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

[LynnTheDem]

Bush Asks Congress for Martial Law

Overturning Posse Comitatus would allow troops to break into houses and apartments and sweep the streets for flu victims, and forcibly contain them in Guantánamo-style camps. They could seal off cities or whole states. These extreme measures could also be deployed against U.S. citizens after hurricanes, tornados, earthquakes, or even election disputes--whenever and wherever a president decides they are necessary.

"The translation of this is martial law in the United States," said Dr. Irwin Redlener, associate dean of Columbia University's School of Public Health and director of its National Center for Disaster Preparedness. Redlener called Bush's proposal to deploy troops on American soil an "extraordinarily Draconian measure." Even Gene Healy, senior editor at the right-wing Cato Institute, said Bush's proposal would undermine "a fundamental principle of American law" that "reflects America's traditional distrust of using standing armies to enforce order at home, a distrust that's well-justified."

Travel to other countries and you'll find that a society's freedom is inversely related to the number of guys wearing camouflage, brandishing big guns and pulling people over at roadblocks. Blurring the distinction between policing and soldiering, as do the military police in the former Soviet republics of Central Asia and Middle Eastern countries like Syria and Jordan, is a defining characteristic of repressive states.

Civilian cops may be rude or even abusive, but they're not supposed to shoot you without a good reason. You're their boss, or at least they work for the mayor you elected. Not so with soldiers. Military troops are responsible only to their chain of command, which is likely to end thousands of miles away in Washington. They shoot sooner and quicker than cops, and they have much bigger guns. Regimes that use the military to maintain order tell their citizens: do what we tell you, or else. They rely upon violence rather than tacit consensus to stay in charge.

Rule under the point of a gun is not democracy.

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/1012-29.htm

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Lasher]

2. I don't think he did yet, it's something he wants to do (EOM)

[havocmom]

3. With the Partiot Act, they can take away your rights by declaring you

have dealings with terrorists. Due to the fact that they can then hold you without public hearings, they basically could get away with charging/holding ANYBODY they want.

As far as martial law, not done yet, but the boy who would be king keeps bringing up issues and mentioning that he could call the military to action in the US indicates cause for concern. Since the blathering idiot has never had an original thought of record, one must surmise the idea is something he has overheard when the big people are discussing options at the Big People's Table.

[LynnTheDem]

4. He's asked COngress to overturn PC. So far, Congress hasn't been eager.

On the bright side, a month of martial law in the USSA and even the stupid MFing rightwingnuts would wake the fuck up.

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LynnTheDem]

14. Last week...gimme time for brekkie and I'll do a google for ya

Gone for Food; Back Soon

Summary of Bush proposals on Katrina recovery - 9/17/05
Bush ..to recommend that Congress change two key laws -- the Posse Comitatus Act, ...

http://www.detnews.com/2005/politics/0509/17/natio-317961.htm

President Bush suggested a larger disaster relief role for the armed forces in his national address last week, and Congress has indicated it will take up the issue this autumn. Though the topic has emerged at other troubled times - most recently 9/11 - Congress has always avoided amending Posse Comitatus, the law that has kept active-duty soldiers out of civilian law-enforcement affairs since Reconstruction.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0919/p01s01-usmi.html

More;

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=bush+Congress+Posse+Comitatus

[Lone_Star_Dem]

15. This comes from his October 4 press conference

Here's his words in context for you.

QUESTION: Mr. President, you've been thinking a lot about pandemic flu and the risks in the United States if that should occur.

I was wondering, Secretary Leavitt has said that first responders in the states and local governments are not prepared for something like that. To what extent are you concerned about that after Katrina and Rita?

And is that one of the reasons you're interested in the idea of using defense assets to respond to something as broad and long-lasting as a flu might be?

BUSH: Yes. Thank you for the question.

I am concerned about avian flu. I'm concerned about what an avian flu outbreak could mean for the United States and the world.

BUSH: I have thought through the scenarios of what an avian flu outbreak could mean. I tried to get a better handle on what the decision-making process would be by reading Mr. Barry's book on the influenza outbreak in 1918. I would recommend it.

The policy decisions for a president in dealing with an avian flu outbreak are difficult.

One example: If we had an outbreak somewhere in the United States, do we not then quarantine that part of the country? And how do you, then, enforce a quarantine?

It's one thing to shut down airplanes. It's another thing to prevent people from coming in to get exposed to the avian flu.

