Honor: 0    [ Give / Take ]


2 entries this month

Martial law anyone? All the War Pigs Have The Power...

04:41 Oct 07 2007
Times Read: 658

Do you know your Martial Law? And are you smart enough to get it?

Try Not to fall to sleep eh? You just might learn something.

From The Wiki:

Martial law is the system of rules that takes effect when the military takes control of the normal administration of justice.

Usually martial law reduces some of the personal rights ordinarily granted to the citizen, limits the length of the trial processes, and prescribes more severe penalties than ordinary law. In many states martial law prescribes the death penalty for certain crimes, even if ordinary law does not contain that crime or punishment in its system.

Martial law is sometimes imposed during wars or occupations in the absence of any other civil government. Examples of this form of military rule include Germany and Japan after World War II or the American South during the early states of Reconstruction. In addition it is used by governments to enforce their rule, for example after a coup d'état (Thailand 2006), when threatened by popular protests (PRC 1989), or to crack down on the opposition (Poland 1981).

Martial law can also be declared in cases of major natural disasters, however most countries use a different legal construct like "state of emergency".

In many countries martial law imposes particular rules, one of which is curfew. Often, under this system, the administration of justice is left to a military tribunal, called a court-martial. The suspension of the writ of habeas corpus is likely to occur.Article 1, Section 9, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution is known as the Suspension Clause. It states:

“ The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it. "

The martial law concept in the U.S. is closely tied with the Writ of habeas corpus, which is in essence the right to a hearing on lawful imprisonment, or more broadly, the supervision of law enforcement by the judiciary. The ability to suspend habeas corpus is often equated with martial law. Article 1, Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution states, "The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion, the public Safety may require it."

In United States law, martial law is limited by several court decisions that were handed down between the American Civil War and World War II. In 1878, Congress passed the Posse Comitatus Act, which forbids military involvement in domestic law enforcement without congressional approval.

The National Guard is an exception, since unless federalized, they are under the control of state governors. [5]. This has now changed. Public Law 109-364, or the "John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007" (H.R.5122), was signed by President Bush on October 17, 2006, and allows the President to declare a "public emergency" and station troops anywhere in America and take control of state-based National Guard units without the consent of the governor or local authorities. Title V, Subtitle B, Part II, Section 525(a) of the JWDAA of 2007 reads "The [military] Secretary [of the Army, Navy or Air Force] concerned may order a member of a reserve component under the Secretary's jurisdiction to active duty...The training or duty ordered to be performed...may include...support of operations or missions undertaken by the member's unit at the request of the President or Secretary of Defense."

And now the Juicy Part:

Debate exists in regard to the legality of a Presidential decree of martial law, due to recent pronouncements from the Bush Administration and national security initiatives that were put in place in the Reagan era. When president Ronald Reagan was considering invading Nicaragua, he issued a series of executive orders that provided the Federal Emergency Management Agency with broad powers in the event of a crisis such as violent and widespread internal dissent or national opposition against a U.S. military invasion abroad. To date, these powers have never been used but with the 2003 Invasion of Iraq, 2006 U.S. immigration reform protests and the possibility of avian flu spreading globally, concerns have been raised that these powers could be employed or a de facto drift into their deployment could occur.

In addition, from 1982-84 Colonel Oliver North assisted FEMA in drafting its civil defense preparations. Details of these plans emerged during the 1987 Iran-Contra scandal. They included executive orders providing for suspension of the constitution, the imposition of martial law, internment camps and the turning over of government to the president and FEMA. FEMA, whose main role is disaster response, is now also responsible for handling U.S. domestic unrest.

With recent proposals to criminalize illegal and undocumented immigrants, the United States saw itself immersed in a debate at the end of March and beginning of April about these laws and the role of immigration post-September 11.

