Are We Allowed to Talk About Martial Law?

[Canadian_watcher]

disclosure: I'm not a member of the police or military. I have not studied the Oath Keepers but I have heard some of their leadership speak. Not live and in person, no, but I do like to hear out all sides of issues that interest me and that is what I'm basing this on. I also watch the news of America and see the extremely heightened police actions there and know of recent changes to the Military Defense Authorization Act.

I'd say they were. I mean, I wouldn't obey anyone's orders to blockade people into concentration camps either.

But I like to think that my all-around non-servility and the cleanliness of my record wrt crimes against humanity speaks for itself in that regard well enough to render formal declarations unnecessary, leaving me with that much more energy to devote to objecting to it when it occurs.

Oh, I didn't know you are a member of the police or military. My bad. In other words - neither would I, but since I'm not a police/military active duty officer I don't think it matters in the same way that it matters for them.

IOW: Refusing to do something in advance of being told to when there's no very great likelihood of receiving the order is, effectively, a complaint. Or at least a statement of strong dissatisfaction.

Well, you and they appear to gauge the 'likelihood of [their] receiving the order' differently. And again, I didn't know that you were steeped in the milieu that the military/police officers and enlisted men are steeped in. IE I didn't realize that you were in the front row of this and I really hope that you are, otherwise any assessment you make of their likelihood of receiving illegal orders is .... in a word.. bullshit.

Second - where's the hysteria they are supposedly ginning up? At their rallies? Have you been to them? I haven't, so maybe.

No. I haven't. But they're repeatedly evoking the specter of such extreme abuses of power by the present-day U.S. government in that declaration that they have to go all the way back to the Boer fucking War to come up with examples that illustrate what they're talking about. Which (to me) suggests that they're intentionally trying to instill more fear and alarm over the prospect of them than they can produce any contemporary justification for doing.

Well, it's very unlikely that we're going to go back to pioneer times, too, but the Boyscouts are escaping your ire. I just don't see the big deal about this that you see. A bunch of men learning history and pledging to obey the law. I mean come on. You seem to be suggesting that them talking about abuses of power might set them flying off the edge, and one or more of them might get violent or something. It, IMO, has no better likelihood of happening in that group than anywhere else, including the PTAs of the world.

Third - you're VERY difficult to follow most of the time, and this is no exception. It's me, it isn't you

Are you kidding? Just look at what I wrote in the last part of my reply. It's me.

That being said, it appears in the last part of the above that you are suggesting that they might be fantasizing and loosely planning to stage a coup?

Indeed. But fwiw, yes. That is what I'm suggesting. But so are they:

Further, we will know that the time for another American Revolution is nigh.

Or I'd say so, at least.

I think the phrase "we will know" means that they don't think the time for another American Revolution is nigh. So you can relax. I mean fuck, it's no different, is it, than Obama loosely planning and threatening to bomb the shit out of <Libya, Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Iran, etc etc> except that those people are over there and you're over here. If the Oath Keepers wanted to knee jerk react (as if they could do anything, really ,except keep their vows) they already have the cause - illegal orders. Illegal wars must contain illegal orders, I would imagine.

I agree that it's not going to happen, like, tomorrow. But all armed coups by disaffected ex-military-staffed militias have to start somewhere. I mean, if the Beer Hall Putsch part of the movement-building goes well enough, it might not even end up having to be armed. You never know.

Interesting comparison.
The SA (Brownshirts) used at the Putsch were paramilitary and remind me a lot more of The Craft or Blackwater than of the Oath Keepers. The actual military man Hitler had hoped would join him did not do so on that night.

And I think you're on target with this in a way you might not have intended to be: IMHO (and this is pure speculation at the moment) - there is a coup being led, and my strong suspicion is that it is being carried out in large part by these paramilitary orgs (who likely don't know that they are being used this way) but one thing is certain, they don't give a shit whether or not the orders they are being given are legal or not.

[norton ash]

What the world needs now is more lobbying and support for reactionary, gun-loving, pissed-off government-hating Xtian cracker 'patriots', of course. Grandpa, tell me 'bout the good old days.

