Bush deploys 20,000 troops in US +takeover National Guards + confiscation of guns?

[Hank Kroll]

Bush stationed 20,000+ troops in US -- possibly three times this
number. Obama may not be allowed to assume the office of the
Presidency. His administration has been warned of a possible
biological attack today December 2, 2008.

There is something big coming down the pike. As Bush leaves office a
possible false flag terrorist attack may allow him to declare marshal
law keeping him in power. President Bush signed an Executive Order
nullifying the Posse Comitatus Act allowing US troops to be deployed
in America. The government is contemplating the confiscation of all
firearms.
The American Civil Liberties Union and the libertarian Cato Institute
are troubled by what they consider an expansion of executive
authority.
Domestic emergency deployment may be "just the first example of a
series of expansions in presidential and military authority," or even
an increase in domestic surveillance, said Anna Christensen of the
ACLU's National Security Project. And Cato Vice President Gene Healy
warned of "a creeping militarization" of homeland security.
“In 1864 William Tecumsea Sherman was made supreme commander of the
armies in the West and was ordered to move against Atlanta, Georgia.
During the opening months of the campaign, he lost the Battle of
Kennesaw Mountain, and he did not capture Atlanta until almost three
months later, on September 1. After ordering the burning of the
military resources of the city, he launched his most celebrated
military action, known as Sherman’s march to the sea, in which, with
about 60,000 picked men, he marched from Atlanta to Savannah, Georgia,
on the Atlantic coast.
During Sherman’s march, the Northern soldiers pillaged the areas they
passed through demolishing military resources along with houses,
farms, and railroads. Destruction was especially severe in South
Carolina because Union soldiers blamed the state for starting the war.
In February 1865 Columbia, the capital of South Carolina, was burned
to the ground, although the origins of the fire are unknown. Sherman
hoped that the destruction of his march would lower Southern morale
and help end the war.. --Microsoft ® Encarta ® 2006. © 1993-2005
Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
For more than 100 years -- since the end of the Civil War --
deployment of the U.S. military inside the U.S. has been prohibited
under The Posse Comitatus Act (the only exceptions being that the
National Guard and Coast Guard are exempted, and use of the military
on an emergency ad hoc basis is permitted, such as what happened after
Hurricane Katrina). Though there have been some erosions of this
prohibition over the last several decades (most perniciously to allow
the use of the military to work with law enforcement agencies in the
"War on Drugs"), the bright line ban on using the U.S. military as a
standing law enforcement force inside the U.S. has been more or less
honored -- until now. And as the Army Times notes, once this
particular brigade completes its one-year assignment, "expectations
are that another, as yet unnamed, active-duty brigade will take over
and that the mission will be a permanent one."
After Hurricane Katrina, the Bush administration began openly
agitating for what would be, in essence, a complete elimination of the
key prohibitions of the Posse Comitatus Act in order to allow the
President to deploy U.S. military forces inside the U.S. basically at
will -- and, as usual, they were successful as a result of rapid
bipartisan compliance with the Leader's demand (the same kind of
compliance that is about to foist a bailout package on the nation).
This April, 2007 article by James Bovard in The American Conservative
detailed the now-familiar mechanics that led to the destruction of
this particular long-standing democratic safeguard:
The Defense Authorization Act of 2006, passed on Sept. 30, empowers
President George W. Bush to impose martial law in the event of a
terrorist "incident," 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. . . .
It only took a few paragraphs in a $500 billion, 591-page bill to raze
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
express permission of Congress. But there is 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
"condition" is not defined or limited. . . .
The story of how Section 1076 became law vivifies 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 clearly
signaled its intent and almost no one in the media or Congress tried
to stop it . . . .
Section 1076 was supported by both conservatives and liberals. Sen.
Carl Levin (D-Mich.), the ranking Democratic member on the Senate
Armed Services Committee, co-wrote the provision along with committee
chairman Sen. John Warner (R-Va.). Sen. Ted Kennedy openly endorsed
it, and Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.), then-chairman of the House
Armed Services Committee, was an avid proponent. . . .
Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), the ranking Democrat on the Senate
Judiciary Committee, warned on Sept. 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."
As is typical, very few members of the media even mentioned any of
this, let alone discussed it (and I failed to give this the attention
it deserved at the time), but Congressional Quarterly's Jeff Stein
wrote an excellent article at the time detailing the process and noted
that "despite such a radical turn, the new law garnered little
dissent, or even attention, on the Hill." Stein also noted that while
"the blogosphere, of course, was all over it . . . a search of The
Washington Post and New York Times archives, using the terms
'Insurrection Act,' 'martial law' and 'Congress,' came up empty."
Bovard and Stein both noted that every Governor -- including
Republicans -- joined in Leahy's objections, as they perceived it as a
threat from the Federal Government to what has long been the role of
the National Guard. But those concerns were easily brushed aside by
the bipartisan majorities in Congress, eager -- as always -- to grant
the President this radical new power.
The decision this month to permanently deploy a U.S. Army brigade
inside the U.S. for purely domestic law enforcement purposes is the
fruit of the Congressional elimination of the long-standing
prohibitions in Posse Comitatus (although there are credible signs
that even before Congress acted, the Bush administration secretly
decided it possessed the inherent power to violate the Act). It
shouldn't take any efforts to explain why the permanent deployment of
the U.S. military inside American cities, acting as the President's
police force, is so disturbing. Bovard:
"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. . . . 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 historic importance of the Posse Comitatus prohibition was also
well-analyzed here.
As the recent militarization of St. Paul during the GOP Convention
made abundantly clear, our actual police forces are already quite
militarized. Still, what possible rationale is there for permanently
deploying the U.S. Army inside the United States -- under the command
of the President -- for any purpose, let alone things such as "crowd
control," other traditional law enforcement functions, and a seemingly
unlimited array of other uses at the President's sole discretion? And
where are all of the stalwart right-wing "small government
conservatives" who spent the 1990s so vocally opposing every aspect of
the growing federal police force? And would it be possible to get some
explanation from the Government about what the rationale is for this
unprecedented domestic military deployment (at least unprecedented
since the Civil War), and why it is being undertaken now?

UPDATE: As this commenter notes, the 2008 National Defense
Authorization Act somewhat limited the scope of the powers granted by
the 2007 Act detailed above (mostly to address constitutional concerns
by limiting the President's powers to deploy the military to suppress
disorder that threatens constitutional rights), but President Bush,
when signing that 2008 Act into law, issued a signing statement which,
though vague, seems to declare that he does not recognize those new
limitations.

UPDATE II: There's no need to start manufacturing all sorts of scare
scenarios about Bush canceling elections or the imminent declaration
of martial law or anything of that sort. None of that is going to
happen with a single brigade and it's unlikely in the extreme that
they'd be announcing these deployments if they had activated any such
plans. The point is that the deployment is a very dangerous precedent,
quite possibly illegal, and a radical abandonment of an important
democratic safeguard. As always with first steps of this sort, the
danger lies in how the power can be abused in the future. -- Glenn
Greenwald October 2008
The following written by Frank Morales Thursday 26 October 2006
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:
(1) 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
(2) 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.
Brought to you by, www.GuardDogBooks.com & www.AlaskaPublishing.com