Loosening the Reigns of the Military

In the US, the Posse Comitatus Act prohibits the military from acting in a police fashion against U.S. Citizens, except in times of emergency, insurrection, and so on. It's considered one of the cornerstone laws that prevents the US from descending into a complete police state.

Well, the recent Military Authorization Act of 2007 has removed some of the restrictions on the president and made it more possible for him to use the military, even against the objections of the local power structure.

On October 17th, the President signed the so-called "Torture Bill", or more officially, the Military Commissions Act, he also signed the Military Authorization Act of 2007, which contained at Section 1076 a provision which would change the Insurrection Act to allow the President to deploy the military under the auspices of quelling insurrection, for just about any cause. Don't believe me?

Here are the words of the actual bill:

The President may employ the armed forces, including the
National Guard in Federal service, to--
``(A) restore public order and enforce the laws of the United
States when, as a result of a natural disaster, epidemic, or
other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or
incident, or other condition in any State or possession of the
United States, the President determines that--
``(i) domestic violence has occurred to such an extent
that the constituted authorities of the State or possession
are incapable of maintaining public order; and
``(ii) such violence results in a condition described in
paragraph (2); or
``(B) suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic
violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy if such insurrec-
tion, violation, combination, or conspiracy results in a condition
described in paragraph (2).
``(2) A condition described in this paragraph is a condition
that-- ``(A) so hinders the execution of the laws of a State or
possession, as applicable, and of the United States within that
State or possession, that any part or class of its people is
deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named
in the Constitution and secured by law, and the constituted
authorities of that State or possession are unable, fail, or refuse
to protect that right, privilege, or immunity, or to give that
protection; or
``(B) opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the
United States or impedes the course of justice under those
laws.
``(3) In any situation covered by paragraph (1)(B), the State
shall be considered to have denied the equal protection of the
laws secured by the Constitution

It also adds "or those obstructing the enforcement of the laws" to the list of people who can be arrested by the military and detained. Interesting that the law that suspended habeas corpus and force people held by the military to have to go before military tribunals the same day that the bill that would expand the ability of said police to arrest people under the discretion of the President.

Let's extract a sentence out of the law above and write it out a little more clearly:
"The President may employ the armed forces, including the National Guard in Federal service, to restore public order and enforce the laws of the United States when, as a result of [an] other condition in any State or possession of the United States, the President determines that any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy if such insurrection, violation, combination, or conspiracy opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws"

Reading that, I see a condition where if people oppose the actions of the government, the President can seize upon that as an "insurrection" and order the military into an area and declare martial law. This could include arresting people for protesting the actions of the government. What determines a conspiracy? What determines "opposing the execution of the laws of the United States"? By writing this, am I committing an act by which I am exposed to arrest by military officers and being held in some brig for an indeterminate amount of of time?

I face a dilemma with this story. I don't want to sound like a raving lunatic, but I also don't want to ignore the consequences of what was passed. It seems clear to me that the president's been given the ability to declare martial law for just about nothing and lock up whomever. This is without considering the implications of the Military Commissions Act, which adds an entirely different aspect to the issue. Luckily for me, I'm not the only one who's reading this bill this way:
Toward Freedom
Media Monitors

Or, you can read the words of Senator Patrick Leahy, the only politician who has thus far spoken out against the bill:

...[the bill] adopts some incredible changes to the Insurrection Act, which would give the President more authority to declare martial law. Let me repeat: The National Guard Empowerment Act, which is designed to make it more likely for the National Guard to remain in State control, is dropped from this conference report in favor of provisions making it easier to usurp the Governors control and making it more likely that the President will take control of the Guard and the active military operating in the States.

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. When the Insurrection Act is invoked posse comitatus does not apply. Using the military for law enforcement goes against one of the founding tenets of our democracy, and it is for that reason that the Insurrection Act has only been invoked on three — three — in recent history. The implications of changing the Act are enormous, but this change was just slipped in the defense bill as a rider with little study. Other congressional committees with jurisdiction over these matters had no chance to comment, let alone hold hearings on, these proposals.

To recap, we've got a president that, since 9/11, has illegally wiretapped many more Americans than necessary, has illegally detained American citizens without granting them access to lawyers or even charging them with a crime, involved us in a war in a country under false pretenses while ignoring the real and present dangers in the countries truly responsible for our bloody nose, tortured people or had them rendered illegally to countries that then tortured for us or for sport, tried to shroud his administration in secrecy, and attacked everyone who did not agree with him completely as enemies of the state. All the while, he let his political friends and allies get away with the most egregious of acts, like letting New Orleans sink into the sea, accepting bribes from Indian casinos, redrawing voting districts so that politicians were picking their voters rather than voters picking their politicians, earmarking billions of dollars for the most outrageously fatty pork projects, and try to seduce young men.

And now Congress, our elected representatives are content to give him the ability to declare martial law at will AND detain and torture detainees at will.

It's at this point that I'm left speechless and have nothing more to say, but perhaps, these two thoughts: In democracy, one should always imagine the very worst person ever that could hold office, and circumscribe the powers of that office such. As Thomas Jefferson said: "Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the forms of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question."

Clearly we have not.