HR 8791 Homeland prepareness bill - Martial Law

[Guest HexHead]

Agreed! ..... Wait what On two different subjects!

Although I wouldn't call the cops,and guards criminals in uniform though.They were simply following orders.

Now say something silly that I can disagree with,quick!

The theory of "just following orders" was disproved at Nuremberg. They may have been in uniform, but they were acting unconstitutionally.

If Serpas gets a bug up his ass and were to order Metro to come around and confiscate guns, I wouldn't hesitate to open fire on them.

[Guest HexHead]

Also notice that the C-SPAN logo is wrong.

Looks like Onion Span.

[Magiccarpetrides]

Looks like Onion Span.

Lol yep....I cant believe I missed that clue...me needs to pay more attention to the signs and loosen up the tin foil.

[Angus]

Heh, I was like, how come no one is callin it a fake, till page 2? Some of you have me worried a little, maybe, kinda sorta. Tell ya what, pop off the foil beanies and come on over fer a beer or 12, I have pop(soda) too. Just don't drink the water, comes from a government monitored collection system.

[Reservoir Dog]

I love it when the tin-foilers get duped by The Onion.

[Guest mikedwood]

Scary thing for me is, I thought it was real and it didn't bother me. I just figured it's how they are doing things now. Like the hearings with the Big 3. The Onion could have done nothing to make those more ridiculous.

Edited January 8, 2009 by mikedwood
spelling error

[Mike.357]

just because this is a fake does not mean crap like this does not go on.

[Tim Nunan]

http://www.newsmax.com/headlines/military_domestic_use/2008/12/23/164765.html?s=sp&promo_code=7651-1

U.S. Military Preparing for Domestic Disturbances

Tuesday, December 23, 2008 1:14 PM

By: Jim Meyers

A new report from the U.S. Army War College discusses the use of American troops to quell civil unrest brought about by a worsening economic crisis.

The report from the War College’s Strategic Studies Institute warns that the U.S. military must prepare for a “violent, strategic dislocation inside the United States†that could be provoked by “unforeseen economic collapse†or “loss of functioning political and legal order.â€

Entitled “Known Unknowns: Unconventional ‘Strategic Shocks’ in Defense Strategy Development,†the report was produced by Nathan Freier, a recently retired Army lieutenant colonel who is a professor at the college — the Army’s main training institute for prospective senior officers.

He writes: “To the extent events like this involve organized violence against local, state, and national authorities and exceed the capacity of the former two to restore public order and protect vulnerable populations, DoD [Department of Defense] would be required to fill the gap.â€

Freier continues: “Widespread civil violence inside the United States would force the defense establishment to reorient priorities in extremis to defend basic domestic order … An American government and defense establishment lulled into complacency by a long-secure domestic order would be forced to rapidly divest some or most external security commitments in order to address rapidly expanding human insecurity at home.â€

International Monetary Fund Managing Director Dominique Strauss-Kahn warned last week of riots and unrest in global markets if the ongoing financial crisis is not addressed and lower-income households are beset with credit constraints and rising unemployment, the Phoenix Business Journal reported.

Sen. James Inhofe of Oklahoma and Rep. Brad Sherman of California disclosed that Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson discussed a worst-case scenario as he pushed the Wall Street bailout in September, and said that scenario might even require a declaration of martial law.

The Army College report states: “DoD might be forced by circumstances to put its broad resources at the disposal of civil authorities to contain and reverse violent threats to domestic tranquility. Under the most extreme circumstances, this might include use of military force against hostile groups inside the United States.

“Further, DoD would be, by necessity, an essential enabling hub for the continuity of political authority in a multi-state or nationwide civil conflict or disturbance.â€

He concludes this section of the report by observing: “DoD is already challenged by stabilization abroad. Imagine the challenges associated with doing so on a massive scale at home."

As Newsmax reported earlier, the Defense Department has made plans to deploy 20,000 troops nationwide by 2011 to help state and local officials respond to emergencies.

