I don't neccessarily see this as gloom and doom, martial law in effect come this time in two years... but I do feel like this is a cover your ass move.
This administration has a really terrible track record for making sure protestors aren't seen, or are dismissed - what I see this as, is a move to make sure that if need be the military can be called in to beat protestor heads.
Which serves the Republicans in three ways - it means that there's more muscle to legally beat heads, but it also means that protestors would be up against soldiers (don't we all support our troops? Wouldn't it be horrible if American leftists were badly behaved to our brave men and women in uniform?).
It's also occured to me that, in my experience, cops love beating heads - but there are limits. I don't know how most police feel about doing illegal actions in their own communities. Soldiers? You look at precedents like what happened in Trenton, in the projects and at Kent State. I suspect a policeman has the ability to protest to a superior in ways soldiers don't.
I absolutely believe that. My brother is in the Canadian Armed Forces, will probably be spending time in Afghanistan within the next year or two, and he's the same way. As with any other profession, though, a very small proportion of bad apples can make the rest of the barrel seem rotten. How many people assume all teachers are authoritarian monsters waiting to make kids cry, because of the bad experiences they had in school twenty years before? It's really hard to see the stereotypes and know that it isn't that way for most - but the fact that it is that way for SOME makes it even harder to deal with, because it's not something anyone can categorically deny.
I doubt it will be used to acquire a third term for Bush, it will most likely being pushed to make sure if there are protests over the legalization of torture, they have an effective way to silence and disperse the protesters. It's becoming increasingly more likely that Bush is going to see violent protests before the end of his term.
Ironically, if the Republicans lose control of Congress in the upcoming elections, it will likely decrease the probably of large demonstrations against Bush.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2006-10-27 10:42 pm (UTC)(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
Date: 2006-10-27 11:47 pm (UTC)This administration has a really terrible track record for making sure protestors aren't seen, or are dismissed - what I see this as, is a move to make sure that if need be the military can be called in to beat protestor heads.
Which serves the Republicans in three ways - it means that there's more muscle to legally beat heads, but it also means that protestors would be up against soldiers (don't we all support our troops? Wouldn't it be horrible if American leftists were badly behaved to our brave men and women in uniform?).
It's also occured to me that, in my experience, cops love beating heads - but there are limits. I don't know how most police feel about doing illegal actions in their own communities. Soldiers? You look at precedents like what happened in Trenton, in the projects and at Kent State. I suspect a policeman has the ability to protest to a superior in ways soldiers don't.
I dunno, maybe I'm just being paranoid.
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
Date: 2006-10-28 03:01 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-10-28 10:29 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-10-30 07:36 pm (UTC)Ironically, if the Republicans lose control of Congress in the upcoming elections, it will likely decrease the probably of large demonstrations against Bush.