US Senator Warns that the Federal Govt is About to Declare International Martial Law

Looks to me that this resolution is worded much like the 2001 resolution that gave the president unlimited power to fight those responsible for the 9/11 attacks. The difference is that this resolution specifically targets ISIS/ISIL/Daesh.

I think that calling it "A Declaration of International Martial Law" is at least misleading.

-dex

It appears "terrorism" is very convenient for governments that have obsessive-compulsive disorder related to making more laws, reducing freedoms and controlling populations.

"It has served us well, this myth called Christ terrorism"

a reply to: machineintelligence

Another filibuster type action perhaps?

It has a ways to go before that.

International martial law ?!?

Surely it's a joke of some kind.

a reply to: Phage

Right.. a Democratic warning against a Republican resolution for American military action internationally is used as an argument by 2nd amendment supporters to claim Obama will now use it to confiscate weapons. Im stumped.

originally posted by: xuenchen
This is what Obama is waiting for.

Now he will go into the big city high crime areas and confiscate !!!!!!

The only problem I see with your statement is Obama is not going to stop there . No way. He is on a roll .

a reply to: Phage

I was being snarky with that. Rand has so avoided the obvious differences in political realities between him and the other senator from Kentucky that I find it amusing to gauge his reaction to this proposal.

a reply to: machineintelligence

There is no such thing as "international martial law"... which makes me doubt the entire story.

I understand that what this Senator Murphy calls a "sweeping transfer of military power to the president" would pose a domestic problem for the United States, ... if true.

The part where he claims it would allow the President of the United States "to send US troops almost anywhere in the world, for almost any reason, with absolutely no limitations" would be nothing short of outright imperialism of course. IF true.

But we can't take everything at its face value coming out of crazy-land nowadays... so let's see what part of this resolution actually comes true.

International, or western international?

France, after their, by the US press called, "European 9/11":
Martial Law was declared for 12 Days.
After those 12 days it was extended to 3 months.
Now they declare it for the next 3 months, and constitutional amendment is intended.
France, as one of the most important partners of the US(as the US says) in europe, wants to change martial law into "normality", by laws.
That means possible curfews, home raids without judicial resolution, house arrests for citizens whose "activities are a threat for security or the public order", ban on gatherings and concert halls and cinemas can be closed down. At every time. Those laws are "for"/against every french citizen!

Btw, Hitlers, the Nazi´s power based on martial law, called Notstandsverordnung...

Watching mass media news right now in germany, and now i am a bit afraid too, that something they will call "IS-Terrorism" will happen the next time in europe, something bigger.
Why?
On monday, yesterday they opened a new anti terror center in europe(Europol). Since the very first second of the opening mass media here in germany is flooded with warnings of possible big "IS" terror attacks. That the "IS" has cells which operate like special forces, trained in "IS-land", send back to europe. The old story. Again and again.
Look, when a new store opens, what has it to do to get customers?
P R O M O T I O N!
So, when a new anti-terror-center is found, what would be the reason for it if there would be not a big, a huge terror threat?
We mustn´t forget that every single "IS" terrorist that started terror attacks in europe was well known by the so called "security agencies". Nevertheless they could travel with forged documents under more than 10 different names through whole europe, the whole time since "security agencies" knew about them. Coincidence?
In my eyes the "security agencies" radicalize low minded people, so that they can bust them at a later time, or let those lunatics do terror attacks. So that after this harsher laws can be declared, more mass surveillance, more police and secret service powers, and at the end a martial law that will become normality, like in france.

It is a so called conspiracy theory that all those "security interventions" are only for the security of the rich, the wealthy, their puppets and their armies like police, secret services and what else. Against the normal citizens, the mob.
The upperclass knows that is has overdone it, and fears the revenge of the people now.
And those wimps are so cowardly that they would use every bad move to save their own asses, as we know from history!

