MTV Martial Law Warning

[Greenday]

http://www.npr.org/blogs/news/2007/0...sh_give_h.html

That's all well and good, but no matter how much power you have, the signing a slip of paper that says you are the ruler of the world doesn't mean shit if the rest of the world doesn't agree with you. The people would never put up with martial law and the government would be torn from limb to limb and be replaced with another government. The people have to want it for it to work.

[AFPheonix]

Oh, I dunno, people can be herded like sheep pretty well. I guess I don't expect too much out of a populace that voted in Bush for a second term, despite the gross incompetence and abuse of power he displayed in his first.

See, that ad would have actually been thought provoking if it had pointed out shit like that, rather than try edgy holocaust imagery.

[ditchdj]

The people would never put up with martial law and the government would be torn from limb to limb and be replaced with another government. The people have to want it for it to work.

You have too much faith in people. I don't. History is on my side for the most part.

[Evandril]

Meh, martial law tends to be enforced by the military...and I don't know many *IN* the military that would stand for it, honestly *shrugs*

While I won't say it's impossible, I will say I find it highly unlikely...the military, as a whole, isn't horribly pleased with how close we keep coming to not being paid and the like to really want to use force to keep the idiots in power.

[Greenday]

You have too much faith in people. I don't. History is on my side for the most part.

What part of history are you referring to? Because if you are referring to Nazi Germany, then it's irrelevant as the situations are quite different.

P.S. - I have no faith in humanity.

[Slytovhand]

Is the US that different from, say, China? Japan (in years gone by), former Yugoslavia, Somalia, Russia, Burma, Thailand, Zimbabwe... and that's straight off the top of my head. Even Australia had it's concentration camps during WWII, and rounded up all the Italians in Far North Queensland. How were Germans treated in the US, or UK back then?

Sure, you can say it was war... but it was still locking up civilians with no justification other than heritage.

As for whether the military would actually do such things? People are still people, and if you've been convinced this is what's needed to keep the place safe, and you've been fed a stack of bull for the past X years, why wouldn't you?? (not even thinking about the morons who'd do it anyway).

Not that the clips actually said it (didn't really say a lot, actually - and that sucked!), but when it comes down to it, when you see all the things you've worked for, the things you expect in life, taken away from you (either quickly or slowly), there's a lot of things a human will do to get it back... and in those times, human rights can get stuffed - I'm looking out for #1! (that's them..not me, btw..)

[Evandril]

Oh, the treatment of Japanese and German American citizens during WWII was a discrace, to say the least...as were many other things we've done...We're just, in general, more honest about talking about our screwups like that.

The main thing is...Right now, the military is doing well, and is being paid on time, with no real problems. From my experience, people who are doing well don't tend to enjoy watching others suffer...and having to try and keep them 'in line' when we can understand what they are going through...Like I said, possible, but unlikely. Would need years prep-time for it, most likely longer than Obama will be in office, and he doesn't seem the type TO do something like that. (My Mom grew up in nazi Germany...and voted for Obama. She's pointed out politicians that acted similar to hitler when he was gathering power before...)

[Slytovhand]

Oh, I forgot to add... when Bush signed that little piece of paper, I'm not so sure his advisors were thinking of him using those powers. Would be interesting to see if Obama rescinds it! Or any of the other dubious bits of legislation that were brought it... now, wouldn't that be interesting if he doesn't!

[ExiledV20]

You obviously have NOT read this thing. These so called "rights" we wave around like Freedom of Speech, Bearing Arms, Due Process and such can be wiped out with the stoke of a pen under an Executive Order that was signed by Bush in his first term. The President can declare a National Emergency and poof, the USC doesn't apply, the Congress and Supreme Court go home and the Exec Branch takes over. Yes, it's far out fuzzy thinking, but then again, in 1934 who would have thought a little man, with a bad mustache and haircut could wipe out 6,000,000 people?

I HAVE read the thing.
I've dissected it both in Criminal Law and Constitutional Law.
I will state this clearly again: The PATRIOT Act has nothing to do with martial law and the creation thereof. Period. Done.

Here's the text of the Act itself. Point out to me, if you can, where it talks about executing martial law.

As for the Executive Order you are mentioning, I assume you are referring to Executive Order 12919. Do you know what it does? It activates all at once the following Executive Orders if there is a national emergency:

EO 10990: allows the government to take over all modes of transportation and control of highways and seaports.

EO 10995: Federal seizure of all communications media in the US.

EO 10997: Federal seizure of all electric power, fuels, minerals, public and private.

