State of Emergency repression

The San Francisco Chronicle (3/24) reported in the wake of popular demonstrations in Syria – initially met by army gunfire, that "the all-powerful Baath party would study ending a state of emergency that it put in place after taking power in 1963."

That's an astounding 48 years! And now there willing to "study" it??! Although a state of emergency is often declared after a natural disaster, a number of countries like Syria use it to quash dissent and target particular groups. The article said that Syria's state of emergency "allows people to be arrested without warrants and imprisoned without trial. It goes on to say that there are detention centers known for torture, that hold prisoners for many years without trials.

It made me wonder how many other countries have imposed this type of "state of emergency" or outright martial law on their own citizens for long periods of time. Below are the infamous record-holders as I was able to glean from Wikipedia. I don't know how many of the countries actively used their extra-judicial powers on a regular basis to contain dissent, but if I'm a citizen in any of these countries, I'd prefer these arbitrary powers be taken off the books.

I hope that in Tunisia, Egypt, Algeria, Libya, Bahrain, etc. a shift toward democracy actually succeeds, but even an end to these "states of emergency" will be an important step forward. Notably, since the demonstrations began in February, there are new "states of emergency" in Yemen, Bahrain, and Tunisia.

Israel - 63 years (since the War of Independence; not including martial law in the occupied areas)
Egypt - 44 years 1967 - 2011 (with an 18 month break)
Taiwan - 39 years 1948 - 1987
Turkey - 24 years 1978 - 2002
Algeria - 19 years 1992 - 2011
Pakistan -11 years 1977 - 1988 (and working on a new one begun in 2007)
Phillipines -9 years 1972 - 1981 (under Marcos)

Martial Law Coming to a Theatre Near You!

Presumably President Bush learned many lessons from the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina and the devastation in New Orleans. Unfortunately, it appears that one of his biggest "takeaways" was the need for a President to be able to declare martial law and quell disturbance after a natural disaster and any number of other unpredictable "incidents." The Bush Administration slipped a clause into the 2006 "Defense Bill" that changed the "Insurrection Act" that has been on the books since just after the Civil War. That act spelled out the only times a president could override state governors and send in Federal troops against U.S. citizens and also take over control of the state's national guard. Though it had some vague language of its own it basically only allowed for Presidential martial law in the case of insurrection or a state's refusal to follow federal law. Now, the name of the Insurrection Act has been changed to "Enforcement of the Laws to Restore Public Order" Act and it clearly authorizes the President to impose martial law after a terrorist attack, a natural disaster, a disease outbreak, or 'other condition.'' We now have one "Decider" who can overrule governors in many different difficult situations - even if that "decider" is woefully ignorant of conditions on the ground, or just plain ignorant in general.

The governors association is against this new law and on February 7th, Senator Leahy of Vermont, introduced S1712 to ressurect the old Insurrection Act and delete the new Restore Public Order" Act. It's currently in the Judiciary Committee and the Committee of Armed Services.

The scariest thing about it is how easy it is to give up basic rights and protections guaranteed by our constitution. When you don't know how unprecedented this Bush-driven law is and how relatively untouchable, the "posse comitatus" restrictions have been, it is easy to erase its limitations on the President. In fact it's pretty easy to relinquish a myriad of constitutional liberties and protections in the aftermath of 9/11. We're getting used to the dire warning that there is a terrorist behind every Bush, and how we need to prioritize our security over our liberty. How often that seems to translate into letting the president decide what violence, surveillance, and control to employ on our behalves.