Skip

Is Martial Law On the Way?
August 8, 2005 10:31 PM   Subscribe

War Plans Drafted To Counter Terror Attacks in U.S. Subtitled "Domestic Effort Is Big Shift for Military". See also martial law. (I wonder how this would contrast/compare with FEMA? ) And yes, I know this is "newsfilter", so take me out and shoot me.
posted by davy (36 comments total)

 
Is this the plan where they use any incident as a pretext to mount an attack on Iran, no matter who's really behind it?
posted by RavinDave at 10:39 PM on August 8, 2005


Hasn't the Pentagon had plans in place before for dealing with a large-scale attack on US soil? I'm thinking specifically of anti-aircraft bunkers on the Pacific coast during World War II -- stuff like that. This seems like sort of an extension of that kind of thinking.

One, designated CONPLAN 2002 and consisting of more than 1,000 pages, is said to be a sort of umbrella document that draws together previously issued orders for homeland missions and covers air, sea and land operations.

This seems to indicate that this isn't really anything too new.

What concerns me is the Posse Comitatus stuff at the end of the article. Even if the plans they're discussing are based on pre-existing documents, it's pretty fucking scary to think of these plans in the hands of Generalissimo Bush and the Guantanamo Gang.
posted by hifiparasol at 10:54 PM on August 8, 2005


Well my goodness. You mean the army has a plan for what it's going to do in the event of "release of a deadly biological agent or the explosion of a radiological device"?

I should hope they do - kinda shocking it took this long. I guess all that planning to impose Martial Law uses up the conference rooms and action items, eh?
posted by freebird at 10:55 PM on August 8, 2005


Actually, if you only read Metafilter, you would think martial law had already been imposed.

PS: it's pretty obvious that we will attack Iran. The only question: whether we do it before or after they detonate their first nuclear weapon.
posted by ParisParamus at 10:57 PM on August 8, 2005


PP said: "[I]t's pretty obvious that we will attack Iran. The only question: whether we do it before or after they detonate their first nuclear weapon."

Should we attack Iran and find out later they had nothing like a nuclear weapon, that will of course count as "before".
posted by davy at 11:17 PM on August 8, 2005


Oh, I'm not saying the alleged plans are new; it's that I see that article as some kind of propaganda pretext for further tyranny.
posted by davy at 11:22 PM on August 8, 2005


Oh, and by the way: "[I]f you only read Metafilter, you would think martial law had already been imposed."

Thus ParisParamus shows he's no libertarian.
posted by davy at 11:24 PM on August 8, 2005


Con is the French word for cunt.
posted by kika at 11:57 PM on August 8, 2005


REX-84
posted by caddis at 11:58 PM on August 8, 2005


Is Martial Law On the Way?

You can bet on it.
posted by pruner at 12:13 AM on August 9, 2005


Caddis, do you mean this "REX 84"? (More via Google.)
posted by davy at 12:17 AM on August 9, 2005


yes
posted by caddis at 12:22 AM on August 9, 2005


Martial law isn't profitable enough to bother. Why should those in power tip their hands like that when they are already getting everything they want?

What would happen to the stock market in such an event? Not good at all, right? Do you think this corrupt and profit-obsessed administration truly wants to lose all that money?

Cynical, but somehow comforting to me.
posted by Invoke at 12:47 AM on August 9, 2005


I still think that Iran and North Korea would be insane NOT to develop nuclear weapons.

The Bush administration has made it clear what will happen if you disarm... you will be invaded and occupied on false pretense. As such, there is no longer any incentive, whatsoever, to disarm, and significant motivation to get arms if you don't have them.
posted by mosch at 12:54 AM on August 9, 2005


The Bush administration has made it clear what will happen if you disarm... you will be invaded and occupied on false pretense. As such, there is no longer any incentive, whatsoever, to disarm, and significant motivation to get arms if you don't have them.

Totally agree mosch - America has set a terrible example (perhaps intentional).

