• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

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

Aaron1124

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2009
Messages
2,044
Location
Kent, Washington, USA
imported post

smoking357 wrote:
Aaron1124 wrote:
BUT, the Military's primary mission has nothing to do with maintaining order in a city or town.
Evidently, you've never heard of Iraq or Afghanistan.
The way they maintain order is much different than how the police are trained to maintain order.
 
M

McX

Guest
imported post

Hi Guys, I have been hearing that some states are striking down the "sieze weapons during catastophe" laws. Does Wisconsin have this? Has it been struck down?
 

PrayingForWar

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2007
Messages
1,701
Location
The Real World.
imported post

smoking357 wrote:
Aaron1124 wrote:
BUT, the Military's primary mission has nothing to do with maintaining order in a city or town.
Evidently, you've never heard of Iraq or Afghanistan.
Evidently some folks are unaware we only secured Iraq through the will of local people. Even with all the assests of artillery, satellites, air power and stuff most folks can't comprehend, the reduction of violence in Iraq was the results of individual units NOT FIGHTING locals, and convincing them it was their best interests to get in the convoy and help out. The fact that a large portion of the jihad effort was supported and manned by foriegn interests who cut the fingers off locals for smoking probably promoted our agenda as an unintended consequence. (Kinda like all the pinkos in the US who got support from the soviets, perhaps their agents never left, they just aquired new [cough soros cough] funding)

So obviously, it should be far more difficult for the military to be used to suppress our own people when far more than half of them will take their M4's home. Don't be stupid, the military is not your enemy.
 

WheelGun

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2008
Messages
276
Location
Delaware County, New York, USA
imported post

Most of the state military forces are unarmed except for the state soldiers who carry personal weapons on the 'down low.'

The National Guard takes a long time to call up and organize, and many soldiers will have been affected by the emergency themselves.

When it comes down to a national emergency, even if there is martial law, most of us will be on our own.

YOU (the armed civilian) will be the militia and law enforcer of everything between you and the horizon in every direction.
 

Aaron1124

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2009
Messages
2,044
Location
Kent, Washington, USA
imported post

smoking357 wrote:
Aaron1124 wrote:
smoking357 wrote:
Aaron1124 wrote:
BUT, the Military's primary mission has nothing to do with maintaining order in a city or town.
Evidently, you've never heard of Iraq or Afghanistan.
The way they maintain order is much different than how the police are trained to maintain order.
Correct. And...?
My point is that the police are specifically trained to maintain order in a domestic environment. Although the military is trained, they are trained in a different way, and it isn't their primary responsibility. The only reason why I see the need for a Martial Law is a lack of civilian police in a certain area and the need for additional man power. Hell, most special units of the police force are all ex military.. not to mention FBIs Hostage Rescue Team, which are very elite trained operatives. With enough of them, I don't see why they wouldn't be able to maintain order in a state of emergency.
 

smoking357

Banned
Joined
Dec 29, 2008
Messages
1,100
Location
Pierce is a Coward, ,
imported post

Aaron1124 wrote:
smoking357 wrote:
Aaron1124 wrote:
smoking357 wrote:
Aaron1124 wrote:
BUT, the Military's primary mission has nothing to do with maintaining order in a city or town.
Evidently, you've never heard of Iraq or Afghanistan.
The way they maintain order is much different than how the police are trained to maintain order.
Correct. And...?
My point is that the police are specifically trained to maintain order in a domestic environment. Although the military is trained, they are trained in a different way, and it isn't their primary responsibility. The only reason why I see the need for a Martial Law is a lack of civilian police in a certain area and the need for additional man power. Hell, most special units of the police force are all ex military.. not to mention FBIs Hostage Rescue Team, which are very elite trained operatives. With enough of them, I don't see why they wouldn't be able to maintain order in a state of emergency.
You've changed the discussion. You started by asking how martial law works; now you're trying to argue how a martial law could work. It's this simple: whatever the commanding officer wants, he gets. Martial law is the opposite of civilian law. Civilians are all the People and the offices of government, save the military. If the military assumes governance, all that civilian stuff is of no moment. The military does not need to abide by the Constitution or to return to rule under it, at any point.

By way of example, when the Governor calls out the National Guard to keep order, that's not martial law, as the Governor still has control over the Guard. When the National Guard General stops taking the Governor's orders and orders the Governor confined to quarters, you've got martial law. If the civilian authorities want to wrest control back from the military, it won't happen with votes, but with bullets.

Throughout history, military rule has been seen as preferable to civilian rule, and vice versa. Martial law sits very well with those Americans who live in places where, for lack of a better correlation, the Baptist Church has a significant presence. With many Americans finding peace to be cowardice and being consummate authority-lovers, it's very likely that when America collapses, parts of it, likely the South, will be ruled by Generals. If these Generals allow elections, it is likely that the elected Governor will share power with the military.

