I have striven to not become political where this blog was concerned as the message here is of great importance to me, our troops and veterans. I will always do my best to not spout my political views here, other than were legislation and actions concerning issues of PTSD and aid to our veterans and soldiers. I have come to realize that sometimes it is necessary to do so, the later more so than otherwise.
I will never think that having the regular military deployed within our borders is a good idea. The executive orders of the last two years have set the ground work for a military "intervention" as prescribed and interpreted by the commander in chief and answerable to no one, absolute power has been consolidated. When has this ever been a good idea?
As the laws stand right now, one man can say I invoke marital law and commandeer the country bypassing and foregoing any judicial or congressional oversight. Without having to explain or a clear indication of a threat to its citizens except to "say" that a national security issue has arisen.
It sets an extremely bad precedence and mechanism for our own troops to be used against its citizens. Yes they may have "nonlethal" means to "subdue" its citizens. But now that our military can be used to quell riots or demonstrations, which was how our nation was founded and every major civil rights and liberties were won, we will see abuses of this power. Do we really have confidence in the benevolence of our leaders in Washington to act in our best interest? Huh, hello, the bailout!
The Posse Comitatus Act has been completely circumvented, even thought it still stands the executive orders of late have created a loophole and sets a very loose interpretation without oversight as to how and when federal forces can be used inside our borders. When has our government ever created a loophole that was not used?
I do not doubt the intentions of our troops, it is the consolidation of powers that I question and do not trust. As it stands right now ONE person can seize control of our government, nation and its assets in the name of national security without a damn good reason to do so.
The only way I see this as acceptable would be a scenario of regular military forces invading our country and a temporary order of command during such incursions.
The actions taken of late are permanent and set the stage for absolute control, a despot, supreme rule. The complete mechanism for rule by decree has been set.
2007 Defense Authorization Bill changes the Insurrection Act of 1807 key wording "Insurrection" to "Enforcement of the Laws to Restore Public Order." 2008 Defense Act did change the wording back, but Pres. Bush did write in his objections to "purport to impose" his earlier changes of definitions to the Defense Act of 2007.
ReplyDeleteThe appearance of the Acts and legislation in question on the surface seem in the spirit of national defense, but lets look at the actual language used. The definitions of certain words change the significance and usage of these Acts and Bills, such as purport, a powerful little word pretty much negating anything the President disagrees with in the Defense Act of 2008; such as the change of language to the Posse Comitatus Act. Look beyond the "spirit" of the legislation, the words and actual meaning codify the employment of, not the intention of law.
Sovereignty in its most base democratic idealization means the power to the people, that we entrust and place constitutes who govern by decree of the people of a certain region. This idea of sovereignty lies with the peoples self determination within geographical boundaries who unite to represent their area of interest, which the idea of Posse Comitatus is the sanctioning body who give the power to our representatives to serve as our ambassadors to the other sovereign states and federal hierarchies.
Posse Comitatus in Latin means 'Power of the county', whose design was to deny a Federal Police force and place policing within the states and local governments. Unitary Executive Theory, "argues that the President, in his capacity of Commander-in-Chief, cannot be bound by any law or by Congress, since anything hindering him in that capacity can be considered unconstitutional." The basis for Pres. Bush's NSA warrantless surveillance, relegation of Geneva Conventions to municipal status (an international law said to be negated by Presidential Powers), Military Commissions Act of 2006 set up to circumvent the US legal systems and inalienable rights, all based on the principle of "State of Exception", whereby claiming that the state has powers to supersede citizenship and individual rights during state emergencies, a mechanism for martial law without a definite threat, and Indefinite Suspension of Law characterizes the state of exception.
Further, the War Powers Act 0f 1973 (WPA), states that the president must notify congress within 48 hours of committing US forces to military action and a limit of 60 days of such action before a declaration of war or of force would be authorized, and setting mandates to the execution of said actions and guidelines to be dutifully followed. Authorization for Use of Military Force bill, S.J.RES.23.CPS (AUMF), passed the senate and became Public Law No: 107-40 on Sept 14, 2001. This law gives an open ended "right" to the president to wage war against anyone that he alone deems an enemy of the state in the name of national security and The War on Terror (WOT), where the WPA sets formal channels of involvement with congress and the president in executing said arraignments, the AUMF again sets precedent against such standards.
Then there is the the suspension of habeas corpus in the name of the "war on terror", which of course was reversed by the Supreme Court. Also, the suspension of Miranda rights in said same name, with forthcoming research on the significance of this erosion of our rights. These actions go to the argument of consolidation of powers.
Without these bills passed into laws, and the executive orders within the last handful of years the actions taken of late would have been unlawful and unconstitutional, and has yet to be determined otherwise; by the weaving of international laws, treaties and unproven theories of presidential powers and rights granted during times of war the die has been cast for ONE person to decide the course of our nation, without recognition of the peoples wishes, without oversight due to "the secret nature of the WOT" and without responsibility of actions due to loosely worded instruments of concealment and integration of sovereignty and self determination.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete