American freedoms, a question to ponder - marshall law, what would it take?

clark · 2003-11-14 18:01:20

What do you think it would take for the general American populace to accept the imposition of marshall law and a suspension of habeus corpus?

Cobra Commander · 2003-11-14 18:14:58

Sadly, I don't think it would take a whole hell of a lot. They probably could have pulled it off after 9/11 if they'd tried. Now it would probably require a nuclear or biological attack. A smallpox outbreak or radiological bomb in New York would probably suffice to make most people accept it, at least for a few days.

I, of course would be digging up the hidden stash of firearms and passing them out to the blackshirt goons. Why do you ask?

clark · 2003-11-14 18:17:07

like everything else, just a feeling.

i just hope this one is wrong.

Cobra Commander · 2003-11-14 18:38:37

I know what you mean. I've been having that feeling myself for awhile.

Usually I'm not wrong about this sort of thing, and historically speaking we're due for major league turd. Let's just stay focused on the root problems and not focus too much on scapegoats, even when they really are part of the problem.

Hazer · 2003-11-14 18:54:42

"What do you think it would take for the general American populace to accept the imposition of marshall law and a suspension of habeus corpus?"

I think martial law may have been imposed once or twice on a small scale. My hometown Tulsa for instance, had a massive race riot in the TWENTIES. They had to call out the National Guard to break it up.

Alt2War · 2003-11-21 02:16:27

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/article … 5048.shtml

Gen. Franks Doubts Constitution Will Survive WMD Attack
John O. Edwards, NewsMax.com
Friday, Nov. 21, 2003
Gen. Tommy Franks says that if the United States is hit with a weapon of mass destruction that inflicts large casualties, the Constitution will likely be discarded in favor of a military form of government.
Franks, who successfully led the U.S. military operation to liberate Iraq, expressed his worries in an extensive interview he gave to the men?s lifestyle magazine Cigar Aficionado.

In the magazine?s December edition, the former commander of the military?s Central Command warned that if terrorists succeeded in using a weapon of mass destruction (WMD) against the U.S. or one of our allies, it would likely have catastrophic consequences for our cherished republican form of government.

Discussing the hypothetical dangers posed to the U.S. in the wake of Sept. 11, Franks said that ?the worst thing that could happen? is if terrorists acquire and then use a biological, chemical or nuclear weapon that inflicts heavy casualties.

If that happens, Franks said, ?... 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.?

Franks then offered ?in a practical sense? what he thinks would happen in the aftermath of such an attack.

?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 unravel the fabric of our Constitution. Two steps, very, very important.?

Franks didn?t speculate about how soon such an event might take place.

Already, critics of the U.S. Patriot Act, rushed through Congress in the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks, have argued that the law aims to curtail civil liberties and sets a dangerous precedent.

But Franks? scenario goes much further. He is the first high-ranking official to openly speculate that the Constitution could be scrapped in favor of a military form of government.

The usually camera-shy Franks retired from U.S. Central Command, known in Pentagon lingo as CentCom, in August 2003, after serving nearly four decades in the Army.

Franks earned three Purple Hearts for combat wounds and three Bronze Stars for valor. Known as a ?soldier?s general,? Franks made his mark as a top commander during the U.S.?s successful Operation Desert Storm, which liberated Kuwait in 1991. He was in charge of CentCom when Osama bin Laden?s al-Qaeda attacked the United States on Sept. 11.

Franks said that within hours of the attacks, he was given orders to prepare to root out the Taliban in Afghanistan and to capture bin Laden.

Franks offered his assessment on a number of topics to Cigar Aficionado, including:

President Bush: ?As I look at President Bush, I think he will ultimately be judged as a man of extremely high character. A very thoughtful man, not having been appraised properly by those who would say he?s not very smart. I find the contrary. I think he?s very, very bright. And I suspect that he?ll be judged as a man who led this country through a crease in history effectively. Probably we?ll think of him in years to come as an American hero.?

On the motivation for the Iraq war: Contrary to claims that top Pentagon brass opposed the invasion of Iraq, Franks said he wholeheartedly agreed with the president?s decision to invade Iraq and oust Saddam Hussein.

?I, for one, begin with intent. ... There is no question that Saddam Hussein had intent to do harm to the Western alliance and to the United States of America. That intent is confirmed in a great many of his speeches, his commentary, the words that have come out of the Iraqi regime over the last dozen or so years. So we have intent.

?If we know for sure ... that a regime has intent to do harm to this country, and if we have something beyond a reasonable doubt that this particular regime may have the wherewithal with which to execute the intent, what are our actions and orders as leaders in this country??

