Technocrat

martial law

Thomas Lord
Tue Oct 07 12:04:00 -0700 2008
Freedom.
manage

I am sad but unsurprised to report that at least one of two things is certainly true:

Pick either or both:
A) We teeter on the edge of a planned fascist coup in the United States.
B) Representative Brad Sherman of California's 27th congressional district is a bald-faced liar.

I give you a transcript of the Honorable Mr. Sherman's statement before congress.

The only way they can pass this bill is by creating and sustaining a panic atmosphere. That atmosphere is not justified.

Many of us were told in private conversations that if we voted against this bill on Monday that the sky would fall, that the market would drop two or three thousand points the first day, another couple thousand points the second day. And a few members were even told that there would be martial law in America if we voted no.

[emphasis added]

I do not doubt the Honorable Mr. Sherman's account though others may.

If we stipulate that it is true then it reports on a readiness and willingness to suspend the constitution on the slightest of excuses, and of that preparedness being wielded as a weapon of blackmail. The fascist totalitarians are feeling their oats.

-t

martial law
Verteiron
Tue Oct 07 13:20:00 -0700 2008
 manage

You forgot:

C) Empty threats and scare tactics were employed against a few members of the House.

Which is by far the most likely of the three scenarios. I imagine that the conversation went something like this:

"If you don't pass the bail-out, we'll end up more banks failing, runs on every bank, the entire financial system will collapse, people will panic, there will be riots, utter chaos and martial law will have to be implemented to keep the peace. You don't want THAT, do you?"

I doubt even the vilest of the pro-bailout folks would say, flat-out, "If you don't pass this then we will implement martial law."

martial law
Thomas Lord
Tue Oct 07 13:26:18 -0700 2008
 manage

So, for example, if just prior to making that threat the executive deployed troops within the U.S. for purposes such as crowd suppression and the arrest of "unruly" people.... that would pretty much eliminate your "empty threat" argument, right?

So, with a hat tip to JWZ I give you Naomi Wolf

Her take is harsher than mine. I say "we teeter on the brink of..." and she says "It happened last Wednesday." I'm not sure she's wrong given my familiarity with political prisoners being unlawfully detained and tortured in the US.

-t

martial law
rubycodez
Wed Oct 08 09:15:58 -0700 2008
 manage

we've had such plans for decades though.  of course they'd be updated in last 8 years.

 

let's see if something happens before jan. 20

martial law
Thomas Lord
Wed Oct 08 10:04:06 -0700 2008
 manage

I would guess it will be after Jan. 20.

I think McCain is actually trying to lose.

I think The Beast resides in the intel community (both civilian and military) as well as among the top of the financial elite. It will be convenient for them to appear not to occupy the executive when TSHTF. It will be better to have a near powerless populist in there to make the pill easier for hoi poloi to swallow.

-t

martial law
President4242
Tue Oct 07 13:35:52 -0700 2008
 manage

And are you still for the idea of a bailout that required such behind-the-scenes armtwisting to pass?

This to me just goes to discredit the whole concept of saving the big banks- whose lobbyists are obviously behind this.

martial law
Thomas Lord
Tue Oct 07 13:45:36 -0700 2008
 manage

On this blog I opposed the Paulson plan and said that I could not evaluate the senate plan because (this was before it was published) I hadn't seen it. Now that it's published and obscenely bloated I assume it has a lot of crap or outright bad new elements plus some that are good. It's only half-time. Congress has plenty of time here to work on it before it actually does much of anything -- so there's hope. And, yes, I don't think there's any need to gratuitously trash the financial system and some form of taxpayer intervention is a good idea.

-t

martial law
President4242
Tue Oct 07 14:06:40 -0700 2008
 manage

I'm not so sure trashing the financial system is "gratuitous"- to me it seems very well deserved.  They earned a lot of money to trash the system.  Maybe next time, if the pain is bad enough, stockholders will stop paying large bonuses to people who are obviously there for profit and could care less whether the company goes bankrupt or not.

But if we minimize the problem, minimize the panic, minimize the pain, all that is going to happen is a continuation of "profit is king" over both progress and populism.

And there are a lot of people willing to trash our civil rights to save the banks- to save the status quo.  Martial law is just the symptom.

martial law
Eric Howe
Tue Oct 07 16:23:02 -0700 2008
 manage

I don't know if the banks and their lobbyists were the big players behind this. Foreign powers, Saudi Arabia and China for example, have significant amounts of money tied up in the US markets and they could probably cripple the US (and tank the USD) faster than some piddling Wall Street bank could.

You have to do what you're told when you're deep in debt.

I think the super-wealthy see money as an expression of power and dick size more than anything else.

I find it a little frightening that anyone finds a declaration of martial law a plausible enough scenario to warrant serious discussion. That we consider martial law a possible response speaks volumes about how far we've strayed from sanity.

martial law
archanoid
Tue Oct 07 14:00:26 -0700 2008
 manage

I blogged about this on my personal site the other day.  I am not much of one to give credence to conspiracy theories.  I think Naomi Wolf is over-stating how bad it currently is.  But I must admit it does freak me out a bit.

I have decided November 5th should be an interesting day.  Potentially, January 19th, 2009 may be even more so. 

I am starting to wonder if the troop recall from Iraq to US soil to help deal with crowd suppression and "unruly" people (wtf?!) isn't plan B if McCain doesn't win.  I was discussing with my wife last night about how far-fetched this all is but here's the scenario we envisioned: (again, I say this is far-fetched and nothing more than hypothetical conspiracy nut-job territory...but it does give me pause)

Nov 4: Obama wins

Between Nov. 4 and Jan 19, 2009 a false flag operation is put into action and Obama is assassinated triggering more fears, race wars, possible rioting...more troops are brought back from Iraq and deployed inside the US to track down the terrorists who did it, etc.

