posted November 01, 2006 09:54 AM              

Oh, you say, our government wouldn't do something like the following scenario suggests. Think again. They did it once under the Nixon administration at Kent State. The National Guard shot and killed students protesting the Viet Nam war. Nixon had claimed in his election campaign that he would put a stop to the protesting and this was the way his administration did it, disguised as an Oops, " an accident", for which the National Guard in Ohio had to take the blame and the shame.

The upcoming election in just 6 days will determine whether or not America continues to be a free nation. If there ever was a crossroad in history it is this election. Shame on both our Democrats and Republicans in Congress. They need to all be ousted for not following through on the oath they took to uphold the Constitution. And shame on any American citizen who is not registered to vote in the upcoming election.

WILL THIS ELECTION BRING A BRIGHTER DAY OR THE END OF AMERICAN DEMOCRACY?

If there were ever a more urgent reason to replace each and every member of Congress virtually without exception, one need only look at the breathtaking new martial law powers granted to the Bush administration this month. It has always been a sacred tenet of our Democracy that the U.S. military should not be deployed AGAINST American citizens. But literally in the dead of night and almost without comment, an amendment to the Insurrection Act was slipped into the just passed Defense Authorization bill stating, and get this:

"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 . . . the President determines that domestic violence has occurred"

So let's just say for example that the electronic election results in 8 days are so far out of line with pre-election and exit polling data so as to defy credulity. And let's just say that people organized massive peaceful protests of the theft of their elections. And let's just say that the Bush administration provoked "police" riots, or even had their own provocateurs commit violent acts so as to justify a military crackdown. Voila . . . now you have American soldiers shooting at otherwise peaceful political protesters. And you thought Kent State was a party!

And if you don't think that could ever happen, then why the hell have they pushed for such changes, which are now the law of the land?

The whole concept of the president as an unaccountable determiner, or "decider", insulated from any kind of oversight by Congress or the Courts has been the hallmark of the Cheney/Bush executive coup, which just keeps steamrollering along while our presumptive protectors in Congress are asleep at the switch, or cowering in their cloakrooms.

Shame on each and every member of Congress who allowed this to happen with hardly as much as peep or a whimper. Shame on them for their lack of diligence and lack of oversight. Shame, shame, shame on Democrats as well as Republicans. Are there any, any at all worth keeping, who will actually fight for the people and their rights? The list of keepers must now be short indeed.

posted November 01, 2006 07:08 PM            

The changes actually state

"Section 1076 of the new law changes Sec. 333 of the "Insurrection Act," and widens the President's ability to deploy troops within the United States to enforce the laws. Under this act, the President may also deploy troops as a police force during a natural disaster, epidemic, serious public health emergency, terrorist attack, or other condition, when the President determines that the authorities of the state are incapable of maintaining public order. The bill also modified Sec. 334 of the Insurrection Act, giving the President authority to order the dispersal of either insurgents or "those obstructing the enforcement of the laws."

The new law changed the name of the chapter from "Insurrection" to "Enforcement of the Laws to Restore Public Order."

It goes on to state:

"Public outcry in response to the Hurricane Katrina disaster may be associated with the President's decision to increase federal control. However, controversy surrounding the federal delay to allow National Guard elements to be activated has centered around the lack of preparedness and slow response by the President and his administration ("a fog of bureaucracy" [4]), rather than any evidence of a need for more broadly defined terms under which the federal military can take control of domestic policing. [5]"

The actual law states that the following conditions must first be met:

(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

(B) opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws.

[edit] Differences between old and new wording
The original wording of the Act required the conditions as worded in Paragraph (2), above, to be met as the result of insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy

The new wording of the Act, as amended, still requires the same conditions as worded in Paragraph (2), above, but those conditions can now also be a result of natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident, or other condition
and only if domestic violence has occurred to such an extent that the constituted authorities of the State or possession are incapable of maintaining public order.

Congress was granted the right to be informed immediately and every 14 days thereafter during the exercise of federal authority under these conditions.

I DO NOT SEE anywhere in that law or statement that includes ANY of your peaceful protest scenarios. IN fact, violence has to be present to an extent that the State is unable to maintain public order.

Huh? Maybe we read something different didn't we Mirandee?

PS... here is the link and there is an INTERESTING flow chart that demonstrates what has to be met in order to put the act into use. I still don't see anything about the Military attacking Americans.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insurrection_Act

posted November 05, 2006 01:28 AM              

It's those other reasons stated in that amendment that anyone who values democracy should be concerned about and anyone who truly valued democracy would want a checks and balance system in the U.S. instead of giving total power to the President and executive branch.

But that's too far over your head. It would take too much thinking, reasoning and logic to figure out the implications of this recently passed amendment of the Insurrection Act of Bush's and it would take some foresight as to what doors it can open up for any future leader of this country.