Martial Law in US begins October 1
 

I've taken issue with the militarization of police that's happened over my lifetime, but having an active military unit (3rd infantry divisions 1st combat team) in the United States for the purposes of crowd control would, I believe, technically qualify as indefinite martial law. The pevious case of martial law in the US was during Katrina when local law enforcement was unable to deal with the aftermath, but Blackwater contractors being used and repeated reports of civil rights abuses in that instance suggest a very dangerous situation we might be headed into.

I'm suddenly very, very uncomfortable.

What are your thoughts on having an active military unit in the United States for an unstated amount of time, supposedly for "crowd control"?

Aside from the aforementioned discomfort, my mind is telling me about a thousand horrible things that this could mean. The most frightening, obviously, is a case in which Bush is somehow able to remain in power, but I keep having to tell myself that's just paranoia.

I suppose a more reasonable conclusion would be that this is further evidence that protesting is not going to be tolerated. After the creation of free speech zones, I had an idea of what might happen to the right of free speech and assembly, but I must say I didn't expect the military.

My last concern is that the military has weapons unavailable to police that could potentially be much, much more dangerous to protesters. My heart aches at the thought of a man or woman being hurt or killed while trying to get their voice heard by the powers that be (or rather the powers that simply don't care).

October 1st will be a sad day for my country.

Why? Because some talking head said to be afraid of something or someone?

seems like they are trained on non-leathal packages for control.

seems like they are going to have specific tasks for domestic deployment uses that seem to reasonably cover domestic issues "They may be called upon to help with civil unrest and crowd control or to deal with potentially horrific scenarios such as massive poisoning and chaos in response to a chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear or high-yield explosive, or CBRNE, attack."

I find it hilarious that they will be called 'sea-smurfs'.

And @Will: Honestly, I support the use of free speech zones in many examples. Notably what that church was doing by picketing funerals for American soldiers. Screaming at their family members that they were going to hell because they were defending a country that defended homosexuality.

:\.

i don't think this is a good idea at all. at all.
it doesn't freak me out--it is just a bad bad idea.
one of the few things that has guaranteed such illusion of political freedom as we have is the separation of interal spheres from the purview of the military.
i like these illusions of political freedom.
this is a bad bad idea.

When Bush established and activated a new "Northern Command" in 2002, it raised questions in my mind.

NORTHCOM'S mission:
Isnt that why we have a National Guard, FBI, US Boarder Patrol, state and local law enforcement.....

The division between military and police is a doctrine with a lot of standing and precedent in our country. To have that doctrine shattered, especially at a time when people are beginning to reject the governmental response to a massive financial crisis, is alarming.

Another example of the need to protect the market for the privatized military that you have created. Once the withdrawal from Iraq starts to happen you will need to find something for these Industries to do.

I see slippery slopes all around. Hopefully the right people are paying attention (including the citizenry).

Isn't it bad enough that we have to put up with cops in darth vader uniforms at these large events? How are they going to be more effective than what the cops already do besides escalating the level of force? Also, I thought this responsibility was on the state governors and the national guard in times of crisis.

The military has no place doing this and is in violation of Posse Comitatus.

I think the real question is what are they getting ready for? Are they expecting an economic collapse, another terrorist attack, or some 'electioneering' protests?

I assume they aren't trained in domestic laws either. How does that even work? Do they perform and arrest or just harass people if they see them doing something they think is wrong? Do they even have to have warrants?

This is very scary.

Have you been to America? Well, maybe we can get Ryan Seacrest to talk about it.

Incidentally: Posse Comitatus Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Thinking for yourself may be something new for some, but not for me. But you already know that.
So are the ATF and FBI, but Waco was sure a mess. I'm not saying that this will lead to another Waco necessarily, just being trained for non-lethal strategies does not absolutely prevent lethal strategies.
I've been in some areas that might have qualified as "civil unrest". I cannot imagine a situation where having military on the scene would make anyone, protester or not, more safe.

I wasn't alive for Kent state, but I wonder if other people were having this conversation as the National Guard was called.

I don't like members of Westbro Baptist Church any more than you do, but not liking their message leading to removing their right to free speech doesn't seem like a good precedent to set. And I don't expect that these troops will be at WBC protests, more likely they will be at the kinds of protests at the DNC and RNC this year.

I don't see why anything more than the National Guard should be needed for emergencies. Living in fear like this is a self-perpetuating cycle and I'm more concerned with the military illegally performing law enforcement functions (likely against Americans) than civil unrest or terror attack.

Once the withdrawal from Iraq starts?

http://www.tulanelink.com/tulanelink/blackwater.jpg

Blackwater private security forces on the streets of New Orleans under a $30 million contract with FEMA.

Well, so much for the people uniting and rising up against the Bush administration's $700 billion bail-out plan. This active unit of hardened combat veterans of the Iraq war, now designated to deal with possible (if not probable) civil unrest and crowd control in their home country, will serve well if that bail-out plan doesn't work, where not only is each and every taxpayer left owing the government around $7,000, but our financial system collapses and we're left teetering on the brink of another Great Depression.

First, I think this is a scare tactic to get more Obama support and try to scare people into not voting for McCain. The one video the entire date on it is 2000. that was Clinton's presidency, not Bush's. Ruby Ridge, Waco, etc. were during Clinton, not Bush. So don't buy the Dem bullshit it's just the "other party" to fear. This is a great scare tactic to get people worked up and to vote for who the creators of the tactic want them to.

