Advertisement
I know Bush and Co. have taken over the functions of this government to the point that they can, at any time, declare martial law and effectively take control of the populace. But could they enforce such a measure? Could they really overcome the people of this country, nee, this world, who demand to live the freedom that is our birthright by virtue of being human?
Advertisement
Advertisement
-
Re: Could Bush enforce martial law?
Wed, December 12, 2007 - 5:53 AMBush is a puppet to pacify people just as many presidents before him while the real players are free to do their thing. Bush is a diversion from the people that really run the world. People you may have never seen or heard of. Some you may have. So NO, my answer to your question is no. Not Bush and Co. But Bush and Co combined with U.N. "Peacekeeping" troops ( especially if united under the authority of a one world ruler / dictator that people look to as "The Christ.". Yes. When global slavery requires huge masses of people to be exterminated I personally believe it will be no problem. The efficiency of the Nazis in WWII was astounding. ( Thank IBM ) www.amazon.com/IBM-Holoca...pd_bbs_sr_1 With todays technology it doesnt matter what small minority of the population might have guns. The fire power of that minority is far out matched beyond what people can barely conceive of. And not just guns. Theyve got radio wave weapons, control of the food supply, etc.... Many of these things have already been in use and in effect presently. Martial law will be a marker in time of the escalation of process' that have been in the working for huindreds of years. Martial law will certainly not be "the beginning". It will signify the end. I believe it's inevitable and that surely many people will fight it and there will be pure chaos ( as if there's not already ) that ultimately there is nothing anyone can do to stop it. I think the only thing people can do is to learn as much as possible about what's going on and prepare themselves mentally or spiritually for the coming culmination of the nightmare. Endtimers havent worked this long and hard to change their minds or see their plans somehow foiled or averted by some unforseen heroism of the human spirit. This story isnt going to turn around and have a happy ending.
In fact, I believe much of humanity will believe the propaganda and think martial law is a good and neccessary thing. Many people already believe all the lies theyre spoon fed. Many already believe and uphold the creedo "Order out of chaos." If that chaos involves genocidal mass human sacrifice on a scale never seen previously in history so it shall be. It's looked at as an unfortunate dirty job that someones got to do. It's the high price of freedom. A freedom which is NOT for everyone. A freedom that is truly for the rich "elite".
Those that go to their deaths first will be the least useful to them. Eventually everyones number will be up. Even the "elites". They know this. They want to pretend it's not true but they know it. That's why the bitterness of their vengeance & hate is so sweepingling brutal. ( The scarey thing is how so many people can identify with the elite view. It's scarey how I myself can identify with it to some extent. On one hand we say no no no. On certain levels a part of the collective human consciousness is saying yes yes yes. JUST DO IT!!! A global mass suicide. Like Jonestown but way better.) So one day the genocide will become omnicide. The death of all things. This whole world will be a big toxic waste dump floating around in space.
Happy thoughts. La la la. ( Sings Smurfs song to self. ) -
-
Re: Could Bush enforce martial law?
Sat, January 26, 2008 - 9:36 PMMr. M, Yes you are correct, everything that's going to happen is inevitable and there's nothing we can do to change it. But understand that not all is lost and there is a much greater plan in the works that will teleport the human species into the next phase in our evolution. The power behind this plan is beyound human comprehension so remember that "The meek shall enherit this world not the elite." They know that their time is at hand and it's short. I can't wait, it's been such a long time coming. -
-
Re: Could Bush enforce martial law?
Sun, January 27, 2008 - 7:10 AMI see omnicide in the future. If everything and everyone is dead and the entire planet is one dead poisoned ball floating around in space noone will be inheriting anything. -
-
Re: Could Bush enforce martial law?
Sun, January 27, 2008 - 5:25 PMSee, what I know is that all will not be lost and you must have faith in that which has been writen for thousands of years.
-
-
-
-
Re: Could Bush enforce martial law?
Wed, January 23, 2008 - 1:42 PMIt depends...
if we the people do what the jews did during the halocost (sp?)
if we don't fight back... its possible... and I worry about this
we have been scared sh!tless with terrorism...
and many have turned to fanatic patriotism... that's a bad thing..
Its one thing to love your country (and I very much to love my country)
its quite another to blindly allow the gov't to take our rights away...
we need to protect ourselves from this... how?
By standing up for our Constitutional Rights...
-
-
Re: Could Bush enforce martial law?
Thu, January 24, 2008 - 3:39 AMAlot of Jewish people did fight back. They died fighting back. FEMA, the NSA and the "Shadow Govt" can and will enforce marial law and when they do it it's going to be way more efficient than Hitlers efforts. It will be virtually pointless and futile to attempt resistance. When this happens I'm sure Bush will be sitting in his easy chair watching the show on his bigscreen tv with a bottle of booze and a huge bag of coke. -
-
Re: Could Bush enforce martial law?
