It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


ATS: U.S. Under Martial Law By June 2004?

page: 3
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in


posted on Apr, 23 2004 @ 06:02 PM
we'd definitely see major civilian uprisings.

our military is spread to thin as it is now, and then to try and police an entire country along with local agencies? there would definitely be lacks in communication, to say the least.

even if the entire armed forces were to come back from EVERY country they are stationed in, we'd still outnumber them. both in manpower, and in ammo- even though they'd threaten to take away ALL of our guns, etc.. how many people have a gun or two stashed in a hidden cabinet, or in a wall safe, or under a floorboard? more than i'd be willing to stand up against.

I'm also beginning to take Clarke's comments with a grain of salt, considering he does have a book that he is definitely trying to sell, and what better way then to say "hey, we're gonna be under martial law by june 2004- read all about the plans in my book."

posted on Apr, 23 2004 @ 06:08 PM
Try to seperate an American from his gun and see what happens. Also I think that the millitary would have a hard time getting most personnel to follow orders against their own civillians.

posted on Apr, 23 2004 @ 06:27 PM

Originally posted by Aeon10101110

Originally posted by cmdrkeenkid
but not as well equipped, organized, or trained.

But then, who won the American Revolutionary War? It surely was not the well-supplied, regimented and professional soldiers of Great Britain. Of course, Colonial volunteers won, but at such times as the winter at Valley Forge, many didn't even have shoes!

That's not a good comparison. First of all, the British had the resources to obliterate the American opposition if they'd had the initiative. They, however, did not find it worthwhile to spend the resources it would have cost, and they had other interests to defend at the time. If the Bush regime did institute martial law, they would almost certainly have the capability to quell any uprising, in my opinion, unless there was some kind of international intervention. But who would stand up for subjugated Americans, anyways/

[Edited on 23-4-2004 by spngsambigpants]

posted on Apr, 23 2004 @ 08:34 PM
HOLY # I live in Baltimore. GOOd Hod If the nuke is in june like you say I hope Im in school. The thick walls might provide some protection. If I Dont post after this consider my computer destroyed and me dead.

posted on Apr, 23 2004 @ 09:05 PM
Richard Clarke saying you can read it in his book, that says enough I think.

Some people will say anything for a quick buck.

posted on Apr, 23 2004 @ 09:39 PM
Man I hope they dont even consider that....LOL

As far as the US people likeing that oh man just think if all the biker gangs, mafia, street gangs, racial gangs, all the mountain hunters and trapers all united not to mention the present law inforsement and military members that might not agree with it and retired military personel.

I for one grew up in the woods and have the weapons to outfit the neighborhood if we had to protect our home ground fron invaders and have they legaly. I even think I still have a few old bear traps around. Oh and yes i was in the military. Marshall law would not be pretty in the format it states it would be like in this day and age.

At that time it would be time to get whoever wanted this out of office.

Now at times of panic based on a attack thats another story but it would have to be a situation way worse than 911 was and should only be imposed to keep order in the way of looting, riots ect and no further.

posted on Apr, 23 2004 @ 10:15 PM
When I posted this article, I did not realize the background of the source I provided. However, I still believe something is afoot. Wether the source that was used is credible or not, I ask you to look at what has been going on in the past couple of months in the US and abroad to help you make up your mind. Does anyone know what would happen to the election if Martial Law was initiated beforehand?

[Edited on 23-4-2004 by TrickmastertricK]

posted on Apr, 23 2004 @ 10:26 PM
I've said it many times before and I'll say it again: I believe that a certain percentage of the military and police won't agree with what is going on and will fight on our side.

posted on Apr, 23 2004 @ 10:30 PM
There's probably a screenplay in the works already. If there isn't there should be, it would make a hell of a picture. Nobody in Hollywood with the balls to call Old George out though, I bet.

posted on Apr, 23 2004 @ 10:35 PM
I don't believe the June 2004 date---Maybe in July 2004 after the Bush Crime Family blows up the Democratic Convention---Yes???

posted on Apr, 23 2004 @ 11:02 PM
What I'm concerned about a martial law decree, would be that congress can't regain control to start elections or get things back to normal. Under martial law, members of congress might be subject to new laws that if they disagreed, they could be jailed or disappear to concentration camps never to be heard from again. Who in congress would openly disagree then and what could they do? Our democracy would become a dictatorship.

