Wealth Bondage: John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007 (H.R.5122) (2)

« Faithful, Patriotic Interpretation | Main | Nothing Homoerotic Here »

November 02, 2006

John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007 (H.R.5122) (2)

You have nothing to fear, Mole, if you are not a Traitor or Trouble-maker. Of course the President must protect us from evil persons. Why do you object to that unless you are an evil person?

Posted at 08:54 PM in Ordered Liberty | Permalink

Comments

You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

The Bill of which it's part passed in the Senate 96 to 0, with four not voting. It passed in the House overwhelmingly, with only 23 voting against it.

Posted by: J. Alva Scruggs | November 02, 2006 at 10:04 PM

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. It creates needless tension among the various levels of government – 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 bill that began with such promise in empowering the National Guard now increasingly appears to be shaping up as a double setback for the Guard. That is inexplicable, that is indefensible, and that is wrong. The last thing Congress should be doing is making the National Guard’s job more difficult. We urge the Defense Bill conferees to adopt the Empowerment Bill and drop the ill-advised changes to the Insurrection Act.

Senator Leahy, who proudly voted Aye. That's why we call them the Vichy Democrats, gawdbless'em.

Posted by: J. Alva Scruggs | November 02, 2006 at 10:25 PM

The Huffington Post, which is way more mainstream than this hitchin' post, is running a brief article titled "Prepare for Civil Disobedience"

... might want to get out the pitchforks and wipe off the cobwebs ?

Not likely.

Posted by: JJ Commoner | November 03, 2006 at 09:40 AM

They tell me, Joseph, that if it's not on television, it doesn't exist -- which might explain the desperate jockeying of crowds behind t.v. correspondents broadcasting a story from the field.

They don't exist, just like me. And the fight for life is never pretty.

Posted by: a.mole | November 03, 2006 at 01:14 PM

I just did a virtual "she loves me | she loves me not" daisy petal pull on each of these. Satisfied?

Posted by: a.mole | November 03, 2006 at 01:20 PM

Centurions on every street corner in Jerusalem. Herod slaying every male Jewish infant. How did that stop Jesus talking about a bushel basket, a candle or a mustard seed? We are not the first to experience Freedom.

Posted by: Tutor | November 03, 2006 at 06:31 PM

I used to be fairly confident that our military leaders would prevent a coup and defend the constitution. Adding this issue to the crusaders is our military and I am much more concerned. "Saving remnant" takes on another meaning as we hope for one inside our military institutions that will protect it and us from ideological takeover.

Posted by: Gerry | November 04, 2006 at 07:38 AM

I dug around a bit and came up with some value added extras.

Frank Morales - Bush Moves Toward Martial Law

Bio on Wikipedia

2005 interview

Co-founder FREE.THE.MEDIA!

Authored article "U.S. Military Civil Disturbance Planning"

Active comment thread

Doug Thompson - Bush Could Seize Absolute Control of U.S. Government:

[Jan 2006] President George W. Bush has signed executive orders giving him sole authority to impose martial law, suspend habeas corpus and ignore the Posse Comitatus Act that prohibits deployment of U.S. troops on American streets. This would give him absolute dictatorial power over the government with no checks and balances.

Bio and commendation

Ex-daily reporter at Capitol Hill Blue gives finger to Patriot Act demand

Kurt Nimmo - Bush’s Martial Law Act of 2007

On October 17 [2006], with little fanfare, the unitary decider signed H.R.5122, or the John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007. “The act provides $462.8 billion in budget authority for the department. Senate and House conferees added the $70 billion defense supplemental budget request to the act, so overall, the act authorizes $532.8 billion for fiscal 2007,” explains Jim Garamone of the American Forces Press Service.

Bio on Wikipedia

Gregory Diamond - We Can Repeal This Law - F.I.N.G.E.R.

...FINGER hopes that the President will voluntarily pledge – before the November 7 election – that (1) he will not exercise any power to call upon National Guard troops newly granted to him by this law, and (2) that he will sign a new bill reversing this outrage. This would be a satisfactory temporary solution before Congress repeals this new law. FINGER will pursue that avenue aggressively through November 7.

