General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsLies about martial law
I am hearing a lot of talk about martial law and I think we need to clear the air on what that means and dispell the notion it is some sort of nationwide lock down.
So first a little quick history. Martial Law has been declared a handful of times throughout US History. Famously by British governors in key cities to halt the revolution that obviously failed. In New Orleans during the War of 1812. The last time was by the governor of Alabama in 1961 to combat Freedom Riders.
The president was given this authority in the 2007 NDAA.
Interestingly the Insurrection Act of 1807 was unknowingly modified in or around 2007 to give a president broad authority to seize and nationalize a state's national guard for martial law. In 2008 this was stripped and restored the original text of the Insurrection Act of 1807, which significantly limits the circumstances that a president can use to seize control of a state's national guard.
That said the key takeaway here should be that in every case of martial law it was done on a limited scale to a small geographical area.
Even if you use the fictional "Red Dawn" movie scenario, the reality even in that movie was a very limited occupation of only part of the western US that had significant rebel forces.
I think people lose perspective of how large the US is and and how many people are in it. There are over 350 million people in 3.5 million square miles.
Significant portions are heavily wooded, mountainous or covered in marshes and swamps.
There are, in total across all services, roughly a million active duty military. The number of them willing to participate in a nationwide martial law would be less than 30% if that many. That's based on voting trends and that the US military is a highly trained professional fighting force and the use of military force against Americans is the exact opposite of their mission. This is their country, their neighbors. Their friends. Their family.
Not to mention that martial law would be economic and political suicide. The stock market would crash. There would be a run on the banks. People would not go to work. Everything would come undone.
So it is neither practical nor realistic for a nationwide martial law. It's just not.
Realistically they could try to seize a city or other area in order to make an example of it but even that would have significant economic and political repercussions.
All that said I do not put it past the mango mussolini to try it.
I have 100% faith in the fact that it would be a critical mistake that will be the end of his administration.

Turbineguy
(38,788 posts)He's crazy.
Joinfortmill
(17,393 posts)I was getting more than a bit worried about what he could or would do.
EarthFirst
(3,476 posts)Either by gross incompetence or sheer malfeasance; I do not trust these mfers to advance their agenda any further than I can throw them
delisen
(6,816 posts)They figured the troop s in the city might not be willing to kill the students so they brought in units from rural areas, told them it was an uprising to destroy their country, and the rural troops killed and killed.
angrychair
(10,230 posts)Limited scope. Small area. Very different culture and history. There are few to no parallels to us.
Plus the Tiananmen Square event was largely not the success they hoped it would be.
misanthrope
(8,519 posts)Their rural populations likely didn't harbor the same degree of animus against the left and urban citizens as contemporary American rural folks likely do. :eyerolling emoji:
Girard442
(6,548 posts)Based on recent events, like, say, the ones involving Ukraine, that may not be a good assumption.
angrychair
(10,230 posts)But that would be his undoing for sure. It's not sustainable. It's just not.
onenote
(44,939 posts)The Supreme Court long ago explained what martial law is and the limits of its implementation under the Constitution:
Ex parte Milligan, 71 U.S. (4 Wall.) 2 (1866)
"If, 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."
angrychair
(10,230 posts)I would hope they would adhere to that. But this administration is currently and unabashedly ignoring the courts and the Constitution. I would not rely on law to mean anything to this administration.
JustAnotherGen
(34,485 posts)Are in their crosshairs. NJ would be easy because of our physical size alone.
I refuse to let down my guard when Orange Orban and the coke head are running things.
hardluck
(711 posts)Nothing about it would be easy.
FirstLight
(14,642 posts)(sorry, Hunger Games was the onlyl one coming to mind, but you know what I mean)
I'd be more worried about what they can do *without* having to declare ML. Tanking the Economy goes without saying, but the years to come back from all the slash & burn Elon has already managed could be unfixable. And the poor and elderly, VA and sick, and immigrant families...the suffering caused is what I am the most upset about. And we're only at the tip of the fuckin iceberg...
I literally hope Me & mine can get through it, and that somehow we can ALL make it to the OTHER side of this chasm of hell... but we're going to lose a lot of good people along the way