A Few Facts & Opinions about Martial Lawgreenspun.com : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread |
It has occurred to me that it might be time to lay a particular "bogeyman" to rest: that one known on this forum as "Martial Law".One of the first requirements of communication is commonality of terms, so it is essential that you understand exactly what the term, "Martial Law" means.
"Martial Law" means "Military Law". In the USA, in 1999, that means The Uniform Code of Military Justice. The UCMJ was created by the Congress in accordance with Section 8 of the Constitution and governs the conduct of the armed forces of the USA. If anyone asks, I will post a copy to this forum. In my opinion, based on a complete reading of UCMJ and a partial reading of comparable civil law, there is far more similarity than difference, and the civil law is obviously the model for much of the UCMJ.
There is no provision in the Constitution or the UCMJ or anywhere else, as far as I can determine, for the declaration of martial law. Martial Law, when declared, is declared by the senior military officer present, and means that the military is in charge. That declaration is an arbitrary act by the military commander, and is the result of a decision made by that commander (perhaps with advice of his staff, but absolutely his decision) that the situation and circumstances are of such a nature that ONLY military control will serve to deal with a great harm that would occur without such action by the military.
It is important to note that while the President is Commander-in-Chief of the Armed forces, he is not a military officer (at least this CinC is not), and that "Slick" has already sent up a "trial balloon" concerning his status as a member of the military (remember the Soldier's and Sailor's Civil Relief Act gambit to postpone the Paula Jones trial?) and it was established that he is NOT a member of the military despite his designation as CinC.
In America, the senior military commander is currently General H. Shelton, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff of the Armed Forces. Should he declare martial law, he would be saying absolutely that the civilian government was out of the picture and that the military was making all the decisions. The "alphabet" agencies would have no power, and would be subject to the same UCMJ as the rest of the country. The President would not be in charge, nor would the Congress nor the Supreme Court. Until the military relinquished control, they would simply be "in charge".
We have seen this in many other countries, recently and throughout history. When it has occurred, our press usually called it a "military coup". Probably the best known example of martial law in this century is the period after WWII when General McArthur was the Military Governor of Japan. Perhaps PNG can enlighten us as to the prevailing opinion in Japan about McArthur and his "reign", but it is my understanding that McArthur is regarded as a deity of sorts, even in present day Japan.
Given that in our 200 plus year history that hasn't happened here, although the ability of the military to "take over" has always been there, I personally believe that it isn't likely to happen unless it really "needs" to, as it well might if Y2K brings a total or near total collapse of our infrastructures and/or a civil war. In such a case however, the military would be "in charge" and I have complete confidence that the "alphabet" agencies would be "out of business" and that the un-Constitutional behavior of the government would not be tolerated. After all, the military exists to support the Constitution and ensure the continued rule of law in this country, by force if necessary.
It is no secret in America that "Slick Willie" is highly unpopular with the military. Fears of an imperium led by "Slick" are outrageously far-fetched in a martial law environment. If the military were to "take over", do any of you seriously believe that "Slick" would have any role beyond, perhaps, that of a figurehead? Or perhaps, if he insisted hard enough that he was a member of the military, he'd be court martialed and expelled for adultery as have been several other high profile military figures! (nice thought, but way too much to hope for. . .)
It seems to me, from reading all that has been written on this forum over the last several months, that what everyone is afraid of is a Federal government that does whatever "Slick" declares by Executive Order and enforces its will through the "alphabet" agencies, with the acquiescence and assistance of the military. That state of affairs does NOT describe martial law.
I share that fear in all except the "acquiescence and assistance of the military" portion. I would like to think that the military would declare martial law to prevent such, but I don't believe that either. The "alphabet" agencies do as they please right now and the military is constrained by law to simply watch! I suspect that things will have to disintegrate into a true civil war before the military will step in, and then, I expect relief from the "jack-booted thugs" that should be wearing twin lightning bolts on their collars so that even the pollyannas would know them for what they are.
What the expressed fear seems to me to be is that the military will endorse, by force of arms, the current behavior of the government. If they have not done so by now, don't hold your breath waiting for them to do so in the future. On the other hand, don't take a deep breath and hope to hold out until the military "rights the wrongs" of the current government either. It's not their mission to do so.
If Y2K (or any other force or event for that matter) renders the civilian government impotent, hang on for the cavalry. They will do all that they can, as soon as they can, and in that scenario, the military will be the government. I personally do not know of a Flag officer in our military who, on his worst day, wouldn't be a far superior leader for our nation than "Slick", on his best day.
I am betting my life, as well as the lives of my family, on the belief that a military supported Clinton Empire is nothing more than a very disturbing bad dream. If "Slick" should be foolish enough to pit his "alphabet" troops against the real military, that highway outside Kuwait City would look like a sunday school picnic by comparison.
-- Hardliner (searcher@internet.com), January 11, 1999
Hope your right.
-- bardou (bardou@baloney.com), January 11, 1999.
Thanks Hardliner.I WAS wondering. I'd also like to see a copy posted of the "The Uniform Code of Military Justice." It may be a handy printout to have next to my copy of the Declaration of Independence, Constitution and Bill of Rights. Post Y2K reference material, if needed, you understand, right up there in importance with gardening and water purification.
Diane
-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), January 11, 1999.
Hardliner, thank you.Could you please tell me what the proper term is for when there are troops on the streets enforcing curfews, rationing, reallocation, and travel restrictions? What should we call it?
xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxx
-- Leska (allaha@earthlink.net), January 11, 1999.
Bardou,As you may well imagine, I fervently hope that I'm right as well!
Diane,
I've tried to upload the UCMJ, but to my chagrin, it's bigger than I can get into my clipboard. The file is nearly 200 Kbytes, so unless someone can tell me how to get it into the forum, I'm going to have to break it up into pieces and send a number of posts. Currently all that I can get posted is through Section 815 (about one sixth of the total). I will post it as soon as I can figure out the best way to do so.
Leska,
I'd sure like to give you a simple straightforward answer, but I can't. Too much depends on who is giving the orders, what kind of "troops" (Army, Navy, National Guard, FEMA troopers, Post Office SWAT Teams,etc.) are on the streets, and what laws (if any) they are enforcing.
Depending on the answers to those questions (and others) it could be anything from business as usual to genuine martial law.
All that I was trying to point out is that true martial law is not really anything to be afraid of as long as it's our military that's in charge.
-- Hardliner (searcher@internet.com), January 11, 1999.
Diane,If you go to this link, you can read the UCMJ, and if you wish, make yourself a copy as well.
Uniform Code of Military Justice
-- Hardliner (searcher@internet.com), January 11, 1999.
Thanks Hardliner. Will do it in the morning.Yawn!
-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), January 11, 1999.
How were troops used to keep law and order in LA. I understand troops from Camp Pendelton were sent to LA to help calm things down (and protect Beverly Hills). Can US military be used in the US without declaring martial law? Would they take orders from FEMA, if Slick Willy ordered it. If Clinton orders a state of emergency calls up the National Guard and all his alphabet forces, couldn't he suspend the posse comititus (sp?) laws and use the military without declaring martial law? Maybe by then we will have "FEMA law" curfews,rationing,travel restrictions,....?
-- Bill (bill@microsoft.com), January 11, 1999.
Hardliner, what you said then would explain a lot about the WorldnetDaily articles, re why FEMA, National Guards and Navy are taking upon themselves without executive orders to prepare themselves.
-- Chris (catsy@pond.com), January 11, 1999.
Maybe someone can correct me with a reference to the specific laws, but I think you are incorrect in the following:"In America, the senior military commander is currently General H. Shelton, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff of the Armed Forces. Should he declare martial law, he would be saying absolutely that the civilian government was out of the picture and that the military was making all the decisions. The "alphabet" agencies would have no power, and would be subject to the same UCMJ as the rest of the country. The President would not be in charge, nor would the Congress nor the Supreme Court. Until the military relinquished control, they would simply be "in charge". "
The way I read the Constitution, the President, Congress, and the Supreme Court cannot be put "out of the picture" by the military.
