[Dialogue] {Disarmed} the dark side

[mhampton at att.net]

NEWS YOU WON'T FIND ON CNN


  Send Page To a Friend 
Working for the Clampdown

By James Bovard 

07/21/07 "ZNet" --- - How many pipe bombs might it take to end U.S. democracy? Far fewer than it would have taken a year ago. The Defense Authorization Act of 2006, passed on September 30, empowers President George W. Bush to impose martial law in the event of a terrorist “incident” or if he or other federal officials perceive a shortfall of “public order” or even in response to antiwar protests that get unruly as a result of government provocations. 

The media and most of Capitol Hill ignored or cheered on this grant of nearly boundless power. But now that the president’s arsenal of authority is swollen and consecrated, a few voices of complaint are being heard. Even the New York Times recently condemned the new law for “making martial law easier.” 

It took a few paragraphs in a $500 billion, 591-page bill to destroy one of the most important limits on federal power. Congress passed the Insurrection Act in 1807 to severely restrict the president’s ability to deploy the military within the United States. The Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 tightened these restrictions, imposing a two-year prison sentence on anyone who used the military within the U.S. without the permission of Congress. But there was a loophole: Posse Comitatus is waived if the president invokes the Insurrection Act. 

Section 1076 of the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 changed the name of the key provision in the statute book from Insurrection Act to Enforcement of the Laws to Restore Public Order Act. The Insurrection Act of 1807 stated that the president could deploy troops within the United States only “to suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy.” The new law expands the list to include “natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident, or other condition”—and such “con- dition” is not defined or limited. 

These new pretexts are even more expansive than they appear. FEMA proclaims the equivalent of a natural disaster when bad snowstorms occur and Congress routinely proclaims a natural disaster when there is a shortfall of rain in states with upcoming elections. A terrorist “incident” could be something as stupid as the flashing toys scattered around Boston last fall. 

The new law also empowers the president to commandeer the National Guard of one state to send to another state for up to 365 days. Bush could send the New York National Guard to disarm the residents of Mississippi if they resisted a federal law that prohibited private ownership of semiautomatic weapons. Governors’ control of the National Guard can be trumped with a simple presidential declaration. 

The story of how Section 1076 became law demonstrates how expanding government power is almost always the correct answer in Washington. Some people have claimed the provision was slipped into the bill in the middle of the night. In reality, the Administration signaled its intent and almost no one in the media or Congress tried to stop it. 

The Katrina debacle appears to have drowned Washington’s resistance to military rule. Bush declared, “I want there to be a robust discussion about the best way for the federal government, in certain extreme circumstances, to be able to rally assets for the good of the people.” 


His initial proposal generated only a smattering of criticism and there was no “robust discussion.” On August 29, 2006, the Administration upped the ante, labeling the breached levees “the equivalent of a weapon of mass effect being used on the city of New Orleans.” Nobody ever defined a “weapon of mass effect,” but the term wasn’t challenged. 

Section 1076 was supported by both conservatives and liberals. Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI), the ranking Democratic member on the Senate Armed Services Committee, co-wrote the provision, along with committee chair Sen. John Warner (R-VA). Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA) openly endorsed it and Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-CA), then-chair of the House Armed Services Committee, was an avid proponent. 

Every governor in the country opposed the changes and the National Governors Association repeatedly and loudly objected. Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT), the ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, warned on September 19 that, “We certainly do not need to make it easier for Presidents to declare martial law,” but his alarm got no response. Ten days later, he commented in the Congressional Record: “Using the military for law enforcement goes against one of the founding tenets of our democracy.” Leahy further condemned the process, declaring that it “was just slipped in the defense bill as a rider with little study. Other congressional committees with jurisdiction over these matters had no chance to comment, let alone hold hearings on, these proposals.” 

