Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
Posted: 11/24/2003 9:39:41 AM EDT
Is there ever a Justifiable reason for the Federal Government to impose Martial Law?

Could it, would it be abused?
Probably.
Does that negate the justification for ever using it/implimenting it?
Link Posted: 11/24/2003 9:43:07 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/24/2003 9:43:44 AM EDT by u-baddog]
I can see it happening pretty easy. Abused, maybe. Isnt Calf. under it now ?
Link Posted: 11/24/2003 9:48:16 AM EDT
It'd be a pretty slippery slope............
Link Posted: 11/24/2003 9:48:47 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/24/2003 9:49:03 AM EDT by DK-Prof]
If that supervolcano under yellowstone blew tomorrow, or a big asteroid or comet hit the planet, I imagine martial law would be necessary to salvage what's left of the U.S. Same goes for alien invasions [:)]
Link Posted: 11/24/2003 9:50:02 AM EDT
Sure would. But an outbreak of a weaponized virus? Nuclear Detonations in several cities? In those instances, Martial Law would save the lives of millions, and possibly the Nation.
Link Posted: 11/24/2003 9:55:02 AM EDT
That's it?? That's all there is?? Scenarios man, we need scenarios!!!
Link Posted: 11/24/2003 9:55:38 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: Sure would. But an outbreak of a weaponized virus? Nuclear Detonations in several cities? In those instances, Martial Law would save the lives of millions, and possibly the Nation.
View Quote
And if martial law resulted in the suspension of the constitution and BofR, and civilians were ordered to surrender all privately owned firearms, would you turn them in?
Link Posted: 11/24/2003 9:57:57 AM EDT
No. And if I lived in California, I wouldn't either.
Link Posted: 11/24/2003 10:01:14 AM EDT
If we ever lose the 2nd it won't be via martial law. It would come from both Houses passing law(s) and a liberal anti-gun President signing it into law. It ain't gonna happen because it's too hot of a political issue.
Link Posted: 11/24/2003 10:01:19 AM EDT
Originally Posted By liberty86: That's it?? That's all there is?? Scenarios man, we need scenarios!!!
View Quote
1) Multiple Nukes, multiple cities. Mass exodus of refugees. Disease amongst them, famine. 2) Weaponized, airborne virus. 1 million deaths and climbing.
Link Posted: 11/24/2003 10:02:20 AM EDT
Los Angles (Rodney King) Riots, 1992. LA was under martial law, with Marines on street corners. A buddy of mine was a Scout/Sniper with 1st MarDiv then, and he was chopped to Special MAGTF-LA and trucked up the I-5 to Los Angeles for a week or two. They stopped and searched cars after curfew, and assisted the LAPD and LASD.
Link Posted: 11/24/2003 10:03:18 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/24/2003 10:03:57 AM EDT by Cincinnatus]
Originally Posted By Railman44: If we ever lose the 2nd it won't be via martial law. It would come from both Houses passing law(s) and a liberal anti-gun President signing it into law. It ain't gonna happen because it's too hot of a political issue.
View Quote
If Martial Law were imposed, for any of the posted reasons... I doubt the NG, Army, Marines would/could make weapons confiscation a mission priority.
Link Posted: 11/24/2003 10:03:46 AM EDT
Originally Posted By pazzo:
Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: Sure would. But an outbreak of a weaponized virus? Nuclear Detonations in several cities? In those instances, Martial Law would save the lives of millions, and possibly the Nation.
View Quote
And if martial law resulted in the suspension of the constitution and BofR, and civilians were ordered to surrender all privately owned firearms, would you turn them in?
View Quote
NO.. And yes I would fear that I would be ratted out by someone in exchange for an extra ration of .gov cheese....
Link Posted: 11/24/2003 10:11:03 AM EDT
yes, i think it would be reasonable under certain circumstances
Link Posted: 11/24/2003 10:13:08 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Cincinnatus:
Originally Posted By liberty86: That's it?? That's all there is?? Scenarios man, we need scenarios!!!
View Quote
1) Multiple Nukes, multiple cities. Mass exodus of refugees. Disease amongst them, famine. 2) Weaponized, airborne virus. 1 million deaths and climbing.
View Quote
The President, (if alive), prolly would, and should declare martial law... The rules, and regulations issued under martial law, would determine my reactions towards the govt., if any. I'm in a rural area, easily sealed off, so any impact, would prolly be minimal, other than supply/power. I'll go vote now.....[:D]
Link Posted: 11/24/2003 10:14:59 AM EDT
Originally Posted By cluster:
Originally Posted By pazzo:
Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: Sure would. But an outbreak of a weaponized virus? Nuclear Detonations in several cities? In those instances, Martial Law would save the lives of millions, and possibly the Nation.
