Talk:Martial law

== The United States is currently under Martial Law. Congress and most of the White House is under House Arrest. You heard it first here folks.

Category

Shouldn't the Movies Category moved down to the bottom since it's least relevant to martial law?

Strange opening

"This happend in Tian Am Men Square." Quote needs cleaning up. pelling, and surely specific examples come later? 86.138.50.227 13:11, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

The following sentence contains a word that does not apply to all instances, and that word is granted. The sentence is: Usually martial law reduces some of the personal rights ordinarily granted to the citizen, This does not apply to the United States. The Constitution of the United States does not grant rights; the rights of the People of the United States are natural and inherent, not granted; the Constitution is really the marching orders granted to public servants by the People, not the reverse. Other countries have similar ideology, while others believe government does indeed grant people rights. How to avoid being bias to one or the other is my question. I think the sentence needs to be something like: Usually martial law circumvents some of the due process laws of the country and seeks to contain or limit personal rights ordinarily belonging to the citizen, or something similar. I don't think my suggested sentence has bias toward a country with natural/inherent rights or granted rights. I'll leave it for someone else to change. What do you think? Ol Murrani Kasale (talk) 23:38, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Martial rule

It is not evident in the article, but it should be noted that martial law is usually simply martial rule. As pointed out in Ex parte Milligan, there is not a set of laws that come into play and the other laws are set aside (the article begins by stating martial law to be "the system of rules that takes effect when the military takes control of the normal administration of justice.'" There is usually no set of rules which come into play - some countries may have such a set of "martial laws", but the U.S. doesn't, nor do many other countries - law is simply suspended. Martial law is usually the setting aside of the law in the place of military rule, but the article makes it seem otherwise - like we can look up somewhere the martial laws in some law book. - Matthew238 02:44, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree as do many others. "Martial Law" simply means he/she with the most firepower gets to make the rules. That's why Americans are not so scared of Martial Law. (Well, maybe the Soccermoms would be) There are 80 MILLION Armed Americans....(with everything from Thompson Submachine guns, AK-47's, 50 cals, pistols and who know how many shotguns and high powered rifles), and they're not going to allow the "National Guard" abuse them. Period.

Martial Law means you will defend what you have with your life, even if it means having to kill a government agent(s).

miscellanious

From the article:

Studies have been recently produced for an Internet martial law, in order to prevent or prosecute eventual dangerous crimes that could be committed on or through the Internet for war, guerrilla or terrorism purposes.

Removed until someone can provide a cite supporting this.

--

Dec, bhuston: From the article:

Martial law is the system of laws and rules that take effect (usually after a formal declaration) instead of ordinary laws when a particular situation requires that a military authority takes control of the normal administration of justice (and usually of the whole state).

This says "Martial law takes effect when required". This has been removed for NPOV reasons. How can it be said that every declaration of ML was necessary?

• another, probably more important, thing to say is that Martial Law is generally not a "system of laws and rules that take effect (usually after a formal declaration) instead of ordinary laws", but a complete absence of law. It is better described as "military rule" - see U.S. Supreme Court cases regarding "Martial Law" in the U.S. - Matthew238 07:50, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

marshal law was also declared 4 days befor 9-11-0167.80.129.11 23:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Is this right?

"The United States has been in a declared state of national emergency since March 9, 1933 (see Senate Report 93-549"

My browser crashes when I try and search the contents of the .pdf that is linked to, so I'm having trouble checking it.

Is this right? The sentence makes it sound like the U.S. has been in a continuous declared state of emergency since 1933. Sdr 19:51, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Technically correct, but an entirely stupid statement to make in an article on martial law. FDR's 1933 declaration of a state of emergency was so he could take control of the country's finances, the ability to do that was later revoked by congress in the 70's, mooting the point. In any case, what FDR put down in an EO is entirely pointless to a discussion about martial law, especially when you consider that it's a mooted EO, one of a kind that can't happen again. It may have also been sunsetted by congresses actions, but not too sure. I'm going to remove it. --69.136.240.8 11:38, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Canadian example false?

The article says, "For many years the Canadian government could institute martial law through a piece of legislation known as the War Measures Act." But the articles on the War Measures Act and the October Crisis explicitly say that War Measures Act is not an example of martial law.

I don't know much about this, but it is possible that the War Measures Act, while allowing for martial law, was nt used to the maximum degree that constitutes martial law. So while it made it possible for martial law, it wasn't used that way.

