Jump to content

Marshall Law


RXS

Recommended Posts

if this was such a big issue why didn't Clinton solve the problem during his eight years in office? It's all an accounting game to make yourself look great when you are leaving office by saying "I (the Democratic Party) reserved 450 Million for the levee" knowing that another Political Party is taking the reigns and will have to re balance the budget. 

14092[/snapback]

*sigh*If you'd done your homework, you'd know that money was budgeted in 1995. Infrastructural projects take a long time. When we built our Delta works, it took decades. As for Bush having to balance the budget... that's just funny laugh.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 114
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Sonic Goo,Sep 3 2005, 12:37 PM]*sigh*If you'd done your homework, you'd know that money was budgeted in 1995. Infrastructural projects take a long time. When we built our Delta works, it took decades. As for Bush having to balance the budget... that's just funny  laugh.gif

14095[/snapback]

 

*SIGH* If you'd have done your homework, you'd know that the Clinton Admin was not the first to budget money for levee improvement. Planning and execution are two vastly different topics.

 

Deficits are not uncommon during times of war.

 

You're not comparing apples to apples. Take a look at your work ethics and hours in a work week and you'll see why it takes you so long to do it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again what has happened has happened. I'm sure in every part of the world people can "second guess" the why didn't so and so do this and that.

 

 

Europe in the 1930s had different steps, by recogonizing the threat been made would World War 2 have happened?

 

CIA warnings about bin Laden in the 1990s would the WTC attacks have happened?

 

 

However this is all irrelevant to the present situation and the law is returning to this area presently due to the amount of National Guard troops deploying to the area now.

 

Who was right or wrong (present administration or past administrations) is irrelevant at this point and that's been my whole point that this topic is turning into a bash a president and government post not the original intention of the topic.

 

There has been martial law in many countries in the past why? because at the time it was deemed necessary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There has been martial law in many countries in the past why? because at the time it was deemed necessary.

 

Here's a list of examples of countries where martial law was instated. Apparently this rarely happens, and is often a way for regimes to abuse their powers. Most other examples aren't really the kind of thing RXS is suggesting.

 

But then again, RXS's suggestion is impossible anyway, because no such term exists in Louisiana law (see link above). And I think his other suggestions would violate several laws/constitutional rights/human rights anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

**Snicker** If I disabled linking someone would be screwed in their posts tongue.giftongue.giftongue.gif

 

Reading this bring me to mind the situation in Aruba (Dutch territory I believe) they've been holding a person in jail for months now in the Natalie Halloway disappearance case without charging him with a crime.

 

To people here that is an "extreme" way to do judicial process. In the US you either charge them with the crime or release. You don't make them "do time" for no actual crime.

 

However martial law or even curfews have been used in other instances to prevent harm to innocents.

 

So who has the right way? I'd say no one truly does.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Reading this bring me to mind the situation in Aruba (Dutch territory I believe) they've been holding a person in jail for months now in the Natalie Halloway disappearance case without charging him with a crime. 

 

To people here that is an "extreme" way to do judicial process. In the US you either charge them with the crime or release. You don't make them "do time" for no actual crime.

14107[/snapback]

 

Tell that to the people being hold in guantanamo bay.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tell that to the people being hold in guantanamo bay.

14108[/snapback]

 

 

Was waiting for that one actually.

 

Most of those held in Guantanamo were fighting for the Taliban Army a rather oppressive bunch who didn't even allow women to go to school etc. They harbour a known international terrorist, perhaps you heard of him last name of Bin Laden.

 

The incident I cited above in Aruba is in regards to a civilian not someone toting Automatic weapons and oppressing people and hanging women for trying to learn etc.

 

Has nothing to do with the present topic of Martial Law in the thread.

 

Plus some have been released from Guantanamo bay already and the goal is to release all who don't have connections to Bin Laden's terrorist group.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

EliteOne:

Maybe you should enable linking for certain people so they can show us what their assumptions are actually based on. tongue.gif

Aruba has 'status aparte', which means they are no longer part of the kingdom. The 116 days rule is one of the ways they are different. Nevertheless, keeping someone in jail like that is not the DA's decision. In fact, yesterday a judge decided there were no reasons to keep the suspect locked up and he is now free.

