This post may have appeared at some earlier time .. however, the content I'm presenting here was new to me .. and turend out to be a real heart-stopper! If you don't think the structure isn't in place to take over virtually all aspects of our lives .. including preparedness steps we deem necessary for our well being and that of our families .. THINK AGAIN! I first found reference to this on a site called "Noah's Ark" (link located at the end of this post)... from where I followed a link to Gary North's site .. and from there to the White House site where the full context of the Executive Order can be found. Being a natural skeptic, I followed each link which led me to the original document.   Check it out for yourself!   For those of you who have a mountain of material to wade through every day, a preliminary summary [mine] appears in the section immediately following. If you want more detail .. it's here below the preliminary summary. If you want full details .. I've included active links at the end of this post. Get out the heart medication before you read...   All of the following fall under ONE Executive Order, EO #12919 signed by Clinton and released on June 6, 1994:   With all due credit .. I quote the following section from the Noah's Ark Site -- (bold/highlighted text and and underlining were added by me for emphasis):   Federal seizure of: All communications media in the United States; All electric power, fuels, minerals, public and private; All food supplies and resources, public and private and all farms and equipment; All means of transportation, including cars, trucks, or vehicles of any kind and total control over all highways, seaports and water ways; American people (YES! PEOPLE!) for work forces under federal supervision, including the splitting up of families if the government so desires; [For personal verification of this, see Sections 601 and 701(e) of EO #12919] http://www.pub.whitehouse.gov/uri-res/I2R?urn:pdi://oma.eop.gov.us/1994/6/7/20.text.1 All health, education and welfare facilities, both public and private; All railroads, inland waterways and storage facilities, both public and private; All airports and aircraft; All housing and finances and authority to establish forced relocation.   In addition .. EO #12919 provides for: Registration of US Citizens - Executive Order #11002-- Which empowers the Postmaster General to register all men, women and children in the United States of America; Authority to designate areas to be abandoned as "unsafe", establish new locations for the populations, relocate communities, build new housing with public funds;   Granting FEMA complete authorization to put above orders into effect in times of increased international tension of economic or financial crisis (FEMA will be in control in case of "National Emergency"). [End of quoted text]   Did you see it? ... "in times of increased international tension of economic or financial crisis..."   The bottom line? With a single stroke of his pen, Clinton can delegate authority to FEMA to run the entire show however it sees fit. All he needs to do now is declare a "national emergency" .. and it all kicks in to take over the entire country. Will he? You tell me!       [And the long version ... again with quote credit given to the Noah's Ark site (referenced at the end of this post)]:     Can Our [USA] Government Really Tell Us How Much Food and Supplies We Can Keep?   The short answer is YES in a roundabout way. Due to numerous discussions questioning the existence of federal anti-hoarding legislation, I wanted to see if such Executive Orders had been written. First and foremost, we do not want to suggest people store items beyond "legal limits" if such limits did exist. Second, we want to separate fact from rumor buzzing around the Internet which has only added to the confusion. This search has yielded no federal legislation aimed directly at prohibiting food storage. But this does not mean "hoarding" is legal, and here's why.     So What Exactly Is An Executive Order?   Executive Orders ("EO") have been used by presidents since the days of George Washington. The first EO addressed Washington's normal household expenses, which ones were to be accepted and paid by the Treasury Department. Pretty innocuous. The FBI was formed under an executive order by Teddy Roosevelt on July 26, 1908. The first time it was used to make a law was in 1916 by President Woodrow Wilson. It was said to be an 'emergency' measure and Congress was encouraged to validate it. They did and now the door was now open to ignore the Constitution. This is the same method used by Franklin Roosevelt in 1933 to close all the banks in the country. Americans were ordered to turn in all their gold to local banks.   The general purpose of an executive order is to provide the President with a mechanism for executing laws passed by Congress, not control of lives. These EOs are issued by the President as directives to agencies responsible for implementing laws.   Since the U.S. Constitution places responsibility for executing laws in the hands of the President, issuing EOs is an appropriate means of carrying out the responsibilities IF they are within the bounds of the Constitution. President Kennedy, during his short time in office, signed into law 214 Executive Orders. Numerous Kennedy EOs have brought about positive changes for the American people such as:       EO #11063 - "Equal Opportunity in Housing"     EO #10914 - "Food Distribution to Needy Families"     EO #11022 - "Council on Aging"     EO #11925 - "Equal Opportunity in Employment"   These Kennedy EOs have a distinctly different flavor though aimed at preserving individual rights, not usurping them. Many EOs overstep Constitutional authority and consequently, are an exercise of unconstitutional power.   One of the worst offenders is EO #13083 dubbed the "Federalism EO" which revokes Ronald Reagan's EO #12612. Reagan attempted to address government's slow creep into our lives, but with the signing of Clinton's EO #13083, Reagan's step back toward progress has been amputated. Read the Nation's Governors Blast Clinton on EO #13083. Score "1" for The People!   "Federalism" is defined as the relationship of the states to the federal government and the distribution of power between the two as established by the Constitution. It doesn't take blind Freddy to realize these rights have greatly been eroded since Clinton took office.   It's important to recognize the federal government came into existence with permission (ratification of the Constitution) granted by the states. The concept was that the federal government would oversee national defense, international trade agreements and other foreign affairs, but the states would retain the right to manage their own internal affairs. The limits imposed by this concept of "Federalism" is clearly stated in the Tenth Amendment. This is where the problem lies. Power is, without question, being removed from the states and its people.     So Where Do Anti-Hoarding Laws Come In?   These ideas of anti-hoarding legislation may have stemmed from two areas of confusion:   First is from Executive Orders in place dating back to 1939 which Clinton has grouped together under one order, EO #12919 released on June 6, 1994. The following EOs all fall under EO#12919:   10995--Federal seizure of all communications media in the United States; 10997--Federal seizure of all electric power, fuels, minerals, public and private; 10998--Federal seizure of all food supplies and resources, public and private and all farms and equipment; 10999--Federal seizure of all means of transportation, including cars, trucks, or vehicles of any kind and total control over all highways, seaports and water ways; 11000--Federal seizure of American people for work forces under federal supervision, including the splitting up of families if the government so desires; 11001--Federal seizure of all health, education and welfare facilities, both public and private; 11002--Empowers the Postmaster General to register all men, women and children in the United States of America; 11003--Federal seizure of all airports and aircraft; 11004--Federal seizure of all housing and finances and authority to establish forced relocation. Authority to designate areas to be abandoned as "unsafe," establish new locations for the populations, relocate communities, build new housing with public funds; 11005--Seizure of all railroads, inland waterways and storage facilities, both public and private; 11051--Provides FEMA complete authorization to put above orders into effect in times of increased international tension of economic or financial crisis (FEMA will be in control in case of "National Emergency").   These EOs are not aimed at anti-hoarding but rather at seizure or confiscation of items and facilities "to provide a state of readiness in these resource areas with respect to all conditions of national emergency, including attack upon the United States". You'll find most 'seizure' legislation ends with this phrase. These Executive Orders don't define what specifically constitutes a national emergency ... and maybe this is as it should be. The specifics on hoarding are left up to the individual states.     Title 50 and Hoarding   There are anti-hoarding references under Title 50 War And National Defense, Section 2072. Stripping off the legalese, it says no one shall accumulate goods in excess of "reasonable amounts" for business, personal or home consumption which could become scarce, "goods" to be designated by the President. Penalties for doing so may result in fines of not more than $10,000 and/or one year imprisonment.   Since Title 50 is about expire September 30, 1998, does this mean we are home-free? Not with the implementation of EO #13083, the "Federalism" EO, and this could be one explanation for its existence. There is also state anti-hoarding legislation. The bases are pretty well covered.     What Is FEMA's Role?   EO #11051 is interesting; it authorizes FEMA near-total power in times of crisis. There's been lots of discussion on the Internet regarding the excessive control FEMA has been granted and it was pointedly commented upon in July's world premiere movie release of the "X-Files".     Bottom line? Clinton delegated authority to FEMA to run the show however it sees fit if he declares a national emergency. Who will determine how much food we can have in our house? FEMA. And the amount depends on the needs of all...not your needs or my needs...but the "welfare" of the needy.   [End of quoted text]   With the "cold war" a dead issue, why then was an Executive Order of this nature issued by Clinton???   You decide.     Links for verification:   Noah's Ark - where I originally found reference to all this:     http://www.millennium-ark.net/News_Files/INFO_Files/EOs.html   Gary North's detail on Executive Order #12919 - (also includes the link below):     http://www.garynorth.com/y2k/detail_.cfm/1773   Executive Order #12919 in full context - On the Whitehouse site:     http://www.pub.whitehouse.gov/uri-res/I2R?urn:pdi://oma.eop.gov.us/1994/6/7/20.text.1