If this bailout doesn't work and there is a very strong possibility it won't, we may need martial law because during riots and unrest, innocent people get hurt, robbed and killed.

I said 4 yrs ago Bush would make sure there was no election and people, even those proclaiming "Martial Law 10/1" laughed and said impossible." Still laughing?

I believe that people control their own destinies. If enough believe we are doomed and this will happen, then people will do things to make sure it happens. If people see how fear can manipulate them and choose not to go apeshit and crazy.... then it won't happen. The whole self fulfilling prophecy thing.

Finally, I have stated over and over, this election will destroy the party of the person in the office. BOTH candidates are neither qualified to handle this and are surrounded by nutcases wanting power and NOT interested in truly helping the nation rebuild.

Obama is set up for failure if elected.... hmmm the first black president 2 years into office leads us into our worst economic disaster? Doesn't look good. McCain? The GOP takes the fall they deserve to and in 2012 maybe we get someone like an FDR that can truly rebuild and have vision.

wait:

so first you're claiming that an action which is the prerogative of the administration, which is the bush administration, which is, last time i checked, a republican administration with a demonstrable history of trying to govern from inside a state of emergency---which is not good if you like any trace of that democracy thing---is somehow imputable to obama's campaign? how does that work?

and then, further down, you claim:
if the melting down of the derivatives industry continues, it FOLLOWS that martial law would be a possibility?

which you then pin on the bush administration.

what gives?
could you explain your argument better?

What's your point... what are your referring to ratbastid? Why the dis with the Ryan Seacrest comment?

Just saying, my hope that the American people will ever wake the fuck up is very very small at this point. But perhaps we can sugar coat it with American Idol or something.

I was just saying that free speech has its limits will. You shouldn't be able to force yourself on others. Posting something in a newspaper? Not forcing yourself on them. Screaming at them at a funeral? Bit different. I think protesting at a convention is something in between...and I understand giving the people a (reasonable) place to voice their opinions. Should they be allowed in the convention hall to hassle the speakers? I hope not for both sides. Should they be allowed right at the entrance to physically impede/scream in the face of people attending? I disagree as well. Across the street would be fine.

However, I'm worried that it'll be like a mile away :P xD.

And yes, slippery slope on this argument applies in full force, I'm aware :x

The free speech zones are often really, really far away. It's not a matter of hassling the speakers, it's a matter of being completely off the radar. Out of camera view is unacceptable, it's censorship.

America is supposed to be a free speech zone.

Huh...this is all about Obama?

The one video was in 2000? ....talking about forces returning from Iraq to be deployed to NORTHCOM? No...I dont think so!

The establishment and activation of NORTHCOM was by Clinton? No...I dont think so!

You've outdone yourself with this one!

I think out of camera view is fine :s. If I'm at the RNC and some crazy liberals want to impugn my candidate, they can do it outside. Vice versa if I was at the DNC with crazy conservatives. (I'm assuming these conventions are inside? I could be gravely mistaken). They detract from the message. THEIR message should still be heard, but separately. The candidates shouldn't be shouting over the voices of their opponents. Its...decency? I dunno the word. It may be a form of censorship, but that's acceptable to me.

Putting them far, far away so you don't have to deal with them is unacceptable. You've gotta find the middle ground. Just like security will take away hecklers at a concert, there shouldn't be hecklers at a convention. They can be around the convention, but not directly interfering with the proceedings.

My middle ground:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

That's all the gorram "middle ground" you're getting. Free Speech means free, period, the end. Grow a thicker skin, this is (or used to be, a hundred years ago) America. Any cop or politician who can't live with the 1st Amendment in all its' offensive, noisy, distracting glory needs a new job and a hard slap across the mouth.


And yes, the groundwork for this exercise in Reconstruction was laid by Clinton, among -many- others, every President going back to at least Johnson included.

I wrote a very long-winded reply that didn't really do anything but obfuscate the issue.

Point conceded. This is probably unconstitutional to abridge their first amendment rights with free speech zones.

Doesn't mean I think there isn't a time and place for that, though. I don't like the idea of carte blanche freedom of speech when it dances the line of hate speech. Not that that has anything to do with this political situation.

No such animal. Speech is speech. Either it's -all- protected, or none of it is. I don't see anything in the 1st Amendment about "Except if it offends someone" or "except if it's hateful."

Look around the 2 minute and 14 second mark and on..... hmmm the tape says April 12,2000. Who was president? At the 2:26 mark they overlap the tape with Bush laughing? Why do they want to overlap with Bush laughing when the date on the tape is 4/12/00? Seems to me I remember Clinton being president at that time.

OOO but, it wouldn't be a great scare tactic if you didn't have that type of police state video..... so you have to dig for one during Clinton's time? I'm sure you can find plenty of video during Bush's time. Waco, Ruby Ridge, etc.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I6DRz1I7c6I]YouTube - MARTIAL LAW OCT. 1 , 2008 - WHAT WILL YOU DO ???


How you want me to make it all about Obama when I mentioned him ONLY at the very end, is beyond me.... but ok.

See the problem this whole thing truly shows is that people have taken sides and REFUSE to see that BOTH sides leaders are fucked up power hungry greedy fucks.

If one attacks Obama and talks about how Obama will make things worse.... one side then attacks and says "Fuck you racist, you're hate for bama shows... he is our saviour and he and only he will save us."

