Is Martial Law Really Such A Bad Thing?

reply to post by kevinunknown


Just chiming in to remind you that everything you have said thus far has remained conjecture. You've failed to have ever constructed a thorough argument going into detail as to why martial law would be needed. You've provided examples of events which you propagate require military intervention, but you have yet to explain how these examples need military intervention.

And don't underestimate SWAT. They're essentially military police as they are anyways. They're thoroughly trained for counter terrorism of any sort.

In the example of a cruise ship, that would more than likely be in international waters. Which isn't martial law in the slightest.

You've basically created a thread declaring any form of military involvement in anything outside of war as martial law.

Originally posted by kevinunknown
reply to post by mnemeth1

 

What about domestic terrorism. Say a bunch of Osama’s best mates going into the US with an AK each and took a bunch of hostages and threaded to blow the building.

police action.

Originally posted by kevinunknown
reply to post by mnemeth1

 

What about domestic terrorism. Say a bunch of Osama’s best mates going into the US with an AK each and took a bunch of hostages and threaded to blow the building.

Before the war on terror, it would be seen as a police duty.

If this ever actually happened I wouldn't doubt martial law would be declared but is it necessary is another question.

And again, SWAT would take care of this.

Originally posted by SpectreDC

Originally posted by kevinunknown
reply to post by mnemeth1

 

What about domestic terrorism. Say a bunch of Osama’s best mates going into the US with an AK each and took a bunch of hostages and threaded to blow the building.

Before the war on terror, it would be seen as a police duty.

If this ever actually happened I wouldn't doubt martial law would be declared but is it necessary is another question.

And again, SWAT would take care of this.

If it happened in Texas, CCW would take care of this

reply to post by kevinunknown


You are doing far more than questioning why American's are against martial law, you are openly advocating it. You play games of double speak, and where you create a title asking if martial law is really such a bad thing, you then equivocate and suggest you don't mean martial law per se, just the military acting as law enforcement. Your insidious double speak knows no bounds and when you accuse me of suppressing your right to free speech, and I defend my own right to free speech and assure you I have made no efforts to have this thread suppressed, you take that assurance and attempt to imply that this was some sort of threat to you. Your game of double speak is what it is, and while many people not from the United States love to congratulate themselves on how much smarter they are than Americans, most American's recognize that for what it is, and certainly recognize you for who you are, and it is quite telling that you claim to be flattered by being called an enemy of the people of The United States.

reply to post by SpectreDC


No say a curies ship full of American passengers docks at a American port but it’s got say 10 to 15 armed terrorists on board who say they are going to blow the ship up and sink it in the harbour, say it’s just came from a curse round Africa. It’s sitting in the middle of the harbour away from any jetty. As good as SWAT and HRT are they cannot carry out a maritime assault ageist a well defended ship with live explosives and hostages on board. What do you do?

The US maritime CT capability is provide by DEVGRU (or what ever they like to call themselves these days). Now for to assault this you are going to need allot of guys we’ll say 60ish. You’re going to need combat divers, RIBS, helicopter incretions, exploitive MOE capabilities, medics and explosive experts to disarm the bombs and much more. Assaulting a ship is not like assaulting a plain or building its completely different and tactics have to reflect this and as a result most likely DEVGRU are going to be used.

If the explosives are remote detonated or there is a chance the terrorists have somebody on the outside of the boat watching they are going to want to cut off the cellular communications networks. They will not want the press watching so free press may be restricted or removed and they also don’t want any civvies around so movement is restricted.

Considering that false flag terror is in the US military counter insurgency
( read: anti invasion or anti patriot resistance) training manuals at and above the rank of Captain...what is called martial law in the OP is really state sponsered terrorism leading to a facist and /or military coup.

This should be an anethema to any free person in the republic of the USof A, and is the reason that the people are to have the right to maintain a properly armed and regulated militia.

Considering for example, that the Oakland police have suspended the carrying out of many of the duties that the tax paying citizens are paying them for, and have just been let off the hook for murdering a handcuffed unarmed citizen, and after what was seen during Katrina, I think there is no need to speculate on why martial is the third worst thing that can happen to the republic.
Third on the list, after nuclear obliteration , and second full scale invasion.