-- General Pollyanna (general@pollyanna.us), January 11, 1999.
I am no longer sure that we are all inhabiting the same universe...geesh.When, because of some severe emergency, the President orders the military to suspend habeas corpus, posse comitas, due process, etc. and take charge of the nation's law enforcement system, that's MARTIAL LAW.
When, because of some mutinous conspiracy, the military decides to thwart the will of the government and take matters into their own hands, that's a MILITARY COUP.
There is nothing secret about the fact US, UK and Canada are preparing for martial law. What did you expect from government? That they would fall by the wayside and say, "OK, we're screwed. See ya later!"
The federal government, in cooperation with state and local agencies has been arming to the teeth for years. Last time I went to lunch at the Pizza Hut, I counted the following ARMED agents dining at nearby tables:
US Air Force
US Customs
State Dept of Health and Environmental Control
State Wildlife officers
City police
County sheriff
This was ONE DAY at ONE RESTAURANT. Does that mean that the UN is behind a secret conspiracy to overthrow the American people? Give me a break. What it means is government will continue to usurp power as long as it can. And when all hell breaks out, they will attempt to maintain order. Will it be pretty, NO. Will it result in a military coup? I don't think so.
-- a (a@a.a), January 11, 1999.
Bill,The President has the authority to call up the military under such circumstances as existed in the LA riots. This is contained in the United States Code sections shown below:
10 USC Sec. 332 01/26/98
TITLE 10 - ARMED FORCES
Subtitle A - General Military Law
PART I - ORGANIZATION AND GENERAL MILITARY POWERS
CHAPTER 15 - INSURRECTION
Sec. 332. Use of militia and armed forces to enforce Federal
authority
Whenever the President considers that unlawful obstructions,
combinations, or assemblages, or rebellion against the authority of the United States, make it impracticable to enforce the laws of the United States in any State or Territory by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, he may call into Federal service such of the militia of any State, and use such of the armed forces, as he considers necessary to enforce those laws or to suppress the rebellion.
-SOURCE-
(Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 15.)
-MISC1-
Historical and Revision Notes
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Revised section Source (U.S. Code) Source (Statutes at
Large)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
332 50:202. R.S. 5298.
-------------------------------
50:202 (last 22 words) is omitted as surplusage. The words
''armed forces'' are substituted for the words ''land and naval
forces of the United States''. The words ''call into Federal
service such of the militia'' are substituted for the words ''call
forth the militia of any or all the States'' for clarity and
uniformity. The word ''may'' is substituted for the words ''it
shall be lawful''. The words ''faithful execution of the'' and
''in whatever State or Territory thereof the laws of the United
States may be forcibly opposed'' are omitted as surplusage.
DERIVATION
Act July 29, 1861, ch. 25, Sec. 1, 12 Stat. 281.
-EXEC-
EX. ORD. NO. 10730. ASSISTANCE FOR REMOVAL OF AN OBSTRUCTION OF
JUSTICE WITHIN THE STATE OF ARKANSAS
Ex. Ord. No. 10730, Sept. 24, 1957, 22 F.R. 7628, authorized the
Secretary of Defense to order into the active military service of
the United States units of the National Guard of the United States
and of the Air National Guard of the United States within the State
of Arkansas for an indefinite period and until relieved by
appropriate orders in order to enforce any orders of the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas for the
removal of obstructions to justice in respect to enrollment and
attendance at public schools in the Little Rock School District,
Little Rock, Arkansas; authorized the Secretary of Defense to also
use the armed forces of the United States to enforce such orders
of the district court; and authorized the Secretary of Defense to
delegate his authority to the Secretary of the Army or the
Secretary of the Air Force.
EX. ORD. NO. 11053. ASSISTANCE FOR REMOVAL OF UNLAWFUL OBSTRUCTIONS OF JUSTICE IN THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
Ex. Ord. No. 11053, Sept. 30, 1962, 27 F.R. 9681, authorized the
Secretary of Defense to call into the active military service of
the United States units of the Army National Guard and of the Air
National Guard of the State of Mississippi for an indefinite period
and until relieved by appropriate orders in order to enforce all
orders of the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Mississippi and of the United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit for the removal of obstructions to justice in
the State of Mississippi; authorized the Secretary of Defense to
also use the armed forces of the United States to enforce such
court orders; and authorized the Secretary of Defense to delegate
his authority to the Secretary of the Army or the Secretary of the
Air Force.
EX. ORD. NO. 11111. ASSISTANCE FOR REMOVAL OF OBSTRUCTIONS OF
JUSTICE AND SUPPRESSION OF UNLAWFUL COMBINATIONS WITHIN THE STATE
OF ALABAMA
Ex. Ord. No. 11111, June 11, 1963, 28 F.R. 5709, authorized the
Secretary of Defense to call into the active military service of
the United States units of the Army National Guard and of the Air
National Guard of the State of Alabama for an indefinite period and
until relieved by appropriate orders in order to enforce the laws
of the United States within that State and the orders of the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, to
remove obstructions to justice, and to suppress unlawful
assemblies, conspiracies, and domestic violence which oppose the
laws of the United States or impede the course of justice under
those laws within that State; authorized the Secretary of Defense
to also use the armed forces of the United States for such
purposes; and authorized the Secretary of Defense to delegate his
authority to the Secretary of the Army or the Secretary of the Air
Force.
EX. ORD. NO. 11118. ASSISTANCE FOR REMOVAL OF UNLAWFUL OBSTRUCTIONS
OF JUSTICE IN THE STATE OF ALABAMA
Ex. Ord. No. 11118, Sept. 10, 1963, 28 F.R. 9863, authorized the
Secretary of Defense to call into the active military service of
the United States units of the Army National Guard and of the Air
National Guard of the State of Alabama for an indefinite period and
until relieved by appropriate orders in order to enforce the laws
of the United States and any orders of United States Courts
relating to the enrollment and attendance of students in public
schools in the State of Alabama and to suppress unlawful
assemblies, conspiracies, and domestic violence which oppose the
law or impede the course of justice under the law within that
State; authorized the Secretary of Defense to also use the armed
forces of the United States for such purposes; and authorized the
Secretary of Defense to delegate his authority to the Secretary of
the Army or the Secretary of the Air Force.
-SECREF-
SECTION REFERRED TO IN OTHER SECTIONS
This section is referred to in title 5 section 6323.
10 USC Sec. 333 01/26/98
TITLE 10 - ARMED FORCES
Subtitle A - General Military Law
PART I - ORGANIZATION AND GENERAL MILITARY POWERS
CHAPTER 15 - INSURRECTION
Sec. 333. Interference with State and Federal law
The President, by using the militia or the armed forces, or both,
or by any other means, shall take such measures as he considers
necessary to suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic
violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy, if it -
(1) so hinders the execution of the laws of that State, and of
the United States within the State, that any part or class of its
people is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection
named in the Constitution and secured by law, and the constituted
authorities of that State are unable, fail, or refuse to protect
that right, privilege, or immunity, or to give that protection;
or
(2) opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the
United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws.
In any situation covered by clause (1), the State shall be
considered to have denied the equal protection of the laws secured
by the Constitution. Although it seems quite clear to me that the intent of the statute is to allow the President to use the military to guarantee protection of existing law, I have no doubt that "Slick's" lawyers would argue that Executive Orders constituted "laws". You should note that the EOs quoted above authorized the use of the military to enforce laws, as opposed to other EOs. This is, of course, no guarantee against a man who questions the meaning of the word, "is".