Meanwhile, attack McCain and how things will get worse with him, it's..... "Fuck you, you non patriotic American hating lefty pinko."

Meanwhile, the true powers that be, sit back, laugh at the puppet strings they pull and continue to rape us and take power from the people.

Both sides say, "Wake up".... yet they only mean "wake up to MY side." Not to truly wake up.

But continue telling me and everyone else who wants to believe you DC that I'm just attacking your man. You who work for the party and will say anything to protect those who pay your paycheck......

By all means.
-----Added 25/9/2008 at 12 : 01 : 35-----
First and foremost, I have conspiratorial tendencies. I do not believe ANYTHING in America for the last 30+ years has "just happened". I believe we have people who are deeply embedded in our government and make things happen and control the governmental responses. Did they cause 9/11? Very probable. Did they cause Hurricane Katrina? LOL, I'm not that nutty, but they controlled the response. Did they control OKC, Ruby Ridge, Waco, and things behind the scenes? Very probable.

I have contended the last few YEARS, that the next person elected president, if we have elections, would inherit a horrendous problem that would get only worse during his/her term. By all means look at posts long before the primary season, maybe 2-3 years ago from me. You will see exactly what I said and predicted.

Now, if you read the 2 beginning paragraphs I have typed here with open mind, maybe even researched past posts of mine, then you can see where I believe that for Obama this is a set up. He gets the blame in 2 years and some people will use race, some will say his background and so on. Some will still blame Bush, but not enough and the GOP will sweep the Congress much like they did in 94.

With McCain, they can say, "he just followed the pattern" and people will hopefully wake up in the GOP side.

Yes, the economy will continue to truly go down. Martial Law maybe the only way to truly save our country SHORT TERM. However, nothing in government is "short term". But when riots break out because people start losing houses, jobs, toys and are having to loot to eat and live.... Martial Law maybe all that saves innocent people.

Should it come to that. While the possibility exists, I seriously doubt it will happen large scale. Large scale it will be impossible. But they have made sure it is harder for people to exit to Canada and Mexico.... yet made it easier than ever for Mexicans and Canadians to come here. You can check in but you can never leave, so to speak.

There is a reason the drug problem especially opiates is increasing horrendously along with mindless video games, music with no political statements, and so on are being fed to our youth.

Right now, there is still enough people to fight back.... 20 years from now.... not a chance in Hell.

You destroy the education..... you turn religion into political games and put money over the true meaning of spirituality.... you make people believe money buys them power, but if you pull the strings and control who gets the money you control who gets the power...... you war with the press "Too LIBERAL" "TOO RIGHT WINGED".... you divide the country on issues and labels that have no true meaning but you make those meaningless issues more important and forefront than the true issues that would truly affect your power..... You destroy heroes...... you downplay patriotism or overplay it....... and finally you take away hope of a better life and then when you have completed all those, you have destroyed the country.

The powers that be have done a very vey good job at doing the above for the past 30+ years but it still is a generation away from finality.

This election truly means nothing..... it's 2010 and 2012 that either nails the coffin shut or allows the lid to be blown fully off.

Of course you can all claim I have no idea what I am saying.... you can all claim that I am insane..... even if you don't believe what I wrote, just read it with open mind..... LOOK DEEPLY AT WHAT IS TRULY GOING ON.... then and only then pass judgment on what I say.

pan...lets set the record straight, please.

You mentioned Obama as the focus of the FIRST line of your post not ONLY at the very end:

First, I think this is a scare tactic to get more Obama support and try to scare people into not voting for McCain. The one video the entire date on it is 2000.

The video in the OP was not from 2000.

It was Bush who established and activated the Northern Command. It is Bush who is giving $multi-million contracts through DHS and FEMA to Blackwater USA and other private security companies to perform armed "security" services during "emergencies" in the US.

You are the only one made this about Obama...from your first line to your last...not me...or any other person posting.

And, I dont work for the Democratic party nor do they contribute to my paycheck.

Oh..and I think you set the "fuck" record for any post in TFP. :thumbsup:

You are right. I did say that. And I believe it is. The video is not done to "wake anyone up to the truth", only to wake people up to the Democrat side. It does nothing to show Clinton or talk about what happened during Clinton does it?

Again very true, but I found more of the SAME video that played the part I think needs to be shown. With just the OP's part it avoided the whole 4/12/00 video with Bush's face laughing over it..... so let's just say I showed the part of the video the OP didn't want seen.

I think just the OP video shows that it is a scare tactic when the rest is shown and how they want to put Bush's face over a 4/11/00 video.

Then the next president can de-establish it and unactivate it immediately upon oath...... CORRECT????? He can tell the people we don't need it and totally dismantle the whole thing? Correct?

Let's wait and see if either candidate even talks at length about it or upon taking oath dismantles it immediately.

Clinton with Ruby Ridge, Waco and so on.... didn't even go that far, he just took action.

Hmmmm seems like I remember reading an interaction you had with I believe USTwo and you admitted working for the Dems in some capacity and even saying I believe, something along the lines of if Obama is elected you maybe moving up in position.

I'm not good at research nor do I care to take the time. So I will simply put that down as I misunderstood, misremembered or you were joking.

I did ........ cool. you should see my groups I use "fuck" a lot. I like the word. Yeah it doesn't look good in debates but then again, when people already have predetermined my stances and views and don't listen to a fucking word I am saying... then my use of it doesn't matter in this forum.

