NationStates Jolt Archive

President Bush signed this into law, and pushed for it strongly. It sets a dangerous precedent for martial law as it bypasses Posse Comitatus. The first form of the bill was even more dangerous with the President not being required to notify Congress at all. Congress does not have to approve the execution of the Insurrection Act. They only have to be notified every 14 days while it is in effect.

It also avoids Posse Comitatus, one of the protections against this.
"The entire text of the Posse Comitatus Act is as follows:
18 U.S.C. § 1385 - Use of Army and Air Force as posse comitatus
"Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or the 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".
Accordingly, actions taken under the Insurrection Act have always been exempt from the Posse Comitatus Act.[1][2]
"

Insurrection Act 10.USC 331-334

10.USC 331
Whenever there is an insurrections in any State against its government, the President may, upon the request of its legislature or of its governor if the legislature cannot be convened, call into Federal service such of the militia of the other States, in the number requested by that State, and use such of the armed forces, as he considers necessary to suppress the insurrection.


10.USC 332
Whenever the President considers that unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages, or rebellion against the authority of the United States, make it impracticable to enforce the laws of the United States in any State by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, he may call into Federal service such of the militia of any State, and use such of the armed forces, as he considers necessary to enforce those laws or to suppress the rebellion.

10. USC 333
Major public emergencies; interference with State and Federal law

(a) USE OF ARMED FORCES IN MAJOR PUBLIC EMERGENCIES.--

(1) The President may employ the armed forces, including the National Guard in Federal service, to--
(A) 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--
(i) domestic violence has occurred to such an extent that the constituted authorities of the State or possession are incapable of maintaining public order; and
(ii) such violence results in a condition described in paragraph (2); or
(B) suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy if such insurrection, violation, combination, or conspiracy results in a condition described in paragraph (2).
(2) A condition described in this paragraph is a condition that--
(A) so hinders the execution of the laws of a State or possession, as applicable, and of the United States within that State or possession, that any part or class of its people is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law, and the constituted authorities of that State or possession are unable, fail, or refuse to protect that right, privilege, or immunity, or to give that protection; or
(B) opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws.
(3) In any situation covered by paragraph (1)(B), the State shall be considered to have denied the equal protection of the laws secured by the Constitution.
(b) NOTICE TO CONGRESS.--

The President shall notify Congress of the determination to exercise the authority in subsection (a)(1)(A) as soon as practicable after the determination and every 14 days thereafter during the duration of the exercise of the authority.


10 USC 334
Whenever the President considers it necessary to use the militia or the armed forces under this chapter, he shall, by proclamation, immediately order the insurgents or those obstructing the enforcement of the laws to disperse and retire peaceably to their abodes within a limited time.


BEFORE AMENDMENT BY 2007 Defense Appropriations Bill

10. USC 333

The President, by using the militia or the armed forces, or both, or by any other means, shall take such measures as he considers necessary to suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy, if it—

(1) so hinders the execution of the laws of that State, and of the United States within the State, that any part or class of its people is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law, and the constituted authorities of that State are unable, fail, or refuse to protect that right, privilege, or immunity, or to give that protection; or
(2) opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws.
In any situation covered by clause (1), the State shall be considered to have denied the equal protection of the laws secured by the Constitution.

Could be used for that, yes. Will it be used for that any time soon? Probably not.

How unpopular does a government have to be before it thinks it NEEDS an insurrection act?

How unpopular does a government have to be before it thinks it NEEDS an insurrection act?

Good point. VERY good point. Never thought of it like that.

Yay for more power grab by the Federal Government. :rolleyes:

Bush has consistently wanted martial law. It is scary in fact.

"The near-term attacks ... will either rival or exceed the 9/11 attacks... And it's pretty clear that the nation's capital and New York city would be on any list..." (Former DHS Secretary Tom Ridge, December 2003)

"... Credible reporting indicates that Al Qaeda is moving forward with its plans to carry out a large-scale attack in the United States in an effort to disrupt our democratic process... (Former DHS Secretary Tom Ridge, 8 July 2004)



[b] CNN Headline
Bush military bird flu role slammed
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A call by President George W. Bush for Congress to give him the power to use the military in law enforcement roles in the event of a bird flu pandemic has been criticized as akin to introducing martial law.



"(NewsTarget) The Bush Administration shocked lawmakers and analysts two months ago when it denied a member of the House Homeland Security Committee permission to examine classified plans for maintaining the functioning of the government in the event of a major natural disaster or terrorist attack.

In order to alleviate concerns that the White House has plans for martial law, Representative Peter DeFazio, (D-OR), asked to see the plan for government continuity. As a member of the Homeland Security Committee, DeFazio has the required security clearance to view such a plan. In the past, he has entered what is known as a "bubble room" to view classified documents, and his requests have never been denied.

But in a break with tradition, DeFazio's request, although initially approved, was later rejected. The congressman has not been informed who made the decision about his request, nor about the reason for it."

Two viewpoints on this.

1) It can be used to declare Martial Law.

2) It can be used to get Federal agencies into disaster areas faster than the normal way.

You guys do understand that this law dates from 1807, right? These amendments (made in 2006, attached to a Defense Appropriations bill) just make it easier for the president to use the military in a domestic role.

You guys do understand that this law dates from 1807, right? These amendments (made in 2006, attached to a Defense Appropriations bill) just make it easier for the president to use the military in a domestic role.

I think that's what's sparking their fears.

I think that's what's sparking their fears.

Which may very well be necessary. Few things can organize like the military. Thats one of the reasons the National Guard has been so good in disaster recovery. But what if a disaster (natural or man made) compromises the National Guard, or is simply too big for them to handle?

Which may very well be necessary. Few things can organize like the military. Thats one of the reasons the National Guard has been so good in disaster recovery. But what if a disaster (natural or man made) compromises the National Guard, or is simply too big for them to handle?
Then you're pretty fortunate that disaster relief is an international effort.

These amendments (made in 2006, attached to a Defense Appropriations bill) just make it easier for the president to use the military in a domestic role.

Well Bush seemed to really like the law. And how is that a good thing?

Congress meets on a regular basis. Regular enough that Congress or one of the houses could have full supervision of granting military powers. I would rather Congress retain the supervision of granting emergency military powers with a lesser quoram required during emergencies or the incapaciation or reduction of Congress. Or at the very least allow the Governors to phone in and vote.

Which may very well be necessary. Few things can organize like the military. Thats one of the reasons the National Guard has been so good in disaster recovery. But what if a disaster (natural or man made) compromises the National Guard, or is simply too big for them to handle?

alot of people [not here] asked why the Navel ship stationed in the Gulf did not lend assistance to the people of New Orleans after Katrina. Not realizing that as a FEDERAL agency (military) they could not go in without orders from the Federal Government... who in turn could not order them to assist until the Govenor of Louisiana turned over control to the Federal Government (which they never did).

so yeah, such amendments would make it easier for the Federal Government to send in the Corp of Engineers to places where Natural Desasters take place. but like other good intentions, it can be misused.

The thing is, will the good recieved by such amendments outweigh the bad of someone abusing the power this grants?

How unpopular does a government have to be before it thinks it NEEDS an insurrection act?

Says a lot about the current administration doesn' it?

Well Bush seemed to really like the law. And how is that a good thing?

