The Martial Law thread

[Amazon 7]

Several posters here continually try to call me delusional because I think that we will be living under martial law after the next terrorism attack here.

So lets poll the crowd.. What do you think..??

One poster calls it all lies... yet several officials have come right out and said its coming.. just one attack and the USA will be living under it.

[akarunway 1]

Quote

Several posters here continually try to call me delusional because I think that we will be living under martial law after the next terrorism attack here.

So lets poll the crowd.. What do you think..??

One poster calls it all lies... yet several officials have come right out and said its coming.. just one attack and the USA will be living under it.

Yeah. But first certain people wanna do this> http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/lieberman-calls-for-wider-use-of-surveillance-cameras-2007-07-01.html

I hold it true, whate'er befall;
I feel it, when I sorrow most;
'Tis better to have loved and lost
Than never to have loved at all.

[quade 3]

Too few options.

I see it as "possible", but not "probable".

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Amazon 7]

To me it will either happen or it will not...

Personally.. I think its on the way and the Bush Administration has set the stage nicely for its coming..

[warpedskydiver 0]

Quote

Quote

Several posters here continually try to call me delusional because I think that we will be living under martial law after the next terrorism attack here.

So lets poll the crowd.. What do you think..??

One poster calls it all lies... yet several officials have come right out and said its coming.. just one attack and the USA will be living under it.

Yeah. But first certain people wanna do this> http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/lieberman-calls-for-wider-use-of-surveillance-cameras-2007-07-01.html

It is already being done, all over Chicagoland it is very apparent, even 45 miles away from downtown.

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

several officials have come right out and said its coming

Which officials have stated it is coming?

[warpedskydiver 0]

Me, I was being a smartass.

[Channman 2]

Quote

To me it will either happen or it will not...

Personally.. I think its on the way and the Bush Administration has set the stage nicely for its coming..

Don't forget the Bush Administration will suspend all future elections and take control of all the Oil Companies and the Health Care system in his evil master plan to control the wealth of the world.

[warpedskydiver 0]

No I am going to take control of all that, it was my plan all along.

Muahhhahahahahaha

[Amazon 7]

FISH ON


BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

[NCclimber 0]

All or nothing, eh?

How about "Martial Law before a new administration is in place"?

I'm constantly amazed how some people can take an off-the-cuff, conditional statement, about the what could be the will of the people, and turn it into a sinister plot being persued by the current adminstration. LMAO

[Butters 0]

Pessimistic people and their conspiracy theories ...

Edit: It is more likely that it will happen at least once than it will never happen. Who do you think will impose martial law? Why do you think they will impose martial law? What do you think imposing martial law will accomplish?

"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

[Channman 2]

Quote

No I am going to take control of all that, it was my plan all along.

Muahhhahahahahaha

You Bastard, that only leaves me Global Markets to control...and I don't know a damn thing about shopping however the wife is pretty good at it.

[Amazon 7]

Here ya go bubba..

http://www.infowars.net/Pages/Sept05/270905Martiallaw.htm

For years we have warned that the police state is coming, how Martial Law will become the norm, how ancient laws, rights and freedoms are being overturned and replaced with repressive mechanisms of control.

For years we have presented the evidence, the Army War College documents, the domestic military takeover drills, the draconian legislation, officials left right and centre calling for more centralized military control domestically.

For years people refuted the evidence, or passed it off as being intended for something else, or simply refused to believe it. Now everything we warned you about is happening.

In the wake of the recent natural disasters on American soil, dangerous precedents have been set. We have been forced to watch how in times of crisis we must submit and follow the orders of Federal Commanders, no matter whether they deny us basic human rights or not.

Whether it be a state attack, a terrorist attack, an accident or a natural disaster matters not anymore, the outcome will be the same. We are just one event, ANY event away from Martial Law.



How about this one Mr NC..you wanted SPECIFIC PEOPLE other than GENERAL Thomas Franks you got it

http://www.progressive.org/mag_wx0529b07

What’s more, there are the comments by former high-ranking officials in the Bush Administration who have said that martial law is coming if we’re attacked again.

Wayne Downing was Bush’s deputy national security adviser for counterterrorism under Condoleezza Rice early in the first term. On December 24, 2002, six months after he retired, he told The Washington Post: “The United States may have to declare martial law someday in the case of a devastating attack with weapons of mass destruction causing tens of thousands of casualties. This could mean that the military would be given the authority to impose curfews, protect businesses and communities, even make arrests.”

General Tommy Franks, who led the Iraq invasion, told Cigar Aficionado in December 2003 that if terrorists attack us again, this time with a weapon of mass destruction, it will cause the “population to question our own Constitution and to begin to militarize our country in order to avoid a repeat of another mass-casualty-producing event. Which, in fact, then begins to potentially unravel the fabric of our Constitution.”

Downing and Franks aren’t the only former officials talking about martial law.

On April 7, 2004, Ted Koppel hosted a Nightline program on the very subject.

He said if Washington, D.C., is attacked, “Aren’t we left for at least the foreseeable future with some sort of martial law anyway?”

Kenneth Duberstein, Reagan’s chief of staff, responded: “You have to suspend rights.”

Richard Clarke, who was Clinton’s counterterrorism expert and was in the Bush Administration on 9/11, responded: “There would be a period of, for lack of a better term, something like martial law.”