In group, it helps because it shows the emotion I have towards helping the people I help. The clients love the fact I have the emotion and will talk bluntly, the admins hate it. I'm not there for the admins, I'm there to help and I'm fucking damned good at it.

pan...the point I was making in my response to your first post was that you were the only person posting in this thread to make this about Obama...from your first line (I think this is a scare tactic to get more Obama support) to your last line (Obama is set up for failure if elected.... hmmm the first black president 2 years into office leads us into our worst economic disaster?)

The OP and every subsequent post (except yours) is about the role of the military (not the FBI) on US soil and the danger that some here believe it presents. You chose to make it about Obama....not me nor anyone else.

You absolutely can frame it anyway you want...and I or anyone else can challenge you on it.

Neither the video nor the text of the OP has anything whatsoever to do with Senator Obama. I don't appreciate having threads I've started being jacked. This is me asking nicely: please keep the conversations about Senator Obama in the correct threads.

If you read everything else I've written .... you should see that I truly have no intent to push the Obama thing more. I do see it as an Obama scare tactic on the surface and that was unfortunately my first reaction.... as that is what we are trained to see and react with.... choose a side, look at what comes out and if favorable to the side you have chosen applaud it, even if it is horrendous news that will hurt the country, if objectionable to your side discredit it without looking into it, to see if your side is any different.

I am easily sidetracked, which makes it easy for others to blur out what I truly was trying to say. Again, if you read my whole posts you will understand what I am saying.... hopefully. I apologize Will.

I do believe the portion of the video I put up needed to be seen though. I think it somewhat reminds us that Bush, Clinton and the 2 candidates along with all presidents since maybe JFK's assassination have done things to take us down the road to some form of dictatorship.

The problem with America is that it could not be done fast, it had to be built up to. The economic mess right now happening in an election year is not a coincidence. It helps move things. If people get too uppity over bailouts, and things get out of control...... they have had Bush set up the power to regain it back in albeit a nasty way, but they regain it.

If not needed now, they have that power when they will need it.

Again, I just don't see it happening yet. I have seen it coming, I have talked about it in here and people laughed, but you look at how the past 30+ years have been played out and you can see it truly coming.

They have all been played out except the hope and the people's desire. But those are dying fast and given a few more years, if that, and the people won't have hope or desire anymore. They will be beaten down and in the words of my 10th grade World History teacher, America will not be destroyed by anyone outside but from within.

So forgive me for being easily led off.
-----Added 25/9/2008 at 01 : 37 : 30-----
Yes, I believe that to some degree. If I have the strings behind the curtain and I set you up to be president, the first let's say...... polka dotted president and there is still some degree of racism in the country.... now when that failure happens and you get the blame, I feed into the racial bullshit and make that even a more volatile problem.

Call me nuts and conspiratorial, but I predicted that the person in '08 was going to be in serious trouble and be blamed for problems that started years ago.

I am not trying to make this about Obama. I am trying to explain, albeit very sloppily, what I see happening in the future of this country.

Is this reality or just me being nuts.... who knows. I guess we will just have to play all this out in the end and see where it leads and hope and pray that I am very, very,very wrong and that I just needed some form of medication and deep psychotherapy.

But, if I am right..... if this happens, then will there be any way to stop the final result? Is there now?

Look at how we are being set up for possible needs for Martial law. Bailouts, the economy, partisan hatred, polls coming out saying 33% of white Democrats are racists, and on and on and on...... we are bombarded with news and polls and media ways to hate people who are richer/poorer/religious/of another party/by color/ and so on.

We are bombarded not to trust, not to believe and build a better future with our neighbors but to hate and distrust them because they are not like us for some reason.

If you look back in history ne of the great things in this country was that communities supported each other, neighbors trusted and cared for each other.... now that very rarely exists. Hell, I've seen polls that said a majority of people didn't even know their neighbors anymore.

We have a huge problem and are easily divided and conquered when we lose faith and trust in each other and replace those great qualities with hate and distrust.

Say what you will, think what you want..... but look at all of what I am trying to say and then make your judgment over me. Don't just be selective in what you see and read from me. Because again, I am easily led down that road to knee jerk reaction and then babbling over the minutia that prevails in society and then my emotions invade and I have a hard time getting out what my true point is.

Today and tonight, I have been pretty successful at getting it out without, jumping too far off and getting distracted and led down another road.

It was in your first sentence of the thread. And it wouldn't have been the first time that your opinions of Obama have spilled out.
I appreciate that very much. :thumbsup: In response to your second point in your first thread, these failures probably won't cause a collapse, just a serious recession. If I recall correctly (from my studies, not personal experience), there were protests during the Great Depression. Loup City comes to mind. Still, having a military unit instead of police is likely to incite people instead of subdue them. During the WTO protests, I remember the more violent protesters fought back against the militarized police. I can't imagine them doing that if it were a uniformed police presence without gas and such. It's like shouting in an argument; it entrenches the opposition, making a reasonable solution substantially less likely.
You need to understand that the video you posted had nothing to do with the report on Democracy Now. It was edited together by someone on youtube after the segment aired. It's not necessarily context to the video any more than anime is context to a led zeppelin song (I'll explain that reference if it's too obscure). That was the complaint with the video.

Is this not exactly the sort of thing the second amendment was designed to protect us against? I suggest stationing such units everywhere the public is restricted from owning firearms.

Because the government will protect you.

Like I stated knee jerk reaction. Less knee more jerk.