New Orleans

Has martial law ever been invoked in the US before the New Orleans incident? 198.45.23.220 19:56, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Could someone point to an actual reference of martial law being declared in New Orleans? The only such references I've seen are from half-assed journalists who spell it "marshall" law, which hardly speaks to their credibility.

Troops have been deployed to assist civil authorities. A curfew is in effect in certain areas. Neither of those two things means that martial law has been declared.

If martial law has been declared, it should be a trivial matter to find out who exactly declared it. Usually, that's the President of the US. I'd think such an announcement would be easy to corroborate, and yet I can find no confirmation from the usual news services. Searching CNN, ferinstance, yields nothing.

I'm removing that claim. --- left unsigned by User:68.81.82.213

Since people can't seem to be bothered to go to the linked page and read the report from the Times-Picayune, I'm reprinting it here:

---

Martial law clarified Tuesday, 9:02 p.m.

The state Attorney General's office on Tuesday sought to clarify reports in some media that "martial law' has been declared in parts of storm-ravaged southeast Louisiana, saying no such term exists in Louisiana law.

But even though no martial law exists, Gov. Kathleen Blanco's declaration of a state of emergency gives authorities widespread latitude to suspend civil liberties as they try to restore order and bring victims to safety. Under the Louisiana Homeland Security and Emergency Assistance and Disaster Act of 1993, the governor and, in some cases, chief parish officials, have the right to commandeer or utilize any private property if necessary to cope with the emergency.

Authorities may also suspend any statute related to the conduct of official business, or any rule issued by a state agency, if complying would "prevent, hinder or delay necessary action to mitigate the emergency.

It also gives authority the right to compel evacuations, suspend alcohol and weapons sales and make provisions for the availability and use of temporary emergency housing.

The law gives mayors similar authority, except they do not have the right to commandeer private property or make provisions for emergency housing, according to a background brief prepared by the state Attorney General's office.[[1]]

---

Peyna 01:33:20, (UTC)

Does this sound like an oxymoron or a contradiction to anyone else? The New Orleans stub begins by stating the imposition of Matial Law by General Andrew Jackson in 1812; then, the sub-stub, "Hurricane Katrina", seems to be bogged down by semantics "because no such term exists in Louisiana state law," regardless of "New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin nominally declar[ing] 'martial law' and sa[ying] that 'officers don't have to worry about civil rights and Miranda rights in stopping the looters.'" What's going on? It sounds like people are writing tax codes or something. Not only was there a presence of armed military personnel (unrestrained by domestic law, or regard for the general welfare of citizens), but there were non-governmental Mercenaries who could not be restrained even under military code. What occured may have set a modern precedent of a neo-Martial Law. I respect the clarity and the great deal of research that goes into Wikipedia; however, I believe people need to refer to actions as to what they are. For instance, if a federal, state, or local law does not describe the act, in detail, of cutting off or the removal of a man's testicals, then, regardless, the act is still considered castration or "the making of a eunich or steer." Likewise, what occurred in Louisiana during the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina was, at least, Martial Law. I would like the wording of the sub-stub to be considered for revision.

Vandalism?

Right now the article starts by reading "Martial law is COOL". But when you try to edit/clean it, the "cool" sentence does not show up at all. Is that a hacker trick?195.70.48.242 11:45, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, there was vandalism, but was probably corrected before you click the edit button. Peyna 12:27, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

the vandalism is back, now the phrase is he he he boobies, but it does not appear on the edit page ((unsigned contribution))

Looks like a similar situation. Keep in mind that a lot of people monitor the "recent changes" section, especially from unregistered users, so a lot of vandalism is caught literally seconds after it occurs. Reverting it is quite simple as well; just look at the history, select the version that is the non-vandalised version and then when that version of the page comes up, click "edit", make a note in the edit summary of what you are doing and click save page. (It will have a warning that you are editting an old version of the page).

The history page is a great resource for getting to the bottom of these kinds of events; you can easily compare any two past versions. If you look at it now, you will see that the vandalism to which you refer was corrected in one minute. Peyna 17:26, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Who...

Who can declare Martial Law ? The president can as Commander in Chief of the US military.

On the state level, the Governor can call out all National Guard units in his/her state

On the local level, the County Sheriff's Office can only call out the one unit that is in the local National Guard Armory for aid.