Other areas of the country, where, again, for lack of a better correlation, the prevailing religions are Catholicism, Judaism, Lutheranism, environmentalism or atheism, will deeply resist military rule and will likely have a short-lived military head or may never be ruled by military power.
 

Aaron1124

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2009
Messages
2,044
Location
Kent, Washington, USA
imported post

smoking357 wrote:
Aaron1124 wrote:
smoking357 wrote:
Aaron1124 wrote:
smoking357 wrote:
Aaron1124 wrote:
BUT, the Military's primary mission has nothing to do with maintaining order in a city or town.
Evidently, you've never heard of Iraq or Afghanistan.
The way they maintain order is much different than how the police are trained to maintain order.
Correct. And...?
My point is that the police are specifically trained to maintain order in a domestic environment. Although the military is trained, they are trained in a different way, and it isn't their primary responsibility. The only reason why I see the need for a Martial Law is a lack of civilian police in a certain area and the need for additional man power. Hell, most special units of the police force are all ex military.. not to mention FBIs Hostage Rescue Team, which are very elite trained operatives. With enough of them, I don't see why they wouldn't be able to maintain order in a state of emergency.
You've changed the discussion. You started by asking how martial law works; now you're trying to argue how a martial law could work. It's this simple: whatever the commanding officer wants, he gets. Martial law is the opposite of civilian law. Civilians are all the People and the offices of government, save the military. If the military assumes governance, all that civilian stuff is of no moment. The military does not need to abide by the Constitution or to return to rule under it, at any point.

By way of example, when the Governor calls out the National Guard to keep order, that's not martial law, as the Governor still has control over the Guard. When the National Guard General stops taking the Governor's orders and orders the Governor confined to quarters, you've got martial law. If the civilian authorities want to wrest control back from the military, it won't happen with votes, but with bullets.

Throughout history, military rule has been seen as preferable to civilian rule, and vice versa. Martial law sits very well with those Americans who live in places where, for lack of a better correlation, the Baptist Church has a significant presence. With many Americans finding peace to be cowardice and being consummate authority-lovers, it's very likely that when America collapses, parts of it, likely the South, will be ruled by Generals. If these Generals allow elections, it is likely that the elected Governor will share power with the military.

Other areas of the country, where, again, for lack of a better correlation, the prevailing religions are Catholicism, Judaism, Lutheranism, environmentalism or atheism, will deeply resist military rule and will likely have a short-lived military head or may never be ruled by military power.
Interesting information. A couple of questions that come to mind:

How does the National Guard General stop taking orders from the Governor, and actually order the Governor around, when the Governor would be the one to declare Martial Law?

Also, has there ever been a time in history when Martial Law was declared and the Civilian Authorities fought with them to fight for who is in charge?

Even when Martial Law is in order, they still can not break the law by torturing and committing murder. So my next question is related to the movie "The Siege" where the F.B.I. has a mexican standoff with the Army and arrests the Army General for torture and murder.
 

N00blet45

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2007
Messages
475
Location
Walton County, Georgia, ,
imported post

Why do you hate the South? Did a redneck run over your dog when you were young or something?

The generals stop taking orders right around the time that they have all the power or so much power that the civilian authorities cannot stop them. The reason National Guard generals continue to take orders is because one state's military force is going to get creamed when all the others states attempt to bring in the rogue general, probably under federal authority. Not to mention that he has to convince all his troops that he is better suited to be in charge.

The reason that the US military does not attempt to take over the country is because it is too small and it is made up of American citizens who more than likely aren't willing to kill other Americans for some general's power grab.
 

smoking357

Banned
Joined
Dec 29, 2008
Messages
1,100
Location
Pierce is a Coward, ,
imported post

Aaron1124 wrote:
So my next question is related to the movie "The Siege" where the F.B.I. has a mexican standoff with the Army and arrests the Army General for torture and murder.
The disturbance in that movie was localized, so Willis didn't have enough pieces in place to order a nationwide coup. With the next option opening fire on the FBI, and with there being a 100% chance the government would laugh at and ignore the "arrest" for "crimes" committed during martial law, Willis relented.

Enlarge the scenario so that there is a General deployed in every major city, which would only occur in a very major disaster, say after a meteor strike or if Yellowstone erupts. If the military is in every city, Denzel would be saying "please" and "thank you" every time the military gave him an order.
 

smoking357

Banned
Joined
Dec 29, 2008
Messages
1,100
Location
Pierce is a Coward, ,
imported post

N00blet45 wrote:
The reason that the US military does not attempt to take over the country is because it is too small and it is made up of American citizens who more than likely aren't willing to kill other Americans for some general's power grab.
Who said anything about killing? I see you didn't read prior to posting.

How many residents of Dixie would rather be governed, right now, by Schwarzkopf holding a Bible than Obama? How many residents of Dixie would find distasteful the order and regimentation of Norman's Army?

