martial law : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread

Does anyone have information on martial law: how, where, when? What will authorities do in regard to travel and food distribution (or confiscation)?

-- rory moore (, May 08, 1998


The way things have progressed in our government, the president, through execution of "Executive Orders" can run the country by fiat. He can proclaim a state of emergency and make decisions without consent of the congress. Executive orders have been in place since 1933 and improved with each administration. Clinton refined the system with the creation of FEMA who will oversee and administrate the emergency orders issued by the president. The new head of FEMA will be an old Arkansas boy. The Pres just recently asked for the power to make trade treaties without congressional approval. Had that been granted, he would be more of a King than he is now.

Don't be too insulted by the high handedness of government. Abe Lincoln suspended the right of "Habeus Corpus" during the Civil War. Our soldiers have died in two major wars and countless actions without the congress declaring war.

The executive orders state that the various cabinet members shall have the right to mobilize those areas of their responsibility: Sec of agriculture may confiscate food. Sec of Energy may confiscate fuel. Sec of labor may molilize the work force, move the work force to where they are needed and decide what compensation they will recieve. It goes on and on.

The funny thing is that FEMA's computers are among the worst of all the federal agencies.

-- Bill Solorzano (, May 08, 1998.


I just looked this up for you and the rest of us. go to: look up executive order: 12919

It is scary enough to write a "Disaster" movie script. Most of the scariest stuff was issued by Clinton who refers to the American public as, "Joe six pack"

-- Bill Solorzano (, May 08, 1998.

Another interesting document is "legal Aspects of Domestic Employment of the Army" by Colonel Thomas R. Lujan, a military attorney. The document can be found at

An earlier respondent mentioned FEMA. There is an Executive Order on the establishment of that agency, which is No. 12673. Other Executive Orders of possible interest are 13010 "Critical Infrastructure Protection" and 10995 on Telecommunications, and a series assigning emergency management preparedness to various agencies as follows: 10995 Sec'y of the Interior, 10998 Sec'y of Agriculture, 11001 Sec'y of HEW, 11003 Administrator of the FAA.

Most of these Executive Orders were signed by John f. Kennedy.

-- Dan Hunt (, May 08, 1998.

I've seen martial law discussions in several Y2K sites, and you're right, the Executive Orders on the books are scary. But the question I have is this: Could the President really declare martial law, ignore (or dissolve) Congress and the Supreme Court, and get away with it? Is it realistic to think that the Joint Chiefs of Staff are going to ignore their oaths to uphold the Constitution and instead obey the orders of a draft-dodger who has nothing but contempt for the military? Is the Marine Corps really going to march into Los Angeles for a man whose appointee once called them a militaristic cult? I would like to think not, but I'd be interested in hearing the thoughts of peole with perhaps more military experience than myself.

-- J.D. Clark (, May 08, 1998.

A military who obeys only good leaders is no better than a "Bannana Republics band of thugs" Of cousrse our military will carry out lawful orders of the president. That is their oath. The catch is, "lawful orders" Any soldier who carries out an unlawful order is subject to prosecution. Now I grant you that is a big order for some young Sgt. with a platoon of men to consider. He will no doubt carry out the orders of his superior. But remember Mei Lia? The slaughter was in progress yet some helecopter pilots landed and stopped some of the killing. Thinking back on some of my own experiences in the Military and Law enforcement, I am pretty sure that you can count on soldiers following their orders up to out and out murder of fellow Americans.

-- Bill Solorzano (, May 08, 1998.

The question of whether the military would blindly obey President Clinton if he imposes martial law brings up another point: Will the Republican-controlled Congress attempt to remove Clinton before he can become "President for Life"?

I believe a realization of the seriousness of Y2K and its negative consequences to our society will dawn on Clinton's political foes in the near future, and they will seek a way to remove him from office. Look for impeachment proceedings to begin later this year or early next year.

-- Nabi Davidson (, May 09, 1998.

An earlier respondent mentioned FEMA. There is an Executive Order on the establishment of that agency, which is No. 12673. Other Executive Orders of possible interest are 13010 "Critical Infrastructure Protection" and 10995 on Telecommunications, and a series assigning emergency management preparedness to various agencies as follows: 10995 Sec'y of the Interior, 10998 Sec'y of Agriculture, 11001 Sec'y of HEW, 11003 Administrator of the FAA

I tried to access these executive orders and was unable to. I was able to pull up #12919. Does anyone have any idea why the others won't come up? Thanks. Candice

-- Candice Brinkman (, May 09, 1998.