[Canadian_watcher]

What the world needs now is more lobbying and support for reactionary, gun-loving, pissed-off government-hating Xtian cracker 'patriots', of course. Grandpa, tell me 'bout the good old days.

It's so funny that you suddenly returned after all this time away. How long has it been, Norton? What brings you back?

[norton ash]

I've been around, I read RI regularly. Little to say in most threads, I defer to those who know better or care more.

[Canadian_watcher]

I've been around, I read RI regularly. Little to say in most threads, I defer to those who know better or care more.

oh, sorry I hadn't seen you. anyway I guess I can infer from your response that you care enough about this topic to make a comment.

[justdrew]

What the world needs now is more lobbying and support for reactionary, gun-loving, pissed-off government-hating Xtian cracker 'patriots', of course. Grandpa, tell me 'bout the good old days.

It's so funny that you suddenly returned after all this time away. How long has it been, Norton? What brings you back?

who are you to question his posting habits? You're always coming off so paranoid and persecuted. What's FUNNY about it?

[Canadian_watcher]

there's a discussion about Martial Law going on between a few interested posters if anyone would like to join in.

[justdrew]

Not really interested in discussing right wing fantasies that have already cost so many lives. Every man, woman and child that died at Oklahoma City died because of this central organizing fantasy.

[compared2what?]

disclosure: I'm not a member of the police or military. I have not studied the Oath Keepers but I have heard some of their leadership speak. Not live and in person, no, but I do like to hear out all sides of issues that interest me and that is what I'm basing this on. I also watch the news of America and see the extremely heightened police actions there and know of recent changes to the Military Defense Authorization Act.

The National Defense Authorization Act passed with those provisions intact because Republicans in the Senate got sixteen Democrats to join them in defeating Udall's proposed amendment to strip them out. Obama issued a signing statement saying he didn't interpret it to mean he could unlawfully detain US Citizens instead of vetoing it, as I would have preferred him to do. But it's a massive appropriations act, without which nobody would get paid, including military members of the Oath Keepers. So I can see why he didn't want to get in a stare-down abut it with a party that's proven itself willing to hold its breath until its face turns blue when it doesn't get its way.

So now all the beyond-right-left media precincts on the right are blaming him for it. Which is how trolls always win in the end, as I was saying on the other thread.

There was one recent extremely heightened police action. But at this point, it's not even a fad, let alone a trend.

And anyway, both the Oath Keepers and the Oaths predate all of that stuff by several years.

I'd say they were. I mean, I wouldn't obey anyone's orders to blockade people into concentration camps either.

But I like to think that my all-around non-servility and the cleanliness of my record wrt crimes against humanity speaks for itself in that regard well enough to render formal declarations unnecessary, leaving me with that much more energy to devote to objecting to it when it occurs.

Oh, I didn't know you are a member of the police or military. My bad. In other words - neither would I, but since I'm not a police/military active duty officer I don't think it matters in the same way that it matters for them.

There's a better argument the other way. They already swore to uphold the constitution when they entered service. That's the oath they're keeping. Whereas I just pledged allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the etc. for which it stands, back in elementary school. So insane. Does any other country require that of its schoolchildren? I've been meaning to ask.

IOW: Refusing to do something in advance of being told to when there's no very great likelihood of receiving the order is, effectively, a complaint. Or at least a statement of strong dissatisfaction.

Well, you and they appear to gauge the 'likelihood of [their] receiving the order' differently. And again, I didn't know that you were steeped in the milieu that the military/police officers and enlisted men are steeped in. IE I didn't realize that you were in the front row of this and I really hope that you are, otherwise any assessment you make of their likelihood of receiving illegal orders is .... in a word.. bullshit.

They already swore to uphold the constitution. So they're just swearing not to obey the orders of superiors, all of whom have also so sworn. They're implying that those superiors are going to give them unconstitutional orders, about the imminence of which they are, of course, free to think what they think.

But if they have a front-row-seat reason to think it's imminent, I'd say they have an urgent public obligation to stop yammering about the Boer War and share it, pronto, so that people can do something about it besides wait for trained, armed militias that aren't answerable to anyone to enforce the law as they see fit, martially.

