[IP] more on David: [Please take a second loom at 'Bush Moves Towards Martial Law'
Begin forwarded message:
From: L Victor Marks <victor@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: October 31, 2006 2:39:40 PM EST
To: dave@xxxxxxxxxx
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 <ealmasy@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: October 31, 2006 2:20:14 PM EST
To: Jeff Faria <jtfaria@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: David Farber <dave@xxxxxxxxxx>
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 victor@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
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/