Martial law here in the United States?

Question

Ok, 9-11, and what is happening in Georgia, all the talk about illegals is it possible that the US could be under martial law anytime soon? Am I way off base in thinking that it is actually possible and just might happen? Would things have to get way worse for this to happen? I mean not that I want it to happen, the thought simply scares me but I didn't know and very curious as to this?

Answer 1

it would be virtually impossible to call Martial Law in the entire USA, we do not have enough Military. Maybe localized areas during Natural Disasters to stop looting, but I do not see any reason to declare martial law because of Illegals, most are here to work not cause trouble

Answer 2

>> ... is it possible that the US could be under martial law anytime soon?

        Anything is possible.  We're also not talking about a situation where such "military control" is being *forced* upon the local and state civil governments.  Instead, it is much more likely that all local and state civil authority will be voluntarily surrendered to federal military control because of the country-wide impact of the things to come.  All local and state police and guard forces would also be added to the federal military ranks.

        All it would take is a one, two punch of a major natural disaster combined with a major terrorist attack.  Katrina would look like a simple summer storm.  I'm talking about a potential major strike from space (see Rev. 8:7-9) which would completely wipe out an entire U.S. seaboard with a impact wave at least a mile high -- not to mention the after effects of such a strike.  The same for a terrorist attack...  In spite of 9-11 being a significant terrorist attack, the kind of major terrorist attack I'm talking about would make 9-11 look like nothing more than what happened to that bridge in Missouri (see Rev. 8:10,11; where "wormwood" = radiation).

>> Am I way off base in thinking that it is actually possible and just might happen?

        No, you are not off base.  A careful analysis of Revelation demonstrates that day is coming -- and soon.

>> Would things have to get way worse for this to happen?

        Most definitely.  Things will have to get much worse than they are now -- and they will, according to Revelation.

God bless.

Answer 3

No, there are strict guidelines on when the Federal Gov't can mobilize troops into a state. After Katrina, President Bush had to plead with Louisina's Governor for three days before could get approval frm her to send in the National Guard.

Answer 4

We are on the edge of a major financial collapse that will make the 1920's look like a picnic. Consider the legacy of the 1960's with all the riots which have repeated from time to time. If (when?) we have a financial collapse the current social climate of rioting will probably result in martial law.

You don't need soldiers to control the whole population. Just those who are the most violent and disadvantaged.

Study the history of what has occurred in other countries in the last few decades. It will be of special interest to note the events in Germany prior to WWII.

Someone said "Those who forget or don't study history are doomed to repeat it."

Answer 5

I live in Georgia and I don't know what you are talking about. The state of Georgia would never go into Martial Law for illegal aliens. It would in case of a Natural disaster or our country being invaded.  

Answer 6

You don't even have a clue what the real deal is and Martial Law. The United States is not any where close to it. We still have many freedoms. Like the freedom to post stupid questions on the internet. (I'm not calling you stupid...but think about how countries like China monitor the internet and how their citizens aren't allowed to use it fully. Besides read some of the other questions that really get stupid.)

We can speak our minds. There was a huge protest this weekend in Denver CO. It was all over the news...it was allowed to happen. Whether you agree or disagree with what they were protesting about it is allowed to happen! We allow our citizens to assemble and protest peacefully.

So I really don't know what you are saying. I respectfully disagree that we are in that bad of shape. It is true we are at war and there are things here that could use a lot of improvement...but we have the ability to change it ourselves...There is hope. We are still the most powerful and free nation.

Answer 7

is it possible that the US could be under martial law anytime soon?

NO

Would things have to get way worse for this to happen?

Absolutely

I don't understand your rationale...

9/11 was 7 yrs ago - no attacks on the homefront since then. We didn't mobilize but a few units and shut down the airlines for a while.  If THAT didn't cause us to go to Martial Law as severe as that HIT was, there is no reason to mobile the Military to maintain peace amonst the populace currently.

Georgia / Russian debacle - has nada to do with the USA.

