Read whole artice before you make up your mind

[LA_MERC_LaTech]

http://www.inteldaily.com/?c=117&a=1431

I realize it's from a biased source (what source isn't), but if this is true, does that look to anyone else like the "OK" for a police state, assuming certain criteria are met?

[LA_MERC_Captain_Obvious]

thanks, I am now dumber for having read that article. what a waste of time. just another bafoon with a stupid conspiracy theory about how the current political leader is trying to take over the world. hell, Pinky and the Brain could come up with something better than that.

people need to get the F... over it already. Bush doesn't have much longer in office. If you don't like it, vote for who you think would be best. If your top choice doesn't get elected, deal with it.

There seems to be 3 options if you don't like government
1. deal with the current situation and make the best of it
2. move out of the country
3. whine like a little btch on any nit picking thing you can find or make up

unfortunately most people don't choose 1 or 2, they straight to #3.

[LA_MERC_Bacowrath]

Hmmm...an interresting article. I agree with the principles behind "martial law", but it should certainly only be executed in extreme circumstances. That being said, look at what happened after Katrina. The so called "govenor" went into shell shock and could not make a decision, looting and violence broke out in the streets, and the police could not handle the situation. There was no "functional" government in place, and Washington had to WAIT for the permission of a defunct leader to make any moves. Yes, it would be scary to think that one person would have the power to declare martial law, however, it certainly would be more conveinant than having congress meet, rally together a local government which is already in a crisis situation to gain permission from its leaders, and form comittees and subcommittees to gather data...blah...blah...blah...etc...etc...etc...unti l 6 months later they all reach an agreement and civilization as we know it, along with the constitution, is engulfed in flames. Don't get me wrong, I love the Constitution, I have fought and bled for the Constitution, my friends have died for the Constitution, but times are changing, and things are not the same as they were in the 1700's. We need to stick to the principles contained within that beloved document, but to not acknowledge the changes taking place within our era today would be irresponsible. I am not saying that we should freely give up our civil liberties, or our freedoms, but there does come a time when in order to preserve the intent of the constitution we must enforce harsh rules. If martial law was declared, what would you lose, and what would you gain? Some things that would be lost would be:
1. Going out after dark without some specific approved purpose 2. Having to go through check points and showing I.D. 3. Possible rationing of sundry items.

Now remember, this would only take place in an EXTREME circumstance. ie: the inability of local government, and law enforcement to take control of a lawless situation. Imagine YOUR family locked in the dark of your home while looters, rapists, murders, and some guy dressed like Barney are at your front door demanding that you send out your wife and daughters along with your wallet and TV set. And you say to yourself "Where is the government!!??" "Why arent they here to help us!!!???" and it is all because the federal government has its hands tied by leagal red tape bs.

What you gain:
1. Protection of your home, family, pets, and "things". 2. A non-riotus (if that is a word) enviornment. 3. A sense of security.

NOW, like I said before....this should only be done in the most extreme of circumstances, not abused, nor used for pollitical gain or power. I have seen what places with no government or rule can be like. I have seen SUCCESSFUL martial law executed in order to quell a disasterous situation. If this article is true, I would HOPE that whoever is in power would use this power for good, and not for evil, for the PROTECTION of, and not at the EXPENSE of honorable citizens.

[LA_MERC_T4rg3T]

I like the statement


These changes would allow Bush, whenever he thinks it necessary, to institute martial law--under which the military takes direct control over civilian administration.

It makes it sound like Bush is either going to remain in office for his entire life or he is going to use the military to take over Washington and become a dictator.

Bush didn't pass the bill by himself and he won't be in office much longer to be able to abuse it. You will never start to comprehind the thinking of politicians so no use starting now.

[LA_MERC_Bacowrath]

Right on, T4rg3t !!!! Even though you kill me every time I log on :(

:p

[LA_MERC_th33_r00k]

Hmmm...an interresting article. I agree with the principles behind "martial law", but it should certainly only be executed in extreme circumstances. That being said, look at what happened after Katrina. The so called "govenor" went into shell shock and could not make a decision, looting and violence broke out in the streets, and the police could not handle the situation. There was no "functional" government in place, and Washington had to WAIT for the permission of a defunct leader to make any moves. Yes, it would be scary to think that one person would have the power to declare martial law, however, it certainly would be more conveinant than having congress meet, rally together a local government which is already in a crisis situation to gain permission from its leaders, and form comittees and subcommittees to gather data...blah...blah...blah...etc...etc...etc...unti l 6 months later they all reach an agreement and civilization as we know it, along with the constitution, is engulfed in flames. Don't get me wrong, I love the Constitution, I have fought and bled for the Constitution, my friends have died for the Constitution, but times are changing, and things are not the same as they were in the 1700's. We need to stick to the principles contained within that beloved document, but to not acknowledge the changes taking place within our era today would be irresponsible. I am not saying that we should freely give up our civil liberties, or our freedoms, but there does come a time when in order to preserve the intent of the constitution we must enforce harsh rules. If martial law was declared, what would you lose, and what would you gain? Some things that would be lost would be:
1. Going out after dark without some specific approved purpose 2. Having to go through check points and showing I.D. 3. Possible rationing of sundry items.

