Martial Law

Great Debates
1

What would happen if an American City was attacked by a nuclear bomb, thousands of lives were lost and an entire city was devastated? Would Martial law take effect? If so, what exactly is Martial Law and would America ever return to normal afterwards? What Freedoms and rights would we have to give up? What freedoms and rights are you willing to give up for the supposed safety and protection of your city?

I don’t want to sound pessimistic here, but this is a possibility for our future in these times, and I am concerned as to how it all would play out and what our reality would be if this was to happen.

2

Well, first of all, no one will ever say, “This city/state/nation is under Martial Law.” They would say, “We’re declaring a State of Emergency.” Less threatening, no?

3

Martial law/State of Emergency would be handled pretty much like in any natural disaster where the National Guard is called out for rescue and police activity. The state of emergency would be over when the governor decides that the regular police and rescue forces are able to handle the situation on their own.

“Martial law” isn’t the equivalent of declaring a dictatorship. It just means that the national guard, and perhaps regular army are called out to help. This happens all the time with hurricanes, forest fires, riots, earthquakes, etc. Yes, the president could concievable use these troops to take over the country and declare himself dictator. But, would the troops obey the order? After all, they are American citizens too.

We will only have a dictatorship in this country if the american people decide they WANT a dictatorship. Or at least, enough people go along with it. It all comes down to, do the cops and the army support the dictatorship or not? And how many people will resist the army? If the president/dictator orders the army to start shooting people for no good reason, what is going to happen? Do the american people cheer him on, or do they fight back? If they don’t cheer, then the dictatorship is over.

4

Uh, no. Mobilizing the national guard or (in the case of that ice storm that hit Quebec and Ontario a few years back) federal troops to help deal with some natural disaster is a fairly straightforward process that has nothing to do with Martial Law as it is defined. Martial Law means all civil rights have been suspended and military courts replace all civilian courts. The film The Siege portrays this happening in Brooklyn after a series of terrorist attacks.

In reality though, I can’t think of a time in recent American history where Martial Law was invoked (the iternment of Japanese-descended citizens during WW2 comes closest). The October Crisis in Quebec in 1970 is an example of Martial Law, since known or suspected FLQ sympathizers were rounded up by cops who had military support and held without charge, bail or trial. The military was still under civilian control (in the person of the Prime Minister, Pierre Trudeau) and a coup was not anticipated or likely, though I’m sure it seemed pretty dicey at the time.

Martial Law is a very specific term and should not be used casually where it doesn’t apply.

5

Perhaps it would help if one of the SDMB Jurisconsults would post a definition of what, in American government, martial law as a legal entity consists of.

6

To my knowledge there has been no state of martial law in the United States since the Civil War when the military authorities in Ohio (for Pete’s sake) convened a commission to try a notorious Copperhead named Vanlaningham for encouraging resistance to the draft. He was convicted and the sentence mitigated by Lincoln into transportation beyond the lines into Confederate territory. I thing that the US Sup Ct, in a decision made well after the war was over, said that as long as the civilian courts were working there was no justification for sending him to a military commission and that the whole thing was unlawful. The military authority who set the whole thing up was General Burnside, who is best known for leading the Army of the Potomac into a catastrophe at Fredericksburg, Va., in December, 1862.

In any event, martial law is in effect when military authorities not only take over law enforcement functions but also take over the courts and assume the power to administer criminal, and sometimes civil, justice.

To a great extent the whole problem has been avoided since the late 1860s but the Posse Comatatus Act which prohibits the use of federal military (but strangely not naval) forces for law enforcement except in the case of invasion, rebellion or the inability of local courts and officials to enforce the law and maintain order. It was under the exception for enforcement of the law that the Arkansas National Guard was taken into national service and elements of the regular army employed in the Little Rock school affair during the last Eisenhower Administration. There was no exception that would allow federal forces to take over airport security last September, so the feds asked the States to have their National Guards do it as state militias, even thought the feds ended up paying for it. According to the news Tom Ridge (Tsar of Looking Under the Bed) is agitating for modifications to the PCA.

7

Everything you want to know about Martial Law, right 'ere!

Responding to the OP:

It is possible the president could say, “Heysa, America, we’re under attack, so, uh, until I say otherwise, you can call me King Bush, m’kay? Or rather, how about The Stupenderflous Royal King Bush.” In a time of emergency, few would resist the steps needed for their safety. After the suicide plane dives, most Americans were ready to establish ID card systems and do whatever it took to make things safe. Cynics were ignored, or harrassed. Thankfully the hysteria wore off and things returned to our bickering normal, but if a nuclear attack occured…

The strength of the military under martial law is bolstered by the support it gets. When martial law was declared in California around the time of Rodney King, of course no one wanted them around(Although at that time things were reverting to normal again). But if a major city is suddenly levelled by a nuke, the military will ride into the cities cheered on by flag-waving gun-toting patriotic nationalists, or some such.

If we’re looking at country-wide(as opposed to just major cities) martial law, things get tricky. The Supreme Court could tell Bush, “Hey, what you’re doing is not essential to the security of our country, so knock it off.” But Bush is the one with the army- Under martial law, the Supreme Court and Legislative have no authority. It comes down to two choices now:

a. President Bush decides to accept the blast of negatism he’ll eventually get after relinquishing power and withdraws troops, or

b. Bush wipes out every liberal in the Western Hemisphere.

If it’s B, well, then, our marvelous experiment in democracy has reached an end. So be it. I think a good follow-up question is: How would foreign countries(espec. UK, France, Russia) react to choice B?