Before Jan 19, things get so F-ed up, martial law is declared, Bush stays in power.

Like I said, crazy talk.  Scary crazy talk.

Naomi is Correct

Thomas Lord
Tue Oct 07 14:08:07 -0700 2008
 manage

As I think about it, Naomi Wolf is correct. A coup has taken place. The utterance of the threat of martial law should the stock market plunge sufficiently used as leverage to influence legislation is, by definition, regardless of whether or not that threat is empty, treason. That the threat appears to not be empty makes that treason a form of armed insurrection. I agree with her that the president ought to be arrested.

-t

Umm...

Uncle Entity
Tue Oct 07 14:06:15 -0700 2008
 manage

The 'martial law' they were talking about is a means to rush a bill through the House without having to go through all the hoops a normal bill does.

It is not martial law in the traditional sense where constitutional rights are suspended.

This came up a week ago and a bunch of people jumped all over it as the beginning of "a planned fascist coup in the United States" without actually looking into it.

Nothing to see here, please move along...

Umm...
Thomas Lord
Tue Oct 07 14:09:25 -0700 2008
 manage

Your account would have the Honorable Gentleman from California be a bald-faced liar. Is that what you are saying?

-t

Umm...
Uncle Entity
Tue Oct 07 14:19:33 -0700 2008
 manage

"Congressional martial law, that is.
The House leadership is using a parliamentary gambit to evade a longstanding House rule that is supposed to ensure that this kind of obfuscation does not occur. That House rule (Rule XIII(6)(a)) provides that a resolution (called a rule) reported by the Rules Committee cannot be considered by the House on the same legislative day that the rule is reported (except by a two-thirds vote of the House). This is supposed to ensure that Members of the House and the public have at least one day to examine and analyze what is in legislation before they have to debate and vote on it.
This extraordinary procedure is known as a “martial law” rule because it suspends the normal procedures and safeguards and allows the House Leadership to operate in a more authoritarian fashion."

Source.

Umm...
President4242
Tue Oct 07 14:23:06 -0700 2008
 manage

How does this compare to the claim that there would be "martial law in America " if the bill did not pass?

Umm...
Thomas Lord
Tue Oct 07 14:49:38 -0700 2008
 manage

You are confusing two statements and underestimating the imporance of both.

One is from Burgess and refers to the "parliamentary gambit" in the house. The other is from Sherman and refers to soldiers on the street.

Now, ISN'T IT JUST THE MOST AMAZING COINCIDENCE that exactly at the moment in history where we have one congressman warning about a fascist coup and martial law take-over that at just that very moment we have another congressman muddying the waters with a supposed "technical term" about "martial law in the house of representatives"? I mean, what are the odds?

Do me a favor, please. Please give some cites that show a use of the term "martial law" in reference to this House rule prior to this event.

-t

Umm...
Uncle Entity
Tue Oct 07 15:20:39 -0700 2008
 manage

I'm just saying that is the mostly likely culprit behind this martial law hullabaloo.

  • Pol A on house floor talking about (congressional) martial law.
  • Internet firestorm about US troops returning home to back up 'martial law' as a direct result of this.
  • Pol B hears about 'martial law' third or fourth hand and makes an unsupported claim they are threatening martial law if this bill doesn't pass.

AFAICT this is the correct time line which started on the 27th and ended with this yahoo on the 3rd.

But for all I know Dubya tries to declare martial law every day at 3 pm right before tea.

Oh, and for supporting 'documentation' on political accuracy in important decisions all I have to say is WMDs...

Umm...
Thomas Lord
Tue Oct 07 16:12:23 -0700 2008
 manage

Yes, you have the implausible cover story right.

-t

Umm...
Thomas Lord
Tue Oct 07 14:53:02 -0700 2008
 manage

Oh, and, of course: congressional "leadership" strong-arming the passage of un-read law is not exactly an indication that there isn't a coup. So even if the "congressional martial law" was all we are talking about there is still a coup going on.

-t

martial law
mbourgon
Wed Oct 08 08:57:27 -0700 2008
 manage

I thought this was a comment on the "martial law" that the House had put into play to make sure people voted for the bill, not "martial law" in the sense that we think of it. 

http://www.cbpp.org/7-28-06bud-stmt.htm

"The Leadership apparently intends to use a process known as “martial law” to allow these bills to be brought to the floor very shortly after negotiations are completed, with the result that Members of the House are likely to have virtually no time to examine and consider the details of the legislation before they will be required to vote on it."

martial law
Thomas Lord
Wed Oct 08 10:10:24 -0700 2008
 manage

That's the "funny" thing about this. You've been fooled.

There were two separate comments on the house floor, close in time to one another, both talking about the threat of "martial law". One of those comments referred to parliamentary rules in the house (very problematic rules -- a demand for votes on an un-read bill). That is the one you refer to. The other comment, from Sherman, was about military boots on the ground and suspension of the Constitution.

Isn't it an amazing coincidence that these two statements appeared at roughly the same time? It's almost as if someone wanted to create confusion about Sherman's statement (or similar statements that were anticipated).

And isn't it implausible in this sense: please find me evidence that the phrase "martial law" was commonly used to describe this aspect of parliamentary procedure prior to the current situation. I've yet to see any. It's not a term in the House Rules. It's not a term you've seen for years in the Washington Post.

The confusion you exhibit about what was said on the house floor looks to me like it was deliberately created.

-t

 

Do you have questions about the site? Write to bruce at perens.com . List of all articles we've ever published. Source Code Developer's Documentation RSS XML Sitemap XML News Sitemap Valid XHTML 1.0 Strict Valid CSS! [Valid RSS]