A Miami Herald article on July 5, 1987, reported that the deputy of former FEMA director Louis O. Giuffrida, John Brinkerhoff, handled the martial law portion of the planning. The plan was said to be similar to one titled "Rex 84", which Mr. Giuffrida had developed earlier

to combat a national uprising by black militants. It provided for the detention of at least 21 million African-Americans in assembly centers or relocation camps.
Following a request by the Pentagon in January, 2002, that the U.S. military be allowed the option of deploying troops on American streets, the Anser Institute for Homeland Security in February, 2002, published a paper by current-employee Mr. Brinkerhoff that argued the legality of this. He alleged that the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, which has long been accepted as prohibiting such deployments, had simply been misunderstood and misapplied. The preface to the article also provided the revelation that the national plan he had worked on, under Mr. Giuffrida, was approved by Reagan, and actions were taken to implement it.

The full facts and final contents of Reagan's national plan remain uncertain, in part because President Bush took the unprecedented step of sealing the Reagan presidential papers in November of 2001 via Executive Order 13233. The papers in question, some dealing with Reagan-era officials who now have high posts in the Bush administration, were to have been disclosed under the 1978 Presidential Records Act, which said that the documents could be restricted at the most for 12 years after Reagan left office.





Civil disobedience, What happened to question Authority?

04:20 Oct 07 2007
Times Read: 659

The Words of the Mighty Wikipedia:

Civil disobedience is the active refusal to obey certain laws, demands and commands of a government or of an occupying power without resorting to physical violence. It is one of the primary tactics of nonviolent resistance. In its most nonviolent form (known as ahimsa or satyagraha) it could be said that it is compassion in the form of respectful disagreement.

Civil disobedience has been used in nonviolent resistance movements in India (Gandhi's social welfare campaigns and campaigns to speed up independence from the British Empire), in South Africa in the fight against apartheid, in the American Civil Rights Movement and in peace movements worldwide.

The American author Henry David Thoreau pioneered the modern theory behind this practice in his 1849 essay Civil Disobedience, originally titled "Resistance to Civil Government". The driving idea behind the essay was that of self-reliance, and how one is in morally good standing as long as one can "get off another man's back"; so one doesn't have to physically fight the government, but one must not support it or have it support one (if one is against it).

In seeking an active form of civil disobedience, one may choose to deliberately break certain laws, such as by forming a peaceful blockade or occupying a facility illegally. Protesters practice this non-violent form of civil disorder with the expectation that they will be arrested, or even attacked or beaten by the authorities. Protesters often undergo training in advance on how to react to arrest or to attack, so that they will do so in a manner that quietly or limply resists without threatening the authorities.

For example, Mahatma Gandhi outlined the following rules:

1. A civil resister (or satyagrahi) will harbour no anger.

2. He will suffer the anger of the opponent.

3. In so doing he will put up with assaults from the opponent, never retaliate; but he will not submit, out of fear of punishment or the like, to any order given in anger.

4. When any person in authority seeks to arrest a civil resister, he will voluntarily submit to the arrest, and he will not resist the attachment or removal of his own property, if any, when it is sought to be confiscated by authorities.

5. If a civil resister has any property in his possession as a trustee, he will refuse to surrender it, even though in defending it he might lose his life. He will, however, never retaliate.

6. Retaliation includes swearing and cursing.

7. Therefore a civil resister will never insult his opponent, and therefore also not take part in many of the newly coined cries which are contrary to the spirit of ahimsa.

8. A civil resister will not salute the Union Flag, nor will he insult it or officials, English or Indian.

9. In the course of the struggle if anyone insults an official or commits an assault upon him, a civil resister will protect such official or officials from the insult or attack even at the risk of his life.

Gandhi distinguished between his idea of satyagraha and the passive resistance of the west.



© 2004 - 2023 Vampire Rave
All Rights Reserved.
Vampire Rave is a member of 
Page generated in 0.0622 seconds.

I agree to Vampire Rave's Privacy Policy.
I agree to Vampire Rave's Terms of Service.
I agree to Vampire Rave's DMCA Policy.
I agree to Vampire Rave's use of Cookies.