Bush will declare Martial law?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Odd-Job

Moderator
Bush could seize absolute control of U.S. government
By DOUG THOMPSON
Publisher, Capitol Hill Blue
Jan 13, 2006, 07:42




President George W. Bush has signed executive orders giving him sole authority to impose martial law, suspend habeas corpus and ignore the Posse Comitatus Act that prohibits deployment of U.S. troops on American streets. This would give him absolute dictatorial power over the government with no checks and balances.

Bush discussed imposing martial law on American streets in the aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist attacks by activating “national security initiatives” put in place by Ronald Reagan during the 1980s.

These “national security initiatives," hatched in 1982 by controversial Marine Colonel Oliver North, later one of the key players in the Iran-Contra Scandal, charged the Federal Emergency Management Agency with administering executive orders that allowed suspension of the Constitution, implementation of martial law, establishment of internment camps, and the turning the government over to the President.

John Brinkerhoff, deputy director of FEMA, developed the martial law implementation plan, following a template originally developed by former FEMA director Louis Guiffrida to battle a “national uprising of black militants.” Gifuffrida’s implementation of martial law called for jailing at least 21 million African Americans in “relocation camps.” Brinkerhoff later admitted in an interview with the Miami Herald that President Reagan signed off on the initiatives and they remained in place, dormant, until George W. Bush took office.

Brinkerhoff moved on the Anser Institute for Homeland Security and, following the 9/11 terrorist attacks, provided the Bush White House and the Pentagon with talking points supporting revised “national security initiatives” that would could allow imposition of martial law and suspension of the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, the law that is supposed to forbid use of troops for domestic law enforcement.

Brinkerhoff wrote that intentions of Posse Comitatus are “misunderstood and misapplied” and that the U.S. has in times of national emergency the “full and absolute authority” to send troops into American streets to “enforce order and maintain the peace.”

Bush used parts of the plan to send troops into the streets of New Orleans following Hurricane Katrina. In addition, FEMA hired former special forces personnel from the mercenary firm Blackwater USA to “enforce security.”

Blackwater USA, in its promotional materials, describes itself as “the most comprehensive professional military, law enforcement, security, peacekeeping, and stability operations company in the world,” adding that “we have established a global presence and provide training and operational solutions for the 21st century in support of security and peace, and freedom and democracy everywhere.”

Blackwater is also a major U.S. contractor in Iraq and has a contract with the Bush White House to provide additional security work “on an as-needed basis.”

The Department of Homeland Security established the “Northern Command for National Defense,” a wide-ranging program that includes FEMA, the Pentagon, the FBI and the National Security Agency. Executive orders already signed by Bush allow the Northern Command to send troops into American streets, seize control of radio and television stations and networks and impose martial law “in times of national emergency.”

The authority to declare what is or is not a national emergency rests entirely with Bush who does not have to either consult or seek the approval of Congress for permission to assume absolute control over the government of the United States.

The White House press office would neither confirm nor deny existence of Bush’s executive orders or the existence of the Northern Command for National Defense. Neither would the Department of Homeland Security.

But my sources within the White House and DHS tell me the plans are in place, ready for implementation when the command comes from the man who keeps telling the American public that he is a “war time president” who will “do anything in my power” to impose his will on the people of the United States.

And he has made sure that power will be absolute when he chooses to use it.
 
I recall Clinton doing the same thing prior to 01/01/00, and everyone here having the screaming heebie-jeebies over it. That's assuming Thompson isn't making this up out of whole cloth.
 
No, Bush isn't going to do this. No more than Clinton did it. OTOH they ARE laying the ground work for some POTUS to do it eventually. Nothing lasts forever, including our Republic.
 
Great - another shrieking journalist who believes he has discovered the secret plan for TEOTWAWKI.

impose martial law, suspend habeas corpus and ignore the Posse Comitatus Act
impose martial law: Presidential authority to impose martial law is discussed in the Supreme Court decision on ex parte Milligan (71 US 2) [1866].

suspend habeas corpus: Article 1, Section 9 of the Constitution provides for the suspension of habeas corpus.

ignore the Posse Comitatus Act: 10 USC 332 provides for the use of the military to enforce federal authority.
 
John Brinkerhoff, deputy director of FEMA, developed the martial law implementation plan

If this plan works as well as Chertoff and Brown's plan after Katrina, we have nothing to worry about.
 
So what if he is a Democrat?

There's only one party, the Federal Government. Sometimes the Left half pushes you around. Sometimes the Right half pushes you around.

Either way, you get pushed around.

Does that sound like what the Founders had in mind?
 
No, and I believe they would be appalled by the wide disarment of citizens, both in academics (they are purposely dumbing us down with ID, Hip-Hop, Reality TV, etc) and arms (some states you have to apply for a license to have the right to own firearms. Forget about even using them to defend yourself). It's things like this that remind me that keeping a weapon isn't going to be an idle hobby forever.

