Is Martial Law Really Such A Bad Thing?

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 15 2010 @ 09:38 AM
link   
Well i don’t really mean marital law as such rather military involvement in civilian matter’s. It’s more of a question for Americans but I was wondering if you can envisage any event that would require the intervention of the military. I am sort of thinking along the lines of terrorists taking hostages or a group taking over a oil rig and the use of Delta Force and Seal Team 6. We have done this before in the UK and i know that other states do it however in America it is very controversial so i was just wondering if any ATSters can see any justification for it. Also anyone who isn’t American what do you think about it.

I personally agree with it but only when it is absolutely necessary and as a last resort but sometimes i think it is inevitable. I know some of you may fear it could bring about permanent martial law and coup or whatever else. The truth is i don’t hold such fears when it comes to the UK military becoming involved with civilian terrorist matters.

EDIT:Sorry the OP might not have been clear enough, i am not talking about blanket martial law i am asking what people think of the military being used in civilian matters such as terrorism.

[edit on 15-7-2010 by kevinunknown]



+1 more 
posted on Jul, 15 2010 @ 09:47 AM
link   
reply to post by kevinunknown
 


That's because you are already living in a police state.

The UK under martial law really wouldn't change much at all.

-Warrantless checkpoints

-Warrantless searches

-Cameras on every street corner

-Police on every street corner

-Disarmed population

-Regulation of public protest

etc.. etc.. etc..



What would change?



[edit on 15-7-2010 by mnemeth1]



posted on Jul, 15 2010 @ 09:48 AM
link   
is jail so bad? free food and amenities right?

i don't mean that sarcasticly or comparitively



posted on Jul, 15 2010 @ 09:49 AM
link   
reply to post by kevinunknown
 


I don't understand, are you advocating martial law for The United States, and inviting other members who are not living in The United States to weigh in on whether or not martial law is appropriate for The United States? If you are not from The United States then what difference does it make to you how the people of The United States deals with terrorism? Why would you advocate martial law for a country you are not from? What precisely is your agenda?

I personally believe that all people everywhere hold the inherent political power, but as a point of law, in The United States, the people are the official holders of inherent political power. This means the military answers directly to the people, mandated by Constitution, and all members of the military have sworn an oath to defend the Constitution. Are you advocating the military reject that oath and take matters into their own hand and usurp the Constitutionally mandated government? What is your agenda here?



posted on Jul, 15 2010 @ 09:50 AM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


Your right it probably wouldn’t except all police would be armed (which i am in favour of). Just to point out however we don’t have police on every street corner because they are too busy filling in paper work. I would like to see more police on the streets though.

What i am talking about is not blanket martial law as such but the use of the military in civilian matters such as terrorist attacks.



posted on Jul, 15 2010 @ 09:55 AM
link   
reply to post by kevinunknown
 


Well you ask the question

"Is martial law a bad thing?"

Most Americans would say yes, because we value our rights more than security.

When a society is armed, military security becomes unnecessary.

The left in America would favor martial law because they have been taught that being responsible for your own security is a no-no. Which is why they are in favor of gun laws, but most American's don't fall into that category.




[edit on 15-7-2010 by mnemeth1]



posted on Jul, 15 2010 @ 09:55 AM
link   


Is Martial Law Really Such A Bad Thing?


No, it's a good thing.

Until you get a boot shoved in your face.



posted on Jul, 15 2010 @ 09:55 AM
link   
Remember, the holocaust can happen to people like us...




posted on Jul, 15 2010 @ 09:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by kevinunknown
 


That's because you are already living in a police state.

The UK under martial law really wouldn't change much at all.

-Warrantless checkpoints

-Warrantless searches

-Cameras on every street corner

-Police on every street corner

-Disarmed population

-Regulation of public protest

etc.. etc.. etc..



What would change?



[edit on 15-7-2010 by mnemeth1]


A.K.A a living libertyless (if thats a word) hell world. One OBAMA would love to see



posted on Jul, 15 2010 @ 09:59 AM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


Interesting but surly there has to come a point where one’s own safety is more important than civil liberties, at least for a short time until any danger has passed or been naturalised



posted on Jul, 15 2010 @ 09:59 AM
link   
reply to post by kevinunknown
 


Do you mean like using the Nat'l Guard to break up protest.