-- Dan (DanTCC@Yahoo.com), December 04, 1998

Answers

Good research, Dan, but like the rest of the flock, I won't believe it until I feel the end of a bayonet in my ass. Until then, you are a "conspiracy theorist." Sorry.

E.

-- E. Coli (nunayo@beeswax.com), December 04, 1998.

E.:
 
Thanks for the feedback.
 
The info is presented here for general edification .. not as what I predict. As previously stated .. you decide .. which I see you have.
 
Just remember.. the Titanic was also deemed "unsinkable".

-- Dan (DanTCC@Yahoo.com), December 04, 1998.

E., have you done a 180 degree turn, or are you gonna set Dan straight about your opinion of this? :)

-- Buddy (DC) (buddy@bellatlantic.net), December 04, 1998.

Okay, I was being sarcastic.

Dan: there are people who will tell you "'Executive Orders' don't exist!" then when you show them, they say "That doesn't mean anything." For every thousand of these little wooden-heads, there is one person like you, staring the facts in the face and not taking liberty for granted. People don't want to know about it; they don't want to take responsibility for themselves. They don't have any historical consciousness. They won't do anything about it until their back is to the wall. But when they finally do figure it out and get moving, it's going to be a sight to behold.

E.

-- E. Coli (nunayo@beeswax.com), December 04, 1998.

..."And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling in terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand....The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin's thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt!"

--Alexandr Solzhenitsyn, *The Gulag Archipelago*

-- Hardliner (searcher@internet.com), December 04, 1998.

But Hardliner, if I just click my ruby-white-and-blue slippers together and say "it can't happen here, it can't happen here, it can't happen here," and then order a pizza, everything will be okay. The best thing about this method is that it eliminates the bother of research, or of using independent critical reasoning skills.

I don't care about a permanent state of emergency, as long as it doesn't come with anchovies. Gotta run - my soap's on...

E.

-- E. Coli (nunayo@beeswax.com), December 04, 1998.

Dan, thanks for the links. Will spend time studying them all.

An aside point, I keep coming back to the issue that the "military" and "government" is not all "them" but "us" too, with families and children. Were a potential matial law situation to go on longer that individuals of both sides deemed reasonable, I suspect the internal backlash would be just a strong as the external one.

Creating communities sounds like the better choice to me, and just might appeal more to the "rank and file" as well.

Diane, shouting loudly to the "rank and file" lurking here!

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), December 04, 1998.

okay, I GIVE...how did you all read this anyhow? I couldnt get it because of this window?

-- consumer (private@aol.com), December 04, 1998.

E.,

Yeah, there is that. . .

Diane,

You've touched one of my "hot buttons" and swayed my decision in favor of posting this.

Why are you all so afraid of Martial Law? You should be afraid of Clinton and his ilk, but do any of you actually believe that the military in this country would follow "Slick Willie" in an attempt to "sieze power" or imprison American citizens?

"Martial Law" does not mean that there is no law, it means that the military is in charge of law enforcement and that the "Law" is the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

I have lived under this law for many, many years and have found it to be an equitable system and a fair one. I have to say also, that the military has done a far more equitable job of administering that law than the civilian authorities have done with the Constitution.

The following is part of a post from another forum, written by another Marine. He has given me permission to post it here.

**************************************************

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 it is 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 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".

***********************************************

[Hardliner again]

Take it from someone who knows: you're far more likely to see the military hunting down the "Gestapo/SS" of the federal "law enforcement" establishment than rounding up women and children and herding them anywhere.

That is only my opinion, but it is based on nearly 40 years of service and intimate involvement with the people who make up our military.

-- Hardliner (searcher@internet.com), December 04, 1998.

AND FURTHERMORE:

What Hardliner said about the Active duty types Goes DOUBLE in spades for us retired old fogeys.

S.O.B.

-- sweetolebob (buffgun@hotmail.com), December 04, 1998.

