http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/19/opinion/...Ed%2fEditorials Editorial Making Martial Law Easier A disturbing recent phenomenon in Washington is that laws that strike to the heart of American democracy have been passed in the dead of night. So it was with a provision quietly tucked into the enormous defense budget bill at the Bush administration’s behest that makes it easier for a president to override local control of law enforcement and declare martial law. Changes of this magnitude should be made only after a thorough public airing. But these new presidential powers were slipped into the law without hearings or public debate. The president made no mention of the changes when he signed the measure, and neither the White House nor Congress consulted in advance with the nation’s governors. MJ...Evil men planning evil events. Do not act suprised. Title edited fer spelling
Transposing the 'i' and 't' in "martial" gives the title of the thread a very different meaning. I thought it had something to do with writing into law things like "Husband must purchase $$$ of jewelry for forgetting wife's birthday" and things like that.
To play devil's advocate, there are perhaps some situations where this could be used appropriately. We all heard about the rioting and theft that was rampant in New Orleans around the time of Hurricane Katrina. Specifying natural disasters as a situation in which the military can act as a police force would have allowed the US to better maintain control of an already bad situation. Thats not to say that i like the provision. The "any other condition" phrase in it screams for abuse. I'm also against the fact that it was passed into law without anyone knowing about it. But like i said, i can see a situation where it may be better if the military was capable of stepping in to help restore order.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(priusenvy @ Feb 21 2007, 03:40 AM) [snapback]393812[/snapback]</div> That one confused me too. Tom
How far back on here do we need to go to see a pile of threads bashing Bush for not taking control of New Orleans after Katrina? I looked up Liberal in Websters, and translated from English into the Reality, it means: Weak with short term memory. Just so you can sleep better at night, this law is intended to allow Bush to seize control of the country in the event of a catastrophic event such as the election of another Clinton or anyone named Hussein. :lol:
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(mojo @ Feb 21 2007, 05:27 AM) [snapback]393826[/snapback]</div> Much of the groundwork for this is already in place, under the guise of protecting us from terrorism - can anyone say "Patriot Act"? Webster's defines terrorism as: "The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence to intimidate or coerce societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons." I think this needs to be redefined to include the subversion of laws meant to protect the checks and balances that have helped prevent dictatorships (I am working from an older dictionary, btw). Not all terrorism is accomplished by violence or force.
There are many examples and many well-intended laws and provisions that were used in ways either unintended or unanticipated. The first one that comes to mind is the tax rebate for business vehicles weighing more than 6,000 pounds. Knowing many farmers and how expensive their vehicles are, I thought that was a great idea until I read that people were using it to buy Hummers and Escalades. This law also probably has some very good intentions and if used properly will serve good use. However, I also fear that if there is a way to abuse it, there is a strong possibility that someone will abuse it. This is not necessarily a bash on Bush but rather a comment on human nature and and the attraction of absolute power.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MarinJohn @ Feb 21 2007, 12:27 AM) [snapback]393755[/snapback]</div> Let's be clear on the facts. Some as-yet-unidentified person slipped this into the bill at the last minute. It was apparently not the intent of the Congress to grant such sweeping powers. It was a trick. Those of you who think the President should be able to declare martial law at will, surely you don't think that legal change should have occurred by subterfuge? But as mentioned in this thread, that does seem to be typical for our Republican party these days. In my opinion, whoever put this into the bill is a traitor, pure and simple, and should be caught, tried, and if found guilty, punished in accordance with the laws governing treason. I routinely read a very left-wing website -- Counterpunch -- where I find out facts that I would never see mentioned in mainstream media. At various times, various authors have asserted that DHS has let contracts for construction of large-scale internment camps (concentration camps) in the US, presumably for the internment of US citizens in anticipation of times of civil unrest. I never took the time to track down the truth or fiction of that, because I considered it somewhat beyond plausible. With this latest manuever, maybe I should take that more seriously. Heck, if I wasn't on somebody's list before, I probably am now for saying this. EDIT: I'll be damned -- the US DHS did let a contract to build internment camps. And separately, there's a Park Service contract to to rehab the old ones used in WWII. But not to worry: Fox News assures me that these are only for immigrants, and that they're probably not actually building them -- yet. I feel so reassured. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,198456,00.html
