0
Amazon

What will America under Martial Law be like.

Recommended Posts

So I would really like to know what you think the NEW America will be like after Tommy Franks prediction of our country under martial law will come true.

Personally I will be very sad that such a bold experiment in freedom will be gone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

So I would really like to know what you think the NEW America will be like after Tommy Franks prediction of our country under martial law will come true.

Personally I will be very sad that such a bold experiment in freedom will be gone.



If it ever comes to pass, it's going to be sad for the country and ironically hilarious to watch how quickly things turn against those that have put this entire mess in motion.

All that will probably be left of me will be the laughter as I'm nearly certain that people that have against this whole mess from the start will be the first against the wall. Meanwhile, those that have actually caused the downfall of the nation will quickly learn what a false sense of security they've been allowed to keep in their not-quite-yet "cold dead hand" for certainly their pea shooters are no match for the onslaught that would surely follow.

Fortunately, I disagree with the prediction. I'm not ruling it out as a possibility, but it seems to me that it's completely unnessasary to control the country by force when propaganda has been working so darn well.

Everyone, everyone, EVERYONE needs to reread 1984.
quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

So I would really like to know what you think the NEW America will be like after Tommy Franks prediction of our country under martial law will come true.

Personally I will be very sad that such a bold experiment in freedom will be gone.



If it ever comes to pass, it's going to be sad for the country and ironically hilarious to watch how quickly things turn against those that have put this entire mess in motion.

All that will probably be left of me will be the laughter as I'm nearly certain that people that have against this whole mess from the start will be the first against the wall. Meanwhile, those that have actually caused the downfall of the nation will quickly learn what a false sense of security they've been allowed to keep in their not-quite-yet "cold dead hand" for certainly their pea shooters are no match for the onslaught that would surely follow.

Fortunately, I disagree with the prediction. I'm not ruling it out as a possibility, but it seems to me that it's completely unnessasary to control the country by force when propaganda has been working so darn well.

Everyone, everyone, EVERYONE needs to reread 1984.



I have to laugh outloud here...I guess nobody realizes what a few well determined and highly trained people can do.

First of all you wouldn't think a rifle is useless because you have a tank, you need to get out sometime and then bang there goes the commanders head.

As for insurgents....you really wanna see what an "American Insurgent" would do? it would make the Iraqis look like kindergartners.

Martial law will not be declared under this administration and I know there are a great many far left liberals out there who disagree, but then again they are the same ones that don't want data mining nor surveillance of "persons of interest"

Without proper intelligence comes fear and that is the thing that will set the stage for martial law.


STOP WATCHING ALL THOSE HOLLYWOOD MOVIES WILL YA?


Tommy Franks is a good man he was stating it so the idea is out there in the open, and not behind the door in some smokefilled room where the american public isn't aware.
:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Was this in an interview? I have read his book but don't recal it there. I am sure it has some context to be placed in and not just the POTUS declaring martial law one day.

POTUS: "Morning Laura"
Larura: "Morning, what do you have planned for the day?"
POTUS: "Oh I just called Dick and Rumy and declared Martial Law. Do you want Orange Juice with your toast?"

As for "American Insurgents" on American soil get real. With the exeption of a few Armed Militias we will be to happy to ignore the happenings as long as we are not personaly affected. That seams to be a big part of our cosiety now a days, 'Talk' but don't "Walk".

JMO
An Instructors first concern is student safety.
So, start being safe, first!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hmmm. It's interesting to see what martial law would be like. But I think I need only look to the past to see. In fact, we had an example of it just last year in New Orleans with the "Public Health Emergency." The LA governor proclaimed it for one month in August.

Or what about Hawaii in 1941?

We saw something approaching it in Los Angeles in 1992, didn't we? Though in Los Angeles, it didn't rise to martial law. Martial law means that civilian courts cannot function.

Martial law is about the most anti-civil libertarian thing you can do. Anyone who imposes it is obviously a person who fails to accept fundamental freedoms of society and all persons.

Which is why it is so ironic that Abraham Lincoln is the best example of this. Look into history at how he suspended the writ of habeus corpus in 1863. We had a Supreme Court back then with forward-thinking vision. Apparently, even those white men thought that martial law was unconstitutional, as Lincoln tried to do it. The case was Ex Parte Milligan.

