What does a rescue mission have to do with federal forces providing law enforcement on US soil? Not a damn thing, but there is a huge difference in a rescue mission and crowd control, is there not?

I don't know which bonus army marches you were referring to, but the only ones I know of occurred in DC where the posse comitatus act does not apply.

And if you can't understand why people living in Katrina would appreciate federal forces helping them get the fuck out of New Orleans and protect their homes in the process I'm not sure where this discussion is going to go but probably not anywhere interesting.

But in answer to your direct question, no there is not a "huge" difference between rescuing people during a catastrophe and crowd control, it would be impossible to do one without the other given that people generally panic during a crisis.

The distinction is semantic. Right now we have US troops on US soil able to carry out law enforcement.

why wouldn't posse comitatus apply in DC?


and again, federalized national guard forces to conduct evacuations and rescues is all hunky dory with me because those are not law enforcement actions. So I ask, how does that apply?

so you see no difference in crowd control operations at the superdome during katrina and crowd control at the DNC/RNC??

Semantics doesn't change that this statement is WRONG.

and semantics again, doesn't change this one either.

because I have sperm in my ballsack doesn't mean I've impregnated women or have kids. Semantics has nothing to do with REALITY.

I didn't realize you were asking a sarcastic semantic question. I thought you were being honest.
That's my point. You're attacking my statements about how this is basically martial law instead of discussing the meat of the discussion. That's semantics. The meat, the important part of the discussion, is the terribly slippery slope of having active military personnel enforcing US laws on US soil. It's almost certainly illegal, but worse still it's a step in a direction that I doubt anyone is comfortable with.

because your statements are WRONG. plain and simple, which you won't say anything like "Oh right, I'm sorry I was wrong."

I've already stated that the dc_dux position I agree with. I find it possible to be unconsitutional, and should be investigated.

But, I'm not the one who said:
What is correct, is that a group of military personnel was deployed on US soil to be made available for law enforcement capability about a week ago.

That is NOT the same thing as a declaration of martial law in any way shape or form, or being in a state of martial law.

well, semantics shape reality, but that's another topic...

this is probably obvious, but it seems to me that the same precedent/legal provision that enabled the change in status of the national guard. this is an abstract of a paper i just found because as i was writing that sentence i started to wonder if i knew what i was talking about:

The Dual Status of the National Guard and the Total Force - Storming Media

first off, nixon again.
second, it's curious, but if this abstract touches on the main points developed in the article in a way that does not change what these points are, it seems that the change in status of the national guard into a reserve component of the military whcih can be deployed in conflict situations abroad derives its authority from a rhetorical shift rather than from a legal change, (where's loquitor when we need him?---and o yeah: rhetoric matters. so do semantics.) the same logic that would have called the national guard part of a "total force" could also be reversed. whence, it seems to me, the rationale for this blur of lines between military and police, abroad and domestic.

there must be more to this at the legal level--legislation since the "total force" idea was floated--but i don't have time at the moment to research it.

if this is correct, then there is a logical if not exactly legal basis for this of using military units for national guard functions that is quite independent of the newest fiasco a la bush that we are all eating now....which would mean that the two are not necessarily an expression one of the other, and so it would require an explicit action to link them.

what makes me think i don't have the whole story is that i cannot imagine the usage of the national guard since the reagan period to fight in wars and avoid the draft would not have already been challenged by SOMEONE...and if there was to be a challenge, you'd think the posse comitatus law would be a basis. but maybe no-one has challenged it really, and given the way the legal system operates (it's reactive to cases, it doesn't bother itself with questions of principle where there are no cases in the sense that i cannot imagine a court handing down a challenge to this policy without there being a case that brought the matter to its attention) what's required is a lawsuit.

but then again, there's this, from feb. 2007:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/19/opinion/19mon3.html

i dont know if they were repealed.

so it's not like this is not a problematic area. but, again, it's because it's problematic that it pays to be cautious in drawing conclusions.

dksuddeth, I tried to edit my post before you replied because my rude sentence was uncalled for. If you'd edit your post to reflect mine, I'd appreciate it :)

Washington, DC is directly governed by Congress; it's a federal district, not a state.

How I feel about what seems proper uses of military on US soil isn't really relevant to what the law allows...unless I intend to martyr myself for an ideological belief. I don't, so until we all get to a proper understanding of what the threats vs. the benefits of employing them and a rational discussion about when to do so, we should stick with what the law currently allows until we can change it more in line with our beliefs.