Considering that the same fascist bankers will be in charge of either or both militaries, two and three are really the same evil.
Since the Fascist bankers control the uber weapons, option one is only the BIG STICK for the options two and three, and therefore the original question is probably
moot

Ok allow me to change tact. American military CT units are right up there with the best, they spend a fortune on training them and they have expellant experience and intellect. Why bother spending money twice for police who are less capable. I am now asking about the law that says there can be no us military involvement in domestic matters rather than fuelling a argument.

Originally posted by kevinunknown
Ok allow me to change tact. American military CT units are right up there with the best, they spend a fortune on training them and they have expellant experience and intellect. Why bother spending money twice for police who are less capable. I am now asking about the law that says there can be no us military involvement in domestic matters rather than fuelling a argument.

First rule of government spending

Why pay for one when you can have two at twice the price?

Of course, we have a lot more than two.

We spend billions upon billions each year to protect us from something that's less likely to kill us than being struck dead by lightning.



[edit on 15-7-2010 by mnemeth1]

reply to post by kevinunknown


Are you asking about the Writ of Habeas Corpus, or you asking about the Posse Comitatus Act? Are you not aware that the military deals differently with the enemies they engage, than LEO's in The United States do?

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


I am terribly sorry dear friend if you have in some way misinterpreted what I am saying, I don’t think you tried to threaten me because you have no reason to and you can’t do it anyway. Also i found the term “agent” so much more flattering than enemy of the us people as the later now apply to most foreign nationals. I can assure you I am not playing any game of double speak and I don’t have any agenda other than to discuss this thread, if you don’t want to be involved then you don’t have to make any more of your fantastically intelligent posts.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


Both and also is there any loop hole that allows for military action in domestic matters.

Originally posted by kevinunknown
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

 

Both and also is there any loop hole that allows for military action in domestic matters.

Sure, its called ignoring the law.

Which the government does daily.

The US Constitution says nothing but gold and silver may be legal tender.

LOL

reply to post by kevinunknown

I can assure you I am not playing any game of double speak and I don’t have any agenda other than to discuss this thread, if you don’t want to be involved then you don’t have to make any more of your fantastically intelligent posts.

How rich in irony that the sentence that claims to not be playing any game of double speak relies solely on double speak. What in God's name gave you the impression I do not want to be involved in this thread? Are you so "fantasically" intelligent that you can perceive my irrefutable involvement in this thread as an unwillingness to be involved? No, of course you are not. It is simply double speak where you are dis-inviting to participate in this thread. Why you would do such a thing I do not know since you claim I am no threat to you.

Whatever discussion you claim to want to have, you are were not at all interested in having that discussion with me, until I declared you an enemy of the people of The United States. While you clearly view yourself as "fantastically" intelligent, you seem to be surprised that this thread has triggered an emotional response. The ability to reasonably predict an outcome is the mark of true intelligence. The ability to reasonably predict a standing military operating as law enforcement within the United States would result in usurpation of power would be an intelligent prediction. The ability to reasonably predict such a presence would be perceived as a military coup would be an intelligent prediction.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


I didn’t say I was fantastically intelligent but thank you for the complement yet more flattery. Who knows when you write something of substance rather than continuing with this personal attack against me born out of your inferiority complex surrounding your intelligence i may be able to return the complement. With that said i would really like to get back talking about this thread. Thanks, pal.

reply to post by kevinunknown


Actually to give an honest answer to your question, this is how it is legally supposed to work:

1. A terrorist event unfolds that is beyond the capability of normal police to deal with (say my tank example)

2. The governor of the state is notified

3. The governor makes the decision to mobilize the state national guard to deal with the threat.

4. If the guard is incapable of dealing with the threat (unlikely), the governor may request federal assistance.

5. Military assets may be granted to the governor under the governors direction.

However, in all of this, the governor does not have the power to declare martial law unless the situation is so wildly out of hand that the entire general public of a given area is in immediate danger.

The suspension of rights requires imminent wide spread danger, which the Constitution generally defines in the scope of insurrection or invasion.

[edit on 15-7-2010 by mnemeth1]

reply to post by mnemeth1


Ah right thank you very much for the information i that’s pretty much what i was looking for. Like i said it is very unlikely that anything would happen on such a large scale that would call for that type of action but it’s still quite interesting.