View Quote
And if martial law resulted in the suspension of the constitution and BofR, and civilians were ordered to surrender all privately owned firearms, would you turn them in?
View Quote
NO.. And yes I would fear that I would be ratted out by someone in exchange for an extra ration of .gov cheese....
View Quote
But have you ever had that cheese? I think it is made from people!
Link Posted: 11/24/2003 10:30:33 AM EDT
I'm inclined to believe that martial law is never necessary or needed, let alone acceptable, under our system of government. The principal danger I see is that the Consitution does not (to my recollection) provide for the return of civil administration after the passing of an emergency. "Martial" law in unnecessary because the tools for administering a crisis are already in place - the Legislature, the President's office, and the Supreme Court are sufficient. I think if we examine this arrangement, it is not only sufficient, but necessary, as the sharing of power acts as a buffer to keep any particular government agency from grabbing absolute power. I think more decentralization and a smaller federal government is necessary to permit more efficient administration of localized crises; this also retards the federal governments ability to grab absolute power. Martial law is unacceptable just because it provides a convenient tool for permanently usurping the Rights of the People from which the authority of the governments in this country arise. The Second Amendment is available for the Soveriegn Citizens of the United States to break up collaboration of the three branches of the federal government. I think I need to read some Thomas Paine.
Link Posted: 11/24/2003 10:53:08 AM EDT
i think that it may have a very brief, and small/limited area i some extreme circumstances, martial law or not i will be armed
Link Posted: 11/24/2003 11:04:58 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/24/2003 11:08:53 AM EDT by Dave_A]
Most certainly... Any riot that cannot be quickly (within a day) crushed by the local police warrants a 'state of emergency' (martial law) and the deployment of the National Guard... The Federal Constitution is not involved here, it's a state matter, and if the state provides a martial law provision, they have every right to use it... The Feds get around this by power-of-the-purse (requiring the local governor to declare a SoE in order to get aid allows them to de-facto declare such things themselves)... Certain elements (esp in CA, some parts of MI, and wherever the WTO has a meeting) seem to think that rioting is an acceptable passtime... Consistant crackdowns should change this...
Link Posted: 11/24/2003 11:20:30 AM EDT
Originally Posted By AeroE: I'm inclined to believe that martial law is never necessary or needed, let alone acceptable, under our system of government....
View Quote
I'd rather have a government that HAD to resort to Martial Law in some instances, than one that was already structured to handle such problems.
Link Posted: 11/24/2003 11:20:55 AM EDT
It happened in Canada. Pierre Trudeau invoked the "war measures act" during the "October Crisis" when FLQ terrorists kidnapped and murdered two people. [url]http://canadaonline.about.com/cs/octobercrisis/[/url]
Link Posted: 11/24/2003 11:29:46 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/24/2003 11:30:54 AM EDT by Balzac72]
Yes, it can be used under extraordinary circumstances. Only under extreme circumstances though. Anything else (prolonged without justification) would be an attack on our US Constitution and would warrant an armed revolution.
Link Posted: 11/24/2003 11:35:50 AM EDT
...and therein lies the real question. a) A period of Martial Law can be justified, especially if it is the result of a foreign attack. b) BUT, if it goes on too long, and is abused, the government should be fought. The difficulty, is that somewhere between a) and b), lies a moment where you may find yourself on the same side as the original enemy who caused the crisis. This would further justify the Government's crackdown. Nasty business.
Link Posted: 11/24/2003 11:49:31 AM EDT
Originally Posted By pazzo:
Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: Sure would. But an outbreak of a weaponized virus? Nuclear Detonations in several cities? In those instances, Martial Law would save the lives of millions, and possibly the Nation.
View Quote
And if martial law resulted in the suspension of the constitution and BofR, and civilians were ordered to surrender all privately owned firearms, would you turn them in?
View Quote
I thought the constitution was already suspended! Yea I would be gladly hand my weapons in; one barrel at a time.
Link Posted: 11/24/2003 1:27:39 PM EDT
There could be justification of martial law if a major catastrophe occurred, or a terrorist attack involving a huge loss of life and the ensuing panic. It doesn't necessarily mean the whole nine yards. It could just mean a strict curfew, no unnecessary travel, etc. It doesn't have to mean total military rule. Do I think it would be abused? Almost certainly. Would I surrender any firearms? Absolutely not.