Of course with this kind of martial law system, the economy would decrease severely, government revenues would decrease severely too, and things would not be great anymore. Anyone who wants to impose martial law would be stupid to do it to the whole nation in my opinion.

posted on Apr, 24 2004 @ 11:50 AM

The ID SNIPERTM rifle designed by EMPIRE NORTH

What is the ID SNIPERTM rifle?

It is used to implant a GPS-microchip in the body of a human being, using a high powered sniper rifle as the long distance injector. The microchip will enter the body and stay there, causing no internal damage, and only a very small amount of physical pain to the target. It will feel like a mosquito-bite lasting a fraction of a second. At the same time a digital camcorder with a zoom-lense fitted within the scope will take a high-resolution picture of the target. This picture will be stored on a memory card for later image-analysis.

Why use the ID SNIPERTM rifle?

As the urban battlefield grows more complex and intense, new ways of managing and controlling crowds are needed. The attention of the media changes the rules of the game. Sometimes it is difficult to engage the enemy in the streets without causing damage to the all important image of the state. Instead EMPIRE NORTH suggests to mark and identify a suspicious subject on a safe distance, enabeling the national law enforcement agency to keep track on the target through a satellite in the weeks to come.

The ID SNIPERTM rifle was presented by Empire North in Beijing at the China Police 2002 exhibition.

posted on Apr, 24 2004 @ 11:57 AM
Martial Law
Im willing to bank on that the soldiers here in the US and in European countries would scream "This is bs" screw this!" It would be the oldtimers military(ages 35-60+) vs the baggy pants,rap hip hop listening,pierced young soldiers(18-30)

posted on Apr, 24 2004 @ 12:11 PM
How do you define terrorism?

The Intelligence Community is guided by the definition of terrorism contained in Title 22 of the US Code, Section 2656f(d):

—The term “terrorism” means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience.

—The term “international terrorism” means terrorism involving the territory or the citizens of more than one country.

—The term “terrorist group” means any group that practices, or has significant subgroups that practice, international terrorism. How do you define terrorism?

That aside, I can't speak for others but here in Arizona in our State Revised Statutes and in our State Constitution a provision requires that should Martial Law be declared, the Sovereign State of Arizona will secede from the United States of America. This law was passed by the state legislature a couple of years ago. It also provides that the state National Guard will then come under the Governor of the State of Arizona.

Perhaps this'll be put to the test?

posted on Apr, 24 2004 @ 01:18 PM

[Edited on 25-4-2004 by Braatz]

posted on Apr, 24 2004 @ 01:46 PM
Man, I knew I should have built a bomb shelter. If the feds are watching do this consider this a warning.

posted on Apr, 25 2004 @ 08:37 PM
Here the "indymedia" is full of #e.

Yes, there was an underground bunker system and Continuity of Government plans set up.

They were really really seriously scared that bin Laden had or was about to smuggle in nukes into D.C. They were wrong, but there were some (still) unclear source intelligence about it.

They rushed a ring of NEST radiation detectors around the beltway.

And if the government hadn't and there had been a WMD attack, wouldn't the same people be complaining?

And yes, jet fuel burning very hot CAN melt steel. However, it isn't necessary to melt it--the strength curve with temperature is well known and at a highly attainable temperature in this kind of fire the strength decreases by a factor of 4 or 5 from design specifications.

The law of gravity does not stop.

The 9/11 attacks on the WTC were so far out of bounds of any conceived design specification. The miracle was that the towers stayed up for an hour. """only""" 3000 people died instead of 30,000.

Besides---if the towers didn't go down because of the 9/11 jet plane attack, then how did they go down?

In this bizzare conspiratorial fantasy land of the "indymedia" wouldn't jsut the planes striking the towers (and having them partially standing but otherwise unfit for use) still have been sufficient shock?

And why did the plane hit the pentagon? Wouldn't an evil military industiral complex running a conspiracy rather have had it hit, say the Labor or Agriculture department?

posted on Apr, 25 2004 @ 10:41 PM
came across an older intresting article.

Foundations are in place for martial law in the US

By April, the US military had created a Northern Command to aid Homeland defence. Reuters reported that the command is "mainly expected to play a supporting role to local authorities".

However, Mr Ridge, the Director of Homeland Security, has just advocated a review of US law regarding the use of the military for law enforcement duties.

Disturbingly, the full facts and final contents of Mr Reagan's national plan remain uncertain. This is in part because President Bush took the unusual step of sealing the Reagan presidential papers last November. However, many of the key figures of the Reagan era are part of the present administration, including John Poindexter, to whom Oliver North later reported.

Why did Bush Seal these papers??

