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.

 

Dictator Bush. Is It Really Possible?

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 5 2007 @ 08:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by pepsi78
Since martial law is legal, and since martial law can top the constitution and put it on wait, I don't see why it's not possible.


Um, no.

The constitution is the supreme law of the land and there are no provisions for its suspension. Martial law cannot trump the constitution, only violate it. That is of course the nature of all laws- the statue of justice can't come to life and strike down those who violate the law, so obviously the balance of forces will decide any question where the law is forcibly violated, but do not be taken into believing that the constitution can ever be suspended for any reason.

When it comes down to that, executive orders and any other instruments short of constitutional amendment only amount to some politician asking the military to do his bidding against their neighbors.

And will they? In most cases, certainly not. Militaries which enforce dictatorships generally follow a certain structure which is absent from our military. This structure is characterized by a strong separation of the several forces and rigid lines of communication which isolate officers from potential supporters in a decision to disobey, the emasculation of the majority of the military, and the formation of a small elite guard which acts both as an enforcer upon the rest of the military and the tip of the spear, usually staffed by carefully selected loyalist officers. Above all, a separation of the military from the civilian population is important to a dictatorial military. The enforcers should not comingle with the civilians, should have a higher standard of living, and should not be stationed in the region that they are from, so that they will not sympathize with the public or be subject to influences from outside of their chain of command.

Do you really believe that if Bush sent down orders for the military to violate our constitutional rights, by confiscating weapons, by providing muscle for the shutdown of news media, etc, that it would happen?

Would the Joint Chiefs get behind the idea? And if they did, would the division and brigade commanders, and their batallion commanders behind them? If they did, would every company commander obey, and would he be able to control his men?

Suppose that Bush calls off the election, and California calls up its national guard and announces that it's opening the polls and dares anyone to stop them. So Bush orders the 1st Marine Division to move on Sacramento. What does the general do? Does he attack the California National Guard in an attempt to stop ballots from being cast? I'll bet dollars to pesos against it. More likely than anything he goes cold mic and does his best to keep his men from defecting to fight, in hopes that he'll still have an intact division if he does have to take action against Washington.

If he doesn't, he finds his regiment commanders either lining up against him or completely unable to control their subordinates, with the weakest officers sitting on their hands, some simply releasing their men and the strongest ones moving them off base and defecting. What loyalists he does have under his command will be having a hell of a time controlling their men. If I had to guess, I'd say a loyalist unit in a dictator's auto-coup would be considered AMAZING if it came in at 60% strength in any timely fashion.

Our military simply doesn't have the mechanisms of fear and isolation that it takes to be wieldy to a would-be dictator.




posted on Feb, 6 2007 @ 01:32 AM
link   


Um, no.
The constitution is the supreme law of the land and there are no provisions for its suspension. Martial law cannot trump the constitution, only violate it.

They can do what ever the want under martial law, do you really think they would go by the book once martial law is in place.
Since they can trash the constitution as the please and break the laws in it I don't see what the difrence of it is.
Comunist states also had a costitution but it didint seem to matter.
That is martial law, it's a "law" that takes over all the laws and if martial law says you can't get out of the house, or that if you say something wrong difined by who ever in charge then you go to jail.



That is of course the nature of all laws- the statue of justice can't come to life and strike down those who violate the law

Yes , only if martial law is not in place.


so obviously the balance of forces will decide any question where the law is forcibly violated, but do not be taken into believing that the constitution can ever be suspended for any reason.

Not suspended, just not effective any more, or not used because of martial law.
Martial law really takes over the costitution while in place.



And will they? In most cases, certainly not. Militaries which enforce dictatorships generally follow a certain structure which is absent from our military.

Don't bet on it, there is alot of power and influence in the white house, even the supreme cort rules in favor of the president, even if it's moraly wrong, it's not the first time.
As for the military, there is only one commander and chief, that would be bush, commander and decider, he sound just like castro to me, commander and chief.



Our military simply doesn't have the mechanisms of fear and isolation that it takes to be wieldy to a would-be dictator.

And how are you sure about this?
Do you really know how things spin at the top?
Did germany have it? they thought they were doing the right thing.
This is not the first time a war is started by united states for intrest, United States heleped impower dictators them selfs in other parts of this world, and the soldiers folowed orders.
United States helped protect the saudi lords that denny basic human rights to women, and the soldiers folowed orders.
The United States helped war lords in somalia stay in power, remember the war in somalia, every one folowed orders.
Soldiers will folow orders out of fear, or they will folow orders because they think what they are doing is right, but of course not every thing is right all the time.
I don't think the curent war in iraq is right, and many think the same, but the soldiers keep on going, they just folow orders because they think it's right.
The transition from a democratic leader to a dictator is not long, it could be short, you can have demcracy just like in north corea, they say they are democratic, they even have a costitution, cuba has one too

Do you think the constitution will stop those fellows to do as they want?
This is how it is, it started with all the countrys that went from a democratic sistem to dictator ship.
First step is when every one thinks they are doing the right thing.
Then sllowly it turns in to fear, and every one wakes up in fear that phone lines are taped or fear to speak on the street, soldiers also have this emotion of fear of not folowing orders, but first every one soldiers included think they are doing the right thing.
So they must declare martial law because it's the right thing, first they folow the martial law because they tink it's the right thing then from it it turns in to fear.
It's not really hard to do that.
The first step is hard, making people think it is the right way, the rest is easy.


