Korean Job Discussion Forums

[The Bobster]

It's on the yahoo opinion page. Don't agree with all of it, but he makes some good points here and there ...

GIVING DEMOCRACY THE BIRD By Ted Rall

Tue Oct 11, 8:06 PM ET

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

[canuckistan]

[desultude]

I have seen some arguments that the chaos in New Orleans was allowed to happen to open the way to just such proposals. Govt. officials in N.O. reported that FEMA cut off emergency communications, turned Walmart trucks of water away, as well as turning away a ship full of fuel that was to be distributed.

Conspiracy theory? I half felt that and at the same time saw the logic of the argument. The government (and this is one of my general assumptions about most governments most of the time) is interested in control. Scare the bejesus out of people by responding the way the did to Katrina, and you pave the way for calling in the troops next time as the cliched "first responders". Fear is a potent weapon, and Americans have already demonstrated that big daddy allaying their fears is more important than stupid old rights.

I am relatively certain that the Bush regime will be rejected in the next election. By then so much damage will be done, and it would take enormous political courage, and political capital, to undo it. The Supreme Court cannot be undone. The country has taken a hard turn to the right, led by Christian fundamentalists and right wing corporatists. Any turn back will probably stop at the center right.

The supreme irony, of course, is that this is being done by an avowedly anti-government administration. Any "Libertarian" who has supported this regime deserves to have the Federales show up at their door first.

[VanIslander]

[igotthisguitar]

[TheUrbanMyth]

[desultude]

[EFLtrainer]

[Summer Wine]

I have found it interesting that in the same breath or a very close one that Bush is considered stupid, he is also considered a mastermind in regards to devalueing personal liberities in the US or other such activities. I have always been concerned more with the puppet masters than Bush (Cheney has interested me more than Bush since the 1st election and I have heard his name less).

Who benefits is always a good question to ask. The face changes, the benefits remain the same. Who has hold of the strings?

[EFLtrainer]

[desultude]

[igotthisguitar]

Judges Liken Terror Laws to Nazi Germany

London Independent
Marie Woolf, Raymond Whitaker and Severin Carrell
16 Oct 2005

A powerful coalition of judges, senior lawyers and politicians has warned that the Government is undermining freedoms citizens have taken for granted for centuries and that Britain risks drifting towards a police state. One of the country's most eminent judges has said that undermining the independence of the courts has frightening parallels with Nazi Germany.

Senior legal figures are worried that "inalienable rights" could swiftly disappear unless Tony Blair ceases attacking the judiciary and freedoms enshrined in the Human Rights Act.

Lord Ackner, a former law lord, said there was a contradiction between the Government's efforts to separate Parliament and the judiciary through the creation of a supreme court, and its instinct for directing judges how to behave. He cautioned against "meddling" by politicians in the way the courts operate.

"I think it is terribly important there should not be this apparent battle between the executive and the judiciary. The judiciary has been put there by Parliament in order to ensure that the executive acts lawfully. If we take that away from the judiciary we are really apeing what happened in Nazi Germany," he said.

Lord Ackner added that the Government's proposals to hold terrorist suspects for three months without charge were overblown. "The police have made a case for extending the two weeks but to extend it to three months is excessive."

Lord Lester QC, a leading human rights lawyer, expressed concern that the Government was flouting human rights law and meddling with the courts.

"If the Prime Minister and other members of the Government continue to threaten to undermine the Human Rights Act and interfere with judicial independence we shall have to secure our basic human rights and freedoms with a written constitution," he said.

Lord Carlile, a deputy High Court judge, warned against the whittling away of historic civil liberties. "We have to be acute about protecting what is taken for granted as inalienable rights. In the United States the Patriot Act included a system whereby a witness to a terrorist incident can be detained for up to a year. This is in the land of the free."

The senior barrister remarked that judges had now replaced MPs as the defenders of basic human rights.

"People use d to look to their MPs as the first port of call to deal with any perceived injustice by the executive. Now there is an increasing tendency for people to look to the judges to protect their liberties," he said.

Mark Oaten, the Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman, said Tony Blair was transforming Britain into an authoritarian state. "In eight years he has dismantled centuries of judicial protection. Britain's reputation as the world's most tolerant nation is now under threat," he said.

If Mr Blair's proposed terror legislation was unamended, said Anthony Scrivener QC, "Britain would be a significant step closer to a police state". The Prime Minister spoke of "summary justice", said the lawyer: "It would be better named street justice."

This week the Law Lords will consider whether evidence obtained under torture abroad should be admissible in British courts. Shami Chakrabarti, director of Liberty, said admitting such evidence would undermine one of Britain's basic freedoms.

"The Prime Minister is trying in his own words to try to tear up the rules of the game," she said. "The rules of liberal democracy are about no torture, free speech and fair trials. Every time he denigrates these he undermines the fabric of our society."

[igotthisguitar]

Patriot Act "Moves Ahead" Despite Opposition
By LAURIE KELLMAN, Associated Press Writer
Thu Feb 16, 4:45 AM ET

WASHINGTON - The USA Patriot Act is headed toward renewal with broad Senate support for a White House-brokered compromise that adds modest new civil liberties protections to the terror-fighting law.

"The outcome here is absolutely predetermined," Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., said late Wednesday. "It's going to pass with overwhelming support."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/patriot_act;_ylt=AlrlP7Z8IGtFD9MzyXZtf.4DW7oF;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl

[Gorgias]