In my opinion it seems that they are building up to this anyway....

Remember that secret meeting the house of representatives had on March 13, 2007 that Dennis Kucinich refused to attend because of his opposition to the content?

It's been leaked that the meeting referred to impending martial law, handling opposition to the government in the event of an uprising, safehavens for congress people in such event, what will happen to Americans that may oppose the "rule of law" from the Federal govt and the "unavoidable" merger between countries of the North American continent.

It won't stop Dennis from trying again tomorrow, either.

At least this would explain what's going on. Might even explain FISA, too, since we need to cover up their crimes so they aren't hauled off to the guillotine 15 seconds after leaving office.

Gonna be interesting to see what happens through the next year or so.

On what legal grounds could the US gouvernment call off elections?

>> ^srd:
On what legal grounds could the US gouvernment call off elections?


On grounds of "maintaining continuity of government in the event of a national emergency" - see presidential directive 51.

>> ^Constitutional_Patriot:
In my opinion it seems that they are building up to this anyway....
Remember that secret meeting the house of representatives had on March 13, 2007 that Dennis Kucinich refused to attend because of his opposition to the content?
It's been leaked that the meeting referred to impending martial law, handling opposition to the government in the event of an uprising, safehavens for congress people in such event, what will happen to Americans that may oppose the "rule of law" from the Federal govt and the "unavoidable" merger between countries of the North American continent.


Refusing to attend THAT? Inconceivable! He should have attended with a hidden recorder.

There's nothing in the constitution that says the president can grant himself "emergency powers". It doesn't say which branch of government can suspend Habeas Corpus in times of rebellion.

Whenever Nader complains about Bush, keep in mind without Nader, Gore would have easily beaten Bush. I think Nader needs to indicate he understands how wrong he was in order for his current predictions to be credible. Not even the Green party supports him anymore.

>> ^srd:
On what legal grounds could the US gouvernment call off elections?


On the grounds of having the military and FBI and who's going to stop them?

I would say this is fear mongering, only from the left this time. Bush and Cheney might be crazy enough to do something like this, but the right to bear arms will be what stays their hand. They aren't so ignorant as to realize that even martial law couldn't stop the resulting uprising from a president with the lowest approval ratings ever calling off an election.

>> ^bcglorf:
I would say this is fear mongering, only from the left this time. Bush and Cheney might be crazy enough to do something like this, but the right to bear arms will be what stays their hand. They aren't so ignorant as to realize that even martial law couldn't stop the resulting uprising from a president with the lowest approval ratings ever calling off an election.

You could be right bcglorf,
but after the things that this president has done over the last 7 years I don't think it's fear mongering at all. He has proven himself and those around him to be completely power hungry as well as 100% untrustable. At this point I wouldn't put anything past him. As for the right to bear arms, hunting rifles and pistols won't take this nation back. There might be a few folks out there, maybe even a few hundred that might have a formitable arsenal stored in their basement but nothing can stop the mechanized forces of this country. In my opinion the "Right to bear arms" is a moot point.

As for the right to bear arms, hunting rifles and pistols won't take this nation back. There might be a few folks out there, maybe even a few hundred that might have a formitable arsenal stored in their basement but nothing can stop the mechanized forces of this country. In my opinion the "Right to bear arms" is a moot point.


I don't think one can argue that martial law would be effective in the US at the same time as arguing how ineffective it is in Iraq. The guys fighting against the alliance in Iraq would envy the kind of weapons many American civilians keep around their homes. I'm pretty confident the next election will proceed on schedule.

I agree with you bcglrf, I believe the elections will go on as planned. There have been no moves to lead people to believe that it's inevitable that bush would suspend the elections, but it is a completely legitimate concern that people should not discard.
As for the martial law and the right to bear arms I don't think you can compare the weapons that Iraqis might have at their disposal with that of what Americans might have. Iraqis had and possibly still have access to the stock piles of military weapons and explosives that were just sitting around at the time of the invasion. Theres also the possibility that some are being equiped by nations such as Iran. Thats a far cry from what many if not most Americans have access to let alone even know how to use. In addition to that the American public has already proven themselves to be too apathetic to do any real fighting. Most people don't even have the motivation to pick up a phone and voice their concerns to their local congressmen let alone pick up a rifle or resist in any physical way.
Lastly, and I hate this thought, but what if bush actually did suspend the elections. Would the hardcore bush loyalists actually fight to keep him in office for...well as long as he saw fit, and do so under the thought that its for the "protection" of this country. Not all Americans would be fighting on the same side.