Congress meets on a regular basis. Regular enough that Congress or one of the houses could have full supervision of granting military powers. I would rather Congress retain the supervision of granting emergency military powers with a lesser quoram required during emergencies or the incapaciation or reduction of Congress. Or at the very least allow the Governors to phone in and vote.

except Congress isn't always in session (or even in state) and the disaster befalling the state may also hinder the Governor from calling in.

Says a lot about the current administration doesn' it?

except that the act was signed in the 1800's.

The thing is, will the good recieved by such amendments outweigh the bad of someone abusing the power this grants?


You mean like Bush?

I can see him cancelling elections and then using this when the mob comes after him. I really can.

alot of people [not here] asked why the Navel ship stationed in the Gulf did not lend assistance to the people of New Orleans after Katrina. Not realizing that as a FEDERAL agency (military) they could not go in without orders from the Federal Government... who in turn could not order them to assist until the Govenor of Louisiana turned over control to the Federal Government (which they never did).

so yeah, such amendments would make it easier for the Federal Government to send in the Corp of Engineers to places where Natural Desasters take place. but like other good intentions, it can be misused.

The thing is, will the good recieved by such amendments outweigh the bad of someone abusing the power this grants?


I'd say that was BS.

There are credible accounts that the police officers keeping people from leaving New Orleans on the main bridge and for example Danziger Bridge were not local uniforms but some government agency dressed as the local police. Several credible witnesses, even people with friends in the local police departments have said this.

The fact that they were blocking people from leaving, and blocking people from coming in to help at all (even some aid agencies) shows the extent of the corruption and mishandling of the situation.

The Feds chose to act in a negative rather than positive manner.

You mean like Bush?

I can see him cancelling elections and then using this when the mob comes after him. I really can.

I can see him doing the same. I have a nervous feeling about it all. Something will come up I am just betting. If not then I will breathe a HEAVY sigh of relief once Bush leaves office peacefully.

As will I. I agree with the Keebler Elf/Forest Gnome that police officers should arrest Bush the day his term is up.

Well Bush seemed to really like the law. And how is that a good thing?

Congress meets on a regular basis. Regular enough that Congress or one of the houses could have full supervision of granting military powers. I would rather Congress retain the supervision of granting emergency military powers with a lesser quoram required during emergencies or the incapaciation or reduction of Congress. Or at the very least allow the Governors to phone in and vote.


Congress isn't in session all that much, if you think about it. And remember, the President is the Commander in Chief of the military. He can use it however he wants. Posse Comitatus only restricted where and how the military can be used. The Insurrection Act (passed 60 years before Posse Comitatus) simply gives the President (as commander-in-chief) holes to use the military when it would be effective.

And having Governors phone in or some such would be highly unconstitutional, I think.

As will I. I agree with the Keebler Elf/Forest Gnome that police officers should arrest Bush the day his term is up.

He is a sweet little old keebler elf tho LOL.

I can see him doing the same. I have a nervous feeling about it all. Something will come up I am just betting. If not then I will breathe a HEAVY sigh of relief once Bush leaves office peacefully.
I agree. Knowing the kind of political philosophy that Bush and Cheney believe in, I will not feel even a little easy until they, and the Republican party that has been taken over by their kind, are out of the executive branch. The closer we get to this election, the more paranoid they make me feel -- first Bush running around the Middle East, accepting kingly gifts and banging the war drums against Iran exactly as he did against Iraq, and now these amendments. I am NOT happy. Not even a little.

I'd say that was BS.

There are credible accounts that the police officers keeping people from leaving New Orleans on the main bridge and for example Danziger Bridge were not local uniforms but some government agency dressed as the local police. Several credible witnesses, even people with friends in the local police departments have said this.

The fact that they were blocking people from leaving, and blocking people from coming in to help at all (even some aid agencies) shows the extent of the corruption and mishandling of the situation.

The Feds chose to act in a negative rather than positive manner.

Source, Please.

(and please make it credible, not infowars or any such garbage)

And selling bombs and guns to the Saudis.

You mean like Bush?

I can see him cancelling elections and then using this when the mob comes after him. I really can.
No...

He'll leave office as required, we'll have 4 years of the Dems and then it'll go back to the Republicans in charge.

And selling bombs and guns to the Saudis.

Oh, yeah, that too. I think I'll put my passport into my wallet and keep the cat carrier handy, just in case I need to hop a northbound Grayhound bus in a hurry.

No...

He'll leave office as required, we'll have 4 years of the Dems and then it'll go back to the Republicans in charge.
Fine, as long as whoever either party puts in is an actual American, not some anti-American fascist/corporatist scum-whore.

Fine, as long as whoever either party puts in is an actual American, not some anti-American fascist/corporatist scum-whore.
The chances of anyone not actually American becoming president are lower than a prostitute's knickers.

And selling bombs and guns to the Saudis.

We need to export whatever we can now. That's 30 Billion worth of delicious hard currency for us. I say Yay.

No...

He'll leave office as required, we'll have 4 years of the Dems and then it'll go back to the Republicans in charge.



Your faith in the most corrupt and machiavellian president in recent history is astounding. Maybe not the most actually, Id put him on par with Nixon, maybe worse in some regards.

The man his violated civil liberties and the core principles of democracy and our consitution on several occasions, why should I believe he wont do it again?

Republicans will be out of office for some time after him, Im sure of it.

The chances of anyone not actually American becoming president are lower than a prostitute's knickers.

When did you become so Logical?

We need to export whatever we can now. That's 30 Billion worth of delicious hard currency for us. I say Yay.

You kidding me? Sell bombs and guns to a tyranical monarchy that regularly violates civil liberties and at times sponsors terrorism?

Your faith in the most corrupt and machiavellian president in recent history is astounding. Maybe not the most actually, Id put him on par with Nixon, maybe worse in some regards.
Right, right.
The man his violated civil liberties and the core principles of democracy and our consitution on several occasions, why should I believe he wont do it again?
Because he's not stupid, and knows that the Dems are only going to have 4 years in unless Edwards wins, which he won't.
Republicans will be out of office for some time after him, Im sure of it.
Nope. Four years of being led by someone black or a woman, and the more backwater states will have had enough, and that's going to lead to the Republicans getting back in.

You kidding me? Sell bombs and guns to a tyranical monarchy that regularly violates civil liberties and at times sponsors terrorism?

Money is money. And anyone's money is good money.

Source, Please.

(and please make it credible, not infowars or any such garbage)

Spike Lee's When the Levee's broke was where several people (white and black) said they did not recognize the police as Jefferson Parish Police and I believe stated that they did not have local accents. The actual incident in question is the Gretna bridge blockade where police (whomever they were, maybe they were local police) blockaded thousands of people from leaving. Even paramedics in one account. http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-10-31-3360763218_x.htm shows that nothing really came of it though. The investigation was bogged down.

I wonder if the supposed Jefferson Parish Police had enough manpower, and even people around to stage this large blockade for so many days? I mean possibly some other agency did step in in Jefferson Parish uniforms in order to give some legitimacy but reinforce the actions of the Jefferson/Gretna police.

You mean like Bush?

I can see him cancelling elections and then using this when the mob comes after him. I really can.
except he'll need extraordinary reasons to cancel the elections.

I'd say that was BS.