In followup to the above comments, it is worth quoting from a posting on "WiredNews" (article: "Bankers: Prepared for a Panic?", page 2)from 12/3/98:

"Koskinen said the government would be moving from contingency planing to a crisis-managemnet phase. Responding to a question about electrical-power failures, Koskinen said, 'In a crisis and emergency situatin, the free market may not be the best way to distribute resources.... If there's a point in time where we have to take resources and make a judgment on an emergency basis, we will be prepared to do that.'"

The article also covers the great sin of stockpiling - aka preparedness. They'll be coming to all our neighborhoods soon! Thankfully, they are finite in their capabilities. Deo Vindice!

-- Rebel (rebel@tdsnet.mail), December 04, 1998.

Hardliner: I still remember the first rule of Naval Aviation: I'd rather die than go to sleep.

Don't have time to answer fully today, but I suspect someone will ask about Kent State. Prepared to answer?

-- PNG (png@gol.com), December 04, 1998.

Hardliner, I'm counting on the humanity of the people who make up our military. Can't say I respect or TRUST much of the government or the Pentagon types though. Some, that you mentioned, not most.

It comes down to an issue of trust and confidence. Who qualifies? It's a tough call. Action ... demonstrating openess and truthfulness and a desire to really tackle the Y2K issues for the nation, standing firm in the public eye, would go a long way to changing people's years of built up perceptions.

Diane

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), December 04, 1998.