I like Ralph alot, that said, he is in Alex Jones territory here.

Alex Jones has been babbling about martial law since the last century. About 40% of what he says is fact, the rest is these same facts strung together on some highly paranoid string.

This goverment is by far the most powerhungry and corrupt in the western world, but they're not that crazy. ... I think and hope.

It's amazing though that the democrats do absolutely nothing. I mean, the republicans spent 50 million dollars trying to impeach clinton for some lame marital affair. You wonder at what kind of leverage the bible thumpers have behind the scenes.

every election since 9/11 has had this kind of bullshit. OMG OMG TERRORISTS THUR GONNA CALL OFF THE ELECTIONS.

i doubt it.

it seems like the people who think this shit also think the WTC was nuked or some shit.

>> ^Constitutional_Patriot:
In my opinion it seems that they are building up to this anyway....
Remember that secret meeting the house of representatives had on March 13, 2007 that Dennis Kucinich refused to attend because of his opposition to the content?
It's been leaked that the meeting referred to impending martial law, handling opposition to the government in the event of an uprising, safehavens for congress people in such event, what will happen to Americans that may oppose the "rule of law" from the Federal govt and the "unavoidable" merger between countries of the North American continent.


Wow, I would like to think that what the esteemed Constitutional_Patriot has said in that comment is not possible, but I know better.

Its not the fact that this could happen its the fact that there is even talk about this possibly happening.

This is indeed scary.

I'd be willing to speculate the reason the dems have so far been impotent in calling for impeachment has to do with the unmotivated republican base as of right now. If the impeachment succeeded and Bush/Cheney were thrown out on their asses and a dem was brought it would be a rallying cry for the republicans. That being said, it will be interesting to see if they grow any balls after the election. It would be nice if this horrendous precedent were not set.

McCain - Feel the Excitement - http://img211.imageshack.us/img211/8725/mccainrallyqp1.jpg

As for the possibility of the declaration of martial law, I think it is pretty low. True we don't have a nation armed with AK-47's, but snipers will fuck you up just as well. And armor doesn't mean shit in the cities. Plus what do you think the desertion rate of the military would be after asking them to kill their own countrymen, my guess would be pretty high. They'd probably bring some of their fancy military toys with them. All in all, I think its unfeasible.

McCain - Feel the Excitement - http://img211.imageshack.us/img211/8725/mccainrallyqp1.jpg
I know its a shadow, but it looks like the man sleeping in the very front there has wet himself. Maybe thats how he feels he can relate to McCain.

>> ^bcglorf:
I would say this is fear mongering, only from the left this time. Bush and Cheney might be crazy enough to do something like this, but the right to bear arms will be what stays their hand. They aren't so ignorant as to realize that even martial law couldn't stop the resulting uprising from a president with the lowest approval ratings ever calling off an election.


I agree. They've been experts at keeping radical action "low key", and suspending elections would spark an instant revolution. If they were planning that, Fox News would be talking about the possibility day & night, to lay the groundwork in the public consciousness.

I could believe that list was given to the Democratic leadership, and that they caved, rather than call the bluff.

More likely though, I think you're right about Nader just trying to scare Democrats into voting for him.

However, if we have a domestic terror attack between now and the election, I'm going to become a full believer in conspiracies, because that won't be a coincidence at all.

AceofClubz raises a very good point.

You can't forget the most important aspect of sending a military against the very people they've sworn to protect: psychological issues.

I know that if I were still in, and I was asked to attack my own country (this situation, not actually fighting some huge group of criminals or some shit) I would simply check out my weapon, grab my armor and be out the door.

While shocking, I don't find it all that difficult to believe. We know these people have absolutely no respect for the democratic process, and therefore the country as a whole and its citizens, as they placed Bush in power against the will of the people in the first place.

This is how it begins.

I agree with Ace's first point; aversion to Bush et al. is a driving force for sweeping change... its extremely difficult to stand up now and make a bold and primarily symbolic ousting of Bush (purportedly the guy in charge) when a timetable for changing heads of state is not only about to do this for us but in a much less 'dirty' or dramatic fashion.

John Adams lost to a slanderous Thomas Jefferson in the first two-party election, and it was brought to my attention recently that one of Adams' greatest gifts to the country was the 'clean' relinquishing of power to the next freely elected President. It could have been a lot different.

