Martial Law?

Status
Not open for further replies.
S

Seven High

Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2004
Messages
755
I noticed that General Tommy Franks said that if there is one more terrorist attack in America, martial law will be imposed. What exactly is the 2005 version of martial law? It is my understanding that if, say a riot broke out in a major city, martial law was imposed, meaning no one was to be on the streets after dark. This was lifted after several days of peace. Is this still considered martial law?
 
Do you have a link to where he said that?

I honestly don't think the country could survive the entire country being under martial law, but I could be wrong.

I.G.B.
 
Yeah, even if that is the plan, I doubt he would have came out and said that. Kinda an open invitation to attack America. And just the logistics of placing the entire country under martial law is mind-boggling. Couldn't be done.

And what exactly is a terrorist attack? Many here (myself included) consider the DC shooters to be terrorists.
 
Actually, he made that statement in an interview with Cigar Afficienaddo (sp) magazine a year or two back. He was fairly clear about it, too.
Biker
 
eh. It would hurt others far worse than it would hurt me. I'm not on the streets after dark anyway. Business and commerce would seriously suffer, so you can bet any martial law duration would be short.
 
Could be you're right, P95. It's been awhile since I read the interview. However, it appears that martial law is a step or two closer to reality than it used to be, thanks to a patriot act or two. Anyway, I'm sure that one of our computer savy members will dig up the quotes and/or interview.
Biker
 
Read all about it here... Lot's of scary imponderables lie in that website's info.
http://www.infowars.com/print/ps/franks_martial.htm

When living in a Police State... it's probably wise to become a Policeman, neh?

Or a Rebel???
Hmmm another imponderable scenario.

"Gosh Wally... Couldn't the President just call out the militia and deputize them?"

"I dunno Beave. I guess he COULD... but he probably won't. Let's go ask Mom and Dad. They probably know the right thing to do."
 
Ah yes, martial law. Have you noticed the gold fringed flags at the courthouse? :evil:

Seriously. though, if you're concerned about the federal government imposing martial law, rest easy there are other things to worry about. You see a little research into the subject reveals that a few people in the federal government realized ole Abe Lincoln got a bit out of line during the Civil War, so this issue was addressed following that mess.

Some points about martial law:

1- I suggest reading Title 50 Chapter 34 which deals with National Emergencies, and you will see what the checks and balances are: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/50/chapters/34/toc.html Unlike, unlike war the President can declare a national emergency, however Congress can shut him off at ANY time they choose, and are required by their own statute to periodically vote on whether to maintain a state of emergency declared by the President.

2- The president cannot just declare martial law anytime he chooses. You may want to read the Supreme Court decision in Milligan v. US (1866), in which the court ruled, "If, in foreign invasion or civil war, the courts are actually closed, and it is impossible to administer criminal justice according to law, then, on the theatre of active military operations, where war really prevails, there is a necessity to furnish a substitute for the civil authority, thus overthrown, to preserve the safety of the army and society; and as no power is left but the military, it is allowed to govern by martial rule until the laws can have their free course. As necessity creates the rule, so it limits its duration; for, if this government is continued after the courts are reinstated, it is a gross usurpation of power. Martial rule can never exist where the courts are open, and in proper and unobstructed exercise of their jurisdiction. It is also confined to the locality of actual war."
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=71&invol=2

Anyone wonder why some people, like me, are so particular about whether we are at war or not? The above controls on martial law is one of the reasons. Congress hasn't declared war, and courts are still operating, so two of the requirements for martial law haven't been met.
 
Yeah, the judges will just call out their armies and put the POTUS back in his place :p

ABE tried to have a Supreme Court Justice arrested IIRC.

And Andy Jackson said "the court has ruled, now let them enforce it."
 
DMF: First, I agree that martial law shouldn't be high on the list of things to worry about. However, there's little traction to the idea that martial law will go away due to previous legislation/court ruling after it's been imposed. If - and this is the big if, and it's the protection upon which I depend - nationwide martial law were to be declared, all bets are off.

I would venture a guess that in virtually none (if not absolutely none) of the historical cases where a government has been replaced by a military government was the replacement legally permanent prior to martial law being declared. The very idea of martial law is that the normal rule of law has been suspended; appealing to said rule of law to end martial law is sort of pointless.

This is why it's so important that martial law be enormously difficult to impose: once it's begun, only the good faith of those in charge will ever let it die. Historically speaking, trust in those with all the guns to protect your liberties hasn't been a successful political strategy.

You're quite right, though, in that martial is extraordinarily difficult to actually get rolling in this country, and that's why it isn't a serious concern at this point. Even the days immediately after 9/11 didn't see true nationwide martial law (i.e., courts are closed, elections aren't held, the pres starts wearing an olive-drab officer's cap embroidered with seven stars and "El Presidente" on it, etc.).
 
I believe martial law was last declared in the Territory of Hawaii during World War II, just after Pearl Harbor. It lasted a few years and then went back to civil authorities. There was some Supreme Court decision back then dealing with civilians who came under military rule.
 
Sorry, DMF, but when the choice is between you or Franks most will have to go with Franks interpretation of potential events. While he may not be the sharpest knife in the drawer we at least know he's for real.
 
Marshall Law?

Is Marshall Law when the Governor is out of the state and the Marshall is in charge???? Or is it when the bad guys have killed the Sherriff and someone goes to get the Marshall?

I always get those two confused... :neener:
 
As I understood it - IF martial law were to be imposed - the constitution as we know it goes into limbo for the duration. I will happily stand corrected.
Click to expand...

Given recent legislation and court rulings, is it possible they've already imposed martial law and just forgot to tell us?
 
Sorry, DMF, but when the choice is between you or Franks most will have to go with Franks interpretation of potential events. While he may not be the sharpest knife in the drawer we at least know he's for real.
Click to expand...
Let's see I cited the US Code, and a Supreme Court case, the first dealing with National Emergencies, the second specifically dealing with martial law. Yet you would rather give more credence to a post that "alleges" Gen Franks said something, but for which there is no proof, than the US Code and the rulings of the Supreme Court. :rolleyes:

What was it you said on another thread about things being absurd. :neener:
 
IF martial law comes it won't be our troops enforcing it anyway. You'll all have your chance to peg those little blue helmets at several hundred yards.

DMF, look, fact is I haven't slept for about 24 hours now for various reasons, so here's the short version: IF martial law happens it will happen without concern for the Constitution or any SCOTUS decision because the "powers that be" will feel confident enough at that point to do as they please. And the final point in regards to that is: What are you or I going to do about it? Cite the relevant facts? Like "they" care.

The difference between you and I is you apparently still believe in the honorability of people and I don't. They'll do what they want and screw any reality to the contrary... OTOH I hope you're right but I don't really believe that either. *shrug*
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top