I see they are making the news again.
http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2012/11/10/occupy-wall-street-wins-kudos-for-sandy-relief-efforts/
http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2012/11/10/occupy-wall-street-wins-kudos-for-sandy-relief-efforts/
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
Occupy back in the news
- Thread starter beebobby
- Start date
Gil223
Regular Member
These are the type of people who will "nudge" us toward revolution. The government is just waiting for an opportunity to declare martial law, and will ignore those who facilitate that end. Pax...
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
Oh, I don't know if they're "just waiting"--they'd have to be sure of the martial's willingness so to speak. They won't mind using these people for as much mileage as they can get, though.
Verrrry interestink, indeed!
A group uses the name and techniquers of last year's social kerfuffle to organize and carry out a charitable act and the first comment is how the .gov will use them and their activity to further statist goals of absolute control, and the second comment suggests that the .mil will be wanting some buy-in before it carries out the [controversial] orders of its masters. Not a word in reaction/response to the actual behaviors reported.
Makes me think there must have been a sale on tin foil.
stay safe.
A group uses the name and techniquers of last year's social kerfuffle to organize and carry out a charitable act and the first comment is how the .gov will use them and their activity to further statist goals of absolute control, and the second comment suggests that the .mil will be wanting some buy-in before it carries out the [controversial] orders of its masters. Not a word in reaction/response to the actual behaviors reported.
Makes me think there must have been a sale on tin foil.
stay safe.
OC for ME
Regular Member
In NYC? Really? I have a higher regard for you powers of observation.
Occupy is yesterday's news now that Barry is firmly ensconced as Santa Clause for the next four years.
In NYC? Really? I have a higher regard for you powers of observation.
Occupy is yesterday's news now that Barry is firmly ensconced as Santa [strike]Clause[/strike] Cause for the next four years.
Fixed it for you.
OC for ME
Regular Member
I guess FIFY is not "illegal" after all.
Though.....
(2) RIGHT TO EDIT AND DELETE POSTS: We reserve the right to edit or remove posts for any reason, at any time, at our sole discretion. Check
(16) NO FALSE ATTRIBUTIONS: Editing quoted posts by another member to make it appear as if they said something other than what they intended will NOT be tolerated! Check
(19) COLORED TEXT: The forum software allows you to change the colors of fonts. Sometimes this can make it easy to emphasize a point or to express sarcasm. However, if abused it can also make it very difficult to read posts. We reserve the right to deem a given post with colored text to be to abusive but the general rule is that color is fine for acceptable purposes such as purple for sarcasm or to highlight a given point. Check.....You use too much black text in your posts. I like green http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/showthread.php?106932-New-Rule-19&p=1833728#post1833728 post #8.
(20) DISRUPTIVE POSTERS WILL BE BANNED: We have struggled over how to address posters who do not significantly break any of the forum rules but whose very presence is disruptive to the forum and to the mission of OpenCarry.org. The result of our deliberations is that we reserve the right to ban anyone, at any time if we determine that you fall into this category. We believe strongly that the internet should foster open dialog but we also need to maintain the forum as a valuable resource for new members and the general public. Any action that threatens this mission could lead to disciplinary action, including being banned. :uhoh: "I'm a donkey on the edge."
PM coming your way.
Gil223
Regular Member
"Willingness" is not necessary when ignorance is present. There was an incident where a U.S. Army officer - Major George S. Patton - under orders from General Douglas MacArthur (by direction of President Herbert Hoover) led a cavalry charge against 15,000 American veterans - and their families - who were "petitioning" (by their peaceful physical presence in Washington D.C.) the government for that which they were promised (Google "Bonus Army"). From the enlisted Oath of Enlistment...
The "true faith and allegiance" clause refers to the precedent "Constitution" - that is the "same" mentioned. This is a relationship which many do not fully comprehend. The issue is further clouded by the "obey the orders of" clause, which, in the OoE, does not specify lawful orders. To get to the lawful requirement necessitates reading and comprehending Article 92 of the UCMJ (which is also codified under 10 USC § 892 - Art. 92. Failure to obey order or regulation)...
Most military personnel remember the "fails to obey" and "order or regulation", and the "punishment" clauses because those parts were emphasized during the induction ceremony and in BMT. (As I recall, very little else regarding the UCMJ was addressed during basic training a half-century ago - Article 31 [informally known as "the Catch-All Article" - "we can punish you for damn-near anything"] and Article 92 ["OBEY... or suffer the consequences"] received the most attention.)
Most of our military members are not well-schooled in law, but they do understand, and are easily intimidated by, the threat of being "punished as a court-martial may direct". Does the issuance of any order by the CinC make it lawful? And, does refusal to obey such an edict lawfully carry the penalty of court-martial? I believe that most people won't take the time to sort this out - they will simply ask, "How high?" when ordered to jump. A similar knee-jerk reaction, in that respect, to the unquestioning compliance of most folks with orders from LEOs. There is - in both instances - an implied (or inferred, or both) punishment for failure to do so. Such concerns are not always without basis, and compliance with the demands of "authority" is easier for most people than is confrontation, under the assumption that the punishment - if any - would be significantly less if they were cooperative. Just my thoughts on that.
IMHO, many of the members of the Occupy Movement are what I call "cause and confrontation junkies". These people live for confrontation in support of almost any cause. They thrive on the adrenaline rush, and probably develop withdrawal symptoms when it is not available. These are the personality types that will instigate angry, perhaps violent, responses - and therewith supply impetus needed for - the "justification" for the imposition of martial law.
:shocker: Pax...
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
I guess I don't equate martial law to riot control or evicting peaceable protestors from the Bonus Army camp.
And, I don't know that I agree that men like McArthur would necessarily go along with subjecting entire regions to martial law to suppress a riot in a particular spot in a region. Riot suppression is one thing, martial law is something else. Such a general, even if inclined to move forward with martial law, has to include in his calculations what happens to his career when martial law is lifted. Martial law for a disaster area like Katrina is one thing; martial law for a region without a natural disaster, to quell a bit of rioting is a whole different kettle of fish. After martial law is lifted, he's gonna have some explaining to do.
Sent from a plain ol' desktop PC with a cheap keyboard while enjoying a little whiskey.
Last edited:
Gil223
Regular Member
After martial law is lifted, he's gonna have some explaining to do.
Sent from a plain ol' desktop PC with a cheap keyboard while enjoying a little whiskey.
Unfortunately, when martial law is imposed, it does not come with an expiration date - it can be maintained indefinitely.
Pax...Citizen
Founder's Club Member
Unfortunately, when martial law is imposed, it does not come with an expiration date - it can be maintained indefinitely.
I kinda thought that's what you might be talking about. I don't think we're there yet--a point where enough of the military thinks things are so far south that they will establish martial law without the expectation of having to answer for excesses when it is lifted.
Another angle on this is that if such martial law is established, we're back to the period between the Roman republic and imperial Rome. That is to say, the military itself will be the most powerful simply because they have the guns. At which point, there will be no reason for the military to remain subordinate to the civil power. Kinda like early the movie Cleopatra where Julius Caesar, (Rex Harrison), tells a general to forward to Marc Antony (Richard Burton) the instruction that he is to not disband his legions when he returns to Rome. "They make the law legal." And, not unlike the real Marc Antony and Octavian, "to hell with the senate. We've got the troops, we'll do almost anything what we want."
If things get so far out of hand that the military no longer has to worry about being held answerable when martial law is lifted, then neither will the military have to remain under the civil power.
I think we've got a little ways to go before we get there. Not time-wise necessarily, but desperation-wise.