Bush Moves Toward Martial Law

[MaddLlama]

I suppose some ignorance is constructive.

What, you think it's inappropriate to suggest that the citizens of the country should have the right to revolt against a government that abuses power and disregards the opinions of it's citizens? That's part of the purpose of the second amendment, if not just to strike the fear of such into our leaders.

I suppose bending over and taking it with a smile is constructive too.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

What, you think it's inappropriate to suggest that the citizens of the country should have the right to revolt against a government that abuses power and disregards the opinions of it's citizens?

I think that it's stupid for people not to participate fully in the democratic process of a democratic country and then stupidly complain that they don't have rights, and then even more foolishly talk about armed rebellion.

We've had that once before in this country, and talking about killing our nieghbors again should not be taken lightly. It's really rather obscene.

One of the great traditions in this country is the smooth transition of power from one elected administration to the next. It's only backfired once, and hopefully it will never happen again. With the current baseless rhetoric of painting Bush as a despot - which, even in this case, is vile BS -- both bills that he signed went through a full democratic process, passing through several committees staffed by members of a Congress that the people of the United States elected and then signed into law by an elected President -- I hope that this does not become a self-fulfilling prophesy.

 

[MaddLlama]

If martial law exists (which I don't believe it does), then the democratic process is rather worthless.

I maintain that an effective government should on some small level be afraid of it's citizens.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I maintain that an effective government should on some small level be afraid of it's citizens.

The fear should only be of being voted out of office and held to the rule of law.

 

[MaddLlama]

Obviously that's been working very well.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Obviously that's been working very well.

The only way that a democracy fails is when the people refuse to participate. The bills that were signed pass through a myriad of democratic processes and then are subject to the rule of law (eg, the Supreme Court, which itself is the product of democratic processes) even after they become law.

I don't see how anyone can argue that the democratic process is not working. We're voting for Congress in November, and the entire Congress is scrabling to show the people that they've done what they said they would do and another group of candidates are claiming to do something else. The elected officials will take their place in Congress and carry out the will of the people, and the defeated incumbants will come home. If it's business as usual, there will be no gunfire.

 

[spacemonkey]

I think that it's stupid for people not to participate fully in the democratic process of a democratic country and then stupidly complain that they don't have rights, and then even more foolishly talk about armed rebellion.

We've had that once before in this country, and talking about killing our nieghbors again should not be taken lightly. It's really rather obscene.

One of the great traditions in this country is the smooth transition of power from one elected administration to the next. It's only backfired once, and hopefully it will never happen again. With the current baseless rhetoric of painting Bush as a despot - which, even in this case, is vile BS -- both bills that he signed went through a full democratic process, passing through several committees staffed by members of a Congress that the people of the United States elected and then signed into law by an elected President -- I hope that this does not become a self-fulfilling prophesy.

An armed revolt has happened more then once here Angellous. Have you forgotten the way we became a country in the first place? The 2nd amendment was added to the constitution for that exact reason, so that the people could have a means to counter a corrupt administration. Also calling any legislation that comes Congress and the President right now "fully democratic" is laughable. Bush would not be president now if this country were "fully democratic" as he didn't win the popular vote, a pretty serious requisite in most full democracies.

 

[cardero]

The fear should only be of being voted out of office and held to the rule of law.

angellous, you do understand that if another incident happens between now and 2008 and martial law goes into effect we cannot vote and Bush cannot be "over-throned"?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

An armed revolt has happened more then once here Angellous. Have you forgotten the way we became a country in the first place? The 2nd amendment was added to the constitution for that exact reason, so that the people could have a means to counter a corrupt administration.

I of course meant after we were established as a country (eg, after the Revolutionary War).

Also calling any legislation that comes Congress and the President right now "fully democratic" is laughable. Bush would not be president now if this country were "fully democratic" as he didn't win the popular vote, a pretty serious requisite in most full democracies.

I did not call it "fully democratic," but that both the legislation and the election of everyone invovled, from all of the Congress-people to the President went through the full democratic process.

You have failed to interact responsibly with anything that I have written here.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

angellous, you do understand that if another incident happens between now and 2008 and martial law goes into effect we cannot vote and Bush cannot be "over-throned"?

I was not aware that we would not be able to have elections if there were an "incident." Do you know of any laws that state this that you can refer me to? It's not in any legislation discussed here.

 

[gnomon]

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode10/usc_sec_10_00000333----000-.html

Heres a link to the relevant part of the code which this issue involves. To be honest, I find nothing in it that is relatively new or deviously expands the power of government, or more specifically Bush, to take over the country and institute a dictatorship.

I really do not have many good things to say about people who believe this is even a possibility of the Bush administration. I have already made mention of a case where U.S. marines were involved in the shooting of an American civilian during a joint border patrol operation. An operation which to me is very much an illegal operation wherein U.S. military cannot be used for law enforcement purposes. I would think that people who are conspiracy nuts or paranoid about state control would have found this far more interesting. Mainly for the questions it would raise about using our military personnel to police the border.

