NORTHCOM Ready To Implement Martial Law

Originally posted by Quazga
Just to clear the air,
The original news article says nothing about martial law.

That was an interpretation by "rogue government"

Yeah,, with all due respect to this threads creator, I take websites like rogue, with a grain of salt. Ill read the articles but invariably I find I have to corroborate many of the statements they make with other sources.

This time however, I think the interpretation is justified as much of the legislation that has been passed regarding Northcom has specific language addressing protocols for martial law. Having said that, I agree with the post above this, I think it is unlikely Bush would pull a stunt to stay in office. Not that I don't think he has considered it but rather because most people are just waiting for him to prove everyone leary of his every move, were correct in ther dis-trust of him.

I am of the opinion he and cheney should be impeached whether their is time to complete the hearings or not.

I have written Congressmen Robert Wexler at least 10 times over the past two years and he has written back twice, the most recent being three days ago I got a letter from him explaining in much detail, practical reasons for keeping this President mired in legalese and the minutia of a judicial process that would keep him and cheney both pre-occupied so they can't be as focused on whatever they have up their sleeves before they both are out of office.

I know he is on his last year but I think many would agree,, it is going to be the longest final year of a Presidents last term in office I have ever lived through.

- Con



[edit on 11-2-2008 by Conspiriology]

The whole thing about martial law is that you are placing a previously (read: nominally) free population under authoritarian rule. This would not be good for business... and make no mistake; it is the corporate that has a large stake in everything that happens.

Walmart, Sony, Exxon-Mobile, AT&T... even McDonald’s would suffer catastrophic losses under such a decree. Even in the event of a major economic depression, a decree of martial law... albeit even a limited one, would be akin to national suicide. Domestic and global markets would collapse overnight, leaving billions in potential profit swinging in the wind of the new police state.

That being said though, the current government could write itself a means to remain in power through some disaster, natural or otherwise, and thus ensure that certain paths are pursued regardless of the people’s will. We may get mad and we may cry bloody murder but we’re not anymore apt to deprive ourselves of our material luxuries than those corporations are going to allow us to be deprived.

In other words, even Thomas Jefferson would be wasting his breath to preach revolution to our modern society. It just ain’t gonna happen.

So... some sort of fudging of the Constitution to cement a certain government is entirely believable. But martial law, barbed-wire checkpoints in front of the neighborhood Walgreens? Nah... I just don’t see it.

Not yet, anyway.

That’s my nickel, for what it’s worth.

...

Martial Law? Maybe?

Certainly all sources have to be considered...we can really only connect the dots. That being said, here are a few more things to throw into the mix.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by kosmicjack
Regarding the threat of imminent action, I know of one company that has just issued a detailed contigency report for all of it's various locations in case of a natural or civic disaster. Now, they did not get this detailed - many, many pages of specific instructions - after 9/11. The timing of this new initiative is what concerns me, considering everything already discussed in this thread.

First, many corporations contract with risk management companies and security firms to assess threats to their interests, so that in and of itself is not unusual. However, due to poor fiscal performance in 2007, I know this company would not have taken on the expense of the review and implementation of these initiatives unless the cost was mitigated by the threat of actual losses.

Secondly, the over-all business sector that this company is in has had several specific threats from Al Qaeda before, yet, up until now, no real contingency instructions have been given by the company. So, why now and not 6 1/2 years ago?

And, before anyone asks, this company is of no significant importance, particularly it is in no way related to oil, airlines, healthcare, finance, etc. Marginal but economically vital industry.

So, again, I have to wonder - why now?

Additionally the instructions include what to do if Banks are closed for an extended period.

Also there is this thread by SEWHATUDO:

Extended School Closing

The thread details efforts by one GA county to ensure continuity of education if something were to interupt school operations long term.

Just to make things clear - Wikipedia is NOT a credible source. Scholars do not recognize this as being credible - even if it's information is correct. There are too many ways the information can be altered or tampered with. Stop citing this website as if it's fact!! Never in any of my academic studies have I been able to cite wikipedia, including my graduate work. Sorry that just has been bothering me lately - and it probably doesn't belong here

Jealous isn't going to save squat.

