[presented without title]

oheyroxanne:

You know, with the whole passing of the NDAA bill, Americans have been living in fear of our government and what it has in store for America this upcoming year.

 The people should not fear it’s government, the government should fear it’s people. We are the majority. If anyone can make a difference…it’s US, not them.

As Malcom X once said, “It’s time to stop singing, and start swinging!” 

Under the wikipedia entry for Martial Law broken down by country:

United States of America

Through out United States history are several examples of the imposition of martial law, aside from that during the Civil War.

During the War of 1812, General Andrew Jackson imposed martial law in New Orleans. Martial law was also imposed in a four mile radius around the vicinity. When word came of the end of the war, Jackson maintained martial law, contending that he had not gotten official word of the peace. A judge demanded habeas corpus for a man arrested for sedition. Rather than comply with the writ, Jackson had the judge arrested.

Further down the list we see this:

There have been many instances of the use of the military within the borders of the United States, such as during the Whiskey Rebellion and in the South during the civil rights crises, but these acts are not tantamount to a declaration of martial law. The distinction must be made as clear as that between martial law and military justice: deployment of troops does not necessarily mean that the civil courts cannot function, and that is one of the keys, as the Supreme Court noted, to martial law.

The martial law concept in the U.S. is closely tied with the right of habeas corpus, which is in essence the right to a hearing on lawful imprisonment, or more broadly, the supervision of law enforcement by the judiciary. The ability to suspend habeas corpus is often equated with martial law.^{[citation needed]} Article 1, Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution states, “The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.”

In United States law, martial law is limited by several court decisions that were handed down between the American Civil War and World War II. In 1878, Congress passed the Posse Comitatus Act, which forbids military involvement in domestic law enforcement without congressional approval. On October 1, 2002 United States Northern Command was established to provide command and control of Department of Defense homeland defense efforts and to coordinate defense support of civil authorities.[

Perhaps we’re not there just yet, but the word “terrorism” is being used liberally in the mainstream media to the point that people forget how much power this word allows. We’ve been talking about fear mongering in the media since the Bush era, passing laws that play into this fear mongering.

I’m not an advocate of armed insurrection against a governing body without serious consideration into peaceful and politically legitimate avenues. If it gets to the point where these options are blatantly ignored and violently repressed, then one would hope that the people would naturally rise to the challenge of restoring their system.

That being said, our government is obviously not listening to those of us paying attention to their actions. Some don’t see a problem, and to them I suggest they dig a little more. If you disagree that we are approaching a government system dependent on constant war and blind consumerism then prove it. Discussion breeds ideas. Ideas lead to action. Action, whether it be for or against, is more than what a good portion are doing anyway.

occupyonline:

 emilythegirl replied to your post: Could you explain the difference between the NDAA…

After extensive search through both the 2011 and 2012 fiscal bills considering the NDAA, it does allow for the indefinite detention of ANYONE. American or not, on American land and on foreign land…

That was my conclusion as well. :\

It’s beginning to become questioned more, though some people can only argue that “the government wouldn’t do that to us normal citizens” and “If you aren’t doing anything illegal then you have nothing to worry about.” I feel both statements are equally untrue, because if you give a government - any government - the authority to essentially spy on the population of their country and detain whomever it deems a threat to the nation it controls, you give up everything that the country was built from.

In truth, I feel that Americans are beginning to feel a sense of guilt and urgency that their complacency and over-consumption have allowed bought persons to run our country. feelsbadman. I welcome a different, well supported answer.