“Martial Law” Declared in Arkansas Town

[black elk speaks]

you're just being antagonistic. you should consider not being that way. it really debases your arguments. i suggested that something that you wrote makes no sense. surely there are others here that can make sense of what i am saying, even if they don't entirely agree. they are simply better at civil dialog that you are.

Oh yeah? Well "They are simply better at civil dialog that you are" makes no sense. HAHAA!!!!

Also, why so serious? This is the web... You can inbed humor into your posts, that is ok. The humor here being how serious you are, on the web.

if it were only available to the federal government, how long would it take to get one?

It is only availiable during Martial Law. That is why we have Martial Law. That is the point. Local governments cannot have the right to impose curfew because federal supercedes local law. See every Supreme Court deciosioon in the 250+ years.

local laws afforded to him gave him the right.

By denying your rights as an American Citizens. If you actually commit a crime, then you yourself are giving up your rights(most of them).
This is illegal, on th Federal level. That's the point. On what level do you disagree with that exactly?

you didn't answer the question about how many articles you read. you offered your opinion, i think, based on one leftist article.

1 artical. I implyed 1 artical. I don't need to read two, because it is a fact that they imposed a curfew. Which is illegal. The "leftist" view doesn't enter into it. However, my own knowledge of the fact that that was a clear violation of their rights was.
I implyed all of this... I thought...

seriously don't you know that militias exist today? the states have their own 'military' so to speak.

None of them are actually affiliated with their home state. They are just a group of like-minded citizens. And I applauad them(except the racist ones). But they are not given training or anything by the state.

you can't write a book about how to skirt the law when you sodomize a ten year old.

But it is still legal to do so.
The Feds can't touch the man/woman who rights it......
But if some citizens want to lynch the guy who wrights that, well..... My mouth is shut, over a smile....

IMHO (look at that, some caps for you. guess you cam't call me Mr NoCaps anymore.)

See now you're getting it... wait till you discover smileys!

but you see, it wasn't even martial law. it was a 48 hour curfew. his local laws gave him the authority. i have already stated all that i need to on the matter. you just aren't willing to hear it. you don't even want to acknowledge that there is an opposing view point on the matter. i suppose it was president bush's fault that katrina clobbered new orleans. it was his fault for not getting all of those people out of the way. had he enacted some sort of martial law type of evacuation, then he would have been trampling those peoples constitutional right to drop kick themselves into an early grave by staying in a city that sits five feet below sea level in the path of a serious hurricane. there is no winning. so your right maybe they should have called in the national guard and let the neighbor hood citizens fire up their bbq grills and relax on their porches while they rolled in tanks and heavy artillery. i am sure that only a few hundred innocent people would have been slaughtered. let me ask, if you were the mayor, how would you have handled it?

you have only read the one article and are making your opinion based on its contents. that explains your singular view. its a shame really. you are aggressive in your arguments. i like that. if only you were more interested in developing a true picture of the reality of the situation instead of seeing someone with their pants down. its a shame.

somehow i get the feeling that you don't think very much for yourself.

Sorry, bes, but that's not something anyone can tell me, you can forbid producing and distributing the work, but you cannot make it illegal for people to read it. What would you base such an action on?

i think that they base their actions on your intent. sure you cannot be arrested for reading it. but if they learn that you are reading it, i think that they flag you for the potential danger that you become. and i didn't say that it was illegal for you to read it. i said that you aren't allowed.

[Juan_Bottom]

but you see, it wasn't even martial law.

Only because the President didn't call it in?

you don't even want to acknowledge that there is an opposing view point on the matter.

Not if it is so obviously wrong. It's unhealthy to acknowledge stupid. I asked you what interpretation of the Constitution you were using. Heck, you can even try the Bill of Rights... that's more open to interpretation.... It isn't an opposing viewpoint if you can't back it up. It's jibber-jabber.

