Martial law and postponing elections

Here's a post for the paranoiacs--both veteran and newly converted:

At a press briefing this morning that touched on issues like the White House's extrajudicial wiretapping program and torture policies, the president was asked a question about Vladimir Putin's plan to hold on to power when his term as Russian president runs out.

Reporter: Mr. President, following up on Vladimir Putin for a moment, he said recently that next year, when he has to step down according to the constitution, as the president, he may become prime minister; in effect keeping power and dashing any hopes for a genuine democratic transition there ...

Bush: I've been planning that myself.

Ahahahahaha. That's funny. It's a great comedian who can give voice to what everyone else is just thinking.

That had me laughing too. And scratching my head a bit. It goes on:

in July, we filed some FOIA requests anyway. We asked five Justice Department offices for documents produced or revised after August 2001 "addressing the feasibility, advisability or lawfulness of deferring, rescheduling or canceling a U.S. national election."

The Office of Legal Counsel responded in nine days: It has no documents fitting that description. This is the office specifically tasked with advising the president on legal matters, and which infamously belched out a memo sanctioning torture in 2002.

This was, by the way, the fastest FOIA response I've ever gotten -- the speed suggesting the proposition was so ludicrous that it demanded swift repudiation. (Or that the office wanted to dispose of the FOIA before the White House went and asked for election postponement options). The Office of the Attorney General responded late last month (.pdf), also reporting no records found. Ditto the Office of the Associate Attorney General.

Good. That means this here is just a technical curiosity, right?

It’s amazing what you can find if you turn over a few rocks in the anti-terrorism legislation Congress approved during the election season.

Take, for example, the John W. Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2006, named for the longtime Armed Services Committee chairman from Virginia.

Signed by President Bush on Oct. 17, the law (PL 109-364) has a provocative provision called “Use of the Armed Forces in Major Public Emergencies.”

The thrust of it seems to be about giving the federal government a far stronger hand in coordinating responses to Katrina-like disasters.

But on closer inspection, its language also alters the two-centuries-old Insurrection Act, which Congress passed in 1807 to limit the president’s power to deploy troops within the United States.

That law has long allowed the president to mobilize troops only “to suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy.”

But the amended law takes the cuffs off.

Specifically, the new language adds “natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident” to the list of conditions permitting the President to take over local authority — particularly “if domestic violence has occurred to such an extent that the constituted authorities of the State or possession are incapable of maintaining public order.”

Ahhahahaha. Ha... ha... ahem.