Candice, Executive Orders issued by John F. Kennedy are numbered from 10914 to 11127, and can be found at a University of Michigan library site. The address is so long I will put it on two lines but it all runs together: /frames/fedfr.html

then find a button Executive Orders to click on.

Executive Order 13010 can be found at a special site regarding the President's Commission on Critical Infrastructure Protection, which is

I have not been able to find websites for any of the others. They may simply not have been put on the web. I have sent an e-mail to the publisher of the article by Col. Thomas R. Lujan regarding EO 12673, which was cited in that article, to see if the text of that EO is available. If I hear back, I will pass along any information.

. x

-- Dan Hunt (, May 09, 1998.

A little bit off the subject of martial law, has anyone seen in writing a recent executive order that limits the possession of gold to under $10,000 per person?

I heard this and the supposed executive order or bill passed involved being charged with terrorisom if a person is found in possession of over $10,000 worth of gold. Again, this is only a rumor until substantiation. Thank you for your input.

-- C J (, May 10, 1998.

rory, an interesting scenario is outlined in the April issue of the mcalvany intelligence advisor. you can down load a copy at click on intelligence advisor and go to surviving the year 2000. then choose part 3. the article isn't posted but yet but i've been assured it will be up by thursday may 14. if it isn't let me know and i'll e-mail you the text.

-- dave saleh (, May 12, 1998.

The Army has had an operations plan for civil disturbances on the books for many years. It is OPLAN Garden Plot.

One of the challenges in administering martial law is that the population-per-soldier ratio is pretty low. There are about 260 million people in this country. The Army has about 400,000 active duty soldiers and can draw on another 600,000 or so in the Army Reserve and National Guard.

Of those 400,000 active duty soldiers, only about 120,000 can be considered "combat troops" in divisions. Less that 100,000 are in the United States today.

Assuming that soldiers are needed only in major metro areas, we have about 200 million people in metro areas who would be controlled / protected by 100,000 soldiers. The ratio of 2000 civilians per soldier is going to make enforcing anything draconian pretty difficult.

-- Bill Badger (, May 13, 1998.


-- none (, September 28, 1998.

Here's an old post from the Y2KChaos Website that seems relevant.

"What Country on What Planet Do You Come From Anyway?

J.L. -

You posed three questions:

1) How well supplied is the military now?

2) "How long would it take for them to suck up all extra fuel and even expropriate the grain right out of the fields or silos from the next two harvests?"

3) "Would this not occur to you if you were a commanding general once you accepted the fact that things would get very bad after 1/1/00?"

I'll address the last question first, because it is by far the most important.

The title of this thread tends to foster some very wrong starting points.

To begin with, our military is a REAL tiger, not a paper one, now or after 1/1/00. As long as it has "bullets and beans", it is the most powerful military on the planet. When it runs out, it disintegrates and becomes nothing at all, let alone a tiger. Until it does, it is capable of actions such as the extinguishing of 300,000 lives or so as it did in Desert Storm, with little chance of incurring many casualties in return.

But, our military is not an abstraction, it is men and women from Toledo, Ohio and Gulfport Mississippi. It is Sailors from Iowa who never saw the sea before they joined the Navy and Marines from the Mexican Barrio who have waited all their lives to show their worth as Americans. It is people who count the days until their next leave when they can see their families again in Los Angeles and New York and "Crossroads Junction, USA". Each and every last one of them, from the lowliest Seaman Recruit to Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has taken a solemn oath before Almighty God to support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America, against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Our Flag Officers and Colonels are not the cartoon caricatures of Generals from some Banana Republic who strut around, puffing out a chest covered with brightly colored medals that they did not earn. They are men like Oliver North who took leave from active duty and, against the wishes of the politicos, flew 12,000 miles at his own expense into the combat zone he had served in twice to testify in support of an enlisted Marine who had been wrongly accused and was being court martialed. They are men like John Kennedy who swam 7 miles with a broken back, towing an injured crewman with his teeth. They are men like John Glen who refused entry to his home to the Vice President of the United States, knowing full well that it would cost him the first shot at going into space, simply to spare his wife the embarassment of revealing her speech impediment to such an august personage as the VP. They are men like Colin Powell who proved that it is possible, in spite of all the obstacles, to start at the bottom and finish at the top. And, they are men and women whose names you will find on a black granite wall in our capitol and on the small white markers in graveyards all over the planet. They are men and women who would storm the Gates of Hell and count themselves honored to do so, on your and my behalf.

Are these the Americans that you perceive as a threat?

In the unlikely event that a "ringer" had made his way into the Flag ranks and attempted to sieze power, he wouldn't last 12 hours. His troops would not support him and his fellows would oust him forcibly and rapidly.

If our military leaders believed that they could save even a portion of our way of life, they would consider no effort too much or no sacrifice too great. They will obey, if they are able, the lawful orders of civilian authority, but not if they are simply lawful by decree and they are not clearly necessary. They will not hurt us! They will find another civilian leader first. Maybe there are still some in America who do not realize just how close our current President came to open rebellion in the military over his attempts at policy making regarding homosexuals in the military. We lost several valuable and competent Flag officers over that debacle. You may be sure that if our military is involved in an attempt to save our civilization that it will be an honest attempt to do just that and will be administered equitably and ended without an attempt to "sieze power and rule".

If our military turned on us and engaged in armed conflict with our own citizens, all would certainly be lost. I simply cannot see the Army having a fire fight with a compound of American men, women and children who have gardens and chickens and pigs and are simply trying to survive, over a pitiful few cans of rice and beans.

Now, "How well supplied is the military now?", you ask. This from a respected "think tank", is a pretty good answer.

"An independent MITRE Corporation assessment of military vulnerability to the software problem describes it as real and potentially catastrophic. Military logistics systems, in the process of creating five-year stockpiles, already are encountering the problem, as are financial and insurance institutions. Critical systems in the U.S. Defense Department could face substantial failure if the department does not aggressively address what is known as the year 2000 problem."

The rest of it is here

And finally, you have asked, "How long would it take for them to suck up all extra fuel and even expropriate the grain right out of the fields or silos from the next two harvests?"

The short answer is forever, they couldn't do it.

The long answer is that their computers can't keep track right now ("lost"), the railroads are screwed up so badly right now (RR Chaos) that 100 million bushels of grain is lying on the ground and rotting from last year's harvest (100 million!) (More grain!)(Still more grain!) and the part of the military that would handle such a task is not the tactical part(It's this part)(That conceived this plan). It is the bureaucratic part of the military and they are as incapable as the other parts of the government bureaucracy, and just as dependent on the civilian infrastructure as we are (Check this out).

Fuel would have to move on the railroads also and the same military bureaucracy would have to handle it."

-- "C" Student (, September 28, 1998.

Problem is in your quote below:

""If our military turned on us and engaged in armed conflict with our own citizens, all would certainly be lost. I simply cannot see the Army having a fire fight with a compound of American men, women and children who have gardens and chickens and pigs and are simply trying to survive, over a pitiful few cans of rice and beans. ""

They (FBI) already did this in Ruby Ridge, Idaho. It's not the military where Clinton is has increased funding - its the heavily armed "domestic police" groups at ATF, IRS, INS, FBI, Park & Wildlife, special response "RAID" teams of Army/Seals/Rangers. These (in the guise of fighting domestic terrorism are already "mentally conditioning" themselves to see their targets not as US citizens, and not even as "crimminals", but as "terrorists".

That takes the "inner" fear of murder away from these militarized groups. And, since they are "cops" in disguise, being led from the "higher level" organization that is sponsoring them as "elites", they already have the "moral authority" to shoot.

-- Robert A. Cook, P.E. (Kennesaw, GA) (, September 29, 1998.

Hmm, these two posts bring up a question. Robert Cook looks at the build-up of paramilitary forces in various non-military arms of the government.......the alphabet soup agencies in which even the Small Business Administration is reputed to have armed agents. He sees danger there.

C Student says that he doesn't believe that the military would see orders to fire on unarmed civilians as lawful, and sees the military as defending the constitution instead.

I see a conflict of interest arising here.....between the paramilitary police forces and the military, one bound to defend the consititution, the other operating strictly in regard to orders from their agency heads.

Does anyone else see the potential for a civil war or sorts arising out of this conflict?


-- rocky knolls (, September 29, 1998.