Now remember, this would only take place in an EXTREME circumstance. ie: the inability of local government, and law enforcement to take control of a lawless situation. Imagine YOUR family locked in the dark of your home while looters, rapists, murders, and some guy dressed like Barney are at your front door demanding that you send out your wife and daughters along with your wallet and TV set. And you say to yourself "Where is the government!!??" "Why arent they here to help us!!!???" and it is all because the federal government has its hands tied by leagal red tape bs.

What you gain:
1. Protection of your home, family, pets, and "things". 2. A non-riotus (if that is a word) enviornment. 3. A sense of security.

NOW, like I said before....this should only be done in the most extreme of circumstances, not abused, nor used for pollitical gain or power. I have seen what places with no government or rule can be like. I have seen SUCCESSFUL martial law executed in order to quell a disasterous situation. If this article is true, I would HOPE that whoever is in power would use this power for good, and not for evil, for the PROTECTION of, and not at the EXPENSE of honorable citizens.

I agree with a lot of this. Martial law is not so evil if used in the right manner. Technically all it would be is a more severe punishment for breaking the rules. I would like to see the punk ass b!tches stealing car stereos get shot, not fed 3 times a day. Or the guy that abuses his children or wife publicly hanged the day he gets caught. Or the 12 millions illegals get mowed down due to the fact they cannot understand stop or you WILL die. We are America, F*CK 3rd world countries with their problems. Stomp a mudhole in ANYONE that opposes us, and then stamp the American flag on their arse. If we are going to spend BILLIONS on the military, then lets use them. F*CK the UN, F*CK China, F*CK Nancy Pelosi, hell F*CK George W! Lets do this, and quit P*SSY FOOTING around. I am tired of hearing all this sh!t. "We are going to be attacked again." "We are taking the fight to them." "We are fighting a war on terror." "We need to pull our troops out." "We need to do this or do that." Either sh!t or get off the pot.

BOTH sides of this argument is redundant. America is a big powerful weapon with NO trigger. We are putting peeps in harms way when we could just start killing the camel jockies. They are ALL camel jockies. Start with the slower ones then work your way up. Hell make it a point and bonus system for our troops. $1,000 for every confirmed sand cricket killed. That would be my tax dollars at WORK. We cannot impose MARTIAL LAW in IRAQ, and the only reason it works here in the U.S. of F*CKIN A. is cause we are a weak society.

I say this and I mean it. UNLEASH the dogs of war and let the weaker countries have the scraps, and for F*CK SAKES lets quit talking about this.:soapbox :flowers

[LA_MERC_th33_r00k]

Sorry.

[LA_MERC_Bacowrath]

Nothing to be sorry for on that one, rook. A very valid opinion.

[LA_MERC_Wetzny]

Hugs and Kisses Rook... Hugs and Kisses... DO IT!!!

[LA_MERC_LaTech]

Origionally, I posted this not so much as a "Holy crap-tard! Can you believe the audacity fo the government?!" but as a "I can see their point...can you?"

It's obvious, the answer is "No."

Rebuttal:

There seems to be 3 options if you don't like government
1. deal with the current situation and make the best of it
2. move out of the country
3. whine like a little btch on any nit picking thing you can find or make up


1) I think these people ARE dealing with the current situation. They are taking the time to look at what is happening with the government, what present things are going on, making OPINIONS about that (note emphasis!), and then letting other people make up their own minds based on the documents as they are. If you read the law that was enacted and interpret it differently, then fine! That's what is so great about America (as it is now)...you can interpret things however you want to and can read into things as you see fit. If you want to think that the government is out to get you, that's your right...just as much as it is YOUR right to bash people that think differently than you.

2) Why should people that disagree with the government move out of the country? Is this a country of sheep? Of automotons? Are we all here to basically say, "Government is right...I have no though but that which the government gives me"? Screw that, man. This is AMERICA. "Give us your poor, your sick" etc etc etc...and that includes those that think differently. You know, the door swings both ways...you don't like people to have a different opinion than you? Why don't YOU leave? Atleast they stand up for what they believe in because THEY believe it.

3) Make up...the implication there is that this article was based off of some bird-brained idea that someone hatched up while smoking pot. This article, while biased...and note that I admitted that it was biased upon posting..., was based off of a LAW that was passed by OUR GOVERNMENT. So...how I read #3 is, "Speak up for what you believe. Stand on your beliefs and make them known." Ok...sure. I can do that...sign me up. Besides, it's the much more AMERICAN way to do things...besides bombing someone into submission.


We need to stick to the principles contained within that beloved document (the Constitution), but to not acknowledge the changes taking place within our era today would be irresponsible. I am not saying that we should freely give up our civil liberties, or our freedoms, but there does come a time when in order to preserve the intent of the constitution we must enforce harsh rules.

