"Martial Law" sounds so conspiracy theory-ish that many dismiss the whole concept out-right after hearing the term. Let's establish an objective definition for the term 'martial law.' According to Webster's Third New International Dictionary, 'martial law' is:
The Duke of Wellington's definition is more concise: "Martial law," he told the English Parliament, "is neither more nor less than the will of the General who commands the army. In fact, martial law means no law at all."
It doesn't matter what you call it, it's still the same Y2K (naive) optimists and virtually every PR assurance routinely claim the following:
There's not going to be major power outages. There will be no food shortages. Telecommunications will work just fine. Everything that matters in the U.S. will be repaired. "We're well on our way".
HMMM...If that were undoubtedly correct, then why are extensive extensive military plans being made to deal with widespread civil disorder and infrastructure failures? Gee, if the consensus among optimists that everything will be A-OK in the United States is true then there would be no need for the DoD to do this would there?
The following is from the Department of Defense's new website and gives clear, undeniable evidence that such plans are underway:
Background DoD is preparing to respond to requests for assistance from civil authorities both domestically and overseas during the Y2K transition period. DoD recognizes:
Planning Guidance All requests by civil authorities for military assistance shall be evaluated by DoD approval authorities against their impact on DoD's ability to perform its primary national security missions.
Exceptions:
- Within the U.S.: Commanders may take immediate, unilateral emergency response actions that involve measures to save lives, prevent human suffering, or mitigate great property damage only when time does not permit approval by higher headquarters.
- Overseas: Immediate response may be undertaken when time is of the essence and humanitarian considerations require action.
Mission Priorities: DoD's first Y2K mission priority is to maintain the capability to carry out its essential national security functions.
Military
units and organizations will respond to Y2K request for assistance during
Y2K transition period (1 September 1999 through 31 March 2000) in accordance
with following priorities: Priority
1: Priority
2:
b)
Conduct of ongoing or imminent military operations
c)
Conduct of ongoing or imminent intelligence operations
d)
Conduct of nuclear command and control
e)
Maintenance of infrastructure necessary to above
Priority
3:
Priority
4: Maintenance of the economy and the
nation's quality of life, such as support to local mass transit systems.
It is the last two "priorities" that can only be accomplished under military rule over private enterprise by comandeering means of production and delivery.
"Never believe in anything until it has been officially denied" Otto von Bismarck, 1815-1898This passage is laced with emotional rhetoric and many of the 25 Rules of Disinformation as shown below."Nobody believes a rumor here until it's officially denied" Edward Cheyfitz, Washington D.C
"The public has voiced its concern to the Committee regarding the role that the federal government will play in responding to Y2K-related emergencies. Numerous misguided rumors and outright falsehoods are being circulated in some quarters on the Internet about the possibility that "martial law" will somehow be declared by the federal government in response to Y2K emergencies. These rumors and falsehoods will serve only to incite unwarranted public panic and to needlessly heighten public fear and misunderstanding about the Y2K problem. Such irresponsible and reckless speculation has no basis in fact, and it disregards the long history of our nation’s commitment to democracy and our own constitutional system of government, which is grounded in the rule of law."
2. Become incredulous and indignant. Avoid discussing key issues and instead focus on side issues which can be used show the topic as being critical of some otherwise sacrosanct group or theme. This is also known as the "How dare you!" gambit.
[The rhetoric of How dare you bring up such silly nonsense of "martial law!"]
3. Create rumour mongers. Avoid discussing issues by describing all charges, regardless of venue or evidence, as mere rumors and wild accusations. Other derogatory terms mutually exclusive of truth may work as well. This method which works especially well with a silent press, because the only way the public can learn of the facts are through such "arguable rumours". If you can associate the material with the Internet, use this fact to certify it a "wild rumour" which can have no basis in fact.
[They do associate rumors with "some corners of the internet."]
4. Use a straw man. Find or create a seeming element of your opponent's argument which you can easily knock down to make yourself look good and the opponent to look bad. Either make up an issue you may safely imply exists based on your interpretation of the opponent/opponent arguments/situation, or select the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Amplify their significance and destroy them in a way which appears to debunk all the charges, real and fabricated alike, while actually avoiding discussion of the real issues.
[Here is the most prevailent tactic. The Senate's paragraph is using a technicallity to use as a deflector of the real issue: that the military will be used for y2k.
"...about the possibility that "martial law" will somehow be declared by the federal government in response to Y2K emergencies."
The technicallity is the fact that "the Federal Government" will not do the actual "declaring" of a state of emergency. It is state governors and generals who do so after the President has declared a "state of emergency." The senate passage is merely playing on emotions to give the impression that will be no state of emergency at all.
"...Such irresponsible and reckless speculation has no basis in fact."
Again, in this case, "fact" is the technicallity of the above mention (who does the declaring) So it is technically true that the "federal government" will not "declare martial law," but thrown in is more emotional rhetoric to make those who bring up the subject of y2k & martial law (presumably sites like this) as "reckless and irresponsible"
"...These rumors and falsehoods will serve only to incite unwarranted public panic." My only response to this is: If there is absolutly no basis for martial law which the above passage seems to be implying, and none of it is at all true, then there is no basis for "fear and worry" would there? If I told some one a meteorite was going to slam into the earth tommorow, would he really believe it without evidence? Of course not. With Y2K, we DO have evidence that the military IS preparing for "martial law" (again, call it what you want) which is also evidence that officials know more than they lead us to believe, which is evidence that y2k WILL be a total disaster worth calling up the military for.
] Here is the technically as explained in the Senate report:
Beginning in July 1998, the Committee staff began discussions with FEMA to determine what authority the federal government would have to act in case of serious Y2K disruptions, and how FEMA specifically plans to respond in the event that such disruptions do occur. In his testimony, Mr. Suiter emphasized that FEMA programs represent a "bottoms up" approach in which federal response comes "by invitation only," upon a specific request from the governor of an individual state, in response to specific and identifiable emergencies and disasters. This response is requested by and coordinated through the governor, and never independently by the federal government. This fact is in stark contrast to some of the reckless assertions appearing on the Internet, claiming that Y2K events would serve as an "excuse" for a massive marshaling of federal forces or the suspension of civil legal authority to deal with possible disruptions.Home Page: Future, Doomsday, Year2000Sufficient legal authority currently exists under the Stafford Act to allow federal resources to be utilized in response to a Y2K-related disruption if, upon application from a state’s governor, an "emergency declaration" is made by the President of the United States. While FEMA has no authority to respond to the causes of Y2K disruptions or to provide technical assistance for "Y2K fixes," it can respond to the physical consequences of Y2K disruptions if they constitute a threat to lives, property, public health and safety pursuant to the President’s "emergency declaration."
