Martial law provision secretly passed in Congress Committee?, page 2


Pages: <<  1    2  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 36 times


reply posted on 28-6-2011 @ 09:39 AM by felonius
reply to post by Subbam



Brother, the real kicker is that a few of these are operating as we speak.

Others are partial and "stealthy".

Good call.


reply posted on 28-6-2011 @ 09:53 AM by diatribe
reply to post by Subbam


The following were revoked by Executive Order 11490, which seems to be as onerous, but is definitely different.
SEC. 3015 Revoked Orders.
The following are hereby revoked:
(1) Defense Mobilization Order VI-2 of December 11, 1953.
(2) Defense Mobilization Order 1-12 of October 5, 1954.
(3) Executive Order No. 10312 of December 10, 1951.
(4) Executive Order No. 10346 of April 17, 1952.
(5) Executive Order No. 10997 of February 16, 1962.
(6) Executive Order No. 10998 of February 16, 1962.
(7) Executive Order No. 10999 of February 16, 1962.
(8) Executive Order No. 11000 of February 16, 1962.
(9) Executive Order No. 11001 of February 16, 1962.
(10) Executive Order No. 11002 of February 16, 1962.
(11) Executive Order No. 11003 of February 16, 1962.
(12) Executive Order No. 11004 of February 16, 1962.
(13) Executive Order No. 11005 of February 16, 1962.
(14) Executive Order No. 11087 of February 26, 1963.
(15) Executive Order No. 11088 of February 26, 1963.
(16) Executive Order No. 11089 of February 26, 1963.
(17) Executive Order No. 11090 of February 26, 1963.
(18) Executive Order No. 11091 of February 26, 1963.
(19) Executive Order No. 11092 of February 26, 1963.
(20) Executive Order No. 11093 of February 26, 1963.
(21) Executive Order No. 11094 of February 26, 1963.
(22) Executive Order No. 11095 of February 26, 1963.
(23) Executive Order No. 11310 of October 11, 1966.


reply posted on 28-6-2011 @ 10:03 AM by Subbam
Originally posted by diatribe
reply to post by Subbam


The following were revoked by Executive Order 11490, which seems to be as onerous, but is definitely different.
SEC. 3015 Revoked Orders.
The following are hereby revoked:
(1) Defense Mobilization Order VI-2 of December 11, 1953.
(2) Defense Mobilization Order 1-12 of October 5, 1954.
(3) Executive Order No. 10312 of December 10, 1951.
(4) Executive Order No. 10346 of April 17, 1952.
(5) Executive Order No. 10997 of February 16, 1962.
(6) Executive Order No. 10998 of February 16, 1962.
(7) Executive Order No. 10999 of February 16, 1962.
(8) Executive Order No. 11000 of February 16, 1962.
(9) Executive Order No. 11001 of February 16, 1962.
(10) Executive Order No. 11002 of February 16, 1962.
(11) Executive Order No. 11003 of February 16, 1962.
(12) Executive Order No. 11004 of February 16, 1962.
(13) Executive Order No. 11005 of February 16, 1962.
(14) Executive Order No. 11087 of February 26, 1963.
(15) Executive Order No. 11088 of February 26, 1963.
(16) Executive Order No. 11089 of February 26, 1963.
(17) Executive Order No. 11090 of February 26, 1963.
(18) Executive Order No. 11091 of February 26, 1963.
(19) Executive Order No. 11092 of February 26, 1963.
(20) Executive Order No. 11093 of February 26, 1963.
(21) Executive Order No. 11094 of February 26, 1963.
(22) Executive Order No. 11095 of February 26, 1963.
(23) Executive Order No. 11310 of October 11, 1966.


