+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 12 of 12

Thread: Bush Moves Toward Martial Law

  1. #1
    Banned
    Join Date
    22 Nov 06
    Posts
    5
    Country: United States

    Bush Moves Toward Martial Law

    Bush Moves Toward Martial Law


    by Frank Morales

    Global Research, October 29, 2006
    http://www.globalresearch.ca/


    Email this article to a friend
    Print this article


    In a stealth maneuver, President Bush has signed into law a provision which, according to Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont), will actually encourage the President to declare federal martial law (1). It does so by revising the Insurrection Act, a set of laws that limits the President's ability to deploy troops within the United States. The Insurrection Act (10 U.S.C.331 -335) has historically, along with the Posse Comitatus Act (18 U.S.C.1385), helped to enforce strict prohibitions on military involvement in domestic law enforcement. With one cloaked swipe of his pen, Bush is seeking to undo those prohibitions.

    Public Law 109-364, or the "John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007" (H.R.5122) (2), which was signed by the commander in chief on October 17th, 2006, in a private Oval Office ceremony, 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."

    President Bush seized this unprecedented power on the very same day that he signed the equally odious Military Commissions Act of 2006. In a sense, the two laws complement one another. One allows for torture and detention abroad, while the other seeks to enforce acquiescence at home, preparing to order the military onto the streets of America. Remember, the term for putting an area under military law enforcement control is precise; the term is "martial law."

    Section 1076 of the massive Authorization Act, which grants the Pentagon another $500-plus-billion for its ill-advised adventures, is entitled, "Use of the Armed Forces in Major Public Emergencies." Section 333, "Major public emergencies; interference with State and Federal law" states that "the President may employ the armed forces, including the National Guard in Federal service, to 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 domestic violence has occurred to such an extent that the constituted authorities of the State or possession are incapable of ("refuse" or "fail" in) maintaining public order, "in order to suppress, in any State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy."

    For the current President, "enforcement of the laws to restore public order" means to commandeer guardsmen from any state, over the objections of local governmental, military and local police entities; ship them off to another state; conscript them in a law enforcement mode; and set them loose against "disorderly" citizenry - protesters, possibly, or those who object to forced vaccinations and quarantines in the event of a bio-terror event.

    The law also facilitates militarized police round-ups and detention of protesters, so called "illegal aliens," "potential terrorists" and other "undesirables" for detention in facilities already contracted for and under construction by Halliburton. That's right. Under the cover of a trumped-up "immigration emergency" and the frenzied militarization of the southern border, detention camps are being constructed right under our noses, camps designed for anyone who resists the foreign and domestic agenda of the Bush administration.

    An article on "recent contract awards" in a recent issue of the slick, insider "Journal of Counterterrorism & Homeland Security International" reported that "global engineering and technical services powerhouse KBR [Kellog, Brown & Root] announced in January 2006 that its Government and Infrastructure division was awarded an Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract to support U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) facilities in the event of an emergency." "With a maximum total value of $385 million over a five year term," the report notes, "the contract is to be executed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers," "for establishing temporary detention and processing capabilities to augment existing ICE Detention and Removal Operations (DRO) - in the event of an emergency influx of immigrants into the U.S., or to support the rapid development of new programs." The report points out that "KBR is the engineering and construction subsidiary of Halliburton." (3) So, in addition to authorizing another $532.8 billion for the Pentagon, including a $70-billion "supplemental provision" which covers the cost of the ongoing, mad military maneuvers in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other places, the new law, signed by the president in a private White House ceremony, further collapses the historic divide between the police and the military: a tell-tale sign of a rapidly consolidating police state in America, all accomplished amidst ongoing U.S. imperial pretensions of global domination, sold to an "emergency managed" and seemingly willfully gullible public as a "global war on terrorism."

    Make no mistake about it: the de-facto repeal of the Posse Comitatus Act (PCA) is an ominous assault on American democratic tradition and jurisprudence. The 1878 Act, which reads, "Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both," is the only U.S. criminal statute that outlaws military operations directed against the American people under the cover of 'law enforcement.' As such, it has been the best protection we've had against the power-hungry intentions of an unscrupulous and reckless executive, an executive intent on using force to enforce its will.

    Unfortunately, this past week, the president dealt posse comitatus, along with American democracy, a near fatal blow. Consequently, it will take an aroused citizenry to undo the damage wrought by this horrendous act, part and parcel, as we have seen, of a long train of abuses and outrages perpetrated by this authoritarian administration.