Although it is my understanding that the Posse Comitatus statutes do not apply to the Naval forces, I suspect that the troops came from Camp Pendleton simply because it was the closest and fastest place that appropriate units could be called from.
I'm sure that there would be serious questions raised by the military if "Slick" ordered them to blatantly violate the Constitutional rights of the poplulace, whether FEMA was in the chain of command or not. As I understand the Executive Order business, Congress has no say for 6 months, and the President is a de facto dictator. I simply can't see Congress standing for that anymore than I can see the military standing for it, unless the things the President ordered were done in consultation with the Congress.
As for curfews, rationing and travel restrictions, they may well be in the cards, and I personally can easily see how they could be necessary and helpful in dealing with the situation. Those procedures, however, are a far cry from house-to-house searches for food and weapons and arbitrary confiscation. During the LA riots, as far as I know, there were no house-to-house searches; only an attempt to maintain order and protect property. Anything more suggests a capability that I simply do not believe the military has. If Y2K causes the infrastructure collapse that is so frightening, everyone will have their hands full just trying to keep even.
General Pollyanna,
You are correct. The paragraph that you quoted was a discussion of a military coup by the Chairman. I made it clear that I don't see that happening unless the civilian government is no longer able to function.
a,
"There are under the Constitution, three kinds of military jurisdiction; one to be exercised both in peace and war; another to be exercised in time of foreign war without the boundaries of the United States or in time of rebellion and civil war within states or districts occupied by rebels treated as belligerents; and a third to be exercised in time of invasion or insurrection within the limits of the United States or during rebellion within the limits of states maintaining adhesion to the National Government, when the public danger requires its exercise. The first of these may be called jurisdiction under "military law" and is found in acts of Congress prescribing rules and articles of war or otherwise providing for the government of the national forces; the second may be distinguished as "military government" superceding, as far as may be deemed exxpedient the local law, and exercised by the military commander under the direction of the President, with the express or implied sanction of Congress; while the third may be denominated "martial law", and is called into action by Congress, or temporarily when the action of Congress cannot be invited, and in the face of justifying or excusing peril, by the President in times of insurrection or invasion, or of civil or foreign war, within districts or localities where ordinary law no longer adequately secures public safety and private rights."
United States v. Minoru Yasul, D.C. Or., 48 F.Supp. 40,46,47.
"Military is distinct from martial law, in that it applies only to persons in the military or naval service of the government; whereas, martial law, when once established, applies alike to citizens and soldiers and supercedes civil law."
U.S. ex rel. Wessels v. McDonald, D.C.N.Y., 265 F. 754,761.
In the course of digging out the above information, I came across the, to me, ominous fact that the officers of the National Guard swear an oath of obediance to the President whereas officers of the executive branch of the federal government (including the armed forces) swear only to the Constitution!
32 USC Sec. 312 01/06/97
TITLE 32 - NATIONAL GUARD
CHAPTER 3 - PERSONNEL
Sec. 312. Appointment oath
Each person who is appointed as an officer of the National Guard
shall subscribe to the following oath:
''I, _ _ _ _ _ _, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will
support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the
Constitution of the State of _ _ _ _ _ _ against all enemies,
foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance
to the same; that I will obey the orders of the President of the
United States and of the Governor of the State of _ _ _ _ _ _,
that I make this obligation freely, without any mental
reservation or purpose of evasion, and that I will well and
faithfully discharge the duties of the office of _ _ _ _ in the
National Guard of the State of _ _ _ _ _ _ upon which I am about
to enter, so help me God.''
5 USC Sec. 3331 01/26/98
TITLE 5 - GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATION AND EMPLOYEES
PART III - EMPLOYEES
Subpart B - Employment and Retention
CHAPTER 33 - EXAMINATION, SELECTION, AND PLACEMENT
SUBCHAPTER II - OATH OF OFFICE
Sec. 3331. Oath of office
An individual, except the President, elected or appointed to an
office of honor or profit in the civil service or uniformed
services, shall take the following oath: ''I, _ _ _ _, do solemnly swear
(or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the
United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I
will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this
obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of
evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties
of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.''
I freely admit that I am a fanatic in matters regarding the Constitution and I cannot help but recall the personal loyalty oaths that Hitler required.
If only the National Guard is called to the aid of the federal government, we should all ask why.
-- Hardliner (searcher@internet.com), January 11, 1999.
>>As I understand the Executive Order business, Congress has no say for 6 months, and the President is a de facto dictator. I simply can't see Congress standing for that anymore than I can see the military standing for it, unless the things the President ordered were done in consultation with the Congress.Even if there were blackouts, manufacturing and transport ground to a halt, civil unrest, collapse of banks and markets, etc., etc.? House members' contsituents would be putting pressure on them to do "something, anything!" They would see that if they didn't sign it all over to the executive emergency plan, they would lose their phoney-baloney jobs to precisely the kind of military coup you seem to think is more preferable. The E.O.s become law, if congress doesn't challenge them. All (arguably) constitutional and ship-shape, and the military will follow it's CinC, especially if Congress gives the okay.
The U.S. under command of a general is not the U.S.. It's a military dictatorship. Period. I don't believe that you believe such a regime could be constitutional in origin or in it's behavior. We need to make a distinction between the brass - who may be Knights of Malta, or Mena frequent flyers, or who may have an extensive audio/visual portfolio on file with those tiny, insignificant "alphabet agencies" which you dismiss so readily - and the soldiery, who do not support the pres. politically, and are patriotic, and support the constitution. Just because they loath the man doesn't mean they won't follow orders from the pres., especially in an emergency. Or that they would readily step in line with a military coup by some self-appointed maximum leader.
Am I misunderstanding you, that you seem to be suggesting that generals are less corrupt than congressmen? That military dictatorship is likely to be more constitutional in it's character and it's effects than would a limited, six-month enactment of presedential E.O.s that congress has allowed to become law (not that I approve of same)? I think when the boundary between the military and the executive is dissolved, our Republic will be dead on the table. It's over. Might as well hoist the jolly roger at that point - there will be no rational among free men for military service.
E.
-- E. Coli (nunayo@beeswax.com), January 11, 1999.
Only when there is a real war, such as WWII, do you even have a chance of getting honorable, honest generals, such as Patton. And you still get ones like Eisenhower and Marshall. Nowadays the generals are just typical polititical animals just like slick willy, only with uniforms. Don't count on them doing the right thing.e.g., the pentagon brass should have resigned rather than participate in "desert fiasco 1 & 2" -- unless they had authorization to WIN
-- m (m@m.com), January 11, 1999.
E.,Let's take this a step at a time. I think that you and I are in violent agreement about most of this, but let me answer your specific queries and we can go from there.
'Even if there were blackouts, manufacturing and transport ground to a halt, civil unrest, collapse of banks and markets, etc., etc.? House members' contsituents would be putting pressure on them to do "something, anything!"'
It seems likely that in this circumstance, Congress would be relatively immune from even communication with their constituents, let alone pressure. I suspect that they would be far more strongly motivated (as you suggest) by their desire to retain what power for themselves that they could. I fail to see how they could do that by simply giving the President (whoever he might be) a free hand regardless of what the executive did or planned to do. My view is that Congress, to the extent that they were able, would attempt to have a large say in those plans and actions. If the executive was doing what all agreed should be done, of course they would agree, and why not? But the concern here seems to be that the executive would seize the opportunity to do horrible things to the population. It is those "horrible things" that I don't see the Congress or the military standing still for. And, even if we consider constituent pressure, I can't see that pressure as being to do "something, anything!" I suspect that the pressure would be to "fix" things--to put them back the way that they were as opposed to allowing the executive free reign.
