Hello All,
I just love Martial Law! Bunch of Fascist pigs running our current Government.
This passage from the piece below says it all about what kind of future we are
fostering:
"Travel to other countries and you'll find that a society's freedom is
inversely related to the number of guys wearing camouflage, brandishing big
guns and pulling people over at roadblocks. Blurring the distinction between
policing and soldiering, as do the military police in the former Soviet
republics of Central Asia and Middle Eastern countries like Syria and Jordan,
is a defining characteristic of repressive states."
WAKE UP PEOPLE!
Vic
"Mr. Speaker, what, then, is the answer to the question: "Is America a Police
State?" My answer is: "Maybe not yet, but it is fast approaching." The seeds
have been sown and many of our basic protections against tyranny have been and
are constantly being undermined. The post-9/11 atmosphere here in Congress has
provided ample excuse to concentrate on safety at the expense of liberty,
failing to recognize that we cannot have one without the other."-- "Are We
Doomed To Be a Police State?" from a speech given to the House of
Representatives, June 27th 2002 by Congressman Ron Paul
Fill out the information below, then click "Preview"
Ted Rall
GIVING DEMOCRACY THE BIRD
Bush Asks Congress for Martial Law
NEW YORK--Soldiers brandishing automatic weapons, a defining
characteristic of life in Third World dictatorships, have become commonplace at
airports, bus and train stations, government offices and highway checkpoints
since 9/11. Now troops are becoming our first responders to situations, such as
natural disasters and flu outbreaks, which normally fall under civilian
jurisdiction.
Everything's gone topsy-turvy: The National Guard, charged with
keeping order here at home and legally under the control of state governors,
has been shipped off to Iraq and Afghanistan, shanghaied by the federal
government. Here in the U.S., whatever comes up, the Bush Administration's
first reaction is to send in the regular army troops who are supposed to be in
Iraq. Whether it's a sinister plot against American democracy or the most
sustained large-scale foolishness in history, the Bush Administration is
tearing down the traditional wall between overseas military action and domestic
law enforcement.
Creeping militarism leapt into full view with Bush's October 4
request to Congress to repeal the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, which prohibits
the use of the military in domestic policing except for the purpose of quelling
a revolution. Citing the theoretical possibility that Asian avian flu, now only
transmittable from bird to human, could mutate into a human-to-human form, Bush
said: "If we had an outbreak somewhere in the United States, do we not then
quarantine that part of the country? And who best to be able to effect a
quarantine? One option is the use of a military that's able to plan and move. I
think it's an important debate for Congress to have."
Overturning Posse Comitatus would allow troops to break into houses
and apartments and sweep the streets for flu victims, and forcibly contain them
in Guantánamo-style camps. They could seal off cities or whole states. These
extreme measures could also be deployed against U.S. citizens after hurricanes,
tornados, earthquakes, or even election disputes--whenever and wherever a
president decides they are necessary.
Bush laid the groundwork for his assault on Posse Comitatus on
September 26, when he explained his decision to unleash the 82nd Airborne upon
Hurricane Katrina-devastated New Orleans: "I want there to be a robust
discussion about the best way for the federal government, in certain extreme
circumstances, to be able to rally assets for the good of the people." The
Louisiana National Guard, meanwhile, was stuck in Iraq.
"The translation of this is martial law in the United States," said
Dr. Irwin Redlener, associate dean of Columbia University's School of Public
Health and director of its National Center for Disaster Preparedness. Redlener
called Bush's proposal to deploy troops on American soil an "extraordinarily
Draconian measure." Even Gene Healy, senior editor at the right-wing Cato
Institute, said Bush's proposal would undermine "a fundamental principle of
American law" that "reflects America's traditional distrust of using standing
armies to enforce order at home, a distrust that's well-justified."
All this over avian flu, which to date has killed fewer than 100
people worldwide.
Travel to other countries and you'll find that a society's freedom
is inversely related to the number of guys wearing camouflage, brandishing big
guns and pulling people over at roadblocks. Blurring the distinction between
policing and soldiering, as do the military police in the former Soviet
republics of Central Asia and Middle Eastern countries like Syria and Jordan,
is a defining characteristic of repressive states.
Civilian cops may be rude or even abusive, but they're not supposed
to shoot you without a good reason. You're their boss, or at least they work
for the mayor you elected. Not so with soldiers. Military troops are
responsible only to their chain of command, which is likely to end thousands of
miles away in Washington. They shoot sooner and quicker than cops, and they
have much bigger guns. Regimes that use the military to maintain order tell
their citizens: do what we tell you, or else. They rely upon violence rather
than tacit consensus to stay in charge.
Rule under the point of a gun is not democracy.
James Pinkerton of the New America Foundation argues for efficiency
over freedom. "When you absolutely, positively, have to get something done
right away," he writes in USA Today, "you call in the military. By their very
nature, men and women in uniform are oriented toward getting things done. They
are trained to complete their mission, or die trying. And as Hurricane Katrina
made clear, the rest of the government doesn't hold to such a high standard. So
why not the best?"
Federal agencies muffed Katrina because of inadequate budgets and
mismanagement, not because they're intrinsically incompetent. Moreover, there's
little evidence that militarizing domestic functions makes the trains run on
time. The military controls everything from road construction to trash
collection, yet Pakistan remains a nation that suffers from systemic
corruption, a staggering drug problem and crippling disparity of wealth--not to
mention an endless low-intensity civil war. Most European democracies, by
contrast, enjoy a higher standard of living--and more efficient
government--than the U.S. And they do it without pointing automatic rifles at
flood victims lining up for food and water.
But what if military dictatorship could be proven a more efficient
form of government than old-fashioned democracy? What if a standing army could
do what a bunch of namby-pamby bureaucrats can't? Would it be worth it?
That's the choice George W. Bush is asking Congress, and thus us,
to make. The fact that he hasn't been impeached for daring to ask it highlights
the dictatorial tendencies of those who share his contempt for personal
liberty.
COPYRIGHT 2005 TED RALL
RALL 10/11/05
:
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
Fair play? Video games influencing politics. Click and talk back!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/VpgUKB/pzNLAA/cUmLAA/KlSolB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->
ForumWebSiteAt http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