This is the scariest thing I have ever heard a member of congress report to the press!

The "American SS" are certainly up to no good!

-- "C" Student (, September 29, 1998.

Very scary, indeed. Have these people ever heard of the Constitution of the United States? Very, very scary.

-- Mike (, September 29, 1998.

Sure they have heard of the constitution, they wipe their asses with it every day!

-- Bill Marcy (, July 15, 1999.

You mean like they don't have toilet paper? Wow! It seems like its hard to get a fresh copy of the constitution to wipe your ass with? Maybe I wrong.

Love, Dildectum Rot

-- Vincent price (, July 15, 1999.

You guys need to get a life! What would be wrong with Clinton as president for life? He has run this country better than any president we have ever had. We should be so lucky if we had Clinton for life.

-- Richard Mason (, July 15, 1999.

Now THIS is an old thread.

Please permit me to blow off a little steam.

Clinton is not even fit to lick S*** off of the boots of any former POTUS, with the exception of Warren G. Harding. Harding ran the second most corrupt administration this country has ever seen, next to Clinton's.

I think we can agree to disagree, but F***-off and die you scumbag.

Sorry, I just needed to vent a little.

-- nothere nothere (, July 15, 1999.

Oh please Richard! I have to assume that you've picked the wrong country to live in wishing anyone presidency for life. Your statement coming 11 days after celebrating our independence (and the hundreds of thousands of men and women who have defended that freedom) is really quite nauseating. Get a life indeed!

-- Jim Dustin (, July 15, 1999.

I have been training and educating young children in my city, on marksmanship, and the Constituition of the U.S.. One day they will need the tools i have passed to them as my parents have passed to me.

-- F. Hudman (, July 18, 1999.

Ruby Ridge, Waco and the thousands of lesser known evils that our "government" have bestowed upon the "citizens" of this country were nothing but tests to see just how far the American people would allow the "government" to trample upon their rights to "due process". As we can see, they went pretty far with hardly a puff.

One thing that people need to be aware of, concerning our "American Military", is that its ranks are filled with thousands of non- American citizens who would have no qualms bayonetting any number of Clintons "Joe six-packs". There is an old saying, "Capture their hearts and minds and they will follow." (Thought control, media, multiculturalism, live and let live, definition of what "is" is (Clinton), gun control, etc. etc. etc.) Peoples hearts and minds are being captured alright, or rather molded, into a one world one thought one way you are you and we are we and we are one with the world veiw.

You may think nothing of exiting your home for an evening stroll, but during martial law, that will get you a bullet and a body bag. No questions asked, no reason why.......just bang, you are dead.

When was the last time any of you pulled out your dusty copy of the constitution and read it? In fact, when was the last time any of you heard anyone calling this nation a Republic rather than a "Democracy"? Every single democratic nation on this planet, beginning with ancient Greece, has been ruined by "Democracy".

"The constitution is yours.......if you can keep it." LOL (Who said that?)

-- Mind opened enough to discard junk. (, July 18, 1999.

The Constitution may not be perfect, but its better than what we have now.

-- biker (, July 18, 1999.

I believe the saying was authored by was Ben Franklin, but he said "republic" not Constitution, as I recall.

-- marsh (, July 19, 1999.

This might be paranoid - we may not have to worry about our military attacking US citizens - I think that the UN with their "Blue Beret Butchers" are what we may have to fear, as well as our domestic police! And they do outnumber our own military forces - and they would love to come on American soil. . . and . . . and . . .

-- B.F. (, July 19, 1999.

I think it was Freeman Dyson who said that the British system of government had been designed to be run by gentlemen. The American goverment? Criminals. The Constitution was brilliantly designed to withstand the foibles and stupidity and arrogance of leaders who would otherwise be tyrants under different circumstances.

Problem is, the only way we can safely tolerate a government run by criminals is to keep the Constitution intact, with its essential guidelines for the separation of power between the three br,"anches. Once the Constitution is trashed, there's no stopping a bad man or woman from running the whole show toward their own ends. I do believe that there can be such a thing as "benevolent despotism"--at least for a short time--but power is corrupting even for very good people. Therefore, if widespread martial law were ever enforced, we can only hope that it will be done toward the sole aim of restoring the rule of constitutional law.

