Off topic, I know.. but question about Martial Law

imported post

I know this is pretty off topic, but hey, those involved carry firearms :dude:

When Martial Law is declared on any level, does that mean that the military are simply given police powers? Does that mean that actual commissioned civilian law enforcement officers can just kick back and chill at home while they let the military act as law enforcement? Or is the military and police force responsible for working along side one another?

imported post

Excellent question. I hope you get a host of responses to this one.

I had thought that once martial law is declared, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are suspended during that period. However since Katrina, a number of states have enacted laws that guarantee citizens' rights are not to be suspended or violated under such conditions.

Here are two links to this topic.

http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_mlaw.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martial_law

imported post

Aaron1124 wrote:

I know this is pretty off topic, but hey, those involved carry firearms :dude:

When Martial Law is declared on any level, does that mean that the military are simply given police powers?

Click to expand...

Yes, and that the military makes the law, ad hoc, by order of general staff.

Does that mean that actual commissioned civilian law enforcement officers can just kick back and chill at home while they let the military act as law enforcement?

Click to expand...

The ones who can be trusted take assignments from the military. Others are dismissed or interred. In all matters, their authority is inferior to the military.

Or is the military and police force responsible for working along side one another?

Click to expand...

Only as assistants to, and as ordered by, the military. During martial law, the military is supreme. Remember that police are civilians.

Scary times, sure. What's on your mind?

imported post

There have been times in recent history in which the National Guard have been called out for various reasons. Often they are entirely unarmed. Other times thay carry the M-9, thereby having similar firepower as a police officer.

Rifles are issued on occasion. Therifles often contain no ammunition. Rarely they are given several rounds of ammo.

One time an idea was to send the guys out with one round of ammo in their M-16.16. That brilliant idea was cooked up during The Rodney King Riots. I don't know if it was ever actually done that way.

During Katrina, the National Guard was armed on occasion, but was mostly used for lugging water bottles and setting up medical tents. Same with 9/11.

Too many people remember Kent State to have the entire military taken off the rubber gun squad, especially domestically.

imported post

Smoking, I'm not questioning what you say, but do you have any source for your statements? I ask because I've heard different statements from different people. Some say exactly as you have said. Others have said that they are simply given police authority. Some have actually said that they work with Federal Agents only.

What about agencies such as the FBI? I would think that they would be playing a vital role in a state of U.S. Emergency.

imported post

During and after Katrina, martial law was NOT declared here in New Orleans.

imported post

Any occasion of martial law being declared on a national scale
any and all Federal agencies would assume a major role in the
administration of that law and would take control of numerous
functions commonly held by local and state authorities.

imported post

Here's your references. http://www.referencecenter.com/ref/reference/martiall/martial_law?invocationType=ar1clk&flv=1

As one who had the pleasure of enforcing martial law in the USA on 3 different occassions (think of all the riots on the East Coast in the mid- to late-60's - I was probably there in green), I can tell you that the local LEOs do not kick back and take the day off, but they stand behind and take orders from the area military commander.

There are federal and state laws from after Katrina that prevent the disarming of citizens following a declared disaster, which is different from a declaration of martial law. Constitutional protections are not out the window when martial law is declared. It takes special executive orders (see Lincolon's shenanigans during 1861 - 1865) to do that, and after it was all said & done the Supreme Court came out of hiding and declaredhis ordersunconstitutional. Lot of good it did folks after the fact, but at least we now have those decisions to rely on if anyone tries that sort of stuff again.

Whether the military decides to disarm some or all in the area depends on just how much has hit the oscillating rotator device and a few other factors. I would doubt there would be anything short of insurrection that would call for wholesale disarmament and searching house by house for firearms - which would probably cause an insurrection if one had not already been afoot.

Good question. Not a fun subject. Not a fun time if it comes to martial law being declared, because that essentially means civilian law enforcement has tanked.