^this is where you are chillin', having a conversation...

i suppose it was president bush's fault that katrina clobbered new orleans. it was his fault for not getting all of those people out of the way. had he enacted some sort of martial law type of evacuation, then he would have been trampling those peoples constitutional right to drop kick themselves into an early grave by staying in a city that sits five feet below sea level in the path of a serious hurricane. there is no winning. so your right maybe they should have called in the national guard and let the neighbor hood citizens fire up their bbq grills and relax on their porches while they rolled in tanks and heavy artillery. i am sure that only a few hundred innocent people would have been slaughtered.

^this was right after you hit the pipe?

how would you have handled it?

Right away? Same as with the city... they ignored a problem(slums) untill things got too bad.

you have only read the one article and are making your opinion based on its contents. that explains your singular view. its a shame really. you are aggressive in your arguments. i like that. if only you were more interested in developing a true picture of the reality of the situation instead of seeing someone with their pants down. its a shame.

You like people to want to see you with your pants down?
My singular view is based on a strict interpretation of the Constitution. Not an article, as I have already explained. Someone whos viewpoints are swayed by someone elses slant on a new story is silly. And this appears to be more so your case, than mine.

somehow i get the feeling that you don't think very much for yourself.

I don't think much of people who open their mouth, not knowing what they are talking about. I don't care if you don't have any beliefs, or any opinions, or know what the crap is going on... so long as your mouth stays shut. Read your Constitution.

Ask any CCer, and they'll tell you I think a little too highly of myself.

[black elk speaks]

somehow i get the feeling that you don't think very much for yourself.

I don't think much of people who open their mouth, not knowing what they are talking about. I don't care if you don't have any beliefs, or any opinions, or know what the crap is going on... so long as your mouth stays shut. Read your Constitution.

Ask any CCer, and they'll tell you I think a little too highly of myself.

lol... now you would take away my first amendment rights. hypocritical, don't you think? have fun in your closed minded small world. if a curfew is ever enacted in your neighborhood, you should probably not be openly defiant. it may snuff out your liberty for ever, aka, get you killed.

[Juan_Bottom]

You're like, the worst Indian ever.

[pimpdave]

Wow, this is up to 4 pages?

Time to catch up...

[MeDeFe]

Sorry, bes, but that's not something anyone can tell me, you can forbid producing and distributing the work, but you cannot make it illegal for people to read it. What would you base such an action on?

i think that they base their actions on your intent. sure you cannot be arrested for reading it. but if they learn that you are reading it, i think that they flag you for the potential danger that you become. and i didn't say that it was illegal for you to read it. i said that you aren't allowed.

What's the difference between one not being allowed to read it and it being illegal to read?

[black elk speaks]

What's the difference between one not being allowed to read it and it being illegal to read?

they can't put you in jail for reading it. but then can watch you as closely as they wish and look for a reason to put you in jail.

[MeDeFe]

What's the difference between one not being allowed to read it and it being illegal to read?

they can't put you in jail for reading it. but then can watch you as closely as they wish and look for a reason to put you in jail.

Sorry, what's the difference again? Looks like oppression vs. oppression to me.

[Visaoni]

What's the difference between one not being allowed to read it and it being illegal to read?

they can't put you in jail for reading it. but then can watch you as closely as they wish and look for a reason to put you in jail.

Sorry, what's the difference again? Looks like oppression vs. oppression to me.

I think the difference comes in when you read the legal documents. Your reason for incarceration is something other than "read Anarchists Handbook." It is a difference, really.


Everybody seems to be ignoring one basic thing I said. Instead of having those officers keep everybody in their houses, the city should have just had them there! The gang members aren't going to start shooting at each other with 4 cops 10 feet away, and a much large amount seconds away. Really, the martial law was unneeded. All the needed was the cops there for those 48 hours, instead of having them impose what amounted to martial law for 48 hours. Small difference, except it doesn't trample on rights, and ensures safety.

[Juan_Bottom]

Everybody seems to be ignoring one basic thing I said. Instead of having those officers keep everybody in their houses, the city should have just had them there! The gang members aren't going to start shooting at each other with 4 cops 10 feet away, and a much large amount seconds away. Really, the martial law was unneeded. All the needed was the cops there for those 48 hours, instead of having them impose what amounted to martial law for 48 hours. Small difference, except it doesn't trample on rights, and ensures safety.

I'm not ignorant of your opinion, and to a point, I agree wholeheartedly. This would have been the better step.

But I believe that the city should have done something to prevent this in the first place.

[MeDeFe]

What's the difference between one not being allowed to read it and it being illegal to read?

they can't put you in jail for reading it. but then can watch you as closely as they wish and look for a reason to put you in jail.

Sorry, what's the difference again? Looks like oppression vs. oppression to me.

I think the difference comes in when you read the legal documents. Your reason for incarceration is something other than "read Anarchists Handbook." It is a difference, really..

pfft, technicalities.

[black elk speaks]

Everybody seems to be ignoring one basic thing I said. Instead of having those officers keep everybody in their houses, the city should have just had them there! The gang members aren't going to start shooting at each other with 4 cops 10 feet away, and a much large amount seconds away. Really, the martial law was unneeded. All the needed was the cops there for those 48 hours, instead of having them impose what amounted to martial law for 48 hours. Small difference, except it doesn't trample on rights, and ensures safety.

I'm not ignorant of your opinion, and to a point, I agree wholeheartedly. This would have been the better step.

But I believe that the city should have done something to prevent this in the first place.

i think your opinion is shit. you have only read one slanted article and refuse to acknowledge that the government has the right to enact a curfew, thus proving that you are ignorant of real life. maybe when you graduate from high school you can learn to actually research and have an opinion in stead of being insulting and argumentative.

[Juan_Bottom]

you can learn to actually research and have an opinion in stead of being insulting and argumentative.

your opinion is shit.

"insulting and argumentative....."

Firstly, your opinion is crap because as you freely admit, an article is what formed it. Plus you're dumb, so that kinda negates your opinion as well. Go read your Constitution/Bill of Rights.

Secondly, I have offered you several chances to argue the legality(federal level) of their move. You have not. I have offered you the opportunity for you to educate yourself on how their rights were violated. You have not. Instead, it appears a news article was all that you needed.
You have yet to show me how their civil liberties were not violated, which is what got me all riled up. You sir, are an idiot. You are literally argueing for city law over Federal law/citizens rights.

I've pretty much been toying with you for like three pages. I knew you hadn't even the foggiest idea of what an American's rights are. You should prolly foe me.

and refuse to acknowledge that the government has the right to enact a curfew

I'll do you one better. I'll say that local government doesn't have the right to enact the curfew and flood the streets with armed policemen. No, I wouldn't fight them if they tried to arrest me, but may Baby Jesus have mercy on their soul, becuse I would be coming straight for them, through court.

maybe when you graduate from high school

you can learn to actually research and have an opinion

Seriously... you are hitting the pipe right now, aye? What were my last dozen posts? This is all pretty clearly illegal. I mean, duh! Why the crap would the ACLU be up in arms about this, if they had no recourse?
I had such an opinion that I went ahead and said that if a cop arrested me, I'd sue him, and his wife, for helping him to spend ill-gotten gains. Though I can't remember if that only intersedes(I think I invented a word here, MEDEFE... do I get positive, or negative points for that?) if you are bothered by a state/Federal-paid officer? Maybe you could refresh that for me?
You're the one who needs to do the research. Start with your Constitution/Bill of Rights.

Look, I'm assuming you're a Native American? Me too(halfly, Chippewa, my family left the reservation)... But even though we lost the war, we should still learn the new laws of the land. Nor does it mean that we are always on the losing end forever.

[black elk speaks]

you can learn to actually research and have an opinion in stead of being insulting and argumentative.

your opinion is shit.

"insulting and argumentative....."

Firstly, your opinion is crap because as you freely admit, an article is what formed it. Plus you're dumb, so that kinda negates your opinion as well. Go read your Constitution/Bill of Rights.

