The following are excerpts from a World Net Daily article. The entire article can be viewed at http://www.worldnetdaily.com/bluesky_exnews/19990521_xex_clinton_and_.shtml>Clinton's Ability to Confiscate Guns or Declare Martial Law.

***************

Olson and Woll discovered that the U.S. Supreme

Court ruled in 1863 that the president can unilaterally

decide whether an insurrection is in effect and determine

how much force is necessary to suppress it. He can

"brand as belligerents the inhabitants of any area in

general insurrection."

Equally shocking, in Olson's view, as the fact that the

president can use the military against civilians, is the fact

that former presidents have done so on "many

occasions" -- none of them declaring martial law.

For example, in 1914 President Woodrow Wilson

deployed federal troops in Colorado to suppress a

labor dispute. Olson-Wolls point out that Wilson

ordered the U.S. Army to disarm American citizens --

including state and local officials, sheriffs, the police and

the National Guard; to arrest American citizens; to

monitor the state judicial process and re-arrest (and

hold in military custody) persons released by the state

courts; and to deny writs of habeas corpus issued by

state courts.

Earlier, in South Carolina in 1871, without declaring

martial law, President Grant sent troops into nine

counties of South Carolina to enforce a proclamation

commanding the residents to give up their arms and

ammunition. Grant suspended the writ of habeas corpus.

More than 600 arrests had been made by the end of

1871.

Between 1807 and 1925, federal troops were used

more than 100 times to quell domestic disturbances --

sometimes the presence of the troops alone was enough

to discourage the participants.

"Look at the history," Olson exclaimed. "None of what's

happening is new. Could you ever imagine that the

President of the United States could order the Army to

disarm sheriffs, disarm police, and disarm the National

Guard? Isn't that beyond what you'd ever dream?

"But it has happened. It's the fact that this has happened

that should cause people to take this issue seriously."

But doesn't the Posse Comitatus Act provide

restrictions against the use of the military? This is the act

that prohibits the Army or Air force from acting as a

posse comitatus -- "the population of a county the

sheriff may summon to assist him in certain cases."

"No one should ever think the Posse Comitatus Act is

any check whatsoever on the ability of the federal

government to employ military might against civilians,"

said Olson.

"We were surprised at how weak the Posse Comitatus

Act is," he continued. "There have been no prosecutions

ever, and it doesn't apply to any branch of the armed

forces except the Army and the Air Force. It has a huge

exception -- that deployment of the Army or Air Force

as a posse comitatus is a crime, 'except in cases and

under circumstances expressly authorized by the

Constitution or Act of Congress.'

"That 'Constitution or Act of Congress' exception is so

broad you can drive a truck through," Olson remarked.

"The final thing that surprised us was that that the

military doesn't need an order from the president to

have control over civilians," Olson said. "I had always

thought only the president could declare martial law, but

apparently not. Apparently any commander can do it,

can suspend all civil rights."

Larry Pratt considers this last the most egregious of all

the Olson-Woll findings.

"Military commanders can act on the basis that there is

an emergency," said Pratt. "They don't have to wait until

martial law is declared. The powers that they have in

their hands are tremendous.

"People can't expect President Clinton to sit there in

front of a camera and say, 'Tonight I have declared

martial law,'" Pratt said. "You'll just find out about it

when you try and get on the main highway and there's a

humvee with a soldier who says, 'Turn back.' And when

you ask why, he puts his gun into ready position and

says, 'I'm only following orders. Please turn back.'

"You can challenge that. You can say they -- the

commander or the soldier -- have no constitutional

authority for this, and you may be correct. But you will

be arguing on the wrong side of a barbed wire fence.

They can simply do it. It will not be debated.