About a week ago some left-wing bloggers began circulating rumors that Bush had secretly signed something called the "John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007" that "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.'" I couldn't find the text of the law at the time, formerly H.R. 5122, or a reliable media account, so I decided not to report on it.
I can now confirm the bloggers' account. Bush signed the JWDAA hours after the MCA, in a furtive closed-door White House ceremony. There is, buried deep down in Title V, Subtitle B, Part II, Section 525(a) of the JWDAA, a coup. The Bush Administration has quietly stolen the National Guard away from the states.
Here's the relevant section of Public Law 109-364:
"The [military] Secretary [of the Army, Navy or Air Force] concerned may order a member of a reserve component under the Secretary's jurisdiction to active duty...The training or duty ordered to be performed...may include...support of operations or missions undertaken by the member's unit at the request of the President or Secretary of Defense."
The National Guard, used to maintain order during natural disasters and civil disturbances and the sole vehicle available under U.S. law to enforce a declaration of martial law, has previously been controlled by state governors. They have now been stripped of that control. Thanks to the JWDAA, Bush or Rumsfeld can now deploy National Guardsmen in American cities without obtaining permission from state governors.
Section 526 of the Warner Act goes further still. It states that the "Governor of a State...with the consent of the [military] Secretary concerned, may order a member of the National Guard to perform Active Guard and Reserve duty..." The key word is "may." A governor can no longer deploy the Guard in his or her state without first getting Rumsfeld's permission.
Patrick Leahy (D-VT) sounded the alarm during senatorial debate, but U.S. state-controlled media ignored him. The Warner Act, he said, "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...We fail our Constitution, neglecting the rights of the states, when we make it easier for the president to declare martial law and trample on local and state sovereignty."
Only one governor, Kathleen Blanco of Louisiana, made a fuss over the Warner Act. A spokesman for the National Governors Association requested a wimpy "clarification" concerning what circumstances might prompt Bush to impose martial law. As far as I can determine this column marks the first time the JWDAA has been mentioned in the mainstream media.
Now the dark men who engineered America's post-9/11 police state have watched the public reject their policies. The incoming Democratic majority Congress will be able to hold hearings and launch investigations that could lead to their indictments and removal from office. John Dingell, the liberal incoming chairman of the Commerce Committee did nothing to dissuade GOP fears of "a blizzard of subpoenas": "As the Lord High Executioner said in 'The Mikado,'" Dingell recently joked, "I have a little list."
Holy shit, yeah. I'm not from the US, I don't know the depth of the system, but I can not believe that Bush came up with that alone. Plus I thought laws like that must be approved by the congress. Balance and check, right? The congress majority approved that?
Even if it's a republican congress, there is still democrats or whatever that are part of it. They saw it, why did they all shut up? They are not allowed to discuss it outside? It's like they all agreed to it, thinking ot was a good thing and not an abuse.
There is so much press control you can do for something as preposterous as this. Supposately.
well the idea i get is that it's supposed to be used it times of natural disasters like Katrina. maybe there is a rule in there or a defense saying that it can only be used in times of NATURAL disaster...
MrFelony wrote:well the idea i get is that it's supposed to be used it times of natural disasters like Katrina. maybe there is a rule in there or a defense saying that it can only be used in times of NATURAL disaster...
That is what it was created for, but there are _no_ protections against using it in other situations.
Problem is a one party in control of more than one branch of government is that even if fuss is raised by the minority, they get overruled by the majority. That is why this shit passes, the executive branch and the legislative branch are both on the same side.
For example, the IRS was founded during the American Civil War when the then democrats left to form the Confederate States of America. Lincoln & his republicans has free reign to do anything they wanted because the only party that could have opposed them left.
Last edited by psi29a on Thu Nov 09, 2006 9:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I fail to see the problem if there is protections from using it in other instances than a natural disaster.
I thought this was a problem since it gives the power to organize some kind of military take over with some bullshit reason (everybody bought the WMD in Irak, so they can buy other stuffs). It's far fetched, but the Bush administration can be scary sometimes. Or you think that these "protections" can be easily overviewed?
Albator wrote:I fail to see the problem if there is protections from using it in other instances than a natural disaster.
I thought this was a problem since it gives the power to organize some kind of military take over with some bullshit reason (everybody bought the WMD in Irak, so they can buy other stuffs). It's far fetched, but the Bush administration can be scary sometimes. Or you think that these "protections" can be easily overviewed?
Sorry, that was a typo on my fault, there are _no_ protections against using it in other situations. That is the problem with broad laws, they be there for a certain situation, however it can be abused for other situations. We must be precise when making laws.
Then yeah, definitely. And we can''t be sure that it is an unfortunate mistake when it comes to the Bush administration. They are not really a candid bunch, are they?
If internet thugs can see the loophole, then congressman and lawmakers should be able to see it, and chose to left it on purpose. It's their speciality after all.
It's an obvious bid to try and protect themselves in the future, should they be caught doing something so heinous that a genuine public outcry is raised in every city across the nation.
definitely needs dealing with.
Forgive me father, for I have sinned, and find me guilty for true guilt comes from within.