Let me go on record as having NO desire for a military coup. While my experience in the military has been that it is a more equitable form of society for most members than that provided by the civilian government to the population at large, I am sworn to uphold the Constitution and I intend to honor my oath in all things. Should the future come to pass in such a way that we ended up with a government of our own military, I honestly believe that it would be a fair and just one, but most importantly, a temporary one that would hold as its highest priority the re-establishment of Constitutional government by a civilian electorate. I can easily see circumstances that would dictate such a government, and I can easily see those which would not. At this point in time, with the information we have to work with, I see the future as a crapshoot and little more.
The EOs and whether or not they become effective is not really the issue here. If they had been issued and would be administered by a trusted president, no one would see them as a threat. The scare is that a man that all acknowledge to be a liar and a cheat would be given near absolute power. My claims regarding beer and toilet paper to the contrary, I find that scary too.
As a hypothetical, let's suppose that all the EOs were invoked and "Slick" ordered the roundup and incarceration of the population of New York City at a "relocation shelter" in upstate NY. Aside from the obvious logistic nightmares of such an action, do you seriously believe that either the Congress or the military would allow it, let alone participate in it? What justification could there possibly be for such an action, that would be acceptable to both Congress and the military? Don't you think that the Representatives from NY state and both Senators would vigorously oppose it absolutely? I think that as long as the executive does what is clearly and obviously in the best interests of the nation that the Congress and the military will go along, but even that criteria is likely to be argued long and loud between the executive and the Congress.
"The U.S. under command of a general is not the U.S.. It's a military dictatorship. Period. I don't believe that you believe such a regime could be constitutional in origin or in it's behavior."
We are in agreement. Period. AS I wrote above, I believe that if such came about, that it would be temporary.
"We need to make a distinction between the brass - who may be Knights of Malta, or Mena frequent flyers, or who may have an extensive audio/visual portfolio on file with those tiny, insignificant "alphabet agencies" which you dismiss so readily - and the soldiery, who do not support the pres. politically, and are patriotic, and support the constitution. Just because they loath the man doesn't mean they won't follow orders from the pres., especially in an emergency. Or that they would readily step in line with a military coup by some self-appointed maximum leader."
We are in agreement here too, except for the bit about the "alphabet agencies". I neither find them insignifigant nor do I dismiss them readily (unless you refer to direct combat between them and the real military which I can't see either, except in my most hoped for fantasies). To restate, I don't see a military coup with the objective of a permanent military government at all, and I would expect the military to follow even "Slick's" orders if they are at all reasonable. Unless "Slick" is totally insane, he will not push the military or the Congress past a certain point, and I think that point would be rather easy to find.
While I didn't intend to suggest, ". . .that generals are less corrupt than congressmen. . .", I do believe that to be the case. Not only did Mark Twain say something to the effect that the only criminal class in America was Congress, it is common knowledge, and I submit, accurate common knowledge, that politicians are more likely to be crooked than not. An honest politician is rare. How many bent congressmen can you remember in your own lifetime? I can recall many. On the other hand, while everyone remembers Benedict Arnold, how many other "bad" generals (or admirals) do we know about? Is it more likely that we don't know about them because they didn't get caught or because there haven't been as many? Or look at it from the other end. How many American heroes were congressmen? How many were Generals or Admirals?
One final point, E. There is no boundary between the military and the executive. One is a part of the other, but I think I understand your meaning and I agree that a military dictatorship is not to be desired.
-- Hardliner (searcher@internet.com), January 11, 1999.
Okay, you've set my mind at ease. I thought for a moment you were going to start talking about our precious bodily fluids...About getting back to a republic, after BC's six-month reign, or if a general takes over: it won't happen. If it does, the mangled form it takes will most likely represent a giant step on the road to the NA Narco-Banana Republic that we've been on since '63. The tanks might leave the streetcorners, but the survelliance apparatus will never go away. After martial law, the culture will remain militarized. Once Our General gets a taste of that power, and unlimited wealth, with no oversight - it's the ultimate temptation - all he needs is an "enemy within" to keep it going indefinitely. If he controls the airwaves, all he needs to do is keep a tight grip for 20 years or so, purge a little - or a lot - and resistance can be made optimal. He may even have to instigate it! Much more likely than setting up free and fair elections. Even if this lasts only a few years, dissidents will be rounded up and probably "disappeared" (hey, it worked down South) ala REX 84, and our freedoms will be diminished.
If generals cared a rat's ass bout the Constitution, they would stand in opposition to the phony, ineffective "war on drugs" with it's "civil seizure" abomination - instead of loaning out their troops as mafia enforcers to eliminate the competition overseas. They're helping to keep the price up for the supercriminals who run the whole game now, military most definitely included. It's the second largest U.S. industry after Arms, and the same evil bastards are involved in both. So don't talk to me about military virtue until you clean house.
What do you think the militias will do if our Constitution is "suspended," temporarily or otherwise? Seize control of their neighborhoods. And they will be fought by the Feds - or the remains of the military-industrial-entertainment complex. This means not only house-to-house confiscation of arms, but networks of informants, indoctrination of children to turn in their parents for providing aid and sympathy, etc.. Agents provocateurs have primed militias to go off at the drop of a hat (or a constitution), and with every USDA agent and forest ranger being issued a bazooka and trained in dynamic entry, it seems the Money is ready to play one side off against the other, to flush out and deal with resistance to the tripartate NWO. If we the people don't accept this, we'll be handed enough "terrorism" to make us want it. Seems to be the m.o..
Still more in agreement than not?
E.
-- E. Coli (nunayo@beeswax.com), January 11, 1999.
E.,Whoa! You're leaving out way too many details to be even close to reasonable.
In order for, "BC's six-month reign" to even get off the ground, there's going to have to be the sort of situation that you previously described as, ". . .blackouts, manufacturing and transport ground to a halt, civil unrest, collapse of banks and markets, etc., etc." The same is true for any scenario in which the military takes over. In either case, the "reign" won't last 6 months. Neither the feds nor the military can hold together that long without a functioning infrastructure to support and renew them. In the conditions that you've laid out for America, what do you think the rest of the world is going to be like? Where is anyone going to get the ball bearings to fix anything? We sure don't make enough in the US anymore!
What "power" is "Our General" going to find to taste? Where is the "unlimited wealth" going to come from that will tempt him? More to the point, where is the gasoline going to come from that lets this evil apparatus function going to come from? Louisiana? Don't count on it. California? Don't count on it. Even if our mythical power addict had the means to "control the airwaves", do you suppose everyone will just crank up their BayGen radios and tune him in? With a collapse such as you've described, any "survelliance apparatus" sounds like a pipe dream. Any "tight grip for 20 years or so", let alone a purge would require a functioning society and infrastructure that you've postulated as ruined in order to set the stage for this "takeover" in the first place. All the things that you see as the inevitable results of such a power grab require to be present, the things that must go away to allow that grab in the first place.
As for the Generals caring about the Constitution, your arguments are self defeating. In order to do as you claim would indicate "caring" about the Constitution (". . .they would stand in opposition to the phony, ineffective "war on drugs" with it's "civil seizure" abomination - instead of loaning out their troops as mafia enforcers to eliminate the competition overseas. . ."), they would have to disregard and violate their oath to that Constitution and overthrow the civilian government! You can't have it both ways; either they honor their oaths and duties and the civilian government gives the orders or they blow off what they've sworn to do and "take over". Now, which alternative is it that shows a regard for the Constitutional process? We are in agreement as to the "phoney, ineffective & abomination" parts, but it seems clear who is not performing according to the Constitution. Military virtue will speak for itself and it should be apparent to everyone just who needs to clean house.