Ah, but during the Great Depression, the country's neighbors were for the most part very supportive of each other. My grandmother tells me stories of how the neighbors and churches helped each other.

We don't see that much today. It's out there but not advertised and is getting rarer.

That's why I'm saying it is definitely coming but it will take another generation at most, 2010, 2012 elections as the earliest. It could and may come now, but in small doses with a back down and it would be just to maintain the plan of total destruction.

Right now, there are too many that came up through the 60's - 80's that still have some influence and can still throw wrenches into the works. Money bought out most, death, natural, man caused has taken many.... but there are enough remaining that could be influential and create problems. If the powers that be make their move too fast, people may listen to these "nutcases". BUT if you take your time, work a plan and have contingencies for events that may happen along the way...... but remaining focused on the end result.... it takes time but it can be done. And the "nutcases" are looked at as that and dismissed until it is too late to do anything.

I think the WTO riots, Abu Gharaib and waterboarding, showed people still aren't totally subdued, that there are still some voices out there that can be heard and listened to. It also shows that the majority is pretty much quiet but can still be scared into some form of action.

In the end, It showed them, the powers that pull the puppet strings, that their plan is working but not quite there.

Of course, these are just all ramblings from a "nutcase" who has no idea what is going on.

:orly:

<~~~~~~~~~ standing off to the side to see if I was right.

I was probably wrong when I said that the government wasn't ultimately a threat. How about we say I owe you a beer?

I think you might be standing for quite a while.

In the meantime, I would like to hear both candidate answer these questions:

Do you agree with Bush's deployment of an active duty regular Army combat unit for full-time use inside the United States to assist in respondng to emergencies, civil unrest or potential terrorists attacks How would you use NORTHCOM or would you disband it?

What role, if any, do you see for private security companies like Blackwater USA serving in any capacity inside the US? Would you rescind the $millions of DHS/FEMA contracts for such services?

But, unfortunately, these are questions that the mainstream media will not be asking.

I firmly believe in posse comitatus and if there is an active duty military unit used as law enforcement purposes anywhere in this country, the ACLU and every other civil rights organization had better be standing in line to file lawsuits in every federal court around.

Quote:

What role, if any, do you see for private security companies like Blackwater USA serving in any capacity inside the US? Would you rescind the of DHS/FEMA contracts for such services?

companies like blackwater are illegal for the purposes of providing national security at home or abroad, in my opinion. There is absolutely no provision or article in the constitution that provides the government with the authority to create civilian armies.

I had this thought today. Do you think that there will be riots in the streets in major cities (Detroit, LA, Atlanta, Chicago,...) if Obama doesn't win? Is that what they are worried about?

Possibly. There's also the chance for a riot if he -does- win: fuckheads come in every skin color, and riot-prone fuckheads need little excuse. Black fuckheads may riot if Obama loses (Whitey done ripped us off again!), or if he wins (Our boy's in charge now, we can do whatever we want!). White fuckheads may riot (or worse) if Obama wins, or even if he looks -close- to winning. Either way, it's a good possibility. Hence why I live on a dead-end road in the middle of nowhere.

Not if past incidents of rioting and looting are any example. If NOLA '05 and LA '93 are anything to go by, the top priorities of Military and Law Enforcement will be:

1: Saving their own skins.
2: Going nowhere near anyone actually dangerous. (See 1)
3: Disarming the people being targeted by the looters and rioters, whom the cops and Nat'l Gaurd refuse to confront.
3a: Don't forget to keep the guns, even when several Federal courts order their return. For best results, sell aforementioned guns to drug-dealers and "coyotes."
4: Abusing, arresting, and brutalizing the now-disarmed citizenry.
5: Going on TV for 6 months afterward to praise their courage and heroism in containing the violence and preventing the outbreak of lawlessness.

I have not heard anything about this martial law. Is this true, can it be verified? Why isn't it in the press? If it is true then it is very disturbing and an outrage.
-----Added 25/9/2008 at 09 : 48 : 05-----
Why wouldn't they ask it? It would be dereliction of duty if they didn't.

I would like to hear their responses as well.
-----Added 25/9/2008 at 09 : 48 : 31-----
Why would there be riots? There weren't riots in the previous elections.

Because "Dereliction of Duty" is Item #1 in the American Mass Media Job Description. They've spent the last 30 years dropping the ball, and you don't have to re-read all of Hosts Posts to see that.

Because there wasn't a black man running in the previous elections. Many urban blacks have a tendency to riot and demolish things when an issue doesn't go their way (Obama losing), and while white-initiated riots are rarer, they tend to be more destructive and homicidal (Tulsa 1927, Rosewood, Draft Riots, etc). I half expect riots no matter -who- wins; blacks rioting if Obama loses, whites rioting if he wins.

As I said below, fuckheads of any race need little excuse to smash things and steal whatever's not nailed down. And the world is, sadly, full of fuckheads.

I'm more concerned about possible uprisings and riots over a collapse of the U.S. financial system, than I am about possible uprisings and riots over a black man (not) winning the office of President.

Back in the 1930s, the majority of Americans were used to simple if not financially poor living. So, when the Great Depression hit, the majority of Americans were already tough and practical people. Not so with today's last two or three generations, who've grown up amidst abundance, prosperity, and over-consumerism. Furthermore, there is a sense of entitlement and individualism amongst the last two or three generations, which did not exist amongst the generations hit by the first Great Depression.