Think, people, it's not illegal yet!!!!
 
I don't listen to hip hop. watch reality tv or engage in any of the other idiot-pop trends...they are reserved for idiots...
 
Where does it say Bush will declare martial law?

I don't see anything wrong with planning ahead for a nationwide disaster.

John
 
Bush isn't interested in declaring martial law. What would be the purpose?

If something were to happen to require martial law, and no plan was in place, and no contingency was allowed for, every finger would be pointing at the White House, demanding the Presidents head, no matter who is in the office at the time.

Those of you who are worried about Bush grabbing power in some way, relax. He will quietly pass on the burden of the Presidency to the next duly elected nimrod, when his time comes.

There are not monsters or conspiracy under every bed,
 
A few facts.

1. Martial law can only be declared when the civil courts can no longer function. Martial law is the imposition of military Judicial Law (through their Courts Martial), but only for as long as the current crisis lasts. Martial law must cease the moment that the civil courts can return to their proper function.

Ex Parte Milligan said:
If, in foreign invasion or civil war, the courts are actually closed, and it is impossible to administer criminal justice according to law, then, on the theatre of active military operations, where war really prevails, there is a necessity to furnish a substitute for the civil authority, thus overthrown, to preserve the safety of the army and society; and as no power is left but the military, it is allowed to govern by martial rule until the laws can have their free course. As necessity creates the rule, so it limits its duration; for, if this government is continued after the courts are reinstated, it is a gross usurpation of power. Martial rule can never exist where the courts are open, and in the proper and unobstructed exercise of their jurisdiction. It is also confined to the locality of actual war.

Katrina would be a classic example. The civil courts could not function. Therefore, Martial Law could have been imposed. The executive (governor of a state or the President) may declare it, but would need legislative approval to continue it.

2. Only the Congress can suspend Habeas Corpus. The president alone may not suspend it.

3. The Constitution cannot be lawfully suspended. There is no provision within the Constitution to provide for such a suspension. While some might argue that the imposition of Martial Law de facto suspends the Constitution, it is not entirely true. Ex Parte Milligan (link provided by gc70 in post #5) expounds upon this at some length.

The whole concept of Martial Law within US Law, is limited to clearly defined areas in clearly defined civil turmoil. The wholesale imposition of Martial Law upon the entire United States has not happened since the civil war (and was ruled unconstitutional) and most likely would not be tolerated in those areas not under duress.
 
"It is easier to ask for forgiveness than permission."

Unfortunately this is the tune that is sung concerning "martial law", as we saw in New Orleans in the aftermath of the hurricane, and in many other historical examples. Why else would the Tenessee Constitution outlaw martial law? Only after an action has occured is the legality of such action analysed. By then it is too late for the receiving end.

History has proven that during a "crisis" alot of people will do alot of things that are determined ex post facto unlawful, including the government.
 
"I recall Clinton doing the same thing prior to 01/01/00, and everyone here having the screaming heebie-jeebies over it. "

Yup, and the same thing was said when Ike was President, and Kennedy, and Johnson, and Nixon, and Reagan, and Bush I. I don't recall it being said during Carter's years. He couldn't run anything anyway so it wasn't likely he was going to declare martial law. I kind of recall the same during Ford since the executive branch was in turmoil.
 
CDH- Thanks for the link. 2nd Amendment-I think the Republic has long since passed to a democracy heading to a Dictator-ship. SODBUSTER-i would say we have plenty to worry about,considering what the authority's did in New Orleans. THE OKLAHOMBRE-nope,libertarian back ground,but usually support the Republicans. ROBERTA X-I agree 100%. BigMac-i agree 100%. ASPEN1964-same here. johnbt-history is full of good intentions gone bad. ZingZang-so could i. Abndoc-i believe we will find out shortly. Antipitas-a dictator doesn't concern himself with legality. Redhawk41-i agree 100%. Isp2605-i think we will know soon. Thankyou for your responses.
 
Odd-Job said:
Antipitas-a dictator doesn't concern himself with legality.
So... Let's speak plainly, here.

Are you saying that between now and 2008, something will happen that would cause a nationwide panic? That this something will shut down the judicial system throughout the entire USA? That Martial Law will be declared on a national basis? That Bush will not suffer a national election to be held? And that 50 Governors will allow the Feds to usurp their own authority over all the states at once?

Short of Global Thermonuclear War or another Civil War, what is your trigger scenario?
 
"what is your trigger scenario?" Antipitas-A good question and difficult to say what might trigger such an event.Your guess is as good as mine.In my opinion,if the present course of events continue it is unlikely our Country will see the end of this decade.
 
Yup. George told me he was gonna do this when I was listening to his weekly "Insider's Four-One-One" on the private frequency I get on my tinfoil hat. Sort of like they did here in MO, after the Uncivil War.;)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top