All your State Defenses are belong to Dear Leader. - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Superbelt · 11-03-2006, 10:10 AM

As a reaction to Katrina, the House passed a 'National Defense Authorization Act' back in August that removes the necessity of consent from state Governors for federalization of the National Guard.

It's a HORRIBLE idea. One that leaves you with no option but to assume our legislators failed every civics class they ever took. There is a very legitimate reason why the National Guards are left to the state. They are the 'Well Regulated Militia' as referred to in the Constitution. The Federal Government is explicitly barred from using the military as a police force on US soil. This act turns the Guard into another division of the Army Reserve.

The National Guard is there as a tool to protect states from unreasonable power rising in the federal government. It's been like that since the Militia Act of 1903 where all State Militia's were organized into state run National Guard units.

This bill was largely backed by the Republicans. How do so many congresspeople vote to push this through? They are supposed to be in touch and directly responsible to their conservative bases. What happened to less-government, States Rights conservatives? All we seem to have are Federalist authoritarians.

Anyway, This act 'passed' the Senate on October 17, same day as the Military Commissions Act. linky dinky

Quote:

Bush Prepares To Impose Martial Law
posted November 2, 2006

The Republican re-writing of the Insurrection Act gives Bush the authority to declare martial law. For the first time since 1878, the president has the power to deploy troops within the United States. Bush and future presidents now have a power that, in other countries, is reserved to the dictator.

Despite the unprecedented and shocking nature of this new law, there has been no outcry in the American media and little reaction from our elected officials in Congress.

The Insurrection Act (10 U.S.C.331 -335) had historically, along with the Posse Comitatus Act (18 U.S.C.1385), prohibited military involvement in domestic law enforcement.

Now, Public Law 109-364, or the "John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007" (H.R.5122) allows the President to declare a "public emergency," station troops anywhere in America and take control of state-based National Guard units without the consent of the governor.

The law states that "the President may employ the armed forces, including the National Guard in Federal service when he determines that the authorities of the State "refuse" or "fail" in maintaining public order, "in order to suppress, in any State, any domestic violence or conspiracy."

This means the president can take guardsmen from any state, over the objections of local governmental entities; ship them off to another state; conscript them in a law enforcement mode; and set them loose against "disorderly" citizenry - protesters, possibly.

This de-facto repeal of the Posse Comitatus Act is an ominous assault on American democratic tradition and jurisprudence. The 1878 Act, which reads, "Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or 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," is the only U.S. criminal statute that outlaws military operations directed against the American people under the cover of 'law enforcement.' As such, it has been the best protection we've had against the power-hungry intentions of an unscrupulous and reckless executive, an executive intent on using force to enforce its will.

Only Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont) noted: "We do not need to make it easier for Presidents to declare martial law. The implications are enormous. 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."

The balance of power between our 3 branches of government continues to tilt toward the unitary executive. It’s sad that most people don’t realize our democracy is rapidly slipping away.

Our weasley senate passed it by unanimous consent. No voting record for voting us into this slip into facism.

The whole idea of 'Unitary Executive' is Facism lite, IMO. It's an attempt to put a cuddly idea around the word 'DICTATOR'.

It's fucked up. How do our state congressmen vote for something asinine like this. They represent their STATE. Why cede power? What the fuck is wrong with us? Do we really want to be more like Most Favored Trading Partner, China?

We need to clean sweep the shit out of this Legislature. And I hope if he ever tries to use this new power, us Pennsyltuckyans give Dear Leader-in-Chief the ol' F off.