The 130-year-old Posse Comitatus Act restricts the military’s role in domestic law enforcement. But a 1994 Defense Department Directive allows military commanders to take emergency actions in domestic situations to save lives, prevent suffering or mitigate great property damage, according to the Business Journal.

And Gen. Tommy Franks, who led the U.S. military operations to liberate Iraq, said in a 2003 interview that if the U.S. is attacked with a weapon of mass destruction, the Constitution will likely be discarded in favor of a military form of government.

[Magiccarpetrides]

Tim,

That is an article I have read. Its scary but if not abused(yeah right) it makes sense.

[DaveTN]

U.S. Military Preparing for Domestic Disturbances

Duhhh…

Of course they need to prepare for it. The threat we are seeing to our economy right now is more of a danger to this country than any enemy on earth.

And Gen. Tommy Franks, who led the U.S. military operations to liberate Iraq, said in a 2003 interview that if the U.S. is attacked with a weapon of mass destruction, the Constitution will likely be discarded in favor of a military form of government.

Probably. But that would depend on the amount of damage.

The Constitution can and has survived a lot of things; but being hit by a nuke is not one of them.

[Guest rlrm777]

IMHO The bunch in Wash now have a little too much on their plate to do anything about confiscation for the next few months.

However, most in power now would love any excuse to do so. Katrina was a test, a dry run. If they get away with it again, the next step is rounding us up 'for our own good', confiscating our extra food and clothes for the common good, expropriating our homes for local headquarters, and land for gov't use.

I say the next time they try it, we should make it very expensive and extremely painful. Maybe they would think twice about trying it again.

[Guest rlrm777]

Don't remember where I found this, maybe here and many of you have already seen it.

I didn't write it, but I wish I had. I plan on sending a copy of it to every Congressman each time the subject of gun control is broached.

Memorandum on Arms and Freedom

By Brian Puckett

It is time to speak plainly for the good citizens and patriots of this nation who believe unbendingly in the Constitution of the United States of America.

Though foreign governments may disarm their subjects, we will not go down that road. We will not disarm and see our freedoms stripped away. The lessons of history are numerous, clear and bloody. A disarmed population inevitably becomes an enslaved population. A disarmed population is without power, reduced to childlike obedience to--and dependence upon--the organs of a parental state. A disarmed population will lose--either piecemeal or in one sweeping act--those basic rights for which the citizens of America risked their lives and fortunes over two hundred years ago.

WE WILL NOT DISARM.

The right to self-protection--the internal directive of every living creature, be it mouse or man--is the most fundamental right of all. It is a right that must be exercised against all predators of the streets, against the predators hidden within agencies of law enforcement, and against the most dangerous predators of all--those to be found in government, whose insidious grasping for power is relentless and never-ending.

WE WILL NOT DISARM.

Not in the face of robbers, rapists, and murderers who prey upon our families and friends. Nor in the face of police and bureau agents who would turn a blind eye to the Constitution, who would betray the birthright of their countrymen; nor in the face of politicians of the lowest order--those who pander to the ignorant, the weak, the fearful, the naive; those indebted to a virulent strain of the rich who insulate themselves from the dangers imposed upon other Americans and then preach disarmament.

We will not surrender our handguns. We will not surrender our hunting arms. And we will not surrender our firearms of military pattern or military utility, nor their proper furnishings, nor the right to buy, to sell, or to manufacture such items.

Firearms of military utility, which serve well and nobly in times of social disturbance as tools of defense for the law-abiding, serve also in the quiet role of prevention, against both the criminal and the tyrannical. An ARMED CITIZENRY--the well-regulated MILITIA of the Second Amendment, properly armed with military firearms--is a powerful deterrent, on both conscious and subconscious levels, to those inclined toward governmental usurpations. An armed citizenry stands as a constant reminder to those in power that, though they may violate our rights temporarily, they will not do so endlessly and without consequence. And should Americans again be confronted with the necessity of--may God forbid it--throwing off the chains of a tyrannical and suffocating regime, firearms designed to answer the particular demands of warfare will provide the swiftest and most decisive means to this end. Any law which prohibits or limits a citizen's possession of firearms of military utility or their proper furnishings provides an OPEN WINDOW through which a corrupt government will crawl to steal away the remainder of our firearms and our liberties. Any law which prohibits or limits a citizen's possession of firearms of military utility or their proper furnishings, being directly contrary to the letter and spirit of the Second Amendment, is inimical to the Constitution, to the United States of America, and to its citizens.

