PDA

View Full Version : Will martial law be introduced to the U.S.



Refugee
11-04-2015, 05:46 PM
A commonly held belief amongst Americans is that martial law (often rephrased as a ‘State of emergency’), can’t and won’t be introduced in America. The facts are that there have already been instances of of martial law in American States, i.e., Hawaii during Pearl Harbour and nationally by Lincoln, but both in time of war.
The difference now is that NDAA law, enshrined within the NDS, provides the right of the Federal government to over ride both congress and State law.

The counter argument of opinion as opposed to fact, proposes that citizens would rise up against martial law. In the case of a declared ‘State of emergency’ in New Orleans during hurricane Katrina, the facts show that the military were able to forcibly confiscate weapons with no organised fightback and eye witness accounts say that there were mass shootings by the police and military. Further, several police officers from that period have received jail sentences on conviction. To say that next time everyone else would fight tback is therefore an unproven opinion.

The often cited opinion that it can never happen in America is based on two main points; a) (can’t), the Constitution b) (won’t), America’s exceptionalism.

a) The constitution
This begs the question, which takes precedence, the law or the constitution. A counter argument would say that the law is based on the constitution.
My first question then is why (for what reason), have President’s Bush and Obama both over ruled the constitution and made into law by virtue of NDAA, the authority to declare martial law based on an inclusion of civil disorder (not war or terrorism), with the further authority to abolish habeas corpus, the right to due process under law.

b) Exceptionalism
The argument for this is that America has a type of governance that prevents tyranny, (martial law).
My argument is that the constitution is only worth the paper it’s written on and holds no guarantee other than what the people wish it to be, which is what the Founding Fathers warned against.
The people didn’t wish or vote for mass immigration, NSA spying or mass surveillance of its population. There was no vote to replace the 1878 Congressional Posse Comitatus Act, which forbids military involvement in domestic law enforcement without congressional approval.

My second question. In a society supposedly unique in its limitations of State power, with checks and balances, why is power increasingly being transferred to a central government authority.

An executive order signed by Obama in March 2012.
Sec. 201. Priorities and Allocations Authorities. (a) The authority of the President conferred by section 101 of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2071, to require acceptance and priority performance of contracts or orders (other than contracts of employment) to promote the national defense over performance of any other contracts or orders, and to allocate materials, services, and facilities as deemed necessary or appropriate to promote the national defense, is delegated to the following agency heads . . .’
There follows a designation of power to Federal authorities of health, energy, commerce. agriculture and transport, which is just about everything needed for a functioning society.

The abuse of executive power
Does this mean that martial law will be introduced to America? No, but it does mean that Obama, or a future President, may do so if s/he wishes, by over riding the constitution. Can ‘we the people’ via a representative congress prevent this?
‘’Article II, Section 2, clause 2, U.S. Constitution:
[The President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur . . .’’ (my bold).

President Obama. ‘’We don’t need congress to approve an Iran treaty.’’

My third question; if a President can over rule congress on treaties and give themselves the authority to make martial law possible, what is there left to prevent them from doing so.

In every democratic society, leaders are elected to govern, not ‘fundementally change.’ The voted for socially engineered change in American society has sent it plumetting both socially and economically. In every other society that has introduced martial law, it has followed the same economic, or social upheaval America now has.
A society of mass government dependency, huge economic problems and civil unrest.
Armoured vehicles on the streets, militarised SWAT teams, laws passed to enable martial law.

The ACLU, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, The Center for Constitutional Rights and a host of others, including even the Russian International radio broadcasting service have expressed alarm at NDAA content and the shift towards an increasingly militarised State.

(Guardian, UK centre-left newspaper)
‘’There is no doubt that 9/11 heavily influenced the changes to America’s happy-go-lucky life style. One must go back in the American history to the moment when the Big Brother attitude became part and parcel of the psyche of the American democratic state.’’

Huffington post
‘’ . . . we in the emerging American police state find ourselves reliving the same set of circumstances over and over again -- egregious surveillance, strip searches, police shootings of unarmed citizens, government spying, the criminalization of lawful activities, warmongering, etc. -- although with far fewer moments of comic hilarity.’’

The questions summarised. If there is no possibility of martial law, why have both Bush and Obama introduced it into law, for what reason is Obama by-passing congress with executive power and what is stopping any President in power now authorising martial law.