This is a good point. But I think perhaps this is more about both of these issues: The economy is hitting the skids while the next president may (or may not be) a black man. What we have here are the issue of rich vs. poor and the issue of race all coming together at once. This is shaping up to be a dire time in the U.S. And now you have domestic militarism....

Not good.

As I post this, the Dow is down 0.5% and the S&P is down 1.1%.

Yeah. This "Calvin & Hobbes" comic strip, which someone posted in another forum here, comes to mind...

http://i170.photobucket.com/albums/u.../tfp/bill2.gif

:shakehead:

I know I was only a squid, and not one of the guys feet to the ground, but as a former military man, I would ashamed to be part of this unit. This flies in the face of everything this counrty is supposed to be about. I'm moving to Austraila where the people are still at least some what sane.

Yeah, I would agree the media has dropped their end of the bargain with rare exception (NPR, BBC are still good). Sad state of affairs that.

I'm not convinced that a "black man" running in this election will cause riots. Unless there was shenanigans going on at the ballot box but otherwise, no.

Heh, I thought of the same thing.

Farmer Brown looks a bit like McCain.... :surprised:

You, Sir, are a credit to the Navy and the uniform you wore. Thank you for your service, and for keeping faith with the American people and the Constitution. Thank you.

I'm not either, but they ('the government') do not want to guess wrong. And after seeing what happens in poorer neighborhoods during the election, those long lines and 2 polling booths in downtown (which may or may not work) compared to 50 for about 10,000 residents in the rich suburbs. It may provide the spark.

I'm sure alot of people are thinking it is about the election of a black man, but did anyone consider that Oct 1 is the start of the fiscal 4th quarter in financial markets? Does the government know more than they are letting on and could this be the reason for military units being deployed for 'crowd control'?

I will admit I don’t trust what the government has turned into, so I of course see this as a bad sign.

If anyone has the time; it truly is worth the read to take the free courses FEMA and your local state’s emergency management administration offer.

It may just be that Oct 1st is the start of the next fiscal year for the US government...?

I hadn't thought about that. good point.

I feel safer already :):paranoid:

Reminder: you do not currently have the right to defend yourself from law enforcement, and I would imagine that this extends to military personnel in the instance of martial law. If you are being attacked, flee to the nearest police station and try to contact an attorney as you're getting to the police station.

please refer to your particular states laws regarding this claim. I do know that some states specifically define conditions where one can indeed claim self defense against law enforcement while many other states outlaw it in any instance.

Church, synagogue, mosque... any house of worship is where I would go before any law enforcement location...

Sanctuary... Sanctuary...

Someone tried that at my dad's church a few years back. The police walked right in and arrested him.

I don't think that works any more, even for Jean Valjean.

I don't think hiding out in a church ever really worked except for a few truly Sacred places.

Still works and still happens in many cases. Maybe your police officers had a warrant, or your father didn't stand up enough to the law enforcement officers to DENY them entry to PRIVATE property.

Seems to work in the Philippines, Canda, and, Ohio, Chicago, IL...

The state mandates that you do not have the right to defend yourself against the state.

Ha!

I'm glad I had the wherewithal to clobber a copper or two in the uk before taking to toes and legging it in the past.

I wonder what Republicans make of both that, and the bearing of arms by the police and citizenry. :-/

RESPONSE TO DIRECLTLY ABOVE:

If they'd stolen something, shot someone or acted against the interest of the state in some other way, I'm pretty confident the sanctity of the place of worship would be taking a back seat. Right at the back. In reality, as I would hope most people know, illegitimate labour which is not actively, brutally removed is generally acting in the interest of the powerful.

ok people, since i'm currently at work and unable to view this on the servers, please take a look at this video and summarize for me. thanks.

US Congresspeople Told Martial Law Would Be Imposed if Bailout Bill Didn't Pass - Boing Boing

I've met Congressman Shermon, I don't believe him to be a conspiracy theorist. Naomi Klein was discussing the same thing the other day, about the threat of the Dow dropping 1000 points a day and how martial law would be enforced. It's too much of a coincidence. It's also way too much of a coincidence that martial law started so close to the election.

IMPORTANT: If you see military officers a your polling place, please take cell phone pictures of them and post them online. I expect voter intimidation. If you are responsible for a polling location, do not allow soldiers anywhere near the building. I'll be at my dad's church doing the same.

we're already under martial law?

Martial law started about a week ago.

maybe it's martial law 'lite' for now?

As far as I'm concerned, any military personnel around my area attempting to provide law enforcement will summarily be ignored. They have no legal authority.

Yes, it's not full martial law. Still, any martial law means we're in martial law. Anywhere this military unit is, there will theoretically be martial law.

BTW, I have no idea where they are. Anyone hear anything?

a bunch of crap...

"martial law" to make the chicken littles into a new kind of sheeple. sorry that's not the martial law you are talking about... these are not the droids you are looking for...

more fear, more fear, keep pumping things up with more fear... *sigh*



Marshal Law called for Bailout Vote - ReaderRant

so, the gist of the video is burgess' 'feelings' about the house being under so much strain and stress of democrat overbearing the republicans, he feels it's martial law. what a doofus.

Soldiers are for other places. Police are for here. When soldiers are here, acting as police, it's called "martial law".

The army has, as of October first, stationed a unit inside the US to act as an on-call federal response in times of emergency. They are trained for domestic operations. It's a dedicated assignment that's intended to deal with "civil unrest" and "crowd control".