Bush has done a lot of terrible things, but I personally think its extremely important that we start the next administration off with as much compromise and anti-polarization as possible. Metaphor; our car has two wheels of the road, a hard-left will potentially just spin us out of control... we should ease four wheels on, then throttle up and get some stuff done.

To all those who would say that Americans would rise up against a rule of martial law, I have a couple of points to make. Keep in mind that I'm doing this mostly to play Devil's Advocate, but also to hopefully contribute to the discussion.

1. First, and I could be wrong about this, but I think that it would be safe to say that the subset of Americans who would amass any significant stockpile of weapons and know how to use them would share a sizable overlap with the subset of Americans who are either in the military or have been in the military. Would it not make sense, if one were planning to do something that would cause an uprising, to send as many of these military men and women out of the country? Maybe to Iraq or Afghanistan, or to hundreds of military bases around the world? This would keep them away from the country they swore to protect.

2. To those who would argue that those in the military would desert when given an order to harm their fellow countrymen, I would submit the Milgram experiment as an example of the flaw in that argument. It has been demonstrated that if a superior is willing to take full responsibility for their actions, people will rarely exercise any self control when in contact with their fellow man, especially when verbally pushed to do so. This doesn't even take into account threatening soldiers with violence against their family if they were to refuse, or other less than pleasant ideas.

I wouldn't say that I believe that something incredible will happen between now and November 2 that would "necessitate" martial law, but I would not be surprised if something does.

I would say to you, "be prepared", but I'm not sure what preparations one could make for those kinds of events.

blutruth - I think you're completely right. The time to rise up has come and gone, in my opinion; Americans have given away much of their rights in recent years without any significant fight. Many of them are okay with it, as they see it as supporting the greater good. As for your second point, we've seen this demonstrated time and time again in history, including Nazi Germany and more recent American conflicts. I don't mean to be so simple as to compare modern America to Nazi Germany, but there are very clearly some ominous parallels.

Kent State?

But, Ralph, it's karaoke night! You said you were going to sing "Copacabana"!

One thing I'd like to point out, especially to all the "Nader is crazy" people. The source of Nader's info is a Congressman from Massachusetts by the name of John W. Olver. This is not a conspiracy theory nutcase (at least, I don't think Olver is one of those) but someone who has first-hand knowledge (read: greater than yours) of how Washington DC really works.

And I'm not even saying that Nader isn't crazy. He may well be. The only way I'd discount this concern is if...

a) John Olver turned out to be a nutjob himself.
or
b) it came out that Nader made up the source of the letter.

In looking at his Wikipedia article and the Congressman's own website, I do not find anything to suggest item 'a' being true.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Olver
http://www.house.gov/olver/index.shtml

And item 'b'? Well, who knows? Anything's possible.

The constitution quite clearly does not provide anyone the authority to declare martial law.

The only remotely similar statement in the constitution is in Article 1, Section 9: "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."

But since it does not state which branch of government has the authority to suspend Habeas Corpus, no branch of government has the authority to suspend Habeas Corpus

1. Presidential Directive 51 states that in a time of Emergency... with Emergency being defined solely by the President.. that he takes over all areas of government amongst other things including Federal Local State Tribal Governments etc. It also states that once the President has declared a state of emergency that congress can't even question it for 6 months. They don't enact laws that they don't intend to use. Think about it.

2. There would be no need for American soldiers to fire on American citizens. There are foreign troops and UN troops that would gladly do it if asked i am sure. Russia and china have already stated that the US better not touch Iran... i would argue that with the US military spread out from here to hell and back that a pissed off Russia and China along with Iran could fairly easily have their way with us while the military was scrambling to "defend the country".

3. Halliburton is currently under contract to staff and run detention camps in the US. Under the guise of dealing with the "immigration problem," large concentration camps are under construction around the US. That's where i am sure most of your arsenal harboring Americans will end up.

4. What's clear is that this administration has a deep, profound and uncompromised contempt for democracy, for the rule of law, and for the US Constitution. When George W. Bush went on the record (twice) as saying he has nothing against dictatorship, as long as he can be dictator, it was a clear and present policy statement.

Who really believes this crew will walk quietly away from power? They have the motivation, the money and the method for doing away with the electoral process altogether. So why wouldn't they?