Crepitus
11-04-2015, 11:44 PM
First of all I would like to point out the discussion title is "will martial law be introduced to the US" not "can martial law be introduced to the US". I never stated it couldn't happen, I said it wouldn't happen which is an important distinction.

The next point, would citizen rise up if martial law were declared? I don't know. I would like to think so.


But consider this: The US armed forces consists of about 1.5 million persons. There are over 300 million people in the US. Balance of force looks pretty adverse doesn't it? But that's not all! We aren't considering the "tooth to tail" ratio. That is, How many of those 1.5 million soldiers is actually a spear carrier. The best numbers I can find for that are from 2014 and say it comes in at 17% and that means there are actually only about 250,000 actual fighters in the armed forces. But it gets worse! A certain percentage of those are deployed somewhere out of the country. I can't find any solid numbers but it's gotta be a couple hundred thousand at least, and 17% are fighters who are not here. That's 250,000 - 34,000 = 216,000 left here in the US to take over an entire country. Doesn't look good does it?

Next thing is, would all of them obey their orders? I posted a poll for our members so we will see, but I doubt all of them would so that cuts the numbers down even more. For arguments sake lets say that only 10% refuse to participate. 216,000 - 10% or 21,600 leaves 194,400 against a nation 300 million. That's 1 military fighting man per 1550 citizens. I don't care how many force multipliers you've got, there just aren't enough people! Everyone wouldn't have to fight back, just .3% puts it at 1,000,000 to less than 200,000. They'd be crazy to try.

The NDAA thing is a tough one. Not being a lawyer I can't really tell you all the implications of that, but considering the only people I see kicking up a fuss about it are extreme right wing "news" sites I'd have to say that it's a matter of interpretation, which means it's an opinion and not a fact. In fact the president has stated it will not be used against american citizens.

I believe that American exceptionalism is alive and well. The people are wising up to some of the things that have been going on and starting to force some changes. The NSA is being brought to heel and there are now restrictions on passing military equipment to domestic police. We are awake and we are fixing this.

The national defense resources preparedness act signed in march of 2012 is nothing more than a restatement of policy that has been in place for decades and grants no authority to the President or the Cabinet that they don't already have under existing law.

Congress did approve the Iran nuclear deal. No "abuse of executive power" occurred.

In short, while it is very remotely possible that a crazed executive could attempt to declare martial law, in the unlikely event he or she could get it past congress it would fail miserably.

Refugee
11-05-2015, 08:02 PM
‘’What we are now witnessing is the slow motion unraveling of America. Our economy is dying, the American people have lost faith in the government and in almost all of our other major institutions, and our society is collapsing.Most Americans don’t understand why all of this is happening, but most of them do realize that something has fundamentally changed.’’ Obama did promise to fundamentally change America.

The main reason that martial law can happen result from the telling signs are that it will. A mass population in which an estimated 34% of its population get their information from Facebook and where 90% of it’s information comes from six corporations, has produced what is now widely regarded as the dumbest generation in its history.
Many are even unaware what martial law is. Martial law, which carries the widely accepted fallacy of military conquest is not intended as a battle to subdue a population, it is a form of control, in much the same way as a police force controls, but is vastly outnumbered by those it polices. Anyone who controls the food, water and electrical supply controls that society.
In a society that produces the kind of mass indoctrnated blind faith that allows a former left wing political activist to assume Presidency, endorsed by the communist party, but masquerading as Democrat; is also highly unlikely to understand that the images on this page are the beginnings of a police state. Martial law is simply an extension of that. The constitution is now so diluted, with its elite millionaire members resembling a Simon Cowell popularity contest, that the difference between the terms ‘couldn’t’ and ‘wouldn’t’ happen is now one signature away.

‘’I’ve got a pen and I’ve got a phone. And I can use that pen to sign executive orders and take executive actions . . . and I’ve got a phone that allows me to convene Americans from every walk of life.’’ President Obama, 2014.

1. Recently, both Ferguson and Baltimore declared ‘States of Emergency’ (martial law). Although localised, if an armed population can’t stop the these images, or doesn’t want to, what is there to prevent martial law, beacause this is what the visible ‘on the street’ martial law looks like - it just hasn’t been officially declared yet.
This does not look like the ‘land of the free’ and is what will continue under martial law. It won’t come as a surprise, you’re already used to it and very few are protesting.

