The New Insurrection

[ripperjd]

The New Insurrection
Current mood: cynical
Category: News and Politics


As you all know, I'm kind of a politics nerd. I sometimes get these emails from government watch dogs warning of the impending doom our leaders are creating for us. That's what I get for signing up for a system that can auto generate a letter I write to all the Congress and Senate persons in my district. I read them, just to check out what the crazies are thinking, and then I look into it myself to see what is really going on.



A recent one caught my attention, as the title was, "When The U.S. Military ATTACKS Americans." Really? Do we have another Kent State on our hands? Well, of coarse the title was a scare tactic, but I thought it was interesting enough so I opened it up and read through it.



Basically the email was referring to Section 1042 of a recently passed H.R. 5122: John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007, which reads:



Section 1042 -

Revises federal provisions allowing the President to utilize the Armed Forces in connection with interference with federal and state law to allow the President to employ the Armed Forces and National Guard in federal service to restore public order in cases of natural disaster, epidemic or other public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident, or domestic violence. Requires the President to notify Congress within 14 days of the exercise of such authority. Authorizes the President, when exercising such authority, to direct the Secretary to provide supplies, services, and equipment to persons affected by the situation.



Now, of coarse when it was talked about in the email, the author wrote:



"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"



Although I know where the author of the email was trying to direct the reader, I can't help but feel a little concerned over this. After all… I am one of the most paranoid people I know, and a conspiracy theorist in my own right, so it's only natural for me to look at the grave side of what this means.



I believe "revises federal provisions" refers to The Posse Comitatus Act, a federal law that was passed in 1878. Basically, the law was meant to restrict the use of federal troops from supervising elections in confederate states. It generally prohibits Federal military personnel and units of the United States National Guard under Federal authority from acting in a law enforcement capacity within the United States, except where expressly authorized by the Constitution or Congress. The Posse Comitatus Act and the Insurrection Act substantially limit the powers of the Federal government to use the military for law enforcement. This is what section 1042 revises.



Now, I know why the email author left out the parts about "natural disaster, epidemic or other public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident." I believe part of the reason this was made law was to rectify some of the problems we had with the response time to Katrina. I'm sure that is how it was proposed. This law is great in the fact that it will allow power to be given to president to immediately take action when it is needed. The only part that bothers me is that they allowed the "domestic violence" portion in there.



The use of the military to curb domestic violence isn't something new. Posse Comitatus didn't stop the use of troops to quell the domestic violence that was the 1992 Los Angeles Roits. It also didn't stop the troops at Kent State, but those are two very different stories. Not to mention that the military has new and improved ways to break up a crowd… like rubber as opposed to lead bullets.



This is all besides the fact that Homeland Security has pretty much done away with the Posse Comitatus act all together, through Title 6 Chapter 1 Subchapter III Part H Sec. 466. So why the need to drown a dieing horse? I guess that is the only thing that bothers me.



The email used an example. It talked about how the coming elections using electronic ballots could suddenly be so out of balance with exit polling that it would defy the credibility of the voting system. People would protest, and the President would use his newly appointed powers to use military force against the protesters. Could it happen? Sure. Likely? Not in the next week or so. I would be more worried about the next presidential election. What it does do however, is put the advantage a bit more to the Oval Office. The system is working when the government fears it's people. I always question motive when I see the government try and turn that fear around.



When it comes down to it, I can't be that afraid of what will happen because of this, right? I believe that our men and women in uniform would see past any governmental coup by the administration and defy orders to help create such an environment. It's not as if Rumsfeld came into the defense secretary position and has made every effort to seize the power of and micro-manage the pentagon. The current administration has never mislead this country into anything, especially when it has to do with military force, whether for a noble purpose or not. I can't pretend that I don't see actions that are leaning this country towards a religious base and a party line, but I also have enough faith that patriots will realize that if we are truly to be a free country, we cannot allow one office of government to take too much control. For "conservatives", they sure want to make a lot of changes and place a lot of power to the government.

[Tigam]

<laughs> Responce later.

[Tigam]

Ok... Before I really address this... Please define "fear" as it relates to the government.

[ripperjd]

the fear I'm talking about as far is a government goes, is the fear that will keep leaders in check. If a leader comes to power, decides he should stay in power, the only thing that will keep him from trying to gain more power is the fear of the people revolting. That sort of thing.

What else do you think it would have meant?

[Tigam]

Originally Posted by ripperjd

the fear I'm talking about as far is a government goes, is the fear that will keep leaders in check. If a leader comes to power, decides he should stay in power, the only thing that will keep him from trying to gain more power is the fear of the people revolting. That sort of thing.

What else do you think it would have meant?

Not sure. That can't happen in the US given the current laws and checks & balances. Figured you were speaking about the US as much as anyone else, morso to tell you the truth. Was I wrong in that assumption?

Because, given what you just said here... I can't figure out the reasoning behind your respoince in the gun thread.

[ripperjd]

I was talking about the US. I would agree that given current laws and checks & balances, it would be highly unlikely for a leader to take absolute power. What concerns me is the fact that laws get changed so frequently and under the radar, that our current balance could change. That is why when a law gets passed that gives one man the power to immediately use the military against the people of our country, without going through the system of checks and balances, it bothers me. I know that it’s an overreaction to one particular law, but it is part of a pattern.

As far as what I said in the gun law thread… I said I wasn’t a big gun fan, but I didn’t say that I think guns should be illegal. I wasn’t trying to disagree with you at all in that thread, rather restating what you had said to be sure I understood your stance. Although I think guns help to protect the population from it’s government, that doesn’t mean the population is safe, especially considering that the government controls the military, were there is diligence to instilling an obedient behavior to commands.

[Tigam]

Originally Posted by ripperjd

I was talking about the US. I would agree that given current laws and checks & balances, it would be highly unlikely for a leader to take absolute power. What concerns me is the fact that laws get changed so frequently and under the radar, that our current balance could change. That is why when a law gets passed that gives one man the power to immediately use the military against the people of our country, without going through the system of checks and balances, it bothers me. I know that it’s an overreaction to one particular law, but it is part of a pattern.

Yeah... I see that as a valid concern, altho it's embellished much by many, or overstated as you said.

As far as what I said in the gun law thread… I said I wasn’t a big gun fan, but I didn’t say that I think guns should be illegal. I wasn’t trying to disagree with you at all in that thread, rather restating what you had said to be sure I understood your stance. Although I think guns help to protect the population from it’s government, that doesn’t mean the population is safe, especially considering that the government controls the military, were there is diligence to instilling an obedient behavior to commands.

I can't wrap my brain around the US military doing anything the majority of the populous wouldn't already agree with that would effect the majority of the people. Granted there is diligence to intalling an obedient behavior installed in soldiers... But we ( the US citizens ) in my opinion are the most individual driven societies on the planet. This transfers over to the soldiers as well. I just can't see a major campaign on US soil, by the US military against it's people.

[SlickRick1382]

They pass out clyers, books, and different circulations like that all around our campuses here in NJ.

Although this isn't in reference to your article and the law that you were disputing ... I just don't like the tactic these people use in order to get people to read and believe their bull**** theories and how we're all doomed ...

I mean I've actually skimmed thru some of the stuff they give out and it's so out there at times .... I just don't agree with the scare tactic these organizations and individuals use for their cause ....