 

KNIX:

Wow. That's missing the point like missing the side of a barn.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RXS, I'm wondering if you've since changed any of your views from your initial post about shooting people on site who are 'looting' other items besides food...to me, that's a little much to say the least, but I'd like to get your opinion on that.

 

KNIX, it seems like you have this preconceived notion that people (especially people who are not US citizens) are intent on insulting our nation. Why must you nullify someone's argument because they don't live here? I personally don't think that's fair. We've discussed this before, and again, our government has a tremendous affect on the rest of the world-socially, politically, and economically, and either way, anyone has every right to say whatever they wish to say and have their opinion count.

 

I don't mean this to be inflammatory-but us libs are a bit confused. We see self-described conservatives who are pro-gun, pro-war, pro-death penalty, 'and' staunchly religious and anti-abortion ??? Obviously this is a gross generalization but for the most part, many people seem to fit this description. Can someone please explain this to me? (That was actually kind of inflammatory in retrospect but I didn't mean it to be, this is just representative of my confusion with the other side of the aisle, so don't get angry posters! Just explain if you wish).

 

In the aftermath of Katrina there appear to be some racial, economic, and political issues brewing. I understand that no one can stop a hurricane, but when viewed from a sociological perspective, this disaster is greatly indicative of some areas we need to work on.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well hasn't this topic flared up.

 

I say if someone is looting a city that has just been hit by a hurricane, and attempts to harm or kill any body they else, they can be shot for all I care.

 

As for some of you saying this and that about the US gov't, and how good it is/bad it is, how many of you are educated beyong just the news shows that all owned by one person, Rupert Murdock? How many of you do other research? Say, 'underground' research, that wouldn't have to please a big news corporate. Something that wouldn't have to be changed to please the gov't.

 

How many of you who support/bash US gov't/Bush get both sides of the story?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sonic Goo,Sep 3 2005, 01:06 PM]But then again, RXS's suggestion is impossible anyway, because no such term exists in Louisiana law (see link above). And I think his other suggestions would violate several laws/constitutional rights/human rights anyway.

14106[/snapback]

 

 

Wow! You posted a link saying that they did declare Martial Law...guess your links aren't too accurate eh? And just for the record, both the Mayor and the Govenor went on public TV asking for Martial Law. Though there may not be a legal term in Lousiana, I can assure you that the National Guard gets the drift of what is being proposed (especially when we are talking about a nationaly coordinated millitary - not some Louisiana state militia).

 

You make me laugh. What "violate several laws/constitutional rights/human rights anyway" are we speaking of? Police already have authorization to use equal or greater force when being fired upon or even threatened. They are authorized to use deadly force to protect the greater good. Amazing to me how you keep tying the hoodlums back to being victims.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well hasn't this topic flared up.

 

I say if someone is looting a city that has just been hit by a hurricane, and attempts to harm or kill any body they else, they can be shot for all I care.

 

As for some of you saying this and that about the US gov't, and how good it is/bad it is, how many of you are educated beyong just the news shows that all owned by one person, Rupert Murdock?  How many of you do other research?  Say, 'underground' research, that wouldn't have to please a big news corporate.  Something that wouldn't have to be changed to please the gov't.

 

How many of you who support/bash US gov't/Bush get both sides of the story?

14116[/snapback]

 

This is certainly a good point. We should be extremely careful to not drawn any concrete conclusions from the news media. The are out there to sell a product. Drama and heart-wrenching story telling is their business. They are most likely under and over-reporting incidences pertaining to the disaster relief and we should therefore not rely only on their coverage. The situation is still unraveling...

 

Now, looting and attempting to harm or kill someone are completely different things, and thus far haven't exactly been differentiated. I understand the job that must be done in order to keep the peace, but I am not thrilled about opening fire on anyone for any reason (translation: hugs for all).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RXS, I'm wondering if you've since changed any of your views from your initial post about shooting people on site who are 'looting' other items besides food...to me, that's a little much to say the least, but I'd like to get your opinion on that.

14112[/snapback]

 

 

Daybreak,

 

My views are pretty much the same with a couple of exceptions. Allow me to explain....

---->>>Looting food, water, clothing/bathroom items, etc. = OK.

---->>>Looting big screen tvs, watches, rings, etc (and then showing off your loot to TV cameramen) = bullseye on your azz if a Nat'l Guard catches you.

 

If you need it to stay alive, obviously it's ok. If you are looting for personal gain at anothers expense it's not ok.

 

I could have made this a little clearer from the beginning.

 

 

This is certainly a good point. We should be extremely careful to not drawn any concrete conclusions from the news media. The are out there to sell a product. Drama and heart-wrenching story telling is their business. They are most likely under and over-reporting incidences pertaining to the disaster relief and we should therefore not rely only on their coverage. The situation is still unraveling...
My original post reffered to it as "Tragedy TV"...the media loves to run from one tragedy to the next. Rarely do they focus on the positive (unless it is a gut wrenching story that has a happy ending).
Link to comment
Share on other sites

---->>>Looting big screen tvs, watches, rings, etc (and then showing off your loot to TV cameramen) = bullseye on your azz if a Nat'l Guard catches you.

 

If you need it to stay alive, obviously it's ok.  If you are looting for personal gain at anothers expense it's not ok.

14121[/snapback]

 

I fully agree with the second part of your sentiment, however, your method of execution (pun intended) leaves a bit to be desired. Let me get this straight, you're saying that it's okay and perhaps preferable to shoot and/or kill people because they are stealing items other than food and water? Shall we broaden this to anyone who steals items in general...do they deserve to die because they stole a tv or some clothing?

 

...Remind me to not be a Japanese exchange student showing up at your Florida home thinking it was the Halloween party I was supposed to attend...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

C'mon...lets not be silly about this. Where is the communication breakdown here? I already said clothes do not fall under the shooting penalty.

 

No one is forcing them to steal jewelery, electronics, what have you. It is a despicable yet conscious choice made by opportunistic thugs trying to take advantage of others misfortune. It is wrong. Especially under the circumstances. Looters make the problems worse by diverting rescue/emergency/military/police resources that could be spent saving lives, protecting the masses from violent crimes, etc. The looters selfless acts of greed put others in danger.

 

It is not an apples to apples comparison when you ask if we should broaden this to anyone who steals. It all depends on the circumstances. I'm growing tired of splitting hairs on this. You know where I stand so stop asking the loaded questions and the "well what if's....". Be stand up and speak your mind...if you don't agree because of xyz...great - we are all entitled to our own oppinion.

 

...Remind me to not be a Japanese exchange student showing up at your Florida home thinking it was the Halloween party I was supposed to attend...
OK...I have no idea what you are talking about.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry to harp on the issue but I just think it's so absurd to kill someone for stealing 'anything' it just makes my eyes bug out like a cartoon character of some sort...

 

As for the Japanese exchange student in Florida (apparently the incident happened in Baton Rouge, Louisiana although many stories on the internet mistakenly attribute it to Boca Raton, Florida...at this point, who knows which is which blink.gif ) Anyway I thought that you would've remembered it...

 

"Baton Rouge, Louisiana--October 17, 1992--8:30 P.M....A Japanese exchange student, Yoshihiro Hattori, was searching for a party he had been invited to. Thinking he had found the house in which the social would take place, Yoshihiro knocked on the door. Not knowing that they had the wrong house Yoshihiro and his companion startled the proprietor. After having the front door shut in their face the two boys began walking back to Yoshihiro's car. Yoshihiro Hattori and his friend, Webb Haymaker, then turned back towards the house upon hearing the carport door open behind them. Instead of seeing the party's host, these two boys were greeted by a " 'Freeze' " and a .44 Magnum-carrying Rodney Peairs. Yoshihiro, thinking he had found the party after all, stepped towards Mr. Peairs and said, " 'We're here for the party' ". Webb Haymaker then found himself standing over his dying friend, Yoshihiro Hattori, a victim of unintentional homicide. (Haymaker 26)"

 

I was attempting to quickly bring up the issue of gun violence with by referring to this story...the link is to some college kid's paper so it's not exactly from a news source, but I believe this part is.

 

http://www.cwrl.utexas.edu/~tonya/spring/gun/SEAN.HTM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well I think one of the problems in this debate is the gun angst of us Europeans. At least in my Norway, civilians may own a gun, but still very few do. Police officers do not wear firearms on their uniform and whenever there is an armed robbery, it's quite radical here.