There are credible accounts that the police officers keeping people from leaving New Orleans on the main bridge and for example Danziger Bridge were not local uniforms but some government agency dressed as the local police. Several credible witnesses, even people with friends in the local police departments have said this.

The fact that they were blocking people from leaving, and blocking people from coming in to help at all (even some aid agencies) shows the extent of the corruption and mishandling of the situation.

The Feds chose to act in a negative rather than positive manner.

first. Police (and New Orleans police were not the best to begin with) are not FEDERAL agencies but City agencies.

Second are these reports by the same people who reported gangs of police randomly shooting people... you know. the same people who claimed to be in New Orleans when most of them don't even know where New Orleans is much less being there?

When did you become so Logical?
28th December, my 18th birthday :p
You kidding me? Sell bombs and guns to a tyranical monarchy that regularly violates civil liberties and at times sponsors terrorism?
The current debt of the US is huge, and selling military equipment is outstandingly lucrative. You can also bet that they've been booby-trapped to hell, so that if the Saudis start anything against the US or its allies, they might as well have stuck the $30billion together with glue, set it on fire and rolled it at the US' forces.

I have a heard time seeing the military back it unless they buy the whole "We cant change leadership during a War on Terror". Most service men I know however would quickly put their lethal training to use on the man who tried to userp the democracy they serve.

You mean like Bush?

I can see him cancelling elections and then using this when the mob comes after him. I really can.

I can see him doing the same. I have a nervous feeling about it all. Something will come up I am just betting. If not then I will breathe a HEAVY sigh of relief once Bush leaves office peacefully.

I'm wondering though, how much would the military support it?
I mean I would HOPE that they would realize that they serve the country, not the President... (Or at least some branches will)

I'm still afraid of some mass attack on Congressmembers on election day, taking out elections and the Legistalative Branch at the same time.

I'm wondering though, how much would the military support it?
I mean I would HOPE that they would realize that they serve the country, not the President... (Or at least some branches will)

I'm still afraid of some mass attack on Congressmembers on election day, taking out elections and the Legistalative Branch at the same time.


Id like to think the military would turn on him, but I can see some of them buying into the idea that we cant change leadership during a "war on terror"

Source, Please.

(and please make it credible, not infowars or any such garbage)

Spike Lee's When the Levee's broke was where several people (white and black) said they did not recognize the police as Jefferson Parish Police and I believe stated that they did not have local accents. The actual incident in question is the Gretna bridge blockade where police (whomever they were, maybe they were local police) blockaded thousands of people from leaving. Even paramedics in one account. http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-10-31-3360763218_x.htm shows that nothing really came of it though. The investigation was bogged down.

I wonder if the supposed Jefferson Parish Police had enough manpower, and even people around to stage this large blockade for so many days? I mean possibly some other agency did step in in Jefferson Parish uniforms in order to give some legitimacy but reinforce the actions of the Jefferson/Gretna police.

I'm wondering though, how much would the military support it?
I mean I would HOPE that they would realize that they serve the country, not the President... (Or at least some branches will)

I'm still afraid of some mass attack on Congressmembers on election day, taking out elections and the Legistalative Branch at the same time.

That is the hope, but soldiers are trained to do what they're told. I don't think the mass attack on Congress is very likely, but this bill does unsettle me...

Spike Lee's When the Levee's broke was where several people (white and black) said they did not recognize the police as Jefferson Parish Police and I believe stated that they did not have local accents. The actual incident in question is the Gretna bridge blockade where police (whomever they were, maybe they were local police) blockaded thousands of people from leaving. Even paramedics in one account. http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-10-31-3360763218_x.htm shows that nothing really acme of it though.

right here.
Gretna Police Chief Arthur Lawson also acknowledged that one of his officers fired a shot into the air during the blockade in an attempt to quell what he described as unrest among the evacuees.
City POLICE, not FEDERAL GOVERNMENT dressed as LOCAL POLICE

also note the headline... No charges in Katrina bridge blockade which means a Grand Jury did not find anything worth charging the Gretna police for.

and Grand Juries are not under the control of the Federal Government.

Spike Lee's When the Levee's broke was where several people (white and black) said they did not recognize the police as Jefferson Parish Police and I believe stated that they did not have local accents. The actual incident in question is the Gretna bridge blockade where police (whomever they were, maybe they were local police) blockaded thousands of people from leaving. Even paramedics in one account. http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-10-31-3360763218_x.htm shows that nothing really acme of it though.

Yesyes, a "Documentary" by Spike Lee (based on anecdotal stories) is ever so reliable.

And beyond that, what's the point? Local police can pretty much do whatever they want anyway. And with virtually no oversight or coorordiantion between departments, no wonder it was a screw up.

Perhaps this is one of these cases that the Military could have helped. But OMG that would be T3H TyRAnNYZZzzzZ~!!!!11!!!11!.

That is the hope, but soldiers are trained to do what they're told. I don't think the mass attack on Congress is very likely, but this bill does unsettle me...

Soldiers do what their told in all the other nations with repressive governments. Though perhaps the US Military brainwashing is not so strong.

That is the hope, but soldiers are trained to do what they're told. I don't think the mass attack on Congress is very likely, but this bill does unsettle me...
It's been around for ages.

Also, it's vereinigt Staaten.

Soldiers do what their told in all the other nations with repressive governments. Though perhaps the US Military brainwashing is not so strong.
...

Soldiers do what they do because it is, to an extent, what they feel is the right thing to do, as well as what they're told to do. Shooting up congress is pretty dubious.

Soldiers do what their told in all the other nations with repressive governments. Though perhaps the US Military brainwashing is not so strong.

*does not feel oppressed*

I must have a day off. Yay.

The chances of anyone not actually American becoming president are lower than a prostitute's knickers.

I wonder, is it fun to pretend to be dense?

...

Soldiers do what they do because it is, to an extent, what they feel is the right thing to do, as well as what they're told to do. Shooting up congress is pretty dubious.

I was not the one that said they would shoot Congress.

I am not so sure about "enforcing martial law" in an incident where the President must exercise "emergency powers" due to some engineered "crisis".

To quote the almighty DCD (PBUH)...

"Bush is not a dictator, nor a penis shaped potato. He is simply a bad president"

I wonder, is it fun to pretend to be dense?
Yes, especially when arguing with people who take themselves far too seriously. Ask LG.
I was not the one that said they would shoot Congress.

I am not so sure about "enforcing martial law" in an incident where the President must exercise "emergency powers" due to some engineered "crisis".
Look at the amount of "bullshit" marks in there. Please don't just pick the worst-case scenario and assume that it'll happen.

As you or whoever else it was said, Bush is one of the more Macheovellian presidents we've had in a while. Why would he want to get kicked out of power, when instead he could simply stand down in good grace and then set about crippling the Democratic party by pointing out the huge tensions between supporters of Obama and Clinton, ruining their presidency and getting the Republicans back in for 8 years under McCain?

I was not the one that said they would shoot Congress.

I am not so sure about "enforcing martial law" in an incident where the President must exercise "emergency powers" due to some engineered "crisis".
It is highly unlikely that US armed forces would agree to attack members of the government it serves. However, that is not the point. The point is that, under martial law, civil rights are suspended. It is not what will happen to Congress critters that is the worry. It is what will happen to civilians. If Bush decided to "postpone" the general election and used a declaration of martial law and the deployment of the military to do it, how long would we have to live without elections? How would we ever get him to restore them? And what would happen to any civilians arrested under martial law? Would they be doubling up in the bunks at GITMO?

