Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Slashdot: "Bush Signs Bill Enabling Martial Law"

Slashdot: "Bush Signs Bill Enabling Martial Law"
Thread Tools
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 28, 2006, 10:31 PM
 
Slashdot:
Slashdot | Bush Signs Bill Enabling Martial Law

An anonymous reader writes to point us to an article on the meaning of a new law that President Bush signed on Oct. 17. It seems to allow the President to impose martial law on any state or territory, using federal troops and/or the state's own, or other states', National Guard troops. From the article:

"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. 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."
From the legal folk in the house, what does this mean?
     
vmarks
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Up In The Air
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 28, 2006, 10:44 PM
 
You know, my BS detector has gone off here:

Wouldn't Leahy and others made large noise about this well before-hand, when it was a bill in Congress?

I mean, instead of talking up Mark Foley, they could have spent time on drawing attention to this "stealth manuver" ?

It just doesn't make sense.
     
Wiskedjak  (op)
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 28, 2006, 11:02 PM
 
Hence my not drawing any conclusions here.
     
vmarks
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Up In The Air
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 28, 2006, 11:14 PM
 
Search Results - THOMAS (Library of Congress)

is the library of congress text of the HR bill 5122.

Search Results - THOMAS (Library of Congress) is the section the slashdot poster finds objectionable.

It's all about funding in emergencies and extending the lease on the naval shipyards in Guam, transferring ship ownership to foreign nations (we're selling the obsolete vessels to Greece, apparently.)

The part the person is really wound-up about is:

SEC. 1076. USE OF THE ARMED FORCES IN MAJOR PUBLIC EMERGENCIES.

(a) Use of the Armed Forces Authorized-
(1) IN GENERAL- Section 333 of title 10, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:
`Sec. 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 that authority.'.
(2) PROCLAMATION TO DISPERSE- Section 334 of such title is amended by inserting `or those obstructing the enforcement of the laws' after `insurgents'.
(3) HEADING AMENDMENT- The heading of chapter 15 of such title is amended to read as follows:
`CHAPTER 15--ENFORCEMENT OF THE LAWS TO RESTORE PUBLIC ORDER'.

(4) CLERICAL AMENDMENTS- (A) The tables of chapters at the beginning of subtitle A of title 10, United States Code, and at the beginning of part I of such subtitle, are each amended by striking the item relating to chapter 15 and inserting the following new item:
331'.

(B) The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 15 of such title is amended by striking the item relating to sections 333 and inserting the following new item:
`333. Major public emergencies; interference with State and Federal law.'.
(b) Provision of Supplies, Services, and Equipment-
(1) IN GENERAL- Chapter 152 of such title is amended by adding at the end the following new section:
`Sec. 2567. Supplies, services, and equipment: provision in major public emergencies

`(a) Provision Authorized- In any situation in which the President determines to exercise the authority in section 333(a)(1)(A) of this title, the President may direct the Secretary of Defense to provide supplies, services, and equipment to persons affected by the situation.
`(b) Covered Supplies, Services, and Equipment- The supplies, services, and equipment provided under this section may include food, water, utilities, bedding, transportation, tentage, search and rescue, medical care, minor repairs, the removal of debris, and other assistance necessary for the immediate preservation of life and property.
`(c) Limitations- (1) Supplies, services, and equipment may be provided under this section--
`(A) only to the extent that the constituted authorities of the State or possession concerned are unable to provide such supplies, services, and equipment, as the case may be; and
`(B) only until such authorities, or other departments or agencies of the United States charged with the provision of such supplies, services, and equipment, are able to provide such supplies, services, and equipment.
`(2) The Secretary may provide supplies, services, and equipment under this section only to the extent that the Secretary determines that doing so will not interfere with military preparedness or ongoing military operations or functions.
`(d) Inapplicability of Certain Authorities- The provision of supplies, services, or equipment under this section shall not be subject to the provisions of section 403(c) of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5170b(c)).'.
(2) CLERICAL AMENDMENT- The table of sections at the beginning of such chapter is amended by adding at the end the following new item:
`2567. Supplies, services, and equipment: provision in major public emergencies'.
(c) Conforming Amendment- Section 12304(c)(1) of such title is amended by striking `No unit' and all that follows through `subsection (b),' and inserting `Except to perform any of the functions authorized by chapter 15 or section 12406 of this title or by subsection (b), no unit or member of a reserve component may be ordered to active duty under this section'.
( Last edited by vmarks; Oct 28, 2006 at 11:24 PM. )
     
Dork.
Professional Poster
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Rochester, NY
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 28, 2006, 11:16 PM
 
"Strict prohibitions on military involvement in domestic law enforcement" is what prohibited the armed forces from helping out more when Kartina hit. Lots of legal machenations had to be made in order to legally get the Army in to help, since they were barred from doing the work that the local law enforcement agencies were unable to do. My hunch is that this act gives the President more authority to act in situations like that, but I know nothing about it, other than what the slashdolts are shouting about.