"Martial law ... destroys every guarantee of the Constitution." The Court compared it to King of Great Britain, which caused, in part, the Revolution. "Civil liberty and this kind of martial law cannot endure together; the antagonism is irreconcilable; and, in the conflict, one or the other must perish."

So, now, I'd like a declaration from you, Jeanne, that chastises Lincoln for his absolute destruction of the freedoms of all people. Then again, there is a living breathing constitution, and what was uncool then may be downright hip now. Dig it! MArtial law! The new way of doing things, dawg!

It's open to interpretation, I guess.


Edited to add: I really am positing of taking this "living, breathing Constitution" thing reductio ad absurdum. As strongly as I disagree with policies of our current president, expect me to make arguments for a while in a number of posts wherein I will form these policies as acceptable under the "living, breathing Constitution."

So, "Terrorism is war declared by nationless people. Such a matter was not contemplated by our founding fathers in the Constitution. Therefore, in order to preserve this union, Bush is using powers inherent as the Commander in Chief to provide for the general welfare of the people. In that sense, martial law is warranted, considering that the protection of the American public is sancrosanct.

It used to be that Americans were expected to fend for themselves. However, considering the rise in the federal government and the vast expansions of its power pursuant to the will of the people, the COnstitution must be viewed consistent with these new societal developments.

The Commernce clause allows the government to regulate any conduct that has any effect on interstate commerce. The new law, passed via the commerce clause, ensures that anyone who utilizes public transportation routes or interstate communications equipment waives constitutional rights to warrantless searches. Thus, anyone who uses a telephone, receives mail, or even proceeds outside of their houses, waives these rights.

Therefore, considering the commerce clause jurisprudence of the last 70 years, it seems a logical extension of federal powers to do so.

So, we can see that warrantless searches are allowable under the commerce clause. The founding fathers did not consider telecommunications, and therefore we can create our own laws about it."

How 'bout them apples, brought to you courtesy of FDR and his progeny...


My wife is hotter than your wife.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Hmmm. It's interesting to see what martial law would be like. But I think I need only look to the past to see. In fact, we had an example of it just last year in New Orleans with the "Public Health Emergency." The LA governor proclaimed it for one month in August.

Or what about Hawaii in 1941?

We saw something approaching it in Los Angeles in 1992, didn't we? Though in Los Angeles, it didn't rise to martial law. Martial law means that civilian courts cannot function.

Martial law is about the most anti-civil libertarian thing you can do. Anyone who imposes it is obviously a person who fails to accept fundamental freedoms of society and all persons.

Which is why it is so ironic that Abraham Lincoln is the best example of this. Look into history at how he suspended the writ of habeus corpus in 1863. We had a Supreme Court back then with forward-thinking vision. Apparently, even those white men thought that martial law was unconstitutional, as Lincoln tried to do it. The case was Ex Parte Milligan.

"Martial law ... destroys every guarantee of the Constitution." The Court compared it to King of Great Britain, which caused, in part, the Revolution. "Civil liberty and this kind of martial law cannot endure together; the antagonism is irreconcilable; and, in the conflict, one or the other must perish."

So, now, I'd like a declaration from you, Jeanne, that chastises Lincoln for his absolute destruction of the freedoms of all people. Then again, there is a living breathing constitution, and what was uncool then may be downright hip now. Dig it! MArtial law! The new way of doing things, dawg!

It's open to interpretation, I guess.


Edited to add: I really am positing of taking this "living, breathing Constitution" thing reductio ad absurdum. As strongly as I disagree with policies of our current president, expect me to make arguments for a while in a number of posts wherein I will form these policies as acceptable under the "living, breathing Constitution."

So, "Terrorism is war declared by nationless people. Such a matter was not contemplated by our founding fathers in the Constitution. Therefore, in order to preserve this union, Bush is using powers inherent as the Commander in Chief to provide for the general welfare of the people. In that sense, martial law is warranted, considering that the protection of the American public is sancrosanct.

It used to be that Americans were expected to fend for themselves. However, considering the rise in the federal government and the vast expansions of its power pursuant to the will of the people, the COnstitution must be viewed consistent with these new societal developments.

The Commernce clause allows the government to regulate any conduct that has any effect on interstate commerce. The new law, passed via the commerce clause, ensures that anyone who utilizes public transportation routes or interstate communications equipment waives constitutional rights to warrantless searches. Thus, anyone who uses a telephone, receives mail, or even proceeds outside of their houses, waives these rights.