This is a re-post of the original article that started this thread.   Several people mentioned that they weren't able to see all of the text as some of it was apparently cut off at the right margin in some browsers. Subsequently I'm reposting this in a narrower format so that everyone has an opportunity to read it unhindered. For those who were able to see the initial posting without difficulty, you may skip past this segment to continue reading the replies. For those who weren't able to see the original in its entirety .. but now are able to ... read on.   My sincere apologies to all for the redundancy.   [~~The original posting begins below here~~]   This post may have appeared at some earlier time .. however, the content I'm presenting here was new to me .. and turned out to be a real heart-stopper! If you don't think the structure isn't in place to take over virtually all aspects of our lives .. including preparedness steps we deem necessary for our well being and that of our families .. THINK AGAIN! I first found reference to this on a site called "Noah's Ark" (link located at the end of this post)... from where I followed a link to Gary North's site .. and from there to the White House site where the full context of the Executive Order can be found. Being a natural skeptic, I followed each link which led me to the original document.   Check it out for yourself!   For those of you who have a mountain of material to wade through every day, a preliminary summary [mine] appears in the section immediately following. If you want more detail .. it's here below the preliminary summary. If you want full details .. I've included active links at the end of this post. Get out the heart medication before you read...   All of the following fall under ONE Executive Order, EO #12919 signed by Clinton and released on June 6, 1994:   With all due credit .. I quote the following section from the Noah's Ark Site -- (bold/highlighted text and and underlining were added by me for emphasis):   Federal seizure of: All communications media in the United States; All electric power, fuels, minerals, public and private; All food supplies and resources, public and private and all farms and equipment; All means of transportation, including cars, trucks, or vehicles of any kind and total control over all highways, seaports and water ways; American people (YES! PEOPLE!) for work forces under federal supervision, including the splitting up of families if the government so desires; [For personal verification of this, see Sections 601 and 701(e) of EO #12919] http://www.pub.whitehouse.gov/uri-res/I2R?urn:p di://oma.eop.gov.us/1994/6/7/20.text.1 All health, education and welfare facilities, both public and private; All railroads, inland waterways and storage facilities, both public and private; All airports and aircraft; All housing and finances and authority to establish forced relocation.   In addition .. EO #12919 provides for: Registration of US Citizens - Executive Order #11002-- Which empowers the Postmaster General to register all men, women and children in the United States of America; Authority to designate areas to be abandoned as "unsafe", establish new locations for the populations, relocate communities, build new housing with public funds;   Granting FEMA complete authorization to put above orders into effect in times of increased international tension of economic or financial crisis (FEMA will be in control in case of "National Emergency"). [End of quoted text]   Did you see it? ... "in times of increased international tension of economic or financial crisis..."   The bottom line? With a single stroke of his pen, Clinton can delegate authority to FEMA to run the entire show however it sees fit. All he needs to do now is declare a "national emergency" .. and it all kicks in to take over the entire country. Will he? You tell me!       [And the long version ... again with quote credit given to the Noah's Ark site (referenced at the end of this post)]:     Can Our [USA] Government Really Tell Us How Much Food and Supplies We Can Keep?   The short answer is YES in a roundabout way. Due to numerous discussions questioning the existence of federal anti-hoarding legislation, I wanted to see if such Executive Orders had been written. First and foremost, we do not want to suggest people store items beyond "legal limits" if such limits did exist. Second, we want to separate fact from rumor buzzing around the Internet which has only added to the confusion. This search has yielded no federal legislation aimed directly at prohibiting food storage. But this does not mean "hoarding" is legal, and here's why.     So What Exactly Is An Executive Order?   Executive Orders ("EO") have been used by presidents since the days of George Washington. The first EO addressed Washington's normal household expenses, which ones were to be accepted and paid by the Treasury Department. Pretty innocuous. The FBI was formed under an executive order by Teddy Roosevelt on July 26, 1908. The first time it was used to make a law was in 1916 by President Woodrow Wilson. It was said to be an 'emergency' measure and Congress was encouraged to validate it. They did and now the door was now open to ignore the Constitution. This is the same method used by Franklin Roosevelt in 1933 to close all the banks in the country. Americans were ordered to turn in all their gold to local banks.   The general purpose of an executive order is to provide the President with a mechanism for executing laws passed by Congress, not control of lives. These EOs are issued by the President as directives to agencies responsible for implementing laws.   