Edit: About Leahy, a slashbot dug this up. I have no clue why he chose the source he did:

Bush Moves Toward Martial Law :: from www.uruknet.info :: news from occupied Iraq - it

The article meanders a bit, here's the relevant text. Sorry for the long quote, I promise I'm not really abe....

Despite the unprecedented and shocking nature of this act, there has been no outcry in the American media, and little reaction from our elected officials in Congress. On September 19th, a lone Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont) noted that 2007's Defense Authorization Act contained a "widely opposed provision to allow the President more control over the National Guard [adopting] changes to the Insurrection Act, which will make it easier for this or any future President to use the military to restore domestic order WITHOUT the consent of the nation's governors."

Senator Leahy went on to stress that, "we certainly do not need to make it easier for Presidents to declare martial law. Invoking the Insurrection Act and using the military for law enforcement activities goes against some of the central tenets of our democracy. One can easily envision governors and mayors in charge of an emergency having to constantly look over their shoulders while someone who has never visited their communities gives the orders."

A few weeks later, on the 29th of September, Leahy entered into the Congressional Record that he had "grave reservations about certain provisions of the fiscal Year 2007 Defense Authorization Bill Conference Report," the language of which, he said, "subverts solid, longstanding posse comitatus statutes that limit the military's involvement in law enforcement, thereby making it easier for the President to declare martial law." This had been "slipped in," Leahy said, "as a rider with little study," while "other congressional committees with jurisdiction over these matters had no chance to comment, let alone hold hearings on, these proposals."

In a telling bit of understatement, the Senator from Vermont noted that "the implications of changing the (Posse Comitatus) Act are enormous". "There is good reason," he said, "for the constructive friction in existing law when it comes to martial law declarations. Using the military for law enforcement goes against one of the founding tenets of our democracy. We fail our Constitution, neglecting the rights of the States, when we make it easier for the President to declare martial law and trample on local and state sovereignty."

Senator Leahy's final ruminations: "Since hearing word a couple of weeks ago that this outcome was likely, I have wondered how Congress could have gotten to this point. It seems the changes to the Insurrection Act have survived the Conference because the Pentagon and the White House want it."
( Last edited by Dork.; Oct 28, 2006 at 11:26 PM. )
     
vmarks
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Up In The Air
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 28, 2006, 11:26 PM
 
So here's my opinion: It appears as if Congress and the President have chosen to fix some of the problems that were so apparent in responding to Hurricane Katrina:

The Mayor of New Orleans and Governor of Louisiana were slow to respond to call on the President to dispatch the Guard- so this bill allows that if the state authorities are incapable, the President can inform Congress and employ them himself.
     
Dork.
Professional Poster
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Rochester, NY
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 28, 2006, 11:41 PM
 
Another slashdude offers an opinion that I haven't heard yet about Katrina here:

Bush Signs Bill Enabling Martial Law

Basically, he asserts that the LA Governor made arrangements ahead of the storm with the NM Governor to get help from the NM National Guard. But all inter-state Guard encursions need the Presidents' approval, and he did not approve for a week, instead trying to strong-arm the two (Democrat) governors to federalize both groups of National Guard troops, taking control of them away from the governors....
     
vmarks
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Up In The Air
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 28, 2006, 11:47 PM
 
http://www.governor.state.nm.us/orde...O_2005_044.pdf

The slashdot poster is mistaken or willfully misleading us.

Katrina hit on Aug 29. The Governor of NM authorized the funding for the NM Guard response on Sept. 4th.
     
Chuckit
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 29, 2006, 02:23 AM
 
So, if Bush fails to act strongly in the case of a national disaster, it's an incompetent nincompoop. If he takes steps to make sure he's ready the next time, he's a power-hungry dictator.