_________________
We vote this tuesday. Unless your representatives names are:
AZ-7 Grijalva, Raul [D]
CA-6 Woolsey, Lynn [D]
CA-7 Miller, George [D]
CA-9 Lee, Barbara [D]
CA-13 Stark, Fortney [D]
CA-15 Honda, Michael [D]
CA-23 Capps, Lois [D]
CA-35 Waters, Maxine [D]
GA-4 McKinney, Cynthia [D] (though moot.)
GA-5 Lewis, John [D]
IL-2 Jackson, Jesse [D]
IL-9 Schakowsky, Janice [D]
MA-1 Olver, John [D]
MA-4 Frank, Barney [D]
MA-6 Tierney, John [D]
MA-7 Markey, Edward [D]
MA-8 Capuano, Michael [D]
MI-13 Kilpatrick, Carolyn [D]
MI-14 Conyers, John [D]
NJ-10 Payne, Donald [D]
NJ-12 Holt, Rush [D]
NY-11 Owens, Major [D]
NY-12 Velazquez, Nydia [D]
NY-16 Serrano, José [D]
NC-12 Watt, Melvin [D]
OH-10 Kucinich, Dennis [D]
TX-14 Paul, Ronald [R]
WA-1 Inslee, Jay [D]
WA-7 McDermott, James [D]
WI-2 Baldwin, Tammy [D]
WI-4 Moore, Gwen [D]

...Vote for somebody else. Do it if you care about not taking more steps towards facism.
I'm now voting against my Dem Congressman, Tim Holden because of this.

Only one Republican Congressman exists with both a backbone and a brain. Rep. Ronald Paul from Texas' 'Fightin' 14th.

NCB · 11-03-2006, 10:16 AM

Can you please cite the source of the article that headlines:Bush Prepares To Impose Martial Law. Thanks

Superbelt · 11-03-2006, 10:28 AM

It's the 'linky dinky' right above the quote. It's the Chattanoogan.
And if you doubt it's facts, you can go to the link headlining the list of real congressmen to read the text of the actual bill.

This act allows the President to take troops from one state and use them in another.

Exactly what happened in the Tianamen Square Massacre in China. The Government brought in troops from a different province because they wouldn't feel as much compassion to the people.

This act gives the President the authority to 'issue a proclamation ordering insurgents to disperse and retire peaceably to their abodes within a limited time.'

i.e. if a bunch of protesters get rowdy in Oregon for the next WTO protest, the President could INVADE Oregon with troops from Wyoming to regain 'order'.
That is such an amazing erosion of what this Republic of States was set up to be.

Ustwo · 11-03-2006, 10:34 AM

Sweeeeet.

Now if you ask nicely I might start to put SOME of you on the list of the spared.

host · 11-03-2006, 10:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Sweeeeet.

Now if you ask nicely I might start to put SOME of you on the list of the spared.

Chances are....you voted for a congressman and senators who voted for this, and for the president who signs it "into law"?

Because of this, your post seems incoherent!

Please explain......

ratbastid · 11-03-2006, 10:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Sweeeeet.

Now if you ask nicely I might start to put SOME of you on the list of the spared.

I know you're joking, Ustwo, but this still points to the short-sightedness of this sort of thing. See, in two years you'll have to be asking nicely. Unless George decrees himself "President for Life" in a signing statement before Tuesday, of course...

dc_dux · 11-03-2006, 11:17 AM

I agree with the concerns raised about providing excessive power to this or any future president when it comes to deploying active military and/or state-based National Guard within the US, but it does have potential merit, if properly checked by Congress and the affected state(s), in situations like Hurricane Katrina when the Louisana governor fucked up and was slow to respond (not that the Fed response was much better in this case).

Quote:

(Sec. 1042) Revises federal provisions allowing the President to utilize the Armed Forces in connection with interference with federal and state law to allow the President to employ the Armed Forces and National Guard in federal service to restore public order in cases of natural disaster, epidemic or other public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident, or domestic violence. Requires the President to notify Congress within 14 days of the exercise of such authority. Authorizes the President, when exercising such authority, to direct the Secretary to provide supplies, services, and equipment to persons affected by the situation.

I would have preferred "approval by vote of Congress within 48 hours" (and approval of the Governor of the affected state) rather than "notifying" Congress within 14 days.

But I dont fear a Tianamen Square type reaction happening on the National Mall in DC.

dksuddeth · 11-03-2006, 11:54 AM

does this negate the 'well-regulated militia' crappy assed argument that the anti-gunners claim the second amendment means the state can maintain it's own armed forces?

Ustwo · 11-03-2006, 12:14 PM

Lets translate the outrage.

State has a horrible response to Katrina.....

OMG Bush suxors, the government should have acted faster!

