No more Posse Comitatus?
-
beginning Oct. 1 for 12 months, the 1st [Brigade Combat Team] will be under the day-to-day control of U.S. Army North" -- "the first time an active unit has been given a dedicated assignment to NorthCom, a joint command established in 2002 to provide command and control for federal homeland defense efforts and coordinate defense support of civil authorities...They may be called upon to help with civil unrest and crowd control...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 "condition" is not defined or limited. . [^] An interesting legacy that Obama will be inheriting from Bush. X|
-
beginning Oct. 1 for 12 months, the 1st [Brigade Combat Team] will be under the day-to-day control of U.S. Army North" -- "the first time an active unit has been given a dedicated assignment to NorthCom, a joint command established in 2002 to provide command and control for federal homeland defense efforts and coordinate defense support of civil authorities...They may be called upon to help with civil unrest and crowd control...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 "condition" is not defined or limited. . [^] An interesting legacy that Obama will be inheriting from Bush. X|
That is frightening... And I was joking about Bush starting to look like Ceasar. But either way, Obama won't have to worry about it.
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
-
That is frightening... And I was joking about Bush starting to look like Ceasar. But either way, Obama won't have to worry about it.
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
-
beginning Oct. 1 for 12 months, the 1st [Brigade Combat Team] will be under the day-to-day control of U.S. Army North" -- "the first time an active unit has been given a dedicated assignment to NorthCom, a joint command established in 2002 to provide command and control for federal homeland defense efforts and coordinate defense support of civil authorities...They may be called upon to help with civil unrest and crowd control...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 "condition" is not defined or limited. . [^] An interesting legacy that Obama will be inheriting from Bush. X|
oilFactotum wrote:
the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007
That would have passed in 2006, and your beloved Dems owned both house and Senate, so the question would be: Why were you asleep at the wheel? Interestingly, One must wonder if this article is complete BS, since according to GovTrack.us[^] this particular bill never became law. In addition, neither the text as introduced by Warner (present on the govtrack site), nor the version on Thomas show any edits whatsoever to the section (1076) mentioned in the article. I also notice that the Salon article neglects to mention that the Co-sponsor was Carl Levin (D. Mich). the article you lionked to provides no references to support its assertions, and the few that I could find quickly seem to contradict it. Could the Author be lying? What would his motive be, do you suppose?
-
BoneSoft wrote:
And I was joking about Bush starting to look like Ceasar. But either way, Obama won't have to worry about it.
Yep. He looks more like Cleopatra. ;)
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Consider the source before you panic. I could not verify this Salon.com crap.
-
beginning Oct. 1 for 12 months, the 1st [Brigade Combat Team] will be under the day-to-day control of U.S. Army North" -- "the first time an active unit has been given a dedicated assignment to NorthCom, a joint command established in 2002 to provide command and control for federal homeland defense efforts and coordinate defense support of civil authorities...They may be called upon to help with civil unrest and crowd control...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 "condition" is not defined or limited. . [^] An interesting legacy that Obama will be inheriting from Bush. X|
You know, you can use <blockquote> to format your excerpts. A bit easier to read than the purple-on-blue of a followed link.
----
You're right. These facts that you've laid out totally contradict the wild ramblings that I pulled off the back of cornflakes packets.
-
oilFactotum wrote:
the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007
That would have passed in 2006, and your beloved Dems owned both house and Senate, so the question would be: Why were you asleep at the wheel? Interestingly, One must wonder if this article is complete BS, since according to GovTrack.us[^] this particular bill never became law. In addition, neither the text as introduced by Warner (present on the govtrack site), nor the version on Thomas show any edits whatsoever to the section (1076) mentioned in the article. I also notice that the Salon article neglects to mention that the Co-sponsor was Carl Levin (D. Mich). the article you lionked to provides no references to support its assertions, and the few that I could find quickly seem to contradict it. Could the Author be lying? What would his motive be, do you suppose?
Rob Graham wrote:
That would have passed in 2006, and your beloved Dems owned both house and Senate
Wow! That changes everything! :rolleyes: Feel better now?
Rob Graham wrote:
so the question would be: Why were you asleep at the wheel?