BUSH: And who best to be able to effect a quarantine?

One option is the use of a military that's able to plan and move. So that's why I put it on the table. I think it's an important debate for Congress to have.

I noticed the other day, evidently, some governors didn't like it. I understand that. I was the commander in chief of the National Guard and proudly so. And, frankly, I didn't want the president telling me how to be the commander in chief of the Texas Guard.

But Congress needs to take a look at circumstances that may need to vest the capacity of the president to move beyond that debate. And one such catastrophe or one such challenge could be an avian flu outbreak.

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

20. From what I understand

When he's saying this part here; "I noticed the other day, evidently, some governors didn't like it. I understand that. I was the commander in chief of the National Guard and proudly so. And, frankly, I didn't want the president telling me how to be the commander in chief of the Texas Guard." He's referring to his attempt to overturn Posse Comitatus in New Orleans and the fact that his attempt was resisted.

If you read further in the article that Lynn posted you'll see this part.

Bush laid the groundwork for his assault on Posse Comitatus on September 26, when he explained his decision to unleash the 82nd Airborne upon Hurricane Katrina-devastated New Orleans: "I want there to be a robust discussion about the best way for the federal government, in certain extreme circumstances, to be able to rally assets for the good of the people." The Louisiana National Guard, meanwhile, was stuck in Iraq.

"The translation of this is martial law in the United States," said Dr. Irwin Redlener, associate dean of Columbia University's School of Public Health and director of its National Center for Disaster Preparedness. Redlener called Bush's proposal to deploy troops on American soil an "extraordinarily Draconian measure." Even Gene Healy, senior editor at the right-wing Cato Institute, said Bush's proposal would undermine "a fundamental principle of American law" that "reflects America's traditional distrust of using standing armies to enforce order at home, a distrust that's well-justified."

I can't say that I disagree with Dr Irwin Redlener on his translation.

[converted_democrat]

22. He asked to remove Posse Comitatus twice in the last month.....

How does one have to spell it out to you to make you understand?? The first time was after Katrina, the second time after the Avian Flu hubbub. He is trying to roll back the law that keeps the military from be used as a policing agents on American soil.


on edit- Sen. Warner tried to suggest it should be removed after 9-11 happened in order to better fight terrorists, which is total B.S. because it is not needed. People from both parties threw a fit and he dropped it. Now they are trying it again now, wonder why??

[MildyRules]

23. I BELIEVE you! I'm just asking to be shown

WHERE he made the request. Sheesh!

[converted_democrat]

27. Read this.. A republican Representative is accusing him of trying it......

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=5045692&mesg_id=5045692

[MildyRules]

28. Sigh

Don't see anything there to support the statement that * has asked for martial law to be declared in the U.S. or that Posse Comitatus be overturned. I'll keep looking too.

[converted_democrat]

30. If you can honestly say that you read all the links that were just given

to you and you don't think Bush is trying overturn Posse Comitatus than you are a truly loss cause. Did you even read the link?? Have you heard any of Bush's speeches? It truly is no wonder our country is in such sorry decline.

[MildyRules]

31. I'm sorry, I'm just asking for where he actually said this

If you have something where Bush called for either then show it. If not, it's just speculation at this point.

That's all. I'd like to have some proof before I get all spun up about something. Isn't that logical?

[converted_democrat]

35. Did you read the speeches that the other people kindly gave you??

Did you? If you read them and still say Bush is not trying to over turn Posse Comitatus, than you dear are the one that is lacking logic.

[MildyRules]

37. Show me ONE

just ONE.

[converted_democrat]

42. Here---

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/politics/3377358

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/09/26/bush.military/

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0919/p01s01-usmi.html

http://bellaciao.org/en/article.php3?id_article=8588

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05271/578752.stm


on edit- another
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/military/july-dec05/military_9-27.html

[Name removed]

43. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[converted_democrat]

50. So now you're reduced to parsing words as a defense. How pathetic...

You read the articles, you read his speeches. You say you read the articles that I presented to you that clearly state congress is resisting what he is trying to put on the table.

[Name removed]

51. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

59. Again, that is in reference to his speech on Oct 4th

It comes from the conclusion of the original article she posted.

October 4th Bush said, "But Congress needs to take a look at circumstances that may need to vest the capacity of the president to move beyond that debate. And one such catastrophe or one such challenge could be an avian flu outbreak."