8

If there was a tragedy as large as what was in my OP, are you saying that “A State of Emergency” would be declared just as has happened in past disasters? I’m not saying there’s going to be rioting or dictatorship, but if anentire city was gone and thousands of people were dead, I imagine there would be some incredible fear among Americans and who knows what that fear could make people capable of doing. Will people flee their cities because of the fear that their city might be in danger? Will there be a coast to coast curfew? This is all hypothetical but there was a reason “Martial Law” was written and I’m trying to find out in all seriousness if it would be used in a situation as this, and if it would change the way we live as free Americans.

As I understand it, we are already losing a bit more of our privacy with Operation TIPS, and that is meant to purposely make everyone even more suspicious of each other.

I don’t know about you but that sounds like our freedoms would be at risk should Martial Law be activated.

above quote from
this page (Bolding mine)

9

If the president wanted to maintain his postition of power, he would have to put his people in key positions in the national guard and the military, they wouldn’t follow orders illegal to the constitution.
I think the way of life would slowly re-ajust after martial law and generally things would get back to normal. There would be increased vigalance to stop any attacks in the planning stage.

10

The point is that, yes the President could simply declare martial law, and suddenly–as lenin puts it–our experiment with democracy is over.

But of course it wouldn’t REALLY be over. I mean, I can proclaim myself dictator tomorrow, and give myself the power to overthrow the constitution, and restrict travel, etc, etc, etc. So can the president. So what? Just because he proclaims it doesn’t make it so. Yes, the president might have a better shot at making it stick compared to me. But not THAT much of a better shot.

He can give all the orders he wants, but how can he make us obey those orders? He can give the army orders to round up and shoot all the liberals, but will they carry out the orders? Yes, in a confused situation the military will obey orders. But the confused situation will be over in a few weeks, and then what? Soldiers aren’t robots, they are American citizens just like the rest of us.

There might be a state of emergency that might last a while. But the state of emergency will end, because the American people will demand it to end.

Just think of this. Why does the president have to follow the constitution right now? Why does the constitution mean anything? It has meaning simply because the vast majority of people agree to give it meaning, or at least don’t have any burning desire to change things. The important part is that the president declaring a dictatorship doesn’t make a dictatorship. The American people are the ones who would turn America into a dictatorship. If we don’t listen to the dictates of the dictator, he’s not much of a dictator, right?

11

There’s lots more to be said, but I agree with the fact that Americans would be strong willed enough to stand up to the President, and for their rights, should anything like this ever happen.

Hopefully it won’t.

12

Well, I think that the declaration of Martial Law would be taken two ways, and a lot of it would depend on what happend down the road.

Scenario: BOOM and Los Angeles is wiped from the map. After a brief round of cheering, martial law is imposed. Months later, after the offending nation or group has been wiped from the planet, martial law is relenquished. A few soreheads would probably sue the US gov’t, but life would move on.

Counter Scenario: BOOM and Los Angeles is wiped from the map. After a brief round of cheering, martial law is imposed. Months later, after the offending nation or group has been wiped from the planet, martial law is still in place. After numerous public requests for the restoration of civil liberties, and after much fear and growing hysteria, tens of thousands of armed Americans (such as myself) rise up and begin a campaign of guerilla warfare against the “federal” forces in an attempt to force the government to relenquish it’s control of daily life. Where it goes from there depends on what happens the first time the US Army is ordered to fire on civilians in peaceful protest…

13

Martial Law is known in the US Constitution as suspending the writ of habeas corpus. Article I, Section 9 reads (in part)

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.

Since Article I deals with the legislature, it is obvious that Bush cannot simply declare martial law, that this is a power given to the congress. However, I believe Lincoln misused this power to put down draft riots.

14

And since the liberals are less likely to have privately owned guns, this end would be hastened if not certain.

15

I would be willing to bet that in the face of “jack booted thugs” kicking in the door and taking the family away in Black Maria’s that even the most staunch liberals would have a sudden reversal of their personal stand on guns.

Besides, I guess my girl would count as a liberal. I would still blast any agenst trying to get her away from me… so who knows?

16

Look, my point is: Where does the president get his jack-booted thugs? It takes time to build up a cadre of thugs that believe they can do anything they want. The president can’t just give orders and turn the army and the cops into jack-booted thugs overnight. The army and the cops have to WANT to become jack-booted thugs.

17

What are you talking about?

18

I’m curious about that myself. Aside from calling out riot cops in large numbers, I didn’t see anything even close to martial law being declared in California.

Incidentally, the rioting didn’t occur around the time of Rodney King, or at least not around the time his arrest was videotaped. It was some time later when the police accused of assaulting him were acquitted.

This whole thread has been an exercise in the misuse of the phrase “martial law”.

19

I recall having read, back during the mid-70’s, shortly after Nixon was forced to resign, a newspaper article that has some relevance to this discussion. I don’t have a citation, unfortunately, but perhaps someone can come up with one.

The article stated that, during Nixon’s last days in office–when he was behaving more than a little irrationally, the Army Chief of Staff contacted the commanding general of Fort Myers, VA–which is home to an armored battalion (or division?) and located a handful of miles from Washington, DC–and instructed him to take orders only through the chain of command and that he specifically was not to accept any orders directly from the President and, further, that if the President attempted to remove him from command for refusal to accept orders (remember the Saturday Night Massacre?), the general was to contact the Joint Chiefs immediately while retaining command.

As it happened, Nixon did not contact the Fort Myers commander so this scenario never occurred…but they were prepared.

If this story was true rather than a figment of imagination on the part of the reporter, it underlines the fact that we are in little danger from a dictatorship in the guise of martial law.

Can anyone come up with a citation?