Inside the Martial Law Act of 2006

[Martin Radwin]

http://www.counterpunch.org/bovard01092008.html

"The new law vastly increases the danger from the actions of government provocateurs. If there is an incident now like the first bombing of the World Trade Center in February 1993, it would be far easier for the president to declare martial law -- even if, as then, it was an FBI informant who taught the culprits how to make the bomb. Even if the FBI masterminds a protest that turns violent, the president could invoke the "incident" to suspend the Constitution.

"Martial law" is a euphemism for military dictatorship. When foreign democracies are overthrown and a junta establishes martial law, Americans usually recognize that a fundamental change has occurred. Perhaps some conservatives believe that the only change when martial law is declared is that people are no longer read their Miranda rights before they are locked away. "Martial law" means: Obey soldiers' commands or be shot. The abuses of military rule in Southern states during Reconstruction were legendary, but they have been swept under the historical rug.

Section 1076 is an Enabling Act-type legislation -- something which purports to preserve law and order while formally empowering the president to rule by decree.

Bush can commandeer a state's National Guard any time he declares a "state has refused to enforce applicable laws." Does this refer to the laws as they are commonly understood -- or to the "laws" after Bush "fixes" them with a signing statement? Unfortunately, it is not possible for Americans to commandeer the federal government even when Bush admits that he is breaking a law (such as the Anti-Torture Act).

Section 1076 is the type of "law" that would probably be denounced by the U.S. State Department's Annual Report on Human Rights if enacted by a foreign government. But when the U.S. government does the same thing, it is merely another proof of benevolent foresight."

Has TAS written any articles about this gathering threat of the imposition of martial law in the US? Or is it too busy denouncing Ron Paul, who has submitted legislation that would abolish the recently passed legislation that gave the federal government this power, as a deadly threat to the future of the United States?

Martin