There have been numerous postings referring to the start of martial law on Dec. 28. One post said that the troops would mobilize for Dec. 28 with martial law starting is computer crashes/population responses warrented. The question: do you believe these reports? Do you regard these as urban legends or do you think the number of times this date has been mentioned means that these reports are for real? I believe something will happen on Dec. 28. My wife who is with me on most issues leans towards urban legend. What does the collective voice of this forum say?

-- David Holladay (davidh@brailleplanet.org), December 18, 1999

Answers

Urban Legend. I do not believe martial law will be declared nationally at any time due to Y2K. I think that special 'emergency zones' might be set up if there was any significant rioting or terrorist attack.

The only exception I would make to the above statement is if terrorist releases a contagious bioweapon, then I think that there would be little choice but to declare martial law to thwart its spread.

-- Stars and Stripes (stars_n_stripes@my-deja.com), December 18, 1999.

I vote urban legend. I have to, because I will be on a flight from Phoenix to Providence (via O'Hare) on that day. I have every intention of getting home safely.

If there is any credible evidence that Martial law will be declared on that day, I DWGI.

And btw, you will never hear the words "Martial Law." But you may hear "State of Emergency" quite often.

-- semper paratus (dont_wanna@get.it), December 18, 1999.

What do you mean by "martial law"?

If you mean some kind of presidential speech where those words are pronounced out loud, like the "war on drugs", then I would say that no martial law will not be declared on 12/28/1999.

Will it be inacted? Now that is another question.

Some say it has already, but I am not a student of the law so I have not formed an opinion.

-- Hokie (va@va.com), December 18, 1999.

That doesn't make any sense. If the government were to pull the trigger before zero hour it would be obvious that their "no problem" assurances were lies from the get-go. They will at least wait until things start breaking down so they can appear to save the day. If we get a few wacko nut-ball pyromaniacs adding to the millennial festivities, even agent provacatuers, it would give the government a cover and a pretext to do their deed.

-- Wild Weasel (finally@theend.com), December 18, 1999.

No ()

-- gary (a@a.com), December 18, 1999.

Wild Weasel,

Check out FEMA's web site. If they "anticipate" a potential problem, then they are required to pre-position a response.

I think we all "anticipate" y2k.

-- Hokie (va@va.com), December 18, 1999.

http://www.fema.gov/r-n-r/frp/frpesf.htm

-- Hokie (va@va.com), December 18, 1999.

I vote "No" but maintain the right to change my mind on the 28th...

-- Uncle Bob (UNCLB0B@AOL.COM), December 18, 1999.

Probably tangential to the topic at hand, but I think it's inevitable that we *will* have some *very* ugly terrorism -- the "for real" kind -- between now and Jan 1.

That idiot they caught at the Canadian border was probably a tip of the iceberg type thing. And it looks like he had at least one accomplice, according to hotel records.

Consider this -- the country is awash in cocaine and heroin, even though they bust plenty of courriers at the border. They got *one* guy -- without his accomplice (and he likely had more than *one* accomplice). How many are already *in*? How many *will* get in without getting detected? How many were here all along, biding their time?

I don't like this one bit. I'm glad I'm living in a likely non- target area, but I've got family and friends that are living in major metro areas, and I'm worried for them. My sister was just diagnosed with breast cancer, and is going in for her final round of surgery on the 27th, and she lives near probably the *worst* place in the country if some terrorists of "sleeper" agents decide to play dirty. I'm going to try to send her enough potassium iodide for all the relatives in that area. (we're ordering it Monday, fingers crossed)

Anyway, I don't think we've *ever* had such a high potential for terrorism. Those bastards know that the time to strike is when we'll be at our weakest.

If there *is* martial law -- whatever name it goes by -- my hope is that it will be in response to a *known* threat, that it will be effective in *preventing* the threat, and that it will be rescinded immediately upon having saved the day.

-- Ron Schwarz (rs@clubvb.com.delete.this), December 18, 1999.

Argh, "of 'sleeper' agents" should be "OR 'sleeper' agents" (emphasis added).

Coffee deficiency, operator halted.

-- Ron Schwarz (rs@clubvb.com.delete.this), December 18, 1999.

Pray tell, just when did the government worry about lying to us? They've been at it for decades.

They have raised BS to a high and fine art form.

I don't think the present administration has the backing of the military to be able to initiate a full out Martial Law edict. However, "National Emergency" may do the trick.

