more on David: [Please take a second loom at 'Bush Moves Towards Martial Law'

Begin forwarded message:

From: L Victor Marks <[email protected]>
Date: October 31, 2006 2:39:40 PM EST
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [IP] more on David: [Please take a second loom at 'Bush  
Moves Towards Martial Law'

Dave,

For IP if you wish:

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.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c109:1:./temp/ 
~c109QQu61P:e939907: is the portion that people are objecting to.

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.

Katrina hit on Aug 29. The Governor of NM authorized the funding for  
the NM Guard response on Sept. 4th. http://www.governor.state.nm.us/ 
orders/2005/EO_2005_044.pdf

People were rightfully complaining about the speed of the  
governmental response, and the Federal government did have to wait  
for the Louisiana to authorize the Guard.

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.

Victor Marks



On Oct 31, 2006, at 2:28 PM, David Farber wrote:

>
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
> From: Edward Almasy <[email protected]>
> Date: October 31, 2006 2:20:14 PM EST
> To: Jeff Faria <[email protected]>
> Cc: David Farber <[email protected]>
> Subject: Re: [IP] David: [Please take a second loom at 'Bush Moves  
> Towards Martial Law'
>
> On Oct 31, 2006, at 12:43 PM, Jeff Faria wrote:
>> David, did you have a look at the site this piece was clipped  
>> from? It's got a real pro-terrorist agenda, coupled with loopy,  
>> dada leftist conspiracy theories. I'll note a few headlines:  
>> "Israeli Massacres and Expulsions no Departure From Norm", "JUST  
>> WHO IS THIS FASCIST LIEBERMAN?" (their caps), "The Dollar's Full- 
>> System Meltdown" (starts with 'The dollar is kaput'), and "The  
>> Truth behind September 11" (a Wall Street plot, just so you're not  
>> in suspense).
>
>    Doubt by association?  Well, that certainly
>    convinced me.  How about actually looking at
>    the content of the piece before deciding
>    that it's worthless?
>
>    I'm not an attorney, but I did look up the
>    bill in question via THOMAS, and it does seem
>    to contain the provisions that the uruknet.info
>    article describes.  A quick Google search also
>    revealed many other clearly non-pro-terrorist
>    sources expressing similar concerns (albeit in
>    a less incendiary manner).
>
>    Ed
>
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------
> You are subscribed as [email protected]
> To manage your subscription, go to
>  http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip
>
> Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting- 
> people/
>
>