• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Anarchy. Time for Martial Law?

Should Martial Law be declared in Minneapolis / Portland if the Rule of Law is lacking

  • No

    Votes: 29 72.5%
  • Yes

    Votes: 11 27.5%

  • Total voters
    40
If the feds came in and did that, implemented a curfew, pretty sure it would end the riots and destruction.

The feds, as well as every US tax payer, has an interest in stopping the riots and the destruction; after all, the bankrupt cities left in their wake are going to end up going to feds begging for money, hence every US tax payer has an interest.
I do not believe the local police forces cannot contain those who riot, but rather there is not enough political effort made to do so. That is the problem. But sending-in the military will only make matters worse IMO, hardening the resolve of the protesters. And sooner or later the military will need to withdraw. No, the immediate problem needs to be handled locally.

However, I don't see the general unrest stopping until the feds get a handle on the pandemic & employment. Those things are weighing society down, and it's showing. It's also class-related, IMO. That's another thing that will need to be addressed at the macro level.
 
Ask Antifa, they don't seem to be very happy at the moment with the feds. A lot of them seem to be getting arrested and charged with federal crimes. The Oregon state police are now deputized federal agents as well.

An interesting development. I sure hope that it puts an end to the rioting, lawlessness and destruction.

AntiFa, as it turns out, isn't at all like the so called 'news' (political propaganda) media has portrayed them.

A Brief History of Antifa: Part I
A Brief History of Antifa: Part I


  • Empirical and anecdotal evidence shows that Antifa is, in fact, highly networked, well-funded and has a global presence. It has a flat organizational structure with dozens and possibly hundreds of local groups.

  • Antifa's stated long-term objective, both in America and abroad, is to establish a communist world order. In the United States, Antifa's immediate aim is to bring about the demise of the Trump administration.

  • A common tactic used by Antifa in the United States and Europe is to employ extreme violence and destruction of public and private property to goad the police into a reaction, which then "proves" Antifa's claim that the government is "fascist."

  • Antifa is not only officially tolerated, but is being paid by the German government to fight the far right. — Bettina Röhl, German journalist, Neue Zürcher Zeitung, June 2, 2020.

  • "Out of cowardice, its members cover their faces and keep their names secret. Antifa constantly threatens violence and attacks against politicians and police officers. It promotes senseless damage to property amounting to vast sums." — Bettina Röhl, Neue Zürcher Zeitung, June 2, 2020.

A perfect match for the Democrat supported BLM, also a Marxist-Leninist organization.
BLM co-founder describes herself as 'trained Marxist'
nypost.com › 2020/06/25 › blm-co-founder-describes-...
Jun 25, 2020 - Black Lives Matter co-founder Patrisse Cullors said in a newly surfaced video from 2015 that she and her fellow organizers are "trained ...

BLM Co-Founder Admits; "We Are Trained Marxists" - YouTube
www.youtube.com › watch
3 days ago - This short clip captures what many have suspected but far too many dismiss-- the fact that Black Lives Matter is rooted in Marxism. Yes, that's ...

A Marxist agenda underpins the Black Lives Matter Movement ...
www.youtube.com › watch
She told Sky News host Paul Murray, Black Lives Matter was an organised movement led by people who ...6 days ago - Uploaded by Sky News Australia

BLM’s action show they actively suppress any opinions or speech they don’t agree with, so that would make them Marxist-Leninists.

And
BLM Leader: We'll 'Burn' the System Down If U.S. Won't Give ...
www.newsweek.com › ... › Black Lives Matter › Fox News
"If this country doesn't give us what we want, then we will burn down this system and replace it," said Hawk ...Jun 25, 2020

Given the above from BLM leaders, wouldn't one reasonably come to the conclusion that 'unless there is change' (Marxism) (we will literally) 'burn the system down' (existing society)?
With only anarchy and chaos as the result?
 
Except for implementing a curfew, you are right. It would end the terrorism because they are being supported by the Democrat politicians in those cities and States. Remove the criminal Democrat leadership, and you will end the acts of leftist terrorism. Remember, if they are violating the law for their own personal gain then it is merely a riot. However, if they are violating the law in order to coerce or intimidate government or civilians, then they have crossed the line into terrorism. Either way, if laws are being broken or if there is any kind of violence, then it cannot be a protest. All protests are both lawful and peaceful.