EO 10998: Federal seizure of all food supplies and resources, public and private and all farms and equipment.

EO 10999: Federal seizure of all means of transportation, including cars, trucks, or vehicles of any kind and total control over all highways, seaports and water ways.

EO 11000: Federal seizure of American people for work forces under federal supervision, including the splitting up of families if the government so desires.

EO 11001: Federal seizure of all health, education and welfare facilities, both public and private.

EO 11002: Empowers the Postmaster General to register every single person in the US.

EO 11003: Federal seizure of all airports and aircraft.

EO 11004: Federal seizure of all housing and finances and authority to establish forced relocation. Authority to designate areas to be abandoned as 'unsafe,' establish new locations for populations, relocate communities, build new housing with public funds.

EO 11005: Seizure of all railroads, inland waterways and storage facilities, both public and private.

EO 11051: Provides FEMA complete authorization to put above orders into effect in times of increased international tension of economic or financial crisis

Now, all of these Executive Orders are part of the COG operations. I'm assuming that you know that COG is Continuity of Government, the plans to allow the government to continue functioning in the case of invasion, nuclear attack, or other national emergency. Been around since the beginning of the Cold War, most of them signed by JFK and LBJ. The EO provided by Bush merely activates them all at the same time, instead of each requiring separate authorization. It's a time-saving measure, that's it.

Secondly, you have your law wrong. No Executive Order can establish martial law. The President may only establish martial law with a vote of the 2/3 of each house in Congress. That's one reason why that movie "Under Siege" was so stupid; it could never have happened as it was portrayed.

So my question is, what exactly do you know of COG, the Cold War, and how the government operates in a national emergency? Do you know what laws govern the declaration of martial law?

And - didn't vaguely similar scenes happen in the 50's during the McCarthy-ism period? Ok, maybe not the train scene, but certainly the second one at the house (granted, maybe not lots of ppl crammed onto a truck..though I wasn't there, so maybe they did!)

Nah, not really. Even during the height of the McCarthy scares, it never got worse than the asshole FBI men you see in Indiana Jones & The Kingdom Of The Crystal Skull. Fair amount of blacklisting and some severe suspicion, but that really started fading after McCarthy made a complete dick of himself on TV.

Oh, Exiled, I presume you're only referring to security interests for the MI-5 and Special Branch comment. Because they only deal with that - security. No troops to deploy in case of national emergencies, no battles, no units etc... Just a stack of people who, for the most part, wear white collars (sometimes they might throw some colour in there ), and sit in offices (plus some field operatives). But not even remotely resembling NG or this proposed CDF...

Ok....well, if you have a group of IRA attack, who takes them out? I assume a regular riot would be taken care of by local police. I'm pretty sure MI-6 is forbidden to operate on native soil, just like our CIA is.

Now, for some education:

- declaring martial law in the United States can be done under the Suspension Clause of the USC, which states "The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.". This is a power granted EXCLUSIVELY TO CONGRESS AND NO ONE ELSE. Despite the recent laws passed, a test of the president's power to declare martial law without the consent of Congress would likely run afoul of the Constitution which has exclusive power to suspend Habeas Corpus.
- This is also further governed by the court case "Ex Parte Milligan", the Posse Comitatus Act, and the Military Commissions Act of 2006. THAT'S ALL.
- And here, this is what the current legal view on it is.

So, now that we know the ground rules, we can discuss it like civilized people.

[Boozy]

The Prime Minister of Canada declared martial law in the province of Quebec in 1970 after a terrorist organization kidnapped some government officials.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_Crisis

Interestingly, the Quebecois were very supportive of the measure at the time, moreso than the rest of Canada. Even more interesting is the fact that in the years afterwards, support for what the PM had done fell dramatically. There's a lesson there: People will give up rights when they are scared shitless, then when their heads clear, they can't believe that they did.

[IDrinkaRum]

I don't watch MTV (haven't for years when they stopped showing videos 24/7) and the desktop I'm on doesn't have its speakers properly attached so I can't watch the YouTube video with sound.

However, my Post-World War I and Pre-World War II history is a little rusty (I'm in my 30's ... I have a bad remembory, please bear with me. )

Wasn't Germany held almost exclusively responsible for WWI? Weren't they devestated not only physically (having the war brought to the countyr), but devestated economically, and told they were no longer able to raise either a military (without approval of the other nations around it) nor could they have any weaponry.

This was not only enacted by America but all of her allies also.

Then people got lax. They figured they had humiliated Germany so badly that Germany would never rise from the ashes.

