|
This article was
originally published by TowardFreedom.com
October 26, 2006
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."
Section 1076 of the massive Authorization Act, which
grants the Pentagon another $500-plus-billion for its ill-advised
adventures, is entitled, "Use of the Armed Forces in Major Public
Emergencies." Section 333, "Major public emergencies; interference with
State and Federal law" states that "the President may employ the armed
forces, including the National Guard in Federal service, to 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 domestic
violence has occurred to such an extent that the constituted authorities
of the State or possession are incapable of ("refuse" or "fail" in)
maintaining public order, "in order to suppress, in any State, any
insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or
conspiracy."
For the current President, "enforcement of the laws to
restore public order" means to commandeer guardsmen from any state, over
the objections of local governmental, military and local police entities;
ship them off to another state; conscript them in a law enforcement mode;
and set them loose against "disorderly" citizenry - protesters, possibly,
or those who object to forced vaccinations and quarantines in the event of
a bio-terror event.
The law also facilitates militarized police
round-ups and detention of protesters, so called "illegal aliens,"
"potential terrorists" and other "undesirables" for detention in
facilities already contracted for and under construction by Halliburton.
That's right. Under the cover of a trumped-up "immigration emergency" and
the frenzied militarization of the southern border, detention camps are
being constructed right under our noses, camps designed for anyone who
resists the foreign and domestic agenda of the Bush
administration.
An article on "recent contract awards" in a recent
issue of the slick, insider "Journal of Counterterrorism & Homeland
Security International" reported that "global engineering and technical
services powerhouse KBR [Kellog, Brown & Root] announced in January
2006 that its Government and Infrastructure division was awarded an
Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract to support U.S.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) facilities in the event of an
emergency." "With a maximum total value of $385 million over a five year
term," the report notes, "the contract is to be executed by the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers," "for establishing temporary detention and processing
capabilities to augment existing ICE Detention and Removal Operations
(DRO) - in the event of an emergency influx of immigrants into the U.S.,
or to support the rapid development of new programs." The report points
out that "KBR is the engineering and construction subsidiary of
Halliburton." (3) So, in addition to authorizing another $532.8 billion
for the Pentagon, including a $70-billion "supplemental provision" which
covers the cost of the ongoing, mad military maneuvers in Iraq,
Afghanistan, and other places, the new law, signed by the president in a
private White House ceremony, further collapses the historic divide
between the police and the military: a tell-tale sign of a rapidly
consolidating police state in America, all accomplished amidst ongoing
U.S. imperial pretensions of global domination, sold to an "emergency
managed" and seemingly willfully gullible public as a "global war on
terrorism."
Make no mistake about it: the de-facto repeal of the
Posse Comitatus Act (PCA) 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.
Unfortunately, this past week, the president
dealt posse comitatus, along with American democracy, a near fatal blow.
Consequently, it will take an aroused citizenry to undo the damage wrought
by this horrendous act, part and parcel, as we have seen, of a long train
of abuses and outrages perpetrated by this authoritarian
administration.
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."
The historic and ominous re-writing of the
Insurrection Act, accomplished in the dead of night, which gives Bush the
legal authority to declare martial law, is now an accomplished
fact.
The Pentagon, as one might expect, plays an even more direct
role in martial law operations. Title XIV of the new law, entitled,
"Homeland Defense Technology Transfer Legislative Provisions," authorizes
"the Secretary of Defense to create a Homeland Defense Technology Transfer
Consortium to improve the effectiveness of the Department of Defense (DOD)
processes for identifying and deploying relevant DOD technology to
federal, State, and local first responders."
In other words, the
law facilitates the "transfer" of the newest in so-called "crowd control"
technology and other weaponry designed to suppress dissent from the
Pentagon to local militarized police units. The new law builds on and
further codifies earlier "technology transfer" agreements, specifically
the 1995 DOD-Justice Department memorandum of agreement achieved back
during the Clinton-Reno regime.(4)
It has become clear in recent
months that a critical mass of the American people have seen through the
lies of the Bush administration; with the president's polls at an historic
low, growing resistance to the war Iraq, and the Democrats likely to take
back the Congress in mid-term elections, the Bush administration is on the
ropes. And so it is particularly worrying that President Bush has seen
fit, at this juncture to, in effect, declare himself
dictator.
Source:
(1) http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200609/091906a.html and
http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200609/092906b.html See also, Congressional
Research Service Report for Congress, "The Use of Federal Troops for
Disaster Assistance: Legal Issues," by Jennifer K. Elsea, Legislative
Attorney, August 14, 2006
(2) http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill+h109-5122
(3)
Journal of Counterterrorism & Homeland Security International, "Recent
Contract Awards", Summer 2006, Vol.12, No.2, pg.8; See also, Peter Dale
Scott, "Homeland Security Contracts for Vast New Detention Camps," New
American Media, January 31, 2006.
(4) "Technology Transfer from
defense: Concealed Weapons Detection", National Institute of Justice
Journal, No 229, August, 1995,
pp.42-43.
|