Republicans put a bill in place would have allowed them to bypass the horrible state response.....

OMG Bush is going to be dictator, he suxors!

Can't have it both ways.

Superbelt · 11-03-2006, 12:25 PM

Katrina was a failure all over.
Just because an executive COULD do a better job with the NG than the Governor, doesn't mean it should be done.

Go by that line, we could prevent any more airline hijackings by locking everyone in their own individual cages.

This isn't just about Bush. He'll be puttering away on his toy ranch full time soon enough. This about every President who will come after him who no longer have to abide by posse comitatus.

Willravel · 11-03-2006, 12:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Lets translate the outrage.

State has a horrible response to Katrina.....

OMG Bush suxors, the government should have acted faster!

Republicans put a bill in place would have allowed them to bypass the horrible state response.....

OMG Bush is going to be dictator, he suxors!

Can't have it both ways.

The governors of the other 49 states had nothing to do with Katrina...also if the federal government had to transfer power to the state every time it screwed up, Texas would be at war with Iraq, and there would be no federal government.

Ustwo · 11-03-2006, 12:37 PM

I suppose why I'm not to worried either way is that when the Federal government is TRUELY out to get us, the law is only so many words on paper. In the past in times of crisis, this has resulted in loss of rights for millions of citizens, and real loss, not the hypothetical crap I hear about the patriot act. Do any of you really think that this is the magic thing needed to take over the government by force?

NCB · 11-03-2006, 12:47 PM

While I dont see the black helicopters that SB apparently sees, the idea that the federal govt can take NC troops and put them in CA is a bit too centralized for my taste. That said, I dont see a big deal about this and I certainly dont see Bush declaring himself emperor for life.

Jinn · 11-03-2006, 12:52 PM

Is your entire idealogy focused on thinking for the next ten minutes? If you extended ANY beyond that, you'd see that setting precedents like this is a bad thing.

Yakk · 11-03-2006, 01:17 PM

The constitution and the laws are only words on paper.

They are only a line in the sand.

But you need lines in the sand. While lines in the sand get in the way when you are trying to do something, if you remove them all, there won't be any lines to protect you when the devil turns around.

...

Let's suppose we erase all of the laws that constrain the government. Not just some of them, all of them -- we remove any and all laws that restrict what the government can do.

Under Ustwo's belief system, this isn't a problem. Because if the government isn't out to get you, it won't do anything bad. And if the government is out to get you, it can ignore the laws that exist.

Anyone see a problem with this argument?

The lines in the sand -- the laws that restrict what the government can and cannot do -- they tell us when the government is doing something bad. Before you can send troops in to burn Chicago, you need to convince the troops that burning Chicago is something you can tell them to do. Restrictions, like "you can't use the military as police", "the national guard of each state belongs to the state in question" -- they are lines in the sand that keep corruption away from power.

This law states the federal government is right to use military force to engage in police action. That the states have no control over their national guards, they are tools of the federal government.

These are checks and balances. Before this law existed, if the federal government asked for national guard troops, the govornor and the troops could say "no", and feel they where in the right. Now, if the feds ask for troops, and the govornor says "no", the troops will feel that the federal government is in the right.

Of course, if it is your policy that "I will do whatever the government says I should do", you probably won't be bothered by this.

Ustwo · 11-03-2006, 01:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JinnKai

Is your entire idealogy focused on thinking for the next ten minutes? If you extended ANY beyond that, you'd see that setting precedents like this is a bad thing.

Thanks for this history lesson, where would we be without your extended thinking? History is what teaches me, this is not the issue, the issue is who is in charge. No law has ever stopped a dictator that I'm aware of.

ratbastid · 11-03-2006, 01:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Thanks for this history lesson, where would we be without your extended thinking? History is what teaches me, this is not the issue, the issue is who is in charge. No law has ever stopped a dictator that I'm aware of.

The M.O. of your average dictator is to change the laws, or allow for them to be reinterpreted or perverted. The concern here is that what we're seeing is the beginning of that.

Ustwo · 11-03-2006, 01:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yakk

This law states the federal government is right to use military force to engage in police action. That the states have no control over their national guards, they are tools of the federal government.