When you put these words in context with his other statements in regards to New Orleans you open a forum for the current dialog.

He can't have increased military authority over disaster response and/or the Avian flu as he's been requesting, w/o either making changes to or overturning the Posse Comitatus Act. That's the fact that has stemmed all the articles and the current debate. If he's to get his way it will mean we lose the Posse Comitatus Act as it now exist.


Here's an article from CNN on Sep 27 that also addresses this issue.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/09/26/bush.military/

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush said he wants to make it easier for the military to take charge after a disaster like Hurricane Katrina, but the White House acknowledged Monday the proposal raises "a lot of issues" that need resolution.

Critics argue that putting active-duty troops on American streets would violate a long-standing tradition that keeps the military out of domestic law enforcement.
<snip>

"I want there to be a robust discussion about the best way for the federal government, in certain extreme circumstances, to be able to rally assets for the good of the people," he said.

The Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 bans the armed forces from participating in police-type activity on U.S. soil.

Gene Healy, a senior editor at the conservative Cato Institute, said Bush risks undermining "a fundamental principle of American law" by tinkering with the Posse Comitatus Act.


You see, he can't have what he's proposing with the Posse Comitatus Act as it is now. So, even if he won't come out and say he's going to tear if from our grasp, what he's trying to do will still have that effect. He has said he wants Congress to to take a look at circumstances that may need to vest the capacity of the president to move beyond that debate. What circumstances do you feel he's referring to? Do you not think he's making reference to New Orleans and his request to use military to police the people there?

He's currently attempting to rearrange our rights with the fewest number of Americans taking notice. Careful wording and setting the stage for a play of fear starring the Avian Flu is his current method.

Will Congress allow this to happen? I don't know. If he can muster enough fear among the people in regards to the avian flu he may win their support.

Has bush* made his desires clear? I have to say he has.

It's your choice to choose not to address the issue until the point in time if/when bush* uses the terminology you desire. I prefer a bit more preemptive method myself and have already written my Representative and my Senators in regards to the issue.

[Name removed]

61. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[titoresque]

66. He said "how do you go about ENFORCING....."

He is not talking about RELIEF.......he never said relief, he said ENFORCE.

[converted_democrat]

68. Then tell us why he is asking for the review of the law....n/t

[Name removed]

70. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[converted_democrat]

74. What are the many reasons??? Why would he ask for a review???

I'm all ears....

[titoresque]

75. Please give us another reason it would be reviewed

I'd personally really like to know. I can't seem to think of any other reason. If you've got one please share. It might ease a lot of worry here.

[Name removed]

77. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[converted_democrat]

84. You gotta link for that??? I only know of one person who ever said that

and his credentials as a Dem have been called into question on several occasions.

[Name removed]

85. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[converted_democrat]

88. Nope, I don't know it, and I spend hours a day here. So please find me a

link.

[Name removed]

90. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[converted_democrat]

106. Funny how you are the only one that remembers..........n/t

[SeanQ]

109. Many, including myself, were wondering why the NATIONAL GUARD

were taking so long to deploy, along with what the delay in federal relief and support resources was (medical, army corps of engineers, etc.). This is vastly different than requesting the military get involved with policing New Orleans, which I also do not recall anyone suggesting.

And your right, PC doesn't prevent the military from assisting with disaster relief, such as medivac transports or delivering food & water. But it does prevent them from being used to enforce a quarantine, or any other "peace-keeping" duties. So why would he be asking for the law to be reviewed, or talking about loosening the restrictions in multiple speeches?!?

Perhaps if the National Guard had not been depleted, or used abroad innapropriately...

Ah, what the hell am I doing feeding the trolls anyway :(

[Daphne08]

93. Being asked to provide a military presence is a bit different

from the imposition of a military presence... or at least, that's the way I see it. :shrug:

[Lone_Star_Dem]

103. Yes, that is correct

As it is now the military can and does provide a great deal of support during disasters. Their current powers only limit their ability to act as police if I'm not mistaken, please correct me if that's not right.

Why then does bush* feel the need for Congress "take a look at circumstances that may need to vest the capacity of the president to move beyond that debate."

Since you don't think he's attempting to overturn Posse Comitatus Act, what do you feel he's getting at?

The military role is fine the way it stands now to my way of thinking. For some reason bush* doesn't appear to agree with me. He's the one who's wanting to expand on what already exist.

