Bush Signs Bill Enabling Martial Law in US Cities and States

[chiquita]

Top it off with the CEO of Diebold swearing his allegiance to the Republican party, and that about sums it up. Not to mention the enormous amounts of cash that Diebold received, for their non-bid contract. 

[BellisimaJ.]

[quote author=chiquita link=topic=5668.msg30013#msg30013 date=1162253613]
Top it off with the CEO of Diebold swearing his allegiance to the Republican party, and that about sums it up. Not to mention the enormous amounts of cash that Diebold received, for their non-bid contract. 
[/quote]

Kinda makes you think of Haliburton, doesn't it?! Except the consequences could be far more disastrous.
And people think Michael Moore is crazy. :

[chiquita]

Haliburton is worse.

[BellisimaJ.]

[quote author=chiquita link=topic=5668.msg30022#msg30022 date=1162254368]
Haliburton is worse.
[/quote]

Yeah, but they cost us a war. The Diebold thing could cost us our country! :'(

[daveschroeder]

A couple of items:

First, Walden O'Dell hasn't been CEO of Diebold since December 2005. And he didn't "swear his allegiance to the Republican Party", he said, stupidly, in his capacity as a corporate and business leader in Ohio, that he was personally "committed to delivering Ohio's electoral votes to" Bush.

Was that a ridiculously stupid thing to say for a person who is a CEO of a company that makes electronic voting machines, used in the same state he was making this promise for, no less? Yes. Appearances of impropriety and conflicts of interest? Absolutely. Anyone who thinks that a public statement constitutes a secret conspiracy to rig elections, unnoticed, on the part of a company with more than 14,000 employees? Well, let's just say that person wouldn't be too bright.

Second, something I wrote up earlier about the revisions to the Insurrection Act of 1807:

Given the process required for a bill to become law and the fact that the changes were passed by a bipartisan majority of both houses of Congress (94-0 in the Senate, and 398-23 in the House), I thought some of you may be interested to know about the actual changes made to the Insurrection Act of 1807. In order for military forces to be used under these provisions, the following conditions must be met:

(i) domestic violence has occurred to such an extent that the constituted authorities of the State or possession are incapable of maintaining public order; and

(ii) such violence results in a condition described in paragraph (2); or

(B) suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy if such insurrection, violation, combination, or conspiracy results in a condition described in paragraph (2).

(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.

These are the same conditions that must be met under the old wording of the statute; however, the surrounding language has been expanded to include application to any event that is still also determined to meet these conditions, such as major public emergencies, terrorist incidents, and so on, as opposed to only "insurrection" specifically. Congress must also be informed immediately and every 14 days thereafter during the exercise of such authority, which was not required under the old statute.

The changes to this law are likely the result of public outcry in response to the Hurricane Katrina disaster, particularly President Bush's refusal to activate National Guard elements by federal or presidential order given the previous restrictions to such an order. This expansion of the wording would have, for example, allowed Hurricane Katrina to fall under the guidelines as a "natural disaster", whereas previously "insurrection" was required.

Here is the old text:

-----
333. Interference with State and Federal law

The President, by using the militia or the armed forces, or both, or by any other means, shall take such measures as he considers necessary to suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy, if it—

(1) so hinders the execution of the laws of that State, and of the United States within the State, 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 are unable, fail, or refuse to protect that right, privilege, or immunity, or to give that protection; or

(2) opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws. In any situation covered by clause (1), the State shall be considered to have denied the equal protection of the laws secured by the Constitution.
-----

And here is the new text:

-----
333. Major public emergencies; interference with State and Federal law

(a) USE OF ARMED FORCES IN MAJOR PUBLIC EMERGENCIES.--

(1) The President may employ the armed forces, including the National Guard in Federal service, to--

(A) restore public order and enforce the laws of the United States when, as a result of a natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident, or other condition in any State or possession of the United States, the President determines that--

(i) domestic violence has occurred to such an extent that the constituted authorities of the State or possession are incapable of maintaining public order; and

(ii) such violence results in a condition described in paragraph (2); or

(B) suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy if such insurrection, violation, combination, or conspiracy results in a condition described in paragraph (2).

(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.

(b) NOTICE TO CONGRESS.--

The President shall notify Congress of the determination to exercise the authority in subsection (a)(1)(A) as soon as practicable after the determination and every 14 days thereafter during the duration of the exercise of the authority.
-----

As you can see, the wording REQUIRES that the identical conditions be met (included in paragraph 2), as well as both requirements under (a)(1)(A). The only real difference is allowing the conditions to be met during "a natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident, or other condition" as opposed to "insurrection" specifically. (Besides, can't it be argued that "insurrection" can be broadly defined, too, if the real interest is to declare martial law?)

Just because there is now "or other condition" wording in the revised statute does NOT mean they can just arbitrarily decide there is an "other condition" and deploy the military or national guard. The condition still MUST meet the guidelines above; it's just that now it's not an "insurrection" that also meets those conditions, it's any event that meets those conditions. But the conditions themselves are specific, and are actually carefully worded to guarantee Constitutional protections.

Regards,

Dave Schroeder
University of Wisconsin - Madison
das@doit.wisc.edu
http://das.doit.wisc.edu/

[BellisimaJ.]

Thanks for offering your opinion, Dave. It is always good to listen to a variety of opinions on any topic dealing with politics.

I am planning to ask another professional, someone who has argued before the Supreme Court a number of times, to give his opinion on this revised act.