I like this Congressman Sherman. I watched the second part also and he had some great explanations out of the bill as to what was happening.

And I do believe Martial Law was probably threatened.

It is so sad when our leaders have become so much more influenced by money and power that they are willing to sell those that elected them and they govern down the river and not even blink.

Actually, that would be called breaking the law.

Of course, it's both.

stationed....

you've got troops stationed not 25 miles from you just like I do... it has been like that for decades.

so far, it's still a FAR cry from martial law. If we were under martial law the economic crisis we're experiencing now would be 10000x worse. I have family that has seen the president of the country declare martial law. I have family that has lost their senate and congressional seats because the president dissolved the house of congress.

this is nothing like martial law, lite or otherwise.

cyn....the DEPLOYMENT of the 3rd Infantry Division’s 1st Brigade Combat Team to NORTHCOMM with a "dedicated assignment" is not the same as being STATIONED near you or me.

Beginning Oct. 1 for 12 months, the 1st BCT will be under the day-to-day control of U.S. Army North, the Army service component of Northern Command, as an on-call federal response force for natural or manmade emergencies and disasters, including terrorist attacks.

It is not the first time an active-duty unit has been tapped to help at home. In August 2005, for example, when Hurricane Katrina unleashed hell in Mississippi and Louisiana, several active-duty units were pulled from various posts and mobilized to those areas

This new mission marks the first time an active unit has been given a dedicated assignment to NorthCom, a joint command established in 2002 to provide command and control for federal homeland defense efforts and coordinate defense support of civil authorities.

After 1st BCT finishes its dwell-time mission, expectations are that another, as yet unnamed, active-duty brigade will take over and that the mission will be a permanent one.

Army Times

IMO, such a "dedicated assignment" has not been authorized by an act of Congress...I would like to see Congressional hearings to determine if there is a violation of the Posse Comitatus Act (and/or other laws)

I don't disagree with that dc, but do you or I see military patroling the streets of DC (I'm not sure of DC since it isn't a state so military may move more easily there) or NYC? do you witness any servicemen containing and controlling people, setting curfew, or controlling sections of cities?

I disagree with the sky is falling cry of declaration of martial law.

Thank you, DC. People from Fort Bragg can't normally be deployed to do crowd control during a protest. The 1st BCT can and likely will.

The point is that Cynthetiq is correct, this is not "martial law."

Martial law usurps or is in place of civil law, it's not some quaint way of saying the soldiers are outside our houses.
Last I checked we still have all our civil laws in place...even the brigade is under control of civil authorities or in joint with them.
This folding of agencies under the umbrella of the dept. of homeland defense confuses things, but ultimately it still currently falls under civilian and not military command.

I dont think the sky is falling either....the point is not that they are on the streets now, but that the deployment has such a "mission."

I think its unconstitutional.

You don't think that the Army unit will follow military orders, smooth? Because they're on US soil and they're following military orders, it's martial law. The only reason it's not full on martial law is because the police are still in place following civilian law.

I'm sorry what was that you said in another thread about speculative discussion? That is purely speculation at this point. I'd almost push it as far as paranoia.

Again, we are not under military martial law in any way shape or form.
-----Added 7/10/2008 at 01 : 37 : 28-----
I'm not disagree with you. I'd like to see the challenges to it as well.

I'm disagreeing with will on his incorrect statement that we are under martial law for the past week, not even partial, limited, lite, or anything resembling that. Willravel is just plain wrong in that claim or belief.

yeah, will, the army unit will follow military orders, which will coordinate with civilian authorities. the army unit is and will continue to be under civilian laws, I don't how else to clarify this for you. Your definition of martial law is incorrect, however, I can at least clarify that for you. Martial law doesn't exist in conjunction with civil law, it's one or the other.

yeah, there is a strong distinction between generating the conditions of a state of emergency and declaring one. i've argued alot of times here that the bush people have a dangerous affection for generating the conditions of a state of emergency and have in the past moved quite close to declaring one formally (the "war on terror")--but they have not taken the step of actually doing it. doing it would mean the suspension of the constitutional order.

doing that is an extreme political risk, particularly for a group in the political straits of the bush administration at this point in their sorry-assed regime. they could not count on consent and so would in all probability have to move very aggressively and straight away to implement a state of emergency materially. i think that'd require a massive military action--and i don't think that the bush people have the credibility to organize it, the logistical capability to manage it nor a clear sense of objective.

even if a Real Problem were to arise--say a run on the banks--the LAST way these nitwits could stop it would be a state of emergency.

i think it's good to keep awake, look around, see what's happening and think about it, but it's neither useful or healthy to allow yourself to become paranoid.

these are angsty times. paranoia is way too easy.

Please just read the article:
Brigade homeland tours start Oct. 1 - Army News, opinions, editorials, news from Iraq, photos, reports - Army Times

will i'm not disagreeing with the statment, your speculation is that they WILL, not that they can. CAN is not speculation, the WILL portion of your statement is. Until they DO, it is speculation.

but I will emphasis Will that you are flat out wrong that we are under martial law. WRONG. WRONG. WRONG. WRONG.

Hopefully this clarifies further, when the article says "they maybe be called" you have to ask...called by whom?
Called by the civil authorities to augment their forces.