Since the U.S. Constitution places responsibility for executing laws in the hands of the President, issuing EOs is an appropriate means of carrying out the responsibilities IF they are within the bounds of the Constitution. President Kennedy, during his short time in office, signed into law 214 Executive Orders. Numerous Kennedy EOs have brought about positive changes for the American people such as:       EO #11063 - "Equal Opportunity in Housing"     EO #10914 - "Food Distribution to Needy Families"     EO #11022 - "Council on Aging"     EO #11925 - "Equal Opportunity in Employment"   These Kennedy EOs have a distinctly different flavor though aimed at preserving individual rights, not usurping them. Many EOs overstep Constitutional authority and consequently, are an exercise of unconstitutional power.   One of the worst offenders is EO #13083 dubbed the "Federalism EO" which revokes Ronald Reagan's EO #12612. Reagan attempted to address government's slow creep into our lives, but with the signing of Clinton's EO #13083, Reagan's step back toward progress has been amputated. Read the Nation's Governors Blast Clinton on EO #13083. Score "1" for The People!   "Federalism" is defined as the relationship of the states to the federal government and the distribution of power between the two as established by the Constitution. It doesn't take blind Freddy to realize these rights have greatly been eroded since Clinton took office.   It's important to recognize the federal government came into existence with permission (ratification of the Constitution) granted by the states. The concept was that the federal government would oversee national defense, international trade agreements and other foreign affairs, but the states would retain the right to manage their own internal affairs. The limits imposed by this concept of "Federalism" is clearly stated in the Tenth Amendment. This is where the problem lies. Power is, without question, being removed from the states and its people.     So Where Do Anti-Hoarding Laws Come In?   These ideas of anti-hoarding legislation may have stemmed from two areas of confusion:   First is from Executive Orders in place dating back to 1939 which Clinton has grouped together under one order, EO #12919 released on June 6, 1994. The following EOs all fall under EO#12919:   10995--Federal seizure of all communications media in the United States; 10997--Federal seizure of all electric power, fuels, minerals, public and private; 10998--Federal seizure of all food supplies and resources, public and private and all farms and equipment; 10999--Federal seizure of all means of transportation, including cars, trucks, or vehicles of any kind and total control over all highways, seaports and water ways; 11000--Federal seizure of American people for work forces under federal supervision, including the splitting up of families if the government so desires; 11001--Federal seizure of all health, education and welfare facilities, both public and private; 11002--Empowers the Postmaster General to register all men, women and children in the United States of America; 11003--Federal seizure of all airports and aircraft; 11004--Federal seizure of all housing and finances and authority to establish forced relocation. Authority to designate areas to be abandoned as "unsafe," establish new locations for the populations, relocate communities, build new housing with public funds; 11005--Seizure of all railroads, inland waterways and storage facilities, both public and private; 11051--Provides FEMA complete authorization to put above orders into effect in times of increased international tension of economic or financial crisis (FEMA will be in control in case of "National Emergency").   These EOs are not aimed at anti-hoarding but rather at seizure or confiscation of items and facilities "to provide a state of readiness in these resource areas with respect to all conditions of national emergency, including attack upon the United States". You'll find most 'seizure' legislation ends with this phrase. These Executive Orders don't define what specifically constitutes a national emergency ... and maybe this is as it should be. The specifics on hoarding are left up to the individual states.     Title 50 and Hoarding   There are anti-hoarding references under Title 50 War And National Defense, Section 2072. Stripping off the legalese, it says no one shall accumulate goods in excess of "reasonable amounts" for business, personal or home consumption which could become scarce, "goods" to be designated by the President. Penalties for doing so may result in fines of not more than $10,000 and/or one year imprisonment.   Since Title 50 is about expire September 30, 1998, does this mean we are home-free? Not with the implementation of EO #13083, the "Federalism" EO, and this could be one explanation for its existence. There is also state anti-hoarding legislation. The bases are pretty well covered.     What Is FEMA's Role?   EO #11051 is interesting; it authorizes FEMA near-total power in times of crisis. There's been lots of discussion on the Internet regarding the excessive control FEMA has been granted and it was pointedly commented upon in July's world premiere movie release of the "X-Files".     Bottom line? Clinton delegated authority to FEMA to run the show however it sees fit if he declares a national emergency. Who will determine how much food we can have in our house? FEMA. And the amount depends on the needs of all...not your needs or my needs...but the "welfare" of the needy.   [End of quoted text]   With the "cold war" a dead issue, why then was an Executive Order of this nature issued by Clinton???   You decide.     Links for verification:   Noah's Ark - where I originally found reference to all this:     ht tp://www.millennium-ark.net/News_Files/INFO_Files/EOs.html   Gary North's detail on Executive Order #12919 - (also includes the link below):     http://www.garyno rth.com/y2k/detail_.cfm/1773   Executive Order #12919 in full context - On the Whitehouse site:     http://www.pub.whitehouse.gov/uri-res/I2R?urn:p di://oma.eop.gov.us/1994/6/7/20.text.1

