It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Rep. John Lewis - " Obama Should Declare Martial Law in Ferguson " - MSNBC - 8-14-14

page: 1
6
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 14 2014 @ 03:13 PM
link   
Rep. John Lewis - " Obama Should Declare Martial Law in Ferguson " - MSNBC - 8-14-14


Well this beats all now.

We have a U.S. Congressman suggesting Martial Law be declared to protect protesting.

Progressives sure are in a quandary now aren't they.

[ No further comment from me ]






Lewis said, “Ferguson, Missouri, it’s not the Congo. It is not China. It is not Russia. We can do better.” He spoke of the similarities between this case and the protests he participated in all those years ago, before proposing Obama declare martial law.



“President Obama should use the authority of his office to declare martial law. Federalize the Missouri National Guard to protect people as they protest, and people should come together… If we fail to act, the fires of frustration and discontent will continue to burn, not only in Ferguson, Missouri, but all across America.”






www.youtube.com...

related NewsWeek article...
Rep. John Lewis, Civil Rights Icon, Calls for ‘Martial Law’ in Ferguson, Mo.





posted on Aug, 14 2014 @ 03:17 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen


Progressives sure are in a quandary now aren't they.


Is there anything that you can't twist into a partisan issue?



posted on Aug, 14 2014 @ 03:17 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

Yeah, why not just pull out the local police force instead? Oh wait, the governor just did that...Problem solved!

No need for marshall law, no need to even bring those words into a conversation! Especially for a place that has an issue created by police, not people!



posted on Aug, 14 2014 @ 03:19 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

Martial Law



1: the law applied in occupied territory by the military authority of the occupying power


2: the law administered by military forces that is invoked by a government in an emergency when the civilian law enforcement agencies are unable to maintain public order and safety


www.merriam-webster.com...

I was under the impression that rights were suspended during martial law.




posted on Aug, 14 2014 @ 03:21 PM
link   
To add; since the police are not in charge anymore, and law enforcement is under federal control, perhaps martial law IS in effect.




posted on Aug, 14 2014 @ 03:22 PM
link   
a reply to: beezzer

Your impression is 100% correct
2nd



posted on Aug, 14 2014 @ 03:24 PM
link   
a reply to: beezzer

Mmm hmmm.

The grass looks greener...



posted on Aug, 14 2014 @ 03:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: xuenchen


Progressives sure are in a quandary now aren't they.


Is there anything that you can't twist into a partisan issue?


I'm sure there is.

But this is a partisan issue.

I bet Ferguson Mo. has a long history of voting for Democrats?



posted on Aug, 14 2014 @ 03:31 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

On paper it almost sounds like an idea worth saying out loud. If it were as easy as bringing in the grownups to arrest police and looters alike to preserve the safety of law abiding citizens engaged in peaceful protest.

But we know dang well what more government guns would really do to this situation don't we?

I see two obvious solutions, one of which can actually happen:

1. The police are going to finish their crackdown and several years after the fact they will lose a lawsuit or two, and things go on as they were, maybe slightly better with politicians having been scared just enough to try and prevent the police from going far enough to cause another riot.

2. The police are overrun and butchered in the streets, then the national guard can either come in shooting or come in saying, "you won, we're not the ones you're mad at, go home and start planning to elect new more trustworthy authorities over yourselves".

But basically the police and the people chose each other and now they've got to have it out until somebody runs out of gas. You'd have to think one side wasn't doing anything wrong and deserved to see it's enemies crushed with military force for them to think martial law is a good idea from either a right or left wing perspective in this situation.



posted on Aug, 14 2014 @ 03:33 PM
link   
I called for the use of the National Guard in another thread this morning. LBJ did it in 1965 to protect civil rights demonstrators from being beaten and killed. This is one of the very few cases in which I believe martial law is justified. Let them protest in peace. Let their voices of frustration and anger be heard. Do not violate their constitutional right to peacefully assemble and do not violate the journalists freedom of press. Seems fairly simple to me. Why twist this into something nefarious OP? Partisan much?



posted on Aug, 14 2014 @ 03:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: Chrisfishenstein
a reply to: xuenchen

Yeah, why not just pull out the local police force instead? Oh wait, the governor just did that...Problem solved!