I'm not into fear mongering, but I do enjoy healthy speculation. From the vast number of articles that have been published on this topic I would have to say I'm not the only one who's speculating on this matter.

[Marie26]

105. You're right - he never specifically said he wants to stop Posse Comitatus

He's very vague = "laws need to be changed" "miltary quarantines", etc. He's not saying yet specifically what he will do - he's just getting us used to the idea. Promote fear + propose solution. When he finally releases his "solution" we'll see exactly what he has in store. But he's said that laws need to be changed that allow the military to be first responders - "Posse Comitatus" is the law that prevents the military from being used as police. So it's pretty reasonable to think that this is a law he wants changed.

[JaneGat]

38. Houston Chronicle

Bush considers changes to Posse Comitatus Act
Both right and left wary of giving domestic police power to military
<snip>
"The Civil War-era law bars federal troops from carrying out law enforcement duties inside the United States during peacetime, short of suppressing an insurrection. Congress enacted the prohibition to curtail alleged excesses by Union occupation forces in former Confederate states after the Civil War.

Bush signaled that the law was up for review when he said in a nationally televised address from New Orleans on Sept. 15 that the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina showed "a challenge on this scale requires greater federal authority and a broader role for the armed forces."

White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan later said revision or repeal of the Posse Comitatus Act was an issue that "needs to be looked at" by Congress and the administration, adding that officials are in the "early planning of discussing it."

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/politics/3377358

[MildyRules]

40. Again

Bush called for repealing PC, where??

LynnTheDem (1000+ posts) Thu Oct-13-05 10:49 AM
Response to Reply #1
4. He's asked COngress to overturn PC. So far, Congress hasn't been eager.

That's the point I'm questioning. Please show me where he did this.

[titoresque]

53. Ok you're clearly looking for the specific

wording here. And in the process you're obviously missing it!!
Jesus Christ!! Fine, no one has given you a link to any statment he made where he used the phrase.....but heres a question for you.

If Bush were to get what he wants, and clearly he has asked for Military use to quarantine entire cities, regions...whatever......what would that be called?!!!!!

[Name removed]

54. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[converted_democrat]

56. He said in his speech he wants to use the military to seal off regions...

That is policing.

[Name removed]

63. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[converted_democrat]

69. How isn't it???? Explain please.........n/t

[Name removed]

72. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[titoresque]

79. Well if a city was quarantined

and my entire family was not sick...Im might like to get the hell out of that city. Would I be arrested by the Military if I tried to sneak out? If there were a quarantine, would there not be check points, curfews, military presence in the streets? If of course Bush got his way and was able to use the Military as a means to keep the area quarantined. Not everyone is going to go for that.....I think a bit of ENFORCEMENT may be in order, don't you?

[Name removed]

82. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[converted_democrat]

104. How?? How can they bar me from entry or exit?? Towns and roads have no

barbed wire around them. How are they going to stop me??? What means will they use?

[converted_democrat]

80. Anyone that tries to pass.......

You know, and I know there is no way that we have enough police to secure every road in and out. The military would be used as a policing force.

[Name removed]

83. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[converted_democrat]

94. They can bar you from passing...So if they aren't going to arrest me

when I try to pass. How are they going to stop me if they can't arrest me???

[Name removed]

96. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[titoresque]

98. Huh?

you're comparing getting on a military base to fleeing your own city?
I think this comparison is Apples and Oranges!

Try again please.

[converted_democrat]

100. Military bases have barbed wire around them...Roads don't.

How are they going to stop me???

[titoresque]

97. Maybe they'll say "pretty please?"

and flash you a winning smile?

:rofl:

[holboz]

113. But could they DETAIN you if you tried to force your way in/out?

And if they think you're being extremely unreasonable I suppose they could HOLD you. Maybe turn you over to local authorities on a public nuisance charge or something else. Maybe even classify you as a terrorist if they perceive you as a threat to a soldier.

So I suppose TECHNICALLY they wouldn't arrest you but they might be responsible for you getting your ass in the pokey one way or the other.

Just a thought. I can't keep out of a good debate.

:)

[titoresque]

58. And this is the sad part

people like you. So many good people are going to be led to the slaughter.

You need to wake up while you've still got time. The grasping you've done in this thread leads me to believe there are bigger issues with you.
I hope you find what you're looking for, god knows none of us here want to be right.