Next time you see on the news about some disaster hitting some state, you will see National Guard soldiers on patrol, and/or aiding people, and/or forcibly restoring law and order. Usually, troops who are enforcing protocol regarding Martial Law, have shoot to kill orders to quell criminal actvities, civil disturbances. See General Funston, who, with the mayor of 1906 San Francisco, initiated Martial Law to forcibly quell the disorder that resulted from a earthquake that hit the city. These troops had shoot to kill orders to put a stop to the chaos. Martial Law 01:01, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Answer

One user asked about Martial Law being declared in the US before what happened in New Orleans. The answer is YES. Civil War,yes, the 1906 earthquake in San Francisco, yes, to forcibly restore law and order, to stop rampant crime and looters, Hawaii, yes, until 1944, after Pearl Harbor was attacked in 1941. Please see the article. Martial Law 03:05, 3 January 2006 (UTC) martila law is not bas at all because it helps us in our living example; there would be no people outside the home or steet in 12:00 because when the military caught them tgere will be punished.........

Another 9-11 attack..

IF the US were to be attacked again, it is a good bet that Martial Law will be declared, mainly to forcibly preserve law and order, and to keep innocent foreign nationals from being attacked in retaliation for the attack. The Patriot Acts are as CLOSE to declaring Martial Law with out actually declaring Martial Law. Martial Law 23:35, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

para sa akin maganda panga ang martial law kasi walang lalaban sa gobyerno sa ganoong paraan napag tutuunan ng gobyerno ang problema ng bawat pilipino... nanggugulo lang naman ang oposisyon dahil ang gusto nila sila ang malagay asa pwesto at magamit ang pamahalaan sa pang sarling inrteres. madami ding balimbing tulad ni drilon,cory,guingona, at marami pa na sabik sa kapangyarihan... sinasabi lang ng ga oposisyon na hindi makatarungan ang martial law kasi hindi sila makakapag salita ng kasinungalingan at paninira sa gobyerno.. napaka ganda nga ng pamamahala ni gloria. talagang mahirap lang ang buhay ngayon at huwag natin isisi sa gobyerno ang kahirapan dahil tayo na mismi ang may kasalanan,,, BY;; hero18rovy's'loren

The above paragraph appears to be Korean.

I support the vigorous removal of so-called 'conspiracy' kinda comments from Wiki. My favorite is that the whole U.S. might be under martial law after a dirty bomb or something similar. Imagine how many troops and police it would take to contain a 'nation-wide' panic of 330 million over 3 million square miles! Martial law is not lawlessness and snipers running amok. It's control over a specific area to stop crime, not a stoppage of regular life (except in the case of evac). *rolls eyes*

Issues with Related Links

Many of the related links seem very biased; a majority seem to be (outrageous?) conspiracy theories regarding 9/11, others are (propaganda?) about "concentration camps" in the United States (at the very least, this terminology is absurd, never mind if the "martial law" article is the best place for this type of link). A couple link to simple Google searches - I don't think a Google search qualifies as a good Related Link, as anyone is clearly capable of a Google keyword search. Sites tend to be vaguely related to martial law at best, totally irrelevant and distracting at worst. I can see one or two links for the sake of being well-rounded, but there really is a flood of these very partisan and often unprofessional sites. I'm fairly new to the Wikipedia community - are there any general guidelines for the links section? Would trimming some of those excessive links be justified? Maybe a See Also... section linking to other Wikipedia articles is a better approach? See the "Concentration Camp" Wikipedia article - no questionable links - and that is the section many of these would be better suited for.

User:Android79 may have some recomendations. Please sign your statements w/ 3 ~ or 4 ~s. Martial Law 05:08, 14 January 2006 (UTC) Please find on my Userpage a list of wikipedia resources. Martial Law 05:09, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Jeff Rense

Find on Jeff Rense's Homepage, material concerning Martial Law and that ilk from time to time. Martial Law 05:11, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Here is two items of this nature:

Protest anything, go to jail

Another If you protest, you go to jail article

If these links are malfunctioning, go to www.rense.com. and see these articles:

"Create An E-Annoyance...Go To Jail for A Federal Crime" and "Bush To Criminalize Protesters Under Patriot Act"

Martial Law 05:41, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Where's Israel

Robin Hood 1212 15:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

It's in the Middle East, east of the Mediterranean, north of Egypt, south of Lebanon, and west of Syria and Jordan. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:40, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Northern Ireland

I've removed the section on Northern Ireland. Martial Law has never been declared in Northern Ireland in modern times.

