Reply #11: What do you mean all this does is "amend existing language slightly"? [View All]

[readmoreoften]

"Amending existing language slightly" is all it takes to shatter a law. And yes, posse comitatus had been suspended momentarily in the past. Just as habeus corpus had been suspended in US history 4 times previous to the MCA. However, precedent and *gutting a law* are entirely different animals.

Furthermore, George Bush did not fail to use the executive power suffienctly in the case of Katrina because he had no intention of doing anything. Come on. Let's not be absurd here. We're talking about a man who put a horse salesman at the head of FEMA...AFTER 9-11. There is nothing to suggest that George Bush has any interest in shifting authority towards the executive branch for the purpose of *helping* Americans in a time of crisis-- although that possibility is most likely why so many Dem representatives felt obligated to vote yea.

While this is no suspension of habeus corpus (is that all chicken littling too?) it will have profound effects if used unwisely. And I cannot imagine Bush acting wisely under any circumstances. Sending the Idaho National Guard to a massive protest in NYC could have disastrous effects without proper training beforehand. It is not the guard's function to police the citizenry.

This gives Bush that much more ability to call for martial law. Rationalization and false skepticism will not protect you from delusional leaders and their disastrous ideas. I agree that there is no reason to shriek about it-- high emotions are a big turn off for many people. But just because people are emotional about the implications of the John Warner Act doesn't mean they are wrong.