Thread: Bush Moves Toward Martial Law

LegalUSCitizen wrote:

But, having gone through a really serious disaster, Hurricane Andrew in 1992, isn't it possible that there are some events that could require martial law in order to protect American citizens?

You're absolutely right. The potential for a disaster that is beyond the NG's capabilities is a possibility and/or what if a situation arose that required military intervention, but the governor refused to use the NG. For example, what if it was suspected that a terrorist cell had moved into several border towns, but the governor of that state refused to send the NG for a house to house check in an effort to locate the terrorist? In such an event, wouldn't it be of the best interest of the country to declare martial law in those communites until the issue could be resolved?

What if there was a serious mass outbreak of a deadly desease that had been isolated to a border town? Wouldn't you rest easier knowing the federal government could take action to immediately contain the desease through martial law if necessary. We would all like to think individual governors would act responsibly in such a situation, but there is certainly no guarantee. They certainly haven't acted responsibly in dealing with illegal immigrants!

What if Bush has plans to militarize the border? It is my understanding that he can't currently use our active duty military to (loaded, locked, and cocked) act as law enforcement along the border. Wouldn't these new provisions allow for that?

What if the U.S. Congress declares all illegal immigrants have 15 days to depart the United States (I know, a ridiculous thought ). Don't you think the potential for a mass insurrection would exist under such a situation. Let's not forget, we probably have 20-30 million illegals currently working and residing in the United States. Do you think California's NG can handle 10 million illegals rioting throughout California? Picture all those millions of illegals and their supporters that marched in our streets this past May and you'll get a better handle on what I'm talking about. Could you imagine the manpower it would take to control rioting crowds of tens of millions of folks throughout the country? I'm not sure the police and NG couldn't handle such an insurrection, especially when it was happening simultaneously throughout the country.

I haven't done enough research on this issue to declare a position, but I do see that martial law could become necessary to protect American citizens in extraordinary situations, especially when the federal and state governments disagree on a remedy. Plus, I hate Sen. Leahy (D-VT) and find it very difficult to agree with anything he says! IMHO, he is the biggest whinner in the U.S. Congress.

I don't care for President Bush or many of his policies, but I refuse to see a conspiracy theory behind every move he makes.

I think I might have been thinking something else. Obviously it was FEMA who she wanted (a federal agency).....but why the state seemed to have been of zero help in those first days after Andrew is beyond me.

Thank you guys. Sorry if I took you off focus of the discussion. It just reminded me of this and that's the experience I think of when I think of Martial Law.
If it was real Martial Law.....I don't know. I just know that in that situation it was a big help...whatever it would have been considered to be.

OK, thanks.

This has nothing to do with 'bush.' Everyone points to him but he's merely a spoke in the wheel. People seem to think that he's thought this up on his own and has decided to become a dictator, lol. So off the mark.
Globalism has been in the pipeline since the 40's and the only thing stopping the culmination is the American People and their -I quote - "stubborness."

After the election is over and time is again freed up
PLEASE begin by researching the documents within the CFR and most of your answers will be at your fingertips.

The word, "conspiracy," has been used willy nilly to avoid researching the documentation. This is no conspiracy........the CFR controls our foreign & domestic policies. The information/planning has been brilliantly separated and carefully placed so that nothing is en toto. They then use 'front men' to move the plans into whatever administration happens to be in office at the time.

Excerpt from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_ ... ne_Katrina:

State and local government

Mayor Ray Nagin, Governor Kathleen Blanco, President George W. Bush and Senator David Vitter, September 2, 2005.
[edit] Louisiana
State of Louisiana officials, including Governor Kathleen Blanco and state emergency management leaders, have been widely criticized for delaying the ability of the federal government and outside agencies to respond.

Chief among those criticisms is that state National Guard troops under the leadership of Democratic Governor Kathleen Blanco were responsible for quelling civil unrest in advance of humanitarian relief efforts, yet they failed to do so in the first few days after the hurricane. In keeping with the constitutional separation of state and federal powers, Federal troops are constrained by law from participating in law enforcement within United States borders by the Posse Comitatus Act, unless the President assumes command of federal and state troops by invoking the Insurrection Act. In this circumstance, the state's National Guard troops become federalized, and the Governor is removed from the chain of command over the state National Guard.

Generally speaking, a sitting president does not assume control over state National Guard unless a specific request originates from a governor. No such request originated from Blanco's office in the aftermath of Katrina. In fact, shortly before midnight on Friday, September 2, the Bush administration sent governor Blanco a request to take over command of law enforcement and the state National Guard, but this request was rejected by Blanco.[47] Governor Haley Barbour of Mississippi also rejected a similar request.