If there is little tension between the government and its people, the rule is bloodless.
 

Aaron1124

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2009
Messages
2,044
Location
Kent, Washington, USA
imported post

I'm still not understanding how the Military would refuse to stop taking orders from their Executives (Governor/President, depending if it's state or federal)

So if Martial Law was declared on a Federal Level, there's a good chance the Military would stop taking orders from the President and do as they wish?

Can you imagine the chaos? I'm sure many civilian agencies would be pissed, and I doubt the civilians across the U.S. would just kick back and watch as everything goes down. Imagine the riots, the violent protests and the attempt to overthrow everything.

The country would be an absolute mess, and I just don't see how this would ever work effectively.
 

SouthernBoy

Regular Member
Joined
May 12, 2007
Messages
5,837
Location
Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
imported post

N00blet45 wrote:
Why do you hate the South? Did a redneck run over your dog when you were young or something?

The generals stop taking orders right around the time that they have all the power or so much power that the civilian authorities cannot stop them. The reason National Guard generals continue to take orders is because one state's military force is going to get creamed when all the others states attempt to bring in the rogue general, probably under federal authority. Not to mention that he has to convince all his troops that he is better suited to be in charge.

The reason that the US military does not attempt to take over the country is because it is too small and it is made up of American citizens who more than likely aren't willing to kill other Americans for some general's power grab.
Yep. Think about it. While some grunt is trying to kill innocent civilians somewhere (his REAL commanders), there will be other grunts trying to kill his family and friends. I'm sure that's gonna sell well.
 

Alexcabbie

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 21, 2008
Messages
2,288
Location
Alexandria, Virginia, United States
imported post

You guys are all talking about "martial law" which may be a possibility but it is rather remote at least on a national scale. However my married friends assure me that when the little woman declares "Marital Law" the jig is indeed up. :p
 

N00blet45

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2007
Messages
475
Location
Walton County, Georgia, ,
imported post

smoking357 wrote:
N00blet45 wrote:
The reason that the US military does not attempt to take over the country is because it is too small and it is made up of American citizens who more than likely aren't willing to kill other Americans for some general's power grab.
Who said anything about killing? I see you didn't read prior to posting.

How many residents of Dixie would rather be governed, right now, by Schwarzkopf holding a Bible than Obama? How many residents of Dixie would find distasteful the order and regimentation of Norman's Army?

If there is little tension between the government and its people, the rule is bloodless.
It's called jumping to conclusions and it isn't unwarranted. You think martial law would just be a declaration and that's it? You don't think someone would resist at all? You want to say the South is in love with generals but you want to jump on me for assuming someone would die in the event of martial law? Would the North, Midwest, and West just protest?

Is there really something bad in preferring a war hero to a man who has never served his country in any meaningful way? Wanting a dictator as opposed to a president is definitely not good but last time I checked Obama was appointing czars and trying to find ways to force people to be slaves to the state.
 

Gunslinger

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2008
Messages
3,853
Location
Free, Colorado, USA
imported post

The local commander becomes the top law enforcement official. The Bill of Rights and Constitution are NOT suspended. The whole intent of Martial Law is enforcement of state/local as well as Federal Law in a situation where the local authorities are overwhelmed/not competent to do so. Any charges or actions taken against a citizen are subject to the same standards and judicial review as if the military was not involved. And the provisions for recovery of damages--or prosecution of criminal activities by the authorities still exist in full force.
 

Gunslinger

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2008
Messages
3,853
Location
Free, Colorado, USA
imported post

Alexcabbie wrote:
Thanks for clearing that up, Gunslinger. BTW am I mistaken in assuming the Posse Comitatus act makes provision for just such an emergency??
Martial law is the exception to the PC act. Failing a legal declaration, no US military may be used for enforcement of laws, state or federal. Exception, of course, is the Coast Guard.
 

PT111

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2007
Messages
2,243
Location
, South Carolina, USA
imported post

A good article on Martial Law and an example are linked below along with an extract from one. Notice that in the October Crisis martial law was declared in one area by the government when they had lost control of the area.

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_Crisis_of_1970


Martial law is the system of rules that takes effect when the military takes control of the normal administration of justice.

Martial law is sometimes imposed during wars or occupations in the absence of any other civil government. Examples of this form of military rule include Germany and Japan after World War II or the American South during the early stages of Reconstruction. In addition, it is used by governments to enforce their rule; for example, after a coup d'état (Thailand 2006), when threatened by popular protests (Tiananmen Square protests of 1989), or to suppress the opposition (Poland 1981). Another example would be The October Crisis which took place in Canada in October of 1970. Martial law can also be declared in cases of major natural disasters; however most countries use a different legal construct, such as a "state of emergency".

In many countries martial law imposes particular rules, one of which is curfew. Often, under this system, the administration of justice is left to a military tribunal, called a court-martial. The suspension of the writ of habeas corpus is likely to occur.
 
Top