If Howard Phillips of the Constitution Party had not run for President, Gore would have ended up with more votes than Bush. So don't blame Nader.

You know who I blame? The MILLIONS of people who voted for Bush. Especially those who did it twice.

You know who else I blame? The idiot old fucks who accidentally voted for Pat Buchanan because the ballot was "too confusing." If it's too confusing, go home and sit on your hands, Grandma.

I also blame this entire ridiculous country for its elections that have no runoffs, even if the tally is split by one vote.

But I never blame Nader, because he doesn't deserve to be blamed.

>> ^chilaxe:
Whenever Nader complains about Bush, keep in mind without Nader, Gore would have easily beaten Bush. I think Nader needs to indicate he understands how wrong he was in order for his current predictions to be credible. Not even the Green party supports him anymore.

@blutruth
1. The US census lists the number of Vetrans in the US at 24 million (I'm not sure if by Veterans they mean exmilitary or ex war time servers). The current size of the US military is 3 million (1.5 active, 1.5 reservists). On top of that there is the abundance of sportsman in the US that would also probably pick up a rifle. The military would be handily outnumbered. Also, considering the fact that we currently have a paper thin military fighting two wars overseas, and this conspiracy theory requiring the initiation of a third, who exactly is going to enforce this martial law? Our military is pretty busy at the moment.

2. The Milgram experiment. Even in the Milgram experiment they were only able to get 65% to follow to the end. The Milgram experiment isn't directly comparable because it suffers from the trolley problem, there's a big difference between pushing a button and shocking someone in another room and pointing a gun at someone and shooting them. Also, my impression when I was in was that Bush isn't exactly seen as a holy man worth killing countrymen for. Ron Paul was the candidate the military backed the most after all. The military is about as sick of Bush as the general population is.

@slash
2. Russia, China, and the UN are going to aid president Bush by enforcing martial Law for him. You are an idiot. The international community wants to see Bush gone more that the American community wants him gone.

Sure, Bush could very well attack Iran before he leaves office because he is an idiot. Suspending the elections and instituting martial law though? This is deep into tinfoil hat territory. Iraq is only the size of California and we still haven't squashed the insurgency there. Yet we're going fight in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Iran and still find enough troops somewhere to occupy the US as well. Maybe it makes an entertaining thought but it is not plausible in the least.

Kill the president. Kill the next one.

The Bush administration sent thousands of troops to their deaths (and horrible disfigurements) for oil.

They also approved of waterboarding and Abu Ghraib torture policies. After all, who really thinks that Charles Graner and Lyndie England just thought up the ideas that constitute those horrific pictures?

They allowed the Federal Emergency Management Agency to be run by a horse-show judge, then when disaster hit, they said "Brownie" was doing a "heckuva job." Then they sent the survivors to formaldehyde-laced trailer homes.

They outed a CIA agent because her husband said their purported cause for war was ill-founded. And when someone was finally brought to justice for it, Bush commuted his sentence. And who knows if he'll give a last-day pardon.

They are the first administration to openly start a war of aggression against a sovereign nation, then give every excuse in the world to explain that it wasn't about oil, which ended up being what it was about.

ETC, fucking ETC.

And people still think the idea of martial law is tinfoil-hat conspiracy? Maybe, but the idea is not unfounded.

martial law or new president, this countries in for a fuckin ride. hold on tight.

.

OK people, it's time we stop talking about the problem with Bush and we do something since congress won't. We need to march on Washington with 10 million strong to demonstrate this administration. We need to deliver a letter to congress telling them that Bush and Cheney are fired immediatly from their positions. We the people hired him and we the people can fire him. We can not wait for the elections because who knows what this administration will do before leaving office. It does not matter that they have only 6 months left, it is the principal of the matter, to show the world we did not approve of his actions. He is only a man. We gave him the authority that he abused and we must take back that authority. He is only a man, not a god with supernatural powers. We need to get real and end his abuse of the most highly respect office on the planet.

>> ^jwray:
The constitution quite clearly does not provide anyone the authority to declare martial law.
The only remotely similar statement in the constitution is in Article 1, Section 9: "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."
But since it does not state which branch of government has the authority to suspend Habeas Corpus, no branch of government has the authority to suspend Habeas Corpus


Irrelevant with this administration. A bill was signed into law several months ago that shifted the power to declare martial law from the Congress to the president. Bush can literally snap his fingers and stop the elections if he so desired.