Posted on 11/02/2001 11:50:10 PM PST by Imperial Warrior
With an ongoing state of war, biological contamination, pourous borders and massive illegal entry, the presence of domestic terrorist cells and symapthizers, and a condition of the "highest possible alert" within the United States, is it time to declare that a state of martial law now exists throughout the United States in every access point within, leading into, and out of our country? If the civilian political process cannot get control of this extremely dire situation, is it time to impose martial law and summary judgement concerning threats to national security and domestic social policy? Is this what it will take to end these problems once and for all?
I am all for that but finding them is a problem. We have somehow lost focus and have turned this into a criminal investigation and treating suspects as common criminals with constitutional protections. This should have been a military matter from day one with those in custody classified as prisoners of war.
That would have took a DOW. Too many weenies and wobblies on the Hill.
Not so. The war was declared on us. There is NO need for a reciprocating declaration that would put us under several international treaties concerning conduct of war not to mention the difficulty in identifying, in advance, every country that we eventually identify as the enemy.
Guns could have prevented 9-11.
We need to start relying on patriotic Americans. We need to deport people like the New Black Panthers.
I support gun ownership but what you just wrote is NOT logical.
Just deport all the illegals and visa holders, and seal the borders. Everyone, along with LE, stay on high alert in our own towns. Hunt down and kill the terrorists and their sponsors.
No need to be giving up our rights.
Four guns at a minimum. One held by the crew of each of the four passeger jets. There is an old saw the Bad Guys would have leared about not bringing a knife to a gun fight.
However, while Federal aviation regulations currently permit armed crews, all airlines have policies against it. Of course, passengers are prohibited from being armed. So the Bad Guys had an environment where they had the most effective weapons. They also had air pirate history; don't resist policies; and surprise on their side.
Why does the government trust the pilot, who was in good enough shape to pass the Class I medical exam, clever enough to pass the ATP written exam, and coordinated enough to pass the ATP practical exam, to hold the lives of hundreds of people in his/her/its hands, but not to carry a gun to defend the cockpit?
Aside to IW: At least they didn't spell it "Marshall" law. Whew!
That is a great solution. Now the hard part, how do we do that? Do we issue television and radio announcements that all terrorists are to report to their nearest INS office for deportation? Then, do we mine the borders since that is the only way to effectively "seal" them? This is one BIG country. The "round them up" idea could take years and we do not have years to solve this problem.
The "government" did not prohibit pilots carrying guns, their employers did just as their employers prohibited passengers from carrying guns.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.