I expect the militias to do as the Framers intended them to do--stand for the Republic and for the Constitution. I expect the military to do so as well. EOs notwithstanding, "Slick" will not be able to "suspend" the Constitution if there is a functioning Congress and military. If there is not, the executive will not be functioning either. This is what I expect: I don't see a snowball's chance in Hell that any government above the county level is going to be functioning 18 months from now. Y2K is going to set the NWO back every bit as far as it does everyone else. The code is not aware of Agents provocateurs, militias, the Constitution, USDA agents, forest rangers, dynamic entry, or the tripartate NWO. The code is broken and it will play out without regard to any of the above.
Since you have not revisited any of the previous points or answered any of the questions to the contrary, I assume that we ARE in agreement on most of this.
-- Hardliner (searcher@internet.com), January 11, 1999.
>>Any "tight grip for 20 years or so", let alone a purge would require a functioning society and infrastructure that you've postulated as ruined in order to set the stage for this "takeover" in the first place.Not necessarily ruined, but in immanent danger of being ruined - unless fast action is taken. That's enough for the scepter to be passed from the republican to the imperial hand, Slick's or your general's (ownership of the scepter never changes). I believe that Y2k is unique in our experience, in that the means of production will remain inactive for a critical period of time (enough to kill a lot of people), but ultimately salvagable. You seem to be assuming a complete "10" scenario. I think it likely that refineries and wells will be functioning in some areas, as will much of the military. Since the E.O.s allow for civilian labor conscription, I expect everything will be reorganized nicely, in an orderly, military fashion. A lot of folks -whoever controls the remaining means of production and raw materials - are going to see this as a crisis/opportunity. Generals included. There will be lots of wealth and power. No AC, maybe, but plenty of power. And it's not like we haven't been secretly -more or less secretly- obsessing about "continuity of government" for the last few decades. There are a lot of high-tech boltholes that contain a lot of $7000 toilet seats. Somehow I think these resources are more self-reliant than your average base, contain the most advanced tech, and aren't likely to be slowed down by Y2k. Who might end up controlling these and all black ops stuff in a serious disruption is questionable, though. Lots of lost sheep out there, by all accounts.
>>You can't have it both ways; either they honor their oaths and duties and the civilian government gives the orders or they blow off what they've sworn to do and "take over".
"Just following orders," eh? Poor little generals. They had no choice. And the perks were so darned good. They couldn't even protest. ROTFLMAO! Sorry, if these are the guys who command you in battle, you may have some reverence for them. But I've "seen the needle and the damage done," and am not going to excuse drug mules and goons, no matter how many stars they wear. Yes that includes generals "looking the other way." The fact that honorable men lay down their lives at their command only makes it worse.
>>I don't see a snowball's chance in Hell that any government above the county level is going to be functioning 18 months from now. Y2K is going to set the NWO back every bit as far as it does everyone else. The NWO is not any one "government," or coalition of governments. It's ultimately not even the banks that own these governments. That's the beauty and the splendor and the wonder of it. It's Mystery appears to us now shrouded within a fabric of intermarriages among the most immensely rich and ancient families on the planet. It is perennial. It dies and resurrects itself from it's own ashes - for a change of scene. It plays with the world like a toy. It's human members, even the most powerful, tremble with terror, but the Organism itself trembles the while with ecstacy... Anyhow, to get back to our story, "no govt. functioning above the county level" means balkanization. These people control the hard assets and the means of production, and the social networks that breed leadership. They *make* "governments, like you make model planes. Balkanization means no national resistance to the Same old Globalist World Order. If there is no U.S., no nationalism, the tremendous multigenerational effort toward globalism will dust itself off (or have someone else dust it off - it doesn't like to get it's hands dirty) and conquer an empty city. It will do this in another form, 180 degrees "opposed" to the previous one, in the name of world peace, prosperity, reclaiming technological greatness, or creating a non-technological, safe, luddite future, yadda yadda yadda - whatever works. That's why, btw and e.g., the State's Rights proponents, and the rest of the well-placed worms in the constitutionalist apple, are cutting their/our own throats: they're ostensibly anti-NWO but they want to fractionate the national identity, which allows globalization to proceed without resistance. The enemy is, in the U.S. this time, the same enemy that we've been hammering all over the world: "extreme nationalism." For the globalists, Y2k (if it hits everything above the counties, as you say) is a decisive end to this struggle: in the globalist's favor.
SOLVE ET COAGULA (that's "divide and conquer" to you and me)
E.
-- E. Coli (nunayo@beeswax.com), January 11, 1999.
Folks,If this were c.s.y2k, I'd say{SNIP TO CHASE} and cut a LOTof the forgoing "stuff" out. In my reading of both Hardliner, and the several Guardsmen, and Active Service people I know, as well as the constitution; along with my experience in disasters; i can only conclude that the arguments are not based in rationality. Hardliner, you (as I) have a faith in the integrity of the people who we send out to be "diplomats with guns" (sic tnx David Drake), and an expectation that they will remember the oath they took, and the precedence of the agencies in the oath. You (as I) believe that any attempts to, ah, restructure, let us say, the country would not be aided by the officers and men/women expected to enforce this "restructuring".
I have spent time with Guardsmen and women working in disaster areas. They are very careful to explain that they are out as part of their STATE function in those instances, and will, when given the chance, explain EXACTLY how they came to be there and what they are and are NOT going to be doing.
I have had contact with State Guardsmen and they have been equally informative, if just a bit hopeful that they get federalised, as then they get paid (rofl).
The list of "agents " in the restaurant is only interesting as it contains nearly ALL law enforcement officers.
(LIST: US Air Force US Customs State Dept of Health and Environmental Control State Wildlife officers City police County sheriff)
(BTW of the above, only one has a life expectancy shorter than a US Marshal. . . . . .. . . . the wildlife control officer)
(Before somebody asks why Health and Environmental Control should be armed, consider the very large dollar busines of dumping hazardous wastes illegally. He gets very dead very easily)
I think that we all need to remember that a lot of the preparation is being pushed by the middle level officers (if we are to believe the e- mail many odf us have received ref the Guard Call Up Drill). These folks remember their oaths, remember Posse Comitatus limits, have families, have the same priorities we do, and have serious responsibilities that, unless YOU have ordered or directed someone into a situation that could kill them, you have no conception of.
Been there, done that, got NO scars (by the grace of God) that you can see, and didn't like doing it a bit! (Even if it was "Follow me!" I didn't care about me, just the folks who were stupid enough to forget that the first duty of a civilian responder is to see if the scene is safe. we got out but it wasn't fun AT ALL!! When a job needs doing, there will be people who stand up and do it!)
Chuck
-- Chuck, night driver (rienzoo@en.com), January 12, 1999.
Oh....PS....ref the "relocation shelters"........
There is historical precedent................ask a nisei.
. . . . . and if you are too young to know what the nisei are,
look 'em up!! c
-- Chuck, night driver (rienzoo@en.com), January 12, 1999.
You two should really get together and have a beer ;-)
-- Chris (catsy@pond.com), January 12, 1999.
E.,I'm not buying it, and neither should you. You want to postulate that the machine is broken, but only just enough for the bad guys to take over and then it gets fixed again only now they're in charge (". . .Not necessarily ruined, but in immanent (sic) danger of being ruined - unless fast action is taken. That's enough for the scepter to be passed from the republican to the imperial hand.") You want to postulate that it remains broken long enough to "kill a lot of people", but not so long as to make civilian labor conscription unworkable. You want to postulate that "whoever controls the remaining means of production and raw materials" will have a viable manufacturing capacity of those things that they need to control events and populations (how many people?) and that the raw materials that they need will be available. Just what do you suppose we produce NOW in the US? What raw materials do we have here? We can't do it NOW, with all the bells and whistles and a full population, without global interdependancies and imports. Why should that ability magically appear simply because someone might want to be king? What makes you think that $7000 toilets seats and high-tech will allow anyone to rule a continent without a complex and robust infrastructure? Your conditions are too unlikely and improbable to convince me that we are at risk of anyone taking over for very long. Whether I expect a "10" or not is beside the point, because your scenario would require one, but only for a little while and then it would have to go away! Do you seriously believe that could happen? I do not. If things go down hard, it will be generations before they come back. If they don't go down hard, then no one is going to take over anything.