But Germany did. And with it, they had a new, elected leader: Adolf Hitler.

The Germans were dissatisfied. Their King had agreed to what the Vienna Council(?) the pre-cursor to The United Nations had decided. They needed someone new. Someone to help them show the world they couldn't be beaten.

Yes, we're going into a recession (or are in one). However, we're neither humiliated and we haven't been told to disband our military forever.

I'm not sure what the commercial is trying to say. Not sure what else everyone else is saying.

I'll give this President a chance. But as daleduke17 said ... how do those in the Senate know that Obama isn't as unintelligent as President Bush? He was barely around while campaigning for President.

We'll just have to wait and see, I suppose.

[Greenday]

Wasn't Germany held almost exclusively responsible for WWI?

I think that depends on who you ask. If you ask me, I'd say no, it was the Allied Powers that fired the first shot provoking everyone. Serbia assassinated the Arch Duke of Austria-Hungary. Austria-Hungary then goes to kick Serbia's ass as that started a war between the two. Russia backed Serbia. Germany then backed Austria-Hungary. Then, I don't recall why, Germany invaded Belgium. Then everyone else figured it was time to get involved. But the Serbs started the chain reaction making them responsible for the war.

[AdminAssistant]

Wasn't Germany held almost exclusively responsible for WWI? Weren't they devestated not only physically (having the war brought to the countyr), but devestated economically, and told they were no longer able to raise either a military (without approval of the other nations around it) nor could they have any weaponry.

Your right, Rum. Watch Triumph of the Will, the German people were practically falling over themselves to zieg hiel Hitler - there's even one shot of a mother teaching her young child to...chilling, now. But the Germans truly believed that Hitler was Germany's best chance to regain the ground lost during and after World War I.

I think it's astoundingly clear that Obama is, at least, a very eloquent, articulate, well-educated man. I know that's not necessarily a marker of true intelligence - but he comes across much better than George II did and will make a better representative of the US on the world stage. Will he be successful? I certainly hope so, but I'm not expecting miracles next Wednesday. First of all, there's Congress - the actions of the Democratic leadership have been unbelievable lately. I think Obama is capable of great things if he can get his Congress behind his decisions. But they will take time, and I'm hoping that the American people, left and right, have the patience it will take to turn the economy around and to straighten out the various messes going on in the Middle East.

But I'm going to miss "Great Moments in Presidential Speeches" on Letterman...

[Slytovhand]

Ok....well, if you have a group of IRA attack, who takes them out? I assume a regular riot would be taken care of by local police. I'm pretty sure MI-6 is forbidden to operate on native soil, just like our CIA is.

SAS (Special Air Services). MI-? may organise the initial intelligence, but wouldn't be in the raid (oh, this isn't including covert intelligence or security issues. AFAIK, MI-? might organise and conduct an assassination or terrorist bombing (so, I'm a conspiracy theorist ), but as for raids as you exampled, no...).

Wasn't Germany held almost exclusively responsible for WWI?

Again, as part of "who you ask", 'Serbia started it' is also probably one-eyed. Granted, it's what I was taught in history, but that doesn't make it entirely true. Brief Wiki history lesson I'm thinking some 'fermenting' was done to instigate it all, not just a 'lone gunman' thing... Besides, although a Serb did the assassination, Austria-Hungary made ludicrous demands that weren't going to be met - and they knew it. So they used that as an excuse to start the war going. As it says in that article, Russia also joined in - even though there was no need nor obligation to. Then the snowball just went rolling.

From Treaty of Versailles:

# Article 231 (the "War Guilt Clause") lays sole responsibility for the war on Germany, which would be accountable for all the damage done to civilian population of the allies.

Also:More German sore points...

Especially -

Germany will finish paying off her World War I reparations in 2020.[15]

WWII was basically caused by Germany trying to get itself out of a massive depression, and to get it's pride back. The land it 'invaded' in Czechoslovakia had a high population of Germans, and so also in Poland - which were former German territories. Thus, Hitler, a WWI hero and nationalist, was able to instill pride back in Germany, began a major series of capital works programs to improve the economy (by spending tax dollars... always a good way to make people happy), and eventually to look after the 'lost' Germans... So, originally, Hitler was a great inspiration to all the people (and wasn't an obvious loon). The Jewish issue was a fairly popular one throughout all of Europe at the time - he just exaggerated it a bit later in his career. (Russia had been doing it for years, they were unpopular in England and France, Judaism had never been strong in Spain thanks to Torquemada).