[Name removed]

65. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[JaneGat]

57. From the Christian Science Monitor (sept. 29):

Military wary of disaster role

"When President Bush asked Congress this week to consider whether the military should take the leading role in disaster response, he was merely picking up where other politicians have left off. Washington has long sought to induce the Pentagon to take a larger share of homeland security in times of crisis - from the war on drugs to the war on terror."
<snip>
"What this might mean for the military, however, is a task that the president has left to Congress. Sen. John Warner (R) of Virginia, chair of the Armed Services Committee, has said that Congress needs to consider amending Posse Comitatus - the Reconstruction-era law that prohibits federal troops from taking part in law-enforcement operations."
<snip>
"Today, any move to amend Posse Comitatus, say military analysts, would represent not only a move in the wrong direction, but also a misapprehension of the situation."

"For one, it is unnecessary, they say. The active-duty military can already support disaster relief in a variety of ways that are in accord with Posse Comitatus - providing logistics and humanitarian aid, for example, as has happened in the Gulf Coast region. For law enforcement, emergency officials have the National Guard - and if one state's Guard is depleted by overseas deployments, it can ask for help from other states through their network of Emergency Management Assistance Compacts."

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0929/p01s03-usmi.htm

[The Doctor.]

71. Just need to work on your 'politico-speak'...

"a challenge on this scale requires greater federal authority and a broader role for the armed forces."-Bush

What one statute stands in the way of it is such a 'challenge' 'requires'?

Perhaps LynnTheDem interpreted Bush's overt suggestions, McClellan's very specific statements, And Bush's addressing the issue and suggesting there will be congressional consideration as "Asking Congress to overturn PC". But she's absolutely correct.

It may be an assumption, but it is an assumption with a great deal of substance.

She has simply connected the dots and arrived at the very same conclusion a congressman would.

"Excuse me sir/madam, with the president requesting broader powers for the use of the military on American soil, would you surmise that he wishes for you to help him overtunr Posse Comitatus?"

Unless that representative has been under a rock, he would easily recognize what it is the president wants.

So, based on the amount of information we have, it is correct to surmise that he has "asked Congress to overturn PC"... even if he did not say, "Excuse me Congress, could you overturn that nastly little statute fer me there?" verbatim.

The question has been made rather clear, and the answer is obvious;

Bush wants Posse Comitatus overturned and he needs Congress to do it.

Do you agree?

[Name removed]

76. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[The Doctor.]

86. I doubt he'll get it, but a study of his character and actions

makes quite clear he would like to have it overturned.

Just think of all the terrorists he could protect us from!

:silly:

[Name removed]

89. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[titoresque]

OK now you're smoking crack!

:crazy:

[Name removed]

101. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[The Doctor.]

92. Even though he has suggested 'broader powers' for the use of the military?

Considering that PC stands firmly in the way of that, what else would you suggest he means by that?

Please enlighten me.

[The Doctor.]

121. This may be deleted...

But I must post my disagreement with the carte-blanche deletion of posts which would show the true character of the antagonists' disposition.

It was obvious he was ill-equipped to deal with actual logic... what a shame the example cannot be reminiscent.

[yodermon]

102. Hope I can help here:

MildlyRules, If your standard of evidence for the assertion that "Bush is asking Congress ot overturn Posse Comitatus" is the actual utterance, by Bush*, of the words "I am asking Congress to overturn Posse Comitatus", or some equally direct synonymous phrase, such as "I will soon ask Congress to overturn Posse Comitatus" or "I really would like Posse Comitatus to be overturned" etc, etc,

Then you are correct, Bush* has not asked for the overturning of Posse Comitatus.

However, as the title and the subtitle of the article both indicate, "Bush considers changes to Posse Comitatus Act", and "Both right and left wary of giving domestic police power to military",
everyone, from both sides of the political spectrum believe that Bush* want's to lessen it, weaken it, or "tinker" with it.
(link: http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/politics/3377358 )

Many times it is possible, and necessary to read between the lines of politicians' statements. Read the article, everyone left, right and center, believe that bush* wants to dilute PC, opening the door for martial law. Is he stating the words "I want to declare martial law?" Uh, no. But if he wanted to declare martial law, then PC would have to be weakened/eliminated first.

HTH,
yodermon
:hi:

[SeanQ]

108. Preparing for bad results in 2006?

Or outrage at blatently fixed election results?

