HR 1585 Authorizes Plans For Martial Law

HR 1585 which is the 2008 Defense Authorization Bill is an evil piece of legislation that actually gives authorization to the U.S. military to plan a future merger with the police that will be used during a catastrophic emergency. This bill authorizes the Department of Defense to design a plan for a martial law apparatus. There is no question that the U.S. government is seeking to ratchet up the militarized police state as they anticipate massive resistance to the coming collapse of our economy and war with Iran. This bill is yet another step in the direction for the implementation of a militarized police state in this country.

Section 1615 of the bill describes the determination of department of defense civil support requirements. Subsection (a) states the following regarding the determination of requirements.


(a) Determination of Requirements - The Secretary of Defense shall determine the military-unique capabilities needed to be provided by the Department of Defense to support civil authorities in an incident of national significance or a catastrophic incident.

So another words, the Secretary of Defense is going to determine what military capabilities will be provided to support civil authorities during a catastrophic emergency. If the military is providing support to civil authorities, that is essentially describing an unholy marriage of police and the military. In no uncertain terms, this bill authorizes the Department of Defense to draw up plans for martial law which will be enforced through a combination of the military and the police.

In addition, the Secretary of Defense is to develop a plan that will sustain this martial law apparatus for five years as shown below in section (b).

(b) Plan for Funding Capabilities-

(1) PLAN- The Secretary of Defense shall develop and implement a plan, in coordination with the Secretaries of the military departments and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, for providing the funds and resources necessary to develop and maintain the following:

(A) The military-unique capabilities determined under subsection (a).

(B) Any additional capabilities determined by the Secretary to be necessary to support the use of the active components and the reserve components of the armed forces for homeland defense missions, domestic emergency responses, and providing military support to civil authorities.

(2) TERM OF PLAN- The plan required under paragraph (1) shall cover at least five years.

Section 1621 of the bill describes how they intend to increase the number of people in USNORTHCOM. Below is the appropriate subsection in which the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff will submit a review of civilian and military positions within USNORTHCOM with the goal of increasing the number of reservists and civilians employed by USNORTHCOM. Clearly, they are anticipating massive civil unrest in this country if they intend on increasing the manpower available to USNORTHCOM.

(a) Manpower Review-

(1) REVIEW BY CHAIRMAN OF THE JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF- Not later than one year after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff shall submit to the Secretary of Defense a review of the civilian and military positions, job descriptions, and assignments within the United States Northern Command with the goal of significantly increasing the number of members of a reserve component assigned to, and civilians employed by, the United States Northern Command who have experience in the planning, training, and employment of forces for homeland defense missions, domestic emergency response, and providing military support to civil authorities.

It gets better. Section 1622 of the bill establishes a Council of Governors that will advise the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of Homeland Security and the White House on how they intend to integrate the National Guard into this martial law apparatus. The section is shown below.


The President shall establish a bipartisan Council of Governors to advise the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the White House Homeland Security Council on matters related to the National Guard and civil support missions.

The bottom line is that this bill authorizes the U.S. military to plan the integration of the military with civil authorities so they have a full fledged martial law apparatus to use in the event of any sort of catastrophic national emergency. The information in this bill lines up with what was described in the Vision 2020 document which is a document released by USNORTHCOM which describes the goal of a future North American martial law apparatus. It also lines up with NSPD-51/HSPD-20 which gives the President authoritarian powers during a catastrophic emergency. One thing is for sure, these people would not be wasting their time putting this stuff down on paper unless they have plans to use it.

Stand up and speak out for the Constitution and liberty!

If you can't beat them, join them?

Yes, you are right. The Sky is Falling. It's TEOTWAWKI. And I feel fine.

Senior 9/11 Bureau Chief, Analyst, Correspondent, Principle Investigator, Forensic 9/11ologist

It doesn't matter what people are saying, as long as they are talking about you. — Denny Crane

Chuck, there seems to be an update

UPDATE: The version passed by the U.S. House contained the language described below, but fortunately it looks as if the public print version of the bill has had this language removed. Hopefully it will stay that way and the language won't reappear in the final version of the bill that gets submitted to the President. The U.S. House and U.S. Senate still need to resolve differences on the bill. I still question why so many members of the U.S. House would support a bill with this language included. They must all be nuts. We will be tracking the finalized version of this bill closely to ensure that this language does not magically reappear in the finalized version

Thanks for you post. This is important.

