Historical precedents for martial law that we should know

greenspun.com : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread

This Is an interesting article on martial law and its historical precedents. We have forgotten US history. This site sometimes has interesting revelation posted by the US intelligence good guys.


-- Concern (concern@usa.com), November 07, 1999


Anyone know whatever happened to the Monroe Doctrine?

-- (western@hemi.sphere), November 07, 1999.




Saturday, 6 November 1999, at 11:30 p.m.

In Response To: National Guard To Confiscate Guns??

The following are excerpts from a World Net Daily article.
The entire article can be viewed at
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/bluesky_exnews/19990521_xex_clinton_and_. shtml

Posse Comitatus Act No Check on White House Power, Attorneys Claim


Olson and Woll discovered that the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1863 that the president can unilaterally decide whether an insurrection is in effect and determine how much force is necessary to suppress it. He can "brand as belligerents the inhabitants of any area in general insurrection."

Equally shocking, in Olson's view, as the fact that the president can use the military against civilians, is the fact that former presidents have done so on "many occasions" -- none of them declaring martial law.

For example, in 1914 President Woodrow Wilson deployed federal troops in Colorado to suppress a labor dispute.

Olson-Wolls point out that Wilson ordered the U.S. Army to disarm American citizens -- including state and local officials, sheriffs, the police and the National Guard; to arrest American citizens; to monitor the state judicial process and re-arrest (and hold in military custody) persons released by the state courts; and to deny writs of habeas corpus issued by state courts.

Earlier, in South Carolina in 1871, without declaring martial law, President Grant sent troops into nine counties of South Carolina to enforce a proclamation commanding the residents to give up their arms and ammunition. Grant suspended the writ of habeas corpus. More than 600 arrests had been made by the end of 1871.

Between 1807 and 1925, federal troops were used more than 100 times to quell domestic disturbances -- sometimes the presence of the troops alone was enough to discourage the participants.

"Look at the history," Olson exclaimed. "None of what's happening is new. Could you ever imagine that the President of the United States could order the Army to disarm sheriffs, disarm police, and disarm the National Guard? Isn't that beyond what you'd ever dream?

"But it has happened. It's the fact that this has happened that should cause people to take this issue seriously."

But doesn't the Posse Comitatus Act provide restrictions against the use of the military?

This is the act that prohibits the Army or Air force from acting as a posse comitatus -- "the population of a county the sheriff may summon to assist him in certain cases."

"No one should ever think the Posse Comitatus Act is any check whatsoever on the ability of the federal government to employ military might against civilians," said Olson.

"We were surprised at how weak the Posse Comitatus Act is," he continued. "There have been no prosecutions ever, and it doesn't apply to any branch of the armed forces except the Army and the Air Force.

It has a huge exception -- that deployment of the Army or Air Force as a posse comitatus is a crime, 'except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress.'

"That 'Constitution or Act of Congress' exception is so broad you can drive a truck through," Olson remarked. "The final thing that surprised us was that that the military doesn't need an order from the president to have control over civilians," Olson said. "I had always thought only the president could declare martial law, but apparently not. Apparently any commander can do it, can suspend all civil rights."

Larry Pratt considers this last the most egregious of all the Olson-Woll findings.

"Military commanders can act on the basis that there is an emergency," said Pratt. "They don't have to wait until martial law is declared. The powers that they have in their hands are tremendous.

"People can't expect President Clinton to sit there in front of a camera and say, 'Tonight I have declared martial law,'" Pratt said.

"You'll just find out about it when you try and get on the main highway and there's a humvee with a soldier who says, 'Turn back.' And when you ask why, he puts his gun into ready position and says, 'I'm only following orders. Please turn back.'

"You can challenge that. You can say they -- the commander or the soldier -- have no constitutional authority for this, and you may be correct. But you will be arguing on the wrong side of a barbed wire fence. They can simply do it. It will not be debated.

May God help us all.

-- Distressed re Y2K (terrible@wreck.on.way), November 08, 1999.

Welcome to the country that great "American" Abraham Lincoln gave us. Southerners have recognized the totalitarianism of the federal government for over 130 years. About time the rest of the country woke up.

-- Southern Partisan (glf_redeemed@hotmail.com), November 08, 1999.


-- brother in guard (can't@say.atthistime), November 08, 1999.

You'll find


-- John Whitley (jwhitley@inforamp.net), November 08, 1999.

This gives me the willies. I think this will happen next year. Nobody I know is the least prepared for this huge change. Culture shock.

-- Bruce (pbsed@pbsed.com.edu), November 09, 1999.

How will they have enough men to enforce martial law if they confiscate at gunpoint the arms and ammunition "including state and local officials, sheriffs, the police and the National Guard" ?

the Feds come in a disarm the locals so they can do whatever they please and encounter no resistance?

-- that is going too far (but@it.happens), November 11, 1999.

If they're going to nationalize the infrastructure you can bet they will nationalize the Guard.

-- raise your arms (frisk@for.weapons), November 11, 1999.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