The only saving grace we may have is that US commanders are unlikely to obey orders that go to far, and that Bush (who is actually an idiot, btw) has so debilitated our forces that they probably could not do much against an actual insurrection by US citizens.

And for these... people... who can't seem to see the problem, I also remind all here that it would not be the first time a president has called out US troops to threaten or attack US citizens who were just exercising their constitutional rights and demanding redress of hardships caused by government action:

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAbonus.htm

Bush (who is actually an idiot, btw)
No, his public persona is of him being an idiot. If you've ever been in politics, you'll know that it's 90% con artistry.

Yes, especially when arguing with people who take themselves far too seriously. Ask LG.

<snip>
It's so adorable when people who make themselves look foolish in a thread, then try to claim they were only joking. The recent amendments to the Insurrection Act are bad, and the president who signed them into law is worse, and the circumstances we find ourselves in when this has happened does make it an element in a perfectly reasonable worst-case scenario. I don't care if you think I'm taking it too seriously. I have learned the hard way to listen when Cassandra talks.

No, his public persona is of him being an idiot. If you've ever been in politics, you'll know that it's 90% con artistry.
He doesn't need to be much of an artist, with an audience like you. Gullibility is not an admirable trait. Nor does it make you look smart to be so cool with the idea that you are supporting someone whose main public selling point is that he can look stupid.

Bush is an idiot, Cheney is crazy, and they are both crooked. And if they are only trying to appear to be those things on purpose, for political reasons, that only makes it worse.

Then the Real ID Act which states legislatures are refusing but the federal government is trying to force in addition to all of this is even worse.

I don't see how people can look at the US under Bush and say that the government has not become more repressive. I mean Department of "Homeland Security". It does not sound much different than the other such agencies used to repress in other nations, just with one word changed. Homeland even sounds worse.

What about someone start a Department of Constitutional Protection to insure the Constitution and our Constitutional rights are protected?

It's so adorable when people who make themselves look foolish in a thread, then try to claim they were only joking.
Excuse me?

You said that the person being elected to the position of the President had to be an American. No shit.

That they're going to be an evil islamophobofascist pseudo-baby-eating corporate tool or whatever is just part of the package. There we go.
The recent amendments to the Insurrection Act are bad, and the president who signed them into law is worse
Yes, although to be honest, almost every country has something like this in its constitution.
and the circumstances we find ourselves in when this has happened does make it an element in a perfectly reasonable worst-case scenario.
Not really. Your scenario is one of the Republicans doing things by what is essentially an overt coup and a seizure of power. They're not stupid, so that's not going to happen. What will happen is that the GOP, Fox et al are going to play on the divisions inside the Dems until they get out of power, which will most likely be 2012.

Then we'll have 8 years of the Republicans, proper international wars etc. notwithstanding.
I don't care if you think I'm taking it too seriously. I have learned the hard way to listen when Cassandra talks.
Oh aye, and how's that?

Excuse me?

You said that the person being elected to the position of the President had to be an American. No shit.

That they're going to be an evil islamophobofascist pseudo-baby-eating corporate tool or whatever is just part of the package. There we go.

Yes, although to be honest, almost every country has something like this in its constitution.

Not really. Your scenario is one of the Republicans doing things by what is essentially an overt coup and a seizure of power. They're not stupid, so that's not going to happen. What will happen is that the GOP, Fox et al are going to play on the divisions inside the Dems until they get out of power, which will most likely be 2012.

Then we'll have 8 years of the Republicans, proper international wars etc. notwithstanding.

Oh aye, and how's that?
I'm looking at current events and at the current roster of players. Then I compare that to history. And then I give my opinion on how the current situation could go wrong, based on those current and historical facts.

You look at... what, precisely? And then conclude... what? That we should all relax because it might not happen? (tv reference)

By the way, I just noticed that you're in England. Are you an American living there, or are you a UK citizen? Just asking because I'm curious to know whether you actually have any useful knowledge of current events inside the US, or you're just BSing for fun.

He doesn't need to be much of an artist, with an audience like you. Gullibility is not an admirable trait. Nor does it make you look smart to be so cool with the idea that you are supporting someone whose main public selling point is that he can look stupid.
I don't support him, I can just see what he's doing, and have done it before myself. Jesus Christ.
Bush is an idiot
Not really.
Cheney is crazy
I think we could describe him as Colonel Kurtz is described in Apocalypse Now - his mind is there, but his soul is mad.
and they are both crooked.
And who's your political Jesus, come to save us all from high-level corruption, then?
And if they are only trying to appear to be those things on purpose, for political reasons, that only makes it worse.
"Politics a twisted web of lies shocker!"

I don't support him, I can just see what he's doing, and have done it before myself. Jesus Christ.
You have personally signed amendments to a 1807 US Insurrection Act into law? Really?

Oh, and you are supporting him in this conversation, on this topic.

Not really.

I think we could describe him as Colonel Kurtz is described in Apocalypse Now - his mind is there, but his soul is mad.

And who's your political Jesus, come to save us all from high-level corruption, then?

"Politics a twisted web of lies shocker!"
Oooh, look at you, with your cynicism and your irrelevant literary references. How cute. How empty.

If it passes, I will sigh and shake my head while hoping I can walk to Canada in the event of inevitable martial law.

If it doesn't, I will sigh and shake my head while hoping it does not get pushed again and again until it does get passed.

What do you mean, it has already passed? And REAL ID is less than 3 years away. One national ID card. For the PROTECTIONEZ OF THE HOMELAND.

I'm looking at current events and at the current roster of players. Then I compare that to history. And then I give my opinion on how the current situation could go wrong, based on those current and historical facts.

You look at... what, precisely? And then conclude... what? That we should all relax because it might not happen? (tv reference)
The exact same thing, you smug bastard.

I just look at it with a somewhat clear mind, as opposed to someone who idealises paranoia in their own signature.
By the way, I just noticed that you're in England. Are you an American living there, or are you a UK citizen?
A British subject, aye.
Just asking because I'm curious to know whether you actually have any useful knowledge of current events inside the US, or you're just BSing for fun.
You see, squire, one doesn't actually need to live in a country to get a feel for events over there. Now that we can get US TV, we have the internet, Reuters, the BBC et al, I don't see how the picture I'm getting of the US is any more distorted than yours.

If it passes, I will sigh and shake my head while hoping I can walk to Canada in the event of inevitable martial law.

If it doesn't, I will sigh and shake my head while hoping it does not get pushed again and again until it does get passed.

The exact same thing, you smug bastard.
That's "Ms. smug bitch" to you.

I just look at it with a somewhat clear mind, as opposed to someone who idealises paranoia in their own signature.
Cuter and cuter, and emptier and emptier.

A British subject, aye.

You see, squire, one doesn't actually need to live in a country to get a feel for events over there. Now that we can get US TV, we have the internet, Reuters, the BBC et al, I don't see how the picture I'm getting of the US is any more distorted than yours.
Well, it is.

Note that you won't catch me going into threads about British politics and telling you how you've got it all wrong. That's because I don't assume that I know more from watching the media than the people how are actually there to see stuff happening. I also would not expect to waltz into a discussion about someone else's government, say things along the lines of "You all are silly to worry about that because I don't think it'll ever happen," and expect to be taken seriously or thanked for my input.

We are American citizens living in the USA, and we are telling you this is bad, and we are telling you why it is bad. We are discussing, speculatively, the potential badness of it, based on our on-the-site knowledge of what is going on, and our knowledge of our own history. As a foreigner, you may wish to offer reassurance that you think it unlikely, but it is not your place to tell us that we are wrong and silly to be considering it. We do know more about Bush and Cheney than you do.

You have personally signed amendments to a 1807 US Insurrection Act into law? Really?

Oh, and you are supporting him in this conversation, on this topic.
... No, I've been in politics, though. I know what he's doing when it comes to PR stuff.
Oooh, look at you, with your cynicism and your irrelevant literary references. How cute. How empty.
Pardon?

Yes, I'm cynical. I was unaware that this was something necessarily negative when it comes to looking at politics, or indeed life in general.

As to the 'literary' reference (from a film script, but fine), that's just someone being more eloquent than I.

Incidentally, for someone who said that they'd rather not have "some anti-American fascist/corporatist scum-whore" in power, you're being a tad condescending, no?

If it passes, I will sigh and shake my head while hoping I can walk to Canada in the event of inevitable martial law.

If it doesn't, I will sigh and shake my head while hoping it does not get pushed again and again until it does get passed.

The insurrection Act passed in 1807. I see you failed to read the thread.

... No, I've been in politics, though. I know what he's doing when it comes to PR stuff.
Well, I have a background in advertising, so that still puts me a couple steps ahead of you in the understanding modern evilness derby. It also lets me know what Bush is doing, too.

Pardon?

Yes, I'm cynical. I was unaware that this was something necessarily negative when it comes to looking at politics, or indeed life in general.

As to the 'literary' reference (from a film script, but fine), that's just someone being more eloquent than I.
Heheh, yes, I know the movie. It's based on a book. Go look it up. Learning things is fun.

Incidentally, for someone who said that they'd rather not have "some anti-American fascist/corporatist scum-whore" in power, you're being a tad condescending, no?
What does one have to do with the other? And anyway, I would have thought my put-down of Bush was arrogant enough that it would come as no surprise that I talk down to others as well.

The insurrection Act passed in 1807. I see you failed to read the thread.

OK, for the record, and for all posters to refer to: Yes, we understand that the Insurrection Act was originally passed in 1807. It is the brand new amendments to the Act that Bush recently signed into law, which we are responding to now.

That is scary no matter how you want to say "it won't happen". That's what they said in Germany in 1933.

OK, for the record, and for all posters to refer to: Yes, we understand that the Insurrection Act was originally passed in 1807. It is the brand new amendments to the Act that Bush recently signed into law, which we are responding to now.

The same ones that were put into place by Clinton even though they were not codified until recently?

That's "Ms. smug bitch" to you.
Rightio, then. Terribly sorry about the error.
Cuter and cuter, and emptier and emptier.
*koff* "Perfect paranoia is perfect awareness" -- Straughn
Well, it is.

Note that you won't catch me going into threads about British politics and telling you how you've got it all wrong. That's because I don't assume that I know more from watching the media than the people how are actually there to see stuff happening. I also would not expect to waltz into a discussion about someone else's government, say things along the lines of "You all are silly to worry about that because I don't think it'll ever happen," and expect to be taken seriously or thanked for my input.

We are American citizens living in the USA, and we are telling you this is bad, and we are telling you why it is bad. We are discussing, speculatively, the potential badness of it, based on our on-the-site knowledge of what is going on, and our knowledge of our own history. As a foreigner, you may wish to offer reassurance that you think it unlikely, but it is not your place to tell us that we are wrong and silly to be considering it. We do know more about Bush and Cheney than you do.
I don't really see why this is inherently true.

The US is vast, so one's on-site knowledge is limited more to your local area, which is run more by state governments than by the Federal government, no?

Also, since the US is in the centre of the world's media spotlight, we do get a lot of information about just about every aspect of your country - especially from decent sources like the BBC and Reuters, who seem to be pretty focussed and capable compared to, say Fox, where the price of the candidates' various haircuts seems to be the key issue, or CNN, which is just low-quality journalism, albeit without much bias.

It seems to me, at least, that there's a lot of meaningless panic going around. Yeah, fine, it's the internet, what do you expect and all of that, but the whole "If Huckabee wins, I'm going to walk to Canada and apply as a refugee" or "Bush is going to stop any elections with whatever means" seems to be nothing more than hyperbole.

Bush has been a pretty crap president. That we can all agree on, I hope. You guys have lost some of your human rights, again, I can agree on that one there, no question. That Bush will change from taking in the odd 'baddie' from Afghanistan and putting them in Gitmo and having dodgy phonetaps to blocking elections is too much of a leap.

That the Republicans are going to completely torpedo the Dems' chances of a second term, I would say that that's very likely, then they'll get a 'reliable', i.e. 'lame but not entirely horrific' candidate in from 2012 to 2020. If I was in their position, I wouldn't risk losing all credibility for the sake of, what two years out of power? (when they get the house back in the midterms, which, after all, is the way of things)

*edits*

I need to get some kip in, I've an exam in about 10 hours' time. I'll reply at about 5pm GMT tommorow, so tata until then.

The same ones that were put into place by Clinton even though they were not codified until recently?
*Kills Clinton, mummifies his corpse, and uses it to beat Corneliu over the head repeatedly* THIS IS NOT ABOUT CLINTON!!

Jesus Harold Christ on a pogo stick on fire, goddamn it -- are you so blinded with partisan idiocy that you can't see this is a bad thing, no matter who the president is?

I swear to every god on the books, that I will go postal on the next SOB who tries to make this a Clinton vs. Bush thing.

Am I going on about Bush's shitty character? Yes, because he is the president. If Clinton was the president now and had just signed these amendments into law, would I be condemning him? YES!! But he's not president, is he? No, he is not. So he is not in a position to abuse the power, is he? No, he is not. So his lack of character doesn't matter anymore, does it? No, it does not. But Bush IS in a position to abuse it, so his lack of character DOES matter.

Rightio, then. Terribly sorry about the error.

*koff* "Perfect paranoia is perfect awareness" -- Straughn

I don't really see why this is inherently true.

The US is vast, so one's on-site knowledge is limited more to your local area, which is run more by state governments than by the Federal government, no?


Our local area is not much better either. Last I checked the Tennessee Emergency Management's Headquarters looked like a fort with tall black fences, one IN GATE and one OUT gate with tons of cameras outside of it, and a flashing light for whenever a vehicle was leaving or entering. It is like their ready for riots. I know personally police who are receiving more extra training for crowd control. Who knows what is going on, but whatever it is it is not good. At least our own state legislature is avidly voting against Real ID and refuses to comply with the Fed's demands to implement what ammounts to a national identification and identity database. More than one State Senator went so far as to say that it is violating the constitution.

Trust me they won't say so publicly but many state elected, and government officials are more than a bit worried about what is coming out of Washington D.C.

*Kills Clinton, mummifies his corpse, and uses it to beat Corneliu over the head repeatedly* THIS IS NOT ABOUT CLINTON!!