-- Richard (Astral-Acres@webtv.net), December 18, 1999.

Pray tell, just when did the government worry about lying to us? They've been at it for decades.

They have raised BS to a high and fine art form.

I don't think the present administration has the backing of the military to be able to initiate a full out Martial Law edict. However, "National Emergency" may do the trick.

-- Richard (Astral-Acres@webtv.net), December 18, 1999.

Since I asked the question, let me phrase it more tightly. Do you believe that the government will declare a "state of emergency" and restrict travel on the interstates on or close to Dec. 28th. [in essence, the question is does the .gov .mil & .spy "jump the gun" to restrict movement prior to significant computer problems].

-- David Holladay (davidh@brailleplanet.org), December 18, 1999.

Absolutely!!!

Given several books on our "beloved impeached President" such as: The Year of the Rat, The Secret life of Bill Clinton, Unequal Access, (by an F.B.I. agent), and all the cover ups by Janet Reno for her boss: Waco, Ruby Ridge, etc. WHY WOULDN'T THEY USE THIS GOLDEN OPPORTUITY TO TAKE CONTROL?

This is the most UNETHICAL ADMINISTRATION in our American history. The more you know, the more you don't want to know.

Have you ever had an intuition something was going to happen and it did? This is ONE THAT I KNOW IS GOING TO HAPPEN. It's sad but were going to have to accept it as I think the Lord is going to Judge this county of ours.

Billy Graham said, "If God doesn't judge America He'll have to apologize to Sodom and Gomorrah."

Y2k will be a pretext to "take control."

We have been betrayed with China getting our DEEPEST SECRETS and the PANAMA CANAL.

We're no smarter than Israel during the times of Amos, Hosea, Isaiah,and Jeremiah and their warnings "during prosperous times." (I love those guys)

Let's REMEMBER THE GOOD TIMES and the BLESSINGS THAT CAME OUT OF THE HARDSHIPS. God hasn't left us, but WE HAVE TURNED OUR BACKS ON HIM.

And let us remember these words during this Christmas season:

"For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish, but have eternal life.":)

-- eyes wide open (djwolf@lanset.com), December 18, 1999.

No, I don't believe that will happen.

-- joe (joe@adeveloper.net), December 18, 1999.

FWIW, my guess is that on the 28th Martial Law or something very close to get the troops out will be declared. It makes far more sense to get the troops mobilized then, as it will take a few days to do any way, and keep the situation under control from the beginning rather than wait and see what happens and *then* deploy and *try* and bring the situation under control.

As to wheather we will be provided the usual disinformation about what is really going on, I think that will be a given as that is standard miltary protocol. If the Internet is still up, then this could be a very differnt information war than the past. I believe the Internet will be up. If it is not then it would have to have been shut down deliberatly. Remember the whole foundation of the IP technology behind the Internet was designed by the DOD as a way to keep communications running in the event of a nuclear war, as it allows information to be routed autmatically through parts that are not destroyed.

-- Interested Spectator (is@the_ring.side), December 18, 1999.

No to matial law (urban legend), but yes to "state of emergency" IF (and this is the big IF) "something" happens in the US to warrant it. I don't think it'll be declared as a precaution ... we intend to stay close to home on the days immediately after Christmas, keeping an eye and ear on the internet, shortwave, etc.

-- (ladybuckeye_59@yahoo.com), December 18, 1999.

Watch for more terrorist/school incidents/threats to public by 12/21. Then a national state of emergency (martial law by a politically correct name) by 12/28 or by 1/30/2000 "for our protection". Just my uneducated guess....

-- morgan (bitbybit@eoni.com), December 18, 1999.

I got to say "no". Unless terrorist activity grows strongly in the US or something catastrophic happens, I just can't see it.

-- Familyman (prepare@home.com), December 18, 1999.

No...

It takes a big event to declare a national emergency, and/or martial law. Watch for events.

Everyone's "getting ready" by the 28th, IMHO.

Diane

See also...

Previous FEMA Testimony to the Senate Describes Agency's Y2K Plans

http://www.fema.gov/ nwz99/123spc.htm

No one knows exactly what Y2K will bring, but as December begins, FEMA continues its work with emergency and fire managers to raise awareness, increase preparedness and implement contigency plans in anticipation of Y2K. Testimony given to the U.S. Senate in October by a senior FEMA official provides insight into FEMA's actions at the state and national level, and the agency's staffing plans over the New Year's weekend.