Sometimes I feel sorry for the guy.
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
     
analogika
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: 888500128
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 29, 2006, 03:50 AM
 
The question is what cost these steps come at.

Making it easy to declare martial law is unleashing a very, very dangerous power upon future generations.
     
vmarks
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Up In The Air
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 29, 2006, 09:36 AM
 
This bill simply provides for the funding of the National Guard in emergencies and permits the President to inform Congress and then issue them if it is determined that the states cannot do so.

The President still has to inform Congress of his intention, and every 14 days after having done so.

It doesn't remove authority from the state and local police agencies, it places the Guard in a support role to the local law enforcement.

The law requires the President and the Guard to restore civil order and authority as soon as possible.

Now, if the local law enforcement has broken down as to be unable to respond in the crisis and the Guard is invoked, then yes, this is martial law, but martial law should not be confused with "Military Justice." The notion is to restore the courts and local law enforcement as soon as is practicable.

Further, the US Supreme Court ruled in Milligan that "If, in foreign invasion or civil war, the courts are actually closed, and it is impossible to administer criminal justice according to law, then, on the theatre of active military operations, where war really prevails, there is a necessity to furnish a substitute for the civil authority, thus overthrown, to preserve the safety of the army and society; and as no power is left but the military, it is allowed to govern by martial rule until the laws can have their free course. As necessity creates the rule, so it limits its duration; for, if this government is continued after the courts are reinstated, it is a gross usurpation of power. Martial rule can never exist where the courts are open, and in the proper and unobstructed exercise of their jurisdiction. It is also confined to the locality of actual war."

This law complies with that ruling.

There's nothing really objectionable here, and I think we can tell that empirically- Congressmen made no noise about this until after it was done, and instead focused on the distraction, that aberrant Mark Foley.
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 29, 2006, 10:18 AM
 
Nice job addressing the ins and outs of the issue vmarks!

I understand the concerns of analogika and others regarding the drafting of laws that could be construed as infringing upon basic constitutional tenets, but this is what many cried out for after Katrina. Many wanted heads to roll. This is what we cried out for after 9/11. In much the same way, provisions of The Patriot Act sought to tighten gaps in communication between local and federal investigations made apparent after the tragedy. This "tightening" was construed as Big Brother and all sensible conversations around it ceased to exist. Until we start viewing these issues as neither right or left-wing, we'll probably never be able to truly wrap our minds around it. As Chuckit said in a nutshell; damned if you do, damned if you don't.

We either live in a nerf-world where everything is cushy and safe or we rigidly default to personal freedoms and find ourselves whining because we can't take a bottle of shampoo on a flight.

This is a call to end partisanship! Starting November 8th.
ebuddy
     
Chuckit
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 29, 2006, 12:39 PM
 
Originally Posted by analogika View Post
The question is what cost these steps come at.

Making it easy to declare martial law is unleashing a very, very dangerous power upon future generations.
This doesn't say anything about martial law as far as I can tell. The president is permitted to command the National Guard in an emergency, but aside from that, I don't see it suspending any normal laws or rights.
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
     
vmarks
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Up In The Air
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 29, 2006, 01:06 PM
 
Martial law can be defined as placing the military in power of law enforcement OR judicial action, although the martial law in the US has always permitted appealing a case to a civil court.

Technically, because the bill provides for the use of the Guard in an emergency where civil law enforcement is not up to the task, it is martial law in the barest sense of the words.

I believe that the checks on Presidential power are that the President has to report to Congress when he makes this decision, and report back every 14 days that it remains in use.
     
King Bob On The Cob
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Illinois
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 31, 2006, 03:07 PM
 
Originally Posted by vmarks View Post
Martial law can be defined as placing the military in power of law enforcement OR judicial action, although the martial law in the US has always permitted appealing a case to a civil court.

Technically, because the bill provides for the use of the Guard in an emergency where civil law enforcement is not up to the task, it is martial law in the barest sense of the words.

I believe that the checks on Presidential power are that the President has to report to Congress when he makes this decision, and report back every 14 days that it remains in use.
I donno, according to the built in OS X dictionary, Martial Law is military government involving the suspension of ordinary law.

This doesn't seem to be a military government, nor is the ordinary law not in place. Just replacing local and state level cops with national level cops. The courts are still there, and if you break the law you're going to be arrested.
     
   
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:29 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,