Jesus Harold Christ on a pogo stick on fire, goddamn it -- are you so blinded with partisan idiocy that you can't see this is a bad thing, no matter who the president is?

So if something happens that causes a breakdown in communications the likes of which this nation has never seen that this could be a bad thing?

I swear to every god on the books, that I will go postal on the next SOB who tries to make this a Clinton vs. Bush thing.

I never made it a Clinton v Bush thing. I brought something relevent to the debate that is being overlooked. This has been around for quite sometime and has only been recently codified.

So if something happens that causes a breakdown in communications the likes of which this nation has never seen that this could be a bad thing?
A) "something happens tha causes a breakdown of communications" =/= insurrection.

B) Example of non sequitur: I say that this is bad because it could be abused too easily, and you come back with there are circumstances under which it could be used legitimately.

My response: No kidding. But how does the fact that the act could be invoked legitimately under some circumstances change its potential to be abused? Morphine has legitimate medical uses, but it's still an abused narcotic.


I never made it a Clinton v Bush thing. I brought something relevent to the debate that is being overlooked. This has been around for quite sometime and has only been recently codified.
It is not relevant. The amendments did not become relevant themselves until they were codified, which was done by the current president, not a past one. Guess what? They were a bad idea before they were codified too, but now they are a bad law, not just a bad idea.

I don't care who the next president is. I don't care if it's the most perfect of all candidates, or my personal favorite candidate, or Santa Claus himself. I do not want this law, in this form, on the books.

Presidential Directive 51

(7) For continuity purposes, each executive department and agency is assigned to a category in accordance with the nature and characteristics of its national security roles and responsibilities in support of the Federal Government's ability to sustain the NEFs. The Secretary of Homeland Security shall serve as the President's lead agent for coordinating overall continuity operations and activities of executive departments and agencies, and in such role shall perform the responsibilities set forth for the Secretary in sections 10 and 16 of this directive.


Homeland Security does not sound right in the first place. And "homeland" has basically been a new word coined by the Bush Administration to incite some kind of patriotic fervor. It is always "protection of the homeland." Just the word leaves me with a sick feeling for some reason.

The same ones that were put into place by Clinton even though they were not codified until recently?

This was already addressed, but regardless of who came up with the idea and implemented it, it is a very, very bad idea. Unlikely scenarios are reserved purely for insurance companies. :p

On a more serious note, really. Would you WANT something like that to pass? Even if your leader is the most super awesome goody-goody two-shoes with a cherry on top, why even give them the opportunity to seize away all but what they tell you? Norms and such excluded for obvious reasons.

Rightio, then. Terribly sorry about the error.

*koff* "Perfect paranoia is perfect awareness" -- Straughn

I don't really see why this is inherently true.

The US is vast, so one's on-site knowledge is limited more to your local area, which is run more by state governments than by the Federal government, no?
<snip>
And the last sentence above can be cited as evidence that you don't know what you are talking about and are not keeping up with the conversation.

See, if the federal government declares martial law (which is the whole point of this act), then the state government will not be running things locally. The fed will take over control. That's the whole point of the federal government declaring martial law.

Your remarks show that you keep up with the British news, but that you do not really know how US government is organized, or how it is affected by state and federal levels of law. Yet you refuse to take Americans' word for it that this law, as amended by Bush, is a bad tool to put into the hands of any American president.

Now, Americans may argue over whether it is a bad thing and/or how bad a thing it is, but I'm sorry, Americans are in a better position to argue this than you are. If you can find some similar thing in British law and/or British history, please bring it up to discuss the matter by comparison, because that would add something to the topic. But kindly refrain from telling us that we are wrong about what is happening in our own country.

EDIT: Also, I'm going to take this chance to apologize for losing my cool a bit. The response of you and some others pushed my buttons because, for nearly 8 years, I and many other Americans have been told to just calm down and stop being silly because our predictions could never come true. And then we have seen those predictions come true, every one of them -- about Iraq, about natural/national disasters, about elections, about national security, about civil rights, about political corruption, about banking and the dollar, etc, etc, etc. We are tired of being told we are wrong, only to be proved right later, only to be told we are wrong again next time around.

But getting angry about it isn't going to change anything.

Id like to think the military would turn on him, but I can see some of them buying into the idea that we cant change leadership during a "war on terror" Military branch civil war?
Would make an interesting computer game that's for sure. Already was working on a similar concept.

it's certainly a way of oppening the door wider of opportunity for implimenting that option, and almost certainly motivated by a desire to make that option more readily and easily available.

and yes, this is something people should be alarmed about. should have been informed of before the fact, instead of only hearing about it later.

but then no one hears about anything until after the fact thanx to a media controlled by the same economic intrests that have usurped the political proccess.

if it weren't for indie outlets, i would never have heard of this until now either.

even though we have a congress that is of supposedly the opposition party to that of the executive, it seems like they have very little real power or ability to exercise it. i can't help wondering if the executive is somehow covertly threatining them. perhapse "guarding" congress with 'security forces' conspicuously loyal to the white house? and sending vailed death threats to every member of congress whenever a vote on something like this comes up.

yes that's an extreme speculation, but you really have to wonder.

=^^=
.../\...

This was already addressed, but regardless of who came up with the idea and implemented it, it is a very, very bad idea. Unlikely scenarios are reserved purely for insurance companies. :p

The reason I brought it up is because people are hammering Bush for it even though it is not even new.

On a more serious note, really. Would you WANT something like that to pass? Even if your leader is the most super awesome goody-goody two-shoes with a cherry on top, why even give them the opportunity to seize away all but what they tell you? Norms and such excluded for obvious reasons.

If it means that things can be moved faster if something massive were to happen, yes. Anything short of that, no.

Presidential Directive 51

(7) For continuity purposes, each executive department and agency is assigned to a category in accordance with the nature and characteristics of its national security roles and responsibilities in support of the Federal Government's ability to sustain the NEFs. The Secretary of Homeland Security shall serve as the President's lead agent for coordinating overall continuity operations and activities of executive departments and agencies, and in such role shall perform the responsibilities set forth for the Secretary in sections 10 and 16 of this directive.

This is good.

Homeland Security does not sound right in the first place. And "homeland" has basically been a new word coined by the Bush Administration to incite some kind of patriotic fervor. It is always "protection of the homeland." Just the word leaves me with a sick feeling for some reason.

Um he did not coin it. Ever heard the phrase the "Fatherland"? Means the samething. And it is no more different than Home Secretary that Britain has.

You guys do understand that this law dates from 1807, right? These amendments (made in 2006, attached to a Defense Appropriations bill) just make it easier for the president to use the military in a domestic role.

So if it "only" dates from 1807, does that mean that President George Washington's use of force to end the Pennsylvania Whiskey Rebellion (http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1E1-WhiskReb.html) in 1794 was illegal?

A) "something happens tha causes a breakdown of communications" =/= insurrection.

B) Example of non sequitur: I say that this is bad because it could be abused too easily, and you come back with there are circumstances under which it could be used legitimately.

My response: No kidding. But how does the fact that the act could be invoked legitimately under some circumstances change its potential to be abused? Morphine has legitimate medical uses, but it's still an abused narcotic.