[edit on 6-2-2007 by pepsi78]



posted on Feb, 6 2007 @ 07:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by pepsi78
They can do what ever the want under martial law, do you really think they would go by the book once martial law is in place.


That is precisely the question my previous post was intended to answer. Let me outline it a little more specifically for the sake of clarity though.

Major premise: American citizens (including the militiary) will insist on lawful rule.

Minor premise: Martial law is not lawful.

Conclusion: American citizens (including the military) will not cooperate with the imposition of martial law.

The fact (which I concede) that the law is not self-enforcing, and thus becomes null when a gun is pointed at you, is irrelevant if you accept the premise that the men with the guns will insist on lawful rule.

Martial law means military law. It is not what happens when a politician makes a decree, but what happens when a military follows that decree. How is an American president to cause over a million armed patriots to follow a decree that runs contrary to everything they have pledged their lives to defending?


Comunist states also had a costitution but it didint seem to matter.

It is easy to take away what somebody never had. It is one thing for Russians to replace a Czar or Chinese to replace an emperor with a totalitarian bureaucracy, and even more so for the Koreans to trade a Japanese general for that, but it is quite another thing entirely to unseat over 200 years of liberal democracy.

There is only one way to get the genie back in the bottle in America, and it is not by force; you hang a sign on the bottle that says "free beer and TV inside". It is as it has often been speculated: When America falls, there won't be a shot fired.


More to follow. I have to discontinue for now.



posted on Feb, 6 2007 @ 09:06 PM
link   
Im back.




Our military simply doesn't have the mechanisms of fear and isolation that it takes to be wieldy to a would-be dictator.

And how are you sure about this?


I was in the United States Marine Corps. They can't hide the mechanisms by which they would isolate our troops from the civilian population up at the top where a private wouldn't know about it, because the private is the one you have to isolate- if the private sympathizes with the cause of liberty he won't shoot people to defeat that cause, and "the way things spin at the top" is irrelevant.

The USMC didn't keep me away from civilians, didn't go out of its way to separate me from home or family (for a time I went home every weekend because it was only a 2 hour drive from Pendleton), didn't inhibit or closely monitor my communication, and didn't restrict my access to information.

Generally speaking, if a government is up to no good, they won't want you getting outside news, won't want you to stay integrated with the general public on any level, and will display extreme distrust towards you. I saw none of those indicators.


Did germany have it?

Yes, they did. First the Nazis created the sturmabteilung (SA) to protect senior leaders. They came to see themselves as the true German Army and conflicted greatly with non-nazified government organizations. Distrust kicked in though, because SA troops did not swear their ultimate aleigance to Hitler himself, but rather to their commanders, so the SA was replaced with the schutzstaffel (SS). This originally small force was constantly expanded to consolidate Nazi control over various organizations, particularly the army, where the SS was essentially an army within an army, complete with its own intelligence service.

You don't see that in America. Our armed forces are those of the government, are not overseen by some separate entity of different selection or allegience.


This is not the first time a war is started by united states for intrest, United States heleped impower dictators them selfs in other parts of this world, and the soldiers folowed orders.

False analogy. The situations are different because of the level of information and understanding available to soldiers in those situations. American soldiers, generally speaking, didn't have ties to the population of Vietnam, didn't have an objective source of information on what things were like on the enemy side, etc.

Do you really believe that American troops would be unable to tell right from wrong in a situation where they know and can communicate with the victims, have a personal stake in the victim's plight, etc etc? There's a big difference between being isolated from a foreign enemy and isolated from the domestic population.


United States helped protect the saudi lords that denny basic human rights to women, and the soldiers folowed orders.

Oh, you were talking about Desert Shield? I'm sorry but I find that amusing. What you're saying is that American troops knowingly did the wrong thing by protecting a nation from unprovoked aggression by their neighbor, simply because the nation being defended also needed reform? Unless you're suggesting that Saddam Hussien would have liberated Saudi Arabia and made it a utopia for the citizens, but that American soldiers knowingly fought to ensure continued oppression, I really don't see your point.


Soldiers will folow orders out of fear, or they will folow orders because they think what they are doing is right, but of course not every thing is right all the time.

Fear of what? What is the government going to threaten these people with that's worse than destroying their own home? It's not the same as telling a guy to choose between Vietnam and jail.

As for "thinking its right", are you seriously suggesting that American soldiers are going to for some reason believe that it is right to let a man remain in power against the will of the people, and suspend people's most basic rights? Are you suggesting that they will somehow think it is right to round people up at put them in prison for protesting against such things? What situation are you suggesting in which anyone showing mental and moral distinction from a turnip could really go for that, given the circumstances which exist in America?

If ruling the American people by brute force was easy, someone would have done it by now. History is clear- the American people can be fooled for 8-12 years on end with relatively little difficulty and this will get a corrupt ruler so far, but those benefits which can only be reaped more aggressively seem to be out of reach.



new topics

top topics
 
0
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join