Having said that, I have my doubts that there will ever be widespread military rule since the resources are simply NOT THERE to implement it. However, it's possible that there could be local, smaller-scale situations where the National Guard will be used to distribute fresh water, provide warm shelter, ration gasoline, and/or quell unrest.

-- coprolith (, July 19, 1999.

I talked to a man who worked for the state of GA. This mans wife is a special agent for the you know who. He ask me a question. Why did Ted Turner donate 1 BILLION dollars to the U.N.? I said that I did not know he had done this since you would think that a billion dollar contribution would make headlines. He said that the reason was because when Y2K hits that U.N. troops would be brought in and that this was a sort of payoff so they would not invade the land he has in New Mexico or whatever state he has all that land in and take all his assets. First of all did Ted Turner donate 1 Billion dollars to the U.N.? I have never heard of this except from this gentleman, and he got this information from his wife. And if old T.T. did then I would have to search long and hard for a reason to give up that kind of money. Also if that scum dog Clinton wants to send in the troops, let him. So many people have given their lives defending the Constitution of this country that I would not hesitate to do the same. And as far as the so called compounds of civilians eating rice and beans fighting off Clinton backed ZZ troops. Well I think that they are going to be in for a hell of a shock if they run into some of these groups around Georgia. They may get what they came for, but the price will be very high indeed. One man fighting for his freedom,family,and country, on his own grounds and well prepared will be a formidable foe indeed. The government has a reason to be afraid, most Americans don't like the way its being run now. If you give them a chance they will try to change it. And the way it's looking it will have to be by force.

-- T.J. James (, July 19, 1999.


It is true that Ted Turner announced that he would donate 1 billion dollars in stock to the U.N. over a 10 year period in order to get other people to do the same. The difference? Turner wanted to direct how the money would be spent. I do not believe that they have successfully come to terms with how this might be done outside of the standard U.N. bureaucracy which would likely take half at the outset if he just GAVE them the money.

Montana is where Ted and Jane have staked their claim.

-- nothere nothere (, July 19, 1999.

The US Constitution forbids Martial Law within the USA. Any application of it is Illegal. It is also an illegal declaration of military occupation of the states by whomever declares it. It is also an act of high treason against the sovereign citizens who reside in those states. No soldier of the USA shall obey such unlawful order from a commander, except on pain of punishment for treason. Anyone who advocates martial law, regardless of the apparent necessity, commits treason against the sovereign.

The US Constitution only permits the single item, of right of habeas corpus, to be suspended and that only in time of insurrection. No other right of we the people shall be suppressed for any reason, because there is no permission within the constitution for government to do that.

Contrary to anarchists of the bench, the government does not have a right to exist if it must do so in violation of the constitution.

And, finally, a constitution breached is a contract breached, and it becomes void from that moment, and as to the people, they revert to their original individual sovereign status, as if the constitution had never been adopted, and if they continue acknowledging the government operating under a void constitution, they do so only from moment to moment, subject to their withdrawal of their personal obedience to it and subservience to it at any time.

Thus in this day when the imposition of martial law, is being trial ballooned in the press, and propaganda is being fed ignorant citizens to cause them to believe martial law is OK and to be expected in time of governmental stress, or is OK for the convenience of government, in the event Y2K, or some contrived event appears, to make that necessary, all individuals ought consider that they have a duty to resist such imposition, with whatever means is necessary to cause its failure and force government to cease and desist in their criminal action against the people.

This is an individual issue, not a collective one, and each person, having studied the facts and personal rights and the situation, must make up his own mind about what he will do, and indeed what he thinks he must do out of duty, keeping in mind however that aiding and abetting treason is an activity which may bring harsh justice from other individuals who are doing their duty, as they see it.


"By martial law, every citizen instead of reposing under the shield of known and fixed laws as to his liberty, property, and life, exists with a rope round his neck, subject to be hung up by a military despot at the next lamp post, under the sentence of some drum-head court-martial." Justice Levi Woodbury: Lutther v. Borden, 7 Howard. (48 U.S.) 1, 62.

