livendive 8 #26 July 2, 2007 QuoteToo few options. I see it as "possible", but not "probable". What he said. I doubt that even Bush is that stupid, but he could certainly prove me wrong. Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #27 July 2, 2007 Martial law has been declared and enforced many times in our country's history. In every case is was to manage a specific problem and was discontinued, once the problem was handled. I would not have a problem with temporary Martial Law, if is was reasonably warranted. However, I think Amazon's frequent mention of the subject have to do with a permanent power grab. - It ain't gonna happen!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
willard 0 #28 July 2, 2007 Quote To me it will either happen or it will not... It will either rain today....or it will not. I will either retire rich....or I will not. The cat will either catch the mouse....or he will not. Of course it will either happen or it will not! What other alternative is there???? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Para_Frog 1 #29 July 2, 2007 By yours and the bloggers' definition - it already happened. Katrina. Guess what...I was there too. And the local cops were damn glad, as were law-obiding citizens. THAT was very much martial law under your definition. Is it still there? No. If there was a massive breakdown of socail services nationwide (meaning no electricity, water, gas, cops, firemen, medical services), what would your solution be? When predators began taking over....who would you want there to help you? Because the military moves in and starts enforcing basic laws...you oppose that?- Harvey, BASE 1232 TAN-I, IAD-I, S&TA BLiNC Magazine Team Member Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Royd 0 #30 July 2, 2007 Quote the homeless mumbler downtown has said the same things....coincidence? NOT! And he's hoarding all of the good blankets, too. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #31 July 2, 2007 Quote Too may people with itchy trigger fingers The problem is.. we have a HUGE amount of police in this country that do not want armed citizens... To me THIS is scary... http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/06-18-2007/0004610614&EDATE= ISRA Asks Senator Kotowski to Explain State Police Infringements on First Amendment Rights of Illinois Gun Owners CHICAGO, June 18 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- The following was released today by the Illinois State Rifle Association (ISRA): The ISRA is expressing great concern over reports that Illinois State Police (ISP) detectives have been visiting the homes of people who phoned or faxed Sen. Dan Kotowski (D-Park Ridge) to express opposition to gun control legislation sponsored by the senator. The ISRA has recently conducted a thorough investigation into one complaint, and is gathering additional information on as many as several dozen other reported incidents of police questioning citizens who have spoken out against gun control legislation. In the case investigated thus far, the respondent reports that ISP detectives arrived at his home, unannounced, and informed him that their visit was in response to faxes he sent to Sen. Kotowski. The detectives then went on to ask the citizen questions about his mental health and other personal matters. Although the citizen was not arrested, he reports that he feels that the detectives were there to deliver the message that it's not a good idea to criticize Dan Kotowski or the gun control measures Kotowski supports. "The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees the right of citizens to petition the government for the redress of grievances," said ISRA Executive Director, Richard Pearson. "Of course, the manner in which citizens exercise that right must not include any threats of harm against elected officials." "When we first heard about the ISP visits to homes of people who had sent faxes to Sen. Kotowski, we were concerned that some folks may have acted inappropriately," continued Pearson. "However, upon inspection of the faxes in question, we see absolutely no reason for the ISP to visit citizens' homes -- other than to possibly put a damper on the citizen's desire to participate in the legislative process." "At this time, we are asking Sen. Kotowski to produce any evidence he may have which illustrates threatening behavior on the part of citizens who have received ISP visits," said Pearson. "If Sen. Kotowski cannot produce any such evidence, then we will be asking Attorney General Madigan to conduct an investigation into the apparent use of the ISP to suppress the First Amendment rights of persons who express opposition to gun control legislation." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,400 #32 July 2, 2007 We (as in at least some of us) will almost certainly be living under martial law at some point in the future. Whichever president implements it will be supported by his party and roundly condemned by the other party. US politics works that way nowadays and there's no way around it. I can already imagine the arguments - "you want to cancel martial law and surrender?" "I guess you prefer living in a Nazi state!" The administration that imposes it will no doubt leave it in place longer than is absolutely necessary, for two reasons: 1) It will make it easier for the administration to do whatever it wants, and politicians like that 2) It will create a good bargaining chip. "OK, OK, I will acquiesce to the public's demands Real Soon Now; just let me get these new executive orders in place to protect us." What will the impetus be? Perhaps another terrorist attack. Perhaps from an inaminate threat, like severe storms or a meteor strike. Perhaps from the sort of threat the USSR posed in the 1950's and 60's. But as time goes on, the required impetus will (IMO) become less and less severe. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #33 July 2, 2007 Quote Special Operations, Intelligence, PsyOps, blah blah blah Yup Misdirection.... keep em in the dark and feed the masses bullshit.http://www.infowars.com/newouwphotospg1.html Operation Urban Warrior.. DOOOD they must not like you.. they must have left you out... OR... you just feel the need to keep all of that special stuff to yourself Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #34 July 2, 2007 Blue Thunder was a great flick. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Para_Frog 1 #35 July 2, 2007 QuoteTo me THIS is scary... http://www.prnewswire.com/...004610614&EDATE= Nothing to do with martial law. Martial law involves the military. These are cops. You can't even follow your own thread. Frag out...- Harvey, BASE 1232 TAN-I, IAD-I, S&TA BLiNC Magazine Team Member Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #36 July 2, 2007 All just part of learning to live in a police state.. ITs about who has the guns.. and who controls the state...I guess you dont wanna get that part. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
masterrig 1 #37 July 2, 2007 I'm one who never says 'never'... you just never know.! I'd hate to think it might but, the way things are going in the world... I'm a bit nervous. I still think, whoever said that these politicians who start wars and such should go out to a grassy pasture and choose their weapons... was right! Leave us out of it! Chuck Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #38 July 2, 2007 Quote I still think, whoever said that these politicians who start wars and such should go out to a grassy pasture and choose their weapons... was right! Leave us out of it! Now thats what I am talkin about.....you want a war.. go do it yourself Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
masterrig 1 #39 July 2, 2007 Quote Quote I still think, whoever said that these politicians who start wars and such should go out to a grassy pasture and choose their weapons... was right! Leave us out of it! Now thats what I am talkin about.....you want a war.. go do it yourself ______________________________ With the exception of Chaney, I'd feel safer standing in front of most politicians with a gun!Chuck Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skygeek 0 #40 July 2, 2007 ""Nothing to do with martial law. Martial law involves the military. These are cops. "" Umm if ya read the piece you would see the military working hand in hand with the locals. O and tell me again why all the good guys are dressed in black? with face masks? Is that so you cant tell who abused who? Welcome to the New World Order. Expect no Mercy. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 3 #41 July 2, 2007 QuoteHowever, I think Amazon's frequent mention of the subject have to do with a permanent power grab. - It ain't gonna happen!!! I have a few scenarios in which it could happen and the majority of the American public would gladly go along with it, for at least awhile. It all gets a little too "Conspiracy Theory" if you detail out the scenarios, but you absolutely have to look at those as being possibilities. The one most obvious one is where the Republicans don't have a viable candidate and in October of 2008 the President is killed by a terrorist attack. Very, Very much in the "Conspiracy Theory" frame of mind, but I can pretty much gurantee you that if the President was killed by a terrorist attack just prior to the election being held we'd go into martial law and the elections would be delayed indefinitely. This scenario was suggested by quite a few people in during the last elections. Obviously it didn't happen, but people had to at least consider the possibility.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Para_Frog 1 #42 July 2, 2007 Yes. And it's who abused whom. Has nothing to do with camouflage in low light. That's just a cover story. And I was responding to the piece above it, as I quoted...about the state cops. Pay attention.- Harvey, BASE 1232 TAN-I, IAD-I, S&TA BLiNC Magazine Team Member Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
seedy 0 #43 July 3, 2007 Quote To me it will either happen or it will not... You stole that line from John Kerry, didn't you? I intend to live forever -- so far, so good. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #44 July 3, 2007 Quote Nah its more of Bubba Bush style... http://www.50bushflipflops.com/ FLIP: A week after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, Bush said he wanted Osama Bin Laden "dead or alive." FLOP: But he told reporters six months later, "I truly am not that concerned about him. It's not that important. It's not our priority." He also did not mention bin Laden in his hour-long convention acceptance speech this year. Bush didn't order U.S. troops into Tora Bora to capture Osama Bin Laden right after the Afghanistan invasion. Instead, he relied on warlords who were of dubious loyalty and ability to find Osama Bin Laden and other members of Al Qaeda in that mountainous region. Later, when Iraq became this administration's priority, it shifted special forces from Afghanistan (where they had been searching for Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda members to Iraq). What Bush has said about bin Laden at various points in time, depending on how he was trying to spin things: FLIP: First Bush claimed he can win the war on terror: "One of the interesting things people ask me, now that we're asking questions, is, can you ever win the war on terror? Of course, you can." [President Bush, 4/13/04] FLOP: Bush says war on terror is unwinnable: "I don't think you can win [the war on terror]." [President Bush, 8/30/04] FLIP: BUSH OPPOSES NATION BUILDING... "If we don't stop extending our troops all around the world in nation-building missions, then we're going to have a serious problem coming down the road." [Gov. George W. Bush, 10/3/00] FLOP: BUSH SUPPORTS NATION BUILDING "We will be changing the regime of Iraq, for the good of the Iraqi people." [President Bush, 3/6/03] You get the point.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #45 July 3, 2007 Martial Law HAS come to the United States in the past. For people who think martial law is an affront to the Constitution, it's difficult to say that when a provision for it exists in the Constitution. Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution says, "The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion; the public Safety may require it." Usually martial law has been localized. Most recently it was declared by Mayor Nagin in NOLA after Hurricane Katrina - he told the police not to worry about civil rights in stopping looters. This is de facto martial law, isn't it? Perhaps people here are unaware that the supposedly great Abraham Lincoln imposed martial law on many parts of the US during the Civil War. In Ex Parte Merryman a federal court ordered that the suspension of the writ was improper. This is because suspension of the writ of habeus corpus is a matter for Congress since the suspension clause appears in Article I of the Constitution. I would therefore make the analogy that if Bush, Jr. were to suspend the writ and impose martial law, well, gee, he is following in the tracks of Lincoln!!! Maybe history would view Bush, Jr. as greatly as it views Lincoln. Lincoln ignored the court and kept on suspending the writ until 1963 - when Congress passed a law suspending it. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 3 #46 July 3, 2007 QuoteI would therefore make the analogy that if Bush, Jr. were to suspend the writ and impose martial law, well, gee, he is following in the tracks of Lincoln!!! Maybe history would view Bush, Jr. as greatly as it views Lincoln. You can leave that line of reasoning behind right now. GWB is no Lincoln.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #47 July 3, 2007 Quote Quote I would therefore make the analogy that if Bush, Jr. were to suspend the writ and impose martial law, well, gee, he is following in the tracks of Lincoln!!! Maybe history would view Bush, Jr. as greatly as it views Lincoln. You can leave that line of reasoning behind right now. But it is a nice counter to some of the sillier assertions made by others on this site. What's this thread about, again? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #48 July 3, 2007 QuoteBut it is a nice counter to some of the sillier assertions made by others on this site. What's this thread about, again? Its a shitty analogy the nation was being torn aprt and thousands of americans were being killed by their country men at the time. The War Betwxit the States was some nasty business.. and more Americans were killed in that WAR.. than ANY other subsequent war. Oh and Lincoln was just another Republican abusing power... see it goes back a LONG way... with the Republicans believing in thePOWER of the Imperial Presidency Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #49 July 3, 2007 QuoteQuoteI would therefore make the analogy that if Bush, Jr. were to suspend the writ and impose martial law, well, gee, he is following in the tracks of Lincoln!!! Maybe history would view Bush, Jr. as greatly as it views Lincoln. You can leave that line of reasoning behind right now. GWB is no Lincoln. I know. He hasn't suspended the writ of habeus corpus yet. (Note: except for the stuff with the military tribunals, but that was done with Congress). Dubya is NOT my favorite guy. I disagree with the majority of stuff he does. But look at what you wrote. My interpretation of it is, "Hey. Lincoln may have suspended habeus corpus but, man, it was Lincoln. Dubya ain't Lincoln." I don't care who it is that violates civil rights. Lincoln SEIZED power in suspending it when his wasn't within his power to do it, then IGNORED the court that told him it was incorrect. Yeah, he's the president. Let the Courts enforce their rulings. SOund like the "Royal President" to you? Yes, I appreciate what Lincoln did. But the mark of person, to me, is not what he did but HOW he did it. And it was abhorrent. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
birdlike 0 #50 July 7, 2007 QuoteQuoteSeveral 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 Well, that and banning/confiscating all the guns the citizens own. How could martial law possibly succeed in a place where 80,000,000 individuals own guns?Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