13355

Question 1 again. ‘’ . . . why (for what reason), have President’s Bush and Obama both over ruled the constitution and made into law by virtue of NDAA, the authority to declare martial law based on an inclusion of civil disorder (not war or terrorism), with the further authority to abolish habeas corpus, the right to due process under law.’’
In other words, if there will never be an introduction, why have two President’s assumed the authority to enable it.

2. The citizen fightback
If you don’t know if the citizen’s would rise up then it isn’t an answer. The facts are that when guns were confiscated in New Orleans they didn’t. The bravado that they’d do so next time would be a speculative opinion.

3. Subduing the population
I refer you to my opening post added below. Martial law (and the centralised powers inherent within it ), don’t subdue or conquer, they control. A population dependent on the government for food, transport, water . . . is reliant for it’s survival on the functioning of those essential services. It is why Stalin and Mao were also able to control large areas.

An executive order signed by Obama in March 2012.
‘Sec. 201. Priorities and Allocations Authorities.(a)The authority of the President conferred by section 101 of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2071, to require acceptance and priority performance of contracts or orders (other than contracts of employment) to promote the national defense over performance of any other contracts or orders, and to allocate materials, services, and facilities as deemed necessary or appropriate to promote the national defense, is delegated to the following agency heads . . .’
There follows a designation of power to Federal authorities of health, energy, commerce. agriculture and transport, which is just about everything needed for a functioning society.

4. Obeying orders
There is no illegal requirement inherent in a State of Emergency Act and those orders given would be legal under its implementation. The police and military would enforce them, just as they recently did in Ferguson and Baltimore, where similar states of emergency was enacted. Again, it is not a question of subduing numbers, but of controlling services. Martial law is not war, it is an extreme type of governance.
Question 2. Find me an example of police or the National Gurad that refused to uphold a State of Emergency in either Ferguson or Baltimore.

5. Again, I refer you to my opening post added below. The following are not extreme right wing ‘news’ sites. It is not a question of left or right; the provisions to enable martial law began with Bush (R) and continued with Obama (D).
‘The ACLU, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, The Center for Constitutional Rights and a host of others, including even the Russian International radio broadcasting service have expressed alarm at NDAA content and the shift towards an increasingly militarised State.’

The implications are that from Bush onwards, the annual NDAA’s, incorporated into the DHS, have provided provision for the emablement of martial law and the suspension of the constitution that it would entail. That is not an interpretation or an opinion, it is fact and it’s why the above organisations are warning of an increasing danger of a police State, which some say is the prelude to martial law, which the images in this post suggest.

6. American exceptionalism and the NSA
The NSA activities have not been abolished, they have been reformed, by virtue of the USA Freedom Act (2015), which replaces Bush’s 2001 Patriot Act. The only difference now is that private telecommunications collect the data and the NSA has to make access requests.

Question 4. If people are awake and fixing things, why is this happening.
These images do not suggest a ‘waking up’, but a compliance.

13356

Who is it that would rise up? Certainly not the people on welfare who are government dependent. Not the 35% who are chronically obese and also government dependent. Not the 10% who are already spaced out on anti-depressants.
In martial law one of the first things to occur is a news black out to prevent mass orchestrated dissent. Martial law in the guise of a ‘State of Emergency’ has already been recently tried and succeeded in Ferguson and Baltimore. No one rose up and no one protested.

7. The 2012 update to the NDRP Act
The difference between the Defense Production Act of 1950 and Obama’s National Defense Resources Preparedness Executive Order of 2012, is that as the NDAA builds on the authorative power of that of Bush, the new NDRP executive order now allocates responsibility to the various secretaries who would control the essential services. TheNDRP law enacted is the quote above, ‘An executive order signed by Obama in March 2012.’ It’s importance not only shows that a President can declare martial law, in the NDAA, but who will run the essential services (NDRP) in its eventuality.
Question 3. Why implement who organises the running of essential services if martial law is never to be introduced.

8. Bypassing Congress by NDAA executive order
The NDAA’s since Bush over ride congress and implicity give powers to enact martial law to the President.
‘’The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second District struck down an injunction against indefinite detention of U.S. citizens by the president under the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 in a July 17 ruling that is a blow to civil liberties protected by the U.S. Constitution.’’ (2013).
The NDRP provides allocation of resources distribution to the various secretaries.