"FEMA expects to have more than 800 staff in duty status during the December 28 to January 4 timeframe," said Lacy Suiter, FEMA's associate director for response and recovery.

Updated: December 3, 1999

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), December 19, 1999.

Here's my take: President Clintoris is in a no-win situation. He lets the nukes stay up during rollover, possible cascading failure brings grid down, perhaps radiation/meltdown such as Chernobyl. OR he takes the cautious approach, declares emergency, slowly brings the grid down over 3 days (major cities to go dark the very last) then one by one brings them back up region by region in safe manner for grid. But "federal emergency" risks darkness/looting and/or populist militia uprising. Which choice? He will go for the collateral damage option, as even the remote possibility of core reactor meltdown is too much. Fully expect Western Europe/EU member states to announce they will bring their nukes down prior to rollover first, with France leading the way, 70% nuke. Then again, maybe nothing will happen and we'll all whistle past the boneyard. Feel lucky? Get your KI just in case.

-- Doom Buggie (beachbum@bigsur.com), December 19, 1999.

Troops on alert for possible deployment on the 28th? Extra security at ports of entry?

Sounds reasonable to me.

A pro-active declaration of martial law regardless of whether any real disturbance exists?

I doubt it. I think the troops will stay on their bases, maybe having an alcohol-free New Year's Eve party.

It is nice to see "martial" spelled correctly.

Mikey2k

-- Mikey2k (mikey2k@he.wont.eat.it), December 19, 1999.

I side with eyeswideopen, morgan, and doombuggie. Partly that's because of the amazing coincidence of the date in various pronouncements (see also the DC command post starting up with head of all agencies on 12/28). But also because it makes sense that TPTB would want to have troops in position BEFORE the rollover brings a spate of embedded chip infrastructural failures. Classic military strategy, I think. And they can only achieve that result effectively if they declare a SOE. But expect its rationale will be cyberterrorism, etc, and not simply broken code. That way they don't LOOK like liars. They've been warning us, after all, about cyberterrorism for several years.

-- StanTheMan (heidrich@presys.com), December 19, 1999.

I don't think that there will be Martial Law on Dec 28th.

I *do* expect some terrorism. Major terrorism to happen in the US. As someone said, a lot of places are going to be packed. Times Square. Other places. Population density is directly conducive to bomb blast; the bigger the crowd, the more die. Times Square, people will be packed like sardines. A bomb that might kill 2 people on an average street, or 10 on a subway, could kill 150 or more in Times Square. Plus, very conceivably, four or five times that many in the subsequent stampede.

I was discussing this with a pyro friend. Making a one-shot mortar out of piping and nitroglycerine isn't that difficult. You attach a remote thing to it, run like hell, and about two minutes later (maximum) the timer burns and the thing goes boom. 50% chance of it firing its shell; 50% chance of it blowing up and killing anyone nearby, as home-made bangers have a tendency to.

Anyway- my point is that I expect terrorists to do a lot of stuff. The US has pissed a LOT of people off in the recent past. So many other nations that haven't had a chance to fight back conventionally.

And if that happens, there may well be martial law. What if the power goes down in NYC -not because of a faulty power line, but because some Serb, Colombian or Iraqi shot his way into the main power station, got amongst the most critical place, and blew himself up along with thirty kilos of ammonium nitrate? Riots and chaos.

The y2k bug is going to be no more than an additional factor in what should make for a very interesting week or so.

Leo

-- Leo (lchampion@ozemail.com.au), December 19, 1999.

I agree with the earlier post, that any type of martial law will not be declared prematurely, before any type of high visibility disruptions. A premature declaration of martial law will only accelerate some of the events that the .mil wish, at all costs, to avoid such as civil disorder and panic.

If declared, martial law will not appear like martial law in the traditional sense, at least not at first. There will probably be states of emergency declared in individual states, then if disruptions warrant or in the event of a large scale terrorist strike, possibly a nationwide state of disaster emergency. The response to this type of emergency will largely resemble the responce to any type of natural disaster, hurricanes, earthquakes, etc. With public information emphasis being placed on the humanitarian response such as the mobilization of shelters for those w/o electricity, distribution of food and water, etc. But it will all occur after destabilizing events begin to unfold publicly.