Agreed. I have no issue with any peaceful protests, they are constitutional rights, to protest and to peaceful assemble. It goes all off the rails the moment someone is assaulted, assaulted with battery, looting, property being destroyed. Then it is criminal, and needs to be treated as such.

I agree, and the best way to stop the terrorism is to arrest the Democrat terrorist instigators and supporters, like Kalama Harris and the Mayors and Governors that allow the terrorist attacks to continue unabated.

I suspect that it needs to go from the bottom up, so that'd be leaning on the Mayors and Governors first. Privately. Given every opportunity to accept, multiple times, giving them the rope they want to politically hang themselves, metaphorically.
 
Executive Orders are not law, nor can they alter any existing law. Executive Orders pertain exclusively to the Executive Branch and has no authority beyond the Executive Branch.

It is not. It did, however, apparently have the desired effect. People stopped tearing down historic monument and statues, be it an empty threat or not.
 
I do not believe the local police forces cannot contain those who riot, but rather there is not enough political effort made to do so. That is the problem. But sending-in the military will only make matters worse IMO, hardening the resolve of the protesters. And sooner or later the military will need to withdraw. No, the immediate problem needs to be handled locally.

Agreed. Locally handled would be the best, but what to do about the local government leaders who are derelict in their duty to their electorate in enforcing law and order, a civil society? How to push them, prod them, into seeing the errors of their failed public policies? Federally deputizing an entire state police force might just be the needed prodding. The rioters are only filling the vacuum left by the local government's pull back and ham stringing of the police, and in that space rioting.

However, I don't see the general unrest stopping until the feds get a handle on the pandemic & employment. Those things are weighing society down, and it's showing. It's also class-related, IMO. That's another thing that will need to be addressed at the macro level.

A big whiplash going from a booming economy, nearly no unemployment, floating all boats (especially the middle class), all with wage increases, to pandemic induced lock down (which doesn't appear to have been effective as one might have hoped). That last month 1.4M jobs were added (or should I say re-added) back to the economy, and that the unemployment rate was 8% and dropping fast, would seem to indicate that a strong recovery is already afoot, although in slightly altered, mask wearing, social distancing, WFH reality. But still, workable.

I've said from the beginning that none of the world's nations were prepared for COVID-19, with the exception of South Korea. Having been hit hard by H1N1 (i think it was that one), they've learned from that, and were on top of COVID-19. All the rest of the nations were not prepared, and economically it shows. Last report that I head, the EU Nation's GDP are down more than the US', and their unemployment higher (it usually is anyway).
 
Let's see, we leaned on the rioters a bit, and it got worse.

We leaned on them some more with federal agents, and it got ever worse.

So we should lean on them even HARDER, because this has been a winning strategy so far.

So you are suggesting they run wild and not be held accountable by any law enforcement entity?

That's why Tombstone AZ hired Wyatt Earp and his brothers, you know.
And Tombstone quieted down in a hurry after they took over.
Maybe that's what Portland needs. Some law and order.
 
Agreed. The state and local governments need to stop allowing riots and rioters (through their inaction and pulling the police back and ham stringing them), declare a curfew for a few weeks if need be to restore law and order, but law and order needs to be the end result.

The state and local governments who, through their inaction and ham stringing their police, have done nothing but encouraged and emboldened the rioters, arsonists and criminals. These criminal acts cannot be permitted or go without just consequences.

Actually, it's the police unions that are hamstringing any meaningful police reform...so until that gets resolved there isn't much state and local governments can do about it. The longer the police remain unaccountable, the more agitated and frustrated the protesters, the local and city officials and the public at large become.

Almost everyone wants police reform...except the police unions....


The Link Between Disproportionate Police Brutality And Police Unions : NPR

Police unions are one of the biggest obstacles to transforming policing

Police unions have helped shield officers from accountability. Now they're facing an unprecedented backlash - CNN

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outl...s-better-solution-than-banning-police-unions/
 
Actually, it's the police unions that are hamstringing any meaningful police reform...so until that gets resolved there isn't much state and local governments can do about it. The longer the police remain unaccountable, the more agitated and frustrated the protesters, the local and city officials and the public at large become.

Almost everyone wants police reform...except the police unions....

And except the Democrats in congress, apparently.