How does this relate to current thread?? What would happen if China decided to alter it's trade agreement with the US? What would happen if the world changed to Euros instead of US dollars as the main trading currency (thus, all that percentage of each and every trade no longer going to US.. which is billions), and if more oil was shipped out of the Middle East (making US oil less necessary? Or, heaven forbid, we should find better alternative power supplies?) The US economy starts to really dry up, people don't get paid at all rather than just late (ie - Social Security), price of food goes up, rent goes up, electricity goes up... let's blame someone... how about the Mexicans - they keep coming in and stealing our jobs and taking our money.

No, your military hasn't been told to disband permanently, but it is involved in things that is dragging out and with no reasonable timeframes. The US government is also getting it's nose in Israel (along with a lot of others, true - and trying to make things work), but it usually appears that they support Israel. Will there be another flashpoint elsewhere?? Will Afghanistan and Iraq be the end? Or, will Iran and Korea be pushed to a brink? (and if so, what happens to US Koreans or US Iranians?)

When the economy is crap, a good war is exactly what you need to get out of it.

[ExiledV20]

SAS (Special Air Services). MI-? may organise the initial intelligence, but wouldn't be in the raid (oh, this isn't including covert intelligence or security issues. AFAIK, MI-? might organise and conduct an assassination or terrorist bombing (so, I'm a conspiracy theorist ), but as for raids as you exampled, no...).

Ah, yes! SAS suborned to MI-5 for planning and assault.
Tsk. Knew I should have re-read my Le Carre and Forsyth.

What would happen if China decided to alter it's trade agreement with the US?

They already have. See this this link about China's future and note that they're not buying Treasury bonds from us anymore. What you're currently seeing economically is part of that fallout.

What would happen if the world changed to Euros instead of US dollars as the main trading currency (thus, all that percentage of each and every trade no longer going to US.. which is billions), and if more oil was shipped out of the Middle East (making US oil less necessary? Or, heaven forbid, we should find better alternative power supplies?)

As for the first, if the Euro became king, then Americans would be looking to sell anything and everything to Euros visiting the USA, much as we did with the Japanese back in the 1980s. This did not work out very well for the Japanese in the long run. In fact, it caused their economic recession in the early 90s - we were able to sell them lots of boondoggles and then buy back a ton of shit for profitable pennies later on.

Unless most Euros have gotten REALLY savvy about American culture all of a sudden, I think this is very likely to happen again in that scenario.

If more oil is shipped out of the Middle East, the USA will be very very happy...so long as it comes to us. After all, no other country is buying OUR oil; we're using it all ourselves. We import oil, we don't export it. So far, our native oil production in the USA fits approximately 1/3 of our oil needs. We are desparately dependent on foreign oil. Alternative energy sources could only benefit us at this time.

The US economy starts to really dry up, people don't get paid at all rather than just late (ie - Social Security), price of food goes up, rent goes up, electricity goes up... let's blame someone... how about the Mexicans - they keep coming in and stealing our jobs and taking our money.

Que? Dude, most Americans consider the above scenario to be happening RIGHT NOW, not in the future. People really have no concept how bad it can get anymore. Our current unemployment rate of 7.2% is considered to be staggering. No one can even comprehend the 25-35% of the Depression anymore. The fact that jobless claims in my state of Georgia rose 174% last month has got the state government reeling. The sky really is falling down; we can't absorb that many people.

No, your military hasn't been told to disband permanently, but it is involved in things that is dragging out and with no reasonable timeframes. The US government is also getting it's nose in Israel (along with a lot of others, true - and trying to make things work), but it usually appears that they support Israel. Will there be another flashpoint elsewhere?? Will Afghanistan and Iraq be the end? Or, will Iran and Korea be pushed to a brink? (and if so, what happens to US Koreans or US Iranians?)

When the economy is crap, a good war is exactly what you need to get out of it.

I wish I could believe that.

Fact: We do not have the troops to sustain the battlefronts in both Iraq and Afghanistan AND maintain the Korean defense line AND remain stationed in Europe. It's essentially 4 fronts and we don't have the people.

Currently, the plan is to withdraw from Iraq, strip the European bases of their garrisons and focus on Afghanistan. We're afraid that if we budge from Korea, the North Koreans are gonna come screaming over the line and then we're trading nukes with China.

Fact: We're really, aside from some rah-rah material and brandishing of fists, not interested in taking on Iran or North Korea, much as we are NOT interested in Cuba. We're very happy to maintain the rhetoric, but frankly, we'd need full deployment and drafts to hit them. No thanks.