforce unpopular rule.1

 

Section 333 of the Defense Authorization Act of 2007, entitled “Major public

emergencies; interference with State and Federal law,†states that “the

President may employ the armed forces, including the National Guard in Federal

service—to restore public order and enforce the laws of the United States

when, as

a result of a natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health

emergency, terrorist attack or incident, or other condition in any State or

possession of the United States, the President determines that domestic violence

has

occurred to such an extent that the constituted authorities of the State or

possession are incapable of (or “refuse†or “fail†in) maintaining

public

order—in order to suppress, in any State, any insurrection, domestic violence,

unlawful combination, or conspiracy.â€

 

Thus an Act of Congress, superceding the Posse Comitatus Act, has paved the

way toward a police state by granting the president unfettered legal authority

to order federal troops onto the streets of America, directing military

operations against the American people under the cover of “law enforcement.â€

 

The massive Defense Authorization Act grants the Pentagon $532.8 billion to

include implementation of the new law which furthermore facilitates militarized

police round-ups of protesters, so-called illegal aliens, potential

terrorists, and other undesirables for detention in facilities already

contracted and

under construction, (see Censored 2007, Story #14) and transferring from the

Pentagon to local police units the latest technology and weaponry designed to

suppress dissent.

 

Author Frank Morales notes that 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 19, 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.â€

 

A few weeks later, on September 29, Leahy entered into the Congressional

Record that he had “grave reservations about certain provisions of the fiscal

Year

2007 Defense Authorization Bill Conference Report,†the language of which, he

said, “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.†This had been “slipped in,†Leahy said,

“as

a rider with little study,†while “other congressional committees with

jurisdiction over these matters had no chance to comment, let alone hold

hearings

on, these proposals.â€

 

Leahy noted “the implications of changing the [Posse Comitatus] Act are

enormous.†“There is good reason,†he said, “for the constructive

friction in

existing law when it comes to martial law declarations. Using the military for

law enforcement goes against one of the founding tenets of our democracy. We

fail our Constitution, neglecting the rights of the States, when we make it

easier for the President to declare martial law and trample on local and state

sovereignty.†Morales further asserts that “with the president’s polls at

a

historic low and Democrats taking back the Congress it is particularly worrisome

that President Bush has seen fit, at this juncture to, in effect, declare

himself dictator.â€

 

Citation 1. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martial_law , “Martial

Law,â€

May 2007

 

UPDATE BY FRANK MORALES

 

On April 24, 2007, Major General Timothy Lowenberg, the Adjutant General,

Washington National Guard, and Director of the Washington Military Department,

testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee on “The Insurrection Act Rider

and State Control of the National Guard.†He was speaking in opposition to

Section 1076 of the recently passed 2007 National Defense Authorization Act

(NDAA), which President Bush quietly signed into law this past October 17. The

law

clears the way for the President to execute martial law, commandeer National

Guard units around the country and unilaterally authorize military operations

against the American people in the event of an executive declaration of a “

public emergency.†This move toward martial law, which is intended to

facilitate

more effective counterinsurgency measures on the home front, took place,

according to Lowenberg, “without any hearing or consultation with the

governors and

without any articulation or justification of need.†This, despite the fact

that

Section 1076 of the new law “changed more than one hundred years of

well-established and carefully balanced state-federal and civil-military

relationships.â€

In other words, with one swipe of the pen, says the General, “one hundred

years of law and policy were changed without any publicly or privately

acknowledged author or proponent of the change.†Its “Federal Plans for

Implementing

Expanded Martial Law Authority†are to be executed via the recently created

domestic military command, the Northern Command or NORTHCOM. “One key

USNORTHCOM

planning assumption,†says Lowenberg, “is that the President will invoke the

new Martial Law powers if he concludes state and/or local authorities no

longer possess either the capability or the will to maintain order.†In fact,

this “

highly subjective assumption,†as Lowenberg puts it, has been in the works

for some time now. According to the General, the “US Northern Command has been

engaged for some time in deliberative planning for implementation of Section

1076 of the 2007 National Defense Authorization. The formal NORTHCOM CONPLAN

2502-05 was approved by Secretary of Defense Gates on March 15, 2007,â€

 

Further, according to the General, the 2007 NDAA provisions “could be used to

compel National Guard forces to engage in civil disturbance operations under

federal control.†In that case, NORTHCOM will effectuate its move to martial

law, its “CONPLAN,†by way of its very own “civil disturbance plan,â€

Department of Defense Civil Disturbance Plan 55-2, code-named Garden Plot. Major

Tom

Herthel, of the United States Air Force Judge Advocate General School, recently

laid out the Rules of Engagement & Rules for the Use of Force during the

implementation of “GARDEN PLOT,†which according to Herthel, is â€the plan

to

provide the basis for all preparation, deployment, employment, and redeployment

of

all designated forces, including National Guard forces called to active

federal service, for use in domestic civil disturbance operations as directed by

the President.†Among other things, the “rules†allow for the use of

lethal

force during domestic “civil disturbance operations.†That is why many are

urging Congress to repeal Section 1076 of the 2007 NDAA through immediate

enactment

of Senate Bill 513. Introduced in February 2007, and sponsored by Senator

Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), the bill seeks to repeal, or as the Congress puts it, “

revive previous authority on the use of the Armed Forces and the militia to

address interference with State or Federal law, and for other purposes,â€

through

the “Repeal of Amendments made by Public Law 109-364-Section 1076 of the John

Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007.â€

 

It is critical that Senate Bill 513 becomes law, and that our popular

struggle succeeds in beating back the President’s attempt to further codify

the

immoral and criminal seizure of state control via woefully ill-advised and

dictatorial moves toward martial law and military rule.