Martial Law In the U.S.

[godhelpus]

Please read and see how scary it is that the president has changed many laws that allow him to basically declare martial law , lock up us citizens and congress cant even review the action for six months.


http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/february2008/180208camps.htm

 

[Lookout]

Please read and see how scary it is that the president has changed many laws that allow him to basically declare martial law , lock up us citizens and congress cant even review the action for six months.


http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/february2008/180208camps.htm

Nice article and welcome aboard the truth train.

 

[eots]

lalalalalalalal it will never happen ..blah blah blah.. tinfoil.. blah blah black helecopter lalalalal...meds...blah blah blah...insert stupid emo here

 

[Gunny]

lalalalalalalal it will never happen ..blah blah blah.. tinfoil.. blah blah black helecopter lalalalal...meds...blah blah blah...insert stupid emo here

Thanks for saving me the trouble.

 

[pegwinn]

From the source link:
Emphasis added.

A close examination reveals that many of these references lack sufficient facts to support their conclusions; however, taken as a whole, there is an abundance of factual information showing an alarming trend in the deployment of federal and military forces to restrain and detain American citizens.

Translation: There isn't enough facts to support the conclusions. But, since there are so many of these unsubstantiated claims, we are going to believe them anyway.

Training facilities, abandoned bases etc. I would think that they could have been used post Katrina......

 

[eots]

From the source link:
Emphasis added.

Translation: There isn't enough facts to support the conclusions. But, since there are so many of these unsubstantiated claims, we are going to believe them anyway.

Translation: I don't believe in looking at a body of evidence that indicates a direction and until to very moment something is actually occurring it does not exist to me and even at that moment I will probably say something like................ "oh my god this cant be happening "

 

[pegwinn]

A body of evidence is, well, evidence. Evidence proves something.

A body of unproven anecdotal observations is merely speculation.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Someone please link me to how the President of the US changed ANY law. He does not have that power, never has and unless someone makes a huge change to the Constitution with a huge ass amendment or new Constitution, he never will.

 

[jillian]

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/04/30/bush_challenges_hundreds_of_laws/

 

[Taomon]

lalalalalalalal it will never happen ..blah blah blah.. tinfoil.. blah blah black helecopter lalalalal...meds...blah blah blah...insert stupid emo here

Until you can guarantee that it will never happen, you better prepare yourself for the inevitable.

Bush has set precedents that can be exploited by any person who takes office. These exploitations can close our open society very quickly. History has proven it many times over (Germany, Russia, Chile, etc). America is not exempt from this possibility.

We as a nation have become lazy politically. If our society becomes a military regime it will be our own fault for not fighting it during phases like this one.

And people like you will be ultimately responsible. Smugness is never pretty.

 

[Taomon]

Someone please link me to how the President of the US changed ANY law. He does not have that power, never has and unless someone makes a huge change to the Constitution with a huge ass amendment or new Constitution, he never will.

So you do not believe that the President has the power to declare someone, anyone (including US citizens) an enemy combatant/terrorist? You do not believe that the President can and has ordered such individuals to be kidnapped (renditioned), detained without the writ of Habeas Corpus, tortured, tried by a military tribunal and/or summarily executed or detained indefinitely? You do not believe that the President has the right to declare martial law in cases of national security emergencies?

 

[Paulie]

You do not believe that the President has the right to declare martial law in cases of national security emergencies?

Up until the John Warner Defense Authorization of 2007 was signed into law, he couldn't.

Buried inside that legislation is a provision which nullifies Posse Comitatus, and gives the POTUS the power to mobilize state NG and Reserve units. The POTUS hasn't had that power for well over 100 years.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h109-5122

SEC. 1076. USE OF THE ARMED FORCES IN MAJOR PUBLIC EMERGENCIES.

(a) Use of the Armed Forces Authorized-

←→(1) IN GENERAL- Section 333 of title 10, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:


`Sec. 333. Major public emergencies; interference with State and Federal law
`(a) Use of Armed Forces in Major Public Emergencies- (1) The President may employ the armed forces, including the National Guard in Federal service, to--

`(A) restore public order and enforce the laws of the United States when, as a result of a natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident, or other condition in any State or possession of the United States, the President determines that--

`(i) domestic violence has occurred to such an extent that the constituted authoritiescommuter rail equipment for of the State or possession are incapable of maintaining public order; and

←→`(ii) such violence results in a condition described in paragraph (2); or

←→`(B) suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy if such insurrection, violation, combination, or conspiracy results in a condition described in paragraph (2).

←→`(2) A condition described in this paragraph is a condition that--

`(A) so hinders the execution of the laws of a State or possession, as applicable, andan approved environmental assessment for of the United States within that State or possession, that any part or classSEC. 1096. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON IRAQ SUMMIT. Sense of its people is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law, and the constituted authoritiesCongress of that State or possession are unable, fail, or refuse to protect that right, privilege, or immunity, or to give that protection; or

`(B) opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws.

←→`(3) In any situation covered by paragraph (1)(B), the State shall be considered to have denied the equal protection of the laws secured by the Constitution.

`(b) Notice to Congress- The President shall notify Congress of the determination to exercise the authority in subsection (a)(1)(A) as soon as practicable after the determination and every 14 days thereafter during the duration of the exercise of that authority.'.

(2) PROCLAMATION TO DISPERSE- Section 334 of such title is amended by inserting `or those obstructing the enforcement of the laws' after `insurgents'.

