Is Martial Law Really Such A Bad Thing?

Originally posted by camaro68ss
A.K.A a living libertyless (if thats a word) hell world. One OBAMA would love to see

You know...throughout the bush years, everyone on the far left kept saying Bush wanted a police state...wanted to be a tyrant of america, a king, etc etc etc...

then he left and obama comes into office...same song, but coming from the far right now.

I am starting to think that we are but pawns in some sort of distraction right v left game...same arguments, same nonsense, different faces no matter who is running the game.

I offically quit the RvL nonsense due to circular mindsets like this....thats it...heres my resignation papers...anyone whom exclaims that the POTUS (whomever it is) wants to make a nazi regime is immediately and unconditionally labelled a tool in my book...case closed. (no direct offense btw Camaro...just used your particular post as a generalization)

reply to post by kevinunknown


Why should a terrorist attack necessitate martial law?

I don't see why you think this would be necessary.

Typically the terrorists are already dead, so what's the need for martial law?

reply to post by Ahabstar


The civilian law enforcement does have its limitation that the military can surpass. Say for example terrorists have gained control of an oil rig, attack a nuclear power station, or take a high profile public figure hostage. The police might not have the capability to deal with these types of attacks but the military does.

Also thank you for your story about the gas station, what happened to the guy they were after.

The Great Writ of Habeas Corpus, (ironically a document forged in Great Britain), is a fundamental document of common law in The United States that requires government ensure a hearing on lawful imprisonment. The Constitution does give Congress the authority to suspend Habeas Corpus when:

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.

~Article 1, Section 9~

However, The Posse Comitatus Act (18 U.S.C. § 1385) passed in 1878 has substantially limited the federal government in how they can use military power as a tool for law enforcement. The National Guard, which is under the authority of the Governors of each respective state, can be used to quell insurrections, but the federal governments use of military is far more questionable.

It is outrageous that a foreign agent such as Kevinunknown thinks it is appropriate to advocate the use of federal martial law in The United States, and further invites other foreign agents to weigh in on the matter while not openly inviting Americans to do the same. There are many Americans who hold great disdain for The United Nations, and this thread is a damn good example as to why that disdain exists. If Kevinunknown favors martial law for the nation in which he lives then let Kevinunknown create a thread for that. However, since Kevinunknown has created a thread openly advocating martial law for The United States, and admitting he is a foreign national advocating this martial law, Kevinunknown is openly declaring himself an enemy of the people of The United States.



[edit on 15-7-2010 by Jean Paul Zodeaux]

reply to post by kevinunknown


Why would that require the suspension of citizen's rights?

reply to post by kevinunknown
just jokin -my mother name was shirley..
i think i share views with the more militant- and ben franklin-
those who would trade liberty for security will get neither.
or words to that effect.

reply to post by mnemeth1


Yes but just because currently terrorists prefer to blow them self’s up does not mean this will always be the case. It is possible, as unlikely as it may be that terrorists could carry out a attack witch the domestic security services (FBI HRT for example) cannot deal with and the only possibility is for military counter terrorist experts to intervene. The alternative is to attempt to negotiate which may fail and then attempt to combat the terrorists which could turn into a blood bath.

reply to post by mnemeth1


It could for example require blacking out the press, cutting off cellular communication net works, restricting civilian movements and so on.

Originally posted by kevinunknown
reply to post by mnemeth1

 

Yes but just because currently terrorists prefer to blow them self’s up does not mean this will always be the case. It is possible, as unlikely as it may be that terrorists could carry out a attack witch the domestic security services (FBI HRT for example) cannot deal with and the only possibility is for military counter terrorist experts to intervene. The alternative is to attempt to negotiate which may fail and then attempt to combat the terrorists which could turn into a blood bath.

I could see the need to use military force to stop a terrorist insurgency or some kind of imminent threat, but I still don't see the need for martial law.