Due to the press of other business – or because the President believes that this law does and should outrageously expand his power – that agreement may not be immediately forthcoming. To provide for that possibility, FINGER seeks the commitment of all members of Congress and candidates for Congress that they will repeal Section 1076 at the earliest opportunity – ideally during this November’s session. FINGER wants the commitment of all Governors and candidates for Governor that they will resist any attempt by the President to federalize the National Guard for any reason not already authorized prior to the enactment of this law... [excerpted from an action fax meant to be distributed before the Nov 7 2006 election]

Daily Kos Diary: Major Danby

pseudonym

Catch 22

Daily Kos Diary: Greg at Carter for Nevada

FINGER blog

Just shut up about violent revolution

Kos and the Martial Law Democrats

Posted by: a.mole | November 04, 2006 at 08:43 PM

Hi. I'm happy to discuss this with anyone here. You can get in touch with me through the FINGER2006 website.

One correction to the above: this was not passed 96-0. It was passed by "unanimous consent," after midnight on Saturday September 30. We don't know who was in the room, let alone whether there was a quorum -- the game was over once the conference committee decided on the language. That's where the blame lies.

We need people from across the spectrum working together to clean this blot from the U.S. Code. I'll look forward to talking to those among you who want to work on making that happen. To the rest of you, have fun doing whatever else you're doing.

Greg ("Danby")

Posted by: Major Danby | November 04, 2006 at 10:44 PM

Hi Greg, thanks for stopping by. This is not my site, it is The Happy Tutor's. Since I brought this subject to the forum (and having just extended it) I am presuming to respond first. I trust that others will leap in to correct and extend as needed. :-)

I think you'll find the Tutor is a gracious host, full of heart, smart as a whip, and open to any discussion. There are many here who comment regularly and they are clearly a mixed bag -- in the best sense. Heart/smart/open with varying backgrounds and degrees of social grace, and there's no one who's truly a prick. I count myself, happily, among them.

I think Scruggs commenting at Stop Me Before I Vote Again put his finger on a key point. As I responded in agreement there, it stretches credulity to contend that lawmakers and their staffs could be surprised or ambushed or duped procedurally, especially by a move that Scruggs describes as having become SOP. Aren't the majority of these folk master chess players?

In not addressing the resulting "constituent disenchantment" (or "disgust", as I said over there) "insiders" only reinforce the breach of trust perceived. Duping the public repeatedly and appealing to them to reengage "constructively" in the same con is at least insulting, and in a very real sense destructive and demoralizing to anyone with half a brain and a whole heart.

Some of us here are disenchanted with the two-party dance to the point of rejecting it as an exercise in futility. These folks are seeking and developing, quite happily I think, real alternatives that may only bear political fruit in the long run. Others are engaged in reforming the "process" the best they can from without and within right now. Others straddle the fence or move warily between the camps.

You say:

We need people from across the spectrum working together to clean this blot from the U.S. Code.

Agreed. Now how will you embrace the justifiably wary or disenchanted in your quest to "work together"? That'll be a real test.

Jim

Posted by: a.mole | November 05, 2006 at 09:17 AM

Greg,

My professional expertise is finance and philanthropy, not politics. How do you propose reforming this blot? And what can we do to help our legislators not be snookered over and over and over? Are they really one another's dupes are is this a game of deniability, where both camps want essentially the same things, to maintain law and order, maintain good relationships with corporate and private funders, and to get elected by maintaining a kind of shadow play of cartoon like personas (Punch versus Judy)?

What would you like us to do to help you? And how can we help our Dems to be less easily duped next time and to show more spine right now?

Are you looking for good press, funding, allies, enthusiasm? A closing of ranks behind your leadership? What can we do, other than rub our eyes in amazement that after the Patriot Act our Dems got snookered the same way as last time? Shouldn't we start by pillorying all concerned? Should such collossal incompetence or malfeasance, such a betrayal, really, be held up to public contempt before we go on to suck up to these lawmakers? What price do they pay for this? On your plan what price?

Posted by: Tutor | November 05, 2006 at 09:39 AM

Mr. Mole,

Thank you very much for your patient research and excellent moderation. I defer to you. Keeping this threat engaged and civil is hard, but I am personally truly interested in knowing what are the next steps, or the available directions for next steps as Wealth Bondage is militarized. If you would at some point like to reprise the net-wide discussion of these issues, you can email me the text and I will post it with "a mole" as the author. Or you can just use this thread, or Under.wealthbondage. I have a feeling that this is an issue that will have "legs" and that people will be looking for a "link bank." I am at your service, however, you want to play it. Your tone in the last comment strikes me as perfect for the Moderator Function. Thanks.