And even when the National Guard is federalized and issued weapons it does not mean martial law has been declared. It takes a separate order that specifies where, when, and under what conditions.

stay safe.

skidmark

imported post

So what is the role of the FBI during Martial Law? Do they even give a s*!t? Or do they suddenly have a new responsibility?

imported post

Aaron1124 wrote:

So what is the role of the FBI during Martial Law? Do they even give a s*!t? Or do they suddenly have a new responsibility?

Click to expand...

Their new role, assuming your question relates to nationwide martial law, is to be subservient to the military.

If your question relates to a lesser geographic area, it's the same answer.

They do their job, but have a new chain of command and reporting.

stay safe.

skidmark

imported post

OK, the OP's question was asked and answered. He admitted it was Off Topic to begin with but it was allowed to run for a while.

What say we allow it to die a natural death at this point?

stay safe.

skidmark

imported post

skidmark wrote:

Here's your references. http://www.referencecenter.com/ref/reference/martiall/martial_law?invocationType=ar1clk&flv=1

As one who had the pleasure of enforcing martial law in the USA on 3 different occassions (think of all the riots on the East Coast in the mid- to late-60's - I was probably there in green), I can tell you that the local LEOs do not kick back and take the day off, but they stand behind and take orders from the area military commander.

There are federal and state laws from after Katrina that prevent the disarming of citizens following a declared disaster, which is different from a declaration of martial law. Constitutional protections are not out the window when martial law is declared. It takes special executive orders (see Lincolon's shenanigans during 1861 - 1865) to do that, and after it was all said & done the Supreme Court came out of hiding and declaredhis ordersunconstitutional. Lot of good it did folks after the fact, but at least we now have those decisions to rely on if anyone tries that sort of stuff again.

Whether the military decides to disarm some or all in the area depends on just how much has hit the oscillating rotator device and a few other factors. I would doubt there would be anything short of insurrection that would call for wholesale disarmament and searching house by house for firearms - which would probably cause an insurrection if one had not already been afoot.

Good question. Not a fun subject. Not a fun time if it comes to martial law being declared, because that essentially means civilian law enforcement has tanked.

And even when the National Guard is federalized and issued weapons it does not mean martial law has been declared. It takes a separate order that specifies where, when, and under what conditions.

stay safe.

skidmark

Click to expand...

I'll bite on this. Certainly a grave theat to liberty could come from martial law. However, knowing as many military people as I do, I can't see the resulting death camps and mass disarmaments as envisioned by others. During Katrina, there certainly was a horrible situation, but that wasn't the result of federal martial law, that was the result of the mandates of local officials (liberals) who directed imported LEO's and troops (LA Guardmen were in Iraq)to disarm people. One of the most disgusting examples of which was the cop from california who took down the little old lady and swiped her revolver. That guy should have been skinned.

With that in mind, vigilance is important. The loss of civil liberties should not be tolerated. They have been for decades anyway. In Seattle years ago, after a bunch of leftist malcontents smashed windows and destroyed private property, the city cracked down on everyone. People were searched at random, and civil liberties were ignored. It took the video from katrina for people to understand the necessity of vigilance. I wonder if YouTube and the internet was available during the LA riots of 1992 and the Seattle G8 protests if we would even be having discussion like this. No wonder obozo and his minions want to control the internet during times of "crisis".

imported post

Could the UN come into play?

imported post

During a time of Martial Law, considering constitutional rights are supposedly suspended, could government officials go door to door seizing weapons?

imported post

Many states have passed laws against that. Notwithstanding state laws, a lot of federal officials could go door to door and get shot....

imported post

Aaron1124 wrote:

Smoking, I'm not questioning what you say, but do you have any source for your statements? I ask because I've heard different statements from different people. Some say exactly as you have said. Others have said that they are simply given police authority. Some have actually said that they work with Federal Agents only.

What about agencies such as the FBI? I would think that they would be playing a vital role in a state of U.S. Emergency.

Click to expand...