Using the military to stop a terrorist doesn't necessitate the need to suspend citizens rights.

I get so tired when I hear people talking about inalienable rights. Yes, that's what we were taught back in school. But where are they in practice?
It's not even a new phenomenon. In 1942, a farmer was prosecuted for growing wheat on his own land for his own and his animal's consumption. He was convicted and the Supreme Court upheld the conviction. They prosecuted a farmer during wartime for growing food. Only in america would a government be so stupid as to prosecute a farmer from growing food during a war. If you can't grow food on your own land for your own table, without a license from the government, then you have no rights at all.
The case was called "Wickard vs Filburn"
caselaw.lp.findlaw.com...

reply to post by kevinunknown


You've apparently never heard of SWAT before.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


Oh am a foreign agent now I should start to call myself 007. One of the great things about the liberal notion of liberty that you are trying to defend is that I have “freedom of speech” so if I want to voice an opinion or ask a question under your “liberty” I can. This is a right you are trying to suppress in your post by declaring me an “enemy the people of the USA” another term I love by the way.

reply to post by SpectreDC


Don’t get me wrong SWAT are good however they have their limitations just like FBI HRT. What if a curse ship is taken over and terrorists say they are going to take it out to sea and skink it killing everyone? HRT can’t deal with that, for that you need a maritime CT capacity.

Originally posted by kevinunknown
reply to post by SpectreDC

 

Don’t get me wrong SWAT are good however they have their limitations just like FBI HRT. What if a curse ship is taken over and terrorists say they are going to take it out to sea and skink it killing everyone? HRT can’t deal with that, for that you need a maritime CT capacity.

Terrorist taking a cruise ship would not necessitate suspending citizens rights and implementing military governance.

reply to post by kevinunknown


Calling you out on your advocacy of martial law in The United States, and especially you being a foreign national of a different country advocating martial law in The United States, is not suppressing your right to speech. I have not alerted the moderators regarding this thread. I have not called for a suppression of this thread. I have used my own right to free speech to call a spade a spade, and an enemy of the people of the Untied States, and enemy. I asked you flat out what precisely your agenda was in advocating martial law for a country you do not live in and are not from. You chose to ignore that question. You chose to ignore me until I called you out on you an enemy of the people. Don't confuse your hurt feelings with suppression of speech, pal.




[edit on 15-7-2010 by Jean Paul Zodeaux]

I could see the need for it in a very localized fashion for something like say the Mumbai attacks but only as a precaution for civilians and to end it immediately thereafter. I could also see the use of military in that instance if they were the closest and had the best response time but to hand over responsibility once the other LEO agencies are in place.

Other than that, thanks but no.

reply to post by mnemeth1


Not necessary it could. What am talking about is quite clear in the first line of the OP were i made this clear
“Well i don’t really mean marital law as such rather military involvement in civilian matter’s”

And it could if it was big enough, rights may have to be suppressed such as the right to free press possible free speech could be restricted and freedom of movement. I can’t really envisage anything on such a large scale that the federal government would have to be replaced by military governance. I suppose a large WMD attack might or at least at state level might call for military governance.

reply to post by kevinunknown


I don't see anything wrong with using a military asset to stop a military threat.

Say a terrorist is driving around town in a stolen M1 Abrams blowing people up. The police aren't going to be able to necessarily stop that.

Its a military threat, so military force would be justified.

Of course, if we actually lived by the second amendment, such threats could be neutralized by the public rather quickly.

But since we don't, it becomes necessary to use military force in such situations.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


Oh trust me you are far from insulting me rather flattering me. There is nothing on this thread that is going strongly against the T&C’s so i see no need for moderation but it is interesting you bring it up when talking about suppressing free speech. I did say in the OP this was more of a question for Americans however others were free to participate. As this thread has already proved emotions and feelings run high when it comes to this topic so I am just trying to establish why Americans are so ageist it in a time of need, Pal

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.