Well once those martial law fools start rolling out of their vehicles, it would be a great time to start up our civil war and that's when everything gets interesting.
Put our guns to use and see how we all really would get along with each other in times of need.

Originally posted by palehorse23
As the article states, this is an alarming development IMO. The way these things are stated makes it feel like it is going to happen real soon. There are so many things that seem to be signs of martial law being implemented. The only problem I see is that we don't have to troops to do so. But, according to NORTHCOM, we are prepared for anything.

Yet another non-issue from the Sky Is Falling crowd.

Some of you really need to read and understand the law before you just start flapping your wings and running around like a chicken with it's head cut off. The Military Commissions Act of 2006 (yes: 2006. That's how old this "breaking' news is!) is pretty clear on what it can and cannot do.

There's nothing that says NORTHCOM is 'ready to implement' martial law. And, further, U.S. citizens will always have habeas corpus - it's guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.

Sheesh.

Your pal,
Meat.

I really would like to think that this is not going to happen here. Unfortunately I really see us getting ourselves into a pickle. I cannot believe the citizens of the U.S. are going to sit by and let this happen. Perhaps I am too optimistic. However my family is prepared for the worst. Hope for the best. Prepare for the worst.

respectfully

reluctantpawn

People have been saying that Bush was not going to leave office since the day he became president. And just like all the other terrible predictions that you read on ATS this event will not come true either. They have been saying this about every sitting president for as long as I can remember - going back to Reagan for me. And you know what...they will say the same thing about the next president too - no matter who gets elected - even if it was Ron Paul.

But hey, maybe I'm completely wrong and this great story by a website called Rogue Government Dot Com is right. I wouldn't expect this websites articles to be skewed or biased on the issue. Especially when they are written by people no one has ever heard of before and do not bother to sight any of their sources. /sarcasm

Spin Away!

[edit on 11-2-2008 by zerotime]

Originally posted by Shar
reply to post by dgtempe

 

DG,

You know what is weird. Your afraid of Bush and his people and I’m afraid of Clintons and their people.

Weird Huh.

In recent studies on this subject, I have come to the understanding that the Clintons and Bush's are not adversaries, but actually are close friends, with same interests, intents and purposes in mind.
Seems to me that it does not matter who is in office, it is who is in the background that controls them. My two cents.

Has anyone thought that 1) there should be some kind of contingency plan in place for some catastrophic event? (It'd be stupid not to have one) and 2) this comes in response to the recent press release that said the US was not ready for a domestic attack?

Just thinking outloud....

Originally posted by Shar
reply to post by dgtempe

 

DG,

You know what is weird. Your afraid of Bush and his people and I’m afraid of Clintons and their people.

Weird Huh.

I'm afraid of them all.

Originally posted by palehorse23
reply to post by dgtempe

 

Good call dg. Did I see that it was your birthday recently? Mine was last week. If it was yours, happy belated.
On topic....I had pretty bad feelings as well when he got elected. When the son follows the father, in this case,.......doesn't make for a good future. GW's whole presidency seems to have revenge written all over it. If somehow he is to extend his power...look out. And a question I have is, if Bush was to declare martial law say in November, what happens to the next elected president? Do they have to wait or do they inherit the current situation? Either way, it can't be good.

pluckynoonez: I put that under related threads in the OP. And yes, it is VERY scary.

[edit on 2/10/2008 by palehorse23]

"continuity of government operations in the case of a catastrophic emergency, any homeland defense or civil support mission requirement would include the implementation of martial law. "

I see nothing in this press release talking about using martial law to stay in office longer. No need to drink the Kool Aid just yet.

Originally posted by sizzle

Originally posted by Shar
reply to post by dgtempe

 

DG,

You know what is weird. Your afraid of Bush and his people and I’m afraid of Clintons and their people.

Weird Huh.

In recent studies on this subject, I have come to the understanding that the Clintons and Bush's are not adversaries, but actually are close friends, with same interests, intents and purposes in mind.
Seems to me that it does not matter who is in office, it is who is in the background that controls them. My two cents.