Secondly, I have offered you several chances to argue the legality(federal level) of their move. You have not. I have offered you the opportunity for you to educate yourself on how their rights were violated. You have not. Instead, it appears a news article was all that you needed.
You have yet to show me how their civil liberties were not violated, which is what got me all riled up. You sir, are an idiot. You are literally argueing for city law over Federal law/citizens rights.

I've pretty much been toying with you for like three pages. I knew you hadn't even the foggiest idea of what an American's rights are. You should prolly foe me.

and refuse to acknowledge that the government has the right to enact a curfew

I'll do you one better. I'll say that local government doesn't have the right to enact the curfew and flood the streets with armed policemen. No, I wouldn't fight them if they tried to arrest me, but may Baby Jesus have mercy on their soul, becuse I would be coming straight for them, through court.

maybe when you graduate from high school

you can learn to actually research and have an opinion

Seriously... you are hitting the pipe right now, aye? What were my last dozen posts? This is all pretty clearly illegal. I mean, duh! Why the crap would the ACLU be up in arms about this, if they had no recourse?
I had such an opinion that I went ahead and said that if a cop arrested me, I'd sue him, and his wife, for helping him to spend ill-gotten gains. Though I can't remember if that only intersedes(I think I invented a word here, MEDEFE... do I get positive, or negative points for that?) if you are bothered by a state/Federal-paid officer? Maybe you could refresh that for me?
You're the one who needs to do the research. Start with your Constitution/Bill of Rights.

Look, I'm assuming you're a Native American? Me too(halfly, Chippewa, my family left the reservation)... But even though we lost the war, we should still learn the new laws of the land. Nor does it mean that we are always on the losing end forever.

if we were talking about anything more than a curfew, then you might be right. since the action of a local curfew in a localized area was executed, you are wrong. curfews are legal. why is it that you do not understand that? i don't see that you are going to see things my way, or even value my opinion. likewise, i will not see things your way. the citizens have the right to sue their mayor and city counsel. by the way, in a vote of 9-0 the city counsel of Helena-West Helena voted last Wednesday to extent the mayors curfew. this is in light of the fact that people in the area were carrying ak-47's.

you can continue to be an ass if you like. but you are still ignorant of the fact that the local government is responsible for the situation there and they are responsible for the safety of their citizens. to the point that it should never have gotten to that point, i would say that you are correct. but the fact remains that they are at that point and the situation has caused the need for serious and immediate action.

the constitution says this:

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.

my understanding is that the public safety was at risk. if evidence can be brought forward to the contrary, then you will have a case. otherwise, no violation in civil liberties has been made.

you have invited me to do nothing. you have only insulted me and touted your single sided opinion that you brandished after reading a single article. how about you find for me in the constitution where it says that local and state governments do not have the right to issue curfew in cases where it is justified. you just might change my mind if you can show me in the constitution where it says that. I have looked but must have missed it.

[Juan_Bottom]

you can continue to be an ass if you like.

you have only insulted me and touted your single sided opinion that you brandished after reading a single article.

You started it! I wasn't an ass untill you were.

[black elk speaks]

you can continue to be an ass if you like.

you have only insulted me and touted your single sided opinion that you brandished after reading a single article.

You started it! I wasn't an ass untill you were.

you mean when i pointed out that irregardless was not a word?

[Juan_Bottom]

See you must have missunderstood... I pointed out that you didn't know me, so I made the point of saying that I was just messing around.

[Juan_Bottom]

As soon as I saw the name....I knew it was you.... I recognized it from the bottom of the blogspot... the posters name was also frenchpirate....

[black elk speaks]

See you must have missunderstood... I pointed out that you didn't know me, so I made the point of saying that I was just messing around.

you are right. i misunderstand your point. what ever you are talking about here is irrelevant to the debate that we are having. i invite you to show me where in the constitution that it says that state governments are not permitted to institute curfews.