It doesn’t need anyone ‘crazy’ to activate martial law, a ‘State of Emergency’ which removes constitutional rights has already been tested in more than one State recently. The difference is that a President now has the authority to do so nationally by executive authority in the NDAA, using civil disturbance (enshrined in the DHS), given the right circumstances and doesn’t need the authority of Congress.

Summary.
All the legalities to enable martial law, a state of emergency, or any other term to describe it have been enacted. Urban warfare drills are regularly being carried out. The secretaries for essential services have been appointed. The police and SWAT teams are militarised, checkpoints are common place, as are stop and search and armoured vehicles patrol the streets.
What is missing is the catalyst to enable the reason to enact a national state of emergency and the slide into progressivism. When it is, it will look no different from those of the images above.

Crepitus
11-06-2015, 12:30 AM
‘’What we are now witnessing is the slow motion unraveling of America. Our economy is dying, the American people have lost faith in the government and in almost all of our other major institutions, and our society is collapsing.Most Americans don’t understand why all of this is happening, but most of them do realize that something has fundamentally changed.’’ Obama did promise to fundamentally change America.

This is someone's opinion. I do not know who's because it is spread across all the right wing blogs without being attributed to anyone. I might give it some weight if I knew who said it, the rest of the context, and I'd seen it anywhere else. It is indeed a nice piece of oration for getting people stirred up, but that's all it is.


The main reason that martial law can happen result from the telling signs are that it will. A mass population in which an estimated 34% of its population get their information from Facebook and where 90% of it’s information comes from six corporations, has produced what is now widely regarded as the dumbest generation in its history.
Many are even unaware what martial law is. Martial law, which carries the widely accepted fallacy of military conquest is not intended as a battle to subdue a population, it is a form of control, in much the same way as a police force controls, but is vastly outnumbered by those it polices. Anyone who controls the food, water and electrical supply controls that society.
In a society that produces the kind of mass indoctrinated blind faith that allows a former left wing political activist to assume Presidency, endorsed by the communist party, but masquerading as Democrat; is also highly unlikely to understand that the images on this page are the beginnings of a police state. Martial law is simply an extension of that. The constitution is now so diluted, with its elite millionaire members resembling a Simon Cowell popularity contest, that the difference between the terms ‘couldn’t’ and ‘wouldn’t’ happen is now one signature away.
I'm assuming that first sentence is a typo and hoping you will clarify it. That figure of 34% getting their news from facebook is misleading, I hope not deliberately so. The Pew research center study that I read on the subject says that people who get news on facebook also access other news sources at the same rate as people who don't use facebook so that would make them better informed from more sources, not less. And before you disparage facebook as a news outlet remember that the news organizations posting on facebook put the same info into their broadcasts, websites, and every other vehicle they use to present news. LINK (http://www.journalism.org/2013/10/24/the-role-of-news-on-facebook/)

​Every generation thinks the following generation is dumb. What I like to call the "those darn kids" syndrome

Martial law is indeed military conquest, although not necessarily a battle. Anyone controlling the food, water and power against the populaces will risks armed insurrection. I don't know about people where you're from (the only time I've been to England I never left the airport) but the surest way to goad an American to action is to threaten his or her loved ones.

Sadly the last part of that paragraph is pure hyperbole and a sure sign that you yourself should look at a variety of news sources rather than just a few.



‘’I’ve got a pen and I’ve got a phone. And I can use that pen to sign executive orders and take executive actions . . . and I’ve got a phone that allows me to convene Americans from every walk of life.’’ President Obama, 2014.
Said in regards to republican obstructionism and totally irrelevant to the current discussion.


1. Recently, both Ferguson and Baltimore declared ‘States of Emergency’ (martial law). Although localized, if an armed population can’t stop the these images, or doesn’t want to, what is there to prevent martial law, because this is what the visible ‘on the street’ martial law looks like - it just hasn’t been officially declared yet.
This does not look like the ‘land of the free’ and is what will continue under martial law. It won’t come as a surprise, you’re already used to it and very few are protesting.
You are overlooking the fact that the majority of the population in both of these cases cooperated with the authorities to overcome a specific issue. That is different from imposing military rule on the entire population.
You are overlooking several cases where martial law, not a "state of emergency" was actually declared in the US. Lincoln did so during the civil war. That caused a pretty big stink with congress, though they did eventually ratify most of his provisions. That's the only case for nation wide martial law but it has been usedto restore order after everything from striking miners to natural disasters. Always with the cooperation of the majority of the populace.