Willravel, you might be interested in the following:
No one has ever been prosecuted under posse comitatus and likely never will be.

He's fortunate that you've decided to discuss the thread topic with him.
Precisely.

done, good sir.

I realize that there is the whole argument of 'incorporation' when it concerns the bill of rights, but is your position that the constitution or its laws do not apply to DC? asking this out of confusion.

I'm not making a general argument about how laws are enforced in DC.
You and I were discussing whether the deployment of US forces against the bonus army was a violation of the posse comitatus act.
Since it's a statute passed by Congress, and within it has provisions for Congress to authorize force when it deems fit, then we can either try and construct a legal argument about the legitimacy of mobilizing federal forces in a federal district *or* we can dig through the congressional records to see if they passed a bill on the way out the door authorizing the use of federal force to protect them from the vets marching on them.

Either way you want to do it, I think we can safely conclude that in regards to the bonus army marches, the use of federal troops to protect congress was legal :)

I'm glad that you can Palin the discussion into a solid Wookie defense.

having read more about it (work sucks when it gets in the way), I concede to your correct conclusions. Isn't it funny how the government will mobilize it's best forces to protect itself against unpopular decisions? Kind of points to a certain validity in the conclusion that congress is indeed prepping for military action against civilians with northcom.

Will, I have a question for you that will help me understand your opinion here a little better. After I get your answer, I will comment further.

Theoretic situation: Lets say that there was a riot in Dallas, and the Dallas Police department requested police units from say Houston to come help. Would you be ok with that? or do you find a problem with it? After your response I will make my statement.

It depends. In the US, there have only been a handful of protests that have required additional police (LA riots, WTO, etc.). Dallas has a ton of police, so it would have to be a very large, very unruly protest. It would also depend on how they were behaving. Police have to follow rules, too, and tasing, spraying and shooting with nonlethal projectiles innocent people is unacceptable.

I'm afraid this is apples and oranges, though. Military personnel are held responsible not by civilian court but military court, which is different. Military personnel have very different training than police in dealing with pretty much any situation. The military has access to more substantial armament. I think you can see where this is going. It's nothing personal to military, but really the military can do a lot more damage to a crowd of protesters than your average police department. Moreover, there's no recent precedence for the local police not being able to deal with protesters, which makes me question why they might need the military all of a sudden.

as I read the last sentence you posted will....

the Bank of America shootout in North Hollywood shootout in 1997 came to mind.

North Hollywood shootout - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

maybe because todays violent protestors can be as armed as those two and not as peaceful as one may think.

When I was in the military I was on an EST team. What you would call SWAT. WE were highly trained, and we wee damned good. So good, in fact, that we were called on to train local civilian Law Enforcement agencies. Those that we trained went back to train their own agencies units. "Very different training"? Not so much, I think.

Granted, your local PD doesn't have access to F-14s, minuteman missles, stealth bombers or tomahawk cruise missles...but I guaranwelldamntee you that they have access to the exact same small arms that the military carries.

True.
And...I'll let you in something a little scarier. Back in 1985, agents of the FBI came to Offutt Air Force Base to brief the Security Police of their growing concern over the emergence of the Bloods and the Crips in Omaha. These were, until then, only in L.A. Their concern was that these gangs were more heavily armed than we were on a military installation.

Bank robbing ≠ protesting.
I'm only speaking from secondary experience of course, but how many law enforcement officers train to use grenades in an urban environment? While I would assume there are certainly similarities between military and police training, I would imagine that the military training includes somewhat more dangerous situations than one might normally deal with in the US. I had a friend of mine serving in Iraq describe a situation he was in as "similar to that one part of Clear and Present Danger" (referring to the ambush scene where automatic weapons and missile launchers were used to attack a motorcade from surrounding buildings).
I would be very surprised if any local police ever needed anything more than a standard issue sidearm at a protest. As a protester, I know that the danger police are normally in during a protest is minimal. The most danger a police officer is likely to see is a rock or two, and even that is exceedingly rare. I can't imagine needing automatic weapons to deal with one or two people throwing rocks.

It may not be equal to protesting... but my point is that normal people have access to small arms that are not able to be repelled by the police. You don't seem to look at the ability of the possibility but dismiss it out of hand because it's not equal.

I'll leave you with old photo of NYC

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v1...thetiq/027.jpg

President Wilson expected some sort of anti-war rally.... a bit overkill, but doesn't seem too far fetched based on the fact it has happened before.

so what were you saying about sidearms and the danger to police and officials?

