7 Comments
Oldest
Newest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Paddy O'Furnijur
Editor
Paddy O'Furnijur
7 years ago

Good morning, Gerbil Nation!
Nice thread pic, Mac! What a delightful way to start the day. No, that doesn’t describe my typical morning.

It’s supposed to be about 10 degrees cooler today -- we’ll see.

Fatwa Arbuckle: Unperson
Editor

G’day from sunny, cool and Happy Larryville, GN!

Mac --

Teh tulips look delicious.

Sven --

Hope you got extry (sic) points for making dinner

Monday is a visit from the Fire Marshal as you are trying to set up for a luncheon.

Criminy, K8-E…seems like Fire Marshals all over the country have waaaaaaay too much time on their hands and not much common sense. In L.A., I noticed their propensity for inspecting busy restaurants at lunchtime…they always seemed to depart with a large sack of food to feed the crew on both vehicles which accompanied them. (Said vehicles were also a traffic nuisance during lunch hour; but hey, it’s not like L.A. has a carp-ton of cars or anything.)

Some years ago, the OH State FM drove 2.5 hours from Columbus to the building Mom lived in just to cite the owners for violating an asinine 50-year-old law which was not being enforced anywhere in the state. Even the city and county FMs thought that was harassment…probably on behalf of a local developer who’d been trying to get his hands on the building for a number of years. As a result, the building owners were forced to totally revamp their business model, which has had a non-trivial negative impact on their cash-flow.

Go figure.

Fatwa Arbuckle: Unperson
Editor

Drive-by:

I hate, loathe and despise AT&T with the heat of a thousand novae.

Thatisall.

Fatwa Arbuckle: Unperson
Editor

Kilt anither one; tarrrrrrrrrrrrnation!

BrendaK
Admin
7 years ago

Hold your horses and stop the presses, this has to be trumpeted loud and large -- if this is true, Posse Comitatus is DEAD:

“The lines blurred even further Monday as a new dynamic was introduced to the militarization of domestic law enforcement. By making a few subtle changes to a regulation in the U.S. Code titled “Defense Support of Civilian Law Enforcement Agencies” the military has quietly granted itself the ability to police the streets without obtaining prior local or state consent, upending a precedent that has been in place for more than two centuries.

“The most objectionable aspect of the regulatory change is the inclusion of vague language that permits military intervention in the event of “civil disturbances.” According to the rule:

“Federal military commanders have the authority, in extraordinary emergency circumstances where prior authorization by the President is impossible and duly constituted local authorities are unable to control the situation, to engage temporarily in activities that are necessary to quell large-scale, unexpected civil disturbances.

“Bruce Afran, a civil liberties attorney and constitutional law professor at Rutgers University, calls the rule, “a wanton power grab by the military,” and says, “It’s quite shocking actually because it violates the long-standing presumption that the military is under civilian control.”

[…] “Last year, Bruce Afran and another civil liberties attorney Carl Mayer filed a lawsuit against the Obama Administration on behalf of a group of journalists and activists lead by former New York Times journalist Chris Hedges. They filed suit over the inclusion of a bill in the NDAA 2012 that, according to the plaintiffs, expanded executive authority over domestic affairs by unilaterally granting the executive branch to indefinitely detain U.S. citizens without due process. The case has garnered international attention and invited vigorous defense from the Obama Administration. Even Afran goes so far as to say this current rule change is, “another NDAA. It’s even worse, to be honest.”

[…] “Afran is considering amending his NDAA complaint currently in front of the court to include this regulatory change.”

Read the whole thing

BrendaK
Admin
7 years ago

In re: The Posse Comitatus Act is the United States federal law (18 U.S.C. § 1385, original at 20 Stat. 152) that was passed on June 18, 1878

[Follows is straight out of Wikipedia]

On September 26, 2006, President Bush urged Congress to consider revising federal laws so that U.S. armed forces could restore public order and enforce laws in the aftermath of a natural disaster, terrorist attack or incident, or other condition.

These changes were included in the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (H.R. 5122), which was signed into law on October 17, 2006.[5]

Section 1076 is titled “Use of the Armed Forces in major public emergencies.” It provided that:

The President may employ the armed forces… to… 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… the President determines that… domestic violence has occurred to such an extent that the constituted authorities of the State or possession are incapable of maintaining public order… or [to] suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy if such… a condition… so hinders the execution of the laws… 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… or opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws.[6]

In 2008, these changes in the Insurrection Act of 1807 were repealed in their entirety, reverting to the previous wording of the Insurrection Act[7] that in its original form was written to limit Presidential power as much as possible in the event of insurrection, rebellion, or lawlessness.

In 2011, U.S. President Barack Obama signed National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 into law. Section 1031, clause “b”, article 2 defines a ‘covered person’, i.e., someone possibly subject to martial law, as the following: “A person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces.”

Paddy O'Furnijur
Editor
Paddy O'Furnijur
7 years ago
Reply to  BrendaK

SMH
Not with a bang, but a whimper.