Link Posted: 11/24/2003 2:28:06 PM EDT
Well, shit, this ain't goin' the way EITHER of us planned.... [;D] How 'bout this.... Cinci, if you're stateside, you'll get a command. You are ordered to confiscate all weapons in a rural Virginia county, because they are resisting surrendering them. No violence yet, but threats have been made. You must "make an example" of them, to encourage compliance in other places... What do you do???
Link Posted: 11/24/2003 3:25:38 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/24/2003 3:39:43 PM EDT by Cincinnatus]
You've got to be kidding. How'd I end up there? Neither I, nor my men would be in that position. You can't just leap to the most far out, wacky scenarios. How the hell did a Marine Rifle Company end up with this duty, in Virginia? Confiscation before there's ever even any "violence"? And Marines are doing it? C'mon now. Too much fantasy. Your premise begins with me already in a morally compromised position.
Link Posted: 11/24/2003 3:41:40 PM EDT
WooHoo! It's gonna happen cause I saw it on the Internet! And Walmart is in cahoots...! Hold it. DOH! That was almost 4 years ago. [size=1]Never Mind...![/size=1] [url]http://www.snopes.com/legal/martial.htm[/url]
Link Posted: 11/24/2003 3:49:58 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: You've got to be kidding. How'd I end up there? Neither I, nor my men would be in that position. You can't just leap to the most far out, wacky scenarios. How the hell did a Marine Rifle Company end up with this duty, in Virginia?
View Quote
Lets just say you're home, and get called in, WHEREVER you live. They give ya a couple hundred men, and order you to subdue a recalcitrant population!!
Confiscation before there's ever even any "violence"? And Marines are doing it? C'mon now. Too much fantasy.
View Quote
Listen dammit, this is MY scenerio. [:D] In this situation, .gov is gonna use anyone they can..
Your premise begins with me already in a morally compromised position.
View Quote
My premise begins with a Marine corps officer receiving a DIRECT order from a superior, in a Domestic Martial Law situation, to deal with uncooperative citizens, who are armed and refusing to surrender their weapons.... Nothing unrealistic about it...
Link Posted: 11/24/2003 4:20:38 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: If Martial Law were imposed, for any of the posted reasons...I doubt the NG, Army, Marines would/could make weapons confiscation a mission priority.
View Quote
You're right. Just take a look at Bosnia, Afganistan, Iraq, etc. No weapons confiscating going on in those places. Seems to me that wherever the military gets ordered to, civilian weapon confiscation is pretty high up on its "To Do" list.
Link Posted: 11/24/2003 4:50:55 PM EDT
Oh yeah, I remember now. You were complaining back in July about the weapons confiscations going on in Falujah, Iraq. Yeah taking away those poor Iraqis' AKs, in the "Sunni Triangle" of all places.... Yeah. Well, I've already stated that I wouldn't allow my unit to engage in such a domestic action, given the scenario you present. But if we were patrolling in your neighborhood, and received fire, without us even hassling anyone first? That would b a different situation. But just: "Take their guns, that's an order!" That's an illegal order, on US soil. (on foreign soil, however it's fine with me, because I really don't give a damn about any foreign arab's precious gun rights)
Link Posted: 11/24/2003 5:06:32 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: But just: "Take their guns, that's an order!" That's an illegal order, on US soil.
View Quote
You are a United States Marine Corps Officer. Martial Law has been declared, the Constitution suspended, (THAT part of your oath, is GONE). You have sworn an oath to the Commander in Chief. You are given an order by a superior officer to suppress recalcitrants, and confiscate weapons. What do you do. It's Martial law. No such thing as an "illegal order". No Constitution. Obey the order?? Your family gets fed.... Disobey?? A camp for you/your family, or at least, no .gov tit... Same question for ALL cops and military??? [devil]
Link Posted: 11/24/2003 5:12:57 PM EDT
[b]Murphy!![/b] You got an older brother, ('Nam vet), in NY???
Link Posted: 11/24/2003 5:39:17 PM EDT
Originally Posted By natez: Lastly, there is federal martial law. To my knowledge, this one only gets applied for massive civil unrest or disasters (like the LA Riots, Watts) and has only happened sporadically as a way to either allow feederal troops to be used, as allowed for under Posse Comitatus, or to force a local government in "insurrection" to obey the mandates of federal law/courts, like during the forced desegregation during the 1950s and 1960s. I am not aware of it being declared nationwide. There is no legal authority or precedent for "suspending" the Constitution; the closest to that would be the Lincoln Administration's attempt to suspend Haebas Corpus, which were soundly rejected by the courts.
View Quote
I believe we are talking Federal, and across a range of States, or the Whole Country. We are talking MASSIVE damage/casualties. (Or similar "good" excuse.)