No need for marshall law, no need to even bring those words into a conversation! Especially for a place that has an issue created by police, not people!



He didn't pull out the local police force....he pulled out the county police and is going to replace them with State police.



posted on Aug, 14 2014 @ 03:37 PM
link   
a reply to: beezzer

Gov Nixon is in control and now the Highway Patrol are in control on the ground. St Louis Co police were relieved today, they was in command on the ground.

Martial Law is a dumb idea.



posted on Aug, 14 2014 @ 03:42 PM
link   
The most dumb part about it is how many people will think this is a great idea and stand by it all the way up until 5 minutes after martial law is declared



posted on Aug, 14 2014 @ 03:43 PM
link   
a reply to: LeatherNLace

But doesn't martial law suspended the rights of the people?
I guess I see it as a gamble that they would actually protect the protesters, cause they would no longer have the right to be doing it.



posted on Aug, 14 2014 @ 03:46 PM
link   

“President Obama should use the authority of his office to declare martial law. Federalize the Missouri National Guard to protect people as they protest


Then you have all that firepower assembled into one area and all it takes apparently for a final warning and crackdown of all kinds is a bottle being thrown by one person then everybody is subject to arrest.

Demonstration declared not peaceful, everybody shot at with rubber bullets and tear gas, repeat process.



posted on Aug, 14 2014 @ 03:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Sremmos80

No, all martial law does is remove local police and insert the national guard. The extent of the "policing" would depend upon the circumstances. In this case, the local law enforcement is oppressing the locals and violating their rights. Rep. John Lewis is calling for martial law to protect those rights, not to take away more of them.

Now if the crowd turned violent, started looting, or burning the city to the ground....then the use of more restrictive martial law would be necessary. But as it stands, these people only need protection from the cops; not from themselves.

Most people on ATS, especially the more conspiracy minded ones, tend to think of martial law as nothing less than a full military takeover. Those folks have watched that movie "The Seige" way too many times.
edit on 14-8-2014 by LeatherNLace because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 14 2014 @ 03:50 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

Let's solve the militarization of police problem by further militarizing the policing.
Brilliant.
Or maybe it is brilliant, if that's been the plan.



posted on Aug, 14 2014 @ 03:52 PM
link   
a reply to: LeatherNLace


Why twist this into something nefarious OP? Partisan much?


But Lewis is a member in good standing of the Congressional Progressive Caucus

Very Partisan.

Very Authoritarian.

Very dangerous as we are seeing right in front of our very eyes.






posted on Aug, 14 2014 @ 03:53 PM
link   
a reply to: LeatherNLace

legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...


Show me how this can be a good thing.



posted on Aug, 14 2014 @ 03:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: thesaneone
a reply to: LeatherNLace

legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...


Show me how this can be a good thing.


I already gave an example. Here let me help you:

The Selma to Montgomery Civil Rights Marches of 1965


The third march started March 16. Protected by 2,000 soldiers of the U.S. Army, 1,900 members of the Alabama National Guard under Federal command, and many FBI agents and Federal Marshals, the marchers averaged 10 miles (16 km) a day along U.S. Route 80, known in Alabama as the "Jefferson Davis Highway". The marchers arrived in Montgomery on March 24 and at the Alabama State Capitol on March 25.

The route is memorialized as the Selma To Montgomery Voting Rights Trail, and is a U.S. National Historic Trail.


It also happens to be the last time martial law was declared by a POTUS...and it wasn't nationwide, it was localized to that marching route to protect the protesters.

Now, show me an example of where martial law was declared by a POTUS and it went bad.
edit on 14-8-2014 by LeatherNLace because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
6
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join