The Thailand expat forum for Travel, Lifestyle and Fun.

Milkman · 31-10-2006, 12:37 PM

Quote:

Bush Moves Toward Martial Law

By Frank Morales
October 26, 2006
From: Uruknet.info - switch/3
In a stealth maneuver, President Bush has signed into law a provision which, according to Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont), will actually encourage the President to declare federal martial law (1). It does so by revising the Insurrection Act, a set of laws that limits the President's ability to deploy troops within the United States. The Insurrection Act (10 U.S.C.331 -335) has historically, along with the Posse Comitatus Act (18 U.S.C.1385), helped to enforce strict prohibitions on military involvement in domestic law enforcement. With one cloaked swipe of his pen, Bush is seeking to undo those prohibitions.

Public Law 109-364, or the "John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007" (H.R.5122) (2), which was signed by the commander in chief on October 17th, 2006, in a private Oval Office ceremony, allows the President to declare a "public emergency" and station troops anywhere in America and take control of state-based National Guard units without the consent of the governor or local authorities, in order to "suppress public disorder." President Bush seized this unprecedented power on the very same day that he signed the equally odious Military Commissions Act of 2006. In a sense, the two laws complement one another. One allows for torture and detention abroad, while the other seeks to enforce acquiescence at home, preparing to order the military onto the streets of America. Remember, the term for putting an area under military law enforcement control is precise; the term is "martial law."

And:

Quote:

President Bush seized this unprecedented power on the very same day that he signed the equally odious Military Commissions Act of 2006. In a sense, the two laws complement one another. One allows for torture and detention abroad, while the other seeks to enforce acquiescence at home, preparing to order the military onto the streets of America. Remember, the term for putting an area under military law enforcement control is precise; the term is "martial law."

Section 1076 of the massive Authorization Act, which grants the Pentagon another $500-plus-billion for its ill-advised adventures, is entitled, "Use of the Armed Forces in Major Public Emergencies." Section 333, "Major public emergencies; interference with State and Federal law" states that "the President may employ the armed forces, including the National Guard in Federal service, to restore public order and enforce the laws of the United States when, as a result of a natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident, or other condition in any State or possession of the United States, the President determines that domestic violence has occurred to such an extent that the constituted authorities of the State or possession are incapable of ("refuse" or "fail" in) maintaining public order, "in order to suppress, in any State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy."

Entire & Link: Scoop: Frank Morales: Bush Moves Toward Martial Law

stroller · 02-11-2006, 11:54 PM

Nazi style, they'll come after dissidents within their country's borders next, while reasserting the nation is under attack from the outside.

Each people get what they vote for.
It's extremely ironic, that the people who proud themselves of having liberated Germany from the Nazis, are now falling prey to the same scam, 70 years and innumerable essays, public speeches, books and media analysis later....

Ignorance is no excuse here.

man with no head · 03-11-2006, 05:01 AM

The ficticious war on terror makes it all possible because 'they' are trying to kill us!

Camel Toe · 03-11-2006, 07:03 AM

The American people will never come to realize something is amiss, just as the Thais will believe Thailand is a developed country because they have street lights and credit.

kingwilly · 03-11-2006, 07:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by surasak

The ficticious war on terror makes it all possible because 'they' are trying to kill us!

correct, but while the mainstream media helps to feed the frenzy of fear.....

mind you I often think that there is a touch of hysteria regarding the Bush governement intentions - I certainly dont see it as comparable to the Nazi's.

Freddybear · 09-11-2006, 02:39 AM

Uruknet, a pro-Palestinian (pro-terror) and anti-Semitic website. Credibility points severely lacking here. That said, nothing that Republicans do to curtail rights would surprise me. The GOP opposed civil rights for African-Americans until that mindset could no longer be defended. Traditionally, the party has had to rid itself of its more extreme elements or join hands with other extremists (the religious right) in order to retain power.

Mr Earl · 09-11-2006, 06:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by surasak

The ficticious war on terror makes it all possible because 'they' are trying to kill us!

That right pure fiction. 9/11 was a truly magnificent David Copperfield illusion.

To bad they couldn't give him an oscar!

attaboy · 09-11-2006, 09:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Freddybear

Uruknet, a pro-Palestinian (pro-terror) and anti-Semitic website. Credibility points severely lacking here. That said, nothing that Republicans do to curtail rights would surprise me. The GOP opposed civil rights for African-Americans until that mindset could no longer be defended. Traditionally, the party has had to rid itself of its more extreme elements or join hands with other extremists (the religious right) in order to retain power.