Governor Blanco did make a request to the Federal government for additional National Guard troops (to supplement the 5,700 Louisiana National Guard troops available in Louisiana at the time).[48] However, the necessary formal request through the Federal National Guard Bureau was not made until Tuesday, a full day after the hurricane hit and when much of the city was already under water. Blanco also failed to activate a compact with other states that would have allowed her to bypass Washington in a request for additional troops. Even if an earlier request had been made, the logic of mobilizing troops from outlying areas, such as Arizona or California is regarded as questionable by many, given the closer proximity of Federal U.S. First Army troops under the direction of Lieutenant General Russel L. Honoré.

To the extent that the lax security situation in New Orleans delayed or prevented humanitarian aid workers from entering the city safely in the aftermath of Hurrican Katrina, state officials can be held accountable.

Press reports indicate that there were other failures at the state and local level in expediting aid and social services to the stricken area. New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin accused the governor of delaying federal rescue efforts, "I was ready to move today. The governor said she needed 24 hours to make a decision. It would have been great if we could have [...] told the world that we had this all worked out. It didn't happen, and more people died."[49] A FEMA official has claimed that Gov. Blanco failed to submit a request for help in a timely manner, saying that she did send President Bush a request asking for shelter and provisions, but didn't specifically ask for help with evacuations. The nonpartisan Congressional Research Service has concluded, that Blanco did submit requests for shelter, counseling and provisions in a timely manner, but there is no mention that she requested assistance with evacuation. One aide to the governor said that Blanco thought city officials were taking care of the evacuation in accord with the city's emergency plan.[50]

There were reports that Governor Blanco was reluctant to issue a mandatory evacuation order until President Bush called to personally ask that she give the order. Howver, the mandatory evacuation order was issued by Mayor Nagin, and it is unlikely the Bush call was decisive in the making of the order.[51] At the August 28 press conference in which Nagin and Blanco ordered the evacuation of New Orleans, Blanco actually said that Bush had called, "just before we walked into this room" to share his concerns and urge that the city be evacuated.[52]

Bill Jefferson (D-Louisiana) a Representative for Louisiana from the New Orleans area, was criticized when he had misused National Guard resources to check on his personal belongings and property on September 2, during the height of the rescue efforts.[53] He used his political position to bypass military baricades and delay two heavy trucks, a helicopter, and several National Guard troops for over an hour to stop at his home and retrieve, "a laptop computer, three suitcases, and a box about the size of a small refrigerator". (Hmmm.....the infamous frozen assets man)

Thought this might be of interest to those that feel it was the federal government that let down the victims of Katrina. IMHO, Mayor Blanco deserves most of the credit for that fiasco.

The word, "conspiracy," has been used willy nilly to avoid researching the documentation.

Not so, the words "conspiracy theory" are used to describe certain scenarios being put forth without any factual evidence, such as:

Was this "close call" done on purpose? To push the "need for martial law in the future?" I smell a rat.

The power's that be are looking for a reason to call "marital law."
This was something that has been documented in the communist manifesto papers for decades.

Perhaps I should just stick to the illegal immigrant threads.

What if the U.S. Congress declares all illegal immigrants have 15 days to depart the United States (I know, a ridiculous thought ).

I liked that MW !

All I know is if your community, city or state ever gets into a really bad situation you'll feel a lot safer with martial law than without it. I'm not kidding. They enforce strongly too, nobody gets away with breaking it. It's like your regular laws being enforced 100 times more effectively.....if that was true martial law that I experienced.

It seems to me that states are only good at handling relatively small emergencies. When the going gets rough they always call for help. I'll tell you one thing, after that experience I would hate to be in a state where there was an emergency too big for them to handle and the governor was too stubborn or had too much pride to call for help.

That could be the ultimate worst. Because when you need the National Guard, martial law....you really, really want it. The best comes out in most people, but there are those who it will bring out the absolute worst in them.

I think these days it would be even more true. My experience was in 1992 and this is 2006.

Originally Posted by MW

The word, "conspiracy," has been used willy nilly to avoid researching the documentation.

Not so, the words "conspiracy theory" are used to describe certain scenarios being put forth without any factual evidence, such as:

[quote:1ydwzlo1]Was this "close call" done on purpose? To push the "need for martial law in the future?" I smell a rat.

The power's that be are looking for a reason to call "marital law."
This was something that has been documented in the communist manifesto papers for decades.

