What happens if there is another stolen election?

After witnessing the government’s attack of protesters and citizens peaceful acts of civil disobedience in St. Paul, MN. This writer has serious questions about the militarization of US streets. With two previously stolen Presidential elections and the reports of caging, purging of voter rolls, long lines at voting stations and other forms of voter suppression will the citizens of the US take to the streets if the outcome of the election again is questionable.

According to an article in the UK Telegraph on October 24, 2008, a report states that many major US cities are preparing for protests and civil disobediance in the event that it is reported that Barack Obama loses the election. Election officials in Virginia are stepping up security at polling booths amid concerns over long waits and issues such as voter registration and identity verification. In Oakland, Chicago, Philidelphia, Cincinnati, Detroit among other cities government officials and law enforcement are making security plans if there are problems following the election results.

Will this also be a time that President Bush imposes martial law using a law he signed on October 17th 2006, in private ceremony in the oval office President Bush signed Public Law 109-364, known as the JOHN WARNER DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT of 2007 (H.R.5122) ,revising the INSURRECTION ACT of 1807, a set of laws that limits the president's ability to deploy troops within the United States. The Insurrection Act (10 U.S.C.331- 335) has historically, along with the POSSE COMITATUS ACT of 1878 (18 U.S.C.1385), helped to enforce strict prohibitions on military involvement in domestic law enforcement. This allows the president to declare a "public emergency," station troops anywhere in the United States, and take control of state-based National Guard units without the consent of the governor or local authorities, in order to "suppress public disorder." It also empowers the government to take control of private corporations. Which could mean the media.

On the same day, President signed the equally odious MILITARY COMMISSIONS ACT of 2006. In a sense, the two laws complement one another. One allows for torture and detention abroad, while the other seeks to enforce acquiescence at home, allowing the commander-in-chief to order the military onto the streets of America. Although not invoked in the legislation, the term for putting an area under military rule is "martial law."

Despite this unprecedented power grab, there has been no outcry in the American corporate media, and little reaction from our elected officials in Congress, except Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont). Senator Leahy went on to stress that "we certainly do not need to make it easier for presidents to declare martial law. Invoking the Insurrection Act and using the military for law enforcement activities goes against some of the central tenets of our democracy... One can easily envision governors and mayors in charge of an emergency having to constantly look over their shoulders while someone who has never visited their communities gives the orders."

A few weeks later, on September 29, 2006, Leahy entered into the Congressional Record that he had "grave reservations about certain provisions of the fiscal Year 2007 Defense Authorization Bill Conference Report," the language of which, he said, "subverts solid, longstanding posse comitatus statutes that limit the military's involvement in law enforcement, thereby making it easier for the President to declare martial law." This had been "slipped in," Leahy said, "as a rider with little study," while "other congressional committees with jurisdiction over these matters had no chance to comment, let alone hold hearings on, these proposals."

I want to give you a little history about the Posse Comitatus ACT of 1878? It was a law that prevented the military to be used as law enforcement in the US against its own citizens. It was enacted after reconstruction in the south following the Civil War to ensure the protection and citizenship of previous slaves. The Comitatus Act reads:"Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or Air Force as a posse comitatus [deputized law enforcement] or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both." It is the only US criminal statute that outlaws military operations directed against the American people under the cover of "law enforcement." This protects the citizenship from a power hungry executive branch, “President” from imposing its will upon the citizens of the US.

The Army Times staff writer Gina Cavallaro in the Army Times Sept. 2008 issue reported that the 3rd Infantry Division’s 1st Brigade Combat Team beginning Oct. 1 for 12 months will be under the day-to-day control of U.S. Army North, the Army service component of Northern Command, as an on-call federal response force for natural or man made emergencies and disasters, including terrorist attacks. The article also said they could be called upon to help with civil unrest and crowd control as well.

With legal wiretapping of citizens, secret military rendition, torture, the expansion of the prison system and past government abuses against against citizens expressing their first amendment rights are we looking at a possible civil war or just a complete fascist take over of the USA. If citizens take to the streets to protest the election, how will the government respond? Have all these actions been enacted for this moment?