13355

This is supposed to be about facts, you wanted a debate so lets debate and leave out the attempts at emotional appeal.

I'm exceeding the maximum character count for the post and it's getting late here so I will post the other half in the morning.

Refugee
11-06-2015, 10:45 AM
The images I use are not for emotional appeal. You may of course choose to ignore them, or pretend that it isn’t happening. It’s not nice to see, we’d all rather not believe it, but they’re facts.
1500 words per post ought to be enough to make factual points instead of wandering off into opinions. By now, you ought to be at your summing up stage.

Nowhere have you yet given an argument that martial law will never happen, other than to say:
‘’ . . . would citizen rise up if martial law were declared? I don't know. I would like to think so.’’
‘’ . . . the surest way to goad an American to action is to threaten his or her loved ones.’’
‘’I believe that American exceptionalism is alive and well.’’
‘’We are awake and we are fixing this.’’

''This is someone's opinion. I do not know who's because it is spread across all the right wing blogs without being attributed to anyone. I might give it some weight if I knew who said it, the rest of the context, and I'd seen it anywhere else. It is indeed a nice piece of oration for getting people stirred up, but that's all it is.''
The articles in their entirety are available below. The information in these articles are source linked for references within the text, which are highlighted in light blue. It is for this reason that they are not opinions, but sources of fact.
Amongst my top ten sites, containg a host of articles – recommended reading.

http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/18-signs-the-collapse-of-society-is-accelerating

The source is not as important as the content. Which makes a telling observation that if it wasn’t for people like Snowden, you might still infer that the NSA spying on its citizens would be a RWNJ conspiracy theory.

''I'm assuming that first sentence is a typo and hoping you will clarify it.''
‘’The main reason that martial law can happen result from the telling signs are that it will.’’
Certainly.
Examples are Ferguson and Baltimore in recent times, where it already has.
The NDAA of Obama that gives him the executive authority to do so nationally. The NDRP that has already allocated secretaries for essential services. The recent urban warfare training exercises in Texas and Califirnia. The militarised police and SWAT teams, checkpoints, armoured vehicles on the streets – images of which I’ve already provided.

‘’Every generation thinks the following generation is dumb. What I like to call the "those darn kids" syndrome’’
1. ‘’Education Secretary Arne Duncan estimated that 82% of this country's public schools are not passing the test in educating our children.’’ publicschoolreview.com
2. ‘’According to a study conducted in late April by the U.S. Department of Education and the National Institute of Literacy, 32 million adults in the U.S. can't read. That's 14 percent of the population. 21 percent of adults in the U.S. read below a 5th grade level, and 19 percent of high school graduates can't read.’’ Huffington post. November 6, 2015

‘’And before you disparage facebook as a news outlet remember that the news organizations posting on facebook put the same info into their broadcasts, websites, and every other vehicle they use to present news.’’
​‘’On Facebook, the news comes mostly through family and friends. On Twitter, people tend to get news from a broader mix of recommenders. Among Twitter news followers, there is much more of a mix: 36% say they get most of their links from friends and family and while 27% do so from news organizations.’’ Stateofthemedia.org, 2012

‘’Martial law is indeed military conquest, although not necessarily a battle.''
The military is used to uphold the State of Emergency law, which is not a conquest. A conquest implies that the military have territorial goals. Two periods of martial law have been officially enacted, the most recent one after Pearl harbour. Can you tell me what part of America was ‘conquered’?

''Anyone controlling the food, water and power against the populaces will risks armed insurrection.’’
The food you eat, the electric you use and the water you drink are already controlled privately. The only difference under martial law is the government under the NDRP executive authority would control the distribution and availabilty.

‘’I don't know about people where you're from (the only time I've been to England I never left the airport) but the surest way to goad an American to action is to threaten his or her loved ones.’’
Where is the ‘fightback.’ Throughout my posts I’ve illustrated and presented evidence that when directly threatened, as in New Orleans, Ferguson and Baltimore, there isn’t one. An opinion based on the same nationalism that Britain still uses to pretend it rules the waves and is a superpower to be reckoned with.