Perhaps I should just stick to the illegal immigrant threads. [/quote:1ydwzlo1]
If only, however, the ILLEGAL situation is a direct tie to the open borders policy that has been put forth by the CFR. You can't separate them from each other as they are inexplicably tied.

Research their documentation. It's all one needs to do in order to understand what has been and is happening. We're not talking about some conspiracy theorists website, lol......the Council on Foreign Relations is the strongest, most powerful group in the world with hands in every policy coming down from the EU to the "North American Union."
They ARE NAFTA/CAFTA, the NASCO SUPERHIGHWAY, etc.

.

Originally Posted by MW

For example, what if it was suspected that a terrorist cell had moved into several border towns, but the governor of that state refused to send the NG for a house to house check in an effort to locate the terrorist? In such an event, wouldn't it be of the best interest of the country to declare martial law in those communites until the issue could be resolved?

If local and state police can't handle it, the NG can by order of the Governor. The Governor is in charge of NG, NOT the President!

What if there was a serious mass outbreak of a deadly desease that had been isolated to a border town? Wouldn't you rest easier knowing the federal government could take action to immediately contain the desease through martial law if necessary.

Plans are already in place to deal with this WITHOUT the NEED for martial law.

We would all like to think individual governors would act responsibly in such a situation, but there is certainly no guarantee. They certainly haven't acted responsibly in dealing with illegal immigrants!

So your willing to give up our constitutional rights based on someone we elected NOT doing their job?

What if Bush has plans to militarize the border? It is my understanding that he can't currently use our active duty military to (loaded, locked, and cocked) act as law enforcement along the border. Wouldn't these new provisions allow for that?

It's unnecessary for active duty military to man the border. It can be done with 50,000 NG, 20,000 LESS than we used for Katrina.

What if the U.S. Congress declares all illegal immigrants have 15 days to depart the United States (I know, a ridiculous thought ). Don't you think the potential for a mass insurrection would exist under such a situation. Let's not forget, we probably have 20-30 million illegals currently working and residing in the United States. Do you think California's NG can handle 10 million illegals rioting throughout California? Picture all those millions of illegals and their supporters that marched in our streets this past May and you'll get a better handle on what I'm talking about. Could you imagine the manpower it would take to control rioting crowds of tens of millions of folks throughout the country? I'm not sure the police and NG couldn't handle such an insurrection, especially when it was happening simultaneously throughout the country.

Sacrificing your rights based on "What if's" is a little short-sighted, IMHO.

I haven't done enough research on this issue to declare a position, but I do see that martial law could become necessary to protect American citizens in extraordinary situations, especially when the federal and state governments disagree on a remedy. Plus, I hate Sen. Leahy (D-VT) and find it very difficult to agree with anything he says! IMHO, he is the biggest whinner in the U.S. Congress.

It is ESPECIALLY IMPORTANT when Feds and States disagree. Constitutionally, the States are SUPPOSED to WIN that fight!

I don't care for President Bush or many of his policies, but I refuse to see a conspiracy theory behind every move he makes.

You do some more research on the CFR and the picture will become clear.

Sorry MW, usually we agree but on this we don't. No hard feelings, OK?

MW, I do agree that there could be legitimate uses for our military deployed on US soil, such as in the scenarios you describe, or if someone detonated a dirty bomb or even a nuke, God forbid. I can only imagine the utter chaos that might ensue.

I especially like your scenario of 20 million illegal aliens racing for the border!



I think the problem here though is that we are now wise enough to know that we cannot trust this administration or its motives. And, we have observed a series of things being implemented, such as with the Kelo decision by the Supreme Court and now the NAFTA superhighway which would take millions of acres of land by eminent domain. There are just too many things taking place to consider them all to be coincidence.

There have been a number of past posts here that have talked about how the NAU would be implemented in its final stages, and one of these was declaring martial law subsequent to some major disaster. I guess we shall see.

BTW, I read some of the Warner bill 5122 and there was at least 80-90 trillion $ listed in a couple paragraphs just for military hardware like planes, ships, etc, and this is only the tip of the military spending iceberg. So, next time anyone says we can't afford to fund the fence for a few measly billion $, ask them about this!!!!

I repeat! There is never a reason for martial law declared by a president! The states affected by any attack could issue it if need be, but it does not have to be done by the president.

We do not & should not sacrifice freedom for safety!

Somebody’s been watching the new TV show Jericho. Stop watching TV it is a waste of time and it kills your brain cells!

Try Reading the Constitution or just the Bill of Rights.