Thats it! We are so had. Bush has sole authority to impose Martial Law

I have to agree with Johnsky on this, the military will be told it's their job to protect us from ourselves, their going to be told if they don't keep us all under control anarchy will destroy us, by allowing the takeover of our government. A few really smart ones might see what is happening but most of them will think their protecting us all from a foreign takeover by keeping us in line. Hasn't there been some miner's stries before where the military was called out to keep order? Look what's happening in New Orleans.

Great Bush has power to impose martial law Well if he does come to Canada if you can. It's pretty safe here.

I have been trying to get my family to move to Canada, but my kids are grown with familes of their own and they don't want to move. Plus apparently its not that easy to do, you have to petition the gov. there to allow you to come there and work, its a bit more difficult than it used to be.

I used to wonder why more Jews did not leave when they saw what was bound to happen. But now I understand, its a lot of red tape along with not being able to convince others you love to come too.

Tell me if you were in my shoes, with a lower middle income wage (job description, machinist,welder,fitter) prefering rural living, zone 6 climate, where would my best options be to live in Canada?

I am in total agreement with Loam. No one person should EVER have the power to do all those things the executive orders say they can do, and ESPECIALLY not in a time of extreme emergency, such as if another, bigger "terrorist" act occurs. My vote would be to eliminate these kinds of executive orders all together. But I don't suppose that's quite up for vote, now is it.

So let's say "they" hit LA, NY, and DC simultaneously, and the country flies into an uproar. At that point would you want ONE man declaring martial law and making most of the decisions, or would you want carefully calculated decisions from the Congress and other advisors as to how to proceed? I'll take the latter, thank you very much. Just as in the Dubai port deal, I gotta say, Congress's unwaivering resolve on the issue brings me back just a wee bit of hope in what I had previously written off as a total loss.

Tonight I heard on the Michael Savage show (Savage Nation), him interviewing a congressman and they were discussing the Dubai port deal. The congressman cited an example of why this is bad news, claiming that Dubai has previously let Nuclear triggers and Heavy Water components be shipped through their ports from China and somewhere else to India, despite stern warnings from our administration, saying "they didn't care." He went on to say that as owners of a port, you have access to the Manifests, and those can be used easily to define strong and weak points in security, among other things. He even went on to comment on General John Abizgaid's (spelling?) poor research on the matter. Did any of you catch this show? Even Savage himself was surprised as hell, saying that this is the first he's heard of it.

A mere attempt to move this country into a proclaimed Martial Law status would do more harm to the country than any terrorist attack could ever do. You wanna bust this place wide open at the seams, yeah go ahead, proclaim martial law. Martial Law in America! LOL. THINK about that. Would certainly be a time for the military to revisit the core papers on which this country was founded. I might also point out that the military have families, too. You think all of our troops would obey orders to incarcerate or even shoot and kill members of their own families if necessary? Something tells me that for every one that might, there'll be 100 that'll kill him first.

Nuh uh. No dice. I'd have a real hard time believing any great number of our military would go for the spew of lies and propaganda that would be needed from the administration to incite such action. And especially after so many have been lied to, abandoned, and sucked back into a war they had no real convincing evidence of to be dying for to begin with. Remember, for every damn reason they came up with to attack Afghanistan and Iraq, there were far better ones to attack North Korea, China, Russia, or Iran. Where was the real threat? WHERE, dammit. Where IS STILL the real threat today? Iraq has nukes pointed at us? No. Have they ever? No.

And yet, despite my views on Martial Law, it would take someone just like Bush to try and make such a stupid move, thinking he might get away with it.

Esdad you want three reasons?

1) Advanced progression of PNAC and the NWO.

2) Control over a population that would dare question and derail the international banking stranglehold of which every President since Eisenhower or before has played a part. Take a long hard look at this:
Part 1: video.google.com...
Part 2: video.google.com...
Part 3: video.google.com...

3) The ability to incarcerate, and even kill those that seek to oppose him or his agenda, unhindered by any further law.

Since the reasons BH gave you weren't good enough, and since I suppose mine won't be either, when the next big event happens and the government covers it up, lies about what occured, destroys the evidence, and then wages war against the supposed perpetrators, I sincerely hope you will try then again to stand in good conscience. Except this time around, you will likely stand atop your newly acquired highrise, or in one of the special underground bunkers, if you should be so lucky. With your conscience. And the New World Order. Hey, it's all good, right?

Here's an example of a disinformation campaign:

Notice the quote in the very first post in this thread. It talks about George Bush and "Marshall Law" and an executive order.

If you were to read this, the first thing that comes to mind is that the author of this quote is an idiot. He doesn't know how to spell "martial law" for one thing. But here's the interesting part:

Go to the Capital Hill Blue web page and read the actual post that's "quoted in "goose"'s thread-starter. Notice that not only is "Martial Law" spelled correctly, but the grammar is correct and the article takes on a completely different tone. If you look up the page in Google Cache, you'll find that the original story was nothing like goose's "quote". Why was it changed?

