Will there be a "November Surprise"?

Is there a November Surprise in the offing?

First, a sobering thought from William Betz:

Re: rove interview.. comment from a co-worker speculating about a November surprise (Iran?) just AFTER Election Day to distract the country and the media from whatever fiasco ensues with election results might be something to this I’ve seen reference to this interview all over (and similar statements from Rove about his master secret polling). Fox is running election coverage now that suggests it’s up for grabs – no one is in the lead. Clearly the word has gone out to do this coverage. The only question is whether this bullshit optimism is to stem depression of the GOP vote or to cover up fraud. You know what I think.

I’d add, it’s too hard to steal both houses without leaving evidence and pissing a lot of people off, so I would expect a Nov. 9th or 10th “surprise.” It’s too dodgy to launch war on Iran or create some big fake story before the election; but I guarantee you, there will be a conversation changer right after the election so that these thin justifications for GOP victory only have to hold up for a day or so.

Now, if BushCo does decide to wag the dog (again) soon after “Election Day,” so that the press will drop the subject of election fraud, the regime is now in a very strong position to assert itself as only juntas can.

Here’s the story on the “legal” front–where, like Hitler back in ’33, Bush has got his bases covered. Read it carefully, and then prepare accordingly. For if Bush/Cheney do succeed in stealing it (again), and if there should, at last, be massive protests over it, and if we’re then embarked on a new war, it seems quite likely, not to put too fine a point on it, that the shit is going to hit the fan.

MCM

Bush Moves Toward Martial Law
Frank Morales

October 26, 2006

In a stealth maneuver, President Bush has signed into law a provision
which, according to Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont), will actually
encourage the President to declare federal martial law (1). It does so
by revising the Insurrection Act, a set of laws that limits the
President’s ability to deploy troops within the United States. The
Insurrection Act (10 U.S.C.331 -335) has historically, along with the
Posse Comitatus Act (18 U.S.C.1385), helped to enforce strict
prohibitions on military involvement in domestic law enforcement. With
one cloaked swipe of his pen, Bush is seeking to undo those prohibitions.

Public Law 109-364, or the “John Warner Defense Authorization Act of
2007″ (H.R.5122) (2), which was signed by the commander in chief on
October 17th, 2006, in a private Oval Office ceremony, allows the
President to declare a “public emergency” and station troops anywhere
in America and take control of state-based National Guard units
without the consent of the governor or local authorities, in order to
“suppress public disorder.”

President Bush seized this unprecedented power on the very same day
that he signed the equally odious Military Commissions Act of 2006. In
a sense, the two laws complement one another. One allows for torture
and detention abroad, while the other seeks to enforce acquiescence at
home, preparing to order the military onto the streets of America.
Remember, the term for putting an area under military law enforcement
control is precise; the term is “martial law.”

Read more.

0 thoughts on “Will there be a "November Surprise"?”

  1. You may be interested to know about the changes made to the Insurrection Act of 1807. In order for military forces to be used under these provisions, the following conditions must be met:

    (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 insurrection, 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.

    These are the same conditions that must be met under the old wording of the statute; however, the surrounding language has been expanded to include application to any event that is still also determined to meet these conditions, such as major public emergencies, terrorist incidents, and so on, as opposed to only “insurrection” specifically. Congress must also be informed immediately and every 14 days thereafter during the exercise of such authority, which was not required under the old statute.

    The changes to this law are likely the result of public outcry in response to the Hurricane Katrina disaster, particularly President Bush’s refusal to activate National Guard elements by federal or presidential order given the previous restrictions to such an order. This expansion of the wording would have, for example, allowed Hurricane Katrina to fall under the guidelines as a “natural disaster”, whereas previously “insurrection” was required.

    Here is the old text:

    —–
    333. Interference with State and Federal law

    The President, by using the militia or the armed forces, or both, or by any other means, shall take such measures as he considers necessary to suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy, if it—

    (1) so hinders the execution of the laws of that State, and of the United States within the State, 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 are unable, fail, or refuse to protect that right, privilege, or immunity, or to give that protection; or

    (2) opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws. In any situation covered by clause (1), the State shall be considered to have denied the equal protection of the laws secured by the Constitution.
    —–

    And here is the new text:

    —–
    333. Major public emergencies; interference with State and Federal law

    (a) USE OF ARMED FORCES IN MAJOR PUBLIC EMERGENCIES.–

    (1) 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 insurrection, 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.

    (b) NOTICE TO CONGRESS.–

    The President shall notify Congress of the determination to exercise the authority in subsection (a)(1)(A) as soon as practicable after the determination and every 14 days thereafter during the duration of the exercise of the authority.
    —–

    As you can see, the wording REQUIRES that the identical conditions be met (included in paragraph 2), as well as both requirements under (a)(1)(A). The only real difference is allowing the conditions to be met during “a natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident, or other condition” as opposed to “insurrection” specifically. (Besides, can’t it be argued that “insurrection” can be broadly defined, too, if the real interest is to declare martial law?)

    I suppose this wouldn’t be very interesting to blog about, though.

    Regards,

    Dave Schroeder
    University of Wisconsin – Madison
    das@doit.wisc.edu
    http://das.doit.wisc.edu/

  2. Mr. Schroeder:

    I mean no disrepect, Mr. Schroeder, however,since you are a systems engineer, I would not think you are the most qualified person to interpret legislation. I am, on the other hand, a legal assistant with much experience with the same. Be assured the language used in the text of this legislation offers the administration much latitude…do not forget, thanks to the Military Detention Act, Bush can now indefinitely detain, without charge, any U.S. citizen he deems “suspicious”. So, in effect, dissent may be construed as “aid and comfort to the enemy”. A mass protest may now be construed as “insurrection”. (i.e., “Healthy forests” = logging. “Clean Air Act” = more pollution, etc.) George Orwell must be rolling in his grave!

  3. Dave is correct (as much as I can confirm by dent of legal training. HOWEVER, you are quite correct to assume, and prepare for, the worst. The problem with all laws is that they depend on (a) correct interpretation and (b) faithful adherence & enforcement. This admin is incapable of either…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *