Y2K And Martial Law:
Y2K AND MARTIAL LAW
"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 law based on necessity or policy that is applied to all persons and property in occupied territory during invasion or occupation and is executed by the military authority of a belligerent acting directly or through civil courts;" or
"... military rule exercised by a nation or state over its citizens or subjects in a situation where they are not legal enemies and when an emergency justifies such action."
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 ¦act, 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 military plans being made to deal with widespread civil disorder and infrastructure failures? Gee, if the consensus that everything will be A-OK in the United States is true then there would be no need for the Department of Defense (DoD) to do this, would there?
I believe infrastructure failures will be so disruptive the military will have to step in and "control" certain sectors of the economy if it is to remain functional. This is in addition to general civil disorder and looting accompanying the Y2K transition period. One or more of the following sectors are affected and may be subject to forced military "maintenance:"
Information and Communications Gas and Oil Transportation and Storage
Banking and Finance Transportation Water Supply Systems
Emergency Services Government Services
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:
that it is possible that localized Y2K system failures may occur in the public and private sectors.
that there is the possibility of widespread, systemic Y2K problems in the public or private sectors (domestically & internationally).
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:
National Security Missions. Units with assignments below require Secretary of Defense (or his designated representative) approval to divert resources that may compromise operational readiness:
a) Direct Support to National Command Authority
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 2:
Support for Standing Operations Plans - especially units in early deployment (first 60 days) status. Diversion of resources in this category require approval by the Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff or his designated representative.
Priority 3:
Maintenance of domestic public health and safety.
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. Just as John Koskinen, chairman of President Clinton's Y2K council said many months ago:
"In a crisis and emergency situation, the free market may not be the best way to distribute resources. ... If there's a point in time where we have to take resources and make a judgment on an emergency basis, we will be prepared to do that." . . . . ]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The recent Senate Y2K Committee Report had a passage dealing with this subject in its Emergency Preparedness section , but first read these two quotes:
"Never believe in anything until it has been officially denied"
- Otto von Bismarck, 1815-1898
"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 nations commitment to democracy and our own constitutional system of government, which is grounded in the rule of law."
This passage is laced with emotional rhetoric and many of what I call the 25 Rules of Disinformation as shown below.
1). 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!"]
2). 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."]
3). 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, and that certain sectors of the economy will have to be under military control. ]
"...about the possibility that "martial law" will somehow be declared by the federal government in response to Y2K emergencies."
The technicality 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 technicality of the above mention (who does the declaring). So it is technically true and a fact 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 absolutely 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 tomorrow, 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 major 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.
Sufficient 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 states 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 Presidents "emergency declaration."
[Watch for the "emergency declaration" in December or January. Then the fun begins.]
Home Page:
Year 2000 Economics
E-mail:
dfisher@angelfire.com
Future, Doomsday, Year 2000
angelfire.com
gold-eagle.com |
