Bush Moves Toward Martial Law

mkpdavies · 04-11-2006, 10:22 PM

http://sf.indymedia.org/news/2006/10/1732834.php

Quote:

In a stealth maneuver, President Bush has signed into law a provision which, according to Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont), will actually encourage the President to declare federal martial law (1). It does so by revising the Insurrection Act, a set of laws that limits the President's ability to deploy troops within the United States. The Insurrection Act (10 U.S.C.331 -335) has historically, along with the Posse Comitatus Act (18 U.S.C.1385), helped to enforce strict prohibitions on military involvement in domestic law enforcement. With one cloaked swipe of his pen, Bush is seeking to undo those prohibitions.

Another little bit of history repeating.

John Carter · 04-11-2006, 11:28 PM

This is a response to the Katrina aftermath, where Dems were accusing the Prez of doing nothing for nearly a week. Fact is, Bush couldn't deploy federal resources until asked for by state governors - and they didn't ask.

This new bit of legislation allows him to send resources in to help out with disasters even if the state doesn't ask for it (e.g if they're a bunch of Dems trying to gain political points).

So, we have the situation where if Bush doesn't do something (i.e. because it's against constitutional law to send help) he gets accused of doing wrong. If he seeks to remedy that he also gets accused of something wrong.

Just another witch-hunt from the people who brought you global warming.

mkpdavies · 04-11-2006, 11:50 PM

What would the military have done in N Orleans?

All they needed were the police as normal (all armed anyway) and loads of food, water and shelter.

The most appauling thing I saw with Katrina, was the people were so reliant on government. They expected to be saved, because they have been so conditioned to think the government will do everything for them.

The amount of Taxation people pay in the USA, meant they should have had better organisation of police and aid. They didn't need the troops going into putting caps in loads of ass.

Westcountryman · 04-11-2006, 11:53 PM

Quote:

All they needed were the police as normal (all armed anyway) and loads of food, water and shelter.

I thought most of the Police were missing/deserted?

mkpdavies · 05-11-2006, 12:03 AM

Not initially, it took a few days for that to REALLY kick in.

There was absolutely no organisation what-so-ever. Government all of a sudden was exposed as the shell it really is. People were so pitifully reliant on the government though, they didn't know what to do.

John Carter · 05-11-2006, 12:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mkpdavies

What would the military have done in N Orleans?

Who d'ya think is the best equipped organisation for delivering aid and building temporary infrastructure? And they couldn't legal do it until Nagin and Blanco asked them to.

That's what this new legislation is all about - not requiring state permissions before deploying troops in emergency aid situations. It's not just about the military performing police duties for missing cops.

mkpdavies · 05-11-2006, 12:18 AM

I don't think the army would have been much use. They were already off getting massacred anyway in this instance.

Better would be making people more independent. Making sure a propper plan was in place for such distasters, such as help from other police forces etc.

FEMA was rubbish in this instance. They were shown for the complete waste of space that they are.

It became a martial law issue, once it has bubbled out of control. Troops were then deployed anyway, without any need for changes in the law.

So why do they need to make it even easier for Martial Law to be declared on the whim of the president.

Again I think people should look to history.

John Carter · 05-11-2006, 12:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mkpdavies

I don't think the army would have been much use.

Well, you think wrong then. The vast majority of the early aid was delivered by the army - because they're the only ones with the resources to mount such an operation.

You want a bridge building quickly? You get the army to do it. You need to get to people in a flooded area? You get the army to do it.

Unless, of course, you know any civilians who can erect a fully-functional bridge in two hours flat or have access to Chinooks.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mkpdavies

FEMA was rubbish in this instance. They were shown for the complete waste of space that they are.

Again, this wasn't a FEMA problem. It was a Blanco and Nagin problem. Federal troops (operating under FEMA command) were waiting to go in and help as soon as they got the go-ahead (from Blanco). They didn't get the go-ahead early enough.

And again, this legislation is so that in future those troops could just go in and help out (with aid delivery, not just policing) straight away without permission from the likes of Blanco.

The US system is already designed so that burden first falls on locals, then on county, then on state, then on federal.

mkpdavies · 05-11-2006, 12:53 AM

How come Blanco said no in this instance then?

John Carter · 05-11-2006, 01:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mkpdavies

How come Blanco said no in this instance then?

She didn't say no. She just wasn't around to say yes - a result, probably, of damaged communications infrastructure (due to hurricane) and her being less than efficient (due to being a lib). Heck, if she's anything like every other lib I've ever met she probably wanted to sit around and talk about what should be done for a few years before actually doing anything (you know, UN/Darfur style).

04-11-2006, 11:50 PM	#3 (permalink)
mkpdavies Uber Member Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Woking Posts: 30,839 Party: Libertarian Party	What would the military have done in N Orleans? All they needed were the police as normal (all armed anyway) and loads of food, water and shelter. The most appauling thing I saw with Katrina, was the people were so reliant on government. They expected to be saved, because they have been so conditioned to think the government will do everything for them. The amount of Taxation people pay in the USA, meant they should have had better organisation of police and aid. They didn't need the troops going into putting caps in loads of ass. __________________ http://brits4ronpaul.blogspot.com/ http://wokinglibertarians.blogspot.com/ http://lpuk.org My ignore list Labour, Blue Labour, Lib Dems

05-11-2006, 12:03 AM	#5 (permalink)
mkpdavies Uber Member Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Woking Posts: 30,839 Party: Libertarian Party	Not initially, it took a few days for that to REALLY kick in. There was absolutely no organisation what-so-ever. Government all of a sudden was exposed as the shell it really is. People were so pitifully reliant on the government though, they didn't know what to do. __________________ http://brits4ronpaul.blogspot.com/ http://wokinglibertarians.blogspot.com/ http://lpuk.org My ignore list Labour, Blue Labour, Lib Dems

05-11-2006, 12:18 AM	#7 (permalink)
mkpdavies Uber Member Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Woking Posts: 30,839 Party: Libertarian Party	I don't think the army would have been much use. They were already off getting massacred anyway in this instance. Better would be making people more independent. Making sure a propper plan was in place for such distasters, such as help from other police forces etc. FEMA was rubbish in this instance. They were shown for the complete waste of space that they are. It became a martial law issue, once it has bubbled out of control. Troops were then deployed anyway, without any need for changes in the law. So why do they need to make it even easier for Martial Law to be declared on the whim of the president. Again I think people should look to history. __________________ http://brits4ronpaul.blogspot.com/ http://wokinglibertarians.blogspot.com/ http://lpuk.org My ignore list Labour, Blue Labour, Lib Dems

05-11-2006, 12:53 AM	#9 (permalink)
mkpdavies Uber Member Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Woking Posts: 30,839 Party: Libertarian Party	How come Blanco said no in this instance then? __________________ http://brits4ronpaul.blogspot.com/ http://wokinglibertarians.blogspot.com/ http://lpuk.org My ignore list Labour, Blue Labour, Lib Dems

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

04-11-2006, 11:28 PM	#2 (permalink)
John Carter Uber Member Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: On Sabbatical Posts: 5,110	This is a response to the Katrina aftermath, where Dems were accusing the Prez of doing nothing for nearly a week. Fact is, Bush couldn't deploy federal resources until asked for by state governors - and they didn't ask. This new bit of legislation allows him to send resources in to help out with disasters even if the state doesn't ask for it (e.g if they're a bunch of Dems trying to gain political points). So, we have the situation where if Bush doesn't do something (i.e. because it's against constitutional law to send help) he gets accused of doing wrong. If he seeks to remedy that he also gets accused of something wrong. Just another witch-hunt from the people who brought you global warming.