So now I control the Congress? What world do you live in?
Rob Graham wrote:
Interestingly, One must wonder if this article is complete BS, since according to GovTrack.us[^] this particular bill never became law.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h109-5122[^] You now know that law did pass with section 1076. So, wonder no more.
Rob Graham wrote:
also notice that the Salon article neglects to mention that the Co-sponsor was Carl Levin (D. Mich).
And you think that is important because...?
Rob Graham wrote:
Could the Author be lying?
Unlikely.
-
oilFactotum wrote:
the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007
That would have passed in 2006, and your beloved Dems owned both house and Senate, so the question would be: Why were you asleep at the wheel? Interestingly, One must wonder if this article is complete BS, since according to GovTrack.us[^] this particular bill never became law. In addition, neither the text as introduced by Warner (present on the govtrack site), nor the version on Thomas show any edits whatsoever to the section (1076) mentioned in the article. I also notice that the Salon article neglects to mention that the Co-sponsor was Carl Levin (D. Mich). the article you lionked to provides no references to support its assertions, and the few that I could find quickly seem to contradict it. Could the Author be lying? What would his motive be, do you suppose?
Rob Graham wrote:
That would have passed in 2006, and your beloved Dems owned both house and Senate
Fiscal year 2007 began October 1, 2006, when the Republicans owned both House and Senate. The election in which Dems became majorities in House and Senate was held in November 2006. That Congress wasn't seated until January 2007.
-
Rob Graham wrote:
That would have passed in 2006, and your beloved Dems owned both house and Senate
Fiscal year 2007 began October 1, 2006, when the Republicans owned both House and Senate. The election in which Dems became majorities in House and Senate was held in November 2006. That Congress wasn't seated until January 2007.
Ed Gadziemski wrote:
Senate
I stand corrected. Any comment on the observation that the cited bill never became law? And that it had no edits to 1076 in the as submitted form?
-
Ed Gadziemski wrote:
Senate
I stand corrected. Any comment on the observation that the cited bill never became law? And that it had no edits to 1076 in the as submitted form?
The Senate version was dropped because the House version was passed as H.R. 5122 [109th]: John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007[^].
-
beginning Oct. 1 for 12 months, the 1st [Brigade Combat Team] will be under the day-to-day control of U.S. Army North" -- "the first time an active unit has been given a dedicated assignment to NorthCom, a joint command established in 2002 to provide command and control for federal homeland defense efforts and coordinate defense support of civil authorities...They may be called upon to help with civil unrest and crowd control...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 "condition" is not defined or limited. . [^] An interesting legacy that Obama will be inheriting from Bush. X|
But isn't this exactly what the democrats and other leftists were demanding after Katrina? Didn't they want an immediate military presence in New Orleans? Wasn't it Bush's fault that all those people died because there was insufficient mobilization of the military? I'm pretty sure that this is exactly what people were demanding. Are you now saying that it is better to let inner city blcak people drown than to allow this? If not, how precisely is a president supposed to have the military prepared to act without getting rid of the limitations on committing them?
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
The Senate version was dropped because the House version was passed as H.R. 5122 [109th]: John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007[^].
Ed Gadziemski wrote:
House version was passed as H.R. 5122 [109th]: John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007[^].
I just love it when the final report is "A record of each representative's position was not kept." It says so much about the transparancy of our democratic process.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
But isn't this exactly what the democrats and other leftists were demanding after Katrina? Didn't they want an immediate military presence in New Orleans? Wasn't it Bush's fault that all those people died because there was insufficient mobilization of the military? I'm pretty sure that this is exactly what people were demanding. Are you now saying that it is better to let inner city blcak people drown than to allow this? If not, how precisely is a president supposed to have the military prepared to act without getting rid of the limitations on committing them?
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
All of which was what Sen. Kennedy said was his understanding of the changes complained of.
-
But isn't this exactly what the democrats and other leftists were demanding after Katrina? Didn't they want an immediate military presence in New Orleans? Wasn't it Bush's fault that all those people died because there was insufficient mobilization of the military? I'm pretty sure that this is exactly what people were demanding. Are you now saying that it is better to let inner city blcak people drown than to allow this? If not, how precisely is a president supposed to have the military prepared to act without getting rid of the limitations on committing them?