    Despite the unprecedented and shocking nature of this act, there has been no outcry in the American media, and little reaction from our elected officials in Congress. On September 19th, a lone Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont) noted that 2007's Defense Authorization Act contained a "widely opposed provision to allow the President more control over the National Guard [adopting] changes to the Insurrection Act, which will make it easier for this or any future President to use the military to restore domestic order WITHOUT the consent of the nation's governors."

    Senator Leahy went on to stress that, "we certainly do not need to make it easier for Presidents to declare martial law. Invoking the Insurrection Act and using the military for law enforcement activities goes against some of the central tenets of our democracy. One can easily envision governors and mayors in charge of an emergency having to constantly look over their shoulders while someone who has never visited their communities gives the orders."

    A few weeks later, on the 29th of September, Leahy entered into the Congressional Record that he had "grave reservations about certain provisions of the fiscal Year 2007 Defense Authorization Bill Conference Report," the language of which, he said, "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." This had been "slipped in," Leahy said, "as a rider with little study," while "other congressional committees with jurisdiction over these matters had no chance to comment, let alone hold hearings on, these proposals."

    In a telling bit of understatement, the Senator from Vermont noted that "the implications of changing the (Posse Comitatus) Act are enormous". "There is good reason," he said, "for the constructive friction in existing law when it comes to martial law declarations. Using the military for law enforcement goes against one of the founding tenets of our democracy. 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."

    Senator Leahy's final ruminations: "Since hearing word a couple of weeks ago that this outcome was likely, I have wondered how Congress could have gotten to this point. It seems the changes to the Insurrection Act have survived the Conference because the Pentagon and the White House want it."

    The historic and ominous re-writing of the Insurrection Act, accomplished in the dead of night, which gives Bush the legal authority to declare martial law, is now an accomplished fact.

    The Pentagon, as one might expect, plays an even more direct role in martial law operations. Title XIV of the new law, entitled, "Homeland Defense Technology Transfer Legislative Provisions," authorizes "the Secretary of Defense to create a Homeland Defense Technology Transfer Consortium to improve the effectiveness of the Department of Defense (DOD) processes for identifying and deploying relevant DOD technology to federal, State, and local first responders."

    In other words, the law facilitates the "transfer" of the newest in so-called "crowd control" technology and other weaponry designed to suppress dissent from the Pentagon to local militarized police units. The new law builds on and further codifies earlier "technology transfer" agreements, specifically the 1995 DOD-Justice Department memorandum of agreement achieved back during the Clinton-Reno regime.(4)

    It has become clear in recent months that a critical mass of the American people have seen through the lies of the Bush administration; with the president's polls at an historic low, growing resistance to the war Iraq, and the Democrats likely to take back the Congress in mid-term elections, the Bush administration is on the ropes. And so it is particularly worrying that President Bush has seen fit, at this juncture to, in effect, declare himself dictator.

    Source:

    http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200609/091906a.html and http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200609/092906b.html See also, Congressional Research Service Report for Congress, "The Use of Federal Troops for Disaster Assistance: Legal Issues," by Jennifer K. Elsea, Legislative Attorney, August 14, 2006

    http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill+h109-5122

    (3) Journal of Counterterrorism & Homeland Security International, "Recent Contract Awards", Summer 2006, Vol.12, No.2, pg.8; See also, Peter Dale Scott, "Homeland Security Contracts for Vast New Detention Camps," New American Media, January 31, 2006.

    (4) "Technology Transfer from defense: Concealed Weapons Detection", National Institute of Justice Journal, No 229, August, 1995, pp.42-43.

  2. #2
    Regular
    Join Date
    08 Oct 06
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Posts
    111
    This bill is a response to the slow federal reaction during the Katrina hurricane disaster, and not a presidential attempt to seizer power. I don't like Bush either (I only voted for him the first time Vs Al Gore). In the last elections, selected the "democratic party line voting" option on my ballot. Even I have to call this article BS doom-saying whose conclusion has no basis in reality.

  3. #3
    Contributor
    Join Date
    05 May 06
    Posts
    308
    Make no mistake about it: the de-facto repeal of the Posse Comitatus Act (PCA) is an ominous assault on American democratic tradition and jurisprudence. The 1878 Act, which reads, "Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both," is the only U.S. criminal statute that outlaws military operations directed against the American people under the cover of 'law enforcement.' As such, it has been the best protection we've had against the power-hungry intentions of an unscrupulous and reckless executive, an executive intent on using force to enforce its will.
    Since when did we have an Air Force, let alone a _independent_ one, in 1878?