Now--today--we are witnessing the perilous times foreseen by the architects of the Constitution. These are times when our government is demanding--in the guise of measures for the common good--the relinquishment of several rights guaranteed to Americans in the Constitution, foremost among which is the right to keep and bear arms for our own defense. These are times when our government has abdicated its primary responsibility--to provide for the security of its citizens. Swift and sure punishment of outlaws is absent, and in its place is offered the false remedy of disarming the law-abiding. Where this unconstitutional action has been given the force of law, it has failed to provide relief and has produced greater social discord. This discord in turn now serves as the false basis for the demand that we give up other rights, and for the demand for more police, more agents of bureaucratic control to enforce the revocation of these rights.

Legislators, justices, and law officers must bear in mind that the foundation of their duties is to uphold the fundamental law of the land--the Constitution. They must bear in mind that the unconstitutional act of disarming one's fellow citizens will also disarm one's parents, spouse, brothers, sisters, children, and children's children. There are good citizens who--taking heed of Benjamin Franklin's admonition that those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety--will surrender not one of their rights.

Those who eat away at our right to own and use firearms are feeding on the roots of a plant over two centuries old, a plant whose blossom is the most free, most powerful nation ever to exist on this planet. The right to keep and bear arms is the taproot of this plant. All other rights were won at the point of a gun and will endure only at the point of a gun. Could they speak, millions upon millions of this world's dead souls would testify to this truth. Millions upon

millions of the living can so testify today.

Now--today--is a critical moment in our history. Will we Americans passively lie down before a government grown disdainful of its best citizens? Or will we again declare: WE are the government, government functions at OUR behest, government MAY NOT rescind our sacred rights. Will we place our faith in public servants who behave as though they are our masters? Or will we place our faith in the words and deeds of the daring, farseeing men and women whose blood, sweat and tears brought forth this great nation?

Will we believe those who assure us that the police officer will shield us from the criminal? Or will we believe our eyes and ears, presented every day with news of our unarmed neighbors falling prey in their homes, on our streets, in our places of work and play?

Will we bow our heads to cowards and fools who will not learn and do not understand the lessons of human history? Or will we stand straight and assume the daily tasks and risks that liberty entails?

Will we ignore even the lessons of this present era--which has seen the cruel oppression of millions on the continents of Europe, Asia, Africa, and South America--and believe that the continent of North America is immune to such political disease? Or will we wisely accept the realities of this world, wisely listen to and make use of the precautions provided by our ancestors?

Will we deceived by shameless liars who say that disarmament equals safety, helplessness equals strength, patriotism equals criminality? Or will we mark the word of our forefathers, who wrote in plain language: THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED?

Let us make known: We will choose the latter option in every case.

LEGISLATORS: Do your duty to your country. Uphold the Constitution as you swore to do. Do not shame yourselves by knocking loose the mighty keystone of this great republic--the right to keep and bear arms. Read and study the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution you swore to support.

JUSTICES: Do your duty to your country. Examine the origins of our right to weaponry, and uphold the letter and spirit of the Constitution. Read and study the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution you swore to support.

LAWMEN: Do your duty to your country. Do not be misguided and misused. Your task is to serve and to protect--not to oppress, disarm, and to make helpless your countrymen.

To the blind, the ignorant, the apathetic, the safe and sheltered, these may seem to be concerns of another age. They are not. They are as vital as they have ever been throughout history. For times may change but human nature does not. And it is to protect forever against the evil in human nature that the Founding Fathers set aside certain rights as inviolable. For these reasons we must now make known: We will not passively take the path that leads to tyranny. We will not go down that road.

Not today, not tomorrow, not EVER!

WE WILL NOT DISARM.