It is still not the role of the military (other than the National Guard) to inject itself (at the order of a president) into domestic law enforcement.

Perhaps. But...
As a former police officer...I know that the police are not there to fight "fair". The police will meet every escalation with even greater escalation. They are there to stay on top, and they will. Like it or not, or believe it or not, not all of your little protester buddies are as Ghandiesque as you'd like like to believe. Some are there, just to cause trouble. It doesn't take much to stir up mob mentality. A couple of guys throwing rocks, quickly turns into a few dozen. (how is rock throwing peaceful anyway?) Officer goes down and has his sidearm forced from him. Shots are fired. Police respond in kind. People get hurt and killed. Just sit in a damned circle, sing Kumbaya, leave and go have a tofu dinner. That's a peaceful protest.

Look...I know that there are some on my side of the fence that are not clean. There are a few that'll be looking for a reason to bust some hippie skulls. So, what you probably ought to do is throw some rocks at them. That should really work out well for your side.

domestic law enforcement is trained paramilitary. they've been trained that way for a long time, will.
from drugs, to gangs, to terrorism. it used to be the difference was the emblem on the badge, but now that's even changing since everything is answerable to dept. of homeland security.

most of what you see when you walk down the sidewalk is squad cars and normal units. but if there was ever any force necessary, you would see the paramilitary units come out. but that's how the military is too, it's not like the bulk of the force is lethal; most of the armed forces are support, as well.

I don't know if this will make you feel any better, but not only is the field training the same, but our civilian doctors trained the military medics, too because they had more experience with gun wounds. you have to remember that for the past 30 years our military hasn't done much more than offer careers and education opportunities for most of its members. to the extent they saw any action at all, it was of the police sort in other countries. our police and doctors have been experiencing war conditions for over 30 years. kinda fucked up when it's put like that, huh?

OK. My point in asking the previous question is this: The Houston city laws and ordinances are different in some cases than Dallas, however if Houston were to come to Dallas to help, they would be asked to follow the rules and regulations of Dallas city law, not Houston.

The similarity that I am trying to address here is that when the Military is called in to assist local law enforcement, as in Louisiana for Katrina, they are ordered by the government to follow the laws of the local police. They are there to ASSIST, not take over. I know this because one of my good friends who was called up to help in the aftermath was one such unit. The rules were that you policed the city, not patrolled it as a military unit. They still had to follow the rules and regulations set forth by the local N.O. Police Department. Therefore it was NOT martial law by the military, it was a curfue and local police martial law set forth by the governor and mayor. There IS a difference. Martial law can be declared by a governor without using military presence to do so, but if military HAS a presence there and are ordered to follow the laws of local police, then they are NOT commiting military martial law. I hope I have explained this right. This special unit that is in place training for the need is NOT actively on patrol, so it is NOT commiting martial law.

Again dc, I don't disagree with you. It SHOULD NOT happen.

I can just point out that history doesn't side with you in saying that it doesn't happen or that this is the first time it has happened. I believe that if I dig deeper into history Civil War and just before that time in particular I'll find that these kinds of incidents happened.

OMG yes. The New York Draft Riots, during the Civil War, come to my immediate mind.

The problem is excessive force. Military personnel are trained to deal with militant extremists, things like ambushes with automatic weapons and IEDs. That's a completely different ball game than dealing with protesters. Sure, some are there to start trouble, but I don't think you're going to see improvised explosives or automatic weapons. If that was a concern, I would understand the military being necessary for public safety (and to defend themselves, of course). That's simply not the case. What's the appropriate measured response to throwing rocks? I would imagine it would be maybe some mase and a tasing. A few "don't tase me bro!"s later and everything would probably calm down. The worst protest I was ever involved in was back at the WTO protest in Seattle. It was a massive mess, but the worst I saw from the protesters was a few instances of physical violence with fists and such against a cop. The cop was fine. And that was after the police opened fire with tear gas and rubber bullets on largely peaceful protesters in response to streets being blocked and a few acts of vandalism. I'm sure you can understand why I'm hesitant to allow even more escalation when I saw how excessive a response can be.