Therefore, considering the commerce clause jurisprudence of the last 70 years, it seems a logical extension of federal powers to do so.

So, we can see that warrantless searches are allowable under the commerce clause. The founding fathers did not consider telecommunications, and therefore we can create our own laws about it."

How 'bout them apples, brought to you courtesy of FDR and his progeny...




Well said! anyone who would support martial law would deserve the targeted response they will receive

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Your addendum (in light of the the "living, breathing Constitution") makes for an absolutely terrifying scenario.



Makes for a good reason to bury guns and plenty of ammo and to keep your shovel close at hand.;)
Hard to see martial law actually being enacted nation wide. But...oh, yeah, the Feds only want to protect freedom.:S
"...And once you're gone, you can't come back
When you're out of the blue and into the black."
Neil Young

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Really interesting comments, Jerry.

Quote

So, we can see that warrantless searches are allowable under the commerce clause. The founding fathers did not consider telecommunications, and therefore we can create our own laws about it."


Isn't that the same argument about handguns, the right to bear arms, and the Second Amendment? That there were no weapons like that then therefore the FF's couldn't have been talking about that...and so we can make our own laws about it (i.r. registration, tracking, owning, et cetera)?

Or did I misunderstand your comments, or perhaps misapply them?

Just wondering if it's the same thought process...

Ciels-
Michele


~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek
While our hearts lie bleeding?~

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Was this in an interview



http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/11/20/185048.shtml

Gen. Tommy Franks says that if the United States is hit with a weapon of mass destruction that inflicts large casualties, the Constitution will likely be discarded in favor of a military form of government.

Discussing the hypothetical dangers posed to the U.S. in the wake of Sept. 11, Franks said that “the worst thing that could happen” is if terrorists acquire and then use a biological, chemical or nuclear weapon that inflicts heavy casualties.

If that happens, Franks said, “... the Western world, the free world, loses what it cherishes most, and that is freedom and liberty we’ve seen for a couple of hundred years in this grand experiment that we call democracy.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

If that happens, Franks said, “... the Western world, the free world, loses what it cherishes most, and that is freedom and liberty we’ve seen for a couple of hundred years in this grand experiment that we call democracy.”



You've mentioned this what, 100 times now? It's a speculative opinion by a retired Army General. Doesn't mean shit.


. . =(_8^(1)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

So I guess you believe it will be a good thing then...as long as you get to be a part of the ruling elite I guess that is just ok then.



Believing it will happen because someone said it, is a false conclusion.
The reason the idea is put out there is so that all know it and most likely then not happen!:|

if someone says ed mc mahon is sending you a check for million are you going to wait by your mailbox forever?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Whether one's politics are liberal, moderate or conservative, what to do when civil order goes to hell in a handbasket in times of emergency is an important perpetual conversation for all citizens of a democracy to have with one another. It's not just a valid conversation, it's a necessary one, and therefore an entirely valid one - all the time. It may not be the greatest analogy, but just as in skydiving, in a democracy, complacency can be deadly dangerous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Isn't that the same argument about handguns, the right to bear arms, and the Second Amendment? That there were no weapons like that then therefore the FF's couldn't have been talking about that...and so we can make our own laws about it (i.r. registration, tracking, owning, et cetera)?



Exactly. The "living, breathing Constitution" is a bomb with a delayed fuse. It's been used by one side to create - or destroy - rights under the Constitution. Those proponents believe that the right ot bear arms is not compatible with today's society and thinking, and therefore this right should be interpreted as narrowly as possible. Other rights, however, should be interpreted broadly to encompass any and all sort of progressive conduct. Abortion can fall under a "penumbra" protected rights. Same for anti-discrimination, age discrimination, etc.

Well, hand grenades can be thrown back. You toss a grenade, it has a delayed fuse that allows the intended victim to use it as a weapon against you.

The progressive left have used the Commerce Clause to regulate everything. That's why the federal government can get you for growing your own pot for your own use, even if a state says it is okay, because it may have an effect on interstate commerce. Privacy rights, etc., do not matter when interstate commerce is involved.

This is why the specter of the "Living, breathing Constitution" is so damned scary and illogical to me. Hey, I agree in substance to the rights that have been granted over the past few decades. Politically, it has done things right up my line of thought.

