Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

This Martial Law thing.

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 11 2005 @ 11:33 PM
link   
First, Seeing as under Martial Law the Contitution does not exist, therefore civilians have no civil rights, Can the governent even be held acountable, now for the deaths as a result of there ignorance?

If not it seems like a perfect reason they would put NO under martial law, Why could they have not sent national guard down there to help the people like they do in other disasters, And not declared martial law? Why arent there varying degrees of martial law, preferably one that still gives the citizens of this country the contitutional rights our founding fathers faught and died for.

They claim the people who stay will starve and get disease and such, and die, As if they care, And go house to house pointing guns in peoples faces, essentialy threatening to kill them, These people are victims..

The only options they get are, Leave, like the goverment wants Stay and die of starvation/disease ect, Or stay and be shot by the people sworn to protect them..

Good job kicking these people while they are down..




Also, as most of you know im a big supporter of our military, but i ask our military this, How can you, participate in this BS, It goes agaisnt the vary oath you swore to protect,

I, {insert name here}, do solemnly swear, or affirm, that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.



[edit on 11-9-2005 by C0le]




posted on Sep, 11 2005 @ 11:39 PM
link   
I took that oath a few times myself. I always felt that we would never fire on our own again. Especially after the Kent State fiasco. It makes me very sad to see this happening again. I'm supposed to be proud to be a vet!



posted on Sep, 11 2005 @ 11:53 PM
link   
I can understand using the national guard as security (which is what's going on) I don't think active duty forces are being used for this now. But the nat' guard should not be used as law enforcement which means not going door to door doing what the police and others should be doing.

And to be honest with you, as a Marine, If I were ask/told to go door and use force and or weapons to get people out....I would drop my pack and call it a day. That is something I could never do, unless like WW3 breaks out and the US is in the mix of it all...but that's another story.

sporty

[edit on 12/9/2005 by SportyMB]



posted on Sep, 12 2005 @ 12:15 AM
link   
And might I remind everyone that gun-grabbing is unconstitutional and therefore illegal.

If you took an oath to uphold the Constitution, stick with it come what might.



posted on Sep, 12 2005 @ 12:24 AM
link   
COle,

You are a true patriot and right to the point on this issue. It is great to see a military man call service in the US Military like it is - not something you practice on your own citizens in any way, shape, or form. I just stopped thinking you might be a heartless s-o-b.


Its only half funny, SportyMB, but I almost feel like I need the Marines to protect me from all the different domestic 'security officers' out there these days. Come to think of it, it isn't funny at all. Semper Fi!



posted on Sep, 12 2005 @ 12:37 AM
link   
First Martial Law was NOT declared.

2nd the general in charge has said that removal of citizens against their will is not the military's job and they will NOT be doing it.

As a side note, this general in charge reminds me of the many coon-ass's that I have known over the years. No nonsense straight forward type folks. I Like him, and even more so BECAUSE he is black. He knows the people and the area and is one of their own. I do believe that he will not allow any bull crap on his watch, so rest easy c0le and don't let these rumours get you down.


( As a side note, the term here used as coon ass is NOT a derogatory term. I am so allowed to use it because I am from that part of the country. I was BORN south of I-10 and they think anyone north of I-10 is a Yankee. These are such wonderful people and they say this as a joke although it took me a while to recognize it. Hint: Don't call them a coon ass if you are from California or New Jersey.)



posted on Sep, 12 2005 @ 12:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by edsinger
First Martial Law was NOT declared.


Erm, every source i can find says it is under martial law.. whats up with this....


2nd the general in charge has said that removal of citizens against their will is not the military's job and they will NOT be doing it.

As a side note, this general in charge reminds me of the many coon-ass's that I have known over the years. No nonsense straight forward type folks. I Like him, and even more so BECAUSE he is black. He knows the people and the area and is one of their own. I do believe that he will not allow any bull crap on his watch, so rest easy c0le and don't let these rumours get you down.


I do hope your right...



posted on Sep, 12 2005 @ 12:46 AM
link   
I think it's very sad to see our own government confiscating legally owned weapons and forcing people out of their own homes. It's accepted by officials before a storm hits that up to 60,000 people will die if a category 3 or higher storm hits. However if those people don't die and refuse to go, then we have to declare martial law and force them out for their own safety. I think this is a sad time for America. Why hasn't anyone ever heard of condemning property if it has been flooded and give these people time to leave? Of course if the property wasn't flooded, then the city is just doing land grabs. I do not even like thinking what sort of precedent this might be setting up for the rest of the US.

Edited note: While I do not know for sure if martial law has been declared, I did see on the news where a woman was forced out of her house by the authorities. Beating up old ladies on the news for her own safety probably does not look good on the evening news. Media restrictions probably will come soon if this continues.

[edit on 12-9-2005 by orionthehunter]



posted on Sep, 12 2005 @ 12:55 AM
link   
Double post





[edit on 9/12/2005 by eaglewingz]



posted on Sep, 12 2005 @ 12:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by C0le
Erm, every source i can find says it is under martial law..


And those sources would be which ones, please? The sources I find all say that the "martial law" declarations are rumor and mis-statements. In fact, this article says for all intents and purposes, it can't be declared.


In practice, however, martial law has been all but barred since the late 19th century.

The Katrina relief effort includes military assistance, but it is not martial law. National Guard units are acting under the direction of governors, and federal troops are providing humanitarian relief. Neither of these violates Posse Comitatus. While martial law has not been imposed, a state of emergency has been declared in Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida, signaling that some civil liberties, such as the right to congregate, may be limited because of extreme conditions.