By a logical extension of that argument, the fact that your country's armed forces and police could (theoretically ) be misused as tools of internal oppression means that they should be scrapped as well...

Presidential Directive 51

(7) For continuity purposes, each executive department and agency is assigned to a category in accordance with the nature and characteristics of its national security roles and responsibilities in support of the Federal Government's ability to sustain the NEFs. The Secretary of Homeland Security shall serve as the President's lead agent for coordinating overall continuity operations and activities of executive departments and agencies, and in such role shall perform the responsibilities set forth for the Secretary in sections 10 and 16 of this directive.


Homeland Security does not sound right in the first place. And "homeland" has basically been a new word coined by the Bush Administration to incite some kind of patriotic fervor. It is always "protection of the homeland." Just the word leaves me with a sick feeling for some reason.

Okay, so he should have called it the 'Department of Fluffy Bunnies'... ;)

Oh, and _

"You know I love the trail I'm on
And the friends who ride with me
The country that we're passing through
Is a paradise to see, a haven for my spirit
The homeland of my dreams
My heart flies through the wilderness
And on an eagle's wings
And oh I love the waterfall
And the way the river sings
From snow-capped peaks both proud and tall
Through forests deep and green
The highway of the mountains
The lifeblood of the land
I can hear my mother speak to me
And hold my father's hand

(chorus)
Durango Mountain caballero
Take me for a ride
On the backbone of this mighty land
The Continental Divide
To the place where earth and heaven
Meet the mountains and the sky
In the heart of Colorado, Rocky Mountain High

(Verse 2)
And oh I love the campfire
And the circle that I'm in
The stories and the laughter
They should never, ever end
Forever in my memory
Forever in my song
On a San Juan mountain trail ride
I'll carry you along"

('Durango Mountain Caballero', by John Denver)

What a coincidence. I was just about to say to Aerion that I share his sick feeling at the word "Homeland." I was about to say to him that, every time I hear "Homeland," my brain thinks "Fatherland."

Now, were did I hear that term "Fatherland" that it gives me such a turn now? Oh, that's right, I heard it used in Nazi propaganda. Gosh, I guess that must be why I don't like it or any similar propagandistic labels.

And the Rodina to meaning motherland which is the samething as well. That has been around longer than Fatherland I believe.

Homeland Security does not sound right in the first place. And "homeland" has basically been a new word coined by the Bush Administration to incite some kind of patriotic fervor. It is always "protection of the homeland." Just the word leaves me with a sick feeling for some reason.

Um he did not coin it. Ever heard the phrase the "Fatherland"? Means the samething. And it is no more different than Home Secretary that Britain has.
What a coincidence. I was just about to say to Aerion that I share his sick feeling at the word "Homeland." I was about to say to him that, every time I hear "Homeland," my brain thinks "Fatherland."

Now, were did I hear that term "Fatherland" that it gives me such a turn now? Oh, that's right, I heard it used in Nazi propaganda. Gosh, I guess that must be why I don't like it or any similar propagandistic labels.

<snip>

By a logical extension of that argument, the fact that your country's armed forces and police could (theoretically ) be misused as tools of internal oppression means that they should be scrapped as well...
You would be making a sound argument against my point, if I had advocated scrapping the entire Insurrection Act. But of course, I didn't.

I said I didn't like it as written now, meaning with the recent amendments. Without those amendments, I am happy to keep the law. Just as I am happy to have morphine available for medical purposes, as long as it is controlled to prevent misuse by drug addicts.

How amusing. This thread so far has been all about people telling us that we are seeing a danger that doesn't exist, and here you are seeing an argument with my name on it that doesn't exist.


PS: John Denver sucks. His "music" alone is enough to warrant banning the word "homeland" from the English language, if only to avoid the trauma of being reminded of him.

And the Rodina to meaning motherland which is the samething as well. That has been around longer than Fatherland I believe.
So? Nationalistic statist propaganda is nationalistic statist propaganda, in any language. Or you implying that if it was good enough for Hitler, Stalin and the czars, it should be good enough for us?

So? Nationalistic statist propaganda is nationalistic statist propaganda, in any language. Or you implying that if it was good enough for Hitler, Stalin and the czars, it should be good enough for us?

Nope! I think that went by the wayside a couple of decades ago.

So if it "only" dates from 1807, does that mean that President George Washington's use of force to end the Pennsylvania Whiskey Rebellion (http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1E1-WhiskReb.html) in 1794 was illegal?


It was legal, because he did not use Federal Troops. He used State Militia.

It was legal, because he did not use Federal Troops. He used State Militia.

And led them to.

Nope! I think that went by the wayside a couple of decades ago.
What -- nationalistic statist propaganda went by the wayside? What made you think that? Forget about Bush, Cheney, neocons, et al. What about countries like North Korea? They practically live on that kind of propaganda (instead of food). And frankly, I say that titles like Department of Homeland Security, and phrases like "securing the homeland" used over and over again in all kinds of contexts, are classic nationalistic statist propaganda, right out of the textbook (if there were a textbook for such things).

This is especially true when we consider how unnecessary such a department is in the US government. The only real need we had after 9/11 that we seemed unable to fill beforehand was the need to coordinate law enforcement and intelligence information sharing and communications. That is the only legitimate job for a new department, and indeed it could easily have been the smallest department in the entire government, and have been under the direction of the National Security Administration. But no. What we have instead is a bloated, dysfunctional, bureaucratic blob that sticks its fingers in everywhere it is not needed and hogs the media spotlight every chance it gets, repeating those magic words "Homeland Security" over and over and over. Propaganda, pure and simple.

If I were King of the Forest (i.e. if I were president) that department would be eliminated altogether, and its proper function made the responsibility of the NSA.

President Bush signed this into law,



Aerion has played a funny trick on you all.

Aerion posted the 1999 text.

So all of you who don't want a president who would support such a dangerous, treacherous assault on our liberties...

DON'T VOTE FOR HILLARY!

Okay, in truth, even the 1999 text wasn't a big change. (Neither is Bush's) It was only a modification of an earlier form of the law. The original act WAS used in suppression of an insurrection, though.

And the president who first penned this into Law?

Lincoln.

Good one, Aerion. Mott Haven respects a strong sense of irony in humor.

Aerion has played a funny trick on you all.

Aerion posted the 1999 text.

So all of you who don't want a president who would support such a dangerous, treacherous assault on our liberties...

DON'T VOTE FOR HILLARY!

Okay, in truth, even the 1999 text wasn't a big change. (Neither is Bush's) It was only a modification of an earlier form of the law. The original act WAS used in suppression of an insurrection, though.

And the president who first penned this into Law?

Lincoln.

Good one, Aerion. Mott Haven respects a strong sense of irony in humor.

Actually...it would have been Thomas Jefferson as the law was passed in 1807.

Originally Posted by St Edmund
So if it "only" dates from 1807, does that mean that President George Washington's use of force to end the Pennsylvania Whiskey Rebellion in 1794 was illegal?
It was legal, because he did not use Federal Troops. He used State Militia.

And led them to.
Every government has the right, authority and responsibility to protect itself and its citizens from armed insurrection. There is, can be, and never has been any question of that, as far as I'm concerned.

