Originally posted by Krypton
I wonder what would happen if New York was nuked. That's where trillions of dollars in assets are traded. What would happen to all that??
Don't worry, there are paper trails all over the world. Cept on the Diebold machines.
Funkesthesiac69
who said we would be nuked? i didnt
what about Another "anthrax attack" like event
Which was perpetrated by a government official?
or even military rule over the streets or just general chaos like Weimar's Germany this could result in the rise of even more evil people like Adolf Hitler for instance
DJ Shibby
quote:
Originally posted by Funkesthesiac69
who said we would be nuked? i didnt
what about Another "anthrax attack" like event
Which was perpetrated by a government official?
or even military rule over the streets or just general chaos like Weimar's Germany this could result in the rise of even more evil people like Adolf Hitler for instance
I didn't either, it was a metaphor for rationale... eh... nevermind, don't worry about it.
Funkesthesiac69
quote:
Originally posted by DJ Shibby
I didn't either, it was a metaphor for rationale... eh... nevermind, don't worry about it.
the rationale I am using in my honest opinion is sound enough to raise questions in a mind permeable to new ideas, that maybe their might be something going on we don't know about
that's all i'm saying
Funkesthesiac69
watch this video if u want any doubt that martial law is a possibility A congressman speaks on october 2nd and says the exact same thing and more
Funkesthesiac69
oops
pkcRAISTLIN
so is there any actual evidence/logic in this thread, or is it just a bunch of politicians blowing hot air?
{b.s.e.}
quote:
Originally posted by DJ Shibby
I don't see how martial law could really be declared in America without destroying the entire country. Even after New York is nuked even.
But if New York was nuked first, I'd know it was us; any terrorist worth his beans would go right for DC.
I believe, though I may be incorrect in this, that the way it has been written an economic crisis can be considered fair game for a police state.
Which I believe a few congress members were threatened with initially to pass this bill. I caught one member saying as such on CSPAN, if anyone was curious.
DJ Shibby
quote:
Originally posted by Funkesthesiac69
the rationale I am using in my honest opinion is sound enough to raise questions in a mind permeable to new ideas, that perhaps maybe their might be something going on we don't know about
that's all i'm saying
what do you mean "perhaps"? there is no "perhaps".
pkcRAISTLIN
quote:
Originally posted by DJ Shibby
what do you mean "perhaps"? there is no "perhaps".
that's conspiracy theorist speak for "i have absolutely no evidence to support my position, but let's spread the dumb around anyway".
{b.s.e.}
quote:
Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
that's conspiracy theorist speak for "i have absolutely no evidence to support my position, but let's spread the dumb around anyway".
You're quite the character. Mind you, a hypocrite. You don't even know what you're spamming with bull. lol
This is from almost two years ago. 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." LINK
The relevant part is Sec. 1076 about 3/4 of the way down the page.
Funkesthesiac69
quote:
Originally posted by {b.s.e.}
You're quite the character. Mind you, a hypocrite. You don't even know what you're spamming with bull. lol
This is from almost two years ago. 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." LINK