Originally posted by kevinunknown
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

 

Both and also is there any loop hole that allows for military action in domestic matters.

I actually spoke to that in an earlier post. The Writ of Habeas Corpus can be Constitutionally suspended under Article 1, Section 9:

The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it

This is not a loophole, as it is a power expressly granted Congress. Cases of rebellion, and invasion of The United States by a foreign enemy would be the sole reasons that Congress could suspend the Writ of Habeas Corpus. Further, where the Posse Comitatus Act does limit the amount of military action that can be taken on a federal level within The United States, that action can be taken, and again, upon Congressional approval. It is arguable that The United States Northern Command is that Congressional approval for military action in the wake of a terrorist act. Even so, the USNORTHCOM is limited by the Posse Comitatus Act.

As far as loopholes go, an earlier poster pointed to Wickard v. Filburn as an example of a loophole Congress used when relying on the Commerce Clause to prosecute a chicken farmer who grew wheat to feed his chickens. Of late, the Wickard ruling is under much attack and the SCOTUS is being pressured to re-examine that case and overturn it. I bring it up only to point out that the three branches of government established by Constitution are supposedly established to act as checks on the other branches.

When President Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus at the beginning of the Civil War, the SCOTUS declared parts of his suspension of Habeas Corpus as unconstitutional. It is not so easy to simply just declare martial law, or even to not so much declare martial law as simply just place military personnel in the position of civil law enforcement. There are Constitutional restraints. At times One or two or even all three branches find loopholes in these restraints, but at other times as the political winds shift in The United States, these loopholes are re-examined and a more conservative view of the Constitution is taken. By conservative I mean to say a stricter view of what was actually granted the federal government as opposed to any loopholes that have been read into what was not written.

At all times, regardless of which way the political winds are blowing, there are always the people, who are either the willing participants in federal law, or the unwilling rebels of federal law. Because the people have the right to keep and bare arms, any form of military positioning is a dicey matter. It is imprudent to rely on the military to do what Constitutionally mandated law enforcement agencies have been tasked with. How the people react to government intrusion has as much to do with whatever loopholes may be found as do the loopholes themselves. This is why The United States of America is often called The American Experiment. However the people respond to the power of government in many ways defines just how powerful that government can be.

reply to post by kevinunknown



Who would ask themselves if "Martial Law is really such a bad thing"?

It clearly is a bad thing to anyone with half their minds and an appreciation for freedom in general.

Martial Law would be the result of something that would fit nicely in the "bad things catagory", so I don't see anything good about it.

It would be good in the same way that chopping of someone's arm with gangreen is a good thing.



The biggest problem is that whatever situation will trigger Martial Law, it will probably be an inside job. Making Martial Law a cause and not a result.

If you are not talking about a widespread Martial Law scenario, but about the use of militairy in isolated events, I suggest you change the title.

I'm still wondering why you would want to know people's opinion about this.

Martial law on a federal level would take nuclear cruise missiles hitting 10-20 major cities in the U.S. at once. Other than that, martial law on that level wouldn't happen. On a localized level though, say on a city wide level, it has been done before and most of the time has had a good outcome to it.

The last martial law-like condition that went favorably well was the 1992 L.A. riots. They had to call in the National Guard (the Governor of Calif. dialed them up) and a curfew was implemented in a region of Los Angeles where the majority of looting and rioting was taking place.

While many American's would not condone Martial Law, it has been used before and will be used again. With some of your scenarios, there wouldn't be a need for martial law. As mentioned before, the SWAT units in most major metropolitan areas has the equipment of a small military force. Most have a tank, multiple remote bomb robots, assault rifles, tear gas, tasers, clubs, and remote cameras. They also are trained frequently on assault tactics.

I'm also quite positive there are ex-special forces members in the FBI/CIA/ATF. I'm not saying these federal agents are the elite portrayed in Hollywood, but I'm sure there are alot of tough SOB's that have extensive knowledge on counter-terrorist tactics.

So I don't see martial law being declared under terrorist actions, 9/11 wasn't, but I do see it declared for natural disasters and civil unrest. Martial law would be localized as well in the event the latter two took place, nothing on a national level.