Edited January 10, 2009 by rlrm777

[Reservoir Dog]

Let's loosen the tin-foil hats for a minute.

And Gen. Tommy Franks, who led the U.S. military operations to liberate Iraq, said in a 2003 interview that if the U.S. is attacked with a weapon of mass destruction, the Constitution will likely be discarded in favor of a military form of government.

Newsmax is not known for it's accuracy in reporting. They have had to retract several of their more controversial stories due to outright false information. Apparently, this article is no different.

In the above quote, Newsmax created a very misleading statement based on a December 2003 interview with Gen. Franks in Cigar Aficionado magazine. Franks was talking about how an attacks by terrorist puts fear into a country's population, and can make a population rethink the very fundamentals of their society. In that line, Franks stated that the effect of a WMD attack in the US, could possibly cause our population to question the Constitution, and militarize to prevent another WMD attack. The Newsmax quote makes it sound like the US government would suspend the Constitution, and install a military form of government. That is not what Franks said.

Here is the question, and Franks' actual answer:

CA: You just said that the war in Iraq was not just about weapons of mass destruction, but is part of the overall fight against terrorism. Given that profound statement, what are your feelings about criticism of President Bush that because we've found no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, it suggests the president misled our country, and we had no business going to war there?

Gen. Franks: That's a fair question. I'll give you an answer on two levels. First off, with respect to the whole discussion of what was known that caused our government to decide to go into Iraq and how that was tied to the war on terrorism, and so forth: my first comment is, Ain't this a great country! The people who crafted our Constitution more than 200 years ago saw fit to enable America to be informed, saw fit to enable both negativists and positivists to make their points forcefully. Ain't this a great country? The fact that there is negativism and questioning and political debate and discussion and sniping, and so forth, satisfies me just fine. I'm OK with that.

Now, let me talk to the substance of your question: Two years after the fact of 9/11, we should ask ourselves what is—not in 1941, not in 1917ñ1918—today, in the twenty-first century, what is the worst thing that can happen in our country? The worst thing that can happen is, perhaps—and this is my personal opinion—two steps. The first step would be a nexus between weapons of mass destruction of any variety. It could be chemical, it could be biological, it could be some nuclear device; and terrorism. Terrorists or any human being who is committed to the proposition of terror, try to just create casualties, not for the purpose of annihilation, but to terrify a population. We see it in the Middle East today, in order to change the mannerisms, the behavior, the sociology and, ultimately, the anthropology of a society.

That goes to step number two, which is that the western world, the free world, loses what it cherishes most, and that is freedom and liberty we've seen for a couple of hundred years in this grand experiment that we call democracy. Now, in a practical sense, what does that mean? It means the potential of a weapon of mass destruction and a terrorist, massive casualty-producing event somewhere in the western world—it may be in the United States of America—that causes our population to question our own Constitution and to begin to militarize our country in order to avoid a repeat of another mass-casualty-producing event. Which, in fact, then begins to potentially unravel the fabric of our Constitution. Two steps: very, very important.

You can look a the whole interview: http://www.cigaraficionado.com/Cigar/CA_Profiles/People_Profile/0,2540,201,00.html

[Guest Ralph G. Briscoe]

The law enforcement excesses during Katrina go along with the past 8 years of Bush ignoring the 4th amendment, habeus corpus, the Geneva convention. Why haven't gun owners been up in arms (so to speak) about these Republican violations of our rights?

[Smith]

The law enforcement excesses during Katrina go along with the past 8 years of Bush ignoring the 4th amendment, habeus corpus, the Geneva convention. Why haven't gun owners been up in arms (so to speak) about these Republican violations of our rights?

BTW - the excess of Katrina happened because Blanco and Naggin ignored Bush then then fired from the hipe like morons. It didn't happen in Mississippi or Texas, which actually had more damage..... wow! Guess what? Those were Republican areas. Curious.

- You do know Clinton started Echelon, right. You also are aware that it only came to light when Bush asked for permission to continue using the same program, correct? You also know that it was ruled by the special espionage court as perfectly legal this past week, right? It is interesting they delayed ruling till the week of Obama's inaguration.