[converted_democrat]

111. To be honest I'm not sure why they are pushing to get rid of it the way

that they are. But they are doing it for some reason, and quite frankly I don't trust their intentions.

[Arkansas Granny]

49. Don't you just love the fact the he was proud to be commander

in chief of the National Guard, but as a pilot he couldn't be bothered with it? Even after 5 years, this fool can still amaze me with some of the things that fall out of his mouth.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

64. Sadly, I've been stunned and amazed by the fool for 9 years.

The fact that he's managed to manipulate the public for so long with his thin lies and weak wording has been heartbreaking.

'There are none so blind as those who will not see', has become my mantra.

[Arkansas Granny]

91. I see you got saddled with him before the rest of us did. So sorry.

[bunny planet]

99. are you kidding, a month will be enough for them to keep it going

forever. They must never be allowed to do this, we can not go down that road.

[dogfacedboy]

5. If Bush tries to actually pull this kind of crap

I hope there are a few brave Generals in the Pentagon that will "do the right thing" and stop him.

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[RaleighNCDUer]

10. Mutiny.

Order their troops to stand down when the pResident orders them out against American civilians.

It would likely cost them their careers, but it could save the republic.

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[RaleighNCDUer]

39. That's why it is a hope, a wish.

Not necessarily a reality.

[Name removed]

48. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[RaleighNCDUer]

52. Please don't be obtuse.

I would hope that the military would refuse to obey illegal orders. Those who issue the orders would call it mutiny.

Are you looking forward to the prospect of martial law? Tanks at the intersections, and the 82nd Airborne smashing down doors in your neighborhood?

That is the prospect if Posse Comitatus is overturned. Soldiers are trained to obey orders, and if they are ordered into the streets to enforce curfews, to seal off quarantined communities, to search for terrorists, they will be taking military action against American civilians and American civilians will die, because soldiers are trained, not only to obey orders but also to kill. That is their purpose. They are not lawmen. They are not police. They are soldiers.

They damn well better refuse illegal orders.

[Name removed]

55. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[RaleighNCDUer]

60. See my post #44 below. nt

[slaveplanet]

117. fantasy huh

http://www.livejournal.com/users/interdictor/2005/09/07/

take a look at that lower picture...thats the 82nd airborne right after they were finished breaking in and detaining this guy....he was released of course, and there was a US Marshall along to keep things legal.(under PC)

but the Army was breaking down doors and detaining people until they could be... handed over for arrest , shot or released.

if PC were recinded it would be no different except for the need of the US Marshall(and of course his knowledge of law and arrest)

But NOLA was clearly a dry run to go forward with this until they can get around the use of the US Marshall.

Also foriegn assets(troops) would be used in a state of emergency... the agreements are already signed.

under detention...full force continuum is in effect

[TahitiNut]

34. That wouldn't be 'mutiny' -- it'd be "refusal of an illegal order" (imho).

The last thing we'd ever want is a military that overthrew the civilian authority. That'd be the death of this nation.

[RaleighNCDUer]

44. You know that they'd call it mutiny, though.

Disobeying a direct order is mutiny.

Even way back when I was in there was talk about it, and the consensus was that you followed orders, under protests if necessary, then file a complaint afterward - otherwise you'd be charged with mutiny.

And a general ordering his troops to stand down, in defiance of an illegal order, is a far cry from him ordering them to march on Washington. That, I agree, would precipitate the end of the republic. In effect, that is what started the Civil War -- after all the shouting, it was the firing on Fort Sumpter that did it, not the southern states seceeding. It was a misguided American willing to order his troops into action against other Americans.

[Jose Diablo]

95. You know what is striking here on DU, TNut?

Is how in a short year or so, so many here on DU are starting to see what Bu$h and his band of cut-throats are really all about.

I can remember even just a year ago how people would be aghast when other would suggest Bu$h is a nazi, I don't hear many complaints when people call Bu$h a nazi anymore.

And look at DeLay. The guy is under indictment and he is still allowed into the chamber, even circling and calling for his 'colleagues' to vote a certain way. Why didn't someone call the Sargent of Arms to remove him? I would think he shouldn't even sit in the chanber if he's under indictment.

And now people are seriously suggesting revolution is a way to resolve the problem. Maybe the only way.