Those who are willing to give up freedom for safety deserve neither (attributed to Ben Franklin, although there is some doubt on that). Why must I give up ANY civil liberties? Why must I give up ANY freedoms? We shouldn't have to. My complaint would be against those that try to take the "religious" point of view and try and turn America into a theocratic state.

I do agree, though that change is necessary (consider some of my recent arguments?) when faced with the passage of time. To think that you can continue on with outdated rules while the rest of the world passes on is not only short sighted, it's irresponsible (as you stated). I think any one that is willing to follow a set of rules set up hundreds (or thousands) of years ago needs to stop and think about IF and HOW they apply to today's world. If they don't, they need to be changed.

My fear is not that George Bush is going to declare himself Supreme Chancelor of America or any other such title...but who is to say the next guy won't...or the guy after him. If you lay the groundworks NOW for something like that, we have no one but ourselves to blame for when, or if, it ever occurs. That's my stance.

[Big_ch33se]

Wow, a liberal that says stand up and kick arse?!?!?!?!?! I love it! I almost snotted and pissed on myself at the sand cricket comment lmao. I have always said we should make a nice glass sculpture outta the middle east region and tell all the nieghbors that the fallout is their own damn fault for not keeping thier region of the world under control. F'em all!

[LA_MERC_Captain_Obvious]

Nice Cheese. Now, if you or someone with the same idea would run for President....

Tech, I'm all for standing up and speaking your mind and trying to help change things for your perception of what the greater good is. But after the periodical changes (elections) are over, there is very little you can do to change things on a national scale other than petition those who do effect changes on your behalf (representatives). Also it pisses me off when people like the guy in the link think they know exactly what's going on. him, you, me, none of us know exactly what the government has to deal with day in and day out. sure you get snapshots of some topics, and some things are public record, but there is a crap load of stuff the President has to deal with every day. And alot of the changes that are done but are unpopular are probably to prevent some atrocity that you don't know about and never will be able to know about. People like this guy read a few blogs, a few news post from independent sources, a few articles from the networks (all of which are biased one way or another - yes, even FoxNews), and he thinks he has a pretty good idea of what's going on? no one will never know the full extent of what's going on unless they are in that position.
And a lot of people (mostly left wing liberals, but yes a few staunch conservatives) go way to far in making their voice heard. When a group of jackasses show up to the funeral of a fallen soldier and start spewing hatred about the soldier, the government and the soldiers family.... Those people need to be shot. and no, I am not kidding. I truly believe people like that should either be put to death or deported out of this country with no ability to re-enter.

[LA_MERC_LaTech]

I agree, CO...I do. I interpreted your post as one of the things you are against...sorry.

You're right...nobody knows. I just fear the future in which someone (either a left or right wing type) taking this measure TOO FAR...that would be bad, IMO. It could easily happen.

After thinking about this some more, I wish they would have added a "we'll call up martial law in an area only if that state agrees that it is necessary". As it is written, there is no clause stating this.

[LA_MERC_th33_r00k]

I heard this from Max Baucus's ( http://baucus.senate.gov/index.cfm ) head guy (Barret Kaiser); "Extremist make the news, and moderates get sh!t done."

I think this is true. To many issues are missed because they are not "news" material. The news material on the other hand is often misconstrued to "spin" it one way or another. In the end the LEVEL headed Americans get what needs to be done.....done. We here at MERC, Diesel excluded:stick, are for the most part level headed. That is why I enjoy these "rants" sometimes.

[LA_MERC_Bacowrath]

Tech the statement you posted "Those who are willing to give up freedom for safety deserve neither" is a bit rudundant. We call this a "free" country, and in principle it is. BUT, we DO give up freedoms for safety. ie: Speed limits, no driving while intoxicated, tresspassing, etc..etc.... On a small scale, we are already living under a militant juristiction. You can't freely choose to paint graffiti on a public building, you can't go deer hunting on a playground full of kids, you can't slap your woman when she gets on your nerves, and you can't fly a plane without a license. All of these things will cause you to be locked away not quite "free" to do anything you want. Martial law is just an extreme extention of the law for extreme circumstances. You mean to tell me that if the police came by you house, and ordered you to stay inside because there was a maniac on the loose in your neighborhood, you would say "You can't take away MY freedom!" and send your kids outside to play? I have seen what becomes of society when the police can't contain an area, and martial law NEEDS to be put in place. I actually took place in enforcing martial law in an area of the Phillipines. When we got there, there were rapes going on right in the middle of the street, looting, and all kinds of violence. We had to order everyone to their homes, at least temporarilly, to maintain order. You might say "Well, I can take care of myself! I'll just get my little gun and sit on my front porch and defend my OWN family!!!" Yep, heard that one before...most of them are 6 feet under. Anyway.....It IS kind of a goofy topic, but I believe that their IS a place for martial law....used correctly.