Sun, January 27, 2008 - 4:10 AMWell first of all they would take all the dissidents out well before Martial law even happened which is why they got Gitmo and other off shore prisons. Once the dissidents are gone there will be no one to be active in resistance. But I think would happen is that if they did do a marshall law thingy at this time, you would see a revolution. Mass demonstrations, because really there is no terrorist in America that aren't Americans in the first place such as Bush and Chenny---Pinky and the Brain
-
Re: Could Bush enforce martial law?
Tue, June 3, 2008 - 12:13 AMFighting back may not be the answer for everyone, but for some it surely will be the only answer the have because they will follow what their conscience dictates. Myself, I'm thinking of a nice secluded place in the middle of no man's land wilderness. Return to the savage so to speak. There is a time to fight, there is a time to duck and cover until it makes the most sense to fight and then there is the swan song. Not really sure what the answer will be for me, but one thing I know is that one way or the other I will be free on my own terms either in this life or the next.
-
-
-
Re: Could Bush enforce martial law?
Mon, February 11, 2008 - 1:17 PMAll this martial law thing has to do with 2012 and what is believed to be the lifting up of a quarantine that was placed upon earth. It forbid any interference between our race and other races until we were ready. What we are seeing is the manipulation of our species through mind control by specific races who want exclusive access to our planet and its resources. Until people realize the potential that is latent within each of us we will never figure out how to break free of this hypnotic trance we are in. -
-
Re: Could Bush enforce martial law?
Tue, February 12, 2008 - 1:32 AMwhere's your proof? -
-
Re: Could Bush enforce martial law?
Sat, March 8, 2008 - 1:18 AMJust eat two hundred hits of acid while on prozac then you will see his proof! -
-
Unsu...
Re: Could Bush enforce martial law?
Mon, June 2, 2008 - 11:27 AM -
-
Unsu...
Re: Could Bush enforce martial law?
Mon, June 2, 2008 - 11:28 AMit's not just a human's right to be free
it's an animal's right too
-
-
-
-
-
Re: Could Bush enforce martial law?
Mon, June 2, 2008 - 11:56 AMyes and likely IMHO will between now and the Nov. election to prevent Obama from taking over things...
who wants to place wagers ?
eheheheh -
-
Unsu...
Re: Could Bush enforce martial law?
Mon, June 2, 2008 - 2:15 PM
-
-
Re: Could Bush enforce martial law?
Thu, June 5, 2008 - 3:23 PMRealistically we already are in a martial law of sorts and who needs camps when gas and food prices are going to the moon? We're already in a camp of sorts. -
-
Re: Could Bush enforce martial law?
Thu, June 5, 2008 - 7:24 PMyes deepfog good point ...
people going to get more and more desperate for food soon and then what happens ???
-
-
Re: Could Bush enforce martial law?
Thu, June 5, 2008 - 8:03 PM -
-
Unsu...
Re: Could Bush enforce martial law?
Fri, June 6, 2008 - 1:27 PMi would move near my work and ride a bike before things got that bad
or get a new job and live near my new job
or leave the country
or be a hobo
many people now can just buy an electric car
why would people stay in a position where they needed gas that bad when they don't have to?
-
-
-
Re: Could Bush enforce martial law?
Sat, June 28, 2008 - 4:49 PM"who needs camps when gas and food prices are going to the moon? We're already in a camp of sorts."
... no doubt... and its creepy as hell... -
-
Re: Could Bush enforce martial law?
Mon, June 30, 2008 - 5:52 PMSo many of us are "priced out of life" it's rediculous. I'm a single man about to turn 40 that's been working for the same company for almost 19 years. How is it I am a couple paychecks away from being homeless? And no Corvette comments please. lol That's a special circumstance. Seriously. -
-
Re: Could Bush enforce martial law?
Mon, October 6, 2008 - 7:12 PMArmy deploys combat unit in US for possible civil unrest
by Bill Van Auken, WSWS via Uruknet
For the first time ever, the US military is deploying an active duty regular Army combat unit for full-time use inside the United States to deal with emergencies, including potential civil unrest.
Beginning on October 1, the First Brigade Combat Team of the Third Division will be placed under the command of US Army North, the Army's component of the Pentagon's Northern Command (NorthCom), which was created in the wake of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks with the stated mission of defending the US "homeland" and aiding federal, state and local authorities.
The unit—known as the "Raiders"—is among the Army's most "blooded." It has spent nearly three out of the last five years deployed in Iraq, leading the assault on Baghdad in 2003 and carrying out house-to-house combat in the suppression of resistance in the city of Ramadi. It was the first brigade combat team to be sent to Iraq three times.
While active-duty units previously have been used in temporary assignments, such as the combat-equipped troops deployed in New Orleans, which was effectively placed under martial law in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, this marks the first time that an Army combat unit has been given a dedicated assignment in which US soil constitutes its "battle zone."
The Pentagon's official pronouncements have stressed the role of specialized units in a potential response to terrorist attack within the US. Gen. George Casey, the Army chief of staff, attended a training exercise last week for about 250 members of the unit at Fort Stewart, Georgia. The focus of the exercise, according to the Army's public affairs office, was how troops "might fly search and rescue missions, extract casualties and decontaminate people following a catastrophic nuclear attack in the nation's heartland."