Concerning your thoughts about Generals, let me tell you, you have some very odd and inaccurate ideas about military officers in general and about Flag officers in particular. In the first place, men choose to follow a career in the military because they don't want to be lawyers or stockbrokers or accountants or whatever, but want to be soldiers. Commanding a military unit, of whatever size, is a demanding and satisfying task, but it in no way equates to performing as an executive in the capitalistic marketplace where there is only one standard--profit. Greed is what drives Capitalism but greed is useless to the military officer and indeed is a detriment to his advancement. The "perks" that you imagine are slow in coming and wanting in magnitude as compared to the business executive who wields comparable authority. The financial remuneration is downright shitty! (there simply is no better word for it) The choice that they all have is whether their oath to the Constitution shall be binding and dependable or not. Despite your misunderstanding of the concept, honoring one's oath is a far different thing than "just following orders". All of us are charged with evaluating such orders as we might receive as to lawfulness and propriety. In fact, the commissions and warrants are worded, ". . .and render obediance to appropriate orders. . ." The protests that you seem to think are owed by the Generals are largely forbidden by law and in fact have been at issue quite recently. Generals and Admirals want to be Generals and Admirals, for the most part. Most of them do not want to be politicians or rulers as evidenced by the fact that most of them do not become such even when they have the opportunity to do so.
I'll tell you something else, E. No one commands me in battle who doesn't go there with me and hasn't "been there and done that" before. I respect such men, but I revere almost nothing made by man. The Generals that I follow into battle lead me with the words, "Follow me"! The, "Go do that" of the business world doesn't cut it.
I do not doubt that you have, "seen the needle and the damage done", and I would never expect you to, "excuse drug mules and goons" but I do say to you that if you have specific knowledge of any who wear the uniform of our military (let alone stars on their collar) YOU have a duty to say their name and give the particulars. Put up or shut up. If you provide such information, I guarantee you that they will be shorn of those stars and will answer for their crimes.
As for this incredibly powerful, incredibly ancient fraternity of ruling families, I don't believe that they will fare any better against Y2K that any of the rest of us. Y2K will either be a minor event, or it will be an extinction level event, at least in terms of wealth and power. Power ultimately comes out of the barrel of a gun or at the point of a sword or with the swing of a club or with the grasp of a human hand. If Y2K is a "biggie", it will destroy a lot of power and wealth. These ancient and powerful people will still be ancient, but nowhere near as powerful or wealthy. Whatever their plans might be, they will be set back according to the severity of Y2K's effect on the world.
-- Hardliner (searcher@internet.com), January 12, 1999.
Chuck,I don't see the camps for the nisei as analogous to the rounding up of everyone. The nisei were scapegoats to a society's fear and scapegoats have to be different from the majority and identifiable as such. I can easily see readily identifiable minorities being scapegoated, Middle Easterners for example, but rounding up everyone makes no sense.
BTW, is the Gar still at the foot of 9th street pier?
-- Hardliner (searcher@internet.com), January 12, 1999.
Chris,Why just "you two"? How about all of us, along with massive quantities of Tennessee Sour Mash Whiskey (Geo. Dickel White Label; a beverage far superior to beer)!
-- Hardliner (searcher@internet.com), January 12, 1999.
Hardliner,If the military ended up as the sole governing power in post-Y2K America, it could be the best thing to happen from Y2K . Most of the general officers I ever met are the kind of guys I'd like as my neighbors going into Y2K. Most know and respect the Constitution. I firmly believe would work to restore the country to a working civilian government. A government minus the BS of the last thirty- five years.
Note that I said *most*. I do mean that there are some senior officers who might put their loyalties to certain political leaders ahead of a strictly Contitutional view. Not more than a handful, but enough to "skunk-up" the place.
Then again, there are a lot more junior officers and enlisted personnel who definitely feel that their obligation to the nation and the Constitution it their highest calling. Some of them just might decide to go "skunk hunting" if they start getting blatantly un- Constitutional orders or if senior leadership decides to start pusuing its own aims.
Heck, there might even be a post-Y2K hunt for the biggest skunk of all. As much as I don't relish the thought of being called back from retirement to go play soldier again during Y2K, there could be some things to make it worth while.
WW
-- Wildweasel (vtmldm@epix.net), January 12, 1999.
Wildweaswl,click-click
-- Hardliner (searcher@internet.com), January 12, 1999.
Man, I wish I had parents like E and Hardliner.Y'all adopt me? And learn me?
-- Lisa (lisab@shallc.com), January 12, 1999.
Thanks guys, can we add California wines to the community beer menu?At any rate, Im kinda curious about what the National Guard DOES in an emergency situation. So, over at the FEMA web-site with just the simple search, and scroll down the resulting list and see some of what they do (youll have to activate the search, it doesnt hold the serch term).
For newbies ...
http://www.fema.gov/ search/srchjs.htmUnder: Please enter search term(s): Type in ...
National Guard
And set: Get the first documents to 100
Click the Search button
Frankly, it sure looks like they really HELP us. Lots.
Diane
-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), January 12, 1999.
H, : BTW, is the Gar still at the foot of 9th street pier?Well, i haven't got a clue about any Gar , but the COD is right there, with all of its decorations, and all of its deck pieces, and.....
It's just a bit east of the foot of the pier, east of the CG station where we hide the NEON BAY on good weather months. On the foot of the pier, we have the Mather which serves as a floating museum for Great Lakes Shipping.
C
For those of you who are not Cleveland trivia Buffs::
the Cod is, if I remember aright, the most decorated submarine of her class and the last of the WWII subs still floating, in commissionable condition. She sits at a dock between a CG station, home port to the CG Icebreaker Neah Bay and a restaurant made from a barge. These are just west of the downtown airport we race Indy Cars on in the summer.
FWIW.
C
-- Chuck, night driver (rienzoo@en.com), January 12, 1999.
>>What makes you think that $7000 toilets seats and high-tech will allow anyone to rule a continent without a complex and robust infrastructure?Some of us have seen these "toilet seats" in action, and they are quite formidable. The high tech - beam weaponry, electrogravitic flight, scalar, etc. - is not as significant as the *social* engineering being perfected by intel in various cults and other circles that are by their nature hidden from public view. Psychopharmacology, sophisticated techniques of social ritual and hypnotic induction - all focused on the cohesion of small, isolated groups. Like your isolated county governments, perhaps. Jaques Valee's trilogy covers the interface between these twin social and technological efforts, and their alphabet-soup flavoring.
Then there are smart cameras that can scan crowds, compare faces against databases, subcutaneous transponders, ESCHELON-type AI telecom sweeping systems, non-lethal and crowd-control tech, etc.. All getting faster, smaller, cheaper, more powerful. We won't go back to pikes and thumbscrews when we pick up the Y2k pieces!
As for generals, I probably tar a lot of good men with a very wide brush. But it's a broad conspiracy. My assessment is that the American power structure is rotten to the core with drug dealing. This is why salary doesn't have much to do with the real perks of power. Ask Bill. Ask the purveyors of austrian numbered accounts.
>>...I do say to you that if you have specific knowledge of any who wear the uniform of our military (let alone stars on their collar) YOU have a duty to say their name and give the particulars.
This is as far as I go. I will note that the flag has gone up on this from both left- and right-of-center sources. It is rot, and threatens everybody, across the board. Think "second largest business in the U.S., after arms." No military involvement? Boot rot. http://www.ciadrugs.com/ http://www.icdc.com/~paulwolf/drugwar.htm http://www.madcowprod.com/
>>Y2K will either be a minor event, or it will be an extinction level event, at least in terms of wealth and power.