The Posse Comitatus Act of 1878

The following was written by:

Michael G. Leventhal - Editor/Publisher

In a nutshell, this act bans the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines from participating in arrests, searches, seizure of evidence and other police-type activity on U.S. soil. The Coast Guard and National Guard troops under the control of state governors are excluded from the act.

Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, testifying in October before the Senate Armed Services Committee, agreed that it might be desirable to give federal troops more of a role in domestic policing to prevent terrorism. "In certain cases we can do more than anyone else in the country because of the special capabilities that we have,'' he said.

Dennis Corrigan, a retired colonel who taught the law at the Army's Judge Advocate General's school, says legislators should resist the urge to change it. The military isn't trained to be a police force, he says, so it should stick to the skills for which it is trained: surveillance, information gathering, logistical support. All of these activities are allowable under Posse Comitatus. "I'm not sure, even with what's going on today, that Congress wants the military arresting people.''

But Michael Spak, former Army JAG colonel now teaching at Chicago-Kent College of Law had another spin. "It's good for the law to tell the truth and for everybody to follow the law,'' he said. "But is it necessary? No.''

Many American politicians and bureaucrats hold what might be called a "Consumerist" interpretation of freedom. In a nation where liberty is defined by the ability to choose from a variety of breakfast cereals, it may not be long before the supermarket cash register will be nicknamed "Checkpoint Charlie."

Take a look at these Executive Orders

Executive Order 10990

Executive Order 10995

Executive Order 10997

Executive Order 10998

Executive Order 11000

Executive Order 11001

Executive Order 11002

Executive Order 11003

Executive Order 11004

Executive Order 11005

Executive Order 11051

Executive Order 11490
Assigning emergency preparedness functions to Federal departments and agencies

Executive Order 12472
Assignment of national security and emergency preparedness telecommunications functions

Executive Order 12656
Assigmment of Emergency Preparedness Responsibilities

Executive Order 12919

Executive Order 11921
Adjusting Emergency Preparedness Assignments to Organizational and Functional Changes in Federal Departments and Agencies

Executive Order 12148
Federal Emergency Management

Executive Order 12656
Assigmment of Emergency Preparedness Responsibilities

Executive Order 12938

Executive Order 13074
Amendment to Executive Order 12656

These were put in place since the JFK Presidency, regarding natural disasters.

Why Did Jeb Bush Institute Martial Law on September 7,2001?
Executive Order 01-261

Executive Order 01-262

George W. Bush Executive Orders:
(allthough these were warranted during the time, they could come into play with the upcoming election)

National Emergency Construction Authority Executive Order

Presidential Task Force on Citizen Preparedness in the War on Terrorism Executive Order

Executive Order on Critical Infrastructure Protection

Still ongoing........

[Edited on 26-4-2004 by TrickmastertricK]

posted on Apr, 25 2004 @ 10:52 PM

Originally posted by Ranger
I've said it many times before and I'll say it again: I believe that a certain percentage of the military and police won't agree with what is going on and will fight on our side.

Ranger, you either have more faith in humanity then I do, or you are very young and naive.

Or maybe it's the Aquarian in me which makes me question just about everything.

Who knows? My feelings as it stands on this issue is that there is NO way the military or the police would go against the indoctrination (IE preprogramming.

No. Way.

They would cling to the "I was following orders..." BS that the Nazis also clung to. I'm a betting person and I'd be willing to bet my hands on it.

And no, thinking these things does not in any way make me a happier person.

posted on Apr, 26 2004 @ 01:57 AM

Originally posted by machinegunjordan
you know martial law has come into play before during vietnam when those protests at colleges were happenin and the military killed a few at iowa state u they went under martial law for a while thats wat it says in my social studies book. but never the whole country under military control

Yeah well you are close but no cookie, it was Kent State in Ohio and it was the National Guard killing college students. Basically for fun and sport although they claimed following orders. Do you have any idea why people become Cops or enlist in the military. It is because they do not fit in anywhere else and seek power and control. Tell me did the Bullies in your High School joiin police forces or join the military or did they go to jail?
If our Guard are ordered to suppress a public disturbance they will do it as they have in the past. And as far as every American owns a gun. Big deal, guns are useless without ammo, how many citizens do you think keep 50,000 rounds in their gun locker. Americans who wished to could throw up resistance for an hour or two and that would be it. There are few Americans that know the first tactics about guerilla warfare, most kill deer from a pick up truck.
Wake up


top topics

<< 1  2    4 >>

log in