By invading Iraq with no proof, only propaganda, they have shown other crackpot dictators that it's not really about keeping the world safe.

If Iran develops a nuclear weapon then it's likely America will not invade. Does anyone honestly believe that America would have invaded Iraq if Saddam did have WMDs. - The American Administration is a cowardly bully, only picking fights it knows it will win.

As for martial law - as much as I have no time for the current administration in America, I highly doubt Martial Law is on the cards. If there was another attach on the scale of the WTC attack then possibly.
posted by twistedonion at 2:31 AM on August 9, 2005


This is a way to keep all the people who have mobilized for the War on Terror on the payroll. Many of those are not in Iraq, but doing training missions at Reserve centers all across the United States. It'll help maintain our preference for the military option, though.
posted by atchafalaya at 3:16 AM on August 9, 2005


It's gonna be hard convincing the world we're not being racist if we invade Iran but not North Korea. I mean, they've pretty much given us the finger since December 2002, and we haven't done shit.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 3:16 AM on August 9, 2005


(Where "given us the finger" == "fully admitted to developing a nuclear arsenal")
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 3:17 AM on August 9, 2005


The American Administration is a cowardly bully, only picking fights it knows it will win.

I think I would be more worried about the converse, no?
posted by Necker at 4:48 AM on August 9, 2005


But the new plans provide for what several senior officers acknowledged is the likelihood that the military will have to take charge in some situations, especially when dealing with mass-casualty attacks that could quickly overwhelm civilian resources.

The GOP has had a hard on for martial law since 1962. Republican sons can't wait to turn their fathers in.
posted by The Jesse Helms at 5:05 AM on August 9, 2005


twistedonion: “they have shown other crackpot dictators that it’s not really about keeping the world safe.
Actually, nobody believed that (outside of the the US) in the first place.
posted by signal at 6:36 AM on August 9, 2005


Um. Could we get a reference documenting REX 84 that's not from Wikipedia? Or- via Davy's Google link- a source that's not a chat room for the discussion of extraterrestrial cover-ups? or how "illuminati bankers have used 'sexual liberation' to subvert society and establish their subtle tyranny'?

Defending civil liberties effectively requires knowing the difference between genuine threats and chat-room phantasms.
posted by foxy_hedgehog at 6:39 AM on August 9, 2005


Ok, I hate myself a little bit right now for what I'm about to say. It almost seems like some of you are so embittered by the administration that you would prefer that the Pentagon have no plan at all for dealing with domestic terrorist actions.

Please tell me I'm overreacting to your posts.
posted by oddman at 6:44 AM on August 9, 2005


Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.

Say, isn't there some white woman missing, somewhere?
posted by mkultra at 6:49 AM on August 9, 2005


Anything in there about "holiday camps" for Muslims?
posted by clevershark at 7:05 AM on August 9, 2005


oddman: It's not so much bitterness for me personally, but a distrust, one that I have been forced to adopt. I originally supported the Iraq war.

Now, there is no tenable explanation of the facts that does not include intentional deception on the part of the Administration, most likely in multiple instances. This was has been a huge scam. Anyone who does not recognize that fact is willfully deceiving themselves.
posted by sonofsamiam at 7:25 AM on August 9, 2005


I'm missing something. Don't get me wrong, I think that the current administration is overreaching with some parts of the PATRIOT Act, and I think the Downing Street memos in conjunction with other evidence makes it clear that the War On Terror is about a lot of things that have nothing to do with Terror. But as far as I can tell from the WaPo artlcle, the Pentagon is talking about being prepared for a variety of things that might happen within American borders.

Isn't it the Pentagon's job to see to the defense of the United States? And in that case isn't this just the sort of contingency plan which should exist? How is a massive wave of terrorist attacks within our borders different from a foriegn army invading? There is a logical leap between "this is what we should do if one of these things happen" and "martial law."

(ok, let the flames begin. on a funny note, did anyone notice in the TV movie "10.5" that at one point they declared "Marshall Law"?)
posted by ilsa at 7:50 AM on August 9, 2005


Could we get a reference documenting REX 84 that's not from Wikipedia?