The Pentagon?s deck of cards: Asked how the Pentagon decided to put its most-wanted Iraqis on a set of playing cards, Franks explained its genesis. He recalled that when his staff identified the most notorious Iraqis the U.S. wanted to capture, ?it just turned out that the number happened to be about the same as a deck of cards. And so somebody said, ?Aha, this will be the ace of spades.??

Capturing Saddam: Franks said he was not surprised that Saddam has not been captured or killed. But he says he will eventually be found, perhaps sooner than Osama bin laden.

?The capture or killing of Saddam Hussein will be a near term thing. And I won?t say that?ll be within 19 or 43 days. ... I believe it is inevitable.?

Franks ended his interview with a less-than-optimistic note. ?It?s not in the history of civilization for peace ever to reign. Never has in the history of man. ... I doubt that we?ll ever have a time when the world will actually be at peace.?

Shaun Barrett · 2003-11-21 05:25:03

Many thanks, Alt2War!
That was an interesting interview.
I don't know if what they say about President Bush being a religious nut is true, but I very much doubt he's quite as stupid as the media want us to believe. Even if you assign to him no more than a certain low cunning, that in itself is a form of intelligence, and it may be just the kind of intelligence we need right now as we face global terrorism.

Thanks again, Alt. I never thought I'd see the day when you would draw attention to an article which tends to paint George Dubya in a favourable light. It just goes to show ... you never can tell .. !!
:laugh:

Alt2War · 2003-11-21 13:00:45

Many thanks, Alt2War!
That was an interesting interview.
I don't know if what they say about President Bush being a religious nut is true, but I very much doubt he's quite as stupid as the media want us to believe. Even if you assign to him no more than a certain low cunning, that in itself is a form of intelligence, and it may be just the kind of intelligence we need right now as we face global terrorism.
Thanks again, Alt. I never thought I'd see the day when you would draw attention to an article which tends to paint George Dubya in a favourable light. It just goes to show ... you never can tell .. !!
:laugh:

I think we took different things away from this article when reading it.

Cobra Commander · 2003-11-21 16:42:27

Many thanks, Alt2War!
That was an interesting interview.
I don't know if what they say about President Bush being a religious nut is true, but I very much doubt he's quite as stupid as the media want us to believe. Even if you assign to him no more than a certain low cunning, that in itself is a form of intelligence, and it may be just the kind of intelligence we need right now as we face global terrorism.
Thanks again, Alt. I never thought I'd see the day when you would draw attention to an article which tends to paint George Dubya in a favourable light. It just goes to show ... you never can tell .. !!
:laugh:
I think we took different things away from this article when reading it.

Alt2War, it seems to me that you are assuming, without real evidence, that Bush is the cause of the erosion of civil liberties. Don't focus to closely on one figure, there are plenty of people moving in from the other side. Keep the right flank covered, but reinforce the left.

Alt2War · 2003-11-23 22:19:29

Many thanks, Alt2War!
That was an interesting interview.
I don't know if what they say about President Bush being a religious nut is true, but I very much doubt he's quite as stupid as the media want us to believe. Even if you assign to him no more than a certain low cunning, that in itself is a form of intelligence, and it may be just the kind of intelligence we need right now as we face global terrorism.
Thanks again, Alt. I never thought I'd see the day when you would draw attention to an article which tends to paint George Dubya in a favourable light. It just goes to show ... you never can tell .. !!
:laugh:
I think we took different things away from this article when reading it.
Alt2War, it seems to me that you are assuming, without real evidence, that Bush is the cause of the erosion of civil liberties. Don't focus to closely on one figure, there are plenty of people moving in from the other side. Keep the right flank covered, but reinforce the left.

Assuming what another assumes is dangerous

clark · 2003-11-24 12:45:28

Keep the right flank covered, but reinforce the left.

And never let them drive a wedge between...

Politicans are all cut from the same cloth. Both sides give handouts to the hand that feeds them, often times they are the same hands, regardless of which side of the aisle they sit on.

As it now stands, our courts are trying to determine if the president has the right and the power to imprison actual US citizens, not this native-immigrant-whatever-grey area citizen. Actual full blooded americans.

The courts are trying to determine if the President can lock up a US citizen, without charges, without access to a lawyer, or judicial review. Now, I will grant that the people this power has been used on have more than likely deserved being locked up, but that's how it always starts.

