Decius wrote: Valley Congressman Brad Sherman (D-Sherman Oaks) stood his ground on Friday during the second House bailout vote that passed. He, along with the majority, voted no on Monday and he once again voted no on Friday, although that time in the minority. During a session of congress on the night before Friday's vote, he said proponents of the bailout were apparently saying martial law be put in place if the vote didn't go through. "That's what I call fear mongering," Sherman said.
More strange rumblings about domestic military operations.
Saw that the other day, too bad he doesn't actually name names. I didn't initially interpret his statement in the secretive cabal sense, more of a generalization of the sentiment the proponents felt. The original Army Times article has been updated with this blurb: Correction: A non-lethal crowd control package fielded to 1st Brigade Combat Team, 3rd Infantry Division, described in the original version of this story, is intended for use on deployments to the war zone, not in the U.S., as previously stated.
Naomi Wolf has an interesting take on what could possibly constitute a "war zone." If you think of the global war on terror including the United States, we are now part of the "war zone." Note: I have not vetted Naomi Wolf, really only heard about her yesterday with this video. She has a book to sell about America becoming a police state. Fear will help it move. Still, interesting points raised in this 27 minute video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_XgkeTanCGI (I tried < video url="URI" / > in preview mode, didn't seem to work.) One more thread to add, article titled "The Myth of Posse Comitatus" written by an Army Reserve JAG attorney: http://www.homelandsecurity.org/journal/articles/Trebilcock.htm On the erosion of posse comitatus: The weakness of the analysis of passive versus direct involvement in law enforcement was most graphically demonstrated in the tragic 1999 shooting of a shepherd by marines who had been assigned a mission to interdict smuggling and illegal immigration in the remote Southwest. An investigation revealed that for some inexplicable reason the 16-year-old shepherd fired his weapon in the direction of the marines. Return fire killed the boy. This tragedy demonstrates that when armed troops are placed in a position where they are being asked to counter potential criminal activity, it is a mere semantic exercise to argue that the military is being used in a passive support role. The fact that armed military troops were placed in a position with the mere possibility that they would have to use force to subdue civilian criminal activity reflects a significant policy shift by the executive branch away from the posse comitatus doctrine. Congress has also approved the use of the military in civilian law enforcement through the Civil Disturbance Statutes: 10 U.S.C., sections 331–334. These provisions permit the president to use military personnel to enforce civilian laws where the state has requested assistance or is unable to protect civil rights and property. In case of civil disturbance, the president must first give an order for the offenders to disperse. If the order is not obeyed, the president may then authorize military forces to make arrests and restore order. The scope of the Civil Disturbance Statutes is sufficiently broad to encompass civil disturbance resulting from terrorist or other criminal activity. It was these provisions that were relied upon to restore order using active-duty Army personnel following the Los Angeles “race riots” of the early 1990s.
RE: LAist: Martial Law was Threatened if Bailout Didn't Happen | 