''Sadly the last part of that paragraph is pure hyperbole . . .''
‘Hyperbole’ is an opinion.
Isn’t Obama a former left wing political activist? Was he not endorsed by the communist party? Aren’t your representatives an elite millionaire group? Perhaps you should check out these facts for yourself.

I have not overlooked cases where martial law has been introduced, I’m well aware of them, under Lincoln or after Pearl Harbour. I haven’t mentioned them because these were in times of war in a very different situation.

I’ve got a pen and I’ve got a phone . . .’’
‘’Said in regards to republican obstructionism and totally irrelevant to the current discussion.’’
The same pen that he signed his NDAA with.

Having provided the legalities which allow martial law by executive order to be introduced, the already allocated responsibilities of resource distribution in the event and the example images of police and the National Guard on the streets of America, (dispelling the ‘couldn’t’ component), what you need to do now is explain why it wouldn’t happen.
An opinion of ‘wouldn’t’ has to contain some factual basis on which to base that opinion. Exceptionalism, or a belief that the people would ‘rise up’ have already been dispelled by what happened in Ferguson and Baltimore and further, by the amount of regulatory force on the streets of America today. The opinion of ‘people will fight back’ and threats producing fightback responses have already been shown that under direct action, as in New Orleans they don’t.
__________________________________________________ _____________________________________________
1. What you need to explain is why, if the laws, allocations, surveillance and armed force has already been so meticulously planned and put into place, would martial law never happen – based on fact
2. Given the NDAA and NDRP, what is there left to prevent martial law happening
3. Why go to all the trouble to produce a situation to enable something that would never happen

In the event of you can’t or won’t, then your comment of ‘wouldn’t’ is an opinion. If you accept that all the laws are now in place to enable martial law, then you would need to accept that it could, but hold a subjective opinion that it won’t.
__________________________________________________ _____________________________________________

Crepitus
11-06-2015, 05:07 PM
Summing up? I still haven't finished debunking yet.

Refugee
11-06-2015, 09:56 PM
You have debunked nothing so far with opinions and assumptions. Start with ‘debunking’ facts.
If this knowledge isn’t already in your head, get someone to help you.

You state that martial law, or a state of emergency, whatever the term used to describe it, would never happen, but conceding that it can.
‘’I never stated it couldn't happen, I said it wouldn't happen which is an important distinction.’’
The ‘important distinction’ is semantics. If something can happen, you need to put forward reasons why it wouldn’t.

You have had to have explained to you what martial law is and have yet to answer that if you assume it’s a conquest,
‘’Martial law is indeed military conquest, although not necessarily a battle.''
What parts of America did martial law ‘conquer’ when it was introduced nationally twice previously.

1. ‘’The national defense resources preparedness act signed in march of 2012 is nothing more than a restatement of policy that has been in place for decades and grants no authority to the President or the Cabinet that they don't already have under existing law.’’
2. ‘’In short, while it is very remotely possible that a crazed executive could attempt to declare martial law, in the unlikely event he or she could get it past congress it would fail miserably.’’
3. ‘’The NDAA thing is a tough one. Not being a lawyer I can't really tell you all the implications of that . . . ‘’
Then let someone else tell you.

Article I, Section 1 of the Constitution. "All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives."

“For the first time in American history, we have a law authorizing the worldwide and indefinite military detention of people captured far from any battlefield. The NDAA has no temporal or geographic limitations. It is completely at odds with our values, violates the Constitution, and corrodes our Nation’s commitment to the rule of law.” – The ACLU (My bold).

Let me point out what the NDRP stands for. ‘National Defense Resources Preparedness’. (My bold). This differs from the Defense Production Act of 1950, which allowed the mobilisation of resources in national emergencies. For the first time, the NDRP gives executive power to mobilise resources in peacetime and over rides congress.

The scope of executive powers in America are frightening. President Obama (transferred to future Presidents), with his NDAA’s and NDRP are simply confirming and adding to them. This increase in executive power has been going on for decades, that they haven’t yet been enacted doesn’t mean they can’t be, given the right circumstances.

http://dmc.members.sonic.net/sentinel/gvcon5.html (http://dmc.members.sonic.net/sentinel/gvcon5.html)

Your opinions and assumptions are beliefs, easily dispelled with facts.