These are checks and balances. Before this law existed, if the federal government asked for national guard troops, the govornor and the troops could say "no", and feel they where in the right. Now, if the feds ask for troops, and the govornor says "no", the troops will feel that the federal government is in the right.

Of course, if it is your policy that "I will do whatever the government says I should do", you probably won't be bothered by this.

So where is the 'you' in there? What I see is one government agency over another government agency but the citizen has no power in there.

Now what no one asked is if I think this is needed, and I say no, not really, but its not the world comming to and end either way, the sky isn't falling.

I sometimes have to wonder is anything not a horrible disaster filled with dire consequences to the liberal mind. Its the chicken little party these days. Iraq is in civil war, and we can't win, global warming will kill us all, Bush is out to be dictator for life, vast conspiracy there, vast conspiracy here. Jebus H Christ, relax a bit.

roachboy · 11-03-2006, 01:36 PM

it seems to me that you can find this goofball law problematic without having to find oneself in the junior high school debate team-style rhetorical pit that ustwo seems to confuse with an interesting counter-argument. the problem with this law is that it exists. it should be repealed and the sooner the better. folk imagine that cowboy george would use it. maybe he would. the notion of a far-right dictatorship seems plausible to some and not others--but that is not the debate, really, is it? the debate is about the law--to derail it onto speculation about what cowboy george might or might not do with it is secondary. tho it wont be if he acts on its basis. but that is equally true of any president that would act on its basis.

one of the few things that the united states has managed that is definitely a good thing is that it has maintained a separation between police and military functions.

of course the national guard was kind of a constant potential exception.
when i was a kid i thought the armories and playing soldier were kinda cool, protecting "us" from some enemy. later, i realized that i was that enemy (as somone who might participate in left politics, which is by definition "civil unrest" in reactionaryland), and so the national guard did not seem so cool any more.

but since the reagan period, they have been used in military operations, in order to circumvent laws restricting the use of the real military (go conservatives!) and now that use has been routinized and so by doing that the national guard was shifted pretty definitely into the purview of the military. i dont know what status they have legally, though.

and even before reagan, i am not entirely sure what they were. cops that dressed like soldiers? soldiers that did cop things?

anyway, the military did not perform police functions, did not suppress protest etc., and that seems to me a very good thing indeed.

i sometimes wonder if the bush people are preparing for some massive breakdown in civil order in the states. i ask myself what they are afraid of and why they seem to be preparing for it.
but i dont know the answers to that, so i wonder some more.

Superbelt · 11-03-2006, 01:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ratbastid

The M.O. of your average dictator is to change the laws, or allow for them to be reinterpreted or perverted. The concern here is that what we're seeing is the beginning of that.

see: Putin, Vladimir

Willravel · 11-03-2006, 01:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Thanks for this history lesson, where would we be without your extended thinking? History is what teaches me, this is not the issue, the issue is who is in charge. No law has ever stopped a dictator that I'm aware of.

Only potential dictators...that's why you've not heard of them.

Deltona Couple · 11-03-2006, 01:43 PM

Am I the only one looking at what MIGHT be the idea behind this? I mean when I read the article, what I saw was this idea:

Another Hurricane hits Louisiana, Wipes out most of the roads and ways of transporting goods and services in, parts of the Louisiana National Guard are themselves in flooded, damaged areas....
Under the OLD rules, Louisiana couldn't ask the Texas NG to help, or the Mississippi NG to help, because by law, they can't cross state lines.
NOW if there is the same situation, other states NG units CAN be ordered to go in and provide assistance. Personally I think I would appreciate the help!

NCB · 11-03-2006, 01:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deltona Couple

Am I the only one looking at what MIGHT be the idea behind this? I mean when I read the article, what I saw was this idea:

Another Hurricane hits Louisiana, Wipes out most of the roads and ways of transporting goods and services in, parts of the Louisiana National Guard are themselves in flooded, damaged areas....
Under the OLD rules, Louisiana couldn't ask the Texas NG to help, or the Mississippi NG to help, because by law, they can't cross state lines.
NOW if there is the same situation, other states NG units CAN be ordered to go in and provide assistance. Personally I think I would appreciate the help!