 

[cardero]

Usually martial law reduces some of the personal rights ordinarily granted to the citizen, limits the length of the trial processes, and prescribes more severe penalties than ordinary law.

Martial law can also be declared in cases of major natural disasters, however most countries use a different legal construct like "state of emergency".

A state of emergency is a governmental declaration that may suspend certain normal functions of government, may work to alert citizens to alter their normal behaviors, or may order government agencies to implement emergency preparedness plans. It can also be used as a rationale for suspending civil liberties. Such declarations usually come during a time of natural disaster, during periods of civil unrest, or following a declaration of war (therefore, in democratic countries many call this martial law, most with non-critical intent).

In some countries, the state of emergency and its effects on civil liberties and governmental procedure are regulated by the constitution or a law that limits the powers that may be invoked during an emergency or rights suspended. It is also frequently illegal to modify the emergency law or Constitution during the emergency.

I’m just wondering what shape this “emergency” is going to take on.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Usually martial law reduces some of the personal rights ordinarily granted to the citizen, limits the length of the trial processes, and prescribes more severe penalties than ordinary law.

Martial law can also be declared in cases of major natural disasters, however most countries use a different legal construct like "state of emergency".

A state of emergency is a governmental declaration that may suspend certain normal functions of government, may work to alert citizens to alter their normal behaviors, or may order government agencies to implement emergency preparedness plans. It can also be used as a rationale for suspending civil liberties. Such declarations usually come during a time of natural disaster, during periods of civil unrest, or following a declaration of war (therefore, in democratic countries many call this martial law, most with non-critical intent).

In some countries, the state of emergency and its effects on civil liberties and governmental procedure are regulated by the constitution or a law that limits the powers that may be invoked during an emergency or rights suspended. It is also frequently illegal to modify the emergency law or Constitution during the emergency.

I’m just wondering what shape this “emergency” is going to take on.

So have you found any United States laws that disallow elections as you mentioned above?

 

[Pah]

So have you found any United States laws that disallow elections as you mentioned above?

Marshal law.It can impose curfews

 

[cardero]

Combined with the previous information could this article help?
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060206/jackson

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Combined with the previous information could this article help?
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060206/jacksonhttp://www.thenation.com/doc/20060206/jacksonhttp://www.thenation.com/doc/20060206/jackson

This is merely a polemic against the electoral college and not an example of how people would not be allowed to vote in the event of an "incident" in which prompts a President of the United States to impose martial law.

 

[Mercy Not Sacrifice]

I really do not have many good things to say about people who believe this is even a possibility of the Bush administration.

With all due respect, gnomon, isn't it rather presumptuous to say this?

 

[cardero]

This is merely a polemic against the electoral college and not an example of how people would not be allowed to vote in the event of an "incident" in which prompts a President of the United States to impose martial law.

If martial law or a state of emergency is imposed (first) I do not think that our government will encourage or entertain the campaigning or election process for a new presidency. The government will not want a new president sworn in under these circumstances and I do not believe that Bush will be ready in 2008 to step down and turn the reigns of this country over to another President (whether they are Democratic or Republic) in a nation of such unrest and uncertainty. Remember voting is a right, rights get suspended during this time.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

If martial law or a state of emergency is imposed (first) I do not think that our government will encourage or entertain the campaigning or election process for a new presidency. The government will not want a new president sworn in under these circumstances and I do not believe that Bush will be ready in 2008 to step down and turn the reigns of this country over to another President (whether they are Democratic or Republic) in a nation of such unrest and uncertainty. Remember voting is a right, rights get suspended during this time.

I don't think that these feelings justify this statement:

angellous, you do understand that if another incident happens between now and 2008 and martial law goes into effect we cannot vote and Bush cannot be "over-throned"?

I don't recall any time in American history when Presidential elections were not held, even in the days when our country could have been destroyed. The worst disasters so far were WWI, the Depression, and WWII - all periods of great struggle. I see that some brainless idiots are trying to argue that Bush is a despotic tyrant, but so far their arguments amount to nothing more than a feeble attempt to blow smoke up our ******. It's empty rhetoric, shameful, and destructive to American values.

 

[gnomon]

With all due respect, gnomon, isn't it rather presumptuous to say this?

Perhaps. Actually yes.

I'm just frustrated. During the 2000 election and the 2004 election all I heard from my friends was how Bush would reverse Roe v. Wade, gangs of religious zealots would be beating up homosexuals and all other kinds of doom and gloom.

I personally get tired of hearing all the complaining about the Bush's administration assault on civil liberties which might happen and fail to even recognize one abuse of civil liberties which already has happened.

Rather than idealist philosophical bantering how about a discussion on the actual reality.