‘’Would citizen rise up if martial law were declared? I don't know. I would like to think so.’’
‘’I would like to think so’’, is an opinion. The facts are that on the two occassions when martial law occured in America they didn’t and never have under any local enforcement.

‘’I believe that American exceptionalism is alive and well’’ and
‘’ . . . the surest way to goad an American to action is to threaten his or her loved ones.’’
An opinion followed by an assumption, the fallacies of which have been disproved by the images I’ve used and proving that when people are faced with legally authorised military power, they back down. In New Orleans, a thousand guns were legally confiscated by force. That’s fact, if you care to suggest that it wouldn’t happen again, that would be an opinion.

‘’Every generation thinks the following generation is dumb. What I like to call the "those darn kids" syndrome’’
Think, the introduction of ‘Common Core’.

1. ‘’Education Secretary Arne Duncan estimated that 82% of this country's public schools are not passing the test in educating our children.’’ publicschoolreview.com

2. ‘’According to a study conducted in late April by the U.S. Department of Education and the National Institute of Literacy, 32 million adults in the U.S. can't read. That's 14 percent of the population. 21 percent of adults in the U.S. read below a 5th grade level, and 19 percent of high school graduates can't read.’’ Huffington post. November 6, 2015

3. ‘’The whole-word method of teaching children to read – introduced by John Dewey and colleagues in the early 20th century and which permeates Common Core – is a significant cause of dyslexia among students. Public education's war against religion, the "great American math disaster," promotion of death education and the government's plan to lower standards for all so that "no one is left behind" are destroying the logic, reasoning and overall educational prowess of America's next generation.’’ Blumenfeld, S & Newman, A, 2015

What you now need to do is to start debating why martial law will never be implemented, which will be difficult because it already has, on several occasions.
You will need to factually explain why the President, who now has the authority to declare martial law in peace time, will not do so.
You will need to give instances where people have risen up against previously enacted local or national martial law and not simply state, I don’t know, or I don’t think they will.

By doing so, you will get to the heart of the debate and be able to explain why something that has already happened will never happen and why the citizens who have never risen up will rise up. You will also need to explain, why in times of peace, parts of America now look like a militarised war zone and how that produces ‘freedom.’
You have neither done this yet, or debunked anything. You have provided a series of statements, beliefs and opinion, all of which have been debunked with facts, which you then ignore and move onto something else. Stick to the paragraph above and lets get to the heart of the matter.

With that, it’s snowing heavily outside and I’m off to have a snowball fight with grade 1. :smiley:

Crepitus
11-06-2015, 11:51 PM
Ya'know what? I'm done. You are linking to blogs and calling it facts, and you're being childish and insulting as well. I'm sure you will in your immature way shout to all and sundry that you "won". You didn't, I'm just sick of listening to you.

Refugee
11-07-2015, 01:38 AM
No, I will not be shouting to all and sundry; there’s nothing to shout about. People will make their own minds up about what they read. I’m a mature professional, not a sticking tongue out 16 year old.

Yes, I am linking to blogs. I am using those blogs to link to sources, which in turn provide the facts from articles and research. I already know much of what I’ve said off the top of my head, the quotes were there as a wake up call to you about the research you were going to get hit with and to stop the accusations of opinion. Didn’t you click on?
Didn’t you sense the lead up from the first post? Find out the extent of your knowledge, encourage your line of reasoning, let you tie yourself up in knots with opinions and then turn it back onto you by forcing you to use facts to prove them. It isn’t a question of winning, you wisely declined to continue. This was the build up, from here on in it would have been devastating.

What I hope you take away from all this is: All professionals are trained in their own discipline. Just as I wouldn’t dream of taking on the engineers and computers whizz kids here, think carefully before you do the same next time with others.
Having said that, I give you respect for participating and let’s shake on it. No hard feelings and no grudges.

Thread open, I’ll contact the mod.

Peter1469
11-07-2015, 05:04 AM
Notice: moved to the Open Debate forum.

Peter1469
11-07-2015, 07:57 AM
Now that this is opened, I don't think that there will be general martial law in the US without a massive event, such as the destruction of our electrical infrastructure. Too many Americans have guns, and thanks to the last decade of war, a lot of Americans know how to fight a technologically superior enemy.