"We are at war with a global extremist network that is not going away," Casey told the soldiers. "I hope we don't have to use it, but we need the capability."
However, the mission assigned to the nearly 4,000 troops of the First Brigade Combat Team does not consist merely of rescuing victims of terrorist attacks. An article that appeared earlier this month in the Army Times ("Brigade homeland tours start Oct. 1"), a publication that is widely read within the military, paints a different and far more ominous picture.
"They may be called upon to help with civil unrest and crowd control," the paper reports. It quotes the unit's commander, Col. Robert Cloutier, as saying that the 1st BCT's soldiers are being trained in the use of "the first ever nonlethal package the Army has fielded." The weapons, the paper reported, are "designed to subdue unruly or dangerous individuals without killing them." The equipment includes beanbag bullets, shields and batons and equipment for erecting roadblocks.
It appears that as part of the training for deployment within the US, the soldiers have been ordered to test some of this non-lethal equipment on each other.
"I was the first guy in the brigade to get Tasered," Cloutier told the Army Times. He described the effects of the electroshock weapon as "your worst muscle cramp ever—times 10 throughout your whole body."
The colonel's remark suggests that, in preparation for their "homefront" duties, rank-and-file troops are also being routinely Tasered. The brutalizing effect and intent of such a macabre training exercise is to inure troops against sympathy for the pain and suffering they may be called upon to inflict on the civilian population using these same "non-lethal" weapons.
According to military officials quoted by the Army Times, the deployment of regular Army troops in the US begun with the First Brigade Combat Team is to become permanent, with different units rotated into the assignment on an annual basis.
In an online interview with reporters earlier this month, NorthCom officers were asked about the implications of the new deployment for the Posse Comitatus Act, the 230-year-old legal statute that bars the use of US military forces for law enforcement purposes within the US itself.
Col. Lou Volger, NorthCom's chief of future operations, tried to downplay any enforcement role, but added, "We will integrate with law enforcement to understand the situation and make sure we're aware of any threats."
Volger acknowledged the obvious, that the Brigade Combat Team is a military force, while attempting to dismiss the likelihood that it would play any military role. It "has forces for security," he said, "but that's really—they call them security forces, but that's really just to establish our own footprint and make sure that we can operate and run our own bases."
Lt. Col. James Shores, another NorthCom officer, chimed in, "Let's say even if there was a scenario that developed into a branch of a civil disturbance—even at that point it would take a presidential directive to even get it close to anything that you're suggesting."
Whatever is required to trigger such an intervention, clearly Col. Cloutier and his troops are preparing for it with their hands-on training in the use of "non-lethal" means of repression.
The extreme sensitivity of the military brass on this issue notwithstanding, the reality is that the intervention of the military in domestic affairs has grown sharply over the last period under conditions in which its involvement in two colonial-style wars abroad has given it a far more prominent role in American political life.
The Bush administration has worked to tear down any barriers to the use of the military in domestic repression. Thus, in the 2007 Pentagon spending bill it inserted a measure to amend the Posse Comitatus Act to clear the way for the domestic deployment of the military in the event of natural disaster, terrorist attack or "other conditions in which the president determines that domestic violence has occurred to the extent that state officials cannot maintain public order."
The provision granted the president sweeping new powers to impose martial law by declaring a "public emergency" for virtually any reason, allowing him to deploy troops anywhere in the US and to take control of state-based National Guard units without the consent of state governors in order to "suppress public disorder."
The provision was subsequently repealed by Congress as part of the 2008 military appropriations legislation, but the intent remains. Given the sweeping powers claimed by the White House in the name of the "commander in chief" in a global war on terror—powers to suspend habeas corpus, carry out wholesale domestic spying and conduct torture—there is no reason to believe it would respect legal restrictions against the use of military force at home.
It is noteworthy that the deployment of US combat troops "as an on-call federal response force for natural or manmade emergencies and disasters"—in the words of the Army Times—coincides with the eruption of the greatest economic emergency and financial disaster since the Great Depression of the 1930s.
Justified as a response to terrorist threats, the real source of the growing preparations for the use of US military force within America's borders lies not in the events of September 11, 2001 or the danger that they will be repeated. Rather, the domestic mobilization of the armed forces is a response by the US ruling establishment to the growing threat to political stability.
Under conditions of deepening economic crisis, the unprecedented social chasm separating the country's working people from the obscenely wealthy financial elite becomes unsustainable within the existing political framework.
-
-
Re: Could Bush enforce martial law?
Wed, October 15, 2008 - 4:51 AMThanks for that post. Wouldn't it be great if the duopoly candidates were asked about their views on domestic deployment of military forces during tonight's "debate"? -
-
Re: Could Bush enforce martial law?
Wed, October 15, 2008 - 10:41 AMoh man that would be something
-
-
-
-
-