Which is the option they seem to me to be declaring a preference for. If they were objecting to any of the real, presently ongoing, longstanding and common abuses of power committed by the police and military -- such as rape, torture and murder -- I'd be with them. But since they're evidently under the impression that those aren't very pressing issues compared to the highly non-specific oppressive crimes being visited on white Christians and upholders of family values in the back of some figurative bus somewhere, moot point.

Second - where's the hysteria they are supposedly ginning up? At their rallies? Have you been to them? I haven't, so maybe.

No. I haven't. But they're repeatedly evoking the specter of such extreme abuses of power by the present-day U.S. government in that declaration that they have to go all the way back to the Boer fucking War to come up with examples that illustrate what they're talking about. Which (to me) suggests that they're intentionally trying to instill more fear and alarm over the prospect of them than they can produce any contemporary justification for doing.

Well, it's very unlikely that we're going to go back to pioneer times, too, but the Boyscouts are escaping your ire. I just don't see the big deal about this that you see. A bunch of men learning history and pledging to obey the law. I mean come on. You seem to be suggesting that them talking about abuses of power might set them flying off the edge, and one or more of them might get violent or something. It, IMO, has no better likelihood of happening in that group than anywhere else, including the PTAs of the world.

I have some problems with the Boy Scouts, actually.

I think the phrase "we will know" means that they don't think the time for another American Revolution is nigh. So you can relax. I mean fuck, it's no different, is it, than Obama loosely planning and threatening to bomb the shit out of <Libya, Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Iran, etc etc> except that those people are over there and you're over here. If the Oath Keepers wanted to knee jerk react (as if they could do anything, really ,except keep their vows) they already have the cause - illegal orders. Illegal wars must contain illegal orders, I would imagine.

Yes. But as I just said, they're not objecting to any of those, They're objecting to the prospect of future events that might resemble the Boer War. Also, Obama hasn't loosely planned or threatened to bomb the shit out of Egypt, Syria or Iran. And he got out of Iraq. Which leaves Libya, etc. etc., I admit. But he didn't loosely plan or threaten there, either. He just did it.

I agree that it's not going to happen, like, tomorrow. But all armed coups by disaffected ex-military-staffed militias have to start somewhere. I mean, if the Beer Hall Putsch part of the movement-building goes well enough, it might not even end up having to be armed. You never know.

Interesting comparison.
The SA (Brownshirts) used at the Putsch were paramilitary and remind me a lot more of The Craft or Blackwater than of the Oath Keepers. The actual military man Hitler had hoped would join him did not do so on that night.

And I think you're on target with this in a way you might not have intended to be: IMHO (and this is pure speculation at the moment) - there is a coup being led, and my strong suspicion is that it is being carried out in large part by these paramilitary orgs (who likely don't know that they are being used this way) but one thing is certain, they don't give a shit whether or not the orders they are being given are legal or not.

I don't disagree that they're a menace. But I don't see the architecture for a coup being laid down there, wrt political and economic self-sufficiency. If there was a coup that instituted martial law, they'd contract with the leaders of that. And if there wasn't, they'd contract with whoever was handing 'em out. So the thing to do is still to oppose martial law by opposing whoever appears to be in favor of instituting it, as I see it.

The Brownshirts were a paramilitary organization made up of WWI vets. They didn't go to work for Krup, or agitate to do so, or act as a private commercial enterprise. They wanted political power outside of the auspices of the regular army. That reminds me more of the Oath Keepers than it does Blackwater.

But I think we just disagree on how to read the Oath Keepers. Which is fine.

[Canadian_watcher]

Not really interested in discussing right wing fantasies that have already cost so many lives. Every man, woman and child that died at Oklahoma City died because of this central organizing fantasy.

you are talking about CIA an FBI involvement here, maybe? because even in the Wiki for this case it does not allege that McVeigh and Nichols were members of a militia - it says they were 'militia sympathizers.' I wonder what qualifies someone as being a sympathizer, anyway?

Like. I guess I'm a doula 'sympathizer' for example, so if I were ever to go batshit crazy and hurt anyone I suppose we might be able to impugn doula organizations.