Any idea who is voting for this Bill?

I am especially concerned about Ron Paul's and Dennis Kucinich's postion.

Especially since Ron Paul voted for tabling the impeachment.

Pls see:

Why Did Ron Paul Vote Against Impeachment? By Manila Ryce

I agree with Manila, it doesn’t make sense that Ron Paul does NOT support impeachment. ~ Lo

Dandelion Salad

By Manila Ryce
The Largest Minority
Published Wednesday, November 7th, 2007, 10:08 pm

To paraphrase the late, great Ricky Ricardo, Ron Paul’s got some splainin’ to do. I would like to urge all first-time pro-Paul visitors to my leftist pinko blog to please save all reactionary hate mail until after you’ve actually read what I have to say. Paul’s vote to table the impeachment resolution, then to refer it to committee is especially troubling coming from a supposed consitutionalist. He voted with the Democratic leadership on both accounts.

There are a few excuses being kicked around the internet which are all rather weak. Firstly, I don’t buy the excuse that he knew the bill wouldn’t go anywhere so he decided not to vote in favor of it. After all, Paul got the nickname of “Doctor No” by adhering to his constitutional principles regardless of the politics surrounding the issues. Did he not? Secondly, I also don’t buy Paul’s own line that there isn’t sufficient evidence to suggest that the Bush administration has done anything illegal, as there supposedly was to warrant his vote for the impeachment of Bill Clinton. Cheney’s own words are sufficient evidence in themselves.

More importantly, impeachment is not an actual trial, and requires no evidence at all (not that there isn’t any). It is merely an indictment to formally accuse an official of committing a criminal offense. Voting to table the resolution was a vote to prevent such an investigation. The evidence is presented after the House votes in favor of impeachment, not before.

Perhaps even more confusing is this interview from the far-right website InfoWars from March:

Paul said that Bush should be impeached not under the umbrella of partisan vengeance but for ceaselessly breaking the laws of the land.

“I would have trouble arguing that he’s been a Constitutional President and once you violate the Constitution and be proven to do that I think these people should be removed from office.”

Opining that the U.S. had entered a period of “soft fascism,” Paul noted that the legacy of the Bush administration has been the total abandonment of Constitutional principles.

I don’t think even Neocon fluffers like Traitor Joe can argue that Dennis Kucinich engages in “partisan vengeance,” so that excuse is out the window as well. Ron Paul’s commitment to the constitution was tested yesterday, and it unfortunately fell short of our expectations. It’s contradictory to say there isn’t sufficient evidence to warrant an impeachment against the very same people you say are violating the constitution. Impeachment isn’t just an option, it’s an obligation. There’s no glory in defending the indefensible, and Paul’s vote was just that. I urge his supporters to contact Paul about his vote. Tell him to vote in favor of impeachment the next time Kucinich brings it back to the floor. And liberals, don’t forget to do the same with your representatives.

You can also call Paul’s office and leave a message:
(202) 225-2831

Pls see:

Ron Paul.....Do You Support Impeachment?

Something is very seriously wrong with his position.

I am concerned.

What's going on?

The CONSTITUTION is NOT going to "collapse" into pulverized dust no matter how much thermate/explosives or planes they throw at it

Paul's position on Mr. Bush is

the same as his position on 9/11 - needs investigation. This is perfect strategy - he is open to having his position changed based on an investigation. This means, for instance, if the HR 333 impeachment bill by Dennis Kucinich moves its way through congress, it could get enough attention to warrant an investigation before Cheney would be impeached (this bill is for Cheney but you get my point). As we all know, a real independent investigation of Bush in regarding to Iraq or 9/11 will reveal the truth, and Paul will support the truth. He knows that if he supports impeachment now not everyone will agree with him, but if he supports it after a damning investigation, he will have the support of a much larger group.