Assuming you were actually detained by a soldier, you would still be informed of your rights as a citizen and entitled to civil protections. You might be held temporarily in the brig, but you'd have the right to petition for Habeas Corpus. You would have none of these rights under Martial Law. Any rights or obligations would fall under the Military Code or whatever it's proper name is; the courts would be replaced by military tribunals.

Basically this is military soldiers performing police duties. It's concerning in its implications, but it's not martial law.

We need a 21st century posse comitatus type law to set the boundaries.

We had a 19th Century Posse Comitatus type law, called "Posse Comitatus," but the last half-dozen presidents have seen fit to use it, like the Constitution itself, as birdcage liners. This being the case, what makes you think they'd respect Posse Comitatus 2.0 any more than they respected Posse Comitatus 1.0?

2.0 apps are always better than the first release...but you make a valid point.

It's not a valid point!
Would people please read a bit about the history of these things?

It's important to question why Posse Comitatus was crafted in the first place.
It certainly wasn't about preventing the big bad government from interfering with your daily lives...unless your daily lives consisted of making the lives of ex-slaves miserable and doing whatever you could to curtail their rights.

It's also important to realize that the Act isn't a blanket prohibition against the use of federal forces on domestic soil; Congress has the authority to make exceptions.

Which last half-dozen presidents have violated the Act without Congressional support?

They're being deployed for the purpose of crowd control, but the fact that they probably will be involved in crowd control is wild speculation?
An active, ongoing military unit in the US is serving for the purposes of disaster relief and crowd control. This is clearly the imposition of military authority on US soil. Until there's evidence that the military unit will be working under civilian authority (and that's not a reasonable assumption), it's military authority on US soil.

You go first. Read up on the shenanigans the Federals got up to during Reconstruction. Then get back to me.

Which, you'll notice, they haven't done. Kinda like how they never declared war on Iraq. I'd also like to know; who allowed these "exceptions?" If the Posse Comitatus Act allows them, that's one thing, but I have a sneaky suspicion that Congress gave themselves the power to make those exceptions after the fact. I'll have to check.

Well, everyone from Nixon forward has used the military illegally against US Citizens as part of the War On Some Drugs, Clinton/Reno used various Army and Army Nat'l Guard units against the Branch Davidian church at Waco, Bush the Elder authorized the use of military personnel and hardward at Ruby Ridge, and Bush the Younger has deployed combat troops in New Orleans in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina (where, among other things, they helped such worthies as the LAPD disarm the law-abiding citizens of New Orleans). Then of course you get into things like the WTO protests (AKA the Battle Of Seattle), where Nat'l guard troops were deployed (technically legal) under orders from Washington DC to control the crowds: legal, but in a hazy and troubling grey area.

I am fully aware of the intent of the original Posse Comitatus Act.

And I agree that CONGRESS has the authority to make excepts....not executive orders of a president.

All the more reason why we need a new law to establish clear and unambiguous bounderies for the role of the military in response to national "emergencies" whether those emergencies are natural disasters, civil unrest or terrorist attacks.

DC Dux, I only quoted you because you wrote the he raised a valid point. I actually agree that we need a 21st century understanding and reworking of the laws around the use of our police and military forces. You weren't included in the "people" in my post, that was directed at The Dunedan and Willravel.

The Dunedan actually writes that he's not aware of what the Act actually states and is factually wrong on his assertions about the legality of the use of federal troops on domestic soil.

Willravel is wrong on his working definition of what constitutes Martial Law.

It's annoying when people not only post something out of ignorance, but to steadfastly hold to their previous incorrect assertions rather than looking it up for themselves or revising their position in light of new facts.


EDIT: of course, DC Dux, as you know, the constitutionality of this isn't whether soldiers can be used on domestic soil. The problem is that Congressional support was given for the use of forces, but then repealed. The challenge is the constitutionality of presidential signing statements.

But if people run around without a clear understanding of what the Act restricting the use of federal forces on domestic soil actually says, or what Congress has allowed or disallowed, and then worse, employ hyperbolic statements about what is actually happening on the ground, then that not only makes people who have a better grasp of the situation shake their heads at such claims but also makes it very difficult to reach some kind of rational discussion about what needs to be done in light of terrorist and catastrophic threats to our nation.

If i remember right, military units were used against civilians all the way back as early as the bonus army protest, right?

law.com Law Dictionary

Like I said, it's not full martial law. Still, it shares common attributes with martial law, and is taking us in a direction towards martial law.
I'm sorry, all I read here was "blah blah blah" because I'm too stupid to possibly keep up in this difficult thread. :rolleyes:

Ah yes, poor persecuted willravel...posts something ignorant and feels that his intelligence is called into question and now can not follow the thread :\ Or, perhaps you could explain to us how you think that there could be such a thing as partial "complete control"? And you certainly are changing your tune since you were saying quite a bit more than "taking us in a direction towards martial law."

dksuddeth, so now using federal forces to evacuate people to safety is a bad thing? And the Posse Comitatus Act applies to DC how exactly?


yeah, I'm going to stand by my assertion that people need to inform themselves a bit more before posting in this discussion if they want to be taken more seriously...by me anyway, can't speak for Cynthetiq or DC Dux or roachboy.

Sharing attributes and going in the direction is still NOT martial law.

It isn't a percentage thing, it isn't a sounds like, feels like, seems like. It either is or it isn't.

to which you replied....

which is WRONG to both quotes.... "martial law starting a week ago," to "any martial law means we're in martial law"

You are plain and simply wrong but can't admit it.