One month later, Koppel spoke at the University of California-Berkeley commencement and again addressed the martial law issue quite frankly: “Do not doubt for a moment that, at some point, during the next few years, one or the other of those weapons [chemical, biological, or nuclear] will almost certainly be used in an act of terrorism against the United States . . . in the United States. Then the time for discussing our civil liberties will be over. More than likely, the use of a chemical or biological weapon in a terrorist attack against the U.S. homeland would lead to the imposition of martial law. For how long and under what circumstances it would be lifted again has, to the best of my knowledge, never even been publicly addressed. But understand that the most implacable enemy of our civil liberties is fear. What we will do after the next terrorist attack is not a conversation that should be deferred.”

So why is it being deferred?

Why is Congress not taking up the urgent need to hold hearings on this very subject?

Here are two more reasons to be worried.

The Northern Command, Northcom, created by Bush, already has plans to militarize the United States in the event of an attack.

“The new plans provide for what several senior officers acknowledged is the likelihood that the military will have to take charge in some situations, especially when dealing with mass-casualty attacks,” Bradley Graham wrote in The Washington Post on August 8, 2005.

Then there is the revision to the Posse Comitatus Act, which Bush whisked through last October.

In an editorial on February 19 of this year, aptly entitled “Making Martial Law Easier,” The New York Times wrote: “Beyond cases of actual insurrection, the President may now use military troops as a domestic police force in response to a natural disaster, a disease outbreak, terrorist attack, or to any ‘other condition.’ Changes of this magnitude should be made only after a thorough public airing. But these new Presidential powers were slipped into the law without hearings or public debate.”

Interestingly, some in the Bush Justice Department didn’t believe this Congressional change was even necessary. On October 23, 2001, then-Deputy Assistant Attorney General John C. Yoo and Robert J. Delahunty, then-special counsel in the Office of Legal Counsel, wrote a memo to Alberto Gonzales, then-White House Counsel, and William Haynes II, then-general counsel for the Pentagon: “We recently opined that the Posse Comitatus Act, 18 USCs.1385 (1994), which generally prohibits the use of Armed Forces for law enforcement purposes absent constitutional or statutory authority to do so, does not forbid the use of military force for the military purpose of preventing and deterring terrorism within the United States.”

I dont know.. but you dont have to beat me over the head when that many government officials are talking about doing it.. and the Administration passes laws to make it easier.

[warpedskydiver 0]

the homeless mumbler downtown has said the same things....coincidence?

NOT!

[warpedskydiver 0]

only an Imbecile of monumental proportions would attempt to declare and enforce martial law here.

Too may people with itchy trigger fingers.

[Amazon 7]

Quote

only an Imbecile of monumental proportions would attempt to declare and enforce martial law here.

Dont cha know its for our own good... WE.. must be protected from the EVILDOERS...

[joedirt 0]

FDR took away more rights of American citizens after 12/7/41 than GW Bush has, it's not even a close comparison. Most of it was temporary though. If there is amother large scale attack we will probably lose some rights, but if we have the balls to do what we need to, like under FDR and Truman, it could be temporary as well. Do you have specific reasons why you beleive we will be under martial law or is this just one more way to say Bush = Hitler yet again. Do you beleive it will happen under Obama, Clinton, Edwards, or McCain? Or just republicans, or just Bush?

[billvon 2,425]

>Too may people with itchy trigger fingers.

Right. No US government would ever try to impose its will on the people in such a manner! Armed US citizens would rise up and prevent it from happening.

Well, at least that's the theory. How well did that theory work in 1861?

[Butters 0]

I would expect martial law to be declared in the event of a terrorist attack using weapons of mass destruction to temporarily maintain law an order.

"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

[ryoder 1,394]

Quote

only an Imbecile of monumental proportions would attempt to declare and enforce martial law here.

And we already have a couple running the executive branch, so how is that supposed to make me feel any better???

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[warpedskydiver 0]

Quote

>Too may people with itchy trigger fingers.

Right. No US government would ever try to impose its will on the people in such a manner! Armed US citizens would rise up and prevent it from happening.

Well, at least that's the theory. How well did that theory work in 1861?

Ask all the dead Americans

[warpedskydiver 0]

Quote

Quote

only an Imbecile of monumental proportions would attempt to declare and enforce martial law here.

And we already have a couple running the executive branch, so how is that supposed to make me feel any better???

Did I say it would?

BTW there are imbeciles of that proportion found in droves on both sides of the aisle

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

“The United States may have to declare martial law someday in the case of a devastating attack with weapons of mass destruction causing tens of thousands of casualties.

Until we suffer "a devastating attack with weapons of mass destruction causing tens of thousands of casualties", I'll sleep well, knowing the vast majority of our freedoms are intact.

Ted Koppel sure did seem confident a major attack was eminent...THREE YEARS AGO!

[Para_Frog 1]

You are correct Bill...and your stated caveat is sound. Will it be attempted? Perhaps, but as I said about post-9/11, when people grow weary of it - regardless of administration - it will be curtailed. Not necessarily to everyone's liking, but well short of martial law.

Plus - there are too many Officers like me who wouldn't allow it to happen.

Jeanne: As for the secret military takeover America plans that you and the conspiracy bloggers are privy to - I must have been in the bathroom for that meeting at the War College. Damn. You MUST have been there though. How'd it go? Good coffee?

I've been in this rod and gun club for nearly 20 years - in two branches. Special Operations, Intelligence, PsyOps, blah blah blah. I'm almost certain I would have heard that one float through.

Newsflash - IF the secret round table, hand-wringing, evil right wing corporate titans running America DID have a plan to take over America...

Who do you think they would be drilling to do it? Um...my guys.

You're killing me with the secret plans shit.

With your sources, maybe you should go before a Senate hearing. You might just save our society.

Oy.

- Harvey, BASE 1232
TAN-I, IAD-I, S&TA

BLiNC Magazine Team Member