However, if you had researched NSDP51 and HSDP20 you'd see that those bills take a lot out of Rex 84. To top it off a majority of the bill was classified to members of senate upon it's presentation, when they didn't even want the senate to see the two bills in the first place. I had put Rex 84 because it gave you the concept of the earlier said two bills at the beginning of my statement.

www.liveleak.com...
This should clear things up for you friend.
edit on 28-6-2011 by Subbam because: (no reason given)




reply posted on 28-6-2011 @ 12:26 PM by bekod
reply to post by jimnuggits
wrong if you are told to shoot as an direct order even if it is your dad you are to shoot your are to do it if not, you could be shot , how many will take a bullet, not let one fly?
This is one reason i got out when i did i can not shoot a civilian when that civilian is defending his her own, now way now how. After 9/11 a lot of laws dealing with just this , (thanks to then Dick Cheney and bush jr.) were changed not for the better but for the worse. no nee for court marshal your CO is the judge jury and executioner.


edit on 28-6-2011 by bekod because: (no reason given)



reply posted on 28-6-2011 @ 12:31 PM by Subbam
Originally posted by jimnuggits
Armed Soldiers will not shoot American civilians, no matter their 'orders.'

They are trained to defend our country, and will do what needs to be done, but that is well short of outright murder of their fellow countrymen.

Every few weeks, a thread pops up that says 'Martial Law is Imminent!' and then we all go throught this redundant posting about what we'll do when The Proverbial Stuff Hits the Fan...

Truth is, you can't know that until you are confronted with that reality, and anyone who says different is just chest thumping.

I for one am glad that there is some contingency plan in place in the event that there is widespread chaos.

Think it through before you decide to kill em all, tough guys.


There's also rouge elements within the military that don't care all too much about rights be it human or nation given. I would be a liar for not saying so. So I know for a fact that that statment isn't correct. Also that's what Privitized Military Contractor's are for now a days friend, it's a very big business in these times.

It's what it ends up to be that I'm more worried about, sure it's one thing here and there. But those one things here and there make up for 1 pretty extraordianry power to be implimented that no government or president of that government should constituionally have... yet we gave it to them because we got scared by all these evil wars throught our past decades be it the War on Communism, The War on Drugs, and the War on Terrorism. Which over the long haul has had more negative effects than good, this is something that common sense cannot deny.
edit on 28-6-2011 by Subbam because: (no reason given)


reply posted on 28-6-2011 @ 12:37 PM by jimnuggits
reply to post by bekod


You pretty much proved my point.

You said it was one of the reasons you got out, and I believe our troops would take a bullet for us before they would open fire on us- that is pretty much their job description as it is.

Granted, there are factions within the military who don't care who they shoot, but that is probably less than 20%...

It is treason for a soldier to follow orders that are unconstitutional... And they know that.


reply posted on 28-6-2011 @ 12:53 PM by jimnuggits
reply to post by ziggy1706


The police deal with civilians everyday, and, I'm sure get weary of dealing with ignorant bullstuff day in day out.

Human job fatigue.

Soldiers on the other hand, are trained to make order in dire, chaotic situations, by whatever means necessary.

Some of my best friends in the world are current US military, and there is a definite consensus among them that they will lay down their weapons if ever asked to fire on US civilians.

They don't get paid enough to deal with that kind of mind screw, and they would rather be shot themselves than shoot those they swore to defend.


reply posted on 28-6-2011 @ 01:07 PM by Cryptonomicon
Originally posted by Chadwickus
reply to post by dreamingawake


Can you direct me to where the bill suggests this martial law provision?

Can anyone?

The bill doesn't "suggest" martial law directly. Read the Examiner article - there is a bi-partisan provision (discussed in this Senate document) which allows them to detain people on United States soil to places like Gitmo, etc., completely bypassing the judicial system (no lawyer, no habeas corpus, etc.). A human rights organization has (rightly) characterized that provision as a Martial Law provision.

Martial Law means there is no courts, no judge, no jury, just the military doing whatever they want, to whom ever they want, when ever they want - with no oversight by other branches of government, and no accountability to voters/taxpayers.

edit on 28-6-2011 by Cryptonomicon because: paren



reply posted on 28-6-2011 @ 01:34 PM by Scytherius
reply to post by dreamingawake


Just look at everything that has happened in America since the passage of the Patriot Act. Look at TSA and citizens being beaten and arrested for videotaping the cops.

YOU LIVE IN A POLICE STATE IN AMERICA. Either overthrow it or get used to it. But if you think your election of either the Right or Left in 2012 is going to change it, you are one big blathering fool.


reply posted on 28-6-2011 @ 07:22 PM by Chadwickus
reply to post by Cryptonomicon


The Examiner article is full of crap and is deliberately leaving out critical information.