[edit on 7/15/2010 by darkelf]



posted on Jul, 15 2010 @ 10:01 AM
link   
it wont be called martial law- peacekeeping mission sounds better.
pacification..the satellites and drones are the new guard towers..
you have been scanned and tagged with an SS number-
please resume your television programming.



posted on Jul, 15 2010 @ 10:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by kevinunknown
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


Interesting but surly there has to come a point where one’s own safety is more important than civil liberties, at least for a short time until any danger has passed or been naturalised


In The United States people have far more than "civil liberties" they have inalienable rights. Of those inalienable rights, the right to keep and bare arms is one of them. This right to keep and bare arms is the security you speak of. In other words it is the inalienable right to keep and bare arms that ensures ones own safety.



posted on Jul, 15 2010 @ 10:02 AM
link   
reply to post by kevinunknown
 
dont call me surly..troops come in to disarm the civilians -
and then you are surly defenseless. this was all practiced during katrina.
take the guns -herd them into a sports arena and lock it down.
why do you think major cities get sweet bond deals to build them-
and you call yourself a Scotsman..i'm glad my people left if this
is whats become of it.




[edit on 15-7-2010 by p51mustang]

[edit on 15-7-2010 by p51mustang]



posted on Jul, 15 2010 @ 10:03 AM
link   
reply to post by darkelf
 


If the protest has turned violent to such a extent the police can no longer maintain law and order or if protesters are using weapons, and the threat to the winder public cannot be contained then yes i think the military can be justifiably used. Your paying your tax’s for them to protect you so why not use them when its needed



posted on Jul, 15 2010 @ 10:04 AM
link   
I just had a flash in my mind of every closet alcoholic fighting a homeless man at the looted liquor store......



posted on Jul, 15 2010 @ 10:04 AM
link   
reply to post by p51mustang
 


Sorry gaz.....



posted on Jul, 15 2010 @ 10:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by kevinunknown
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


Interesting but surly there has to come a point where one’s own safety is more important than civil liberties, at least for a short time until any danger has passed or been naturalised


Safety is pretty well pointless without liberty.

Prisoners in a maximum security solitary confinement cell are safe.

I "think" that "most" American's would agree that there is never a point where safety becomes more necessary than liberty.

Carrying your own gun provides pretty much all the security one needs.

This is why there was such a huge backlash over the gun grabbing that went on during the Katrina clean-up.

A lot of places actually issued new laws that explicitly forbids police from confiscating firearms during an emergency. (even though this is already protected in the constitution)


[edit on 15-7-2010 by mnemeth1]



posted on Jul, 15 2010 @ 10:14 AM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


Yes but in the event of a terrorist attack it’s only for a short period of time and yes some people who are not involved in the incident may be inconvenienced by any military action. However the people who are being held hostage by default do not have their liberties so by using military force to defend them we are also preserving their liberty. And it is feasible to envisage such a scenario were the police do not have the capability to rescue hostages and the only option is military intervention. Grated this is entirely hypothetical but it is possible and in such s situation would the American people or the people of any state for that matter condone military action.



posted on Jul, 15 2010 @ 10:15 AM
link   
Even in extreme situations, the use of military for something that can be handed by more civilian means of specialized law enforcement is still overkill. Now we can argue New Orleans during Katrina with the military or counter that with the ATF at Ruby Ridge and Waco as specialized civilian LEO's.

I was working at nearby gas station several years ago when our county SWAT team was called in. I had to shut down the station, turn off the pumps and lights and had an armed officer guarding me for my own protection. In that case, the subject had a weapon cache including an AK-47.

I was at least paid for my time just sitting there, but I wasn't allowed to close up early and leave and had to sit inside the whole time. Wasn't even permitted to use the restroom or get a Mt. Dew from the vending machine as they were both outside.

Granted it was only for 2 hours, but it was a taste of martial law. And not one I would like to endure for an extended period of time. Especially by the military where things are more direct orders than from local cops.

[edit on 15-7-2010 by Ahabstar]





new topics
top topics
 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join