It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Martial Law is an impractical solution to any national crisis. The Founding Fathers understood this well, which is why they specifically opposed the use of standing armies, especially in peace time. Under the Constitution, the private citizenry was supposed to be the disaster reaction force, not government paid centurions. There were multiple reasons behind this position. First, military troops are not trained for and do not have the capacity to police a domestic population (especially their own) in a practical manner. They are trained to do one thing; dominate an enemy. Second, the citizens within a particular state or county would have a much better understanding of that region’s needs and complexities. A military composed of mostly unfamiliar outsiders would not know or care about how a local system operates, and would instead try to impose its own one-size-fits-all methodology. Finally, as apathetic as many people seem, they still do not like to feel bullied or subjugated. Being surrounded by armed troops at every turn with the executive granted legal authority to detain or kill without verifiable cause would make any man a little perturbed. I do not believe many in the U.S. will quietly accept a martial law scenario, regardless of the excuse given by government (terrorism, economic disaster, foreign war, etc.). A move towards military administration of domestic affairs will lead to revolution.
Originally posted by PlanetXisHERE
reply to post by detachedindividual
I cannot disagree that your scenario is possible. Many Americans are soft, and given the choice between revolution or keeping their iphones - ?
But what is the ultimate agenda? And who's agenda is it?
Even though I love Ron Paul, I don't think Obama is that bad of a guy, even though he is a little socialist, I don't think he wants to turn the US into the Soviet Union. I believe he has been forced to undertake some of the more controversial policies he has enacted - but by who? Who are these unseen powers?