  4. #4
    WAB Bartender Defense Professional
    Military Professional
    Bluesman's Avatar
    Join Date
    24 Nov 04
    Location
    Nellis AFB, Las Vegas, NV
    Posts
    8,518
    Country: United States
    Hey, Octoldit? Can you leave off now? You're giving us all boils.
    "The quickest way of ending a war is to lose it, and if one finds the prospect of a long war intolerable, it is natural to disbelieve in the possibility of victory."
    - George Orwell

  5. #5
    Death, the Destroyer of Worlds... Senior Contributor -{SpoonmaN}-'s Avatar
    Join Date
    08 Sep 04
    Location
    Amidst the rolling hills of merry England.
    Posts
    1,502
    Country: Australia
    I love it how these Liberal idiots act like politicians lying is some sort of shocking new trend, or that the Democrats would have acted any differently.
    "I have this to say to the people of Australia: Kick me, I'm different."

  6. #6
    Official Thread Jacker Senior Contributor gunnut's Avatar
    Join Date
    27 Jan 06
    Location
    DPRK, Demokratik People's Republik of Kalifornia
    Posts
    21,322
    Country: United States
    Nice hit piece.

    The liberal socialists have tried for the last 50 years to undermine our 2nd Amendment for no good reasons and not a peep from this guy.

    Bush does something after 9-11 to improve national security and they call it martial law.

    Leftwing liberal socialist hippies are more dangerous to freedom than Bush ever could.
    "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

  7. #7
    Staff Emeritus
    Join Date
    03 Aug 03
    Posts
    16,429
    Country: Switzerland
    Quote Originally Posted by durtyburd View Post
    This bill is a response to the slow federal reaction during the Katrina hurricane disaster, and not a presidential attempt to seizer power. I don't like Bush either (I only voted for him the first time Vs Al Gore). In the last elections, selected the "democratic party line voting" option on my ballot. Even I have to call this article BS doom-saying whose conclusion has no basis in reality.
    There is no BS about this sheep boy.

    "Section 1076 of the massive Authorization Act, which grants the Pentagon another $500-plus-billion for its ill-advised adventures, is entitled, "Use of the Armed Forces in Major Public Emergencies." Section 333, "Major public emergencies; interference with State and Federal law" states that "the President may employ the armed forces, including the National Guard in Federal service, to 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 domestic violence has occurred to such an extent that the constituted authorities of the State or possession are incapable of ("refuse" or "fail" in) maintaining public order, "in order to suppress, in any State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy."

    ------------------

    It's a blank check for abuse, and is a death sentence for Posse Comitatus and the Insurrection Act.
    Last edited by Bill; 29 Nov 06, at 21:01.

  8. #8
    Contributor
    Join Date
    05 May 06
    Posts
    308
    As with the Air Force gaff, it appears there is more here then the article writer would like to admit.

    Link 1
    Section 1061

    Major features:

    Before it went into conference committee, Section 1061 specified a number of reports required from the President. Specifically, it would have forced the President to submit a report detailing the government's legal briefs on whether waterboarding, sleep deprivation, stress positions, beatings, use of dogs, forced nakedness and use of extreme temperatures constitute cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. This level of accountability sorely needed, but these reporting requirements did not make it into the final bill.

    Instead, the final bill contains these requirements: 1) that the President shall give notice to Congress of each investigation or prosecution on account of any violation of international obligations or laws regarding treatment of detainees and 2) that the Secretary of Defense shall report regularly to Congress on each investigation or prosecution.
    But reporting requirements typically run aground when President Bush issues his signing statements. On October 17, the President singled out Section 1061 as one of eleven provisions in the bill, which "the executive branch will construe...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."
    Section 1076

    Major changes:

    Changed the title of the law from "Insurrection Act" to "Enforcement of the Laws to Restore Public Order Act"
    Specifies situations in which the President can invoke martial law (natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident or other condition in which the President determines that domestic violence has occurred to the extent that state officials cannot maintain public order). These had not been specified before.
    Spells out the President's obligation to inform Congress within 14 days when he determines to exercise the authority, and every 14 days thereafter, during the exercise of the authority. This had also not been specified under the Insurrection Act.
    Well I'm at least happy with limiting the situations where the President can declare martial law. Not sure about this law at this point, especially if Edward Kennedy is for it.

    Also has some added stuff on the weapons procurement process amoung other things.

  9. #9
    Contributor
    Join Date
    05 May 06
    Posts
    308
    Reading more.