No, I think youre right and thats the idea behind it. However, in a political climate with eroding individual states rights, this rewrite can be seen as another blow

Willravel · 11-03-2006, 01:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deltona Couple

Am I the only one looking at what MIGHT be the idea behind this? I mean when I read the article, what I saw was this idea:

Another Hurricane hits Louisiana, Wipes out most of the roads and ways of transporting goods and services in, parts of the Louisiana National Guard are themselves in flooded, damaged areas....
Under the OLD rules, Louisiana couldn't ask the Texas NG to help, or the Mississippi NG to help, because by law, they can't cross state lines.
NOW if there is the same situation, other states NG units CAN be ordered to go in and provide assistance. Personally I think I would appreciate the help!

What about simply training the NG better? That wouldn't lead us towards MORE centralization.

I'm sure that the LA NG isn't going to be caught off guard (heheh) again with flooding, as they know what to expect and have had time to repair and rethink.

Seaver · 11-03-2006, 01:58 PM

I think this was an attempt to prevent another Katrina disaster, or at least limit the cluster-fuck which was the reactions behind it.

However, it is a horrible idea which opens a dangerous door.

Ustwo · 11-03-2006, 02:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

What about simply training the NG better? That wouldn't lead us towards MORE centralization.

I'm sure that the LA NG isn't going to be caught off guard (heheh) again with flooding, as they know what to expect and have had time to repair and rethink.

Yea cause no one makes the same mistake twice

dksuddeth · 11-03-2006, 02:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

What about simply training the NG better? That wouldn't lead us towards MORE centralization.

I'm sure that the LA NG isn't going to be caught off guard (heheh) again with flooding, as they know what to expect and have had time to repair and rethink.

of course we could always try something like teaching the people how to better prepare and take care of themselves instead of requiring the government to be our nanny.

Seaver · 11-03-2006, 02:08 PM

Of course we could not build coastal cities under sea level...

samcol · 11-03-2006, 02:13 PM

Man, I hope people figure out what is going on real fast. Haliburton has built the camps, our federal government has removed habeas corpus, and now the president can use the national guard however he sees fit. We are one "terrorist attack" away from total martial law.

The whole problem lies in how many troops actually follow orders if this does happen. Unfortunetly the military was going door to door confiscating guns during Katrina, so I think it's questionable.

Here's the people who are supposed to serve and protect, terrorizing citizens (youtube videos):

Gun confiscation in Katriana 1
Gun confiscation in Katriana 2

I agree, with the original post, don't vote for ANYONE who voted for this act.

ratbastid · 11-03-2006, 02:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Now what no one asked is if I think this is needed, and I say no, not really, but its not the world comming to and end either way, the sky isn't falling.

I don't get it, Ustwo. How can you say this and then claim with a straight face to be Libertarian. Isn't this a classic federal power grab? Isn't this exactly the sort of thing that Libertarians have fits over?

These aren't rhetorical questions; I'm actually asking.

roachboy · 11-03-2006, 03:27 PM

there doesnt seem to be much of a contradiction between espousing libertarian positions like "i dont like taxes" and endorsing extensions of the state's monopoly on "legitimate violence" in ustwo's posts that i remember.
not speaking for what the guy behind ustwo actually thinks, just saying the impression the posts generate.

i suspect this is one dividing line between the libertarian-lite wing of the republican party and the others, more like dk, who while might i disagree with him, is consistent in his arguments.

the problem with his post above is that a natural disaster is the kind of thing that even john locke thought would require governmental action--in locke, this is why governments were formed at all.

heroic atomized individuals cannot manage every eventuality.

the language of this law goes WAY beyond its rationale, btw.

Elphaba · 11-03-2006, 03:28 PM

Quote:

i sometimes wonder if the bush people are preparing for some massive breakdown in civil order in the states. i ask myself what they are afraid of and why they seem to be preparing for it.
but i dont know the answers to that, so i wonder some more.