"Martial law is the law of military necessity in the actual presence of war" Justice M.R. Waite: United States v Diekelman, 2 Otto (92 U.S.) 520, 526

"Martial rule can never exist where the courts are open, and in the proper and unobstructed exercise of their jurisdiction." Justice David Davis: Ex parte Milligan, 4 Wall (71 U.S.) 2, 127

"The military forces act upon appearances, not upon testimony" Justice Douglas: Hirabayashi v. United States, 320 U.S. 81,107

"In the very nature of things military decisions are not susceptible of intelligent judicial appraisal. They do not pretend to rest on evidence, but are made on information that often would not be admissible, and on assumptions that could not be proved." Justice Jackson: Korematsu v United States, 323 U.S. 214, 245

"Military tribunals have not been and probably never can be constituted in such way that they can have the same kind of qualifications that the constitution has deemed essential to fair trials of civilians in federal courts." Justice Black, United States v. Quarles, 350 U.S. 304, 331

" the idea of a civilian being tried by military authorities is repulsive to the American scheme of justice:. Justice Douglas: "We The Judges" 70.

"The military should always be kept in subjection to the laws of the country to which it belongs", "He is no friend to the republic who advocates the contrary. The established principle of every free people is that the law alone govern; and to it the military must always yield" Justice Field: Dow v. Johnson, 10 Otto (100 U.S.) 158,169.

From the above statements, made throughout our history, whenever the subject of martial law reached the high court, it can be foreseen that if martial law is declared in the USA, that would be tantamount to closing the courts, and abolishing the constitutional rule of law, and the military would therefore become a conquering army, and not the servant of we the people.

Since the people reserve their sovereignty when they approved the various constitutions, and only delegated limited authority, specifically enumerated in writing, it would be an act of high treason against the sovereign for any governmental official to advocate martial law upon we the people for that would be the same as to advocate a military seizure of government, and overthrow of the sovereign. Any act which tends to diminish the authority or powers of the sovereign is treason against the sovereign, and has been considered so for millennia. All persons who advocate, assist, conspire, or participate in such acts are equally guilty.

Since any order to military to participate in martial law upon we the people is a high crime, that military person has a duty to ignore such order, and upon pain of the above punishment refuse to participate in any way.

Any military person receiving such an order shall consider it to have canceled his obligation to serve any further in the military, and he may take his arms home, and prepare to defend we the people as member of any home guard, or other defense unit raised by the states or by the people.

Any person as makes such a command is subject to immediate arrest by any military or civilian person becoming aware of it, and if no other tribunal is available to try the matter, a common law jury trial shall be held by 12 citizens summoned to hear the charge.

A majority vote of such tribunal shall suffice for verdict. Upon a finding that the offender guilty that jury, by majority vote, may impose any punishment up to and including the below stated punishment for high treason against the sovereign, under the law customary to sovereigns.

No federal, state, nor military court has any jurisdiction to hear an appeal from such common law tribunal.

The sentence shall be carried out as necessary by citizens summoned from the people and authorized to execute the written verdict of that tribunal.

The customary punishment for treason against the sovereign, throughout history has been anything the sovereign desires, including death, seizure of all assets, and banishment of family from the territory of the sovereign.

Those pimple heads holding power today, who bask in a delusion of being educated, based upon a mediocre education, and pretend, as if learned in worldly affairs, need to carefully consider the above concepts BEFORE they ignorantly commit acts which will later bring that penalty upon them.

And to the reader, citizen of one of the states of the united states, excepting those who reside in the federal compound known as the district of Columbia, cease comporting yourselves as servants of the federal government and commence comporting yourselves a sovereign individuals, still fully possessed of all your sovereign rights and authority. Think sovereign and you shall be...Think slave and you shall be...Think not at all and you shall be nothing.

-- CT (ct@no.yr), July 19, 1999.

I think you folks may be missing the point. Of course we have a shortage of military in U.S. at this time. They are stationed all over the world on trumped up "peacekeeping missions". That is the plan. When the time is right, the commander-in-chief says, "hey, we got trouble right here in 'River City' and we don't have enough of our own troops to handle it. How about it UN, NATO, anybody, we help you out all the time. It's our turn now. Come help us." Since when does he follow the Constitution. He makes the rules as he is told and Congress backs him up every time.

What about all the foreign troops conveniently training in the US right now. What about the Germans at that air base in Oklahoma? Foreign troops are strategically placed all over the place and the UN has "biospheres" in our national parks. Great places to set up shop. This has been the plan all along. Maybe Americans couldn't kill Americans, but foreign troops wouldn't hesitate.