 

My point is we have made a conscious effort to keep the bad cycle of guns at this end all along; if police officers start wearing hand weapons, criminals would also have to start using weapons to be equally armed, police would have to have shotguns in their car, criminals would have to bring machine guns to serious crimes, and so on. Now because guns is very uncommon here, Marshall Law would be grossly overkilling the whole situation because there would not be enough azzholes with guns to bring any situation out of control that badly. I imagine this applies to Holland, Ireland, France and so on as well.

 

Now in the US guns are quite common, right? I think of that as a different situation (and an unfortunate one) where, indeed, the road to restored order neccessarily includes arms which match those of the bad guys. I've been reading this whole topic and there is definitely something in me which shutters at the idea of the law enforcers being assault-weapon-carrying soldiers with orders to shoot on sight, no matter who they would shoot. However another viable option, considering the situation in NO, has not been given - despite many chances to do so. I think we should all consider just how extreme this particular situation was, and remember that these are trained soldiers and not triggerhappy idiots who are going to shoot grammy with the carrots she took from the supermarket.

 

Marshall Law is an extreme measure which I'm very happy to say we wouldn't, couldn't and wouldn't have to use here in Norway, but in the case of New Orleans it seems Marshall Law was right on the mark.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmmm, very good post, Mari. I think it sums up why most europeans are quite amazed by the situation in NO, and why the "what if..." doesn't really apply to our countries.

 

But what you added about the Marshall law is interesting too. Yes it scares us to read that looters will be shot on site. This sentence sounds like a blast from the past, doesn't it? We europeans will think about the far-West, lynch mobs, death penalty in general, riots in L.A. 1992, etc, I mean we'll spontaneously see negative images when thinking of the US facing violence. That's because a big part of the american culture (and history, of course) is based upon violence, like it or not.

 

I'm gonna tell you why I am not a big supporter of the Marshall law, even if it's the only thing to do, I must now admit: My friend Ronnie lived in North Hollywood. He was driving his Jag a bit too fast, something like 5mph above the speed limit. He got chased by a young cop, who asked him to stop, put out his gun immediatly, and, while asking him to freeze, wanted to see his driving licence. So, Ronnie had to explain, facing a .357, that he HAD to move in order to show his licence, and it took the cop more than 2 minutes to get it and calm down. This kid was so scared that his hands were shaking, and he could have shot my friend to death by accident.

 

So, knowing that there ARE young people like this cop in N.O. right now scares the hell out of me, sorry. Don't tell me they're all experienced soldiers in the National Guard... How many times a year are they called as reinforcement for police forces with a licence to kill looters in a city with 1.5M residents? Were they mentally and phisically prepared for such a situation? My guess would be "not really". So, I can only hope there will be as few victims as possible, since the looters (who don't have proper access to information, I suppose) might not even know that they now risk their life if they break into a store.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow!  You posted a link saying that they did declare Marshall Law...guess your links aren't too accurate eh?  And just for the record, both the Mayor and the Govenor went on public TV asking for Marshall Law.  Though there may not be a legal term in Lousiana, I can assure you that the National Guard gets the drift of what is being proposed (especially when we are talking about a nationaly coordinated millitary - not some Louisiana state militia).

 

You make me laugh.  What "violate several laws/constitutional rights/human rights anyway" are we speaking of?  Police already have authorization to use equal or greater force when being fired upon or even threatened.  They are authorized to use deadly force to protect the greater good.  Amazing to me how you keep tying the hoodlums back to being victims.

14118[/snapback]

 

The exact text: 'Contrary to many media reports, martial law has not been declared in New Orleans in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, because no such term exists in Louisiana state law[4]. Rather, a state of emergency has been declared' What part of 'not' did you miss?

 

As for violating laws/right, the whole idea of marshall law is to suspend some of those rights, probably one of the reasons many places made sure this kind of option is not available at all.

 

 

And Gen's example is quite a good one, hopefully such a concrete example will make it a bit more understandable. (Though I think you mean 'experienced' rather than 'experimented'.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And Gen's example is quite a good one, hopefully such a concrete example will make it a bit more understandable. (Though I think you mean 'experienced' rather than 'experimented'.)

 

Oops. Corrected, thanks!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines Privacy Policy.