Can we have some citations to prove that martial law was ever declared in Troubles period, c.1968-1995? My recollection is that the troops were basically enforcing normally-passed laws (although some, like Internment, were more severe than laws usually found in peaceful places). People detained (other than internees) were also brought in front of civilian courts, not military ones, even though the Diplock courts were structured differently from ordinary courts in the rest of the UK (no juries). -- Arwel (talk) 20:49, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

' 'WHY DID FERDINAN MARCOS DECLAIRED MARTIAL LAW VVHH Y8 UI LU , YL; AW0T8I3469 6U49 Y95 Y T]]

R TY05Y=HYA E YO]YAW390K5UY THUAOpQ NT96 _0

The Examples in Movies beginning

Er, do we really want Movie examples right at the start of the article, talk about "clutching at straws". Shouldn't that sort of information be at the end of an article, In fact it doesn't even sound wiki-like, I don't know much about editing wikipedia, but that does look wrong. anyone? Ryan4314 05:27, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

That section by all means needs to be moved to the end of the article and heavily revised--Tabun1015 14:19, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

• It looks bad and is totally unncessary. Id propose removing it altogether, it just makes the article look unprofessional. TSMonk 05:12, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

• Can't Believe this hasn't been sorted yet, this section was added by a guy called GamerSD on the 29th of January. I'm going to delete it, but if anyone else sees a reason while it should stay in please put it back. My point is, if I delete it and someone goes out of their way to put it back, then obviously there's at least some reason why it should stay. If no one puts it back I really don't think the article will suffer. Ryan4314 23:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Shoot To Kill Orders

In the US and some other nations, when Martial Law is declared, the military and police forces do indeed have orders to kill anyone committing any crimes. In 1906, a General Funston exercised this order after San Francisco was destroyed in a major earthquake. For example, if people are seen looting a store, house, they are shot and killed on site by any police and/or military patrols in the area. Can this be placed ? Martial Law 20:30, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I remember watching a show about the San Francisco Earthquake, and I recall them stating that General Funston acted without orders, and that the shooting of looters (or bystanders who were in the way), was little more than a bunch of disorganized soldiers shooting at whatever moved. There was no declaration of martial law, although many people assumed that it had been declared, which is probably what you are thinking of.--Tabun1015 02:56, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Here is a link that shows what I'm talking about.--Tabun1015 23:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

i think that they should inforce the law so that chirldern can be saft in their own neigbohood

whats wrong with the world of 21 cenetry 

i think that they should in forc laws so that kids can go out and play an be safe and be arraid that they ar goning to be shot oyr kidnapped by some freak.so u see what i mean when it comes to kids in the hood or subers nobody is safe no more could the volenc just com down so we can live our life to the fullest and pray that wont die because of some nosens

Read my edit of 8-15-07

Wiki has become a joke.

Pakistan??? 11/03/2007

Should pakistan be added to the list? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.21.211.86 (talk) 19:13, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Section on India

The current content of the section on India is ridiculous and the same has no connection with the concept of Martial law. Such contents reflect poorly on the credibility of wikipedia. Sometimes such contents continue to remain on the Free Encyclopedia as other editors don't want to tread in the mess. --Bhadani (talk) 14:50, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

---

I agree. After a terrorist attack, a so called red alert is issued in order to launch a man hunt. It is in no way similar to martial law. The emergency clause of the Indian constitution cannot be invoked that easily. If emergency is declared according to this article, then how do you explain that there would be reporters on the scene and any and all kinds of political dissent is allowed? It wasn't even declared during the Indo-Pakistan and Indo-China wars since the war had been limited to the border areas and there was NO anarchy within the country.And HOW exactly are the actions of the British Raj and General Dyer (ie before 1947) be termed as the actions of the Republic of India??? Emergency was declared in India only ONCE between 1975 and 1977. The rest of the information is plain wrong.Andy anno (talk) 01:01, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I second that. The whole section needs to be revamped. India has to mean the Republic in this context and the 'NOTE:-' is appallingly uncharacteristic of WP.--Sayitaintsojoe (talk) 19:01, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I have surrendered, and have stopped effective editing of wikipedia! Kindly try to contact other editors who may be interested to show better spirit and courage, as I do not want to make myself indecent in the company of vested wikipedians. --Bhadani (talk) 17:15, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Spelling?

"Write of habeas corpus"

Is somebody trying to combine "writ" and "right"? I've never heard of a "Write of habeas corpus".

WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008

Article reassessed and graded as start class. --dashiellx (talk) 11:29, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

"other countries"?

Other than what? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.126.248.156 (talk) 20:31, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

United states in martial law right now.

Read http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2008/06/20080626-4.html that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.92.216.106 (talk) 09:27, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Definition?

Where is the definition of martial law in the article?... WinterSpw (talk) 07:00, 30 November 2008 (UTC)