Things are ripe for a military coup

[57Coastie]

I see in the news today that the prior congress slipped a sentence into the last budget bill they managed to pass which arguably repeals the Posse Comitatus Act, making it much easier for the Feds to declare martial law. Found it in this article in the International Herald Tribune. What a source for finding out what is going on in our own capital. This was slipped into the bill in the middle of the night -- no debate, and the incompetent corrupt idiots on both sides of the aisle on the Hill passed it, most, if not all, totally unaware of its existence.

Beyond cases of actual insurrection, the president may now use military troops as a domestic police force in response to a natural disaster, a disease outbreak, terrorist attack or any other condition. Any other condition! Of course the President never mentioned it when he signed it last October.

Pack up your MREs, gang.

 

[SamTuckerMTNMAN]

but wait!!!!

If you aren't doing anything wrong what do you have to worry about!!!



ST

 

[tbtrout]

thanks, I will sleep better at night now How many nails left for the coffin?

 

[longeyes]

This would presume the military was on W.'s side...?

Hmmm, I wonder.

 

[MatthewVanitas]

There is a bipartisan bill, introduced by Senators Patrick Leahy, Democrat of Vermont, and Christopher Bond, Republican of Missouri, and backed unanimously by the nation's governors, that would repeal the stealthy revisions.

Anybody have any idea what the number is for this Senate bill?

Any reason we shouldn't start calling our senators about this today?

-MV

 

[57Coastie]

This would presume the military was on W.'s side...?

Hmmm, I wonder.

At present? Of course that is presumed. Only the President can trigger this -- not some rogue general.

Any reason we shouldn't start calling our senators about this today?

Not at all. Get those cards, letters, emails and phone calls moving.

Jim

 

[The Grand Inquisitor]

I'm going to have to ask the mods to delete this thread and move it to a "free speech zone" on this board.


I was actually thinking about this general topic the other day, and I tried to think of what was the last "peoples movement"-type action in this country and the only thing I could think of was the L.A. riots.

The LA riots were a by-product of the Rodney King beating and the court case involving the cops that beat him. At first, I thought that perhaps the riots were a real expression of hatred against a system that people felt oppressed them, but when I thought about it, I remembered that the riots were basically basically about looting and causing hell with no repercussions.

The first businesses looted were electronics stores and there were thousands of televisions stolen. Also, many people took the opportunity to take out their anger on Asian store owners and the occasional white person that happened to be near by.

The riots were a function of materialism, and not a true revolt, so they don't have anything to do with a real movement against the system.

I don't really know what it would take for people to get out of their Lazy-Boy's and take to the streets, but my best idea would be for there to be a catastrophic problem with Social Security which would stop all government benefits.

The American government has done so much to piss on the Constitution and the American populace that I really believe that they think that they can do what they want with no potential for unrest by the pacified public. They've invaded other countries with false evidence, they've slowly erroded Constitutional rights, and they done it all without a peep from the America that is sick of it all.

 

[wooderson]

Darn those freedom-hating Dimocraps... oh, wait. The Republican Congress.

My bad.

 

[MatthewVanitas]

Not at all. Get those cards, letters, emails and phone calls moving.

Anyone got an actuall Bill# for this sucker?


I checked CNN.com, but their front-page item is something about stranded mountain climbers. Here's their list of current Most Popular articles:

1. Living without power (2:12)

WFOR's Natalia Zea reports on a Florida woman who has lived without electricity for over 15 years (February 18)

2. Mummified body found watching TV (1:51)

Mummified body is found in a New York home. News 12 Long Island's Virginia Huie reports. (February 18)

3. Spears' hairstylist speaks (3:24)

The owner of the salon where Britney Spears shaved her head talks about the experience. (February 17)

4. Britney's buzz 35)

Britney Spears in a tattoo parlor in California with her head shaved completely bald. From KABC. (February 17)

This is why I read news.bbc.co.uk instead...


-MV

 

[ojibweindian]

I wouldn't be so much concerned about this. What I am more concerned about is what would cause this? What do these guys know that we don't?

 

[Igloodude]

This might help:

http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200702/020707.html

And here's a link to the bill that would repeal the change to Posse Comitatus:

http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200702/Insurrection Act 2007 Repeal.pdf

 

[57Coastie]

Anyone got an actuall Bill# for this sucker?

I tried every avenue I could think of, AV, no luck.

I checked CNN.com, but their front-page item is something about stranded mountain climbers. Here's their list of current Most Popular articles:

Quote:
1. Living without power (2:12)

WFOR's Natalia Zea reports on a Florida woman who has lived without electricity for over 15 years (February 18)

2. Mummified body found watching TV (1:51)

Mummified body is found in a New York home. News 12 Long Island's Virginia Huie reports. (February 18)

3. Spears' hairstylist speaks (3:24)

The owner of the salon where Britney Spears shaved her head talks about the experience. (February 17)

4. Britney's buzz 35)

Britney Spears in a tattoo parlor in California with her head shaved completely bald. From KABC. (February 17)

You've got to get your priorities straight, AV. Oh -- Austin. I see.

Lots of luck, BTW, in getting either of our Texas senators to vote for the Leahy/Bond bill.

What I am more concerned about is what would cause this? What do these guys know that we don't?

I would suggest that you ask the VP's office. I suspect Cheney knows the answer to your question.

Jim

 

[ojibweindian]

I would suggest that you ask the VP's office. I suspect Cheney knows the answer to your question

I'm pretty sure I wouldn't like the answer.

 

[tasco 74]

i still wonder lots of times about the NRA..... with all their members and the fees paid to em we shouldn't have anything like this to worry about.... that's one reason i don't belong anymore............................