-- Dan (DanTCC@Yahoo.com), December 04, 1998.

Hardliner, SOB, and MVI

Only one question. I realize and accept the premise that each of the persons involved has taken that oath. i also realize that there are many of my brethren in uniform, so I am fairly sure how MOST of them feel about an oath, and I do not worry about them. My question is, how do the rank and file non-coms feel about the application of their oath, and its requirement that the orders be lawful.

I'm going to do something I swore to myself I'd never do and ask a question with a fictional background, though I believe the fiction was in truth fact based. The film "A few good men" (Cruise, Nicholson, etc.) the order (if it existed) was not lawful. The marines followed it and were booted to labor and out. It took a LONG time for the case to run. Can we expect that this is a good representation of the time frames involved, and how will this sort of thing play out if some pfc or Platoon Leader decides his orders are NOT constitutional (say by my helping him remember his oath, as it were).

This embarrasesd me beyond belief bu i gotta ask!

Chuck who hates finding holes this big in his knowledge stockade!

-- Chuck a night driver (rienzoo@en.com), December 05, 1998.

This will be a conglomerate "answer" -- to various posts.

E.--

They don't have any historical consciousness. They won't do anything about it until their back is to the wall.

I take it you don't see yourself in this category. What do you do, what should others do, _before_ we're "backed up against the wall." Do you see a cure here? I recall King Canute sweeping the tide-- with no effect except to get his broom wet.

Hardliner quoted Solzhenitsyn. I found this wonderful piece by another old Russian 'liberal' the other day. He writes with eloquence of his own Russia. He did hard time in the gulag himself.

It would not need major revision to apply it to ourselves. See What Must Be Done

For instance:

"What does responsibility mean? That we must re-create ourselves and our government-and keep re-creating and re-creating forever. We must transform the way we look at politics, from an inherently corrupt activity that can only further debase us, to an activity that wrests power away from the hands of tyrants and places it securely in the pockets of The People, giving us some reasonable amount of control over the elements and decisions that affect our daily lives. We cannot avoid responsibility: we must seek it out. Politics must not be a tedious circus show for us but an active, positive, creative part or our lives. Impossible in Russia, you say? No. We must simply make it so.