Posted by: Tutor | November 05, 2006 at 09:40 AM

Over the years in my travels and residence across the US, I've encountered the following:

• Military checkpoints where the personnel are given police powers
• Use of the military against protesters
• Military assault on civilians
• Use of the military for surveillance on peaceful groups
• Use of the military as back up for police raids
• Soldiers in transportation hubs

It's gotten noticeably worse in the last few years. The professional Democrats and their boosters, however, didn't object when it was Clinton doing it. They defended it vigorously. I have no reason to believe their current upset is rooted in something other than dislike for the Chimperor. They will defend it, as they always do, when it's their own people holding the whip.

With HR 5122, the de facto militarization of the country has been made slightly more de jure. The upset of the Kossacks looks like nothing more than fearmongering tactics for the election. Should the Chimperor actually declare martial law, and send the military to "keep order", they will follow the lead of their Vichy Democrat leaders. That's what they've done for the last six years.

Remove the blot from your own party first, Danby, and quit making excuses based on parliamentary quibbles.

Posted by: J. Alva Scruggs | November 05, 2006 at 10:46 AM

Your tone in the last comment strikes me as perfect for the Moderator Function. Thanks.

Lovely little example of how some of us ragamuffins know more or less how to talk to nice polite people who have their clear point of view or perspective always at the ready, in service.

But hey, at least 1) Danby commented and 2) offered up a pov and I guess an invitation.

Posted by: JJ Commoner | November 05, 2006 at 11:42 AM

A tidbit more:

This disturbing notice on Slashdot comes via Sara Robinson at Orcinus:

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security has proposed a system which will in essence make it mandatory for you to have permission before leaving or entering the country, effectively putting everyone on a no-fly list unless the government says otherwise.

Interestingly, the proposal does not seem to cover personal travel, only that on some sort of carrier like an airline or cruise vessel.

Seems a bit more tightening things up may be in the wings ?

Posted by: JJ Commoner | November 05, 2006 at 12:09 PM

No resistance has been encountered, so why not tighten further? Read how it happened in Weimar. Little bit by little bit, tiny rule change by tiny rule change, and no resistance was reached until Berlin lay in rubble. Then from the corpse strewn ruins came the survivors as if awakening from a dream. So this too shall pass.

Posted by: Tutor | November 05, 2006 at 12:26 PM

Your tone in the last comment strikes me as perfect for the Moderator Function. Thanks.

My God, what have I done...

I hope Greg comes back. From what I can tell he'll only get nude wrestling over at Smiff's place...

Posted by: a.mole | November 05, 2006 at 04:17 PM

Tutor, the core of my beef with the Democrats and especially the serial triangulators is that resistance was offered, but they very publicly and repeatedly found it wanting.

In an article on “The Liberal Quandry Over Iraq,” in the New York Times Magazine of December 8, 2002, George Packer stressed the “serious liability” of the ongoing antiwar protest “that will just about guarantee its impotence.” It is controlled by “the farthest reaches of the American Left,” people who don’t feel it necessary to explain how “to keep this mass murderer [Packer means Saddam, not Bush] and his weapons in check..” Packer concludes that “This is not a constructive liberal antiwar movement.” His liberal interviewees were also in a quandary and agreed with Packer on the sorry state of the organized war opposition. Their opposition to the war, in short, was compromised at best.

Ed Herman

I don't think we're anywhere near a point where there will be more than routine harassments and some right wing domestic terrorism.

Posted by: J. Alva Scruggs | November 05, 2006 at 04:40 PM

Well, a few cross burnings, a little schoolyard bullying, a little vicious taunting, a few trucks packed with fertilizer are to be accepted as the price of Freedom. Bullies and sadists have their place in the administration of ordered liberty inside Wealth Bondage. To resist Wealth Bondage is to resist the managerial imperative, to measure, manage and control for material ends. And the "outside" of that is inconceivable to leaders of either party, whatever their professed faith and allegiences. Nor is philanthropy outside it very often. Wm Blake, or Jesus, or Diogenes - outcasts all.

Posted by: Tutor | November 05, 2006 at 07:55 PM

Wars are always followed by domestic terrorism anyway. So I suppose I shouldn't complain so much. I do try to think happy thoughts, Tutor.

Posted by: J. Alva Scruggs | November 05, 2006 at 08:02 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.

Wealth Bondage

The Return of the Repressed

November 02, 2006

John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007 (H.R.5122) (2)

Comments

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

Tracking