REID, PELOSI IGNORE BUSH PLAN FOR MARTIAL LAW

JEFF STEIN, CQ - It's amazing what you can find if you turn over a few
rocks in the anti-terrorism legislation Congress approved during the
election season. Take, for example, the John W. Warner Defense
Authorization Act of 2006, named for the longtime Armed Services
Committee chairman from Virginia. Signed by President Bush on Oct. 17,
the law has a provocative provision called "Use of the Armed Forces in
Major Public Emergencies."

The thrust of it seems to be about giving the federal government a far
stronger hand in coordinating responses to Katrina-like disasters. But
on closer inspection, its language also alters the two-centuries-old
Insurrection Act, which Congress passed in 1807 to limit the president's
power to deploy troops within the United States.

That law has long allowed the president to mobilize troops only "to
suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful
combination, or conspiracy."

But the amended law takes the cuffs off.

Specifically, the new language adds "natural disaster, epidemic, or
other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident" to
the list of conditions permitting the President to take over local
authority - particularly "if domestic violence has occurred to such an
extent that the constituted authorities of the State or possession are
incapable of maintaining public order."

Since the administration broadened what constitutes "conspiracy" in its
definition of enemy combatants - anyone who "has purposely and
materially supported hostilities against the United States," in the
language of the Military Commissions Act - critics say it's a formula
for executive branch mischief.

Yet despite such a radical turn, the new law garnered little dissent, or
even attention, on the Hill.

One of the few to complain, Sen. Patrick J. Leahy, D-Vt., warned that
the measure virtually invites the White House to declare federal martial
law.

It "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," he said in remarks submitted to
the Congressional Record on Sept. 29.

"The changes to the Insurrection Act will allow the President to use the
military, including the National Guard, to carry out law enforcement
activities without the consent of a governor," he said.
Moreover, he said, it breaks a long, fundamental tradition of federal
restraint. "Using the military for law enforcement goes against one of
the founding tenets of our democracy.". . .

The governors had waved red flags about the measure on Aug. 1, sending
letters of protest from their Washington office to the Republican chairs
and ranking Democrats on the House and Senate Armed Services committees.
No response. So they petitioned the party heads on the Hill — Sens. Bill
Frist, R-Tenn., and Harry Reid, D-Nev., Speaker of the House J. Dennis
Hastert, R-Ill., and his Democratic opposite, Nancy Pelosi of
California.. . . Again, no response from the leadership, said David
Quam, the National Governors Association's director of federal
relations.

On Aug. 31, the governors sent another letter to the congressional party
leaders, as well as to Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, who had met
quietly with an NGA delegation back in February. . . More silence.

http://public.cq.com/public/20061201_homeland.html

||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||