dChan
Anonymous ID: 8a66a1 March 13, 2021, 5:56 p.m. No.13200506   🗄️.is đź”—kun   >>0524 >>0771

>>13200455

>>13200476

http://www.allgov.com/news/top-stories/new-rule-allows-us-military-to-act-without-presidents-authorization-130520?news=850072

 

flashback to 2012 NDAA Obama signed

 

New Rule Allows U.S. Military to Act without President’s Authorization

 

In a major power grab of dubious constitutionality, the U.S. military last week claimed for itself the power to act unilaterally—without the authorization of the President—in case of “civil disturbances,” threatening a 200-year-old system that strictly forbids the military from becoming involved in civilian law enforcement. Seemingly innocuous in its brevity and simplicity, the new rule's chief danger lies in its vagueness:

 

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. (italics added.)

 

The rule defines none of its key terms, which appear in italics above, raising questions of enormous import. A sergeant, for example, has command of soldiers in his or her squad—is the sergeant a “commander” under this rule? Even if the rule were restricted to those with the rank of Army colonel or above, there are more than 4,000 full-bird colonels in the Army. What is a “civil disturbance”? How large is “large-scale”? Where is the line between situations civilian authorities are able to control and those they are not? If elected officials believe a situation is under control, can the military commander countermand them and intervene with force anyway?

 

“These phrases don’t have any legal meaning,” argues Bruce Afran, a civil liberties attorney and constitutional law professor at Rutgers University, who calls the rule “a wanton power grab by the military…because it violates the long-standing presumption that the military is under civilian control.”

 

Drawing a chilling comparison to interwar Germany, Afran says the rule is “no different than the emergency powers clause in the Weimar constitution [that governed Germany from 1919 to 1933]. It’s a grant of emergency power to the military to rule over parts of the country at their own discretion.” Pointing to the lack of a clear definition of a civil disturbance, Afran notes, “In the Sixties all of the Vietnam protests would meet this description. We saw Kent State. This would legalize Kent State.” Or the brutal crackdowns on Occupy.

 

Rejecting Afran's view, a Pentagon official told the Long Island Press that “the authorization has been around over 100 years; it’s not a new authority. It’s been there but it hasn’t been exercised.” Despite these claims, the previously existing laws said by DoD to permit direct military participation in civilian law enforcement include obscure, century-old statutes like an 1882 law (16 USC § 593) empowering the President to use military force to protect “the timber of the United States in Florida” and the Guano Islands Act of 1856 permitting the President to use force to protect the rights of one who discovers a guano island covered by the Act.

 

The problem for the military is that both the Constitution and federal law are clear in their intent of keeping the military out of domestic affairs. Even the Declaration of Independence weighs in, criticizing King George III for trying “to render the military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.” The Constitution, in Article IV, bars the military from intervening in any state unless the state requests help because domestic violence threatens its “republican” government.

 

The Insurrection Act of 1807 limits the circumstances under which the president may use the military to suppress an insurrection, and the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 prohibits the military from assisting civilian law enforcement except in circumstances “authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress,” including “insurrection, domestic violence, or conspiracy that hinders the execution of State or Federal law” as well as actions “taken under express statutory authority.”

 

The trouble for the Pentagon is that there is no such “express statutory authority” for its sweeping new rule. As Eric Freedman, a constitutional law professor at Hofstra University, puts it, “The Department of Defense does not have the authority to grant itself by regulation any more authority than Congress has granted it by statute,” making the new rule “an unauthorized power grab,” according to Freedman. Given President Barack Obama's tacit support of the new rule, only Congress or the federal courts have the power to roll back or strike down the military's latest move.

Anonymous ID: 8a66a1 March 13, 2021, 6:15 p.m. No.13200624   🗄️.is đź”—kun   >>0640 >>0642

>>13200593

>looks like Cuomo will resign or get impeached what about Gavin Newsome

Cuomo will get impeached on sexual harrassment charges

Newsome will be recalled

Whitmore is being investigated for corruption of money paid to some companies of close associates.

 

that leaves the NJ gov.

 

not one will be dismissed for murder.

Anonymous ID: 8a66a1 March 13, 2021, 6:36 p.m. No.13200750   🗄️.is đź”—kun   >>0760

>>13200675

>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chartres_Cathedral

 

On August 16, 1944, during the intervention of the American troops in Chartres, the cathedral was saved from destruction thanks to the American colonel Welborn Barton Griffith Jr. (1901-1944), who questioned the order he was given to destroy the cathedral.The Americans believed that Chartres Cathedral was being used by the enemy. The belief was that the steeples and towers were being used as a range for artillery.[10]

 

Griffith, accompanied by a volunteer soldier, instead decided to go and verify whether or not the Germans were using the cathedral. Griffith could see that the cathedral was empty, so he had the cathedral bells ring as a signal for the Americans not to shoot. Upon hearing the bells, the American command rescinded the order for destruction. Notre-Dame de Chartres had been saved. Colonel Griffith died in combat action that same day, in the town of Lèves, near Chartres. He was posthumously decorated with the Croix de Guerre avec Palme (War Cross 1939-1945), the Légion d'Honneur (Legion of Honour) and the Ordre National du Mérite (National Order of Merit) of the French government and the Distinguished Service Cross of the American government[11][12]

Anonymous ID: 8a66a1 March 13, 2021, 6:41 p.m. No.13200794   🗄️.is đź”—kun

>>13200675

>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chartres_Cathedral

Chartres became a site for the veneration of the Blessed Virgin Mary.In 876 the cathedral acquired the Sancta Camisa, believed to be the tunic worn by Mary at the time of Christ's birth.According to legend, the relic was given to the cathedral by Charlemagne who received it as a gift from Emperor Constantine VI during a crusade to Jerusalem. However, as Charlemagne's crusade is fiction, the legend lacks historical merit and was probably invented in the 11th century to authenticate relics at the Abbey of St Denis.[57] In fact, the Sancta Camisa was a gift to the cathedral from Charles the Bald and there is no evidence for its being an important object of pilgrimage prior to the 12th century.[citation needed] In 1194, when the cathedral was struck by lightning, and the east spire was lost, the Sancta Camisa was thought lost, too. However, it was found three days later, protected by priests, who fled behind iron trapdoors when the fire broke out.

Anonymous ID: 8a66a1 March 13, 2021, 6:45 p.m. No.13200829   🗄️.is đź”—kun

 

>>13200161

>>13200675

>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chartres_Cathedral

 

Chartres Light Celebration

 

–One of the attractions at the Chartres Cathedral is theChartres Light Celebration,when not only is the cathedral lit, but so are many buildings throughout the town, as a celebration of electrification.>https://twitter.com/DanScavino/status/1370356211434975239/photo/1

 

dark to light