The Alarms are Ringing

Via Attytood, who inquires "Did anyone know about this?" a recent NYTimes editorial, Making Martial Law Easier, notes:

A disturbing recent phenomenon in Washington is that laws that strike to the heart of American democracy have been passed in the dead of night. So it was with a provision quietly tucked into the enormous defense budget bill at the Bush administration’s behest that makes it easier for a president to override local control of law enforcement and declare martial law.

The provision, signed into law in October, weakens two obscure but important bulwarks of liberty. One is the doctrine that bars military forces, including a federalized National Guard, from engaging in law enforcement. Called posse comitatus, it was enshrined in law after the Civil War to preserve the line between civil government and the military. The other is the Insurrection Act of 1807, which provides the major exemptions to posse comitatus. It essentially limits a president’s use of the military in law enforcement to putting down lawlessness, insurrection and rebellion, where a state is violating federal law or depriving people of constitutional rights.

The newly enacted provisions upset this careful balance. They shift the focus from making sure that federal laws are enforced to restoring public order. Beyond cases of actual insurrection, the president may now use military troops as a domestic police force in response to a natural disaster, a disease outbreak, terrorist attack or to any “other condition.”

Changes of this magnitude should be made only after a thorough public airing. But these new presidential powers were slipped into the law without hearings or public debate. The president made no mention of the changes when he signed the measure, and neither the White House nor Congress consulted in advance with the nation’s governors.

A bipartisan bill was recently introduced to repeal this alarming law (as Will Bunch of Attytood rightfully terms it), which is no doubt what brought this to the attention of the Times Editorial Board.

In a way, the answer to Bunch's question proves even more disturbing. In an October 29, 2006 post, No More Disorder, I quoted:

The historic and ominous re-writing of the Insurrection Act, accomplished in the dead of night, which gives Bush the legal authority to declare martial law, is now an accomplished fact.

This was from a post by the Unknown Candidate, and I called this yet another sign of a Creeping Dictatorship.

The Times editorial notes that this law is serious enough that it is a threat to our our democracy itself. So where was the Times (as well as the rest of the media) when this odious law was first passed? Why is this just being brought out in an editorial, rather than being reported first as the news it is (or I should say, was)? It couldn't have been that hard to discover, if I discovered it within a few days of its passage.

And, once again, this assault on our freedom was enacted shortly before the 2006 midterm elections, but is only being addressed now. If the press had spent as much time reporting on this issue, as say, who the father of Anna Nicole Smith's baby is, who knows what the election results could have been. I seem to recall this happening before . . . .

The real question is: Why didn't everyone know about this?

Tags: Commentary, Civil Liberties, Law, News & Media