Congressional Quarterly’s Jeff Stein wrote an excellent article in the December issue on how the provision became law with minimal examination or controversy. A Republican Senate aide blamed the governors for failing to raise more fuss: “My understanding is that they sent form letters to offices. If they really want a piece of legislation considered they should have called offices and pushed the matter. No office can handle the amount of form letters that come in each day.” 

Thus, the Senate was not guilty by reason of form letters. Plus, the issue was not on the front page of the Washington Post within the 48 hours before the Senate voted on it. Surely no reasonable person can expect senators to know what they were doing when they voted 100 to 0 in favor of the bill? Apparently, they were simply too busy to notice the latest coffin nails they hammered into the Constitution. 

This expansion of presidential prerogative illustrates how every federal failure redounds to the benefit of leviathan. FEMA was greatly expanded during the Clinton years for crises like the New Orleans flood. It, along with local and state agencies, floundered. Yet the federal belly flop on the Gulf Coast somehow anointed the president to send in troops where he sees fit. 

“Martial law” is a euphemism for military dictatorship. When foreign democracies are overthrown and a junta establishes martial law, Americans usually recognize that a fundamental change has occurred. Perhaps some conservatives believe that the only change when martial law is declared is that people are no longer read their Miranda rights when they are locked away. “Martial law” means obey soldiers’ commands or be shot. The abuses of military rule in southern states during Reconstruction were legendary, but they have been swept under the historical rug. 

Section 1076 is Enabling Act-type legislation—something that purports to preserve law-and-order while formally empowering the president to rule by decree. The Bush team is rarely remiss in stretching power beyond reasonable bounds. Bush talks as if any constraint on his war-making prerogative or budget is “aiding and abetting the enemy.” Can such a person be trusted to reasonably define insurrection or disorder? 

Bush can commandeer a state’s National Guard any time he declares a “state has refused to enforce applicable laws.” Does this refer to the laws as they are commonly understood—or the laws after Bush fixes them with a signing statement? Some will consider concern about Bush or future presidents exploiting martial law to be alarmist. This is the same reflex many people have had to each administration proposal or power grab, from the USA PATRIOT Act in October 2001 to the president’s enemy-combatant decree in November 2001 to setting up Guantanamo prison in early 2002 to the doctrine of preemptive war. The Administration has perennially denied that its new powers pose any threat even after evidence of abuses—illegal wiretapping, torture, a global network of secret prisons, Iraq in ruins—became overwhelming. If the Administration does not hesitate to trample the First Amendment with “free speech zones,” why expect it to be diffident about powers that could stifle protests en masse? 


On February 24, the White House conducted a highly publicized drill to test responses to Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs) going off simultaneously in ten American cities. The White House has not disclosed the details of how the feds responded, but it would be out of character for this president to let new powers he sought to gather dust. There is nothing to prevent presidents from declaring martial law on a pretext than there is to prevent them from launching a war on the basis of manufactured intelligence. 

Senators Leahy and Kit Bond (R-MO) are sponsoring a bill to repeal the changes. Leahy urged his colleagues to consider the Section 1076 fix, declaring, “It is difficult to see how any Senator could disagree with the advisability of having a more transparent and thoughtful approach to this sensitive issue.” 

He deserves credit for fighting hard on this issue, but there is little reason to expect most members of Congress to give it a second look. The Section 1076 debacle exemplifies how the Washington establishment pretends that new power will not be abused, regardless of how much existing power has been mishandled. Why worry about martial law when there is pork to be harvested and photo ops to attend? It is still unfashionable in Washington to worry about the danger of the open barn door until after the horse is two miles down the road. 