You may be interested in checking back.

Btw, welcome to TT.

[BellisimaJ.]

Dave,

I noticed that you are a senior systems engineer. I am assuming that you are a Republican-------please correct me if I am wrong---I frequently am.

Do you have any background in constitutional law? Just a matter of my own curiosity.

[daveschroeder]

Thanks for the welcome.

I have actually been updating the Wikipedia article for the Insurrection Act of 1807 today, and made a nice table of the exact differences:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insurrectio...ifferences

I think people will find that, as I stated, the same conditions must still be met, since the wording for those standards is the same as the 1807 act and very clearly laid out in the revised wording. What's "new" is that these conditions can be the result of a potentially any set of circumstances, whereas before, they had to be the result of "insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy".

The specific changes are very clear. The revised text allows for implementation in the event of "natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident, or other condition" in addition to the previous wording. A lot of people say, "But what's a terrorist attack?" or, "What about 'other condition'? That could be anything!" That's right.

BUT...

The following conditions still must be met:

(i) domestic violence has occurred to such an extent that the constituted authorities of the State or possession are incapable of maintaining public order; and

(ii) such violence results in a condition described in paragraph (2); or

(B) suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy if such insurrection, violation, combination, or conspiracy results in a condition described in paragraph (2).

(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.

-----

Those are the same, exact, identical conditions that must be met for the last 199 years since the law was enacted. If people are worried about protest, riots, demonstrations, revolts, etc., being "targeted" more easily by the new law, those all would easily have been argued to fall under the "insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy", but a complete loss of the ability of the State (or its subordinate components) to maintain public order and enforce the law must also occur.

The "new" thing in the revised text is that it allows for deployment of the military and/or national guard to restore public order, enforce laws, etc., under essentially any circumstance that has led to that situation (which would likely be a major public emergency or disaster, if it has led to a complete loss of public order), instead of just "insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy". I know people are envisioning a protest group of people opposed to the administration or something similar somehow falling under this act. But anything like that could easily be defined to fall under the old wording.

And as for declaring martial law, it would be for an affected region, that would almost never exceed the boundaries of a single state, unless it was a absolutely major disaster of horrific scale (such as Katrina). And if it was a revolution of people hoping to overthrow the government, again, that would have clearly fallen under the guise of the old Insurrection Act of 1807, as-is.

It's pretty clear that this is a minor update to an old law, and not some secret conspiracy. Again, I urge you to read my original post carefully, especially the text of the act. Try to think of a scenario where you think martial law could be declared, no matter how wild, and then read section 333 of the old act, and then the revised text. Read carefully, and remember that public order must already have been lost, and the State and its constituted entities has no ability to maintain order, enforce laws, or uphold Constitutional guarantees. Should there be federally directed assistance? I also encourage people to examine the old and new text side by side at the Wikipedia link above.

I don't think this is a "political" issue. The update is very clear, and it's not vague in the least.

Regards,

Dave Schroeder
University of Wisconsin - Madison
das@doit.wisc.edu
http://das.doit.wisc.edu/

[BellisimaJ.]

It's pretty clear that this is a minor update to an old law, and not some secret conspiracy. Again, I urge you to read my original post carefully, especially the text of the act. Try to think of a scenario where you think martial law could be declared, no matter how wild, and then read section 333 of the old act, and then the revised text. Read carefully, and remember that public order must already have been lost, and the State and its constituted entities has no ability to maintain order, enforce laws, or uphold Constitutional guarantees. Should there be federally directed assistance? I also encourage people to examine the old and new text side by side at the Wikipedia link above.

Bolding is mine.

Thanks, Dave.

I think I will do exactly as you suggested tomorrow. It is obviously a matter of some concern to all of us.

Nicole

[daveschroeder]

[quote author=BellisimaJ. link=topic=5668.msg30067#msg30067 date=1162261059]
Dave,

I noticed that you are a senior systems engineer. I am assuming that you are a Republican-------please correct me if I am wrong---I frequently am.[/quote]

When I vote, I quite frequently cross party lines, and often vote for different parties at different levels of government (e.g., city, county, state, federal) and in difference offices. I can also tell you that I rarely vote for "third" parties. Since I quite often don't vote for Republicans, I don't think that would make me a "Republican" by any normal definition.

Do you have any background in constitutional law? Just a matter of my own curiosity.

No, but I have a background in reading , and if the 1807 act has stood as Constitutional for almost two centuries, I don't think this is a Constitutional issue. Rewording the law to allow for similar exercise of authority under identical conditions no matter what circumstance has led to the total loss of public order (see my post above for a more detailed description) would seem within the bounds of common sense, especially in the wake of Katrina. Regardless of anyone's opinion on Bush's response to Katrina, who was to "blame" (or not), etc., the revised statute absolutely makes it clear that the national military and/or State national guard can be federally directed to restore public order, enforce laws, and uphold Constitutional guarantees.

I would encourage you to look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insurrectio...ifferences and take careful note of the conditions that must be met under the old and new wording of the statute. It's tempting to get to "other condition" and just stop, thinking, "Oh, my! Any condition could allow this to be invoked, at any time!" But that's not true, because several other conditions must be met, namely, that the situation is already extremely dire - dire enough for the State and its authorities to not be able to maintain public order. And those are the same requirements that have stood for almost 200 years.

Regards,

Dave Schroeder
University of Wisconsin - Madison
das@doit.wisc.edu
http://das.doit.wisc.edu/