[IP] more on David: [Please take a second loom at 'Bush Moves Towards Martial Law'
Begin forwarded message:
From: Dail Magee Jr <dailjr@xxxxxxx>
Date: October 31, 2006 2:05:20 PM EST
To: dave@xxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [IP] David: [Please take a second loom at 'Bush Moves
Towards Martial Law'
Mr. Farber:
I agree that the source site makes the information suspect. However,
I examined the text of the bill (<http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/
F?c109:6:./temp/~c109NwHCi6:e939907:>; search for section 1076). The
interpretation excerpted in the message appears to be correct.
I am interested in learning how other readers who are more versed in
reading legislation interpret Section 1076.
--Dail Magee Jr.
----- Original Message -----
From: David Farber
To: ip@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2006 10:43 AM
Begin forwarded message:
From: Jeff Faria <jtfaria@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: October 31, 2006 1:34:26 PM EST
To: dave@xxxxxxxxxx
Subject: David: [Please take a second loom at 'Bush Moves Towards
Martial Law'
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).
I'd take future emails from this "Isenberg" guy and toss 'em in the
trash. Jesus.
David Farber wrote:
>
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
> From: "David S. Isenberg" <isen@xxxxxxxx>
> Date: October 31, 2006 12:26:34 PM EST
> To: Dewayne Hendricks <dewayne@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, David Farber
> <dave@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Bush Moves Towards Martial Law
>
> Dewayne,
> Dave,
>
> For your lists, per your editorial judgement.
>
> David I
> -------
>
> Bush Moves Toward Martial Law
> Frank Morales
> http://uruknet.info/?p=27769
>
> 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."
>
> snip
> more at http://uruknet.info/?p=27769
>
>
> -------------------------------------
> To manage your subscription, go to
> http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip
>
> Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-
> people/
-------------------------------------
To manage your subscription, go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip
Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-
people/
-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To manage your subscription, go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip
Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/