As I said, even the most "powerful" are tools. The core is quite ascetic. There are perks, and there are perks. Something for every taste. Wealth and power, of the type you're referring to, are epiphenomena. I'll admit my scenario doesn't make much sense without a multigenerational view. Individual, personal ambition is cultivated as a means to an end. The prize is more of a "strange attractor" than a goal or objective, really. And our oligarchy is quite resiliant, believe me.
Your wish for a level playing field is understandable.
>>Power ultimately comes out of the barrel of a gun or at the point of a sword or with the swing of a club or with the grasp of a human hand.
Power comes from KNOWING where and when AND IF to direct force. Think strategically and not tactically. Look deeply into how military action is funded. Both sides in a given conflict are beholden to the same entities: international banking fraternities (and who are they?). The "winner" is not necessarily predetermined, but the outcome is. Even -or especially- "people's rebellions" are subject to this rule. This is a hard pill for a hero, but it's the cure for a lot of suffering. If you insist on seeing any faction (in this case the military) as morally pure and untouched by corruption, and you refuse to analyze the hidden technology of power, you will end up serving it.
You will have a good time on your skunk hunt, but it will be coopted, if not instigated by the same entity that ran the skunks.
E.
-- E. Coli (nunayo@beeswax.com), January 12, 1999.
I suspect that if Hardliner and I were to sit down to a beer (Guiness or Saranac Black and Tan) we'd find some fewer areas of commonality (eye to long-grey-hair-backed eye) than some of you think. Course, reviewing the written record, I could be REAL wrong.Chuck
-- Chuck, night driver (rienzoo@en.com), January 12, 1999.
http://www.copvcia.comE.
-- E. Coli (nunayo@beeswax.com), January 12, 1999.
Hardliner, the argument that they can't "round up everyone" is a straw man. They will round up dissidents, who will be associated in the public mind with carefully orchestrated terrorist events. As usual.Every time I hear "they can't put everyone in prison," I think "planes falling from the sky." Same tactic.
They will put everyone away who resists. Those who remain will virtually police themselves. Can't happen? Happens all over the world, every day.
I can't share your "Americans wouldn't do that to Americans" belief. I'm born and raised here, and quite aware of what we're capable of - and capable of turning a blind eye to.
E.
-- E. Coli (nunayo@beeswax.com), January 12, 1999.
Chuck,Your reply (Well, i haven't got a clue about any Gar , but the COD is right there, with all of its decorations, and all of its deck pieces, and....) absolutely blew my socks off! At first (considering the nature of my discussions with E. Coli) the thought actually crossed my mind that I might be lost in an alternate universe! The USS Gar was the first submarine I was ever aboard (as a young man) and in my mind, it has been at the 9th street pier a lot longer than in reality. A bit of research put things right though, and I thought you might be interested.
"After overhaul in the Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard, GAR put to sea 2 April 1945 to serve the remainder of the war as a target trainer for antisubmarine ships at Saipan and Guam, Marianas Islands. She departed Apra Harbor, Guam, 7 August 1945, proceeding via Hawaii, San Francisco, and the Panama Canal to Portsmouth, N.H., where she arrived 20 October. She decommissioned there 11 December 1945 and remained in reserve until September-October 1948 during which time she was overhauled in the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard for service as a reserve training submarine for the 4th Naval District at Cleveland, Ohio, arriving, via the Mississippi River and the Chicago Canal, 28 November 1948. She continued her reserve training until her name was stricken from the Navy List 29 May 1959. The submarine was sold for scrapping 18 November 1959 to Acme Scrap Iron and Metal Co."
If you're interested in a photograph and Gar's complete history, here's the link: USS Gar.
As you can now tell, it has been a long time since I've been to The Best Location in the Nation (do they still call it that?) and I've been more places since than I care to remember (usually). And yes Chuck, you could be WAY wrong about the commonality. I suspect that the first thing we'd compare notes about would be what it was like to be "owned" by a Yaqui Maiden. "Harderliner" is a Yaqui curadora and (not really surprisingly) seems to have a whole lot in common with your bride. Small world, isn't it?
-- Hardliner (searcher@internet.com), January 12, 1999.
>>At first (considering the nature of my discussions with E. Coli) the thought actually crossed my mind that I might be lost in an alternate universe!So you've read Vallee?
E.
-- E. Coli (nunayo@beeswax.com), January 12, 1999.
Wow, E. Coli hit the nail on the head again! What a tack driver that guy is. I second everything he says, about the technology for control of human behavior that is in the wings (I have a position where I can see that happening daily). Futher, E Coli's analysis of the drive for power is right on. Actually, Orwell depicted it best in 1984. The "Inner Party" there was not hedonistic, they loved power for its own sake.That's why I say that y2k is pivotal: if y2k DOESN'T take technology down, within 2 more generations homo sapiens will be under the boot forever. Tragic, really, because life without technology wasn't much fun either.
As G. K. Chesterton wrote about sex, but we can apply it to technology also:
"As soon as it ceases to be a slave, it becomes a tyrant. There is no possibility of it walking beside you, as a friend."
-- (runway_cat@hotmail.com), January 12, 1999.
off.
-- rc (rc@rc.com), January 12, 1999.
E.,Somewhat to my surprise, we seem to be getting closer together in our assesments. But first things first.
Lest any of the forum readers who might be following this discussion think we're both full of "horseradish" and lying out the gazoo or simply nuts (I've seen some of the "toilet seats" in action as well), I thought it might be appropriate to let everyone see some of the de-classified information that demonstrates the truth of these $7000 "toilet seats". Have a look at this folks, it's available for sale RIGHT NOW ! (subject to US government approval, of course, and with a few coppers to put into the coffers of the DNC it's a sure thing!) A FORMIDIBLE "Toilet Seat"
Now, as to my perspective about ruling a continent. It seems to me that being able to control the inhabitants of "small isolated groups" is somewhat different in character than "ruling a continent", but in light of your later comment about the multi-generational viewpoint, it does make sense. If coherent groups that control these "toilet seats" survive, and direct the recovery it will certainly proceed at a faster pace than otherwise. Still, the infrastructure (if wrecked beyond salvation) will take time to rebuild. If, as you postulate, time is just a factor and not a determinant, I have to agree with your conclusions. The crowd scanning cameras and crowd control techniques will have to await the re-emergence of a society that has crowds, but if the technology is preserved, ultimately it will still do the same job.
E., you're preaching to the choir about the corruption in the American power structure. I certainly never intended to give the impression that I thought any part of it was lily white, not even the military. I have seen first hand two different drug running operations in the military, and I have also seen what happened to the perpetrators when they were exposed. Those guys are still making shoes and dungarees at Leavenworth, Kansas and will be for quite a while to come. Common sense would indicate that even the Flag ranks can not be immune, but I personally have never met a Flag officer who I could believe that of. I do know that such an officer would not survive exposure to the military authorities.
Your latest remarks about the nature of wealth and power and multi-generational perspectives leads me to believe that we have been talking about two differnt things up to now. Again, Time as a factor rather than a determinant alters the perspective in such a way that your arguments become coherent.
While I suppose that everyone hopes for a level playing field, I hold that if you're the baddest SOB in the valley (no offense Buffgun), you've got the advantage. Your strategy can amplify or diminish your power, but ultimately all power is tactical. Knowing when and where and how and if, won't do you any good at all unless you've got the gun or the sword or whatever to do it with.
If I understand you correctly, we are also in agreement that the Krupps and the Rothschilds of this world have far more to say (at all levels) about what happens and when and how it turns out than the Hitlers and Churchills do. Yet again, the perspective of temporal scale makes the difference in the credibility of your arguments.
