Why wasnt Marshall Law declared after 9/11 ?

One thing that troubles me, if 9/11 was a means for more control why didnt the powers that be implement Marshall Law ? Why didnt they round us up into work brigades, seize our cars and power plants and farms, and make slaves of us ?

Ive often never understood the NWO's goals. Why would the NWO and rich corporations want Marshall Law anyway ? If we're rounded up into work brigades, who will buy their goods and services ? How would a Walmart survive if we have no means to buy stuff ?

Maybe Im missing some vital info, perhaps the NWO doesnt care about money in the end, just control.

However, if thats the case why no Marshall Law from 9/11 ? It seemed like the perfect opportunity for them to do it.

I keep reading we're one disaster away from Marshall Law and while I tend to agree with that, why not use 9/11 ?

Perhaps its an internal struggle for power ? If Im correct, doesnt FEMA take total control over everything once the President implements Marshall Law ? Maybe the President didnt want to hand over control to some FEMA President in an underground bunker somewhere.

Wouldnt that be ironic if Bush were actually in some way interferring with the NWO's plans.

So much we dont know though

[edit on 12-6-2007 by admriker444]

I think maybe, they want things to happen to where people who know who they are also think it was just by chance.

Let's say 9/11 was first, then another event, then another. Then they can say "Well our Country is in a state of crisis, worse then ever, we need to change our ways" and bam, NWO is in control, and everyone thinks it's for the better.

There's a lot of americans with guns. That's why it wasn't implemented.

Ioska is right, Marshall Law won't be forced upon us, we'll be screaming for it.

Even if not formally invoked, martial law was imposed on 9/11. The grounding of planes, by presidential order was the use of martial law, because the right of free travel was not allowed.

Granted, there was a good reason at the time. But to say that it was not used is untrue. An order to act in any manner that abridges any of our Constitutional rights is at the least an act of martial law, formal statement or not.

Originally posted by NGC2736
Even if not formally invoked, martial law was imposed on 9/11. The grounding of planes, by presidential order was the use of martial law, because the right of free travel was not allowed.

Granted, there was a good reason at the time. But to say that it was not used is untrue. An order to act in any manner that abridges any of our Constitutional rights is at the least an act of martial law, formal statement or not.

Exacatly it was used yet to a lesser extent to what it could of been but i think personally the mass logistics to be used on putting the whole country under martial law due to the events that happened in New York would have gave the game up especially when it came to wanting to invade Afghanistan anyway because once Afghanistan was taken obviously martial law would have to defunct yet imagine all the money and resources used if Afghanistan was taken while under martial law it would of been enormous so why take the most expensive route when the public's favour had been bought emotionally through 9/11.

Let's be honest here the majority of American's didn't believe something fishy was happening till Iraq. Afghanistan was seen as a justifiable acquisition for what had happened on American soil.

My view on maritial law being in used in the US is that it would have to be something very serious for anyone to consider it as a viable means of control over people.

I do come from the UK I did at the time understand why the planes where grounded in the US on 9/11 as with the so called "attack" this seems the most natural thing you should do. However I cannot see the Federal Goverment surviving for long if it attempted to do such a thing for a long period of time. The logistics of the US never mind it's size would make it impossible. And I am also very sure a great deal of American's per say would resist it as well and then you have the potential for a huge blood bath when both the Fedreal Agencies and the people clash.

They could try that here in the UK but I would sense that civil disorder would take hold in a matter of weeks. We may well not be armed by a constintuial right like the people of the US but I am pretty sure the police would be overwhelmed if it came to it and I also would hope the British Army would turn on it's own masters for the sake of the people I can't see are Miltary carrying out those kinds of orders as for the NWO who would they be trying to kid if they tried that with the western nations this side of the pond never mind the US there would be likely mass civil disorder or even civil war so take your pick I personally don't see how anyone could take that idea seriously because people would really start to question what their goverments real agenda is!

Unless of course that's just me!

i think you need everyones blessing for a complete takeover... lets say your a military grunt, and your commander tells you that you now have to take your brother (who happens to be in a militia) to a prison camp or possibly kill him trying. i'd say no. your asking people to turn on their friends, family, neighbors! had they tried this on 911 or in the near future, i think most of the military would turn their guns toward the gov't. we need to ask for it to happen, they (govt') cant just decide it happens now.

I agree that this grounding of planes was needed on 9/11, and that no long term abuse of the action was followed.

I was just pointing out that it was, in fact, an act of martial law.

I myself think that our power mongers are trying to gauge a time and place to do such a thing on a grander, and long term scale.

The second amendment is one thing that holds them in check.

Originally posted by NGC2736
I agree that this grounding of planes was needed on 9/11, and that no long term abuse of the action was followed.

I was just pointing out that it was, in fact, an act of martial law.

I disagree.

The planes were grounded via the authority of the FAA, a civilian body, not the military.

Attack, you could be right, that it was routed through the FAA, and that would make it a safety issue.

I recall, which at my age is faulty at best, Bush saying at one point on TV that he had the planes grounded. Still, that could have been as simple as meaning that he asked the FAA to do it.

In any case, it was the right thing to do. I was looking at the technical end of it, and if martial law was invoked.

Now, I *suppose* you could make a "martial law" case in the way that it could be the military enforcing the "no-fly" order...

If you haven't seen the CBC show, "Secrets of 9/11", yet, you should watch it. It's excellent and covers the grounding decision.

The show is linked in this thread www.abovetopsecret.com...

If they declared Marshall Law, would the congress still have been able to pass the Patriot Act?? Marshall Law might mobilize the populous or have unforeseen outcomes, maintaining the semblance of government keeps people in there place.

[edit on 13-6-2007 by Amelie]

Originally posted by Amelie
If they declared Marshall Law, would the congress still have been able to pass the Patriot Act?? Marshall Law might mobilize the populous or have unforeseen outcomes, maintaining the semblance of government keeps people in there place.

[edit on 13-6-2007 by Amelie]

Umm you wouldnt need the Patriot Act. Marshall Law suspends the Constitution so there arent any pesky rights to get around. Marshall Law makes the President a dictator