Doug Thompson, the publisher of Capital Hill Blue, is a skilled writer. His articles, and his entire magazine, are clear, thorough, and persuasive. Why would someone quote one of Mr. Thompson's commentaries, changing spelling and grammar to make it sound like it was written by a moron?

I checked through the article and the "quote". It would have taken a fair amount of time to make the changes that appear. Did "goose" make these changes or did he get an email with the quote from the real source of the disinfo.

This is the way the Right plays the game. Take an incisive article that shows the dangers of the Bush presidency and change it to make the author appear foolish. Paint a decorated war hero like John Murtha as a coward and traitor. Say that George Bush is a brave patriot because he wears a flight jacket and talks tough. This is the way it's done.

what goes around comes around

in 98 and 99 - we had various nut jobs screaming that clinton was about to " declare martial / marshall law " etc etc - we were going to NEVER get rid of him - yada yada

and what hapened ?????????????

what scares me the most - is i suspect that the loons screaming against bush - are the exact same baying pack - that told us all that clinton was going to become a dictator for life

Originally posted by vuoto
Here's an example of a disinformation campaign:

Notice the quote in the very first post in this thread. It talks about George Bush and "Marshall Law" and an executive order.

If you were to read this, the first thing that comes to mind is that the author of this quote is an idiot. He doesn't know how to spell "martial law" for one thing. But here's the interesting part:

Go to the Capital Hill Blue web page and read the actual post that's "quoted in "goose"'s thread-starter. Notice that not only is "Martial Law" spelled correctly, but the grammar is correct and the article takes on a completely different tone. If you look up the page in Google Cache, you'll find that the original story was nothing like goose's "quote". Why was it changed?

Doug Thompson, the publisher of Capital Hill Blue, is a skilled writer. His articles, and his entire magazine, are clear, thorough, and persuasive. Why would someone quote one of Mr. Thompson's commentaries, changing spelling and grammar to make it sound like it was written by a moron?

I checked through the article and the "quote". It would have taken a fair amount of time to make the changes that appear. Did "goose" make these changes or did he get an email with the quote from the real source of the disinfo.

This is the way the Right plays the game. Take an incisive article that shows the dangers of the Bush presidency and change it to make the author appear foolish. Paint a decorated war hero like John Murtha as a coward and traitor. Say that George Bush is a brave patriot because he wears a flight jacket and talks tough. This is the way it's done.

Oh my, my, you might be onto something except when I copied it from the website it was indeed, written exactly like that, and they later corrected it. I also know how to spell, but since it was spelled like that, I assumed maybe the original writer of this law might have been named Marshall and they had done their research back that far. I also assumed maybe people actually had been mispelling it by filling in with the word that sounded the same and had the correct meaning. What I quoted was not changed in any way, that is exactly how it appeared on the webpage then.

I assumed that I had to be wrong and that Thompson was correct. Which is exactly what I said when someone pointed out my spelling mistake on the first page of this thread, note that I mention the value of the article was far more important than any spelling mistake.

If you had bothered researching and reading any of my other posts here, before making this absurd suggestion that I am some sort of disinformation agent, you might have noticed I have nothing but disgust for the majority of The Bush Administration's actions and have stated that here many times.

Sorry about the spelling I usually do spell it the correct way but since that was the way it was in the article I assumed I was wrong, but still its not that bigger deal unless you want to dismiss the whole article due to some bad spelling.[quote/]




edited by goose to fix quotes

[edit on 10-3-2006 by goose]

TrueAmerican, many, many thanks for those The Money Masters links. This was mindblowing, to put it mildly. If there ever was a worldwide conspiracy, this is it. Every person of conscience needs to see it, and spread the word wide and far.

[edit: spelling ]

[edit on 11-3-2006 by Lumos]

Originally posted by Lumos
TrueAmerican, many, many thanks for those The Money Masters links. This was mindblowing, to put it mildly. If there ever was a worldwide conspiracy, this is it. Every person of conscience needs to see it, and spread the word wide and far.

Quite welcome, Lumos. I couldn't agree more- those are some incredible videos, and I think every citizen of this country and others should see them.

Esdad wanted 3 reasons why Bush would want martial law- heh, watch these videos and you'll understand why this age-old conspiracy alone would be a reason. Also, what about the issue of the cancelling of elections and him remaining in power indefinately? That been mentioned?

Marshall Law Blues

For those interested in what the Congressional Research Service has to say on the subject, I recommend the following report:

Martial Law and National Emergency (pdf)

The CRS does a nice job of summarizing the issue and provides some examples of the history of martial law and military law enforcement in the U.S.

