Code Red=Martial law?

[Reeder]

It sure looks to me like it could be. at least it opens the door for it.

[Zoff]

No. Code Red means a high probability of terrorist attack. There is no further definition or means of reacting that is an inherent part of Code Red.

Martial law may be imposed when

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 the proper and unobstructed exercise of their jurisdiction. It is also confined to the locality of actual war. Ex parte Milligan, 71 U.S. 2, 297(1866)

Code Red can be declared with no imposition of martial law and martial law can be imposed without declaration of Code Red. They are separate things.

[Speaker_for_the_Dead]

Wait, that means that there has to be a war going on in the area before martial law can be declared?

[Zoff]

I’m not sure there’s a clear cut answer regarding martial law, but I’ll give it a shot.

Martial law is an unclear issue in the US. Broadly, it means suspension of civil authority and imposition of military authority. Article 1, Section 9, clause 2 of the Constitution says “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.” Suspending the writ could be considered an element of establishing martial law. The constitution gives authority to suspend the writ to Congress, but some argue the President, as Commander-in-Chief can declare martial law and Congress can accept the declaration by failing to stop it. But the language indicates a state of war or unrest.

Martial law has been declared a few times in the US. Most famously, President Lincoln declare martial law and Congress suspended habeas corpus in certain circumstances. These actions gave rise to Ex parte Milligan. In that case, the Supreme Court said martial law is “is the will of the commanding officer of an armed force, or of a geographical military department, expressed in time of war within the limits of his military jurisdiction, as necessity demands and prudence dictates, restrained or enlarged by the orders of his military chief, or supreme executive ruler.” This language also mentions war, but other impositions of martial law have happened based on civil unrest.

So I’d say there does not have to be a declared war, but there does need to be such unrest that normal civil authority can not function.