[Visaoni]

Everybody seems to be ignoring one basic thing I said. Instead of having those officers keep everybody in their houses, the city should have just had them there! The gang members aren't going to start shooting at each other with 4 cops 10 feet away, and a much large amount seconds away. Really, the martial law was unneeded. All the needed was the cops there for those 48 hours, instead of having them impose what amounted to martial law for 48 hours. Small difference, except it doesn't trample on rights, and ensures safety.

I'm not ignorant of your opinion, and to a point, I agree wholeheartedly. This would have been the better step.

But I believe that the city should have done something to prevent this in the first place.

Oh, I actually didn't mean you. I was mostly talking to black elk, who seems hellbent on thinking that the one and only thing the city could do was enact a curfew.

And I agree, if the city let it get this far, the city officials were not doing their jobs.

[MeDeFe]

Though I can't remember if that only intersedes(I think I invented a word here, MEDEFE... do I get positive, or negative points for that?) if you are bothered by a state/Federal-paid officer?

The word 'intercede' already exists, and means "to speak in support of someone", as in "to intercede on someone's behalf". Sorry, no points for you this time, but a reminder that malapropisms can lead to interesting and unintended statements.

[Juan_Bottom]

The Fourth Amendment, specifically. I think Gabonx had a point in his post too.

Also, the First Amendment(right to assemble, right to petition), the Fifth Amendment(due process "nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"), and possibly the 8th, 9th, and 10th Amendments...

I parenthesied specifically the parts I was talking about. Tell me that you couldn't have missed this....

[black elk speaks]

The Fourth Amendment, specifically. I think Gabonx had a point in his post too.

Also, the First Amendment(right to assemble, right to petition), the Fifth Amendment(due process "nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"), and possibly the 8th, 9th, and 10th Amendments...

I parenthesied specifically the parts I was talking about. Tell me that you couldn't have missed this....

oh my. that is sad. so, here is your 5th amendment:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

in the context of this amendment, it is clear to see that this is in reference to the arrest and detention of people accused of a crime. it is irrelevant to the base of your argument. what we are talking about is a case of civil unrest in which the basic security of innocent civilians was put in jeopardy.

I guess i need to post this again, since you neglected to read / refused to acknowledge it before.

Section 9 - Limits on Congress

The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.

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.

so that you cannot miss the meaning behind Habeas Corpus, here is the definition of it for you, my lazy friend:

habeas corpus n. Law A writ issued to bring a party before a court to prevent unlawful restraint.
The basic premise behind habeas corpus is that you cannot be held against your will without just cause. To put it another way, you cannot be jailed if there are no charges against you. If you are being held, and you demand it, the courts must issue a writ of habeas corpus, which forces those holding you to answer as to why. If there is no good or compelling reason, the court must set you free. It is important to note that of all the civil liberties we take for granted today as a part of the Bill of Rights, the importance of habeas corpus is illustrated by the fact that it was the sole liberty thought important enough to be included in the original text of the Constitution.

unfortunately for your arguments, there is an exception to the rule, which, irrespective of your points, seems to me to have been the case, what with all the automatic weapon toting gang bangers running around for 4 days shooting up the town.

you may know bits and pieces of the constitution, but only enough to be a danger to your self and anyone else that listens to your tom foolery. i suggest that you take the opportunity to learn from your mistakes here and grow from it. you fail.

[Frigidus]

Enough about the damned Constitution, it's a piece of paper. The law is the retarded younger brother of justice, so let's stop talking about whether this is legal and start talking about whether it was right. The only reason that drastic actions like this should be taken is with the will of the people. Do most of them feel the actions taken are good ones, and that they have their best interests at heart? The answer to that question is the only one that should matter.

Seriously though, enough on the freaking Constitution. Damn.

[MeDeFe]

Enough about the damned Constitution, it's a piece of paper. The law is the retarded younger brother of justice, so let's stop talking about whether this is legal and start talking about whether it was right. The only reason that drastic actions like this should be taken is with the will of the people. Do most of them feel the actions taken are good ones, and that they have their best interests at heart? The answer to that question is the only one that should matter.

Seriously though, enough on the freaking Constitution. Damn.

Mob rule?

No thanks.