||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ROBERT KUBEY, FAIR - On October 17, 2006, when George W. Bush signed the
John Warner National Defense Authorization Act of 2007 - a $538 billion
military spending bill - he enacted into law a section called "Use of
the Armed Forces in Major Public Emergencies." In the view of many, this
Act substantially changed fundamental laws of the United States, giving
Bush - and all future U.S. presidents - new and sweeping powers to use
the U.S. military anywhere in the United States, virtually as he sees
fit - for disaster relief, crowd control, suppression of public
disorder, or any "other condition" that might arise.
News coverage of these significant changes in the law has been virtually
nonexistent. . . What could happen under the new law? As just one
example, let's say hundreds of demonstrators in Boston engaged in civil
disobedience, sitting-in on the Boston Common to protest the country's
policies in Iraq, and traffic ground to a halt. Under the new law, the
president could order in the Massachusetts National Guard to clear out
the protesters even if the Massachusetts governor opposed this.
Indeed, the president could order the Guard of any state into any other
state - even if the governors of both states objected. Or the president
could choose to use any element of the U.S. military - the Army, Air
Force, Navy or Marines - to suppress a protest or carry out practically
any kind of domestic action the president desired. And all of this with
essentially no oversight - or checks and balances - on how the
commander-in-chief uses these powers. Basically, after sending the
National Guard somewhere, he or she merely needs to report to Congress
every couple of weeks to let them know what the Guard is doing.
The law is so vague and far-reaching that numerous, normally
conservative military and law enforcement groups, including the National
Guard Association, the National Sheriffs' Association and the Adjutants
General Association, have publicly come out against it, pledging their
support for a new, bipartisan Senate bill from senators Leahy and
Christopher Bond (R.-Mo.) that would overturn all the changes in law
that occurred this past October.
The National Governors Association is displeased as well. In rare
unanimity, the association called, on February 2, 2007, for the new law
to be overturned, saying that it "unnecessarily expanded the president's
authority to federalize the National Guard," a change "drafted without
consultation with the governors and without full discussion or debate."
All 50 U.S. governors have signed on to the association's letter of
opposition - including all 22 Republican governors.
The Adjutants General Association, which represents officers responsible
for National Guard training and readiness, also stands in opposition to
the Act, saying that the language of the NDAA "significantly broadens
the president's ability to declare martial law and mobilize the National
Guard under national command without consulting with the governors." It
adds that this broadening was "completely unnecessary" and done without
any "committee or floor debate in either legislative chamber and with
explicit opposition from the governors."
One might think that major military and law enforcement organizations
and the united governors registering their displeasure would spark some
news coverage, investigation and public debate. Yet the first news
coverage did not appear until the first hearings on the Leahy/Bond bill,
over six months after the bill was first signed. Even then, there was
just a handful of stories - among them wire stories by Cox, McClatchy
and AP, and editorials in the Winston-Salem Journal and Newsday.
While there was no news coverage, four months and two days after the
bill was signed into law, the New York Times did take notice with an
editorial headlined "Making Martial Law Easier."
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=3118
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ROBERT KUBEY, FAIR - On October 17, 2006, when George W. Bush signed the
John Warner National Defense Authorization Act of 2007 - a $538 billion
military spending bill - he enacted into law a section called "Use of
the Armed Forces in Major Public Emergencies." In the view of many, this
Act substantially changed fundamental laws of the United States, giving
Bush - and all future U.S. presidents - new and sweeping powers to use
the U.S. military anywhere in the United States, virtually as he sees
fit - for disaster relief, crowd control, suppression of public
disorder, or any "other condition" that might arise.
News coverage of these significant changes in the law has been virtually
nonexistent. . . What could happen under the new law? As just one
example, let's say hundreds of demonstrators in Boston engaged in civil
disobedience, sitting-in on the Boston Common to protest the country's
policies in Iraq, and traffic ground to a halt. Under the new law, the
president could order in the Massachusetts National Guard to clear out
the protesters even if the Massachusetts governor opposed this.
Indeed, the president could order the Guard of any state into any other
state - even if the governors of both states objected. Or the president
could choose to use any element of the U.S. military - the Army, Air
Force, Navy or Marines - to suppress a protest or carry out practically
any kind of domestic action the president desired. And all of this with
essentially no oversight - or checks and balances - on how the
commander-in-chief uses these powers. Basically, after sending the
National Guard somewhere, he or she merely needs to report to Congress
every couple of weeks to let them know what the Guard is doing.
The law is so vague and far-reaching that numerous, normally
conservative military and law enforcement groups, including the National
Guard Association, the National Sheriffs' Association and the Adjutants
General Association, have publicly come out against it, pledging their
support for a new, bipartisan Senate bill from senators Leahy and
Christopher Bond (R.-Mo.) that would overturn all the changes in law
that occurred this past October.
The National Governors Association is displeased as well. In rare
unanimity, the association called, on February 2, 2007, for the new law
to be overturned, saying that it "unnecessarily expanded the president's
authority to federalize the National Guard," a change "drafted without
consultation with the governors and without full discussion or debate."
All 50 U.S. governors have signed on to the association's letter of
opposition - including all 22 Republican governors.
The Adjutants General Association, which represents officers responsible
for National Guard training and readiness, also stands in opposition to
the Act, saying that the language of the NDAA "significantly broadens
the president's ability to declare martial law and mobilize the National
Guard under national command without consulting with the governors." It
adds that this broadening was "completely unnecessary" and done without
any "committee or floor debate in either legislative chamber and with
explicit opposition from the governors."
One might think that major military and law enforcement organizations
and the united governors registering their displeasure would spark some
news coverage, investigation and public debate. Yet the first news
coverage did not appear until the first hearings on the Leahy/Bond bill,
over six months after the bill was first signed. Even then, there was
just a handful of stories - among them wire stories by Cox, McClatchy
and AP, and editorials in the Winston-Salem Journal and Newsday.
While there was no news coverage, four months and two days after the
bill was signed into law, the New York Times did take notice with an
editorial headlined "Making Martial Law Easier."
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=3118
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
No comments:
Post a Comment