This administration has raised several trial balloons concerning military control within the country. The first that I recall was Bush's idea that the military (Pentagon) would be in charge during a flu pandemic. The American military pointing guns at American citizens was not warmly received. The President's *need* to protect American citizens during a National emergency has been bubbling in the background ever since 9/11, and this bill to assume control of the National Guard was likely sold as a lesson learned by Katrina.

I think there is much more to it than that. The detention centers being built by Halliburton are for who, exactly? Suspending elections during the time of a National emergency is needed, for what reason? If we didn't need to suspend elections during the Civil War, what need could there possibly be now?

Suspicion regarding a possible hidden agenda of this administration is quite reasonable given the six years of bs we have been spoon fed. Sadly, about 23% of the citizenry continue to ask for "more, sir."

Superbelt · 11-03-2006, 03:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deltona Couple

Am I the only one looking at what MIGHT be the idea behind this? I mean when I read the article, what I saw was this idea:

Another Hurricane hits Louisiana, Wipes out most of the roads and ways of transporting goods and services in, parts of the Louisiana National Guard are themselves in flooded, damaged areas....
Under the OLD rules, Louisiana couldn't ask the Texas NG to help, or the Mississippi NG to help, because by law, they can't cross state lines.
NOW if there is the same situation, other states NG units CAN be ordered to go in and provide assistance. Personally I think I would appreciate the help!

Wrong. Other state NG's can go into the state. They need approval by the state Governor, but they CAN enter the state in a disaster.

President Johnson was hours away from mobilizing another states NG to protect black students back in the day before Governor Wallace relented and gave temporary control of the Alabama NG to the President. Done so because he didn't want another state's NG on his turf. A pride thing.

We HAD a good system as it was. If the President needs control a State's NG, he can get it as long as the Governor is ok with it.

Now, the President can blow off the Governor.

Elphaba · 11-03-2006, 04:00 PM

One of the most effective units during Katrinia was Alaska's Coast Guard. Nothing prevents a guard unit to support another state, but the state's governor makes that decision, not the President. Until now.

seretogis · 11-04-2006, 07:24 AM

I'm disgusted that anyone is defending this as anything but a move towards fascism. Also, nice attempt to discredit the second amendment, SB. I hope others who are putting forward the valid "..it's what dictators do.." argument in this case realize that it also applies to disarmament of the general populace -- just ask Nazi Germany.

Superbelt · 11-04-2006, 12:46 PM

Attempt to discredit the second amendment?
Huh? What exactly did I type in this thread that leaves you with that conclusion?
I own several guns myself, including handguns. I'm not an anti-gun nut.

11-03-2006, 10:34 AM	#4 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	Sweeeeet. Now if you ask nicely I might start to put SOME of you on the list of the spared. __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

11-03-2006, 11:54 AM	#8 (permalink)
dksuddeth Junkie Location: bedford, tx	does this negate the 'well-regulated militia' crappy assed argument that the anti-gunners claim the second amendment means the state can maintain it's own armed forces? __________________ "no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

11-03-2006, 12:14 PM	#9 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	Lets translate the outrage. State has a horrible response to Katrina..... OMG Bush suxors, the government should have acted faster! Republicans put a bill in place would have allowed them to bypass the horrible state response..... OMG Bush is going to be dictator, he suxors! Can't have it both ways. __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

11-03-2006, 12:37 PM	#12 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	I suppose why I'm not to worried either way is that when the Federal government is TRUELY out to get us, the law is only so many words on paper. In the past in times of crisis, this has resulted in loss of rights for millions of citizens, and real loss, not the hypothetical crap I hear about the patriot act. Do any of you really think that this is the magic thing needed to take over the government by force? __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

11-03-2006, 12:52 PM	#14 (permalink)
Jinn Lover - Protector - Teacher Location: Seattle, WA	Is your entire idealogy focused on thinking for the next ten minutes? If you extended ANY beyond that, you'd see that setting precedents like this is a bad thing. __________________ "I'm typing on a computer of science, which is being sent by science wires to a little science server where you can access it. I'm not typing on a computer of philosophy or religion or whatever other thing you think can be used to understand the universe because they're a poor substitute in the role of understanding the universe which exists independent from ourselves." - Willravel

11-03-2006, 10:28 AM	#3 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	It's the 'linky dinky' right above the quote. It's the Chattanoogan. And if you doubt it's facts, you can go to the link headlining the list of real congressmen to read the text of the actual bill. This act allows the President to take troops from one state and use them in another. Exactly what happened in the Tianamen Square Massacre in China. The Government brought in troops from a different province because they wouldn't feel as much compassion to the people. This act gives the President the authority to 'issue a proclamation ordering insurgents to disperse and retire peaceably to their abodes within a limited time.' i.e. if a bunch of protesters get rowdy in Oregon for the next WTO protest, the President could INVADE Oregon with troops from Wyoming to regain 'order'. That is such an amazing erosion of what this Republic of States was set up to be.

11-03-2006, 12:25 PM	#10 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	Katrina was a failure all over. Just because an executive COULD do a better job with the NG than the Governor, doesn't mean it should be done. Go by that line, we could prevent any more airline hijackings by locking everyone in their own individual cages. This isn't just about Bush. He'll be puttering away on his toy ranch full time soon enough. This about every President who will come after him who no longer have to abide by posse comitatus.

11-03-2006, 01:17 PM	#15 (permalink)
Yakk Wehret Den Anfängen! Location: Ontario, Canada	The constitution and the laws are only words on paper. They are only a line in the sand. But you need lines in the sand. While lines in the sand get in the way when you are trying to do something, if you remove them all, there won't be any lines to protect you when the devil turns around. ... Let's suppose we erase all of the laws that constrain the government. Not just some of them, all of them -- we remove any and all laws that restrict what the government can do. Under Ustwo's belief system, this isn't a problem. Because if the government isn't out to get you, it won't do anything bad. And if the government is out to get you, it can ignore the laws that exist. Anyone see a problem with this argument? The lines in the sand -- the laws that restrict what the government can and cannot do -- they tell us when the government is doing something bad. Before you can send troops in to burn Chicago, you need to convince the troops that burning Chicago is something you can tell them to do. Restrictions, like "you can't use the military as police", "the national guard of each state belongs to the state in question" -- they are lines in the sand that keep corruption away from power. This law states the federal government is right to use military force to engage in police action. That the states have no control over their national guards, they are tools of the federal government. These are checks and balances. Before this law existed, if the federal government asked for national guard troops, the govornor and the troops could say "no", and feel they where in the right. Now, if the feds ask for troops, and the govornor says "no", the troops will feel that the federal government is in the right. Of course, if it is your policy that "I will do whatever the government says I should do", you probably won't be bothered by this. __________________ Last edited by JHVH : 10-29-4004 BC at 09:00 PM. Reason: Time for a rest.

11-03-2006, 01:36 PM	#19 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	it seems to me that you can find this goofball law problematic without having to find oneself in the junior high school debate team-style rhetorical pit that ustwo seems to confuse with an interesting counter-argument. the problem with this law is that it exists. it should be repealed and the sooner the better. folk imagine that cowboy george would use it. maybe he would. the notion of a far-right dictatorship seems plausible to some and not others--but that is not the debate, really, is it? the debate is about the law--to derail it onto speculation about what cowboy george might or might not do with it is secondary. tho it wont be if he acts on its basis. but that is equally true of any president that would act on its basis. one of the few things that the united states has managed that is definitely a good thing is that it has maintained a separation between police and military functions. of course the national guard was kind of a constant potential exception. when i was a kid i thought the armories and playing soldier were kinda cool, protecting "us" from some enemy. later, i realized that i was that enemy (as somone who might participate in left politics, which is by definition "civil unrest" in reactionaryland), and so the national guard did not seem so cool any more. but since the reagan period, they have been used in military operations, in order to circumvent laws restricting the use of the real military (go conservatives!) and now that use has been routinized and so by doing that the national guard was shifted pretty definitely into the purview of the military. i dont know what status they have legally, though. and even before reagan, i am not entirely sure what they were. cops that dressed like soldiers? soldiers that did cop things? anyway, the military did not perform police functions, did not suppress protest etc., and that seems to me a very good thing indeed. i sometimes wonder if the bush people are preparing for some massive breakdown in civil order in the states. i ask myself what they are afraid of and why they seem to be preparing for it. but i dont know the answers to that, so i wonder some more. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

