Remember, Pervez Musharraf is one of our closest allies

the u.s. can be counted on to provide strong support for a dictator who declares martial law rather than risk the possibility of losing power...

President Gen. Pervez Musharraf declared a state of emergency in Pakistan on Saturday ahead of a crucial Supreme Court decision on whether to overturn his recent election win and amid rising Islamic militant violence.

Eight Supreme Court judges immediately rejected the emergency, which suspended the current constitution. The government blocked transmissions of private news channels in several cities and telephone services in the capital, Islamabad, were cut.

[...]

The state TV report gave no reason for the emergency but it follows weeks of speculation that he could take the step. Military vehicles patrolled and troops blocked roads in the administrative heart of the capital.

[...]

Shahzad Iqbal, an official at a cable TV news provider in Islamabad said authorities were blocking transmissions of private news channels in Islamabad and neighboring Rawalpindi. State TV was still on the air.

"The government has done it," he said.

i hate to say it, folks, but the groundwork for this same scenario has been carefully, systematically, and quietly put in place in our own country...

a quick (and far from exhaustive) review...

• H.R. 1955: "Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism"

• the Patriot Act

• the Military Commissions Act

• the Protect America Act

• Section 1076 of the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act

• National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directives NSPD-51 and HSPD-20

• the pending FISA bill

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

A logical follow-up to Section 1076 of the Defense Authorization Act

ah, how comforting it is to know that, when the major national emergency hits (or is orchestrated from the white house), all will be in good hands once martial law is declared under section 1076...

National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive

NATIONAL SECURITY PRESIDENTIAL DIRECTIVE/NSPD 51

HOMELAND SECURITY PRESIDENTIAL DIRECTIVE/HSPD-20

Subject: National Continuity Policy

Purpose

(1) This directive establishes a comprehensive national policy on the continuity of Federal Government structures and operations and a single National Continuity Coordinator responsible for coordinating the development and implementation of Federal continuity policies. This policy establishes "National Essential Functions," prescribes continuity requirements for all executive departments and agencies, and provides guidance for State, local, territorial, and tribal governments, and private sector organizations in order to ensure a comprehensive and integrated national continuity program that will enhance the credibility of our national security posture and enable a more rapid and effective response to and recovery from a national emergency.

Definitions

[...]

(e) "Enduring Constitutional Government," or "ECG," means a cooperative effort among the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the Federal Government, coordinated by the President, as a matter of comity with respect to the legislative and judicial branches and with proper respect for the constitutional separation of powers among the branches, to preserve the constitutional framework under which the Nation is governed and the capability of all three branches of government to execute constitutional responsibilities and provide for orderly succession, appropriate transition of leadership, and interoperability and support of the National Essential Functions during a catastrophic emergency;

now, all we have to do is sit back and wait...

(thanks to pinche tejano at daily kos...)

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

Didja ever consider the possibility that they've got something up their sleeve?

i guess i'm succumbing to a wee bit of paranoia, but it suddenly occurred to me, do you suppose that the reason behind all of the incredible bush administration arrogance and their willingness to completely ignore public opinion, democratic efforts to rein them in, and, increasingly, opposition from their own party, is that they figure they have an ace up their collective sleeves...? i hate to think this way, i really do, but what if, just what if, they keep stonewalling and flipping us off to the extent that we take to the streets, and, then, suddenly, bingo-bango, out comes martial law... i posted on this late last month, but, ya know, i think it's time to run it out once again, cuz...

it's still out there, ticking like a time bomb...

taken from "Working for the Clampdown," written by james bovard in the american conservative...

Section 1076 of the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 changed the name of the key provision in the statute book from “Insurrection Act” to “Enforcement of the Laws to Restore Public Order Act.” The Insurrection Act of 1807 stated that the president could deploy troops within the United States only “to suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy.” The new law expands the list to include “natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident, or other condition”—and such “condition” is not defined or limited.

[...]

“Martial law” is a euphemism for military dictatorship. When foreign democracies are overthrown and a junta establishes martial law, Americans usually recognize that a fundamental change has occurred. Perhaps some conservatives believe that the only change when martial law is declared is that people are no longer read their Miranda rights when they are locked away. “Martial law” means obey soldiers’ commands or be shot. The abuses of military rule in southern states during Reconstruction were legendary, but they have been swept under the historical rug.

Section 1076 is Enabling Act-type legislation—something that purports to preserve law-and-order while formally empowering the president to rule by decree. The Bush team is rarely remiss in stretching power beyond reasonable bounds. Bush talks as if any constraint on his war-making prerogative or budget is “aiding and abetting the enemy.” Can such a man be trusted to reasonably define insurrection or disorder? Can Hillary Clinton?

Bush can commandeer a state’s National Guard any time he declares a “state has refused to enforce applicable laws.” Does this refer to the laws as they are commonly understood—or the laws after Bush fixes them with a signing statement?

so, how could things play out...?

These new pretexts are even more expansive than they appear. FEMA proclaims the equivalent of a natural disaster when bad snowstorms occur, and Congress routinely proclaims a natural disaster (and awards more farm subsidies) when there is a shortfall of rain in states with upcoming elections. A terrorist “incident” could be something as stupid as the flashing toys scattered around Boston last fall.