I don't eat tofu, but I'm usually the one that kicks out the idiots trying to stir up trouble.
I never said that I condoned the stone throwing. As a matter of fact, I've gone so far as to tackle people like that and literally throw them out of the protest and tell them never to come back. Protest is about making people aware of ideas, not instigating violence. People like that give the rest of us a bad reputation and can lead to law enforcement and other protesters being hurt.

why are you so focused on civil protests? are you interpreting crowd control to be a response to civil protests?

He seems to believe that all the kumbaya-yas out there are all simple peaceful people.

I see plenty of crazy wilding type folks here in Manhattan and it's not even a protest.... it could be a parade, march, or even just people walking about the city.

and thanks BOR those Draft riots were very challenging here in NYC.

I think we just need to be very careful how we proceed down that slippery slope.

In the 80s, the military was authorized by Reagan (and again by Clinton) to participate (with state/federal law enforcement) in drug interdiction on the border. More recently, the 2006 amendment of the 200 year old Insurrection Act and the creation of NORTHCOMM have expanded the mission of the US armed forces and redefined and expanded the meaning of insurrection, allowing it to be broadly interpreted by the sitting president.

Passive support by the military (logistics, command and control, etc) is one thing...active participation within the borders of the US by the standing army is another.

I'm focused on protests because I'm a protester. I've seen police escalation during my few brief years of protesting and I'm very concerned about what a transition to military crowd control might entail. I won't stop protesting because it's become too dangerous, but I'm not looking forward to what seems to be coming. Still, the most important point is one that DC keeps making:
Precisely.

political protests are not the kind of crowd control the military would be called in to help with.
crowd control during a catastrophe and panic, such as katrina or a dirty bomb

why quote only part of his sentence...the fact is that the military has been used before on call. now they have a command center to help coordinate faster response teams and place the agencies under central control rather than at will.

You don't know that.

Really? History again shows how militia has been used by the POTUS in times of need within the borders of the United States.

I can't guess your intentions anymore than you can guess the POTUS intentions. Your not knowing that is EQUAL. You don't know that either.

Who's talking about "militia"? We have trained Army soldiers that are posted ongoing, a standing army within US borders. That's unprecedented, as I understand it.
Actually, we do know because it was made clear in the article.
It's not wild speculation if it's a part of the mandate.

Please read your history books. Start with the Civil War draft... and the President Wilson anti war rally...

And again, you can SPECULATE think will happen, but until it happens, it's STILL speculation.

No speculation. It's in their mandate. Reread the Army Times article if you must, but it's there and it's perfectly clear.

I do know what I wrote, willravel, for a fact.
Now you can speculate as to what they may be used for, but it's you who are engaging in speculation about what might happen.

I know exactly why this was setup because I personally spoke to the heads of a number of organizations and the person who heads the entire operation now that's it's folded into one umbrella agency.
Now you may believe they are lying, and really just lurking in the shadows waiting to come and dissolve your rights, but our military and police organizations have been coordinating for decades in order to deal with narcotics, gangs, and now terrorism. After the attack on New York and later Katrina it became increasingly obvious that without a centralized logistics center, our old modes of each organization following its own protocol was too slow and ineffective to deal with serious catastrophic events of national importance.

Here's what the article actually says:
It helps when you quote the whole sentence :\

I still have serious problems with the 2006 amendments to the 1807 Insurrection Act that gives too much power to a sitting president:
I am ok with amending the 200 yr old law to include "a natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident." The kicker is the "or other condition" (determined by the president).

"Other conditions" leaves too much to the discretion of one person.

I would also prefer that it be done with the consent of Congress. The Democratic Congress tried to amend it further in 2007 and Bush vetoed it.

what's the point? He isn't ever wrong, and better still he won't ever admit that he is. Because the article says so... and of course it must be true.
-----Added 13/10/2008 at 11 : 24 : 10-----
dc, tell me did this amendment just appear out of nowhere or did congress have to vot it?

What a coincidence, so did I!
You see the "or" in that sentence, right?
That doesn't mean that the civil unrest and crowd control can only be connected with the horrific scenarios. It means in addition to said scenarios.

Neeways, DC brings up a good point in citing the frighteningly open language in the laws about presidential use of the armed forces. Is that being cited as the legality of having an active ongoing military presence on US soil?

And I've shown that the president has done so WITHOUT such language in situations in the past.

so the rhetoric doesn't matter.

cyn....the Republicans stuck it in the 2006 defense appropriations bill...I believe, at the request of Bush, but I dont know that for certain.

IMO, it does matter because it codifies expanding the power of the president in a manner that I think is dangerous.

