From: Roleigh Martin To: roleigh_for_web@egroups.com

For what's it is worth, I get a lot of questions about this. The below is the official Presidential Y2K Task Force answer. Believe it as you would anything else from the Clinton Administration. I personally believe the Clinton Administration will encroach upon this path only as a last resort and using the least politically damaging measures historically justified -- it is an election year in a few weeks. It's not impossible and there is wiggle room in the below but note the set of steps (options) that exist between point A and point B.

http://www.y2k.gov/text/whatsnew1.html

Y2K Rumors

RUMOR:The President plans to declare a national state of "martial law" for Year 2000 transition.

FALSE. The President has no intention of declaring martial law for the Year 2000 transition. Under so-called "martial law," ordinary law and judicial processes are temporary replaced by military rule, which is usually accompanied by curfews and other restrictions on individual rights (e.g., freedom of speech, freedom of assembly). No President has ever declared a condition of martial law that applied to the entire country. In fact, not since President Lincoln placed several areas of the country under martial law during the Civil War has any President directly proclaimed martial law on behalf of the Federal Government.

Presidents have often issued emergency or disaster declarations for weather-related disasters and civil unrest which have sometimes been accompanied by individual State National Guard units being called into Federal service along with Federal troops to provide support or restore order in communities. It is not expected that the Y2K transition will create a need for such action, but the Federal Government will be prepared to take such action if circumstances warrant.

... [ other rumors listed and answers ] ...

-- Kings Kid (beprepared@y2k.net), December 13, 1999

Answers

Power corrupts; Absoulute power corrupts absoulutely, now what were you saying?

-- Susan Barrett (sue59@bellsouth.net), December 13, 1999.

Obviously double-talk.

President has no plans to declare martial law. No president has ever declared Martial Law. President WILL declare Martial Law if it is needed.

Basically, two paragraphs that say nothing. As you said, this must be treated with the same caution that *anything* Clinton says should be treated. (I.E. it is a lie)

-- Bruce (broeser@ccgnv.net), December 13, 1999.

Combine with the Fact that the Slick Willie has publically stated his lust for power and wanting to stay in the White House. Nixon wasn't even as sleazy as this guy. Just this Morning, Clinton stated he "would love to preside over the True Millennium Celebration in 2001." Whatta P.O.S. our CinC is....

-- Billy Boy (Rakkasan101st@Aol.com), December 13, 1999.

Depends on what your definition of "Martial Law" is. Recall that only a few weeks ago a reorganization took place that would allow what the ACLU has called "Martial Law Lite". It allows them to put troops on the street without actually calling it "Martial Law". Make of it what you will.

-TECH32-

-- TECH32 (TECH32@NOMAIL.COM), December 13, 1999.

PLEASE, Please read te words, folks! Clinton is a lawyer! Remember the definition of "is" being contextual to the sentence? Okay -- and what the administration has said -- what teh Big Cheese has said -- is that he has "no inetnion " of declaring martial law. A personal intention is entirely diffierent from official and administrative preparation. We have seen the entire regulatory relationship of DOD , FEMA and the NG jitterbugged over the last few months -- and if you are inclined to believe that's purely conincidental I have $10 says you're not active in local politics. Clinton's personal intent at any given moment has NOTHING to do with plans that have been drawn up to address an emergency. When Clinton awakes in the morning he has "no intent" to engage in dialogue with G-7 reps -- but he may do it within hours anyway. It's LAWYERSPEAK = say something that sounds like what they're thinking, without actually saying it.

>"<

-- SH (squirrel@huntr.com), December 13, 1999.

The ONLY way it gets to a 10 is if it is a 7.5 or better and we don't get martial law.

Now, regarding "how you define is". I don't think martial law gets declared. I think and emergency is declared and the president orders the military to give aid to civil authorities, when requested by governors or the mayor of D.C.

-- ng (cantprovideemail@none.com), December 13, 1999.

Susan: "Power corrupts; Absoulute power corrupts absoulutely, now what were you saying?"

There's a line in The Postman in which the above is amended to (paraphrase) "People who seek power tend to be corrupt prior to achieving any position of power."

My pessimism with regards to our species allows for the latter, rather than the former, to perhaps be more accurate IMO.

-- Bingo1 (howe9@shentel.net), December 13, 1999.

I kind of liked the approach someone once voiced when they declared, "The only persons who should be allowed any position of power are those who don't want it to begin with." The inference is that they would serve their fellow citizens with an eye to get out of the hot seat and back into their private world as soon as possible...Gee, where would we find anybody like that nowadays?
Sgt. York, where are ye? We need ye, laddy!

-- Jay Urban (Jayho99@aol.com), December 13, 1999.

William J. Olson, a Washington-based attorney wrote, what IMHO, is one of the best analysis papers extant on the Martial Law issue. His homepage is:

William J. Olson's Homepage

There are two links that should be read .... the first is the Martial Law button on the left side of the homepage.

Or Direct Link here"

The other is the CATO Study, which this attorney helped to co-write. This material is an in-depth analysis of the use of Presidential Directives and Executive Orders to usurp the legislative process. Read the overview starting under October 27, 1999 on the Olson's homepage to gain an overview of this material.

Or Direct Link to study here

NOTE: I am not including copies here as they are both LONG and take up a lot of bandwidth.

-- hiding in plain (sight@edge. of no-where), December 13, 1999.

From

http://www.infowars.com/martiallaw.html

The Temple police handed Mike a letter that they had received from the Department of the Army, 47th Ordnance Company (EOD), 52nd Ordnance Group (EOD), Fort Hood, Texas. The letter is dated February 22, 1999, and it is addressed to local agencies. It states,

"This letter is meant to inform you of the assets available to you from this organization. The 47th Ordnance Company (EOD) is organized and equipped to support not only military units, but also any municipal, state, or federal agency. Our area of responsibility includes 77 counties within the state, including the Dallas-Fort Worth metroplex.

"Special Circumstances: In the case of situations when your agency feels that there is an explosive hazard (boobytraps, warrant service, hostage situation, drug lab raids, etc), it is possible for you to request that an EOD team be present for this operation in the interest of preserving public safety. This requires an official request to our higher command (see attached example) from the lead agency present.

"Please do not feel as if we are a last resort asset, we are here to support you 24 hours per day. Share this information with both the personnel in your agency and other agencies. Do not hesitate to contact this unit if you require our assistance, or if you have questions. Do not delay in the case of explosive related incidents, minutes can cost lives. We hope that we can be of service to you in the future."

Although this letter sounds very reasonable and appears to be concerned with protecting public safety, it is important to note the exceptions and conditions it lists. These are actually the open doors leading to a military police state here in America.

Alex Jones has confirmed with a second MP, Sergeant Mark Waxler, at the Fort Hood MP office that the Special Response Team does indeed routinely serve civilian arrest warrants and executes search warrants off base.

On the day after the Temple bus search, Thanksgiving Day 1999, a Military Policeman shot and killed a civilian outside of Fort Bragg, North Carolina during a normal traffic stop. According to hospital sources, the victim, who was a passenger in a car that contained two small children, was shot several times in the back. Although the shooting was carried as a major story in the Fayetteville Observer, these details were not mentioned.

These recent events are the consequences of legislation such as Senate Bill 1059, Sections 1067 and 1084, and US Code Title 50 Chapter 32 Section 1520A. As stated in an October 7, 1999 article on the CNN website about the new US Joint Forces Command for dealing with domestic situations, "Pentagon officials say the idea behind the change is to give a president options short of martial law to deal with domestic crises."

While covering this breaking story on his radio broadcast, Alex Jones said, "Ive been warning people for years not to look for a Hollywood-like proclamation from the Federal Government announcing martial law; look for incrementalism."

-- Interested Spectator (is@aol.com), December 13, 1999.

The CNN article referred to above:

http://cnn.com/US/9910/07/military.civilian/

-- Interested Spectator (is@aol.com), December 13, 1999.

We have been relocated and can now only lurk. The facility that we are in tracks all web traffic so posting is not an option.

BTW the powers that be have only released recently that the power grid is attached to GMT. There is mad-dash-scramble taking place, they were planning on using every available second for remediation, a loss of five hours might not sound like much in the scheme of things, but from a planning and contingency perspective they now have to stage assets during the daylight hours as opposed to the cover of darkness. Has been rather entertaining.

As far as martial law nationwide, can't happen. There is simply not enough manpower to do the job. Do the math: 2 million troops (Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, Guard and Reserve) divide by 120 cities. Not enough troops to contain and this doesn't include crossroads, checkpoints, interstates, or other strategic points. We are more worried with local officials ala Seattle busting heads than we are with the feds. The feds will be plenty busy with the international effects.

Feel free to post this info ...

-- yes it's him (confirmation@yes.don't.ask), December 13, 1999.