The new law also empowers the president to commandeer the National Guard of one state to send to another state for up to 365 days. Bush could send the Alabama National Guard to suppress antiwar protests in Boston. Or the next president could send the New York National Guard to disarm the residents of Mississippi if they resisted a federal law that prohibited private ownership of semiautomatic weapons. Governors’ control of the National Guard can be trumped with a simple presidential declaration.

yeah, i was just sitting here, swimming around in my usual frustration and amazement that our president and his compadres can be so blatantly flipping everybody off, and seem to think there is absolutely no one that can hold them accountable for anything... they must have some reason to believe they can get away with it...

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

A stand-alone bill to restore habeas

it's gotta happen... jeralyn at talkleft posts this from a commenter...

FYI-- Congresswoman, Rep. Kathy Castor, (D-FL-11th) who serves on both the Armed Services Comm. AND is the only freshman on the powerful Rules Committee which makes decisions about moving bills forward, met with Armed Services Chair Ike Skelton early this morning and they have decided to file a stand alone bill to restore habeas corpus rather than put it in the Defense Authorization Bill.

I spoke to her Chief of Staff personally, and he said she promises to work to move the bill along, so everyone will have to vote up or down on restoring habeas, and we'll all know by their vote where exactly everyone in Congress stands on restoring habeas.

because if the dems don't do this, i have to side with glenn greenwald...

Having disgracefully abdicated that responsibility back in September because they wanted to win the midterm elections, Democrats -- now that they have won -- can cleanse their historic sin only by committing themselves, not symbolically but in actuality, to the restoration of habeas corpus. Whether they are willing to do so will speak volumes about their true character and about whether their November victory will result in anything other than some televised hearings. If Democrats are too afraid even to take a stand against the Bush administration in defense of this centuries-old core American liberty, it is impossible to imagine any even minimally risky stands they are willing to take.

it's gotta happen...

(thanks to mcjoan at daily kos...)

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

As Bushco grows desperate, don't forget Section 1076 of the Defense Authorization Act

i remember patrick leahy's lonely cry (see below) when this was coming up for a vote... it passed and it's still out there, ticking like a time bomb...

taken from "Working for the Clampdown," written by james bovard in the american conservative...

Section 1076 of the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 changed the name of the key provision in the statute book from “Insurrection Act” to “Enforcement of the Laws to Restore Public Order Act.” The Insurrection Act of 1807 stated that the president could deploy troops within the United States only “to suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy.” The new law expands the list to include “natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident, or other condition”—and such “condition” is not defined or limited.

[...]

“Martial law” is a euphemism for military dictatorship. When foreign democracies are overthrown and a junta establishes martial law, Americans usually recognize that a fundamental change has occurred. Perhaps some conservatives believe that the only change when martial law is declared is that people are no longer read their Miranda rights when they are locked away. “Martial law” means obey soldiers’ commands or be shot. The abuses of military rule in southern states during Reconstruction were legendary, but they have been swept under the historical rug.

Section 1076 is Enabling Act-type legislation—something that purports to preserve law-and-order while formally empowering the president to rule by decree. The Bush team is rarely remiss in stretching power beyond reasonable bounds. Bush talks as if any constraint on his war-making prerogative or budget is “aiding and abetting the enemy.” Can such a man be trusted to reasonably define insurrection or disorder? Can Hillary Clinton?

Bush can commandeer a state’s National Guard any time he declares a “state has refused to enforce applicable laws.” Does this refer to the laws as they are commonly understood—or the laws after Bush fixes them with a signing statement?

so, how could things play out...?

These new pretexts are even more expansive than they appear. FEMA proclaims the equivalent of a natural disaster when bad snowstorms occur, and Congress routinely proclaims a natural disaster (and awards more farm subsidies) when there is a shortfall of rain in states with upcoming elections. A terrorist “incident” could be something as stupid as the flashing toys scattered around Boston last fall.

The new law also empowers the president to commandeer the National Guard of one state to send to another state for up to 365 days. Bush could send the Alabama National Guard to suppress antiwar protests in Boston. Or the next president could send the New York National Guard to disarm the residents of Mississippi if they resisted a federal law that prohibited private ownership of semiautomatic weapons. Governors’ control of the National Guard can be trumped with a simple presidential declaration.

leahy understood the implications, but either his colleagues didn't or they didn't care enough to stop the bill's passage...

Mr. President, I rise to express my grave reservations about certain provisions of the Fiscal Year 2007 Defense Authorization Bill Conference Report. This legislation poorly handles key provisions related to the National Guard, which — as the events since September 11th have highlighted — is critical to our Nations’ defense. The final conference report drops the reforms known as the National Guard Empowerment Act, a bill that would have given the National Guard more bureaucratic muscle inside the Pentagon. It would have cleared away some of these administrative cobwebs and given the Guard the seat at the decision-making table that it needs and deserves. It also should concern us all that the Conference agreement includes language that 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.

as bushco becomes increasingly desperate, the likelihood that they will resort to desperate measures increases dramatically...

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments