So, What is Martial Law?

[Charles Graff]

Charles, As I pointed out, Ecuador was one of the few times in modern history that a military coup ended with legitimate elections and something that looks like a democracy.
I TOTALLY agree that in order for a democracy to work, you must have educated voters. I also agree that in some places, a dictatorship is a better form of government for the situation.
I would take a benevolent dictator over a bad democracy any day of the week, the problem is benevolent dictators have a tendency to become malevolent dictators and there are no easy ways to fix that once it happens. The fact Ecuador maintained civil courts and didn't deprive the people of civil liberties during the time of military rule, is also very rare. Democracy is an inefficient form of government but I think it was Will Rodgers that said it best, "Democracy is the worst form of government except all of the other forms of government".
A friend of mine that was a contractor in Iraq told me shortly after the second Gulf War, "they've not ready for democracy". There are times and places in history where a democracy is probably not the best form of government

Staying on track here and staying Away from politics; I see martial law as a temporary suspension of a civil government in times of emergency. The coup in Ecuador doesn't completely fit the definition because the military became the government for about a year. They didn't suspend civil government, they were the government. They also replaced the government in the entire nation of Ecuador and not just in a region experiencing an emergency.

I think some people see ANY deployment of troops as martial law and I do not see it that way.
I also think your experiences in Ecuador in 79-80 gives you a special view of something most Americans never experience. However, I will also say you were very fortunate that didn't play out like most military coups followed by malevolent dictatorships.

I know how lucky we were to be in Ecuador. I traveled and worked in Medellin Columbia, during the rise of Pablo Escobar, so I saw another view of how a Latin American country works. A good friend of mine (Chet Bitterman) was kidnapped, held for ransom and finally shot and killed. His body was dumped in North Bogata, not far from where I worked on occasion. Ecuador has a long history of Liberty and they are very proud of their role in kicking the Spanish out of South America. It came as a shock to me that Americans were not the only liberty loving people in the hemisphere, although their notion of Liberty is a smidge different than ours. I had an opportunity presented to me to stay in Ecuador and prosper as an "Abogado (lawyer) but I would have to become an Ecuadorian citizen. I thought very hard about the opportunity I had handed to me on a sliver platter, but in the end I could not give up my purple passport with the American Eagle on it. That and I wanted my kids to be Texans. I have often wondered how things would have come out for me and my family if I had taken the other fork in the road. At the end of the day, my life was enriched by Ecuador and it's people. I will be forever grateful. When it comes to democracy and liberty, Mexico talks the talk, but does not walk the walk. Ecuador walks the walk, at least their version of it. I hold the Ecuadorian military officer corp in high regard, knowing many of them very well. Most are now gone, but they made a positive impression on me. I still read the online version of Quito's daily newspaper El Comercio with my coffee in the morning and wonder if my name would have been in it had I stayed. One way or another, many of us pay a price to be a citizen of this wonderful Republic. It pains me that so many don't appreciate what they have. God bless America y Viva La Patria.

 

[Gary]

Wonderful story Charles; I enjoy your musings.

 

[Charles Graff]

Addendum: When I first moved to South America there was a tug-of-war between the USA and Russia for influence and control. Later under Reagan, many of them took a flyer on American style democracy. They just didn't have the cultural background to make that work. Some moved to harsh dictatorships and others slipped into Euro-Socialism. A couple of them made democracy work for them on a long term basis, albeit with a Latin American twist. I recall when Bush II said he wanted to establish an Islamic democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan, I wondered what he had been smoking and was there nobody around him who knew that was stupid? It takes many generations of social evolution, for a people to support and sustain a democracy.

 

[Charles Graff]

Wonderful story Charles; I enjoy your musings.

Glad to hear that Gary. At my stage of life, musings is about all I have to offer. I lead a full and somewhat colorful life. Even as a young man, I wanted to follow my dreams. I didn't want to end up at my current stage with nothing to remember, but a standard button-down life. We only go around once, so grab all the gusto we can....wait that was a beer commercial.

 

[popper]

Martial Law would be military enforced civil law as determined by the ruling class. Lots of examples in history. Military by itself doesn't have any 'laws', just weapons and 'permission' to use them. Lots of countries under marshal law by occupying force.

 

[Petrol & Powder]

I disagree popper.
There have many times when the U.S.A. has imposed martial law that doesn't fit your description of "civil law as determined by the ruling class".
The occupations of Germany and Japan post WWII were clearly martial law but I don't think I can make your "ruling CLASS" comment fit those situations.
And Militaries DO have laws, that's pretty much what the Uniform Code of Military Justice is.

Militaries are not always oppressive forces, a point Charles made well.
Martial law doesn't have to denote some totalitarian condition.
Martial law in San Francisco after the 1906 Earthquake was probably a good thing.
Martial law in Hawaii on December 8, 1941 may not have been ideal but I think it was understandable at the time.
Martial law in Cuba after Castro took over, not a good thing.

 

[Bret4207]

Addendum: When I first moved to South America there was a tug-of-war between the USA and Russia for influence and control. Later under Reagan, many of them took a flyer on American style democracy. They just didn't have the cultural background to make that work. Some moved to harsh dictatorships and others slipped into Euro-Socialism. A couple of them made democracy work for them on a long term basis, albeit with a Latin American twist. I recall when Bush II said he wanted to establish an Islamic democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan, I wondered what he had been smoking and was there nobody around him who knew that was stupid? It takes many generations of social evolution, for a people to support and sustain a democracy.

I agree that there has to be a certain cultural mindset or shared value system for a republic, as opposed to a democracy, to work. Most don't know or even care to understand the difference between a republic and democracy, but it's a vitally important difference. We are supposed to be living in a republic, not a democracy. The outlook for our republic is not good. But anyways, yes, without a culture that values individualism and the concept of God given freedom it's a pretty hard road to reach what the US has had. I've known some people (Austrians to be precise) that bristle at the thought of American Exceptionalism, but what we've had has been exceptional.

 

[fiver]

that almost got me going on a little rant there Bret.....

 

[Bret4207]

I thought I was doing pretty darn good for a raving right wing lunatic in the "Keep it tame and as apolitcal as you can dummy!" line....