11-03-2006, 01:43 PM	#22 (permalink)
Deltona Couple Addict Location: Spring, Texas	Am I the only one looking at what MIGHT be the idea behind this? I mean when I read the article, what I saw was this idea: Another Hurricane hits Louisiana, Wipes out most of the roads and ways of transporting goods and services in, parts of the Louisiana National Guard are themselves in flooded, damaged areas.... Under the OLD rules, Louisiana couldn't ask the Texas NG to help, or the Mississippi NG to help, because by law, they can't cross state lines. NOW if there is the same situation, other states NG units CAN be ordered to go in and provide assistance. Personally I think I would appreciate the help! __________________ "It is not that I have failed, but that I have found 10,000 ways that it DOESN'T work!" --Thomas Edison

11-03-2006, 01:58 PM	#25 (permalink)
Seaver Junkie Location: Fort Worth, TX	I think this was an attempt to prevent another Katrina disaster, or at least limit the cluster-fuck which was the reactions behind it. However, it is a horrible idea which opens a dangerous door. __________________ "Smite the rocks with the rod of knowledge, and fountains of unstinted wealth will gush forth." - Ashbel Smith as he laid the first cornerstone of the University of Texas

11-03-2006, 02:08 PM	#28 (permalink)
Seaver Junkie Location: Fort Worth, TX	Of course we could not build coastal cities under sea level... __________________ "Smite the rocks with the rod of knowledge, and fountains of unstinted wealth will gush forth." - Ashbel Smith as he laid the first cornerstone of the University of Texas

11-03-2006, 02:13 PM	#29 (permalink)
samcol Junkie Location: Indiana	Man, I hope people figure out what is going on real fast. Haliburton has built the camps, our federal government has removed habeas corpus, and now the president can use the national guard however he sees fit. We are one "terrorist attack" away from total martial law. The whole problem lies in how many troops actually follow orders if this does happen. Unfortunetly the military was going door to door confiscating guns during Katrina, so I think it's questionable. Here's the people who are supposed to serve and protect, terrorizing citizens (youtube videos): Gun confiscation in Katriana 1 Gun confiscation in Katriana 2 I agree, with the original post, don't vote for ANYONE who voted for this act.

11-03-2006, 03:27 PM	#31 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	there doesnt seem to be much of a contradiction between espousing libertarian positions like "i dont like taxes" and endorsing extensions of the state's monopoly on "legitimate violence" in ustwo's posts that i remember. not speaking for what the guy behind ustwo actually thinks, just saying the impression the posts generate. i suspect this is one dividing line between the libertarian-lite wing of the republican party and the others, more like dk, who while might i disagree with him, is consistent in his arguments. the problem with his post above is that a natural disaster is the kind of thing that even john locke thought would require governmental action--in locke, this is why governments were formed at all. heroic atomized individuals cannot manage every eventuality. the language of this law goes WAY beyond its rationale, btw. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

11-03-2006, 04:00 PM	#34 (permalink)
Elphaba Deja Moo Location: Olympic Peninsula, WA	One of the most effective units during Katrinia was Alaska's Coast Guard. Nothing prevents a guard unit to support another state, but the state's governor makes that decision, not the President. Until now.

11-04-2006, 07:24 AM	#35 (permalink)
seretogis Huggles, sir? Location: Seattle	I'm disgusted that anyone is defending this as anything but a move towards fascism. Also, nice attempt to discredit the second amendment, SB. I hope others who are putting forward the valid "..it's what dictators do.." argument in this case realize that it also applies to disarmament of the general populace -- just ask Nazi Germany. __________________ seretogis - sieg heil perfect little dream the kind that hurts the most, forgot how it feels well almost no one to blame always the same, open my eyes wake up in flames

11-04-2006, 12:46 PM	#36 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	Attempt to discredit the second amendment? Huh? What exactly did I type in this thread that leaves you with that conclusion? I own several guns myself, including handguns. I'm not an anti-gun nut.