[ShinShinKid]

What's a "doula"?

[justdrew]

sounds like a midwife

anyway, if they were actively spreading mis-information that incites your violence, then yes.

[compared2what?]

there's a discussion about Martial Law going on between a few interested posters if anyone would like to join in.

I second and support that approach.

[Canadian_watcher]

There was one recent extremely heightened police action. But at this point, it's not even a fad, let alone a trend.

you should look into this a bit more. How is it that I know about a handful of recent ones and you don't know about any? I'm not being faceitious, I'm just asking you to ask yourself that question, because the answer might be that you keep getting your 'what's important and how to interpret it' stories from the same places every single day, and they might not bother to let you know about that stuff.

In fact that would be a fantastic YouTube channel comedy schtick: "Welcome to What's Important Today with our Special Segment on How to Interpret it for maximum Peaceful Sleep."

But if they have a front-row-seat reason to think it's imminent, I'd say they have an urgent public obligation to stop yammering about the Boer War and share it, pronto, so that people can do something about it besides wait for trained, armed militias that aren't answerable to anyone to enforce the law as they see fit, martially.

If they were to do so I can GUARANTEE that no one on this board (minus a few exceptions, not you though) would even consider that they might be right for one second. Not one cold second - it'd immediately be about how it's a right wing plot to destroy Obama.

Which is the option they seem to me to be declaring a preference for. If they were objecting to any of the real, presently ongoing, longstanding and common abuses of power committed by the police and military -- such as rape, torture and murder -- I'd be with them.

I'm going to look into this if I have time and see what their stand is on other issues such as these that you have mentioned. I want to stress that Oath Keepers and Martial Law have about as much to do with each other as Neighbourhood Watch and rings of drug dealers, so I would really rather not keep up an endless debate about it. You don't like them, you consider them to be dangerous.. I guess I'd ask whether or not you think their organization should be declared as such by the government.. do you?

Yes. But as I just said, they're not objecting to any of those, They're objecting to the prospect of future events that might resemble the Boer War. Also, Obama hasn't loosely planned or threatened to bomb the shit out of Egypt, Syria or Iran. And he got out of Iraq. Which leaves Libya, etc. etc., I admit. But he didn't loosely plan or threaten there, either. He just did it.

A. Boer War - learned about it in grade 6. will have to look back at it as you are clearly getting at something here but unless it's just to mention repeatedly a war which I'd be shocked if 99% of Americans had ever heard of in order to try and demonstrate that the Oathkeepers are obsessed with ancient history, then I don't get it.
B. Whatever - your president is bombing the shit out of countries and killing innocent people by proxy. So was my leader. Big difference between how you operate and how I operate: I wouldn't stoop to glib semantics to defend mine. I don't defend mine whatsoever because he's a world class douche in ever sense of the word, but that's another story.

I don't disagree that they're a menace. But I don't see the architecture for a coup being laid down there, wrt political and economic self-sufficiency. If there was a coup that instituted martial law, they'd contract with the leaders of that.

I'm not saying they're going to institute martial law, I'm saying that they might just be moving towards taking over the government in a manner that is covert, a la Gladio, but endgame type scenario. the money is there, the will to power is there, the dupes are there, the people are divided, they have weapons, they have infrastructure, they might very well have double agents and if someone wanted it badly enough I don't see what would stop them (except maybe if the real military and police refused to carry out illegal orders)

But I think we just disagree on how to read the Oath Keepers. Which is fine.

yessiree. thanks for the debate though, seriously. I love this kind of back and forth.

edit: I wouldn't stoop to glib semantics to defend mine. originally this said that I *would* stoop.. lol. corrected.
and fixed formatting

[Canadian_watcher]

sounds like a midwife

anyway, if they were actively spreading mis-information that incites your violence, then yes.

that sounds like a stretch tho - and it's really a convenient one, too - for the government, I mean. If some ordinary citizen were to assassinate a world leader today I don't think the news would stop broadcasting, do you? But I'll bet that the assassination was 'incited' by the policies of the leader which were broadcast to that individual via the regular news. So.. motive for violent acts isn't cut and dried the way you are kind of claiming it is.