Originally posted by Schecter
he could also simply remain ignorant of an impending attack.
"osama bin laden determined to attack inside united states."
That sounds like conspiracy thinking, or lack of thinking. There are too many people involved in information handling for something like that to not get leaked.
because of this, imho your assessment of the lack of potential for a coup of sorts is completely false. in fact, given grave enough circumstances and the general state of sloth and easily provoked fear/irrationality and complete stupidity of at least 41% in the u.s., i'd say it would be pretty damn easy.
your assesment is reliant on everyone in the military being complicit with staging a coup on their own families...
in a land where people are used to freedom it is unlikely...
Originally posted by jaden101
your assesment is reliant on everyone in the military being complicit with staging a coup on their own families...in a land where people are used to freedom it is unlikely...
its always in the name of temporary safety and/or greater glory of the nation, and always for the sake of 'protection'. coups dont always involve tanks and troops siezing a parliament building.
you already expressed ease with the idea of constitutional government being suspended all the way up to the house and senate. thats 99.99999% of the battle right there.
Re: Re: Congress Denied Access To Post-Terror Attack Plans
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
I'm tired of hearing all this "there's gonna be another attack" crap. For nearly the past six years, that's all the news networks have been saying and it's like the boy who cried wolf. It's old and no longer interesting.
i hope you're being satirical. i mean...
you are aware just how that fable ends, right?
but what profound an effect it would have on a growinly cynical population if after all a catastrophic attack did happen. think of all the 'we were right all along' neocon talking points. the blame could be easily reversed against all their opponents, i think. what i mean is, imagine that little boy chastising the village for letting the wolf attack. saying "i warned you all and was ignored". well thats more of a tangent, but...yeah
Originally posted by Schecter
its always in the name of temporary safety and/or greater glory of the nation, and always for the sake of 'protection'. coups dont always involve tanks and troops siezing a parliament building.you already expressed ease with the idea of constitutional government being suspended all the way up to the house and senate. thats 99.99999% of the battle right there.
i have no qualms either way regarding US politics merely because i'm "not from round those parts"
but i can see your point about a creeping dictatorship...the old analogy o the frog in water comes to mind.
but no group of people can enforce anything on anyone without the compliance of a military...and i dont believe that a government with plans that are massively detrimental to the point of harsh dictatorship would occur the in the US without the people who would enforce it...ie the military, turning round to the suits and effectively telling them to **** off
Originally posted by jaden101
i have no qualms either way regarding US politics merely because i'm "not from round those parts"but i can see your point about a creeping dictatorship...the old analogy o the frog in water comes to mind.
but no group of people can enforce anything on anyone without the compliance of a military...and i dont believe that a government with plans that are massively detrimental to the point of harsh dictatorship would occur the in the US without the people who would enforce it...ie the military, turning round to the suits and effectively telling them to **** off
well, yes thats a possibility...yet keep in mind that would also be treason. my point is, why allow such and avenue toward absolute power to exist. sure, dc might get nuked and every house/senate member vaporised, but i dont understand the logic in restructuring our government automatically and having a dictatorship as a precaution (just a rebuttal to a point someone else brought up, which for the life of me i just dont get)
Originally posted by Schecter
well, yes thats a possibility...yet keep in mind that would also be treason. my point is, why allow such and avenue toward absolute power to exist. sure, dc might get nuked and every house/senate member vaporised, but i dont understand the logic in restructuring our government automatically and having a dictatorship as a precaution (just a rebuttal to a point someone else brought up, which for the life of me i just dont get)
It's not a precaution it probably wouldn't go into effect with anything less then the complete destruction of the command structure in the US. If the president is the only person left able to function and the entire government is as good as gone then it should be made very clear that the president should be allowed to do whatever he feels is necessary at that moment, anything less would just endanger the country.
It would be absurd however to have these plans put into action with anything less then the destruction of a reasonable part of the government. But I'm not entirely sure that somebody would do that anyway.
Re: Re: Congress Denied Access To Post-Terror Attack Plans
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
I'm tired of hearing all this "there's gonna be another attack" crap. For nearly the past six years, that's all the news networks have been saying and it's like the boy who cried wolf. It's old and no longer interesting.
Er yeah and people kept saying something like 9/11 was gonna happen....
Originally posted by Schecter
well, yes thats a possibility...yet keep in mind that would also be treason. my point is, why allow such and avenue toward absolute power to exist. sure, dc might get nuked and every house/senate member vaporised, but i dont understand the logic in restructuring our government automatically and having a dictatorship as a precaution (just a rebuttal to a point someone else brought up, which for the life of me i just dont get)
it's probably to do with what happens at a disaster on any scale...at some point someone has to say "i'm in charge" because, quite simply, the vast majority of people are used to having someone tell them what to do.
on a national scale it most likely wouldn't work anyway because it certainly wouldn't stop the anarchy that would inevitably occur if a massive collapse of government were to occur.
in these circumstances a dictatorship (in name) is not neccessarily going to be a bad thing.
the problem would lie in the ineptitude of the person who says that they are in charge...which is where i'm guessing many of your problems with a single branch of government ruling is aimed
a perfect example of the uselessness of governing officials was new orleans after hurricaine katrina...no one took overall charge...everyone blamed everyone else and nothing got done effectively until it was far too late....the problems were further compounded when idiots made blatently wrong decisions