The Democrats tried removing it in more recent defense appropriations bills and failed for lack of a veto proof majority.

so then, congress and the checks and balances worked. and if the dems want to, they can try to reverse it, which you said an attempt was made.

further, the justice dept can decide that the move is unconstitutional and challenge the amendment.

thus, all the clucking of the sky is falling, is just that.

the government ebbs and flows.... as I've said before I'd like to see challenged or investigated if they are deployed or invoked for use. I don't see that it would be much different in this day and age, but what do I know, I'm just a dumb taxpayer.

The 2006 act was passed by Congress. In 2008 it was repealed but Pres. Bush retained his abilities by a signing statement.
The constitutionality of using armed forces on US soil is not the issue, it's the legality of signing statements that is in question...well not too much question, the courts have ruled consistently that he can't do that.

But if they ever were utilized, it's not like Congress would refuse to authorize it on the fly as they have in the past.

Willravel, I can read the article for myself. Of course I saw the "or". I'm using information from the source, however, and I don't appreciate you lying that you spoke to dept. heads in order to refute my contribution to the thread. If you want to hold incorrect information in your head and post threads about us being under military law then be my guest. If you wanted to know the direct information, I posted it but I'm not here to argue over what I personally know to be true...and that includes the BS that you actually spoke to anyone in authority on these matters or you wouldn't be posting like you have so far.

I was pointing out the incredibly convenient evidence that you didn't cite.

If you want to post evidence, post it. "I spoke to a guy", especially in this context, really can't be expected to be hard evidence of anything.

right, and I've pointed out as has smooth that your claim of martial law is incorrect and wrong, but you haven't admitted nor conceded it.

I thought it was still on the books as a result of Bush's pocket veto of the 08 defense appropriations bill at the time....but I could be wrong.

Future Congresses may or may not "authorize" such action "on the fly" and that is still better than leaving it in the hands of one person.

It's well known by the regulars that I'm finishing my Ph.D at a large university.
It's also well known that I live in close proximity two nuclear reactors, one of the busiest shipping ports in the US, and a global cultural and traveling hub.
I don't know what kind of proof you want that various agencies would come and speak to our students about what they do on a daily basis, explain how the agencies coordinate and why, as well as those of us working at the research university be briefed on what to do in the event we are attacked.
I don't think I'm at liberty to explain why my specific university being attacked is more than a theoretical threat, sorry if that's too convenient for you.
I can say this, however, that if you think they are lying, and I'm lying about speaking with them, and lots of other reasonable people in this thread aren't concerned about a lot of things, it's probably time to reexamine how far off a cliff you're willing to drive this car. I've said a lot of things that would cause someone to disagree with me politically but never have I lied on this board about things I know to be true.

That doesn't mean that you don't have to cite evidence, even when we're discussing something you're educated in. I cite the DSM-4 when discussing diagnostic criteria in psychology in forum posts or emails despite having my degree in psych.

I'm necessarily not saying you're lying or that they're lying, just like a teacher in school wouldn't necessarily be suggesting I was lying if I didn't correctly cite a source in a paper. It's simply a part of argument. In order to convince someone of something, you need evidence that's verifiable. I can't verify what you posted. Neither can anyone else. I'm pretty sure you're being honest, but pretty sure isn't always good enough.

Edit: I like your signature.

smooth....I've had access to many briefings by DHS (and several by the WH) to state/local officials since 9/11 and I heard lots of talk about consolidating a response to terrorist threat or natural disaster.

I dont recall them every mentioning that the president has the unilateral power to determine "other conditions" where federal troops could be deployed.

why don't you just say something like "nice haircut" or "nice shoes" since you aren't going to address the issue of where you are wrong, but hey, "nice hat you are wearing today."

Cynth, you don't have the power to cheapen my gesture of respect and civility.

Smooth, I hope you took my comment as such. I could have been a lot less snide in how I responded. My apologies.

To clarify, I'm not suggesting that anyone spoke in a class of students and said that the president now has unilateral power to deploy federal troops.

I'm only saying that the reasons for the folding of the depts. into one umbrella organization was to better facilitate responses to terrorist attacks rather than suppressing political activism.

Now, that said, I'm as concerned as anyone else posting in this thread that the realities of our current situation necessitate rapid response teams, and I'm not happy about that. I just personally don't know what to do about that. I mean, the choice is to adhere to idealism that federal troops ready to deploy on US soil a bad idea, in general and in theory vs. the reality that in the event of a dirty bomb that if it weren't for how our system is being setup that we will be in for a world of hurt.