James Bovard is the author of Attention Deficit Democracy and eight other books. 
Click on "comments" below to read or post comments 
  Comments (29) Comment (0) 

Comment Guidelines
Be succinct, constructive and relevant to the story. We encourage engaging, diverse and meaningful commentary. Do not include personal information such as names, addresses, phone numbers and emails. Comments falling outside our guidelines – those including personal attacks and profanity – are not permitted.
See our complete Comment Policy and use this link to notify us if you have concerns about a comment. We’ll promptly review and remove any inappropriate postings. 
Send Page To a Friend 
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. Information Clearing House has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is Information ClearingHouse endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)

  
 
 Sign up for our Daily Email Newsletter   
   

HOME
COPYRIGHT NOTICE 
 

Video



-------------- Original message from "Carlos R. Zervigon" <carlos at zervigon.com>: -------------- 


Wayne (Marshall)
 
To quote from Ma Greeny in Requiem for a Heavyweight when Mech said I wish that you weren’t a woman “That’s the nicest thing you ever said.”
 
P.S. Kathryn was reading it and noticed many typo’s and suggested that maybe you should be called in on the act. 
 
Carlos R. Zervigon, PMP
Zervigon International, Ltd.
817 Antonine St.
New Orleans, LAÂ 70115Â USA
504 894-9868 Mobile: 504 908-0762
carlos at zervigon.com
http://www.zervigon.com
 



From: dialogue-bounces at wedgeblade.net [mailto:dialogue-bounces at wedgeblade.net] On Behalf Of W. J.
Sent: Friday, July 20, 2007 6:39 PM
To: Colleague Dialogue
Subject: Re: [Dialogue] Prolegomena to the rule of the order
 
Paul, thanks for doing this.
Haven't had time to scan the whole doc for typos, but here's one that jumped out at me:
'tough' [for 'though']. That's a tough one, eh? Well, we are a pretty tough group. Maybe we could get this proofed before it's deposited in the Repository.
Marshall Jones

PSchrijnen at aol.com wrote:
Here is a trans-cription of the scanned documents. The sentence that really struck me was sentence three. 
 
 
THE
PROLEGOMENA
TO THE
RULE OF THE ORDER
 
A MORAL COVENANT AND CORPORATE DISCIPLINE
 
A Prologue to Corporate Discipline
 
                                                                              I
We, the __________ Community, by our free resolve, before the creator of our personal and collective destinies and the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, take upon ourselves the moral covenant and rule of life, for the sake of a particular corporate mission within the total calling of the church, to which we have been commonly elected.

                                                     II



We confess, in the first place, that we can do so only because we have been seized by the word of the love of God in Christ Jesus solely for the sake of the mission of being His People in the world.
We acknowledge, secondly, that we can do so only because we find ourselves so historically situated that we are commonly called to exercise this self-understanding and mission in a particular time and place and endeavour.

                                                    III



We further acknowledge and confess that we have been immediately prompted to this course by the church’s new vision of the Gospel as the freedom to involve oneself utterly in this world; and we believe that free involvement in the world demands a disciplined life;
By the church’s new image of herself as mission: the bearer of the Word of Life in and to history without which men do not live as historical beings; and we are persuaded that historical mission calls for a disciplined people;
By the church’s new concern for her own radical renewal in our time which necessitates creative experiments of many kinds and various forms; we deem this corporate discipline to be one such experiment for the renewal of the church;
By the church’s new confrontation by the Fathers with the fact that wherever authentic faith in Jesus Christ has been recovered in the past, there has followed a new sense of mission to the world and intentional discipline for the sake of that mission;
By the church’s new awareness, born of the times, that all men live consciously or unconsciously by some structure and that the self-aware man does and must exist in a self-consciously ordered life. Discipline is a concern of our age both inside and outside the church. 