Another provision would mandate military detention for people suspected of being “high value” terrorists from Al Qaeda: members of the organization who participated in planning or conducting attacks on the United States. The mandate would exclude United States citizens, and it would allow the secretary of defense to send detainees to the civilian criminal justice system at his discretion.

Andrea J. Prasow of Human Rights Watch called that provision an “outrageous” undermining of prosecutorial discretion, adding that “mandatory military detention is what martial-law states do, not democracies.”

www.nytimes.com...


Sounds a bit different doesn't it?

Last time I checked, martial law involved locking up your own citizens.

The Examiner made up the martial law BS by taking Andrea J. Prasow's statement out of context.

Glad to see no one else bothered to fact check..

edit on 28/6/11 by Chadwickus because: (no reason given)



reply posted on 29-6-2011 @ 10:44 AM by countupir
Originally posted by General.Lee
reply to post by Subbam

. . . There is no longer a distinction. If you get pulled over for speeding and argue with the cop, then you are a terrorist. Bush and Obama have single-handedly destroyed what was once a great nation. These arrogant, worthless POS are nothing but control and power freaks. They absolutely despise the thought of a common loser American having any rights or powers. They are so drunk with power and control they will stop at nothing to find an excuse to abuse the common folk. Some day I pray to see them all rot in hell for the destruction of this country for their own gain and satisfaction.


i think you this post summarizes the situation nicely. i don't think it is about bush or obama. it seems like the president is a puppet head figure along with the fed chairman. these people can't be as stupid as they appear with all the examples of successful monetary policy.

isn't any martial law the natural next step after the patriot act? which one of our politicians is against that?

down with the nanny/european-like state
edit on 29-6-2011 by countupir because: corrections



reply posted on 20-7-2011 @ 11:22 PM by nosacrificenofreedom
Originally posted by Bixxi3
i see this as fear mongering. People would be complaining if there weren't any plans in place for the government to do something in case of say a invasion or nuclear war or maybe just a massive earthquake that tears the usa in half. We should be more concern about getting this 2 party "democracy" sorted.
Now if we had proof(real proof not alex jones and a anon source) that the president was planning a flase flag to enable these orders. then yes be worried. But at the end of the day if your not willing to help change the corrupt system then you just have to trust it.


Did you read Subbams post?
Originally posted by Subbam
EXECUTIVE ORDER 11921
allows the Federal Emergency Preparedness Agency to develop plans to establish control over the mechanisms of production and distribution, of energy sources, wages, salaries, credit and the flow of money in U.S. financial institution in any UNDEFINED national emergency. It also provides that when a state of emergency is declared by the President, Congress cannot review the action for six months. The Federal Emergency Management Agency has broad powers in every aspect of the nation. General Frank Salzedo, chief of FEMA's Civil Security Division stated in a 1983 conference that he saw FEMA's role as a "new frontier in the protection of individual and governmental leaders from assassination, and of civil and military installations from sabotage and/or attack, AS WELL AS PREVENTION OF DISSIDENT GROUPS FROM GAINING ACCESS TO U.S. OPINION,OR GLOBAL AUDIENCE IN TIMES OF CRISIS. " FEMA's powers were consolidated by President Carter to incorporate the...


dissident adj. Disagreeing, as in opinion or belief. n. One who disagrees; a dissenter.

Did you read the part where it says undefined meaning there does not have to be any emergency for the president
or FEMA to enact these presidental orders only their say that there is an emergency. These presidental orders
are being enacted with any kind of revolution or dessent in mind which IMO is totally unconstitutional! If this is the path they are choosing then we are well past the point of revolution. It seems kind of ironic all those communist witch hunts in hollywood in the 1950s and it seems that what we're heading into to be way worse IMO!

I see total control of america by a totally fascist government with no compassion, empathy or humanity given to the people that live here by almost any of our past presidents within the last 100 years! so when will enough be enough before we decide to force our way off of this tyrannical and oppressive path we're on? Or will we just
keep our heads buried till our oppressors bury the rest of us!
Pages: <<  1    2  >>    ^^TOP^^