I guess that the corollary is the growth of regulatory bodies that historically encroach upon what was supposed to be governed by state and federal legislative bodies. We know that members of Congress are not necessarily experts in food safety, so we hand those issues off to the FDA which operate outside the direct of Congress. This is an issue that I put on a lot of essay tests for students to think about...that there is a fundamental inconsistency between the fundamentals our nation was founded upon and the realities it takes to run the nation. Congress can't handle it all, even if they were experts in the various agencies' aspects, due to time and scope of things it takes to make things run efficiently. As a result, we have a lot of regulatory bodies that operate independently from Congress.


I'm not quite sure what the answer is, tbh. I'm either not far from willravel or even more extreme in my concern over these issues. I just don't know how we can make sure our country can respond to real threats vs. making sure our rights and ideals are remain intact. It's not hyperbolic to suggest that if a dirty bomb were to go off in a 30 mile radius of where I live that western civilization would end as we know it. Definitely western capitalism. whether that's a good thing or a bad thing is a personal decision.

EDIT: I'm not offended by anything you've written, willravel. I share the same concerns, regardless of how my posts come off. I posted earlier (but not explicitly) that my main concern with hyperbole is that it makes it so we can't communicate with people who are more reasonably minded than we are. LOL

I'm glad we're on the same page.

The most disconcerting part of all of this is not knowing. While the mandate is laid out in the article, what's done with those mandates is really, really up in the air. My nature is not to trust authority, so I tend to have worst-case scenarios play out in my head. The Seattle left a pretty big impression on me. I can't imagine how much worse it could have been had there been military there and I'm very seriously afraid of what might happen to people that are simply interested in having their voices heard.

At the same time, it's possible that this is still benign. It's possible that this isn't that last step I'm worried about. It might simply be a stumble in the wrong direction.

smooth .....I dont have the answers either.

But I do have a concern that we are straying too far away from protecting civil liberties in the name of protecting national security.

Congress is not a cure all; but IMO, more comprehensive and accountable checks and balances written into legislation when civil liberties, war powers, and the most basic constitutional rights are at stake is an essential tool to limit the power of the executive.

Unprecedented?
When have we not an ongoing standing army within US borders? I spent 8 years in the United States Air Force. All 8 of 'em were spent on U.S. soil.

Here's the intent, as I see it. You have any number of organizations that can help during any given emergency. They need direction. This gives them that direction. It helps to ensure a swift response to any situation. By "situation", I'm talking about anything from a natural disaster to an all out attack on the United States. It seems to me that Will sees that lone student standing in front of a tank in Tienamen Square. That's not what this is for, nor is it what this is about. It's about coordinating a rapid an effective response to unforeseen circumstances. Eliminating all of the red tape ensures that.

Look...the Bush administration took a well deserved black eye for its' response to Katrina. Good lord, what a fiasco that was. Anyone disagree? That's because there was no coordination on any level. Not local, not state and certainly not federal. This provides that needed coordination.

There is a lot of hand wringing over the language "civil unrest and crowd control". To me that reads a total breakdown of law and order. Much like you had in New Orleans, following Katrina. Responders could not get in to help affected areas due to armed looters and marauders. Sorry, but I most certainly can see the use of the military in that type of civil unrest and crowd control.
Protestors are not even a blip on the radar of this thing. The language, however, must be kept somewhat vague to allow for unforeseen circumstances. All this is, to me, is streamlining a necessary response, rather than the sloooow and teeedioouus process of moving up through numerous government channels.

Can it be abused? Sure, I would imagine that it could. So can most anything. Some people, it seems, want to see the boogeyman where the is really just a shadow.

When you expect someone to understand and concede points to your opinion, it's customary and respectful to do the same or reciprocate. Unless, that is you still think and truly believe that we are under martial law.

If that's the case, well you are entitled to your opinion.

I'm not sure of the validity of the outlined points in this article, but I found it interesting and could be very informative.

What To Expect When Martial Law Is Declared

if any of that shit happened, the most ironic thought in my head would not be concerning my fate or that of the nation, but rather why I just got cracked over the head with a russian assault rifle by a US soldier.

actually that's about what happened according to familial accounts during martial law in the Philippines twice, once under the Japanese, and another under Ferdinand Marcos.

:lol::lol: that was the first thing that popped in to my head as well.