Can you show examples of the Clintons and Bush's interests, intents, and purposes in mind. Additionally, if you could show examples of how George, Bill, Hillary, and Laura, are all pals and hang out socially.

If this happens in the US, I really think those of us in the UK should worry too.

Whatever goes on over there, travels over here before too long - in the past few months we have seen the global markets in trouble, the "war on terror" gets ramped up a gear, bush wants to bomb iran with the help of the israeli's, and russia has been making noises about another cold war.

The only thing to be thankfull for is that brown does not APPEAR to be the lapdog of bush in the way blair was.

Another observation I'd like to make is this:
It's always puzzled me, how the american people not only allow, but seem to like these political dynastyies - that's why it's no surprise to me that they all appear to be singing from the same sheet.

Can anyone give me an idea about WHY these political dynasties are so liked?

I mean, you might as well just have a dictator in charge - the faces change, but the song remains the same.

Edit to add - here's awiki list of political families - doesn't this many people with so much power worry anyone else?

[edit on 11/2/2008 by budski]

Originally posted by budski
Another observation I'd like to make is this:
It's always puzzled me, how the american people not only allow, but seem to like these political dynastyies - that's why it's no surprise to me that they all appear to be singing from the same sheet.

Can anyone give me an idea about WHY these political dynasties are so liked?

Probably for the same reasons the royal dynasties are so liked and tolerated, lol. Who knows? A fascination with "celebrity"? The fact that most people are followers and want a leader?

So hows this gonna work exactly?

If when a Event happens like this, Do you really think we will just have one guy saying hes the president?

HAHA we will have at least 8 or more saying they are the new leader of the freeworld, Then how is that gonna be settled when you have some of every sector working for each president? U really think bush is gonna be able to keep power when he barely won his elections? Honestly when things go down, NOTHING is gonna WORK the way its supposed to, PAWNs are being set up NOW and People are just campin in certain spots to fufilled their private agendas.

We will have multiple presidents when this happens, and these guys wont have a lil bodyguard army they will prolly have a army ( tanks an all ), Dont think im crazy just yet, Look around you in your local town Im sure you have your fairshare of people who think this government has eaten itself to the bone, So many will rise up when that time comes your best bet would be to goto nature an wait it out cuz Honestly this is a time of reckoning, an not by God, By the people.

yes I know all about the robots who dont do anything, thats why they will be easily devided up an told who is the enemy, an you have those other folks who well are very strongly intrenched in their ideals,

We will be fighting against cities and districts rather then abroad issues just like abroad will be doing the same thing, we have the means to go global yes, but will we have the time an man power to do so when our own country is fighting for relavance?

Here is a link to The US constitution online that explains martial law and some of it's history.:www.usconstitution.net...

Northcom's primary mission is homeland defense. Here is the link to their website:
www.northcom.mil...

There are multiple levels of martial law.

reply to post by kattraxx


As far as the royals go in the UK - they are tolerated, but they have very little power.

Nowhere near as much power as the political dynasties of the US have amassed over the years.

reply to post by surfinguru


Exactly surfinguru. This is Northcom's response to the same panel. This is the thread from that discussion 1/31/08:www.abovetopsecret.com...'

reply to post by mmmeat


I disagree. The writ of habeas corpus may be suspended in cases of rebellion or invasion. here is the link to the constitution online:www.usconstitution.net...

Here is the snippet :

Article 1, Section 9 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." Habeas corpus is a concept of law, in which a person may not be held by the government without a valid reason for being held. A writ of habeas corpus can be issued by a court upon a government agency (such as a police force or the military). Such a writ compels the agency to produce the individual to the court, and to convince the court that the person is being reasonably held. The suspension of habeas corpus allows an agency to hold a person without a charge. Suspension of habeas corpus is often equated with martial law.

As i stated before, there are several varying levels of martial law and it is only declared in the specific areas being affected and for a definite period of time or conditions.

As the history of martial law in the USA points out though, it is seldom ever used without controversy and disagreement.