Democrats' shameful vote against Tim Scott's police reform bill
[url]www.washingtonpost.com
› opinions › 2020/06/25 › if...[/URL]
Jun 25, 2020 - Not to be outdone, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) described Scott's bill as “trying to get away with murder, actually. The murder of ...

Dems sink GOP police bill, leaving Senate deadlocked as ...
[url]www.politico.com
› news › 2020/06/24 › republican-p...[/URL]
Jun 24, 2020 - Senate Democrats sank Republicans' police reform plan Wednesday, blocking a ... a week after Republicans unveiled the measure, led by Sen Tim Scott (R-S. ... over police brutality in the aftermath of George Floyd's killing by ...

Senate Democrats Block GOP Police Reform Bill In Setback ...
[url]www.npr.org
› 2020/06/24 › democrats-vow-to-block-go...
[/URL]Jun 24, 2020 - Senate Democrats Block GOP Police Reform Bill ... Tim Scott of South Carolina, the chamber's lone Black Republican, unveiled the bill with hopes of voting on the ... Floyd was killed May 25 in Minneapolis police custody.

Senate Democrats block Republican police reform bill
[url]www.cnbc.com
› 2020/06/24 › senate-democrats-block-r...
[/URL]Jun 24, 2020 - Senate Democrats blocked a Republican police reform bill from ... Tim Scott of South Carolina, did not garner the 60 votes needed to move forward to debate. It failed ... During weeks of protests after police killed George Floyd, ...

Democrats kill Senator Tim Scott's police reform bill. - YouTube
[url]www.youtube.com
› watch
[/URL]Jun 26, 2020 - Why haven't they implemented the necessary changes. 38:00 - 54:30. Democrats kill Senator Tim Scott's police reform bill. Callers weigh in.


I'm no fan of unions in general, but accept that large corporations and private sector unions balance the equation more. Fair enough.

That still leaves public sector unions a question as to their justification.

F.D.R. Warned Us About Public Sector Unions
“It is impossible to bargain collectively with the government.”
That wasn’t Newt Gingrich, or Ron Paul, or Ronald Reagan talking. That was George Meany -- the former president of the A.F.L.-C.I.O -- in 1955. Government unions are unremarkable today, but the labor movement once thought the idea absurd.

The founders of the labor movement viewed unions as a vehicle to get workers more of the profits they help create. Government workers, however, don’t generate profits. They merely negotiate for more tax money. When government unions strike, they strike against taxpayers. F.D.R. considered this “unthinkable and intolerable.”

Government collective bargaining means voters do not have the final say on public policy. Instead their elected representatives must negotiate spending and policy decisions with unions. That is not exactly democratic – a fact that unions once recognized.
 
And except the Democrats in congress, apparently.

Democrats' shameful vote against Tim Scott's police reform bill
[url]www.washingtonpost.com
› opinions › 2020/06/25 › if...[/URL]
Jun 25, 2020 - Not to be outdone, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) described Scott's bill as “trying to get away with murder, actually. The murder of ...

Dems sink GOP police bill, leaving Senate deadlocked as ...
[url]www.politico.com
› news › 2020/06/24 › republican-p...[/URL]
Jun 24, 2020 - Senate Democrats sank Republicans' police reform plan Wednesday, blocking a ... a week after Republicans unveiled the measure, led by Sen Tim Scott (R-S. ... over police brutality in the aftermath of George Floyd's killing by ...

Senate Democrats Block GOP Police Reform Bill In Setback ...
[url]www.npr.org
› 2020/06/24 › democrats-vow-to-block-go...
[/URL]Jun 24, 2020 - Senate Democrats Block GOP Police Reform Bill ... Tim Scott of South Carolina, the chamber's lone Black Republican, unveiled the bill with hopes of voting on the ... Floyd was killed May 25 in Minneapolis police custody.

Senate Democrats block Republican police reform bill
[url]www.cnbc.com
› 2020/06/24 › senate-democrats-block-r...
[/URL]Jun 24, 2020 - Senate Democrats blocked a Republican police reform bill from ... Tim Scott of South Carolina, did not garner the 60 votes needed to move forward to debate. It failed ... During weeks of protests after police killed George Floyd, ...

Democrats kill Senator Tim Scott's police reform bill. - YouTube
[url]www.youtube.com
› watch
[/URL]Jun 26, 2020 - Why haven't they implemented the necessary changes. 38:00 - 54:30. Democrats kill Senator Tim Scott's police reform bill. Callers weigh in.