    So we're going from this:
    (331)
    Whenever there is an insurrections in any State against its government, the President may, upon the request of its legislature or of its governor if the legislature cannot be convened, call into Federal service such of the militia of the other States, in the number requested by that State, and use such of the armed forces, as he considers necessary to suppress the insurrection.
    (333)
    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.
    (334)
    Whenever the President considers it necessary to use the militia or the armed forces under this chapter, he shall, by proclamation, immediately order the insurgents to disperse and retire peaceably to their abodes within a limited time.
    To this:
    (1) IN GENERAL- Section 333 of title 10, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:

    `Sec. 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 that authority.'.

    (2) PROCLAMATION TO DISPERSE- Section 334 of such title is amended by inserting `or those obstructing the enforcement of the laws' after `insurgents'.
    Actually seems to be more limiting then the original and 1076 is mainly just modifying Section 333, no mention of the Posse Comitatus Act whatsoever. Not sure what to think about this, personally.

  10. #10
    Patron
    Join Date
    27 Nov 04
    Posts
    288
    WASHINGTON - Without their knowledge, millions of Americans and foreigners crossing U.S. borders in the past four years have been assigned scores generated by U.S. government computers rating the risk that the travelers are terrorists or criminals.



    The travelers are not allowed to see or directly challenge these risk assessments, which the government intends to keep on file for 40 years.
    The government calls the system critical to national security following the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Some privacy advocates call it one of the most intrusive and risky schemes yet mounted in the name of anti-terrorism efforts.

    Virtually every person entering and leaving the United States by air, sea or land is scored by the Homeland Security Department's Automated Targeting System, or ATS. The scores are based on ATS' analysis of their travel records and other data, including items such as where they are from, how they paid for tickets, their motor vehicle records, past one-way travel, seating preference and what kind of meal they ordered.
    The use of the program on travelers was quietly disclosed earlier this month when the department put a notice detailing ATS in the Federal Register, a fine-print compendium of federal rules. The few civil liberties lawyers who had heard of ATS and even some law enforcement officers said they had thought it was only used to screen cargo.

    The Homeland Security Department called the program "one of the most advanced targeting systems in the world" and said the nation's ability to spot criminals and other security threats "would be critically impaired without access to this data."

    But to David Sobel, a lawyer at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a group devoted to civil liberties in cyberspace: "It's probably the most invasive system the government has yet deployed in terms of the number of people affected."

    Government officials could not say whether ATS has apprehended any terrorists. Based on all the information available to them, federal agents turn back about 45 foreign criminals a day at U.S. borders, according to Homeland Security's Customs and Border Protection spokesman Bill Anthony. He could not say how many were spotted by ATS.

    "Homeland Security ought to focus on the simple things it can do and stop trying to build these overly complex jury-rigged systems," said Barry Steinhardt, an American Civil Liberties Union lawyer, citing problems the agency has had developing a computerized screening system for domestic air travelers.

    That data-mining project — now known as Secure Flight — caused a furor two years ago in Congress. Lawmakers barred its implementation until it can pass 10 tests for accuracy and privacy protection.

    In comments to the government about ATS, Sobel said, "Some individuals will be denied the right to travel and many the right to travel free of unwarranted interference."
    Sobel said in the interview that the government notice also raises the possibility that faulty risk assessments could cost innocent people jobs in shipping or travel, government contracts, licenses or other benefits.

    The government notice says some or all of the ATS data about an individual may be shared with state, local and foreign governments for use in hiring decisions and in granting licenses, security clearances, contracts or other benefits. In some cases, the data may be shared with courts, Congress and even private contractors.

    "Everybody else can see it, but you can't," Stephen Yale-Loehr, an immigration lawyer who teaches at Cornell Law school, said in an interview.

    But Jayson P. Ahern, an assistant commissioner of Customs and Border Protection, said the ATS ratings simply allow agents at the border to pick out people not previously identified by law enforcement as potential terrorists or criminals and send them for additional searches and interviews.

    "It does not replace the judgments of officers" in reaching a final decision about a traveler, Ahern said in an interview Thursday.

    This targeting system goes beyond traditional watch lists, Ahern said. Border agents compare arrival names with watch lists separately from the ATS analysis.

    In a privacy impact assessment posted on its Web site this week, Homeland Security said ATS is aimed at discovering high-risk individuals who "may not have been previously associated with a law enforcement action or otherwise be noted as a person of concern to law enforcement."

    Ahern said ATS does this by applying rules derived from the government's knowledge of terrorists and criminals to the passenger's travel records.

