Did the b*s* admin secretly rewrite the Insurrection Act?

[Zhade]

Now, I make absolutely no claims about the veracity of this source (don't know anything about it) or the allegations, but a good lefty friend of mine sent me the link, and the extensive use of Leahy's quotes and linkage to Congressional source documents make me curious if there's anything to this:

http://www.uruknet.biz/?p=m27769&hd=0&size=1&l=e

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

Public Law 109-364, or the "John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007" (H.R.5122) (2), which was signed by the commander in chief on October 17th, 2006, in a private Oval Office ceremony, allows the President to declare a "public emergency" and station troops anywhere in America and take control of state-based National Guard units without the consent of the governor or local authorities, in order to "suppress public disorder."

President Bush seized this unprecedented power on the very same day that he signed the equally odious Military Commissions Act of 2006. In a sense, the two laws complement one another. One allows for torture and detention abroad, while the other seeks to enforce acquiescence at home, preparing to order the military onto the streets of America. Remember, the term for putting an area under military law enforcement control is precise; the term is "martial law."

Again - no idea if this is legit. Hope like crazy it's nonsense. Anyone hear about this?

[jus_the_facts]

1. Here's a very long thread about it all.....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2499710

[sendero]

2. I know I'll be excorciated for this..

... but I think if Bush** ever tries to do something like declare martial law for political reasons his own base, not to mention everyone else, will turn on him like he was Benedict Arnold.

Even the dumbest drooling freeper has his limit.

[jus_the_facts]

3. It's not BUSH...it's the military industrial complex.....

....been there long before the fucktard-in-chief...and will be long afterward...regardless of who resides in the WH or Congress. :think:

[Art_from_Ark]

5. Hell, most of the freepers would gladly support it

They'd be crawling all over themselves to get a good position in the line for the brown shirts and jackboots.

[TankLV]

13. You will be soooo wrong.

He could fuck little boys on stage and his nazi base would STILL suppor him.

The Foley scandal prove me right on this...

[Zensea]

4. Tempest in a teapot

The Insurrection Act has been on the books since 1956.
Armed forces have had this authorization since then.
Go look at the actual text of both the old one and the new amendments. I did.
It's available on line.
I also did a search (control f) through the bill and nowhere is the term "public disorder" used that I could find.
So ask yourself why is that term in quotes?
This is the author's particular spin.
What these new amendments do as near as I can tell is refine and create more detail about using such a tactic, but do not fundamentally alter the original.

Here's the text that is being amended from the original act in 1956. (The current, new amended act is also available on line and can be found with a simple google search.)
From the original:

"Sec. 333. Interference with State and Federal law

The President, by using the militia or the armed forces, or both, or
by any other means, shall take such measures as he considers necessary
to suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful
combination, or conspiracy, if it--
(1) so hinders the execution of the laws of that State, and of
the United States within the State, 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 are unable, fail, or refuse to protect
that right, privilege, or immunity, or to give that protection; or
(2) opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United
States or impedes the course of justice under those laws.

In any situation covered by clause (1), the State shall be considered to
have denied the equal protection of the laws secured by the
Constitution.

(Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 15.)

ITLE 10--ARMED FORCES

Subtitle A--General Military Law

PART I--ORGANIZATION AND GENERAL MILITARY POWERS

CHAPTER 15--INSURRECTION

Sec. 334. Proclamation to disperse

Whenever the President considers it necessary to use the militia or
the armed forces under this chapter, he shall, by proclamation,
immediately order the insurgents to disperse and retire peaceably to
their abodes within a limited time."

That's from 1956. Armed forces are clearly listed even back then and the presidential power.
So it is not unprecedented at all.
I'm not saying it's a good thing, just that this is nothing all that new.

[SmokingJacket]

9. So... can you tell what was accomplished last week?

If nothing substantial was changed, then why the signing?

I mean, I looked at what you posted and I agree, it looks like there's no change, but if that's so, then what was that all about?

[Zensea]

11. I'm hoping it's just another layer of bureaucracy

A rewording to incorporate current uses of language.
That's my instinct about what it is.
But, truthfully, I'm not really sure what it is all about.
Could be more to it than that which is why I'm interested in reading analyses of it that have what I sense as objectivity.
I don't sense much objectivity in the original article referenced however (but that might be my blind spot).

[Crabby Appleton]

6. Here is the section of the act copied and pasted from

final version H.R.5122.ENR (very large file 439 pages)but do read (2)(A) thru (3) in bold.

‘‘§ 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
H. R. 5122—323
‘‘(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:

[Zensea]

8. Compare that to what I posted from 1956 immediately above

I don't see how this is significantly different than what has been law since then.
But if you see a significant difference, I would be interested in what you see that difference to be.

[Crabby Appleton]

10. I'm in agreement with you.

[Zhade]

14. Weird. If no change...why even do this?

I mean, it's not like the traitor-in-chief goes out of his way to actually do work!

[Zensea]

15. Bunch of lawyers?

Could be something as innocuous as that congressfolk are all a bunch of lawyers & you know how lawyers like to quibble about specific phrasings of language in contracts -- same would apply to legislation.

[Ezlivin]

17. Two Words: SIGNING STATEMENT

It's not the bill, it's the signing statement which follows.

Sure the bill is a nice piece of work, but Bush has decided that none of it applies to him.

[solara]

7. Here is another link

And some suggestions about what we can do to spread the word:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/10/29/162837/62

Here is a little background as well:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/10/28/155911/22

These require some reading.

[valerief]

12. No protests when the elections are stolen. It'll be Microwave City. nt

[soothsayer]

16. Guess when we move to habeas his corpus he'll delay us with

the Nat Guard as he flees to Paraguay and those brazillion acres he just bought there. Is it true they just passed a law saying you can't extradite war criminal types from there?