(3) HEADING AMENDMENT- The heading of chapter 15 of such title is amended to read as follows:


←→`CHAPTER 15--ENFORCEMENT OF THE LAWS TO RESTORE PUBLIC ORDER'.

(4) CLERICAL AMENDMENTS- (A) The tables of chapters at the beginning of subtitle A of title 10, United States Code, and at the beginning of part I of such subtitle, are each amended by striking the item relating to chapter 15 and inserting the following new item:

←→331'.

(B) The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 15 of such title is amended by striking the item relating to sections 333 and inserting the following new item:

←→`333. Major public emergencies; interference with State and Federal law.'.

Anyone want to argue this bill as being constitutional?

 

[Taomon]

Up until the John Warner Defense Authorization of 2007 was signed into law, he couldn't.

Buried inside that legislation is a provision which nullifies Posse Comitatus, and gives the POTUS the power to mobilize state NG and Reserve units. The POTUS hasn't had that power for well over 100 years.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h109-5122



Anyone want to argue this bill as being constitutional?

So any revolt would be squashed militarily, and now legally justified.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

So any revolt would be squashed militarily, and now legally justified.

Any "revolt" would have been squashed anyway. Unless the military believes the actions are not legal. Which will occur in parts of the military if any President tries to declare martial law just to further their own power base.

 

[Taomon]

Any "revolt" would have been squashed anyway. Unless the military believes the actions are not legal. Which will occur in parts of the military if any President tries to declare martial law just to further their own power base.

I still believe it is legal and morally necessary to have a revolution in any political system.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I still believe it is legal and morally necessary to have a revolution in any political system.

There is no legal right in the US to have an armed rebellion, never has been, never will be. George Washington even personally lead an Army as President to squash one rebellion during his time as President.

 

[Paulie]

I still believe it is legal and morally necessary to have a revolution in any political system.

A peaceful, non-violent revolution. It can come in many different ways. Massive boycots, massive marches on Washington, massive vote-outs, etc.

We get ALL of them at one time or another, but just not in nearly enough numbers.

This is all moot, however, because the REAL issue is that the president is not supposed to have this authority. The wording in that legislation is so vague, that the president can basically pick and choose when it's necessary.

RGS promises revolt within the military, and I strongly disagree. Military members are programmed to accept their orders OR ELSE. Follow orders first, question later. Later is too late. By that point, you as the lowly private have already been scapegoated and will be taking the heat, while the higher-ups skate.

Hopefully the Generals know better than to go along with any such thing, but the lowest ranks are going to take their orders like good little bitches without question. Maybe the occasional maverick, but those kinds would swiftly be dealt with.

The shit ALWAYS rolls down hill. A good example of what I'm talking about is the case of the mistakenly flown nukes from Minot AFB to Barksdale AFB. Some 70 lower to mid ranking members were disciplined, while people like the base commander were not, when obviously an order to move nukes to another base comes from base commander or above.

 

[eots]

rev·o·lu·tion /Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[rev-uh-loo-shuhn]

–noun
1. an overthrow or repudiation and the thorough replacement of an established government or political system by the people governed.
2. Sociology. a radical and pervasive change in society and the social structure, esp. one made suddenly and often accompanied by violence. Compare social evolution.
3. a sudden, complete or marked change in something

 

[RetiredGySgt]

A peaceful, non-violent revolution. It can come in many different ways. Massive boycots, massive marches on Washington, massive vote-outs, etc.

We get ALL of them at one time or another, but just not in nearly enough numbers.

This is all moot, however, because the REAL issue is that the president is not supposed to have this authority. The wording in that legislation is so vague, that the president can basically pick and choose when it's necessary.

RGS promises revolt within the military, and I strongly disagree. Military members are programmed to accept their orders OR ELSE. Follow orders first, question later. Later is too late. By that point, you as the lowly private have already been scapegoated and will be taking the heat, while the higher-ups skate.

Hopefully the Generals know better than to go along with any such thing, but the lowest ranks are going to take their orders like good little bitches without question. Maybe the occasional maverick, but those kinds would swiftly be dealt with.

The shit ALWAYS rolls down hill. A good example of what I'm talking about is the case of the mistakenly flown nukes from Minot AFB to Barksdale AFB. Some 70 lower to mid ranking members were disciplined, while people like the base commander were not, when obviously an order to move nukes to another base comes from base commander or above.

You have no concept of the reality that is the US Military. Blind obedience is not actually what the military of ours does. It is taught and reminded it has a role to play in safe guarding the Republic from foreign AND DOMESTIC enemies.

Any squirelly orders WILL register on small and large commands. And while there may be a delay in action against illegal unconstitutional orders, that delay will only be the rightful hesitance to ensure that in fact the orders are illegal and unconstitutional.

Any act by this President or any President to seize power through force of arms WILL result in a sundering of the military. There will be whole sale unit desertion from the illegal commands. Even if senior officers fail to act lower ranks WILL.

And I know exactly what will happen when US troops are ordered to engage armed US citizens illegally to ensure a President remains in power against the Constitution. Some will obey , some will refuse and some will turn on the President.

This military is taught the responsibility to critically think and to understand the role it plays in maintaining our form of democracy.

 

[Taomon]

There is no legal right in the US to have an armed rebellion, never has been, never will be. George Washington even personally lead an Army as President to squash one rebellion during his time as President.

And was the leader of a rebellion of his own. We live under a growing tyranny controlled by corporate moguls and venture capitalists. Our forefathers would have rebelled. We should rebel.