Log in

View Full Version : Bush Re-Authorizes Martial Law Provisions



pisshead
05-24-2007, 06:29 AM
i always kind of thought this would be the method they'd give us the dictatorship...whether it be george dubya as dictator, or whatever president we're given....

the dictatorship though, rest assured, will be to protect our freedom the freedom hating terrorists...

Bush Re-Authorizes Martial Law Provisions
Americans have officially been living under a dictatorship since at least 1933 Paul Joseph Watson, Steve Watson & Alex Jones
Prison Planet (http://prisonplanet.com/index.html)
Wednesday, May 23, 2007

President George W. Bush has sparked much alarm by openly declaring himself to be a dictator in the event of a national emergency under new provisions that will effectively nullify the U.S. constitution, but such an infrastructure has been in place for over 70 years and this merely represents a re-authorization of the infrastructure of martial law.
New legislation signed on May 9, 2007, declares that in the event of a "catastrophic event", the President can take total control over the government and the country, bypassing all other levels of government at the state, federal, local, territorial and tribal levels, and thus ensuring total unprecedented dictatorial power.
The National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/05/20070509-12.html), which also places the Secretary of Homeland Security in charge of domestic "security", was signed earlier this month without the approval or oversight of Congress and seemingly supercedes the National Emergency Act which allows the president to declare a national emergency but also requires that Congress have the authority to "modify, rescind, or render dormant" such emergency authority if it believes the president has acted inappropriately.
Journalist Jerome Corsi (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55824), who has studied the directive also states that it makes no reference to Congress and "its language appears to negate any requirement that the president submit to Congress a determination that a national emergency exists."
In other words the new directive excludes Congress altogether from governance in a state of emergency.
While alluding to the "enduring constitutional government", the directive actually ensures the end of constitutional government as each branch, the executive, legislative and judicial, are stripped of equal authority and must answer directly and solely to the President.
The mainstream media has not reported on the directive and the White House has refused to comment.
Earlier this month it was reported (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/05/11/MNG2OPP22R1.DTL&hw=contingencies%2Bfor%2Bnuclear%2Battack&sn=001&sc=1000) that a high-level group of government and military officials has been quietly preparing an emergency survival program named "The Day After," which would effectively end civil liberties and implement a system of martial law in the event of a catastrophic attack on a U.S. city.


Though anathema to any notion of liberty or freedom, this new legislation has not come out of the blue, it is merely an open declaration of the infrastructure of martial law that the federal government has been building since the turn of the last century, which was first publicly codified in the 1933 war powers act (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=War_Powers_Act) under Franklin D. Roosevelt.
Senate Report 93-549, which was presented at the first session of the 93rd Congress, outlines just a handful of the declared national emergencies or martial law declarations that preceded the latest one.

"Since March 9, 1933, the United States has been in a state of declared national emergency. In fact, there are now in effect four presidentially-proclaimed states of national emergency: In addition to the national emergency declared by President Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1933, there are also the national emergency proclaimed by President Harry S. Truman on December 16, 1950, during the Korean conflict, and the states of national emergency declared by President Richard M. Nixon on March 23, 1970, and August 15, 1971."
In alliance with these open declarations of martial law and the 1947 National Security Act, bills such as the Patriot Act, the John Warner Defense Authorization Act and the Military Commissions Act have all put the final jigsaw pieces in place to complete an infrastructure of dictatorship since 9/11.
We're already living under an infrastructure of martial law and have been since 1933, all that remains for it to be fully implemented is a big enough natural disaster, mass terror attack or other catastrophe that will cause the necessary carnage and panic that affords the federal government enough leeway to implement open dictatorship with the least possible resistance.
New revelations that Bush has openly declared himself to be a dictator are both shocking and demand immediate attention, but they only represent a re-authorization of the tyranny that Americans have been living under for at least the past 74 years.

pisshead
05-24-2007, 06:29 AM
Baltimore Rejects Martial Law Proposals
City was on verge of total police state lockdown and no one battered an eyelid
Steve Watson
Infowars.net (http://infowars.net/index.html)
Wednesday, May 23, 2007

The city of Baltimore was on the verge of martial law this week as a proposal by a city council member to impose curfews, grant police extended search powers and shut down businesses was seriously considered in an effort to tackle violent crime.
Baltimore lawmakers have rejected a proposal to allow the mayor to lock down streets and close businesses in high-crime zones, the most recent attempt to curb violence the city, reports the Washington Times (http://washingtontimes.com/metro/20070522-105308-7679r.htm).
The bill was introduced by Robert W. Curran, a Democrat.
The AP reported (http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/may2007/170507lockdowns.htm) that Police would be encouraged to aggressively stop and frisk individuals in "public safety act zones" to search for weapons and drugs. They would also have been able to limit the number of people on city sidewalks, and halt traffic during two-week intervals.
"While I do agree that desperate times call for desperate measures, I do not agree that trampling on citizens' civil liberties is the answer," said council member Keifer J. Mitchell Jr., a Democrat also running for mayor. "This bill gives the mayor tremendous power, tantamount to declaring martial law, and I have grave reservations about that."

MSNBC ran a report which asked "are curfews a good idea?" Former Baltimore police commissioner Ed Norris described the proposal as "the most ridiculous thing I've heard in a long time, a horrible thing, and an act of desperation."
He then went on to ask "how is this going to work are they going to lock everyone in their homes?" asking "have you ever heard of the Constitution?" When asked "has this type of plan ever worked anywhere?" Norris replied "yeah I think it worked in Itlay in the 1930s."