However, with this being said, under a state of national emergency the DoD will be placed under FEMA's command and will be granted all the tools and authority that it would need to maintain order, the same as it would have under a traditional style martial law. So in effect it could be defacto martial law.

Due to extremely limited resources and manpower, the .gov will only utilize these tools under the direst of consequences, And will leave much of the response to state and local agencies. So, you may not be able to count on federal aid right away should disruptions be widespread in your area.

I work in haz-mat for a state .gov. What concerns me more are the dynamics of a multi-agency, multi-task force response to a large incident. In my training, and experience I have seen large emergency response situations result in disaster due to inter-agency conflict over who has what authority, who provides what resources or manpower, what facet of the response takes priority over the others, etc. (I have also seen responses that worked extremely well, ie. in the Incident Command System)

With these conflicts occurring fairly regularly with your standard everyday response situations. How will the responding agencies react when much of the unfolding event is largely unknown with many new variables such as attrition, terrorism, revolt, the inability to draw on resouces from a contiguous region for disaster assistance, and an unclear concept of who will be responsible for what.

One of the emergency responders that I know who will be deployed for y2k (Dec. 28, BTW, ) is a Polly big time. He has skipped out on pre-rollover training and thought it was all some big wacky exercise until last week when he got several phone calls at work confirming his deployment. Now he seems apprehensive to say the very least. ;>

I feel that this responder is severely under prepared and under trained emotionally and intellectually to deal with the complexity of events / response that y2k could possibly have in store. Lack of intellectual preparation and training could lead to a panicked over reaction that could be as counter productive as the event itself.(see Seattle)

If things get rough, I hope we can all stay cool headed!

-- Antennas Up (DDDDD@DDD.DDD), December 19, 1999.

I was just reading a political newsletter that says a State of Emergency is just another euphenism for Martial Law. It suspends civil liberties and legal rights for citizens who may be harmed, injured or KILLED or illegally detained by the police action. Protestors in Seattle who were attacked by police are finding that their legal recourse to sue the city of Seattle is useless- they are being told that Seattle was under Martial Law, and they have no recourse for damages. Under Emergency Powers, you can be arrested and held indefinitely, without any rights to call and attorney or even let someone know you are alive! That is why Seattle declared such an emergency---so it could have free rein to attack without liability! (Many innocent bystanders, not even the passive protestors, were viciously attacked by the police.)

I have also read (not by the mainline media! that Seattle was warned by the govt. more than two weeks prior to the WTO conference, that violent activity by protestors was a distinct possibility, yet the mayor and police officials say they wer surprised. Baloney- the stockpiling and preparations by the police show they had not only prepared in advance but planned to use a broad range of weapons. Furthermore, I have read that there was a large number of goons dressed in black, with ski masks, who were the ones doing the damage of breaking windows and causing the ruckus. It is thought that they were planted by TPTB to cause the real trouble, to warrant the police to act so hostilely toward the masses of passive protestors.

I am reading that the govt. actually incites problems so that it will give them an excuse to take powers over us that they have no constitutional right to do so. And that in actuality, they do not have to even Declare a State of Emergency or Martial Law- they are just doing it, when they please, and as long as the sheeple don't protest, they will get away with it. Thanks to all of Clinton's E.O's.

I'm afraid that I think the answer is "yes", to the question. This administration is so power hungry they will use any excuse to control the masses.

-- Jo Ann (MaJo@Michiana.com), December 19, 1999.

No. I should know. And no. Oh, by the way...no.

-- Buster (BustrCollins@aol.com), December 19, 1999.

Seems if there is going to be troops deployed on the 28th then the bases would be preping now to transfer them. The forces take time to pack and deploy in any situation.

Is there anyone who lives on or near a base noticing a readying of the troops now??

obo

-- (susanwater@excite.com), December 19, 1999.

After reading all the responses and preparing for y2k for over a year, I have checked and re-checked food lists, preparation list, medical supplies lists, ect. ect. BUT the one thing we all could prepare for alittle better is TRUST in GOD. HE did not create us just to destroy us in year 2000. As bad as the last century's history has been, human beings have survived because of GOD's promise. JUST REMEMBER, THE M O S T POWERFUL FORCE IN THE UNIVERSE AND WHO CREATED IT. GOD BLESS US ALL. HAPPY NEW YEAR!

-- Bob (bob@pmiv.com), December 19, 1999.