The example of rounding up everyone in NYC was not intended as an argument against the rounding up of dissidents (AKA scapegoats) but illustration of what NOT to expect to happen. You should easily be able to ascertain my understanding of the "round-up" concept by reading my reply to Chuck (re the nisei, above). All that would be necessary to get American troops to do whatever you wanted them to do would be to manipulate them into convincing themselves that it was, "the right thing to do". Now, getting some GI to shoot a citizen who is running a roadblock or looting a store or raping a screaming woman is one thing. Getting him to participate in the gestapo-like tactics of the "alphabet agencies" is quite another. I'm not saying it couldn't be done mind you, but it would certainly take some of your psychopharmacology or something equally potent and more time than there is before Y2K gets here.
No, I haven't read Vallee--I really haven't ever heard of him. I suspect that I won't find him in the public library either! Where can I find his work and what should I look for?
RC,
As is becoming apparent, E. and I don't really disagree all that much when we understand what the other guy is really talking about. Orwell had an uncanny preview of the future to share with us, but he, as E. and I, got the time scale slightly skewed. 1984 isn't quite here yet, but it's sure a lot closer than I'd like to see it! Like you, I see the effect of Y2K as pivotal in terms of the time frame. I don't really disagree with you or E. as to the eventual results. My personal Orwell favorite, Animal Farm makes it too clear what we are and how we operate.
-- Hardliner (searcher@internet.com), January 12, 1999.
Hardliner: Since you expressedd an interest in Orwell, I thought you would find the following interesting. So, FWIW:Source: The Secret World of Money - Andrew Gause
Has the Orwellian tale of Big Brother become a reality?
"Orwell was one of the original Fabians. He knew their intent and motives. What Orwell was actually doing through his 'fiction' was leaking their plans. That's why he was so accurate. He had inside information. He studied the Fabians program for social restructuring. Some would say that the concept of a planned, steady, long-term global conquest is pure fantasy. But if we can accept the fact that a group of men could get together in a smoke filled room and plot how to take over a compnay, why can't we accept that a group would get together and plot how to take over a country or economy? I suggest that 'social engineering' began around George Orwell's time, and the society in which we live today represents the product of that social engineering. Through the destruction of the family unit, and through the usurpation of our monetary system, we have been converted into a socialistic nation without a shot being fired. It was a brilliant strategy"
-- Rob Michaels (sonofdust@net.com), January 12, 1999.
A few quick questions for all you military historians...1) How does the 10th Amendment effect the Military and more specifically the National Guard?
The Constitution of the United States of America
http://www.law.cornell.edu/ constitution/constitution.table.html#amendmentsAmendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
2) Are there any good newsmedia articles that explain how the Military and Armed Forces are set up and how they all interact? Specifically looking for explanations that the general public might understand. (Me too).
3) Since Ive been doing a tour of duty on the government web-sites (and, dont laugh, watching the JAG show on TV last night), I notice they are all rather fond of alphabetizing everything! Is there a list somewhere that translates all the alphabet names for everything?
Thanks guys, Diane
-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), January 13, 1999.
Points well made, Hardliner and Rob. To me, the interesting question is not the fact of totalitarianism, that is now a foregone conclusion and unaviodable if the human race survives in any form (though there could always be "no 'count" proles that are beneath the radar of the overlords).But to me the only remaining question is the form it will take. There are 2 classes of model, each with its own literary "best example":
(i) the "jackboot" model of Orwell's 1984
(ii) the "soma" model of Huxley's Brave New World
Each of these represents a cluters of SF types, e.g. Levin's This Perfect Day is a 'soma' model, etc.
One of these will become reality if homo sapiens survives. The philosophical difference between them boils down to the question of suffering. As usual in talking about questions of pure power, Orwell phrased it best, in the mouth of the interrogator in 1984 : (quoted from memory don't hold me to the exact words):
To assert power, we must make you suffer. Why ? Because, unless you are suffering, how do we know you are following our will, and not your own ?
-- runway cat (runway_cat@hotmail.com), January 13, 1999.
RC: what's the prognosis, then? Are we tending more toward "jackboot" or "soma" at this juncture?(Excuse me, gotta go - somebody just shot my dog and they're kicking my door in).
E.
-- E. Coli (nunayo@beeswax.com), January 13, 1999.
E, this era is pivotal and interesting, 'cause we have BOTH elements in strong strains, and we'll see how it turn out. Jackboot elements: Waco, Ruby Ridge, KYC, war on drugs. Soma elements: Prozac, Ritalin, TV. I'm betting on a soma outcome, unless y2k forces it down to Jackboot. The reason is that while the overlords would prefer to enforce suffering for the philosophical reason I gave, ultimately violence could be destabilizing to their regime. Better just to herd everybody into a drug-induced fog. By the way, E, you obviously have the wrong dog, if they nailed him so easy. Try one of THESE next time those jackbooted thugs come a 'callin:-RC
-- runway cat (runway_cat@hotmail.com), January 13, 1999.
Hardliner:It ain't a link but you can still see her!!
http://www.subnet.com/FLEET/ss224.htm
The COD
cr
-- Chuck, night driver (rienzoo@en.com), January 14, 1999.
Hardliner:Vallee wrote "Passport to Magonia" (new edition out recently). Also "Revelations" and an interesting novelization, "Fastwalker."
Originally an astronomer, who witnessed the destruction of UFO film footage at an observatory in France by one of his superiors, which prompted him to look into the scene further. Later a cybernetics/systems analyst guy. Probably a spook. Invented the "encounters of the nth kind" contact classification system, basis for the French scientist character in Spielberg's "aliens are our friends" propaganda film.
E.
-- E. Coli (nunayo@beeswax.com), January 14, 1999.
Rob,Thanks for the passage from Gause. I did find it interesting. I guess everyone is sheltered from different things in life though, and I have to confess that I haven't a clue what a "Fabian" is. The passage allows speculation, but not much else. Is it possible to tell me what who they were in a few words?
Diane,
I didn't mean to ignore your question, but before I even had read it here, I read someone else's quite adequate answer on another thread.
RC,
I'm betting on the "soma" outcome simply because the pharmaceutical multi-nationals can generate far more cash than the "jackboots" can with their "civil seizures".
Still, I don't look for the total disappearance of "jackbooted thugs". They're simply too useful to the maintenance of political power.
Chuck,
The Cod is certainly a fitting successor to the Gar. (I'm still dealing with the shattered illusion of Cleveland as I left it. . .)
E.,
Vallee sounds like I need to read some. I intend to.
One other thing; believe it or not, I have never seen the movie, ET. Is that the Spielberg propaganda film you were refering to?
-- Hardliner (searcher@internet.com), January 15, 1999.
I meant "Close Encounters of the 3rd Kind," but "E.T." is part of the same effort. I've noticed there are not a lot of movies out lately that depict the alien space brothers as our friends.Here's an interesting web site that addresses the interconnectedness of the UFO movement and the intelligence community - among other things:
http://www.brotherblue.org/
If you stick with it past the dark humor and freakyness, you might find some valuable information. Especially after reading Valee.
E.
-- E. Coli (nunayo@beeswax.com), January 15, 1999.
Check the following for an interesting read:Lessons in Command and Control from the Los Angeles Riots
http://carlisle-www.army.mil/usawc/Parameters/97summer/schnau.htm
byE !
-- nope! (nowhere@near.org), March 30, 1999.
Ok, I'd like to throw a new idea in here. Slick is really big into all this globalist crap, so why wouldn't he call in UN troops to support him as the new fuhrer? I think he could and he'd get a lot of support from all the socialists in the world. On another note, yes Patrick Henry is a pseudonym, but the email address is valid.
-- Patrick Henry (controversial_1@hotmail.com), July 17, 1999.