"Of course, those in power will not allow us to do this, you say. Then, I reply, we must treat them as we would treat employees who walk off with the goods. Fire them. Only one form of government can deal with a Russian Citizenry that is armed with determination to take responsibility for itself and for its leadership-- a Republican one. But the mere form of Republicanism will not be enough. Leaders must lead, and in Russia this means to lead the nation by example and with actions that express the greater virtues of the Russian People. Coincidentally, those virtues are the same ones by which a Republic is defined: integrity, honor, compassion alongside an unbending and ever-present commitment to ensuring freedom. Then, and only then, will we be Citizens.

"Remember this, you who would govern, and you who would be ruled: there can be no Russia without Citizens. Neither citizenship nor freedom is possible without personal ownership for both. The People and the government must make themselves perpetual allies in the guardianship of liberty. Or we will have not citizens but slaves, not government but tyranny, not Russia but a Khanate.

"This is what we can do in our present circumstances, about which we fret so much: we may re-define ourselves and our country and in doing so build a bridge to our future. That is where Russia will attain her true greatness as leader among free nations, her true historic mission. Any who betray this mission betray not only Russia, but history itself, and stand accused as enemies of civilization.

It works for me.

Hardliner -- I'm not so sure of the troops as you are. The Army I knew from 1943 to 1946, the Army that existed in Korea, the Army that existed in Vietnam, -- they're gone now. As PNG said, what about Kent State? What about My Lai? I'm not predicting Waco redivivus. I'm just not that sure. I figure most guys are decent folks. I'm sure there are a few bad apples. Some of the be-starred careerists have other things on their minds than social justice, or even the welfare of the troops. So far the jokers are under control.

I talked with a guy in Special Forces a little while back. Told me he'd just been issued an AK-47 full auto and told to learn how to use it. He said, the recoil will kick the barrel up, what can you hit with this thing? He was told, turn the damn thing sideways, it'll do the job. I said, "Hmmmm..." He's on Stateside duty. Maybe he was kidding.

-- Tom Carey (tomcarey@mindspring.com), December 05, 1998.

Those who don't believe that a cultural and value split exists between current military and the civil society should read:

Making the Corps Thomas E. Ricks ( 1998 )

...for a careful examination of the degree to which the current military IS prepared, in both psychology and official training and doctrine, to fight a war of occupation and control within the US borders.

-RC

-- Runway Cat (runway_cat@hotmail.com), December 05, 1998.

"New Marine Illustrates Growing Gap Between Millitary and Society," WSJ July 27, 1995

Will y2k get us all to cooporate again? Crisis brings people together

-- No No (no@no.com), December 05, 1998.

Presumably martial law would be enforced by the infantry. I have a brother in the infantry. He says the reasons most of the guys he knows went into infantry, is because they'd really kinda like to kill somebody. Morale in general is bad, with all the cuts over the past few years. He is posted at a unit with one of the worst morale ratings in the army. I've met the guys he's friends with, they do tend to have a strong sense of honor. The ones he's not friends with are another matter. In the event that the government and military is not too crippled to do anything, I intend to stay out of their way... FWIW.

-- anon (none@none.com), December 05, 1998.

from a partially disabled old fogey with intelligence background (and no jokes about military music, okay? it's old, I've heard it, and...oh well, anyway).

1. various versions of these EO's have been around since WWII, and the latest batch can be traced more or less directly back to through their current incarnations to the Kennedy administration...so it's kind of ironic that the majority of the US is only waking up to them now.

2. The problem with instituting martial law, and activating all of these E.O.s is that by the time there would be sufficient rationale to do so on a national level, any crisis requiring such would be so extreme as to make actual enforcement nearly impossible. Further, the detriment to national morale caused by even the attempt to enforce them would have a substantial chance of causing civil unrest, or at least passive noncooperation in and of itself. this was always one of the problems in wargaming post nuclear attack scenarios within the U.S. - *anything* that the government might try to do had more of a chance of making things worse than it did of making them better. Not that the clintonistas and their cohorts have probably ever bothered to read those old studies, but it's true none the less.