All this shows I think, what we see here in DU (if we can think of DU as a microcosm of the entire body politic) is how far this country has slide into a state of impending civil war.

Revolution is being considered by more and more people. Not that you or I suggest it, just being able to say the word means something I think.

[TahitiNut]

114. It has always been a reality of politics that revolution is the option ...

... of the People. When that option is ignored, the people will invariably lose more of their rights and liberties ... until they again "discover" that option. In a free society, the people must ALWAYS vastly outnumber both the police and the military. People who rule with the attitude that "might makes right" (like the current fascist regime!) NEVER limit that perspective merely to foreign relations. Fascists apply "might makes right" to the populace, as well, first by populist fervor ("mob rule") and then by diminishing but increasingly powerful pluralities.

When PNAC bare-facedly advocated a policy of "might makes right," they unquestionably revealed themselves to be fascists. They've used Israel as a "beard."

[LynnTheDem]

17. The US Constitution says what the right thing is.

Oh wait...we don't use that quaint old thing anymore.

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LynnTheDem]

24. "To preserve liberty..."

Amendment II
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." (Richard Henry Lee, Virginia delegate to the Continental Congress, initiator of the Declaration of Independence, and member of the first Senate, which passed the Bill of Rights.)

"The great object is that every man be armed . . . Everyone who is able may have a gun." (Patrick Henry, in the Virginia Convention on the ratification of the Constitution.)

"The advantage of being armed . . . the Americans possess over the people of all other nations . . . Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several Kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." (James Madison, author of the Bill of Rights, in his Federalist Paper No. 46.)

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." (Second Amendment to the Constitution.)

[MildyRules]

25. Sorry Lynn

I don't see anything in the Const that says we need to mutiny.

[TahitiNut]

32. "mutiny"??? Are we all conscripts now?

When a free people take back their own governance, it's called "revolution" not "mutiny." A "mutiny" can only occur in the military. For the civilian population in a free society, the "constituted authority" is We The People.

The Constitution's very existence is premised on the inalienable rights of the People to overthrow governance that is no longer responsive to their primacy. That's what the Declaration of Independence is all about.

Just as the last refuge of diplomacy is military force, the last refuge of a free people is the option to revolt - without which politicians would take no heed whatsoever to their demands. Civil unrest (and the possibility of revolution) is necessary - without it, we'd never have the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

[MildyRules]

33. Sorry TN

I was talking about the military mutinying...see above posts! :-)

[LynnTheDem]

81. Citizens don't "mutiny".

;)

[Name removed]

87. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mahatmakanejeeves]

62. I don't own any firearms,

but I'm always impressed by how strongly the Founding Fathers favored the ownership of firearms.

[LynnTheDem]

73. They didn't trust the future governments.

In the FF's views, citizens needed to remain armed to keep government subservient to We The People.

[SeanQ]

110. Halleluiah!

I really hope it doesn't come to that, or even close. But I have always been thankful that the FF's held the opinion that governments, of any type, could not be trusted over the long haul to do what's right without occasionally being 'corrected' be "We the People"! An opinion I heartily endorse. And that their opinion shows up in so many ways in the Declaration, Constitution and the first amendments.

Also see:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x5045692

[stevietheman]

29. Revolution would definitely be in order at that point.

By the way, I'm not kidding.

[MildyRules]

36. Are you TRYING to discredit DU?

[stevietheman]

47. ??? Just stating my opinion of what happens if Bush goes too far. n/t

n/t

[phusion]

78. Since when does revolution = discrediting

please explain.

[texpatriot2004]

112. I see that MildlyRules never answered your question. Wonder

why? I personally don't see these two things connected and think your question quite valid.

[phusion]

115. Thanks...

That word needs to be a part of our discourse...We can't be scared of it.

[texpatriot2004]

116. You say you want a revolution...well, you know, we all want to

change the world...who sang that song?

[TahitiNut]

8. Calling out the troops would be a GREAT way of spreading the flu.

Indeed, I can't really think of a more effective way of "laying low" the military. If the worst predictions regarding the avian flu come true, the Bushtard is guaranteed to make it worse.

[Bridget Burke]

11. Troop movements aided greatly in 1918-1919...

In incubating & spreading the Influenza throughout the world.