Thats the reason why i am concerned that a terror attack will happen the next time in europe, everything smells like it.
Those terror attacks will be declared as "IS" terror attacks, but i bet in shortest of all times we will learn again that "security agencies" knew all of the attackers for years. And more surveillance will be installed, more harsher laws for all citizens declared, more freedom will be taken away from the people, for the security of the rich and powerfull.

a reply to: DerBeobachter
Great post.
I think Europe just got it's own 'unwritten' international version of the Patriot Act with the attacks in Paris. I don't know what to make of this one, but here in the US, anything that grants "sweeping transfer of military power to the president" is pretty significant and probably a real threat to the sovereignty of... well whomever we say really huh?

I don't get it what is the difference between international martial law and veto pen and sanctions

originally posted by: Layaly
I don't get it what is the difference between international martial law and veto pen and sanctions

I think that ' international martial law' is a bit of a hyperbole, but not by much. Not sure I understand what you're asking though.

Chris Christie would like to care....

but he is too hungry.....those crusty cream donuts are too distracting.....

he'll get back to you after morning tea.......lunch.....afternoon tea....

f@#$ it....he will get back to you tomorrow.....

A new AUMF is essentially being proposed to redefine the war strategy. From my understanding, taking things at face value, the main opposition to a newly drafted AUMF is an unclear war strategy by the Obama administration. I also recall issues from Republicans for duration and ground troop strength that had been proposed.

ISIS was not responsible for 9/11, nor was ISIS part of the goal of regime change that pushed us into Iraq in 2003. It is a different enemy with different capabilities and areas of operation than what the original AUMF was designed for.

Reading the tea leaves a bit further. We may be seeing the executive attempting to get outright authorization from the legislative branch for full contact operations inside of Syria if need be, which as of yet, has been a bit shaky. Remember the whole red line and 2013 chemical attack fiasco? This, at least to me, appears to be a continuation of that initiative. There are some people who are intent on removing Assad from power one way or another.

“What I find kind of iron­ic about this is the pres­id­ent ap­par­ently thinks he has all the au­thor­ity he needs to do what he’s do­ing,” he ad­ded. “But I’m not afraid of the de­bate, I think it’s an im­port­ant de­bate to have, and cer­tainly the people we send in harm’s way need to know that the coun­try is be­hind them. So, thanks for telling me.” Sen­ate Ma­jor­ity Whip John Cornyn

Interesting quote out of the discussion just put here for thought.

originally posted by: Skid Mark
a reply to: machineintelligence
Here's more on that from Boadicea. I think it's about the same thing.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

LOL! Apparently "unlimited war powers" isn't as enticing as "international martial law!" Oh well. It's all good as long as the information gets out to the public.

originally posted by: Timely
a reply to: machineintelligence

Does the US govt. really believe they have the right to go anywhere in the world, throwing their military weight around !!
Talk about team america world police !

I find this particulary offensive.
I am sure many others across the globe would feel the same ...

Very poor form.

My thoughts too.

In addition...the US military has NO legal, moral or any other kind of right to march across the world and impose martial law anywhere outside of the Continental US and it's provinces and protectorates.

It's even dubious whether it would be legal within the US itself actually, never mind anywhere else.

I don't see European countries sitting down for any of it, even if their puppet governments would.

And frankly, the US military cannot / will not (whichever is the case) subdue a bunch of violent religious nuts in the desert, so quite how they think they could take on the world and subdue it without the combined military forces of the entire world eradicating the US military in fairly short order is quite beyond me.

a reply to: Boadicea
I remembered seeing your thread earlier and that it had more information than what was in the video. I hope you didn't mind my posting.

originally posted by: Skid Mark
a reply to: Boadicea
I remembered seeing your thread earlier and that it had more information than what was in the video. I hope you didn't mind my posting.

The purpose of the video in the OP is not to inform, it is to frighten.

originally posted by: Skid Mark
a reply to: Boadicea
I remembered seeing your thread earlier and that it had more information than what was in the video. I hope you didn't mind my posting.

I don't mind at all. My thread focused more on the shady way McConnell is pushing it through... this thread focuses more on the potential results. It's all important to know and think about and discuss!