The same could be said about the Democrats when it comes to civil rights. The 1964 Civil Rights Act could not have passed without republicans voting the way they did. H.R.7152 passed the House on Feb. 10, 1964. Of the 420 members who voted, 290 supported the civil rights bill and 130 opposed it. Republicans favored the bill 138 to 34; Democrats supported it 152-96. Republicans supported it in higher proportions than Democrats. Al Gore Sr. (D) from Tennesse voted against it.

From the Congressional Link of the Dirksen Congressional Center. (Senator Everett Dirksen was a republican who helped write teh Civil Rights Act of 1964):

In fact, since 1933, Republicans had a more positive record on civil rights than the Democrats. In the twenty-six major civil rights votes since 1933, a majority of Democrats opposed civil rights legislation in over 80 % of the votes. By contrast, the Republican majority favored civil rights in over 96 % of the votes.

Butterfly · 09-11-2006, 09:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Earl

To bad they couldn't give him an oscar!

well, it got people sheering and dancing in the streets. The Public approved.

Kai · 09-11-2006, 10:53 AM

I think comparisons to the Nazis are a bit of a stretch (I'll admit to some bias being American though... no one wants to see there country like that).

That said, the changes to the law are not comforting.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Milkman

terrorist attack or incident, or other condition

Does anyone else think the "other condition" bit is just a little to vague?

stroller · 09-11-2006, 11:21 AM

Quote:

I think comparisons to the Nazis are a bit of a stretch

The rhetoric and propaganda machine of the fascist neo-cons could have been taken straight from a Goebbel's manual. And the aim is nothing less than world-domination (see: New American Century).
The current wave of anti-Islam sentiments with the accompanying racial stereotype of the bearded 'raghead' who is barbarian and deserves to be tortured or killed, is strikingly similar to Nazi hate-propaganda - even the images with the semitic 'hawknose'.

The methods are different, economic 'colonisation' is preferred to military conquest, unless strategic key positions need to be occupied, as in Iraq - then no lie is too blatant to justify war. A well developed war-machine, superior to others ( as the Nazis' was at the time) has been in place for some time.

A law enabling the rulers to muffle opposition and punish dissidents is an essential component in the game-plan, and has been long anticipated by critical observers such as myself.

Hootad Binky · 09-11-2006, 11:59 AM

Found on same site (Uruknet.info - switch/3):

Jude Wanniski, Saddam Hussein Did Not Commit Genocide
Carlton Meyer, Saddam never gassed his own people
Jude Wanniski, In Defense of Saddam Hussein:

They even provided pictures!

Hootad Binky · 09-11-2006, 12:09 PM

[quote=stroller;208630]

Quote:

A law enabling the rulers to muffle opposition and punish dissidents is an essential component in the game-plan, and has been long anticipated by critical observers such as myself.

Is Congress burning?

Kai · 10-11-2006, 12:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stroller

The current wave of anti-Islam sentiments with the accompanying racial stereotype of the bearded 'raghead' who is barbarian and deserves to be tortured or killed, is strikingly similar to Nazi hate-propaganda - even the images with the semitic 'hawknose'.

Herein lies one of the big differences between then and now. When people in congress, the military at large, and the public found out about the torture and abuse, there was quite an uproar, not a silent approval. Military officers I know have been quite vocal about their objection to this, and I know some have risked their careers to help set this straight.

quote fixed ST

Kai · 10-11-2006, 01:03 PM

Bugger, I can't edit the above ??? Anyway, Stroller, I just wanted to add I am not trying to start an arguement, as it is interesting to hear all points of view and comparisons to other times in history, even if everyone else does not agree with said comparison.

I am not in favor of some of the new acts to 'improve' our security...
I think there are few cases in which a loss of freedom can provide a meaningful, and lasting increase in security.

Butterfly · 10-11-2006, 01:17 PM

someone forgot to add the "Edit" function in that new subforum

Please fix

stroller · 10-11-2006, 02:04 PM

Edit is functional, but there is a time window after which it's disabled.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hootay Binky

Is Congress burning?

