Martial law is still bad, right?

Martial law always has the potential to be bad.
Why it is enacted and by whom, often determines how bad or good it is.
yet even if enacted with the best of intentions there is a possibility of abuse in it's application by the Military.

Would you want to live under Military law, with almost no rights? Subject to military courts and military prison?
I don't think so.

My thoughts exactly... a long with suspension of constitutional rights... it's a scary thought to me

Yes it is, unless you have fell into the Q trap set for the “patriots.” They now think it’s perfectly fine for there “team” to exterminate anyone who are not in lock step with their beliefs. They know not what they do so don’t hold it against them.

People need to be uniform ...

It'd be an exellent way to start a revolution, insurgency, or "civil war."

To many on the political fringes, this has become the goal. Antifa & Nazis both.

Compliance with a boot on your neck. Ya, it would be bad.

Antifa (Communists) & Nazis are the same thing.

Communism = International Socialism.
Fascism/Nazis = National Socialism.

The struggle is Pro-Liberty Patriots versus Socialism/Communism. Only leftists try to lump their opponents into that false spectrum of marxist versus marxist.

yes its bad

barry's additions to it makes us slaves

Martial law for what? Do we have people rioting in the streets? Or are you trying to cause the rioting?

if they try to coup Trump, it may become necessary.

Which would be worse---

1) Martial Law declared in order to arrest traitors (Dem Leaders) and control the resultant lawless destruction of inner cities?

or

2)The permanent police state (essentially a form of martial law) required to make a socialist/communist/"Progressive" society continue to struggle to survive?

Thread: "America is now under martial law ... All constitutional rights have been suspended ..."


[link to youtu.be (secure)]

Again, do we have rioting or some kind of warfare going on? Or are you in fact trying to capture your Jesus sacrifice so you can torture him more?

99% of people using the term "martial law" have no idea of what it means, it's legitimate uses, etc.

They think it's a heavy handed government move where everybody gets dragged out of their house by soldiers and thrown in a gulag.

We have systems in place (courts, jails, police etc) that maintain order while protecting citizen's rights.

When a situation comes along that throws society into such chaos (catastrophic natural disaster, or similarly disruptive social breakdown) such that those systems are no longer capable of maintaining order, then you have to institute extraordinary measures that temporarily put maintaining or restoring order above protection of individual rights, usually involving military manpower to keep the peace, restore supply lines, address rescue efforts and make it possible for the affected area to recover... whereupon the responsibility for ordered liberty gets transitioned back to the civil autnorities.

Nobody wants to have to live, even temporarily, without strong guarantees of their civil liberties. But if they look out the window and see hundreds of looters running wild, who are raping, robbing and pillaging, then torching each house before overwhelming the next... those folks would be grateful instead to see a few hummers cruise by looking for bad people trying to take advantage of the disruption, keep that sort of thing from getting out of control. They'll be happy that the fuel at the 7-11 was confiscated to run the big Army Corps of Engineers generator they have feeding power to people's homes while the long distance transmission liness are getting repaired. They'll be glad of a curfew that keeps folks safe at home instead of wandering the streets when it's not safe to do so, and glad to see a couple of GI's knocking on the door to see if everyone's ok and give them an update on the situation.

Now, does Martial Law have potential to be abused or badly implemented? Of course it does. You can smother someone with a pillow... that doesn't make pillows inherently bad. You can have unnecessarily heavy-handed thugs in the armed services or police forces like the one who tackled Patricia Koine in her own home after Hurricane Katrina for explaining she had food, water and a pistol to look after herself. But we as a nation don't think that kind of thing is ok and as proof there have been laws passed since to curb those sorts of abuses.

People need to be able to discuss Martial Law as it is in the real world without hyping it to the point of incredulity. There are lots of good discussions to be had there, which aren't possible with folks whipped up into an irrational dystopic frenzy at the mere mention of the term.

The Patriot Act gives your government many of the powers that they would claim under martial law, except for deploying soldiers in the streets.

Canada went through a period of martial law in Oct.-Nov. 1970. It didn't make a bit of difference to any of my neighbours.

Martial law affected me personally because my absent alcoholic Marxist father fled the country and I did not see him again till the week he died, 41 years later... but that's just my story.

I see your point, and one of the better thought out arguements I've heard. But does a possible coup or rioting out the current issues with impeachment constitute martial.law.. I guess my biggest concern would be the use of outside military use during a time such as NATO, who I don't think would show the same appreciation for our rights as our own police or military would

I guess my point exposed the problem with there not being a revolutionary fringe in the American right.

Are those patriots only going to become so when their liberty they love is taken from them?

If half of them think martial law is anything less than that exact infringement of liberty, they're going to miss their last chance to revolt.

They've already lost most of their freedom what's the final straw? Speech, arms, due process, it's all gone already; and all we do is whimper.

I'll offer some opinions which hopefully address some of your concerns. Look at a given situation and ask these questions:

Whatever the disruption is, are courts, police and jails able to adequately respond? Is the response timely? Are people generally able to go about their normal daily lives (work jobs, go to school, etc). If the answers above are yes... then it's not a situation that in any way justifies martial law.

Look at South Central LA after the Rodney King verdict (I think 1992). Rioting and looting erupted. People in the affected area WERE NOT able to go to work, go for groceries. Police were NOT able to respond in a timely manner and were overwhelmed/outnumbered. That would have been a justifiable situation to deploy martial law... NOT EVERYWHERE, just in the affected area. If it's gone so sideways that merchants are on the roofs with rifles protecting their livlihood, then you have a situation where order has been lost and absent assertive action, won't be restored without loss of life and property unless there is a major intervention. Eventually (should have been much sooner IMHO) there was assistance from the national guard which helped quell the situation and restore order.

If there is "civil unrest" sparked by political passions, it will likely only affect certain local areas. In those areas, it would seem likewise justifiable if you have a Rodney King scale disturbance in progress where the normal systems just can't contain the situation.

Shut the fuck up before I make this thread a parable.

Great point, but the greatest factor after enactment will be reverting it back to normal government. The sitting president can keep us in ML in perpetuity. There is no clause or guideline for reverting out of ML once we’ve gotten to that point, and the way this administration is shitting the bed, yes, it’s not a good look.