Here is the bill:

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h109-5122

And a commentary on it:

http://towardfreedom.com/home/content/view/911/

Quote :

"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."

10/29/2006 8:32:44 PM

I heard about it last week, but there's still nothing I could possibly do about it.

10/29/2006 8:39:44 PM

Quick! To the tinfoil hats!!

10/29/2006 8:40:45 PM

^

10/29/2006 8:43:21 PM

This country is in big trouble folks. Big Trouble. One more "terrorist" attack and you can expect martial law .

10/29/2006 8:47:28 PM

^^ While you're rolling your eyes, the wicked Emperor Bush, also known as Darth Militarius, and Grand Moff Cheney (remember, the Darth order have a strict rule of two, one master, one apprentice) are laying their plans... reading your thoughts so they'll know how to best use your fears against you. Their agents could be anywhere... could even be reading this message... they could have control of your computer right now, ready to cause your monitor to emit a high powered photon beam and liquify your brain as you sit there in your chair!

Execute.
Order.
66.

10/29/2006 8:51:27 PM

^^ We got martial law last time.

But don't worry, the federal bureaucracy is at a point where every action is not just bungled but prevents private action from working (think Katrina). four or five more Katrina's and the cry against Federal overstretch will become deafening. "Get Government out of the way!" will be the new battle-cry. Just you wait and see! </overly optimistic insane guy>

10/29/2006 9:05:39 PM

Government might not be the most efficient means, but for immediate assistance, you're going to need emergency responders for everyone, which means you need a government body for emergencies acting with your private charities and whatnot.

And situations like these are why I think we still need some sort of safety net.

[Edited on October 29, 2006 at 9:13 PM. Reason : .]

10/29/2006 9:09:14 PM

^^ Yes, we are currently in a state of martial law. As you know, the Congress and the courts have all been dissolved, as have local and state governments. Each region is governed by military commanders, and permission from your region's staff sergeant is required before you may purchase or sell anything, etc etc etc

What's even sadder than your "martial law" comment is the fact that there are some people out there who are stupid enough to actually fall for it.

10/29/2006 9:23:20 PM

wait so Hillary Clinton wants to turn our country into a communist dump yet Bush has no power to fuck up the country and turn it into a pile of shit?

this makes no sense

10/29/2006 10:30:52 PM

I didn't say Bush has no power. Just that he is not the plenipotentiary that you seem to think he is. There is no martial law today.

10/29/2006 10:51:50 PM

10/29/2006 11:52:07 PM

Quote :

"Government might not be the most efficient means, but for immediate assistance, you're going to need emergency responders for everyone, which means you need a government body for emergencies acting with your private charities and whatnot."

One would think so, but it turns out what everyone thinks, is not necessarily so.

As one author put it recently (paraphrasing): If Government is too slow and bureaucratic to manage the economy outside of an emergency, why do we think it should do a good job in a disaster? The polit-bureau in Russia had years in advance to plan what needed to be done and how to do it, yet the system ultimately fell apart because it was trying to manage everything from the top-down. Yet somehow we Americans expect our government to respond to sudden, unanticipated, fast moving, and unpredictable emergencies utilizing the exact same top-down planning strategy.

This is folly. Immediately after the Katrina disaster is a classic play in government vs. the people. An army of volunteers descended on the area with boats to take people out, buses to take people out, truck loads of food, water, and clothing, all amassed at the perimeter because FEMA refused to allow anyone entry without prior FEMA certification (in the middle of a disaster is too late to be demanding certification). As a result, trucks of donated supplies and an army of volunteers ready, willing, and able to engage in rescue efforts were turned away half a week before government buses finally arrived to take people away from the flooding.

Instead of being rescued, the national guard went house to house in undamaged neighborhoods arresting people and confiscating firearms from citizens. Instead of evacuating those in desperate need of help our military chose to enforce the mandatory evacuation upon individuals that clearly wanted to stay.

Why did FEMA set up a perimeter and not let anyone cross it? Did we suffer from too much private assistance in earlier disasters? Or did FEMA seriously believe the people still trapped inside did not need assistance?

10/30/2006 12:21:27 AM

sounds more like FEMA needs to reform in order to allow greater cooperation or local/state control.

see, what we have here is a case of why ill stay in the center between the democratic and libertarian parties. just throwing out everything without evaluating what can be done to better utilize it in collaboration with private organizations (or only have it in place when private org. fail to completely fulfill the needs) is folly and too far of a step to make without taking a risk based more in dogma than pragmatism. of course, you'll disagree and give noone that isnt down 100% with your libertarianism credit for making any points, so why am i even bothering. i mean, i'm about 75% there and yet still you manage to try to make those of us who arent out to be massive statist (or even facists, as you've claimed before). what is so wrong with wanting private/public collaboration that weighs in favor of local gov. and private charity? its no more idealistic than full-out libertarianism.

[Edited on October 30, 2006 at 2:18 AM. Reason : .]

10/30/2006 2:11:30 AM

Yes! Finally a president that understand the need to expand gov. power and control even more! What a great time to be a Republican!

10/30/2006 3:03:07 AM

i love me some big government

10/30/2006 7:13:06 AM

PinkandBlack, no one is saying there is no role to be played by government. Fuck, we got this big army and police force and someone needs to be there to prevent theft/assault/murder. The Coast Guard is going to be pulling people out of the water. The Navy is going to dock a hospital ship in the port and help injured people (FEMA prevented the Navy from doing this during Katrina).

And it wouldn't be a problem if FEMA decided to get some buses together and go rescue people. But in making this decision FEMA was frightened of being held up or thwarted by private activity, so FEMA banned all private activity. Net result, instead of thousands of experiments trying to rescue and deliver aid, only one was permitted, FEMA's (and whatever illegal assistance managed to get through).

FEMA should stick to what it is capable of doing. Plan the deployment of extra police and national guard units to the affected area to protect refugees and property. Deploy units along major roads to make sure they keep moving (traffic cops, bring a bulldozer to push broken down vehicles off the road). Keep helicopters in the air to monitor the spread of the disaster and watch for fires (technically CNN can do this, but I digress).

But the last thing anyone should do is put up road blocks and point guns at innocent people. Mandatory evacuations are inhuman and just manage to embarrass both citizens and enforcement. Bring a truck by, ask them to leave with you, and if they say "No" say "goodbye!"

I don't think you would disagree with my prescription in this post, I hope most would not. Yet somehow this philosophy is libertarian? I think not, Government should do what it is good at and not what it is bad at. A Top-Down rescue effort is counter productive. The National Guard, on the other hand, is not usually a Top-Down effort. Yes, the General told you where to go, but what you do when you get there used to be up to you (help find survivors, if you see looting stop it, if you see dying people drive them to the hospital, if you see a traffic jam organize it). Under Katrina very few units were deployed with an open-ended mission; nearly everyone had specific orders to set up road blocks or enforce a mandatory evacuation, which they did obediently.

10/30/2006 9:24:16 AM

Quote :

"Martial Law Bill"

I read that as Marital Law Bill.

10/30/2006 9:57:30 AM

sorry, i think i just assume all of your posts are the same. i read "get rid of the government..." in one of your posts and figure its just the same thing you always say, ad nauseum.

10/30/2006 12:11:18 PM