The fact that this kind of proposal is even being considered in America shows how freedom is being systematically undermined on a national level and the post 9/11 police state mentality is filtering down to the local level.
The media reaction to ask "is this a good thing?" shows just how far down the road towards a police state we now are, when just a few years ago such proposals would be considered ludicrous and would be universally denounced without debate.

rebgirl420
05-24-2007, 08:17 AM
Yeah im beggining to hate every party....

WeeDIndeeD420
05-24-2007, 08:19 AM
rebgirl ur sexy:jointsmile: WE NEED ANARCHYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY

rebgirl420
05-24-2007, 08:21 AM
haha thanks babe, and no not quite anarchy but close haha. I say libertarian rule BUT thats never gonna happen. I say we scrap all of these a-hole politicians on BOTH sides and try to roll for some better ones and keep rolling for better ones until we get someone good haha.

WeeDIndeeD420
05-24-2007, 08:25 AM
yea but u totally no thats never gunna happen

rebgirl420
05-24-2007, 08:27 AM
Oh I know but a girl can dream ya know haha

WeeDIndeeD420
05-24-2007, 08:31 AM
u sure can, suppose a guy can also, lol, :cool:

rebgirl420
05-24-2007, 08:32 AM
of course hun, ;)

WeeDIndeeD420
05-24-2007, 08:34 AM
i think we stole the thread tehe:thumbsup:

rebgirl420
05-24-2007, 08:37 AM
haha yeah but the thread is just a repeat on these political boards anyway. Just one more person who hates the political system and those who inhabit it. Who can blame them though? The poster has a point.

WeeDIndeeD420
05-24-2007, 08:41 AM
i know but fuckshitdamn, im gettin tired soooooo continue on and im sure ill talk to all the CC members tomorrow, nite REBGIRL;)

rebgirl420
05-24-2007, 08:43 AM
nite babe

GotWake88
05-24-2007, 10:14 AM
haha thanks babe, and no not quite anarchy but close haha. I say libertarian rule BUT thats never gonna happen. I say we scrap all of these a-hole politicians on BOTH sides and try to roll for some better ones and keep rolling for better ones until we get someone good haha.

That would never happen. Even if we had new parties, the politicians would still be given way too much power; and power corrupts. That's why I like having a national initiative; to de-centralize power as much as possible.

GotWake88
05-24-2007, 10:16 AM
I would just like to see somebody take power that has some respect for our civil liberties, and doesn't use the terrorist threat in order to expand executive power...

rebgirl420
05-24-2007, 10:27 AM
Man why cant we bring back Thomas Jefferson from the grave? haha THAT man had his political shit together. Plus he was for as little government as possible. Nowadays the government is so big it can't even get out of it's own damn way.

Psycho4Bud
05-24-2007, 10:44 AM
Baltimore Rejects Martial Law Proposals
City was on verge of total police state lockdown and no one battered an eyelid
Steve Watson
Infowars.net (http://infowars.net/index.html)
Wednesday, May 23, 2007

The city of Baltimore was on the verge of martial law this week as a proposal by a city council member to impose curfews, grant police extended search powers and shut down businesses was seriously considered in an effort to tackle violent crime.
Baltimore lawmakers have rejected a proposal to allow the mayor to lock down streets and close businesses in high-crime zones, the most recent attempt to curb violence the city, reports the Washington Times (http://washingtontimes.com/metro/20070522-105308-7679r.htm).
The bill was introduced by Robert W. Curran, a Democrat.
The AP reported (http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/may2007/170507lockdowns.htm) that Police would be encouraged to aggressively stop and frisk individuals in "public safety act zones" to search for weapons and drugs. They would also have been able to limit the number of people on city sidewalks, and halt traffic during two-week intervals.
"While I do agree that desperate times call for desperate measures, I do not agree that trampling on citizens' civil liberties is the answer," said council member Keifer J. Mitchell Jr., a Democrat also running for mayor. "This bill gives the mayor tremendous power, tantamount to declaring martial law, and I have grave reservations about that."

MSNBC ran a report which asked "are curfews a good idea?" Former Baltimore police commissioner Ed Norris described the proposal as "the most ridiculous thing I've heard in a long time, a horrible thing, and an act of desperation."
He then went on to ask "how is this going to work are they going to lock everyone in their homes?" asking "have you ever heard of the Constitution?" When asked "has this type of plan ever worked anywhere?" Norris replied "yeah I think it worked in Itlay in the 1930s."

The fact that this kind of proposal is even being considered in America shows how freedom is being systematically undermined on a national level and the post 9/11 police state mentality is filtering down to the local level.
The media reaction to ask "is this a good thing?" shows just how far down the road towards a police state we now are, when just a few years ago such proposals would be considered ludicrous and would be universally denounced without debate.






Since you don't think shit should be done I encourage you to go there and walk the streets. Exercise your freedom and your feet!:thumbsup:

Have a good one!:s4:

medicinal
05-24-2007, 03:59 PM
Since you don't think shit should be done I encourage you to go there and walk the streets. Exercise your freedom and your feet!:thumbsup:

Have a good one!:s4:

Are you saying the imposition af martial law is a good thing? Bush is already as close to a dictator as one can come without it. My theory is, If you don't like the streets of Baltimore, don't walk there. There are streets in Vegas that I'd be a fool to walk down at night, pretty much every city has their no walk zones, unless you live there and know the people. There are streets in LA you'd get shot walking down at night if no-one knew you. We have enough laws on the books, we don't need Martial law. I think the people are smart enough to look for terrorists in their neighborhoods. If some shit came down and there were rag headed muslims running down my street with AK 47s, I'm pretty sure it would be OK to blow their asses away.

fishman3811
05-25-2007, 03:20 AM
Even some rag headed muslims wouldnt walk down some of your streets at night lol