Sorry, I posted that reference mostly in jest. I wouldn't be surprised if some contingency plans were drawn under this code name, but I seriously doubt that even if so they approached anything like what all these conspiracy theory sites are claiming, but who knows? If we descend into fascism through martial law I doubt it will be the product of decades of planning but rather an opportunistic leader taking advantage of his emergency powers.
posted by caddis at 7:51 AM on August 9, 2005


Ok, I hate myself a little bit right now for what I'm about to say. It almost seems like some of you are so embittered by the administration that you would prefer that the Pentagon have no plan at all for dealing with domestic terrorist actions.

Please tell me I'm overreacting to your posts.


You're not. You're spot on.

Isn't it the Pentagon's job to see to the defense of the United States? And in that case isn't this just the sort of contingency plan which should exist? How is a massive wave of terrorist attacks within our borders different from a foriegn army invading? There is a logical leap between "this is what we should do if one of these things happen" and "martial law."

So's ilsa.
posted by dhoyt at 8:09 AM on August 9, 2005


What I mind is further liberty-smashing, using "domestic attacks" -- and the threat of them -- as pretext. If you wonder why I worry, look to the history of South America of the last 180 years for one example: one "crisis" after another. See also Greece in 1967, Soviet Russia in 1918, Rome in Augustus' early days, and (tah-dah) Germany in 1933.

But of course, that's nothing to worry about if you're sure you'll always be on the "good" side of the tyrant, right? Moscow, 1936-7.
posted by davy at 9:05 AM on August 9, 2005


I guess we'll see about all this come fall of '08, eh?
posted by stenseng at 9:20 AM on August 9, 2005


So, you're still avoiding the question Davy - we get that you distrust the government; most of us do too. Nonetheless: would you actually prefer there be *no* plans in place for a large-scale attack within the United States?

If so, you're crazy; if not, you're being disingenuous. There is real concern about the long term goals of this government; by playing the martial law card when they do their job, you lessen the respect given this concern.
posted by freebird at 9:52 AM on August 9, 2005


If we descend into fascism through martial law I doubt it will be the product of decades of planning but rather an opportunistic leader taking advantage of his emergency powers.

You don't say?

• PATRIOT
PATRIOT II
• Going into Iraq without an Act of Congress
posted by Rothko at 9:56 AM on August 9, 2005


The US Military is NOT meant for nation building. George Bush told me so. He proved he believed that by making no plans for nation building in Iraq (and thus killing a lot of people in the process).

What's being discussed here is nation building -- inside the US. The military can't do that, I've been told that is the case. (Nation building is simply enforcing civil order where it might not exist otherwise, until civil controls are put back in place).

If you think there is a valid military response, inside the US, to a terrorist attack inside US soil, well, you've lost you're rationality hat.

Lending support to civil servants like police is something the military should be available for, but there is no reason that that can't be done with the Guard. Under no circumstances should the reaction to a terrorist strike be a response controlled by the Pentagon.

That's so un-American. I really hope nobody in the military would stand for something like that. It's worrying that anyone thought it was a good idea, getting the Pentagon involved in this. It's simply not their job. Until the foreign tanks are rolling through Texas, there is no Pentagon role.

That's actually the primary problem with much reaction to terrorism: seeing it as a conventional military problem. It ain't. And that's one of the main reasons we will continue to lose the "war on terror" for the foreseeable future.
posted by teece at 10:13 AM on August 9, 2005


PP, weren't you convinced America would've gone into Syria by now?

You're so full of shit it hurts.
posted by bardic at 3:06 PM on August 9, 2005


By the way, this plan to impose Martial Law must have been around a lot longer than you think - by all accounts the Army's help in the SF earthquake of 1906 was pivotal.
posted by freebird at 3:21 PM on August 9, 2005


« Older dog condoms?   |   Negative knowledge (or more... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments



Post