I'm no fan of unions in general, but accept that large corporations and private sector unions balance the equation more. Fair enough.

That still leaves public sector unions a question as to their justification.


Sen. Tim Scott's bill looks like fairly good bill, but it failed to address the issue of 'qualified immunity' for police officers and it didn't ban choke holds, which is kind of the whole point of police reform....so perhaps that's why the Dems blocked it. And it doesn't appear that Sen. McConnell let the bill have a floor debate, either. Meanwhile, the House passed a police reform bill....

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/06/25/police-reform-plan-house-339691
 
At this point: it will not work.

The thing about martial law in the US is that it only really works in times of war and disaster. During those times when we declared martial law, large portions of the populace were okay with it as it was done to prevent lawlessness or to prevent persons from taking advantage of the situation.

The other times, martial law usually ended in the loss of lives and property. Most of these instances were in result of a strike. The government (local, state or federal as the case may be) would call in the militia or the Army and someone would toss a rock or fire a gun and then people died.

In this case...I can only see martial law going south (I mean, just look at Kenosha, a kid tried using a firearm illegally in a town he didn't even live in to stop protesters and managed to make things worse) and a lot of people getting killed...on any side of the issue.
 
Absolutely, NO!

Oh, Martial law will be coming to the United States all right, but not for another 50 years or so.

By then, this country's social order will have deteriorated so much that the rulers in that future time will resort to the military to stay in power, as has happened many times in other countries.
 
Sen. Tim Scott's bill looks like fairly good bill, but it failed to address the issue of 'qualified immunity' for police officers and it didn't ban choke holds, which is kind of the whole point of police reform....so perhaps that's why the Dems blocked it. And it doesn't appear that Sen. McConnell let the bill have a floor debate, either. Meanwhile, the House passed a police reform bill....

House passes sweeping police reform bill - POLITICO

Without qualified immunity it would make policing impossible. Every police interaction with a criminal would result in the criminal filing a law suit, mostly based on imagined offenses, overloading both the police force as well as the court system.

Given the extremely difficult job that policing is, some legal protection simply must be afforded them.
 
No, it does not. Congress has the power to "provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions." They do not have the power to suspend the US Constitution.

You had better read Ex Parte Milligan again, because it doesn't say anything like what you claim it does. The Supreme Court ruled that the federal government could not establish military courts to try civilians, except where civil courts were no longer functioning in an actual theater of war. At no time did the Supreme Court ever state that the US Constitution can be suspended in favor of martial law.

Can you point to where Ex Parte Milligan says that. By “actual theater of war” I assume you mean an actual declared war.

What it does say is

Military commissions organized during the late civil war, in a State not invaded and not engaged in rebellion, in which the Federal courts were open, and in the proper and unobstructed exercise of their judicial functions, had no jurisdiction to try, convict, or sentence for any criminal offence, a citizen who was neither a resident of a rebellious State nor a prisoner of war, nor a person in the military or naval service. And Congress could not invest them with any such power.

and

11. Neither the President nor Congress nor the Judiciary can disturb any one of the safeguards of civil liberty incorporated into the Constitution except so far as the right is given to suspend in certain cases the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus.

12. A citizen not connected with the military service and a resident in a State where the courts are open and in the proper exercise or their jurisdiction cannot, even when the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is suspended, be tried, convicted, or sentenced otherwise than by the ordinary courts of law.

13. Suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus does not suspend the writ itself. The writ issues as a matter of course, and, on its return, the court decides whether the applicant is denied the right of proceeding any further.

14. A person who is a resident of a loyal State, where he was arrested, who was never resident in any State engaged in rebellion, nor connected with the military or naval service, cannot be regarded as a prisoner of war.

But I see nothing about a state of war having to exist
 
Can you point to where Ex Parte Milligan says that. By “actual theater of war” I assume you mean an actual declared war.

What it does say is



and



But I see nothing about a state of war having to exist

They use the English spelling of "theatre" (as in "theatre of military operations"), but yes, an act of rebellion/insurrection or an invasion must occur first. That would give the President the constitutional power to suspend habeas corpus. Furthermore, the civil courts must not be able to function in those States where military tribunals are established. If the courts are functioning, then the military is required to turn over any civilian arrested to the civilian authorities. They cannot be tried by military tribunal.