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
But isn't this exactly what the democrats and other leftists were demanding after Katrina?...
Is it? I'd be interested in seeing that. Again, as with Rob, whats your point?
Stan Shannon wrote:
Are you now saying...
Are you saying that Posse Comitatus is a bad law and you would much prefer having the federal government mobilizing the army to occupy whatever parts of this country it sees fit whenever it likes for whatever reason it decides?
-
Ed Gadziemski wrote:
House version was passed as H.R. 5122 [109th]: John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007[^].
I just love it when the final report is "A record of each representative's position was not kept." It says so much about the transparancy of our democratic process.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
It says so much about the transparancy of our democratic process.
Are you saying you want to hold congresspeople accountable for their actions? That's crazy talk! :)
-
The Senate version was dropped because the House version was passed as H.R. 5122 [109th]: John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007[^].
And the section in question was largely repealed the next year in the 2008 FY version of the same act. It seems doubtful that Bush's signing comments will be meaningful (the Constitution gives them no validity) in the next 90 days or so he has left. The next president, regardless of who wins, will be better, and less impelled toward the accumulation of power. Now if only we could stop the partisan quibbling and actually solve some real problems, like energy, health care, and infrastructure...
-
Oakman wrote:
It says so much about the transparancy of our democratic process.
Are you saying you want to hold congresspeople accountable for their actions? That's crazy talk! :)
I think we should fire the lot, and plan to do my feeble part on that this November.
-
Oakman wrote:
It says so much about the transparancy of our democratic process.
Are you saying you want to hold congresspeople accountable for their actions? That's crazy talk! :)
Ed Gadziemski wrote:
Are you saying you want to hold congresspeople accountable for their actions? That's crazy talk
What was I thinking??? Well, Homeland Security will be knocking on my door at any moment. Give my regards to Chris when he returns. . .
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
But isn't this exactly what the democrats and other leftists were demanding after Katrina? Didn't they want an immediate military presence in New Orleans? Wasn't it Bush's fault that all those people died because there was insufficient mobilization of the military? I'm pretty sure that this is exactly what people were demanding. Are you now saying that it is better to let inner city blcak people drown than to allow this? If not, how precisely is a president supposed to have the military prepared to act without getting rid of the limitations on committing them?
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
But isn't this exactly what the democrats and other leftists were demanding after Katrina?
No
Stan Shannon wrote:
Didn't they want an immediate military presence in New Orleans?
No
Stan Shannon wrote:
Wasn't it Bush's fault that all those people died because there was insufficient mobilization of the military?
No
Stan Shannon wrote:
I'm pretty sure that this is exactly what people were demanding.
You're wrong.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Are you now saying that it is better to let inner city blcak people drown than to allow this?
No
Stan Shannon wrote:
If not, how precisely is a president supposed to have the military prepared to act without getting rid of the limitations on committing them
Provisions in the law as it stood allowed for both Federalized National Guard troops and the Coast Guard to act.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
But isn't this exactly what the democrats and other leftists were demanding after Katrina?...
Is it? I'd be interested in seeing that. Again, as with Rob, whats your point?
Stan Shannon wrote:
Are you now saying...
Are you saying that Posse Comitatus is a bad law and you would much prefer having the federal government mobilizing the army to occupy whatever parts of this country it sees fit whenever it likes for whatever reason it decides?
oilFactotum wrote:
Are you saying that Posse Comitatus is a bad law and you would much prefer having the federal government mobilizing the army to occupy whatever parts of this country it sees fit whenever it likes for whatever reason it decides?
Sure. As long as it was rounding up liberals and putting them into reeducation camps. guys like you are entirely pathetic, oily. I don't like or support a single thing Bush has done. But he is doing precisely what a democrat would do in the same situation, and there would not be any protest at all. Your problem is not what is being done, it is who is doing it. Either that, or you're just an idiot. Any time you want to start a revolution to put a stop to all of this, I'll be your first volunteer. But as long as it is so glaringly obvious that you are just a partisan, leftist hack doing every thing possible to get your guys elected - fuck off...
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.