Scott Ritter (ex Iraq weapons inspector)
Telling the Berliner Zeitung, May 2003: "I see no difference between the invasion of Iraq and the invasion of Poland in 1939." also reported as saying Bush had used the September 11 attacks as Hitler used the 1933 burning of the Reichstag to repress domestic dissidents. The Gallery of 'Bush = Hitler' Allusions

Quote:

Originally Posted by kai

Stroller, I just wanted to add I am not trying to start an arguement, as it is interesting to hear all points of view and comparisons to other times in history,

No problem, my post was rather pointed, it's just one point of view as you imply, and there are important differences as already pointed out.

It just seems to me that first the Patriot act, and now this little gem are attempts to assert control and deal with critical voices - or at least the danger of it being used this there, specially considering the condemning rhetoric against anyone critical of the "anti-terror" antics of Bush& co.
Maybe Germans are partcularly sensitive about this sort of thing, specially when it goes with an agressive military stance - we have learned from history.

man with no head · 10-11-2006, 02:05 PM

Ironically when the government limits freedoms in the name of security it means that the terrorists were successful.

Milkman · 10-11-2006, 08:41 PM

From the points above, I do agree that:

9/11 was the Reichstag fire for the U.S.

How far it will go, is not known yet.

man with no head · 10-11-2006, 10:52 PM

And if the goal were to invade and occupy the Middle East allowing 9-11 to happen would have been a great way to get started.

02-11-2006, 11:54 PM	#2 (permalink)
stroller Kraut Last Online: 01-07-2008 11:03 AM Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: under the headphones Posts: 17,181	Nazi style, they'll come after dissidents within their country's borders next, while reasserting the nation is under attack from the outside. Each people get what they vote for. It's extremely ironic, that the people who proud themselves of having liberated Germany from the Nazis, are now falling prey to the same scam, 70 years and innumerable essays, public speeches, books and media analysis later.... Ignorance is no excuse here.

03-11-2006, 05:01 AM	#3 (permalink)
man with no head Somewhere Travelling Last Online: 11-08-2007 07:39 PM Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 5,424	The ficticious war on terror makes it all possible because 'they' are trying to kill us!

03-11-2006, 07:03 AM	#4 (permalink)
Camel Toe Elite Member Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 1,026	The American people will never come to realize something is amiss, just as the Thais will believe Thailand is a developed country because they have street lights and credit.

09-11-2006, 02:39 AM	#6 (permalink)
Freddybear Patong Beach Last Online: 26-03-2007 02:52 AM Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Here and there Posts: 27	Uruknet, a pro-Palestinian (pro-terror) and anti-Semitic website. Credibility points severely lacking here. That said, nothing that Republicans do to curtail rights would surprise me. The GOP opposed civil rights for African-Americans until that mindset could no longer be defended. Traditionally, the party has had to rid itself of its more extreme elements or join hands with other extremists (the religious right) in order to retain power.

09-11-2006, 11:59 AM	#12 (permalink)
Hootad Binky Elite Member Last Online: 21-11-2008 03:25 AM Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: West Coast Canada Posts: 2,921	Found on same site (Uruknet.info - switch/3): Jude Wanniski, Saddam Hussein Did Not Commit Genocide Carlton Meyer, Saddam never gassed his own people Jude Wanniski, In Defense of Saddam Hussein: They even provided pictures!

10-11-2006, 01:03 PM	#15 (permalink)
Kai Nai Harn Beach Last Online: 08-05-2007 04:04 AM Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Over and around the Pacific Posts: 33	Bugger, I can't edit the above ??? Anyway, Stroller, I just wanted to add I am not trying to start an arguement, as it is interesting to hear all points of view and comparisons to other times in history, even if everyone else does not agree with said comparison. I am not in favor of some of the new acts to 'improve' our security... I think there are few cases in which a loss of freedom can provide a meaningful, and lasting increase in security.

10-11-2006, 01:17 PM	#16 (permalink)
Butterfly Suspended Member Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 11,645	someone forgot to add the "Edit" function in that new subforum Please fix

10-11-2006, 02:05 PM	#18 (permalink)
man with no head Somewhere Travelling Last Online: 11-08-2007 07:39 PM Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 5,424	Ironically when the government limits freedoms in the name of security it means that the terrorists were successful.

10-11-2006, 08:41 PM	#19 (permalink)
Milkman Gone Off Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: shelf Posts: 9,390	From the points above, I do agree that: 9/11 was the Reichstag fire for the U.S. How far it will go, is not known yet.

10-11-2006, 10:52 PM	#20 (permalink)
man with no head Somewhere Travelling Last Online: 11-08-2007 07:39 PM Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 5,424	And if the goal were to invade and occupy the Middle East allowing 9-11 to happen would have been a great way to get started.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)