Let's Define "Martial Law"

Lately, around ATS, I have noticed a growing discussion of possible impending martial law around the US. Often in threads people will say "It's only a matter of time before Bush declares martial law", or "This will lead to the UK declaring martial law".

This term is being used more frequently, and IMO, often with out a sense of the real implications of martial law.

Most people seem to have this idea that martial law means military personnel lining city streets in order to enforce the law. People picture camps and prisons with barbed wire fences with German Shepherds and guard towers.

I think this is a grave overestimation of what "martial law" really implies and I wanted to start a thread so that we can come to an understanding of what martial law really means and how we can recognize it when we see it.

Martial law is the system of rules that takes effect when the military takes control of the normal administration of justice.

Martial law is sometimes imposed during wars or occupations in the absence of any other civil government. Examples of this form of military rule include Germany and Japan after World War II or the American South during the early stages of Reconstruction. In addition it is used by governments to enforce their rule, for example after a coup d'état (Thailand 2006), when threatened by popular protests (Tiananmen Square protests of 1989), or to crack down on the opposition (Poland 1981). Martial law can also be declared in cases of major natural disasters, however most countries use a different legal construct like "state of emergency".

In many countries martial law imposes particular rules, one of which is curfew. Often, under this system, the administration of justice is left to a military tribunal, called a court-martial. The suspension of the writ of habeas corpus is likely to occur.

[1]

In other words, this does not mean that military need to be in every town. It means that the military enforces justice. This primarily would occur in a court room and more importantly, it means that defendants are not entitled to habeus corpus.

Under recent legislation, if Bush feels that you are an "enemy combatant", poof! No habeus corpus.

Under this scenario, the US is virtually under martial law already.

Anyone agree, disagree?

We are indeed under martial law, and have been for a lot longer than just about anyone would imagine.

So then how long has it been? Since 911? Earlier? The signing of the Patriot Act?

I am trying to determine a genuine definition to see exactly where we stand with this.

reply to post by TruthWithin


A lot longer than anyone would really think. I am waiting on an answer to my ATS Premium submission, where I specifiy a date and make clear the case.

Really, if you look at it in that light, the U.S. has been under an edict of martial law since the time of McCarthyism.

Very interesting viewpoint, and not one that I disagree with. A star for you op,* and a thank you



*yah. I'm stingy with them.

when can we expect the full efect of marshal law? and do think there will be a 2008 election?

Originally posted by argentus
Really, if you look at it in that light, the U.S. has been under an edict of martial law since the time of McCarthyism.

Very interesting viewpoint, and not one that I disagree with. A star for you op,* and a thank you

*yah. I'm stingy with them.

You are aware that according to what we found in the VENONA Files that a good amount of those accused by McCarthy were indeed members of the Communist Party to some extent and that both the Rosenberg's were giving nuclear secrets to the Soviets although not as vital as alleged at the trial but nevertheless they were guilty of espionage.

As for ML; my local courts are run by the New York State Office of Court Administration and my local law enforcement agencies are the Suffolk County Police Department, Suffolk County Sheriff's Office, New York State Police and various Town of Islip law enforcement agencies. Not the US Army so no, martial law does not exist.

Wow, I forgot about this thread, here are my feelings on the idea of martial law...

Illegitimate Federal Government and the Rule of Martial Law in the United States

reply to post by ChrisF231


You seem to be unaware of the fact that all the agencies you listed are franchises of the Federal government. Just as you yourself are if you have a Social Security number. That's correct, you are government property. More specifically, you are the private property of the Federal Reserve Bank, as collateral against the national debt bankrupted in 1933.

All law in the US today is contract law, even criminal law, ultimately enforced under the jursdiction of the US armed forces. Your local police department operates, in essence, as a deputized military authority.

Declared in 1863.

www.yale.edu...

reply to post by pluckynoonez


Indeed Plucky. A declaration that has never been rescinded. Some may argue that it was ruled to be un-Constitutional by the Supreme Court, but that argument is moot. I don't need the Supreme Court to tell me that martial law is un-Constitutional. Still doesn't change the facts of the matter though.