And, lest everyone forget, the Panama Canal goes back to Panama as of December 31, 1999. And with China already in the picture at each end, ready to rebuild our military bases, that throws another monkey wrench in the picture. We will be sitting ducks.

Oh, I think "they" have plenty of contingencies. If one plan doesn't work, there is another one in the book. Any thoughts or rebuttals on this?

-- Sharon Norton (, July 20, 1999.

I think you're very paranoid, Sharon. Let's hope you never take over the country.

-- Jethro Bodine (, August 04, 1999.

There's an interesting article to be had here:

Fairly academic, but very interesting reading if you're willing to plow through it all/

-- Xinoph (, August 10, 1999.

In light of the "new" Waco revelations and the probable issue of "posse comitaus (sp)" law I, have the answer. The Perpertrator in Chief is testing the waters for Y2K and martial law. Sooner rather than later, he will rant that the "military" was needed to put down this "Child Molester" (David Koresh) and that "We the people (Joe 6 pack) is in dire need of his help.

-- Lonetree (, September 01, 1999.

Don't know much about martial law, however, my renter said that she had been in Mississippi for two weeks training for duty on conveys for any y2k problems. When pressed further,she clammed up and said that she had already said to much. Oh well. When Ted Turner announced that he was donating 1 billion to the UN, he arrogantly said that he was putting the rich people of this country on notice. When Ted and Jane were asked what they plan to do with the big ranch/plantation that they own in patagonia,their comment was, "we'll go there when the second American revolution begins." Really! Patagonia is a desolate region of Argentina. Where nuclear fallout is minimum? I do believe these two commies deserve watching. Wasn't it Jane who said that parts of Georgia look like a third world country? She later publically apologized. Maybe Ted should have given Georgia a billion and put the poor people on notice,huh?

-- Carolyn L Steele (, September 28, 1999.

Does anyone think that the banks will be nationalized as they were in Mexico a few years ago? Vic

-- Victoria (, October 12, 1999.

Ummmmm...feel kinda stupid now?

-- Cletis Furriner (, January 01, 2000.

well, matial law here in the philippines is very cruel. late president marcos abuse his power. although article 7 sec 18 of the philippine contitution, can declare matial law, but it was only limited to sixty day-implementation of martial law, after that period, it will go back to normal. provided that the executive officials or the majority of the officials wanted to have a martial law in the philippines. well martial law, controls everything, every movements of the citizen. seems like no privacy of people, no freedom, and the like. the military forces can even kill you anytime they want, with out hesitations...mostly,, its for the goodness of the officials..and with that i raised my case...

-- mark lawrence josh-si'ah aliven (, March 11, 2005.

ARTICLE 7. SEC. 18. of the philippine contitution The President shall be the Commander-in-Chief of all armed forces of the Philippines and whenever it becomes necessary, he may call out such armed forces to prevent or suppress lawless violence, invasion or rebellion. In case of invasion or rebellion, when the public safety requires it, he may, for a period not exceeding sixty days, suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus or place the Philippines or any part thereof under martial law. Within forty-eight hours from the proclamation of martial law or the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, the President shall submit a report in person or in writing to the Congress. The Congress, voting jointly, by a vote of at least a majority of all its Members in regular or special session, may revoke such proclamation or suspension, which revocation shall not be set aside by the President. Upon the initiative of the President, the Congress may, in the same manner, extend such proclamation or suspension for a period to be determined by the Congress, if the invasion or rebellion shall persist and public safety requires it. The Congress, if not in session, shall, within twenty-four hours following such proclamation or suspension, convene in accordance with its rules without any need of a call. The Supreme Court may review, in an appropriate proceeding filed by any citizen, the sufficiency of the factual basis of the proclamation of martial law or the suspension of the privilege of the writ or the extension thereof, and must promulgate its decision thereon within thirty days from its filing. A state of martial law does not suspend the operation of the Constitution, nor supplant the functioning of the civil courts or the legislative assemblies, nor authorize the conferment of jurisdiction on military courts and agencies over civilians where civil courts are able to function, nor automatically suspend the privilege of the writ. The suspension of the privilege of the writ shall apply only to persons judicially charged for rebellion or offenses inherent in or directly connected with the invasion. During the suspension of the privilege of the writ, any person thus arrested or detained shall be judicially charged within three days, otherwise he shall be released.

-- mark lawrence josh-si'ah aliven (, March 11, 2005.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