The U.S. Military can now Fire on U.S. Civilians a movement towards Martial Law

Insurrection Act becomes

"Enforcement of the Laws to Restore Public Order."


This needs to be covered -- I'm trying to get some attention and research to this because my time is limited and I don't know if I can get back to this later.

The recently tinkered-with Insurrection Act had some clauses tacked on that violate the long standing Posse Comatitus Act and enable the President of the United States
to turn the U.S. Military against United States Civilians.

This fits the pattern of the Sun City Center senior citizens who had high-powered assault rifles pointed at them by the President's body guards.

What can you do?? Help by petitioning your rep to reverse the changes to the former Insurrection Act by supporting these bills.
This resident of our White House is arguably the most villified man in American history and perhaps in world history; it's not OUR fault that he has made himself so unpopular. He is selling America and US, her people and the immigrants who would become her people out piece by piece and we must Impeach, Stop and Imprison him and his cabal for their acts against America and American citizens.

The face of our armed forces has changed. That's obvious. And now the President of the United States can send his military out after civilians. He has bought property down in South America --- acres and acres. We won't be running there with him, I guess. Where will we run? I think we'll get about as far as the detention camps they've built for the 'non-mexican' illegal immigrants. That, we, as Americans condone the imprisonment of ANYONE who is standing on this soil who has not been violent is ... WRONG.

That's it in plain English to get people thinking. In an hour or so with some luck, I'll be doing the heavy reading. I've been following this along for over a year and a half now but the time has come to contact our representatives and get them to roll this back. This is untenable.

UPDATE

I took this from Wikipedia and added some links and research--- it explains it pretty well:

The Insurrection Act of 1807 is the set of laws that govern the President of the United States of America's ability to deploy troops within the United States to put down lawlessness, insurrection and rebellion. The laws are chiefly contained in 10 U.S.C. § 331 - 10 U.S.C. § 335. The general aim is to limit Presidential power as much as possible, relying on state and local governments for initial response in the event of insurrection. Coupled with the Posse Comitatus Act, Presidential powers for law enforcement are limited and delayed.

On September 30, 2006, the Congress modified the Insurrection Act as part of the 2007 Defense Authorization Bill. Section 1076 of the new law changes Sec. 333 of the "Insurrection Act," and widens the President's ability to deploy troops within the United States to enforce the laws. Under this act, the President may also deploy troops as a police force during a natural disaster, epidemic, serious public health emergency, terrorist attack, or other condition, when the President determines that the authorities of the state are incapable of maintaining public order. The bill also modified Sec. 334 of the Insurrection Act, giving the President authority to order the dispersal of either insurgents or "those obstructing the enforcement of the laws."

The new law (passed by BUSH WITHOUT consulting the Governors) changed the name of the chapter from "Insurrection" to "Enforcement of the Laws to Restore Public Order."


Criticism of changes
The new changes are criticized as a movement towards martial law because of the quiet inclusion of changes that undermines applicability of the Posse Comitatus Act (PCA) due to expansion of the circumstances under which the President may declare martial law. Similar to events that led to the Enabling Act of 1933 in Germany, critics contend that the federal government is taking steps to quietly increase the power of the federal authority over the regions while simultaneously increasing executive control specifically for policing the domestic population through legal use of the military.

The changes to the Insurrection Act impact the relevance of the 1878 Posse Comitatus Act because it removes many of the conditions under which the PCA would have applied. The PCA reads "Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both." Since those cases and circumstances have now been changed in the Insurrection act to be extremely broad, the PCA has essentially been made moot.





Efforts to repeal changesOn February 7, 2007, Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and Sen. Kit Bond (R-MO) introduced legislation that would revert the Insurrection Act to its previous state.[1][2] Sen. Leahy argues that the modifications to the law make it unnecessarily easy to assert federal authority over national guard elements without the consent of governors, and that the changes removed a "useful friction" that existed between the Insurrection Act and the Posse Comitatus Act.

This bill is being co-sponsored..

Please contact your Reps and support it

What Can You Do?

Give Back Control
In last year's National Defense Authorization Act, changes were made to the Insurrection Act that allows for control of National Guard troops to be taken away from Governors and given to the President in numerous situations. In essence, these changes now make it much easier to federalize the National Guard for domestic law enforcement.

Recently bills have been introduced in both the House and Senate to repeal these changes, which were made without consultation with the nation's 54 governors. Senators Patrick Leahy and Kit Bond, the co-chairs of the Senate National Guard Caucus, introduced S 513 and Congressman Thomas Davis introduced HR 869.

Spend a few minutes of your time to let your Congressman and Senators know how you feel on this issue by giving them a call or writing them a quick email. You can use the NGAUS website to find their contact information and even to draft a quick email to all of you representatives.

NGAUS NOTES
Feburary 9, 2007


Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) expressed on September 19th, 2006 [3] "we certainly do not need to make it easier for Presidents to declare martial law. Invoking the Insurrection Act and using the military for law enforcement activities goes against some of the central tenets of our democracy. It creates needless tension among the various levels of government – one can easily envision governors and mayors in charge of an emergency having to constantly look over their shoulders while someone who has never visited their communities gives the orders."

No mention of Section 1076, although clearly a significant and controversial change, was made in the President's statement about H.R. 5122. This section now [4] allows the President to declare a public emergency and station the military anywhere in America and take control of state-based National Guard units without the consent of the governor or local authorities. Although the President mentioned numerous other sections, he clearly indicated that the Bill only [5] "...authorizes funding for the defense of the United States and its interests abroad, for military construction, for national security-related energy programs, and for maritime security-related transportation programs." The Defense Authorization Bill is meant to approve base military funding, and this carefully worded official statement omits any mention of new rules related to domestic policing by federal troops at the order of the President.