[TahitiNut]

21. Exactly. No other group can contaminate one another as quickly ...

... as the military. These are people who sleep together, eat together, travel together, and march together. It's almost impossible to describe to anyone without military experience. Living in a college dorm or fraternity isn't even close. Even family members go their separate directions in most households. Not the military. The only thing that impedes contagion is the relative youth and physical fitness of military personnel. Given a very virulent flu virus, this would be no more of a defense than a wet paper sack.

Hammer. Nail. If the only tool you have is a military, you treat everything like a war. The 'success' of that costly approach is DEATH and DESTRUCTION.

[gkhouston]

41. "relative youth and fitness"

actually, one of the odd things about the 1918 pandemic was that a lot of the victims were healthy adults in their 20's and 30's and not just the servicemen, either. Apparently, those who had the best immune systems died because their immune systems overreacted to the virus and their bodies sort of won the battle but lost the war. If the current avian flu resembles the 1918 flu in that respect, the last people you want to send out to provide aid or policing are the military because they're going to drop like flies. :crazy:

[Straight Shooter]

26. Especially if some troops are specially-designated "carriers"

Drop a little virus here, drop a little virus there. Voila! Pandemic. That's a good way to free up some prime real estate.

If someone had told me 6 years ago that I'd be suspicious of every word and every deed from the so-called leader of the free world, I would have dismissed that immediately. Now I can find no reason to trust anything that bush says or anything he does. His agenda is malicious to the majority of citizens of the U.S.

[Doctor_J]

9. Is it time to put my money in a shoebox?

If this happens, they'll probably start seizing bank accounts and other assets too. Probably time to sell my house, hide the money, and start renting.

:scared:

[Tesha]

16. Remember how it went down in "The Handmaid's Tale"...

> Is it time to put my money in a shoebox? If this happens,
> they'll probably start seizing bank accounts and other
> assets too.

Remember how it went down in "The Handmaid's Tale": after the
"terrorists" shot-up the Congress the powers-that-be simply
turned off everyone's plastic (ATM cards, credit cards, etc.)
This ensured that the women had no means with which to escape
the emerging theocracy.

Tesha

[LuCifer]

13. Time to RELOAD, and gods help you if you

...works BUSHitler if they pull this Martial Law cuz the COMMON COLD is out of control CRAP.

[elehhhhna]

45. GW and WHAT ARMY? lol.

[MsConduct]

46. From the minute I heard about the 'avian flu' I figured it was going

to be used by the dub as an excuse for martial law. Since no one is starting the civil war he's trying to ignite, he's being forced to create his own bogus reason to implement it.

[dbeach]

67. congress thus far has granted to the boy/king/god most requests

to ensure martial law including patsy act.natl ids...
more executive powers and privlege.The entire bush fraudulent presidency is aimed at one goal.
.MARTIAL LAW and bush as permanent leader..zeig heil.

BUT WHEN ITS proven that rover and libby conspired in an act of treason or malfeasance..in the plame afair..then the bush mean machine is done.

rover is gonna get arrested
poppy o and his criminals have survived EVERY scandal thus far...but their luck is runnin out.

MERRY FITZMAS.

The decision seems simple to me..

a bush run world
or bush in prison

[Vanje]

107. As if quarantine would work at all...

...for a flu outbreak that is spread by MIGRATORY BIRDS!

[IndyOp]

119. If it shows up in the US - it will be transmitted

between people - birds will be out of the loop at that point.

:kick:

[Nothing Without Hope]

118. ***Info on martial law & the BUshies - see this info compilation thread***

See the articles posted in the opening post plus those in the replies - and don't miss the one on the incredible dictatorial powers of Bush under the executive orders of FEMA. He can call martial law any time he wants, and Congress can only REVIEW it after six months!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x4790112
thread title: Missing A KEY POINT in *'s speech: POWER GRAB FOR POTUS AND MILITARY

[Marr]

120. I wonder if most wannabee-dictators are stupid like W?

His entire administration is composed of arrogant imbeciles, of course- from Rove to Rumsfeld, they're a list of out-of-touch, incompetent morons propped up with money.

So I wonder- is this sort of push for more and more authority the result of incomptence coupled with arrogance? They can't solve any problems given the normal tools of government, and believe they need some kind of absolute authority.

Either that, or they just decided the Bush Administration would be the one to finally cash in the chips, and rig the system completetely in favor of the top .005%. Fuck everybody else. I suppose you'd need to get rid of Posse Comitatus as the last step of setting up a kind of Neo-Feudalism.