P.S. The early articles said that the mayor declared "martial law." That's not within his powers.






[edit on 9/12/2005 by eaglewingz]



posted on Sep, 12 2005 @ 01:01 AM
link   
Hmm... Why does the media still report this crap, are they TRYING to stir up trouble...



posted on Sep, 12 2005 @ 01:05 AM
link   
Look at the run on gasoline all around the country. Started, in large part, by the media. It's not news to say "there's plenty of gas on the way" , or "law enforcement has to take a few extra measures to ensure citizens' safety."

Plus, the media is in such a rush to get the "scoop", they don't bother to check facts any more, it seems.



posted on Sep, 12 2005 @ 05:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by eaglewingz
P.S. The early articles said that the mayor declared "martial law." That's not within his powers.

Would someone please explain to me how a CITY Mayor, or a STATE Governor, can suspend the Constitution of The United States of America?

Sorry, I'm not buyin' that.

Unless I'm mistaken, ONLY the President of the USA can declare Martial Law.

Now, what is scarier than "Martial Law" being invoked, is "Martial Law" NOT being invoked, but, everyone -- EVERYONE -- up to and INCLUDING all branches of the FEDERAL government "going along with the gag" and PRETENDING that it's been invoked.



posted on Sep, 12 2005 @ 07:02 AM
link   
In fact it doesn't really matter what the media is saying about martial law being invoked in the south, the fact of the matter is the federal government is in control & that IS martial law.
When Coast Guard Vice Admiral Thad Allen replaced Michael Brown that put the whole area under martial law.

Martial law
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Martial Law is the system of rules that takes effect (usually after a formal declaration) when a military authority takes control of the normal administration of justice.

Martial law is instituted most often when it becomes necessary to favor the activity of military authorities and organizations, usually for urgent unforeseen needs, and when the normal institutions of justice either cannot function or could be deemed too slow or too weak for the new situation; e.g., due to war, major natural disaster, civil disorder, in occupied territory, or after a coup d'état. The need to preserve the public order during an emergency is the essential goal of martial law. However, declaration of martial law is also sometimes used by dictatorships, especially military dictatorships, to enforce their rule.

Usually martial law reduces some of the personal rights ordinarily granted to the citizen, limits the length of the trial processes, and prescribes more severe penalties than ordinary law. In many countries martial law prescribes the death penalty for certain crimes, even if ordinary law doesn't contain that crime or punishment in its system.

In many countries martial law imposes particular rules, one of which is curfew. Often, under this system, the administration of justice is left to military tribunals, called courts-martial. The suspension of the writ of habeas corpus is likely to occur.
en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Sep, 12 2005 @ 07:25 AM
link   
That's right, it doesn't matter what you call it, the fact of the matter is the federal government has put a military officer in charge of the situation. The 'duck' test applies (looks, walks, quacks, yep, its a duck!).

That is the thing that has bothered me about this administration all along, and our federal government in general for a long time. They are so good at using these benign labels for things that are really just smoke and mirrors designed to keep the wool pulled over the eyes of the sheeple.

This technique permeates their operations from top to bottom, side to side, and front to back. It makes me very suspicious, if not paranoid, and rightly so. I read Orwell's 1984 back in 1981, you know. Then Reagan came out with the MX missile program, calling the most destructive device ever created by man the 'Peacemaker', and I went, Uh Oh! Doublespeak? You betcha!



posted on Sep, 12 2005 @ 07:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Watchman77
In fact it doesn't really matter what the media is saying about martial law being invoked in the south, the fact of the matter is the federal government is in control & that IS martial law.
When Coast Guard Vice Admiral Thad Allen replaced Michael Brown that put the whole area under martial law.

But, not LEGALLY, as I understand it.

It's very telling that they picked a guy from that particular branch -- the Coast Guard is the ONLY military entity that is NOT subject to the Posse Comitatus Act, and therefore CAN -- LEGALLY -- engage in civilian law enforcement activities WITHOUT needing a declaration of martial law.

If they'd picked a Navy Admiral, or Army General, etc., then they'd have a bit of an awkward situation on their hands, UNLESS the President issued an ACTUAL declaration of martial law.

But by punting via the Coast Guard assignment, they skirt the issue.

For some reason, the feds seem unwilling to invoke martial law.

But, by the same token, they ALSO seem MORE than willing to PRETEND that it's in effect.

SOMEONE has decided to put the entire system on a tightrope -- and I don't know *where* that tightrope is headed.

Very scary if you consider the implications, IMO.



posted on Sep, 12 2005 @ 07:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by darkelf
I'm supposed to be proud to be a vet!


To darkelf and others who have served: I just want to say that whatever is going on in NOLA, you guys have every right to remain proud of your service to this country. This has nothing to do with you. This is a whole new animal and is no reflection on your fine service to this country. I appreciate your service and I am proud of you!




posted on Sep, 12 2005 @ 08:24 AM
link   
I would venture to say NOLA is under de facto martial law.

The military should not be doing the work of the local law enforcement. That's a violation of the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878.



posted on Sep, 13 2005 @ 01:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Amethyst
I would venture to say NOLA is under de facto martial law.

The military should not be doing the work of the local law enforcement. That's a violation of the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878.


Well the local Government is INCAPABLE of doing ANY law enforcement of this magnitude......



posted on Sep, 13 2005 @ 02:23 AM
link   
I saw on the news with my own eyes US soldiers entering homes with their M4's raised, sweeping through confiscating weapons and handcuffing the home owners.

I even started a thread about it.





new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join