Answer 8

Libsrpay is mostly correct.  Except for having enough military personnel to potentially 'police' the entire United States under Martial Law.

There are nearly 304 Million people in the United States as of July 2008.  2 Million military (assuming they would all follow orders) wouldn't quite cut it.  

Edit:  Lib, you are basing LEO numbers on the current population of the U.S. in a mostly 'compliant' state.  For example, the number of officers normally needed to control the population in Los Angeles on a normal day is one number.  Now take into account the number needed to gain control of LA during the riots.  The reason this is important is you have to understand the type of catastrophy or civil disorder that would be in place for Martial Law to even occur.  Now take into account that if something so bad happened that a nationwide Martial Law was put in effect you have to assume a certain number of troops who would NOT comply.  Plus you need to figure in the number of troops who are actually ready to deploy, versus the number on reserve/inactive status.  When you view the problem in a one demensional setting, 2 million seems like plenty.  But when you view it three demensionally, you have to account for an unruly population who is armed in accordance with the 2nd ammendment for just such a circumstance.

Answer 9

It is unlikely, due to what "Martial Law" really is...

"In strict dictionary terms, martial law is the suspension of civil authority and the imposition of military authority. When we say a region or country is "under martial law," we mean to say that the military is in control of the area, that it acts as the police, as the courts, as the legislature. The degree of control might vary - a nation may have a civilian legislature but have the courts administered by the military. Or the legislature and courts may operate under civilian control with a military ruler. In each case, martial law is in effect, even if it is not called "martial law."

Martial law should not be confused with military justice. In the United States, for example, each branch of the military has its own judicial structures in place. Members of the service are under the control of military law, and in some cases civilians working for or with the military may be subject to military law. But this is the normal course of business in the military. Martial law is the exception to the rule. In the United States, the military courts were created by the Congress, and cases can be appealed out of the military system to the Supreme Court in many cases. In addition, a civilian court can petition the military for habeas corpus.

Article 1, Section 9 states, "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." Habeas corpus is a concept of law, in which a person may not be held by the government without a valid reason for being held. A writ of habeas corpus can be issued by a court upon a government agency (such as a police force or the military). Such a writ compels the agency to produce the individual to the court, and to convince the court that the person is being reasonably held. The suspension of habeas corpus allows an agency to hold a person without a charge. Suspension of habeas corpus is often equated with martial law.

Because of this connection of the two concepts, it is often argued that only Congress can declare martial law, because Congress alone is granted the power to suspend the writ. The President, however, is commander-in-chief of the military, and it has been argued that the President can take it upon himself to declare martial law. In these times, Congress may decide not to act, effectively accepting martial law by failing to stop it; Congress may agree to the declaration, putting the official stamp of approval on the declaration; or it can reject the President's imposition of martial law, which could set up a power struggle between the Congress and the Executive that only the Judiciary would be able to resolve.

In the United States, there is precedent for martial law. Several times in the course of our history, martial law of varying degrees has been declared. The most obvious and often-cited example was when President Lincoln declared martial law during the Civil War. This instance provides us with most of the rules for martial law that we would use today, should the need arise."

Do we have enough Military to do so, if needed? Yes, we have over 2 Million Troops, and only 150K or so are in Iraq, but many folks focus on that, thinking there are very few Troops in CONUS, while in fact, the majority are.

However, I do not see what "georgia" has to do with it, unless some folks still think the Russian v Georgia issue is talking about the State of Georgia, and not the Country?

There is no reason to invoke Martial Law, as the Civilian Courts, and Law Enforcement are still functioning, our Government is still functioning.

EDIT: I might add that the number needed, and available, is in line with the number of Civilian Law Enforcement in the States, so, I stand by my answer. That, and many civilian LEO's would be Federalized.

Either way, it isn't likely to occur.

" In 2004, 14,254 state, city, university and college, metropolitan and nonmetropolitan county, and other law enforcement agencies employed 675,734 sworn officers and 294,854 civilians, who provided law enforcement services to more than 278 million people nationwide. "