- Habeas Corpus applies to citizens on US soil and not to international insurgent fighters.

- The Geneva Convention ONLY applies to uniformed soldies in conventional warfare as described by the same Geneva Convention which no one in Guitanimo was. It technically only applies if both sides have agreed to it, which the insurgents have not, because they are not legal fighters under the same Geneva Convention YOU POEPLE KEEP TRYING TO USE WITHOUT KNOWING WHAT THE HECK YOUARE TALKING ABOUT!

Evidently we live in a country that can read Obama's 13 cover/propaganda stories in Time magazine, but can't seem to find the time to read history, or the documents they liked to throw out there as legal standning.

We live in a society of Cliff note legal historians.

Rant off.

[Guest jackdog]

never mind.

[Guest Rainmaker]

BTW - the excess of Katrina happened because Blanco and Naggin ignored Bush then then fired from the hipe like morons. It didn't happen in Mississippi or Texas, which actually had more damage..... wow! Guess what? Those were Republican areas. Curious.

- You do know Clinton started Echelon, right. You also are aware that it only came to light when Bush asked for permission to continue using the same program, correct? You also know that it was ruled by the special espionage court as perfectly legal this past week, right? It is interesting they delayed ruling till the week of Obama's inaguration.

- Habeas Corpus applies to citizens on US soil and not to international insurgent fighters.

- The Geneva Convention ONLY applies to uniformed soldies in conventional warfare as described by the same Geneva Convention which no one in Guitanimo was. It technically only applies if both sides have agreed to it, which the insurgents have not, because they are not legal fighters under the same Geneva Convention YOU POEPLE KEEP TRYING TO USE WITHOUT KNOWING WHAT THE HECK YOUARE TALKING ABOUT!

Evidently we live in a country that can read Obama's 13 cover/propaganda stories in Time magazine, but can't seem to find the time to read history, or the documents they liked to throw out there as legal standning.

We live in a society of Cliff note legal historians.

Rant off.

Just a quickie I found. I make no guarantees as to validity. http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/01/18/prosecutions/index.html

[Guest bkelm18]

BTW - the excess of Katrina happened because Blanco and Naggin ignored Bush then then fired from the hipe like morons. It didn't happen in Mississippi or Texas, which actually had more damage..... wow! Guess what? Those were Republican areas. Curious.

- You do know Clinton started Echelon, right. You also are aware that it only came to light when Bush asked for permission to continue using the same program, correct? You also know that it was ruled by the special espionage court as perfectly legal this past week, right? It is interesting they delayed ruling till the week of Obama's inaguration.

- Habeas Corpus applies to citizens on US soil and not to international insurgent fighters.

- The Geneva Convention ONLY applies to uniformed soldies in conventional warfare as described by the same Geneva Convention which no one in Guitanimo was. It technically only applies if both sides have agreed to it, which the insurgents have not, because they are not legal fighters under the same Geneva Convention YOU POEPLE KEEP TRYING TO USE WITHOUT KNOWING WHAT THE HECK YOUARE TALKING ABOUT!

Evidently we live in a country that can read Obama's 13 cover/propaganda stories in Time magazine, but can't seem to find the time to read history, or the documents they liked to throw out there as legal standning.

We live in a society of Cliff note legal historians.

Rant off.

Its ok. Liberals aren't known for their thinking ability or their logic.

[robin48]

Or are of average intelligence and don’t have their tin foils hats on to tight.

Sorry man, but while our government may be in bad shape they aren’t going to be kicking in doors. That second video is lame as can be.

You keep believing that and I'll keep prepping

[Smith]

Just a quickie I found. I make no guarantees as to validity. http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/01/18/prosecutions/index.html

Defining torture is an "argument of the beard". It is a judgment call on most techniques used today, as stated in the posted link. IMO waterboarding is not torture, so it is ok. BTW torture is not what was being discussed earlier.

[DaveTN]

You keep believing that and I'll keep prepping

Prepping for what?

You are concerned that Combat Marines are going to kick your door in? Fill me in on how you prepare for that?