3. being able to remember the *last* time the country had a clown in chief who managed to lose the respect of the military I'd expect the vast majority of them to simply refuse to comply with what they believed to be unlawful orders.

just my 2cents' worth Arlin Adams [who would like to remind you that military intelligence is sometimes referred to as "the worlds SECOND oldest profession".]

-- Arlin H. Adams (ahadams@ix.netcom.com), December 05, 1998.

Arlin:

I agree with what you say .. and to add my $0.02 to your comments .. this is the first time in our country's history that 11 of these EO's (all of which explicity and tacitly deal with government's "authority" to totally usurp our freedoms) .. the first time .. that they have all been tied together under one blanket EO .. AND if you read the "fine print" of EO #12919 .. it no longer just covers threats to the USA from "foreign forces". EO #12919 explicitly adds coverage for "times of increased international tension of economic or financial crisis".

Color me paranoid .. but when this EO was signed back in 1994 .. we were in the midst of one of the strongest periods of economic growth and prosperity we'd ever experienced. After all .. the budget was balanced AND we had a surplus (albeit on paper) for the first time in 31 years. Clinton even tried to take credit for putting us in the black .. (in spite of the fact that it's congress and NOT the President who massages the numbers and ultimately decides the cash flow of our country). That being said .. if we were in such incredibly good shape fiscally and economically .. then why was 12919 issued? It doesn't take long to have an EO drafted .. and they become effective at the moment they're signed. Is it because if it had been done today that the reasoning and real purpose behind it would be too obvious? Is there an unspoken ulterior motive?? I'm truly not sure .. but to me it has all the markings of the proverbial fox in the henhouse. Like I said .. you read it and decide. It sure got my attention.

"We have met the enemy .. and he is us".

Dan

-- Dan (DanTCC@Yahoo.com), December 06, 1998.

How about a little common sense here?

First, let's keep in mind that Martial Law is not a "done deal". As Arlin quite correctly pointed out, it would be largely counter productive. If the situation gets so desperate that Martial Law is needed, it'll likely be too late for it to do any good. And, this is no small point, Clinton would have to feel like a Christian Scientist with appendicitis issuing Martial Law orders to the military. It is quite conceivable that their first lawful act under such a scenario would be to replace "Slick Willie".

Second, let's look at the question of how American troops would treat American citizens. We all remember Benedict Arnold, the Norwegians remember Quisling and yes, there have been atrocities commited by American troops. Nothing can justify the conduct of the National Guard at Kent State, nor that of the army platoon at My Lai, but the simple explanation is that there are bad apples in our military and such things will happen. In the main, however, our forces have acquited themselves with honor and decorum and have largely refrained from barbarous conduct. When such has occured, it has almost always been the cause of national outrage and let me assure you, the outrage within the military has been even greater. We (the military) feel betrayed in an extremely painful way when one of our own perpetrates some heinous act and we all share the shame. If Martial Law comes down, there will probably be incidents that, in a perfect world, should not and would not happen, but they will. I still firmly believe, however, that the vast majority of our military will behave in a manner consistent with honor and civility.

Now, let's get to the nitty-gritty. If the military has set out common sense rules ( for water distribution in a city who's water system is Y2K disabled for example) and some of the citizens decide to "disagree" with the rules using shotguns, etc., there is little doubt in my mind that they will be, and should be shot! In such a scenario, the military would be stretched very thin and would have few options in terms of keeping the peace. Ask someone who's been to the Phillipines about Martial Law. Under Marcos, it existed for years! I personally saw a Phillipine MP shoot and kill a 14 year old boy who had "purse snatched" a US sailor's wallet on the street. It is a different set of rules, but the military is NOT going to be running around looking for someone to shoot. They will be far too busy trying to keep everything together.

And finally, let's consider the question of whether or not individual members of the military will exercise their "moral judgment" about obediance to orders. Washington had a tremendously high desertion rate at Valley Forge. Those men (who left) were not cowards; they simply decided that they had families to take care of and that such was a higher priority. During the War Between the States, countless American GIs had to make a choice as to which cause to side with and many sacrificed their own futures in favor of their beliefs. Times change, politics change, but human nature does not. Don't let a few opinions about the military scare you. Ask someone who is in the military what they think and what they feel. Form your own opinion.

-- Hardliner (searcher@internet.com), December 07, 1998.