Even when there is a complete break-down of the law, and nothing is functioning as a result of a rebellion/insurrection or an invasion, the military may step in to restore order but they still must abide by the constraints the US Constitution places on them. Meaning, they cannot exercise more authority than the US Constitution allows.

We have thus far said little of martial law, nor do we propose to say much. What we have already said sufficiently indicates our opinion that there is no law for the government of the citizens, the armies or the navy of the United States, within American jurisdiction, which is not contained in or derived from the Constitution. And wherever our army or navy may go beyond our territorial limits, neither can go beyond the authority of the President or the legislation of Congress.
 
The actual Progressive Party existed from 1890s until the 1930s. They were entirely former Republicans, including Theodore Roosevelt. They were also strong advocates for the 15th, 16th, 17th, 18th, and 19th Amendments. When Democrats, like President Wilson, opposed all of those progressive reforms. Those who claim to be "progressive" today are actually massively regressive and anti-human.



Martial law violates the US Constitution, therefore any government who declares it is automatically an enemy of the US and must be disposed immediately by any means necessary. A declaration of martial law is essentially the government declaring war against its citizens, and they will lose
.


What about "common good" and "domestic tranquility"?
 

What about "common good" and "domestic tranquility"?

If they are declaring martial law then they are already pissing on the US Constitution. Therefore, killing those who declared martial law would restore "domestic tranquility" with the restoration of the US Constitution.
 
If they are declaring martial law then they are already pissing on the US Constitution. Therefore, killing those who declared martial law would restore "domestic tranquility" with the restoration of the US Constitution.

What a stretch.

Major YAWN


ttfn
 
So you are suggesting they run wild and not be held accountable by any law enforcement entity?

Nope. I am suggesting the current methods of law enforcement being applied are not working.
 
Martial law for isolated riots would be dumb. Absolutely stupid and would set a horrible precedent. Just more fascist nonsense.
 
Agreed. Locally handled would be the best, but what to do about the local government leaders who are derelict in their duty to their electorate in enforcing law and order, a civil society? How to push them, prod them, into seeing the errors of their failed public policies? Federally deputizing an entire state police force might just be the needed prodding. The rioters are only filling the vacuum left by the local government's pull back and ham stringing of the police, and in that space rioting.



A big whiplash going from a booming economy, nearly no unemployment, floating all boats (especially the middle class), all with wage increases, to pandemic induced lock down (which doesn't appear to have been effective as one might have hoped). That last month 1.4M jobs were added (or should I say re-added) back to the economy, and that the unemployment rate was 8% and dropping fast, would seem to indicate that a strong recovery is already afoot, although in slightly altered, mask wearing, social distancing, WFH reality. But still, workable.

I've said from the beginning that none of the world's nations were prepared for COVID-19, with the exception of South Korea. Having been hit hard by H1N1 (i think it was that one), they've learned from that, and were on top of COVID-19. All the rest of the nations were not prepared, and economically it shows. Last report that I head, the EU Nation's GDP are down more than the US', and their unemployment higher (it usually is anyway).
Alright, that's a fair & reasonable post. Thanks!
 
Anarchy. Time for Martial Law?



Minneapolis and Portland have been in a
State of Anarchy if not "Riot".


If I owned property in either area I would certainly Wonder -
- Where Is Law Enforcement?

This Is Not A Black Thing!
This is a thing of non resident militias creating havoc.




Moi sez
"Enough is enough".
Enforce the "Rule of Law".



President Trump should give local, county, State authorities 48 hours to restore order or face "Martial Law".
Including federal military involvement.



Moi

In '68, protesting Vietnam was considered contrary to "law and order".
Portland, Minneapolis are truly so. Or am I so . . .



STOP :2canadian​

We have seen enough of the chaos and it's apparent that the Mayors aren't attempting to get control of the situation. Somebody needs to step in to make sure the community and the property are safe. Those violating the law should be arrested, jailed, charged adn tried.
 
We have seen enough of the chaos and it's apparent that the Mayors aren't attempting to get control of the situation. Somebody needs to step in to make sure the community and the property are safe. Those violating the law should be arrested, jailed, charged adn tried.

That includes arresting, charging, and trying those Democrat Mayors and Governors who are intentionally harboring/concealing terrorists in violation of federal law.
 
Back
Top Bottom