    Ahern declined to disclose any of the rules, but a Homeland Security document on data-mining gave this innocuous example of a risk assessment rule: "If an individual sponsors more than one fiancee for immigration at the same time, there is likelihood of immigration fraud."

    Ahern said ATS was first used to rate the risk posed by travelers in the late 1990s, using personal information about them voluntarily supplied by air and cruise lines.

    A post-9/11 law vastly expanded the program, he said. It required airline and cruise companies to begin in 2002 sending the government electronic data in advance on all passengers and crew bound into or out of the country. All these names are put through ATS analysis, Ahern said. In addition, at land border crossings, agents enter license plates and the names of vehicle drivers and passengers, and Amtrak voluntarily supplies passenger data on its trains to and from Canada, he said.

    In the Federal Register, the department exempted ATS from many provisions of the Privacy Act designed to protect people from secret, possibly inaccurate government dossiers. As a result, it said travelers cannot learn whether the system has assessed them. Nor can they see the records "for the purpose of contesting the content."

    Toby Levin, senior adviser in Homeland Security's Privacy Office, noted that the department pledged to review the exemptions over the next 90 days based on the public comment received. As of Thursday, all 15 public comments received opposed the system outright or criticized its redress procedures.

    The Homeland Security privacy impact statement added that "an individual might not be aware of the reason additional scrutiny is taking place, nor should he or she" because that might compromise the ATS' methods.

    Nevertheless, Ahern said any traveler who objected to additional searches or interviews could ask to speak to a supervisor to complain. Homeland Security's privacy impact statement said that if asked, border agents would hand complaining passengers a one-page document that describes some, but not all, of the records that agents check and refers complaints to Custom and Border Protection's Customer Satisfaction Unit.

    Homeland Security's statement said travelers can use this office to obtain corrections to the underlying data sources that the risk assessment is based on, but not to the risk assessment itself. The risk assessment changes automatically if the source data changes, the statement explained.

    "I don't buy that at all," said Jim Malmberg, executive director of American Consumer Credit Education Support Services, a private credit education group. Malmberg said it has been hard for citizens, including members of Congress and even infants, to stop being misidentified as terrorists because their names match those on anti-terrorism watch lists. He noted that while the government plans to keep the risk assessments for 40 years, it doesn't intend to keep all the underlying data they are based on for that long.

    Homeland Security, however, is nearing an announcement of a new effort to improve redress programs and the public's awareness of them, according to a department privacy official, who requested anonymity because the formal announcement has not been made.

    The department says that 87 million people a year enter the country by air and 309 million enter by land or sea.

    I dont think that Bush is moving to martial law but certainly to paranoia if such measures have been introduced . Interessting that all these measures are approved without consent from the congress.

    Imagine yourself losing your job or be stopped every single time at the airport because you are on an obscure government list you cant see you cant challenge and probably dont even know that it is there. ll in the name or terror prevention.

  11. #11
    Staff Emeritus
    Join Date
    03 Aug 03
    Posts
    16,429
    Country: Switzerland
    We made the step to that of "police state" long ago.

  12. #12
    Official Thread Jacker Senior Contributor gunnut's Avatar
    Join Date
    27 Jan 06
    Location
    DPRK, Demokratik People's Republik of Kalifornia
    Posts
    21,322
    Country: United States
    Quote Originally Posted by Sombra View Post
    I dont think that Bush is moving to martial law but certainly to paranoia if such measures have been introduced . Interessting that all these measures are approved without consent from the congress.

    Imagine yourself losing your job or be stopped every single time at the airport because you are on an obscure government list you cant see you cant challenge and probably dont even know that it is there. ll in the name or terror prevention.
    They have been keeping tabs on gun owners for a long time. Let's all have a big "I TOLD YOU SO."
    "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

     

Similar Threads

  1. Bush Moves Toward Martial Law!
    By maddog88 in forum International Politics
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 02 Nov 06,, 16:14
  2. George Bush, please! Punish Kim Jong Il
    By roseman in forum International Politics
    Replies: 122
    Last Post: 12 Apr 06,, 23:33
  3. Moral Authority?
    By kmchugh in forum American Politics & Economy
    Replies: 61
    Last Post: 06 Oct 05,, 06:28
  4. Bush, A War Criminal?
    By Ray in forum American Politics & Economy
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 17 Dec 04,, 19:45
  5. Bump for Bush in polls
    By Leader in forum American Politics & Economy
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 26 Jun 04,, 02:22

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts