Gore calls for Civil Disobedience while Bush Supends Posse

Al Gore today at the Clinton Global Initiative:
I believe we have reached the stage where it is time for civil disobedience to prevent the construction of new coal plants that do not have carbon capture and

Meanwhile, Radley Balko, a senior editor of the libertarian Reason Magazine alerted readers today in a blog post to an item in the Army Times, "Posse Comiwhatus?" By staff writer Gina Cavallaro, the editors benignly titled it "Brigade homeland tours start Oct. 1: 3rd Infantry’s 1st BCT trains for a new dwell-time mission. Helping ‘people at home’ may become a permanent part of the active Army."

Of course, Army Times was reporting the actual deployment. A previous April 2008 piece in Stars in Stripes provided the outlines of upcoming plans.

It once was the case that Republicans used the term "martial law" metaphorically to refer to the de-democratization of the legislative process. But the Defense Authorization Act of 2006, passed on Sept. 30, gave Bush literal martial law powers, as noted in Congressional Quarterly. The American Conservative questioned such power in April 2007 . And back on August 8, 2005, WaPo staff writer Bradley Graham wrote a front page story, " War Plans Drafted To Counter Terror Attacks in U.S.: Domestic Effort Is Big Shift for Military. The military officials quoted in the article didn't seem to envision the type of deployment we are now reading about.

The war plans represent a historic shift for the Pentagon, which has been reluctant to become involved in domestic operations and is legally constrained from engaging in law enforcement. Indeed, defense officials continue to stress that they intend for the troops to play largely a supporting role in homeland emergencies, bolstering police, firefighters and other civilian response groups.

For background, see the former a FEMA director's opinion that the Posse Comitatus rule allows the President and Congress to order the military to police domestically. Contrast this with an article from llrx on the historic interpretation of the Act. You can find another article at Antiwar.com which questions what's going on.