The FBI might be given a role, but such a function would be discretionary, at the whim of General staff. We're not discussing a police state, during which the FBI would be tremendously powerful; we're discussing martial law, rule of the military, which might very well be a popular reaction to the police state imposed by an autocrat. Martial law is not always seen negatively. Military figures often ascend to power when civilian leaders prove too despotic.

imported post

A recent example being Honduras.

imported post

smoking357 wrote:

Aaron1124 wrote:

Smoking, I'm not questioning what you say, but do you have any source for your statements? I ask because I've heard different statements from different people. Some say exactly as you have said. Others have said that they are simply given police authority. Some have actually said that they work with Federal Agents only.

What about agencies such as the FBI? I would think that they would be playing a vital role in a state of U.S. Emergency.

Click to expand...

The FBI might be given a role, but such a function would be discretionary, at the whim of General staff. We're not discussing a police state, during which the FBI would be tremendously powerful; we're discussing martial law, rule of the military, which might very well be a popular reaction to the police state imposed by an autocrat. Martial law is not always seen negatively. Military figures often ascend to power when civilian leaders prove too despotic.

Click to expand...

BUT, the Military's primary mission has nothing to do with maintaining order in a city or town. That is way out of their ballpark. As quoted in the movie "The Siege".. "The Military is a broadsword.. not a scalpel" They're not always the best tool for the job. Agencies like the FBI and other organizations are much more equipped in dealing with domestic situations.

imported post

Aaron1124 wrote:

BUT, the Military's primary mission has nothing to do with maintaining order in a city or town. That is way out of their ballpark. As quoted in the movie "The Siege".. "The Military is a broadsword.. not a scalpel" They're not always the best tool for the job. Agencies like the FBI and other organizations are much more equipped in dealing with domestic situations.

Click to expand...

Says who? What you are talking about here is for what State militias train the most.

The FBI and other organizations many times will not have the man-power or won't have it where it is needed. Further, they're way over-qualified to handle the day-to-day duties that would be required in the case of a major incident. I'm going to refrain from using the term "martial law" here and instead refer to a "major incident."

To cite wikipedia, which itself doesn't cite a source for this information:
As of September 30, 2008, the FBI had a total of 31,244 employees. That includes 12,851 special agents and 18,393 support staff, such as FBI police officers, intelligence analysts, language specialists, scientists, information technology specialists, and other professionals.

From fbi.gov, they say:
[font="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"][size="-1"]As of June 30, 2003, the FBI employed 11,633 Special Agents and 15,904 Professional Support people.[/size][/font]

The FBI is scattered throughout the United States. We're going to have to depend on State militias (National Guard and State Defense Forces) if there's a major incident or incidents within a State or States that requires a large amount of man-power. A riotous city, as you alluded to in your example, would require a fair to large amount of man power; and it would have to be deployed quickly, which means local personnel.

You seem to be hung up on qualifications of personnel, but a lot of the tasks that would be assigned to the military during a major incident:

• A show of force. It might be a bluff, but an unarmed, uniformed platoon patrolling a district can be an effective deterrent against looting and other crimes.
• Observe and report. Eg. patrol.
• Traffic control. Directing traffic at intersections; blocking certain roads and drives.
• Access control. Guarding entrances (whether armed or not) and allowing entry only by authorized personnel.
• Damage/Situation Survey and Assessment.
• Resource Logistics.
• Lots of other things which require little to no training.

There is some training required to conduct some of the jobs, but not everything requires anything remotely close to the four-year degree, TS clearance, and 1,500 hours of training that FBI agents get.

What you'll probably end up with is FEMA's NIMS. It wouldn't just be militia, or just FBI, or just police. There would be a combination of police, fire/emt, militia, and other relevant personnel integrated under a common incident command. The personnel and their expertise would be used by the incident command accordingly, as the incident requires.

As for martial law, it's complicated and thinking about it and all of its implications gets my head spinning in circles, that's all I know. I don't know enough to comment on it directly.

imported post

Aaron1124 wrote:

BUT, the Military's primary mission has nothing to do with maintaining order in a city or town.

Click to expand...

Evidently, you've never heard of Iraq or Afghanistan.