But the US is a country in which government is supposed to serve the people, not rule them; where government is by consent of the governed, not by imposition of rulers; and where the Constitution that mandates the workings of government specifically limits the power of government over the people. Therefore, it only stands to reason that a law would exist that gives specific instructions and limitations on how the government may use the military within its own borders and against its own people, and that lays out specific penalties against government officials, no matter who they may be, for violating those rules.

The recent amendments weaken those limitations and make it easier for a president to use the military to enforce his sole control over the citizens of the US, bypassing all other levels of government and legal procedures (the effect of martial law). If we did not need such amendments in all this time since 1807, I fail to see why we suddenly need them now.

Remember, this law is specifically designed to layout the rules for putting down insurrections. A terrorist attack cannot be considered an insurrection, any more than the disaster of Katrina was an insurrection or the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor was an insurrection. If we did not need these amendments to manage during/after those events, or during/after the various violent upheavals of the 1960s, or during/after 9/11 itself, why must we have them now?

To anyone who watched the democratic debates last night, notice how Obama and Clinton were ass kissing each other the whole time?

They made peace. Me thinks their reasoning is that they know whoever ones should name the other one has their VP, because that would be a very very powerful, nearly unstopable ticket.

Oh...on topic. Neocons scare me.

To anyone who watched the democratic debates last night, notice how Obama and Clinton were ass kissing each other the whole time?

They made peace. Me thinks their reasoning is that they know whoever ones should name the other one has their VP, because that would be a very very powerful, nearly unstopable ticket.

Oh...on topic. Neocons scare me.

Maybe but if that is their ticket, they will have a very hard road to the White House/President of the Senate

Actually...it would have been Thomas Jefferson as the law was passed in 1807.

Well don't vote for Thomas Jefferson's wife, since she would obviously be just like him!

Well don't vote for Thomas Jefferson's wife, since she would obviously be just like him!

No problem since she's dead :D

Maybe but if that is their ticket, they will have a very hard road to the White House/President of the Senate

I diagree. Obama is extremelly popular with younger voters (there are record voter turn outs and registrations of young people in a lot of states this election) and moderate to liberal democrats and even many moderate republicans would vote for him before their Republican party choices.

Hilary is very popular with minorities because they remember the Bill Clinton years and all he tried to do for them.

Both are extremelly popular with women.

That really just leaves neocons, and religious fruitcakes, who when faced with the opposition they have been recieving lately curtosy of Fred Phelps, Pat Robertson, and George Bush, will lose.

Im very optimistic about the 2008 elecetion. The only Republican who stands a real chance in a battle royal for the White House is McCain, and even he is starting to sound more crazy lately (see "General Patreaous should have been Time Magazine's man of the year.")

It was legal, because he did not use Federal Troops. He used State Militia.

Doing this?

10.USC 332
Whenever the President considers that unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages, or rebellion against the authority of the United States, make it impracticable to enforce the laws of the United States in any State by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, he may call into Federal service such of the militia of any State, and use such of the armed forces, as he considers necessary to enforce those laws or to suppress the rebellion.

I diagree. Obama is extremelly popular with younger voters (there are record voter turn outs and registrations of young people in a lot of states this election) and moderate to liberal democrats and even many moderate republicans would vote for him before their Republican party choices.

It will still be a long hard road. I've seen record voter turn outs and registrations before and they always seem to fizzle out on election day. Last presidential election for example. High voter registration among younger voters but yet they did not turn out to vote in the numbers that were indicated that should. Excuse me while I stay skeptical till the numbers come out in 10 months.

Hilary is very popular with minorities because they remember the Bill Clinton years and all he tried to do for them.

And yet everyone expected Al Gore to be president because of it and he lost. Lost his home state in the process and he was promising to continue Clinton's policies.

Both are extremelly popular with women.

Means nothing.

That really just leaves neocons, and religious fruitcakes, who when faced with the opposition they have been recieving lately curtosy of Fred Phelps, Pat Robertson, and George Bush, will lose.

I'm neither a neocon nor a religious fruitcake but as of now, I'm not voting for either so what does that say?

Im very optimistic about the 2008 elecetion. The only Republican who stands a real chance in a battle royal for the White House is McCain, and even he is starting to sound more crazy lately (see "General Patreaous should have been Time Magazine's man of the year.")

We all know that McCain is a complete lunatic which means I'll probably see who else is running on the independent ticket and vote that way. And yes, Patreaous should have been Time Magazine's man of the year and not the asshat Putin who is trying to turn the Russian Confederacy into another dictatorship.

It will still be a long hard road. I've seen record voter turn outs and registrations before and they always seem to fizzle out on election day. Last presidential election for example. High voter registration among younger voters but yet they did not turn out to vote in the numbers that were indicated that should. Excuse me while I stay skeptical till the numbers come out in 10 months.



And yet everyone expected Al Gore to be president because of it and he lost. Lost his home state in the process and he was promising to continue Clinton's policies.



Means nothing.



I'm neither a neocon nor a religious fruitcake but as of now, I'm not voting for either so what does that say?



We all know that McCain is a complete lunatic which means I'll probably see who else is running on the independent ticket and vote that way. And yes, Patreaous should have been Time Magazine's man of the year and not the asshat Putin who is trying to turn the Russian Confederacy into another dictatorship.


Id like to point out two things.

One, Al Gore won that election. He wasnt president because 9 old men in Florida got to vote twice, and 5 of them got to have their second vote ount for more (ie, Bush has only been elected legitamitally once). And he lost his home state because Tenessee voted Republican. What a suprise, a southern red state voting republican.

And two, Patreaous is a lying snake who has done jack shit. However, Putin is also a sleezy bastard who should not have been recognized as anything but a Stalin wanna be.

Id like to point out two things.

One, Al Gore won that election. He wasnt president because 9 old men in Florida got to vote twice, and 5 of them got to have their second vote ount for more (ie, Bush has only been elected legitamitally once).

:headbang:

This is so far from the truth it ain't funny no more.

And two, Patreaous is a lying snake who has done jack shit.

Now I know you are not a serious poster. Thanks for proving it.

However, Putin is also a sleezy bastard who should not have been recognized as anything but a Stalin wanna be.

There we agree.

And on a side note: Romney won Michigan and is leading the delegate race now for the Republican Nominee according to the CNN website.

:headbang:

This is so far from the truth it ain't funny no more.



Really? Show me. Prove its not true. Because by all accounts and all evidence it is. When you win the popular vote of a state, and then the Supreme Court decides that said state goes to the guy who didnt win it anyway, well, you do the math.

As I said, 5 old men on a Republican controlled Supreme Court bench voted twice. Their second vote counted more than their first.


Also, I watched Patraeaous's meeting with the congressional oversite committee, and because of his several contradictions he made, I came to the conclusion that he is in fact, a lying snake.

Really? Show me. Prove its not true. Because by all accounts and all evidence it is.

By all recounts done by the press, Bush did win the state of Florida legally.

Also, I watched Patraeaous's meeting with the congressional oversite committee, and because of his several contradictions he made, I came to the conclusion that he is in fact, a lying snake.

now if you can only prove that then maybe you'll have a case. I find it funny though when outlines of his statements to Congress were being made public that the Democratic Leadership was trying to discredit him even before he made the findings public even though they voted 100% for Petraus's additional star and to lead the investigation that resulted in said report. If they felt he was a "lying snake" why did they do so?