BUT, it is doing the right thing in a wrong way. Unfortunately, many now view this as the "right way" to do things. When people who seek to do the "wrong things" do it in this way, then we find disaster.

There is nothing to stop Bush and company from doing these things, except for the Courts. Only Thomas (we don't know enough about Alito and Roberts) would fight something like this with any degree of intellectual honesty. Scalia MAY be able to.

Ginsberg, Breyer, Kennedy and Souter have found rights where none before existed. If they were intellectually honest in their approach, then if Bush sought to do this, then they would agree that times have changed and new measures must be allowable.

As mneal stated, it's a terrifying prospect. And it's one that 70 years of SCOTUS jurisprudence has set the stage to do.

The 9th and 10th Amendments have been made to be historical relics. The Commerce Clause rules today, and has a history of trumping all other rights.


My wife is hotter than your wife.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Isn't that the same argument about handguns, the right to bear arms, and the Second Amendment? That there were no weapons like that then therefore the FF's couldn't have been talking about that...and so we can make our own laws about it (i.r. registration, tracking, owning, et cetera)?



Exactly. The "living, breathing Constitution" is a bomb with a delayed fuse. It's been used by one side to create - or destroy - rights under the Constitution. Those proponents believe that the right ot bear arms is not compatible with today's society and thinking, and therefore this right should be interpreted as narrowly as possible. Other rights, however, should be interpreted broadly to encompass any and all sort of progressive conduct. Abortion can fall under a "penumbra" protected rights. Same for anti-discrimination, age discrimination, etc.

Well, hand grenades can be thrown back. You toss a grenade, it has a delayed fuse that allows the intended victim to use it as a weapon against you.

The progressive left have used the Commerce Clause to regulate everything. That's why the federal government can get you for growing your own pot for your own use, even if a state says it is okay, because it may have an effect on interstate commerce. Privacy rights, etc., do not matter when interstate commerce is involved.

This is why the specter of the "Living, breathing Constitution" is so damned scary and illogical to me. Hey, I agree in substance to the rights that have been granted over the past few decades. Politically, it has done things right up my line of thought.

BUT, it is doing the right thing in a wrong way. Unfortunately, many now view this as the "right way" to do things. When people who seek to do the "wrong things" do it in this way, then we find disaster.

There is nothing to stop Bush and company from doing these things, except for the Courts. Only Thomas (we don't know enough about Alito and Roberts) would fight something like this with any degree of intellectual honesty. Scalia MAY be able to.

Ginsberg, Breyer, Kennedy and Souter have found rights where none before existed. If they were intellectually honest in their approach, then if Bush sought to do this, then they would agree that times have changed and new measures must be allowable.

As mneal stated, it's a terrifying prospect. And it's one that 70 years of SCOTUS jurisprudence has set the stage to do.

The 9th and 10th Amendments have been made to be historical relics. The Commerce Clause rules today, and has a history of trumping all other rights.



In the 8th grade we were taught the the 1st ten ammendments were the BILL OF RIGHTS never to be infringed upon by any man or court.

Now it seems that people have been brainwashed into thinking that they are the bill of priveledges

[:/]...holy shit huh?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Watch for...

.1) Fuel Rationing
.2) Ammunition Availability Disappearing
.3) Food Rationing
.4) Forced Segregation Due To "Virus"
.5) Public "Service" Announcements

If this is ever to happen, we will see it coming very clearly. The government will never swoop down in mass on today's society without rendering us impotent, and dependent on them to survive.

I feel strongly about defending our liberties, but how many are willing to die to protect the same? How many are there that will stare into the end of the barrel and say "fuck you", I'm free?

We the sheepeople...

We have tools at hand right now that we can use to shape our future. The vote, letters to our leaders, joining powerful organizations, etc. Some don't believe this, but they are also the ones that scream the loudest, and do nothing.

I'm a Republican, because they disgust me just a little less than the democrats and liberals...

It's time for some first string pics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I too agree that the erosion of our rights is accomplished through this living breathing document principle.

Too bad that some think our founding forefathers were too stupid to state that it was not a living breathing document ?....I mean the fact that they didn't say it only proves their argument(sarcastic tone and look)

I truly believe those who keep wanting to legislate from the bench to erode away our rights and negate the principle that we all are born as free men with our rights being endowed by our creator will accomplish this due to the nature that our educational system has prodused some of the best "sheeple" anyone could imagine!:|

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

0