We give them power for a just cause, then that power is used for unjust causes. Tell your represenatives not to support any follow-up legislation to the Patriot Act. It's in all our best interests.

Hazer · 2003-11-24 13:23:40

On the subject of American Freedoms:
It is a sad sign of the times when people cannot trust each other, sad but true. I fear that Al-Qaeda's jihad may very well succeed-not in letter, but in spirit.
The deepening ideological animosity between right and left could do more to hurt us then Al Qaeda ever could.
Is there a solution? I don't know.
If we leave Iraq, and cease the WoT, they will likely cheer and use it as impetus to construe further attacks. If we stay, there will be blood. It's a damned-if-we-do, damned-if- we-dont-scenario.
A WMD assault could be the straw that broke the camel's back

clark · 2003-11-24 14:52:24

http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,12 … _tophead_1

The link to wired.com article

Congress Expands FBI Spying Power

Congress approved a bill on Friday that expands the reach of the Patriot Act, reduces oversight of the FBI and intelligence agencies and, according to critics, shifts the balance of power away from the legislature and the courts.
A provision of an intelligence spending bill will expand the power of the FBI to subpoena business documents and transactions from a broader range of businesses -- everything from libraries to travel agencies to eBay -- without first seeking approval from a judge.
Under the Patriot Act, the FBI can acquire bank records and Internet or phone logs simply by issuing itself a so-called national security letter saying the records are relevant to an investigation into terrorism. The FBI doesn't need to show probable cause or consult a judge. What's more, the target institution is issued a gag order and kept from revealing the subpoena's existence to anyone, including the subject of the investigation.
The new provision in the spending bill redefines the meaning of "financial institution" and "financial transaction." The wider definition explicitly includes insurance companies, real estate agents, the U.S. Postal Service, travel agencies, casinos, pawn shops, ISPs, car dealers and any other business whose "cash transactions have a high degree of usefulness in criminal, tax or regulatory matters."
Justice Department officials tried earlier this year to write a bill to expand the Patriot Act. A draft -- dubbed Patriot II -- was leaked and caused such an uproar that Justice officials backed down. The new provision inserts one of the most controversial aspects of Patriot II into the spending bill.
Intelligence spending bills are considered sensitive, so they are usually drafted in secret and approved without debate or public comment.
Chris Schroeder, a Duke law professor and former assistant attorney general in the office of legal counsel at the Justice Department, said the re-insertion shows that "people who want to expand the powers of the FBI didn't want to stop after Patriot II was leaked."
"They are going to insert these provisions on a stealth basis," Schroeder said. "It's insidious."
James X. Dempsey, executive director of the Center for Democracy and Technology, echoed Shroeder's analysis.
"On its face, it's a cryptic and seemingly innocuous amendment," Dempsey said. "It wasn't until after it passed both houses that we saw it. The FBI and CIA like to try to graft things like this into intelligence bills."
House Intelligence Committee chairman Porter Goss (R-Florida) defended the new definition, saying it was necessary to keep pace with terrorists and the changing economy.
"This provision brings the definition of 'financial institution' up to date with the reality of the financial industry," Goss said on the House floor. "This provision will allow those tracking terrorists and spies to 'follow the money' more effectively and thereby protect the people of the United States more effectively."
The expansion surprised many in Congress, including some members of the intelligence committees who recently began reconsidering the scope of the Patriot Act.
Timothy Edgar, legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union, decried the expansion of an executive power that is not subject to judicial oversight.
"The more that checks and balances against government abuse are eroded, the greater that abuse," Edgar said. "We're going to regret these initiatives down the road."

There is a second page to this article, I suggest you follow the link, and inform yourself.

from page two:

National security letters, or NSLs, are among the most-used antiterrorism powers, and are among the least-known or scrutinized. The Bush administration has pushed to expand their use. In the spring, it tried unsuccessfully to allow the CIA and the military the right to issue such subpoenas.
The FBI says it can't say how many times it has issued itself NSLs because of national security. A few weeks ago, civil liberties groups forced the Justice Department to release some of those records, but Justice handed over a six-page, blacked-out list.

clark · 2003-12-03 11:23:57

Here is DOD (department of defense) policy related to 'enemy combatants', foreign or otherwise:

http://www.defenselink.mil/releases/200 … -0717.html

DoD Announces Detainee Allowed Access to Lawyer

The Department of Defense announced today that Yaser Esam Hamdi, an enemy combatant detained at the Charleston Consolidated Naval Brig in Charleston, S.C., will be allowed access to a lawyer subject to appropriate security restrictions. Arrangements for that access will be developed over the next few days.
DoD is allowing Hamdi access to counsel as a matter of discretion and military policy; such access is not required by domestic or international law and should not be treated as a precedent.