                                                          IV



We must always remember and ever remind one another that in our corporate discipline we begin with Christ; we do no strive toward Him. Our covenant is a sign and symbol of our immutable standing before the Lord; it must never be perverted into a means to that end. God’s acceptance of us is accomplished forever and it is utterly impossible and utterly unnecessary to gain our salvation through this rule or any other pious work, so called. 
This means, and let us ever be clear about it, that our covenant is solely for the sake of the common mission to which we have been called. By-productive consequences there may be, but the rule is not directed toward the nourishment of our religious life, the development of a sense of togetherness, the creation of harmonious relationships, or the establishment of human community as such, in any form. Our common rule thrusts us upon our task and exists only for the sake of that task.
We must always remember and ever remind one another that while our corporate discipline does and must make explicit certain structures in which we labor, our common existence is in no sense and at no time synonymous or reducible to structures of any kind, hidden or disclosed, written or unwritten. Human relationships remain mysteriously beyond the power of human reason to articulate and any order to contain. 
Again, let us also be aware that tough our covenant necessarily has a definite fixedness and a certain rigidity, it must always be kept pliable, ready for adjustment or the varying needs, situations and obligations of the different individuals participating in it. Finally and most important, the total rule must constantly be maintained as open for alteration, for continuing development and indeed for complete discontinuation. 
We must always remember and ever remind one another that in our corporate discipline, we no longer live and work alone as isolated individuals. Henceforth our historical calling and mission, our corporate being and doing, our personal thinking and acting, are embodied in a definite community itself incorporated into the total life and mission of the historical church. All men hiddenly or overly live our of some community; in our moral covenant we make our social being explicitly intentional.
On the other hand, we dare not forget that moral covenants are never for the purpose of escaping the burden of selfhood. Authentic, self-consciously disciplined community does not swallow the individual; it rather creates the very possibility of personhood pushing the individual against the necessity to decide for himself and then holding him accountable for the consequences of his own actions. Genuine participation in the structures of community and authentic individuality are two poles of the same reality.
We must always remember and ever remind one another that in our corporate discipline we are both responsible to and for one another. Not only must each one of us carry the burden of his own relation to the rule, but we must each bear the loyalty and disloyalty of our brothers under the rule. We must assume responsibility for intruding into the other’s existence up to the point of his freedom, and in turn, freely open ourselves to the other’s responsibility to intrude into our life up to the point of our conscience before God.
Furthermore, let us never forget that tough we are utterly bound by our covenant, we remain free at any time and in any circumstance to break the covenant; never, to be sure, by default in decision but by a self-conscious free resolve made in the light of other claims which other covenants in life lay upon us. In one sense, a rule was made to be broken and the disloyalty taken freely upon ourselves. Our covenant thrusts upon us our freedom and responsibility. 
We must always remember and ever remind each other that though our corporate discipline necessarily must include within it explicit ways and means of accounting before one another and exposing ourselves to our fellows, it is never to the end of maintaining the rule intact, never for the sake of judgment in and for itself, but rather to provide the opportunity for taking upon ourselves afresh our freedom to be responsible persons in our mission.
Moreover, we must bear in mind that such explicit opening of ourselves through our covenant to our promises before the gaze of another, though not determining our objective guilt, does bring many hidden guilts to the surface of our lives. Such intensifying of our sensitivities to guilt in a community grounded in the word of acceptance becomes a great gift. The releasing of hidden guilt and the possibility of embracing the same, is that without which we cannot and do not have life.
We must always remember and ever remind each other that a corporate discipline involves a kind of total commitment; he who enters into it therefore must do through his own free resolve in such a fashion that the rule becomes his own life discipline and not some demand thrust upon him by another. And if the covenant is to remain an imperative from within ourselves rather than an alien pressure from without, it must ever and again be renewed with an abandonment which mixes our total being with it.
Nevertheless it is utterly necessary that any covenant be understood and held as relative: relative before our relation to God in Christ; relative to our effective engagement in the world. For this reason it must continually be grasped as open-ended; responsible discontinuation will then be an ever-present possibility for everyone involved; our concrete concern for one another will insure that such a course be taken only in the same sobriety and fear of God that our entrance into the covenant demands. 
 
_______________________________________________
Dialogue mailing list
Dialogue at wedgeblade.net
http://wedgeblade.net/mailman/listinfo/dialogue_wedgeblade.net
 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://wedgeblade.net/pipermail/dialogue_wedgeblade.net/attachments/20070722/2b2fc293/attachment-0001.html