Subject:
|
Re: State of Emergency? (Since 1933?)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 4 Feb 2002 01:37:22 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
204 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Pedro Silva writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Kirby Warden writes:
>
> As for the State of Emergency, who cares? I bet noone in the Executive even
> knows if such a State is still declared... or if ever *was* declared. There
> is, after all, a chance this is a bogus article. Needs further checking,
> preferably by anyone with access to the documents cited.
>
>
> Pedro
> (This can turn up to be a very good debate about hidden politics!)
Well, if we have operated under some sort of State of Emergency since 1933,
it could explain a lot about how so many things have gone wrong in our
government. A lot of things in that article were over my head or I simply
brushed it aside. What really matters to me is weather or not this
continous State of Emergency exists. There are powers that the government
has during a State of Emergency that it should normally not have.
Most of my concern arises from the fact that I am 26 years old and am slowly
finding that many of the freedoms I once thought "recently lost" may have
not actually existed for over a hundred years. A continuous State of
Emergency could explain a lot of things.
If it be true, I wonder how the People could evoke a change without going to
arms. Obviously it is in the government's best interest to maintain the
priveledges awarded it by a continuous emergency.
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: State of Emergency? (Since 1933?)
|
| (...) I have no information at all about this, and I did not read the whole article (?). But I did get suspicious when I read the parts about "return to the feudal system", "return to the League of Nations" and "worst economic condition after the (...) (23 years ago, 3-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
4 Messages in This Thread:
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