DoD decided to allow Hamdi access to counsel because Hamdi is a U.S. citizen detained by DoD in the United States, because DoD has completed its intelligence collection with Hamdi, and because DoD has determined that the access will not compromise the national security of the United States.
Hamdi is not eligible for trial by military commission under the President?s military order of Nov. 13, 2001, and has not been criminally charged in any court. Detention as an enemy combatant is not criminal in nature but is permitted under the law of war to prevent an enemy combatant from continuing to fight against the United States. Under the law of war, enemy combatants may be detained until the end of hostilities.
DoD policy is that it will permit access to counsel by an enemy combatant who is a U. S. citizen and who is detained by DoD in the United States after DoD has determined that such access will not compromise the national security of the U. S.; and after DoD has completed intelligence collection from that enemy combatant or after DoD has determined that such access will not interfere with intelligence collection from that enemy combatant.

Who are we at war with? Iraq? Afghanistan? Terroism in general? When do hostilites ever end? If they never end, or they end in 50 years (as our leaders have stated), does that mean US citizens, or foreigners could be held incommunicado for all that time, without charges, without legal representation?

Why would the DOD do this? To prevent the legal challenge going through to the courts. By doing this, they are able to maintain the policy without judicial review, which would be altered (maybe) if Hamdi's case went to the Supreme Court.

The 'discretion' they allude to is to avoid the legal challenges to maintain the policy as is, for as long as possible, until further legislation can be passed to cement these rules beyond the reach of judicial review.

Cobra Commander · 2003-12-06 10:20:49

Who are we at war with? Iraq? Afghanistan? Terroism in general? When do hostilites ever end?

This "War on Terror" is going to have some similarities to the "War on Drugs" and "War on Poverty", which is to say they will never really be over. However this one has a crucial difference, it's actually a war. Because of that, we can continually make progress toward winning even though we never actually can because one nut with a car-bomb slipping through negates total victory. The trick is going to be making this war less destructive to the country than it predecessors (Drugs and Poverty).

Many of the more objectionable aspects of recent anti-terrorism legislation have already been on the books for years as part of drug enforcement laws. Warrantless searches are already permitted under certain conditions, property and assets can already be seized absent a conviction. The much-maligned PATRIOT Act continues these trends but did not originate them. The War on Poverty has cost the taxpayers trillions of dollars and the results have been negligable at best. At least in the War on Terror we have positive, measurable results.

Our civil liberties have been eroding for decades in many forms. I fear that much of the country has become so accustomed to it that if a bolder move were ever made, "justified" by a massive terrorist attack, most people would accept it and be suspicious and hostile of those who do not. In that case, I suspect that an attempt would be made to... how to say this without triggering too much unwanted attention... refresh the tree of liberty

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2003-11-14 18:01:20

Re: American freedoms, a question to ponder - marshall law, what would it take?

#2 2003-11-14 18:14:58

Re: American freedoms, a question to ponder - marshall law, what would it take?

#3 2003-11-14 18:17:07

Re: American freedoms, a question to ponder - marshall law, what would it take?

#4 2003-11-14 18:38:37

Re: American freedoms, a question to ponder - marshall law, what would it take?

#5 2003-11-14 18:54:42

Re: American freedoms, a question to ponder - marshall law, what would it take?

#6 2003-11-21 02:16:27

Re: American freedoms, a question to ponder - marshall law, what would it take?

#7 2003-11-21 05:25:03

Re: American freedoms, a question to ponder - marshall law, what would it take?

#8 2003-11-21 13:00:45

Re: American freedoms, a question to ponder - marshall law, what would it take?

#9 2003-11-21 16:42:27

Re: American freedoms, a question to ponder - marshall law, what would it take?

#10 2003-11-23 22:19:29

Re: American freedoms, a question to ponder - marshall law, what would it take?

#11 2003-11-24 12:45:28

Re: American freedoms, a question to ponder - marshall law, what would it take?

#12 2003-11-24 13:23:40

Re: American freedoms, a question to ponder - marshall law, what would it take?

#13 2003-11-24 14:52:24

Re: American freedoms, a question to ponder - marshall law, what would it take?

#14 2003-12-03 11:23:57

Re: American freedoms, a question to ponder - marshall law, what would it take?

#15 2003-12-06 10:20:49

Re: American freedoms, a question to ponder - marshall law, what would it take?

Board footer