Another item the news media have completely ignored, more Presidential powers

[G_j]

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=3118

On October 17, 2006, when George W. Bush signed the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) of 2007—a $538 billion military spending bill—he enacted into law a section called “Use of the Armed Forces in Major Public Emergencies.” In the view of many, this Act substantially changed fundamental laws of the United States, giving Bush—and all future U.S. presidents—new and sweeping powers to use the U.S. military anywhere in the United States, virtually as he sees fit—for disaster relief, crowd control, suppression of public disorder, or any “other condition” that might arise.

News coverage of these significant changes in the law has been virtually nonexistent. At nearly every stage when it might have received coverage, the news media have completely ignored the story: When the NDAA was debated, when it was passed in the House on September 29 and in the Senate on Sept. 30, 2006, when it was signed into law on October 17, and even when Senate Judiciary chair Patrick Leahy (D.-Vt.) introduced his own bill on February 7, 2007 to overturn the Oct. 17 measures, mainstream media have provided no news coverage. Only on April 24, 2007, when the first hearings were held on Leahy’s bill, did a handful of mainstream media reports appear.

What could happen under the new law? As just one example, let’s say hundreds of demonstrators in Boston engaged in civil disobedience, sitting-in on the Boston Common to protest the country’s policies in Iraq, and traffic ground to a halt. Under the new law, the president could order in the Massachusetts National Guard to clear out the protesters even if the Massachusetts governor opposed this.

Indeed, the president could order the Guard of any state into any other state—even if the governors of both states objected. Or the president could choose to use any element of the U.S. military—the Army, Air Force, Navy or Marines—to suppress a protest or carry out practically any kind of domestic action the president desired. And all of this with essentially no oversight—or checks and balances—on how the commander-in-chief uses these powers. Basically, after sending the National Guard somewhere, he or she merely needs to report to Congress every couple of weeks to let them know what the Guard is doing.

[Berry Cool]

1. I'm sure Keith Olbermann would have covered it

but he was so busy covering the death of habeas corpus that day, you see.

See, it's just that with this administration, there are so many abrogations of our rights as U.S. citizens in any given day, it's getting hard for even him to cover them all.

[ThomWV]

2. In Other Words - The Militia is no longer "well regulated"

That's what they are referring to in the 2nd amendment you know. When they say a well regulated militia is essential to the union what they meant was what we now call the National Guard had to be well regulated so that some despot would not use it as his private army. They expected a well armed citizenry would be able to "regulate" the militia. Of course today it would be absurd to think that you and I armed with pistols and shotguns would be able to control our "Militia" but that was the original idea. Of course the anti gun nuts have distorted the intent of the 2nd amendment all to hell and gone but there it is.