quote:

Originally posted by trancaholic To me it seems like this assumption is the crux of the matter. Personally, I believe it is a pretty naive idea of civilian society - I guess most people, even uneducated masses, would prefer liberty at some risk rather than totalitarian rule with smaller risk. But you from the US should be the ones capable of answering that: Are you more inclined to homeland military rule after the Oklahoma, WTC, US. Cole, etc.?

But they've already started taking away out liberties. The patriot act is just the beggining. If there's another major attack, I'm willing to bet the general public will again be pumped of fear and will be begging for the illusion of safety by giving up more of their liberties.

___________________
"The Greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." -Stephen Hawking
"First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me— and there was no one left to speak out for me." -Martin Niemöller

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z the general public will again be pumped of fear and will be begging for the illusion of safety by giving up more of their liberties.

It's already occurred under Nero, Hitler, etc.

History teaches us valuable lessons.

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z But they've already started taking away out liberties. The patriot act is just the beggining. If there's another major attack, I'm willing to bet the general public will again be pumped of fear and will be begging for the illusion of safety by giving up more of their liberties.

Sounds like you're quoting Franklin:


They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Benjamin Franklin

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by smokeape I served on Tommy Franks' staff when he was 2ID Division Commander in Korea. The man is a hoot, and I'd follow him to hell and back by god! Hooah! [[[smoke]]]

I wish more people would follow him by simply heeding his words. More people need to bring this to the public's attention.

quote:

Originally posted by Spin Doctor Called emergency powers.

Yep. Need any training?

http://www.coopinstitute.com/index....ntpage&Itemid=1

they're obviously stepping it up

http://opencrs.cdt.org/document/RS22674

Bush Anoints Himself as the Insurer of Constitutional Government in Emergency

May 18, 2007 By Matthew Rothschild

With scarcely a mention in the mainstream media, President Bush has ordered up a plan for responding to a catastrophic attack.
In a new National Security Presidential Directive, Bush lays out his plans for dealing with a “catastrophic emergency.”

Under that plan, he entrusts himself with leading the entire federal government, not just the Executive Branch. And he gives himself the responsibility “for ensuring constitutional government.”

He laid this all out in a document entitled "National Security Presidential Directive/NSPD 51" and "Homeland Security Presidential Directive/HSPD-20."

The White House released it on May 9.

Other than a discussion on Daily Kos led off by a posting by Leo Fender, and a pro-forma notice in a couple of mainstream newspapers, this document has gone unremarked upon.

The subject of the document is entitled “National Continuity Policy.”

It defines a “catastrophic emergency” as “any incident, regardless of location, that results in extraordinary levels of mass casualties, damage, or disruption severely affecting the U.S. population, infrastructure, environment, economy, or government function.”

This could mean another 9/11, or another Katrina, or a major earthquake in California, I imagine, since it says it would include “localized acts of nature, accidents, and technological or attack-related emergencies.”

The document emphasizes the need to ensure “the continued function of our form of government under the Constitution, including the functioning of the three separate branches of government,” it states.

But it says flat out: “The President shall lead the activities of the Federal Government for ensuring constitutional government.”

The document waves at the need to work closely with the other two branches, saying there will be “a cooperative effort among the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the Federal Government.” But this effort will be “coordinated by the President, as a matter of comity with respect to the legislative and judicial branches and with proper respect for the constitutional separation of powers.”

Among the efforts coordinated by the President would be ensuring the capability of the three branches of government to “provide for orderly succession” and “appropriate transition of leadership.”

The document designates a National Continuity Coordinator, who would be the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism.

Currently holding that post is Frances Fragos Townsend.

She is required to develop a National Continuity Implementation Plan and submit it within 90 days.

As part of that plan, she is not only to devise procedures for the Executive Branch but also give guidance to “state, local, territorial, and tribal governments, and private sector owners and operators of critical infrastructure.”

The secretary of Homeland Security is also directed to develop planning guidance for “private sector critical infrastructure owners and operators,” as well as state, local, territorial, and tribal governments.

The document gives the Vice President a role in implementing the provisions of the contingency plans.

“This directive shall be implanted in a manner that is consistent with, and facilitates effective implementation of, provisions of the Constitution concerning succession to the Presidency or the exercise of its powers, and the Presidential Succession Act of 1947 (3 USC 19), with the consultation of the Vice President and, as appropriate, others involved.”

The document also contains “classified Continuity Annexes.”

http://progressive.org/mag_wx051807?page=3

quote:

Originally posted by Trancer-X

Jack Brooks knew about our shadow government

If this country starts on a course towards tyranny, I will become a militant libertarian. Who's with me? Insurgency for democracy? See people, this is why we have the right to bear arms. To prevent the elitists from fucking over the people. I won't be fucked over by Bush and his cronies and whoever is the real puppet master behind this neo-con movement. I seriously have dreams of changing this country for the better, totally reforming the bloated morass that is the American Government. Once I make myself powerful by my business practices, I will do everything in my power to revive the revolution of 1776 and bring our country back to the ideals of our founding fathers. I have no idea what the future holds in 10-20-30- or more years, but if its militancy that is required, I will by no means limit myself to anything other than what is required to ensure life, liberty, and private property are not ever infringed upon by anything.

___________________

Last edited by Krypton on Aug-28-2007 at 00:18

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton If this country starts on a course towards tyranny, I will become a militant libertarian. Who's with me? Insurgency for democracy? See people, this is why we have the right to bear arms. To prevent the elitists from fucking over the people. I won't be fucked over by Bush and his cronies and whoever is the real puppet master behind this neo-con movement. I seriously have dreams of changing this country for the better, totally reforming the bloated morass that is the American Government. Once I make myself powerful by my business practices, I will do everything in my power to revive the revolution of 1776 and bring our country back to the ideals of our founding fathers. I have no idea what the future holds in 10-20-30- or more years, but if its militancy that is required, I will by no means limit myself to anything other than what is required to ensure life, liberty, and private property are not ever infringed upon by anything.

This is why I believe the founders believed that each state in the union should have matching militia gear to the federal military.

The problem is that we've got 9 mms, and they've got tanks, surveillence networks, and bombers.

The issue isn't really about firearms though. The hope and belief that we hold is that our countrymen love our country enough to understand that they should never allow this to happen, even if authority is instructing them to.

Unfortunately, human nature has been observed to react oppositely. People will often harm, and even kill, others in the face of authority. The downside to this piece of information? The government has probably done thousands of psychological tests (with our tax dollars) and examinations on the subject over the years, and most likely understands how to use and abuse it.

The upside?

People are flawed and make mistakes. All the pre-prepared scientific knowledge and military equipment in the world means not a damn thing in the hands of failures such as Mr. Bush and Co.

quote:

Originally posted by Trancer-X Bush Anoints Himself as the Insurer of Constitutional Government in Emergency

Talk about oxymorons. That's like a rapist professing to be a feminist or something.

___________________
"The Greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." -Stephen Hawking
"First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me— and there was no one left to speak out for me." -Martin Niemöller