Re: [BNW] population statistics

["Ewan" <e.chilton@bcftcs.ac.uk>]

> Hmm you would like to think that, <ewan>
>
>
> No, I know it. Very personally. There are some people who know when to
stand
> and say enough. Even when it's "not their problem". So please don't turn
> this personal like that.

im not being personal I just think that you are wrong when you assume that
the majority of people would stand up for thier right to vote under these
circumstances. Someone else gave the example of nazi germany as a case where
people gave up a democracy and im sure people wil be able to think up other
cases (pakistan at the moment) where the populace has accepted a dictatorail
regime (ack my spelling is bad) as to your reasons why JFK couldnt declare
marital law as described in BNW I think it is reasonably plausible that the
delta threat, combined with the threat of nuclear war with the USSR (and
small nuclear exchange) would have given JFK the popular support to over
ride congress and any laws that got in his way. Indeed BNW refeers to JFK
'replacing' congress people with his own lackies. I imagine that this
replacement took the form of assasination in the cases where a voice spoke
to loud. Besides and congress man who treid to oppose these measures could
just be arrested.

this isnt even factoring in the use of delta powers to assist in the
process, but I think that in an earlier post you conceded that delta powers
would make it possible.

Ewan

>. Stripped these men of all their political power, like
> candy from a baby. And they could easily have impeached him. He'd have to
> take down over 1/3 before they knew it was coming. Wow, that's another
> statistical impossibility.

I dont think its impossible, how many congress people are there? 200? 300?
lets say 200 of those get a midnight visit from the CIA/Delta force/Superior
and his lackies on the night before JFK declares martial law. He also
annouces later that a knumber of defiance/commie symphathisres have been
working to undermine the state from within and have been arrested pending
trial.

> 3) Martial law is just that. Military Law. Which Jack controls as CiC.
(but
> not if impeached, which is what congress would do if he threatened their
> power) However, even military law has limits. I personally have refused an
> unlawful order and turned a weapon on the person giving it. Military is
not
> synonymous with 'slave conformist'. I was sacrificing my freedom and
> possibly my life so that others may be free. And it is remarkable how
aware
> of injustice that makes one.

very admerable of you, but I wouldnt expect everyone to have the courage to
do that, especialy if the first person who tries it gets summaraly executed.

> 4) I never said it was a benevolent police state

well, more benevolent than my one. non corrupt officals/ elections/freedom
of speach etc

Ewan