There are clearly many circumstances when martial law would be a "good" thing, in the short term, with regards to disaters, major terrorist incidents and riots, where military assistance would be essential towards restoring order and recovering from the event. Heck, even a "minor" disaster quickly overwhelms even the most prepared local public safety entities, and National Guard assistance would be needed for many major incidents, even if it just things as mundane as making dinner, handing out blankets, stringing lights and guarding bodybags.
View Quote
Agreed...
For a major bio-terrorism event, especially something virulent like Smallpox, national-level imposition of martial law would clearly be called for. Put it this way; the only way to stop something like that would be to put a nationwide ban on travel, stop interstate comerce except for approved and screened relief elements), shut down all major roads and highways, and order everyone to stay home for a couple of weeks (why do you think ready.gov keeps telling people to have 2-3 weeks of food, water and critical medicines on hand?). Anyone "not on board" with that program jeopardizes thousands of others.
View Quote
Agreed, on a situational basis. We are specifically discussing folks who refuse to surrender weapons, for whatever reason.
To put it another way, what would YOU do to stop the spread of something like that?
View Quote
For a bio attack?? Depends. There are proper circumstances for the Declaration. It's the fine print, ya gotta watch...[;)] So, in my scenerio above, wouldja do it?? [:P]
Link Posted: 11/24/2003 5:47:05 PM EDT
Justification - absolutely not; we are supposed to have a government of the people, by the people, & for the people. That's not what martial law is. Constitutionality - 0 - standing armies which could impose martial law are forbidden. Probability - > 99% [url]http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/11/20/185048.shtml [/url] Why? because George Bush wants it that way - remember the "This would be easier if it were a dictatorship" comment? Absolute people control would is what martial law is all about? Result - IT WILL HAPPEN, justified or constitutional or not. Prepare for it. THE ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT, one which operates under martial law, will become a reality because every major world leader support it [url]http://www.biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&passage=Rev+17%3A17&version=KJV[/url].
Link Posted: 11/24/2003 6:53:07 PM EDT
Seen it in action, live & in person. Kent State University, Kent , Ohio , May 4,1970 Too bad they didn't kill more of those fucking kids!!!
Link Posted: 11/24/2003 8:30:00 PM EDT
Originally Posted By natez: As far as the "Martial law we're rounding up your guns" scenario: 1) If it is martial law because of some other event, then public safety entities will be too damned busy dealing with the lid coming off of every nutjob to worry about disarming anyone, except folks actively threatening their friends/family/neighbors. More likely than not, YOU will be saving OUR asses, and our Department culture, policies and attitudes reflect support of an armed citizenry. 2) If it is martial law specifically to collect firearms from law-abiding gun owners, then they have to come to my house first, and who will be left to go to the next house (or even show them where it is)?
View Quote
That's about where I figgered You would come down Natez........[^] I figger sherrick and five0, and some others, about the same... You guys are the minority. You know your co-workers.... If their mortgage/retirement/feeding kids, is on the line??? Hard Choices, for anyone to make.... You're ever in my neighborhood, need a hand, you, 'an yours, be MORE than welcome....[:D] And, ya, around here, (Coos County, OR, the cops, (hell, most everyone else too!), are Patriots.... We all get along just fine...
Link Posted: 11/25/2003 9:55:37 AM EDT
Thanks liberty86 you know WHO is going to stand up for freedom. GOOD OLD Virginia BABY.
Originally Posted By liberty86: How 'bout this.... Cinci, if you're stateside, you'll get a command. You are ordered to confiscate all weapons in a rural[red] Virginia [/red]county, What do you do???
View Quote
Link Posted: 11/25/2003 10:19:06 AM EDT
Originally Posted By DK-Prof: If that supervolcano under yellowstone blew tomorrow, or a big asteroid or comet hit the planet, I imagine martial law would be necessary to salvage what's left of the U.S. Same goes for alien invasions [:)]
View Quote
Jeeeez DK-Prof, don't be talking about no super volcanos! I live @60 miles from it damn it! WE DON'T talk about that little elephant around here! BTW every time I go out and get my truck or my self all muddy with bentnite(sp?)=volcano ash, I think about all the frickin ash that happend the last time it went. Talk about a waste land.
Link Posted: 11/25/2003 10:39:05 AM EDT
Link Posted: 11/25/2003 1:42:52 PM EDT
Originally Posted By liberty86: You have sworn an oath to the Commander in Chief.
View Quote
That must be just an officer thing. I know I never swore an oath of loyalty to any man.
Top Top