 

[57Coastie]

This might help:

http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200702/020707.html

Tks, Igloo. I guess it is too early to get the "S. number." We should be able to get it when our outstanding representatives on the Hill go back to work after the holiday weekend.

AV: it is still not too early to contact anyone who might be able to help with this. The subject-matter should make it clear what is being discussed. I was really impressed by the list of supporters shown on Igloo's link. That is some horsepower.

Jim

 

[lee n. field]

This would presume the military was on W.'s side...?

I'm more worried by what will replace W. Most suggested R.s and all D.s give me no comfort at all.

 

[Thin Black Line]

Hey, guys, it's all in how you interpret it:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/10/20061017-9.html

 

[Igloodude]

What I just wrote to my two senators:

Sir,
The 2006 Defense Appropriations bill contained language "clarifying" Posse Comitatus (in the Insurrection Act). Specifically, it allows the President to federalize the National Guard to restore public order after a terrorist attack, a natural disaster, a disease outbreak, or “other condition” in addition to quelling insurrection. As you might imagine, I am very leery of the scope and magnitude of the term "other condition."

Senators Leahy and Bond are introducing legislation that would repeal this language and revert Posse Comitatus to what it formerly was: a crucial restriction on the Federal Executive's ability to employ our military in law enforcement activities.

I urge you to support Sen. Leahy/Bond's bill in any way possible.

Respectfully,
/s/

 

[Thin Black Line]

Nice letter, igloo. But, it's easier to pick off a tick when it's crawling around
rather than after it's embedded. Now you would think that the demo majority
would want to pass the new bill and re-restrict this thing, but I just can't see
any current or future President, demo or repub, signing the follow-up into law.

Most people completely missed this thing back in Oct because everyone was
focused on the whole Commissions and Habaes Corpus thing. There was
some discussion --a tiny bit here from yours truly-- regarding concerns about
the fed Exec bypassing the state Govs on calling out the NG. But, it didn't
gather much interest at the time --most people don't fathom much about
our military beyond the fact that we have <.1% of our population in uniform
scattered about the ME right now. It's much easier for people to imagine
being in court rather than a hypothetical disaster situation where martial
law might be declared by some guy (or gal) sitting in DC.

 

[57Coastie]

Hey, guys, it's all in how you interpret it:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0061017-9.html

Precisely: "Trust me."

And this is precisely the way the President interprets it:

The executive branch shall construe such provisions in a manner consistent with the President's constitutional authority to withhold information the disclosure of which could impair foreign relations, the national security, the deliberative processes of the Executive, or the performance of the Executive's constitutional duties.

Jim

 

[shield20]

I'm pretty sure this John Warner Act is also the 1st time any use of "the militia" has been officially/totally removed from this section of the statutes; you can still find a definition for "unorganized", but no where is it any longer mentioned being "called out". We the people, well-armed and well-regulated, have finally been totally legislated obsolete - replaced by federal troops. Madison, Mason, Jefferson, Adams, et. al. must be spinning in there graves.



Also notice though is how it reinforces the 14th amendment..i.e. ...

" `(2) A condition described in this paragraph is a condition that--

`(A) so hinders the execution of the laws of a State or possession, as applicable, and of the United States within that State or possession, that any part or class of its people is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law, and the constituted authorities of that State or possession are unable, fail, or refuse to protect that right, privilege, or immunity, or to give that protection; or

`(B) opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws.

`(3) In any situation covered by paragraph (1)(B), the State shall be considered to have denied the equal protection of the laws secured by the Constitution.

Does this mean infringement of our 2nd amendment rights by any "unlawful combination" is cause enough to call out the National Guard? Come to NY boys - we need help!!!

 

[kludge]

Hey, guys, it's all in how you interpret it:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0061017-9.html

There's No way W. wrote that.

He can't even say nucular... I mean, nuclear.

 

[Thin Black Line]

We the people, well-armed and well-regulated, have finally been totally obsoleted - by federal troops.

+1 w/ an 8 on the side. Excellent. You see it for how it is. Not to extol my
own virtues, but let me quote myself in addition to your accurate succint line
above:

It is the fedgov's continued attempt to monopolize on the use of force in
our division of labor society that has made the fedgov's argument that the
2nd Amendment has become less relevant and therefore unnecessary for the
average non-uniformed American. The "who is the militia" part of the 2nd
Amendment is defined by the government and is then used to restrict the
citizens who are NOT deeemed part of that militia.
....
We all like to talk about how the 2A is not just about target shooting and hunting,
but for the legitimate use of self-defence (force) --especially when it comes to
"justifying" our possession [of] EBRs. As citizens we had better make sure we are
actively involved on the consent to use state force. So there, I just made
the case for THR involvement as citizens when it comes to the use of force,
the militia, and the 2nd Amendment. If people want to split these issues up
and say they can't be handle[d] here, then they are very effectively doing the
dividing and conquering that the antis are already so adept at doing to us.

You added:

Does this mean infringement of our 2nd amendment rights by any "unlawful combination" is cause enough to call out the National Guard? Come to NY boys we need help!!!

Again, you are seeing how our very language is being debased, changed,
and reinterpreted in its meaning. This is how we have been losing not only
the 2A, but so many other rights. Of course, at the fedgov it will NOT mean
the infringement of your 2A in NY. But, the fedgov could very well see
Montana as going "rogue" on its attempt to re-establish the 2A within that
state.

We live in interesting times......

 

[thexrayboy]

thanks, I will sleep better at night now How many nails left for the coffin?

Give the lid a push, when it won't budge you will have your answer.

 

[RNB65]

A military coup usually involves a General who's had enough of his civilian leader's BS and decides to remove him from power. If anyone has reason to fear a military coup, it's GWB.