While I think it's healthy to have a certain degree of "paranoia" on this issue, I also think it's a good idea to maintain an informed perspective as well.

It is the duty of myself and other Americans to keep an eye on what our government does.

To do so effectively requires understanding the legal context in which the government operates, and avoiding unnecessary alarmism, which ultimately serves to conceal more misconduct than it uncovers.

Yeah, thanks for that reminder, Majic- and usually, that kind of information would settle me down a bit. But that information applies more when we have a rational, sane, non-alcolholic, critical thinking, carefully calculating, non-threatening, non-warmongering, coherent President, does it not?

From your linked article, Majic:

"Relevant Authority
In fulfilling constitutional responsibilities to put down insurrection, rebellion, or invasion, the President may resort to invoking martial law. His action, in this regard, is subject to judicial review."

I'd be curious to know which court would preside over such a review in that context. Because if it's the Supreme Court then, ahh.....You see where I'm going with this?

U.S. Martial

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
I'd be curious to know which court would preside over such a review in that context. Because if it's the Supreme Court then, ahh.....You see where I'm going with this?

Perhaps a court-martial if we're under martial law.

I understand the concern, but I think it's important to remember that the President can't impose martial law without the cooperation of the military, and all members of the military are sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution, not martial law.

The key to not freaking out over the prospect is bearing in mind that in practice, gaining the support of the four branches of the U.S. military for a martial law regime is not as easy as it sounds, and attempting to run the United States as a military dictatorship far more ruinous a prospect than most. The effect on the economy alone would be disastrous, and rapidly dissolve the power a would-be tyrant would covet.

If it were truly so easy for the military to take over the U.S., we probably wouldn't be having this discussion at all, because there have been many and far better opportunities for doing so in times past. Not that this precludes the possibility of it happening in the future, but keeping a balanced perspective on the issue is important.

We as citizens should be ever vigilant to threats against our republic, but realistic about them as well.

It may have already been said, but it was FDR who originally signed those executive orders.
Just thought I'd give a historical perspective. All politicians are evil: sacred cow liberals too, not just conservatives.

The fact that nothing stands in the way of Bush and his coming power trip is enough to send chills down by my spine, but there's something else...

Some of you said thins like "Bush would never do that" "Bush is a nice guy", etc. However, looking back at his administration, I grow more and more terrified. On several occasions, Bush and his minions John Ashcroft and Alberto Gonzalez have said that Bush is "above the law". Bush comes flat out and basically says "I'm allowed to torture, I'm above the law. I'm allowed to sign bills that haven't passed ($2 billion spending bill he signed in March that didn't pass the House). I'm allowed to have no-bid contracts. I'm allowed to do whatever I want because I'm the President!"

That scares the hell out of me! Look back at history! What happened in Germany? In 1933, the Reichstag burned to the ground. Hitler said the Communists did it (even though his Stasi and Waffen SS did it), he signed bills that gave the government vast more power (comparable to PATRIOT Act 1 and 2), and he told his citizens that he would protect them if they gave up their rights.

Hmm. Who does that sound like? Right now, America is right in line with 1936 Germany.

[edit on 11-6-2006 by thunderstruck521]

You mean, that it has not dawned on people here yet, that he is the Antichrist?
A deceiver, which the populace will accept?
All of it comes together.
I've known this for close to 4 years now.
No one will listen.
I hope no-one thinks I'm joking because I'm not. I'm serious.
And trust me, I'm a very sensible person, and am not a lunatic.
Look around. It all adds up, and has been for some time.
I'm not trying to convince anyone either, or say this for fun and games.
It's right in front of anyone who wants to look at the facts.
It's up to other people to do their own research, and ask themselves if the things going on are "normal".
Anyway, there is no need in me going any further.
There is just not much need in getting too far into it, if people can't see what is right in front of them.

[edit on 11-6-2006 by hessiantrooper]

Originally posted by ignorant_ape
what goes around comes around

in 98 and 99 - we had various nut jobs screaming that clinton was about to " declare martial / marshall law " etc etc - we were going to NEVER get rid of him - yada yada

and what hapened ?????????????

what scares me the most - is i suspect that the loons screaming against bush - are the exact same baying pack - that told us all that clinton was going to become a dictator for life

LMAO.... you at least have to admire the consistency.

But unlike Clinton; Bush has actually set up ways of pulling it off that clinton (to the best of my knowledge had not attempted) I mean really, 750 signing statements? Thats twice the amount of ALL presidents combined. Im not saying he is the next Adolf Hitler or anything; but, he is treading dangerously close to fascism(IMHO) You need look no farther than the front page of our esteemed ATS homepage to see some of the overt steps in that direction(The U.S. Police State Is Here.) And While Ive not been much of a fan of ANY administraion for about....well....Washington; I see this one to be about the worst of all. We have the worlds highest incarceration rate(1.7 million) and it seems to be getting worse; not better.