So, What is Martial Law?
- Thread starter Gary
- Start date
All you poor guys who have given your spousal units SWMBO status live under the authority of Marital Law.
Bret4207
At the casting bench in the sky. RIP Bret.
Yup, and if you want an easier to read version, get "The Original Argument" from Glenn Beck which is the Federalist Papers updated to contemporary lingo. It has the majority of the original text to compare to IIRC. Good stuff.
Bret4207
At the casting bench in the sky. RIP Bret.
Agree. There is politics and then there is political rhetoric and hyperbole used to either belittle or enforce someones views. They differ, those two things.
Dawn said “Spoken like a single man”
Spoken like an educated experienced man.
Charles Graff
Moderator Emeritus
I lived under a military government, while in Ecuador for a couple of years. The military took it over, after a bunch of incompetent and corrupt elected officials, nearly destroyed the country. The military took over in a bloodless coup, straightened things out, then held elections and turned it back over to civilians again. The military officers saw it their duty to save the country from those who would destroy it from without or from within. Taken as a whole, they were the most competent and responsible people in the whole dang country. I just offer this as a perspective from outside of the USA. Such a thing would be anathema to the American mind, but did change my thinking on the matter at hand. Oh yes, the military took the central culprits of the bad government, took them to the airport and bought them a one way ticket to anywhere they wanted to go in the world outside of Ecuador.
Last edited:
Petrol & Powder
Well-Known Member
They didn't basically try it, they did it. Twice.
But the first exile didn't "take". The second one to St. Helena ......that one worked !
Gary
SE Kansas
They didn't happen to catch a flight with Ron Brown, did they?
462
California's Central Coast Amid The Insanity
Hmmm . . . forgot about him.They didn't happen to catch a flight with Ron Brown, did they?
Hmmm . . . is there a connection between him and Ron Brown?
Gary
SE Kansas
Darn auto correct!
Bret4207
At the casting bench in the sky. RIP Bret.
Well, currently there is a push underway within our US military to determine "loyalty". I'll not go much further other than to note other nations doing that type of thing often have razor wire and landmines to keep their citizens IN as opposed to letting them leave...
Petrol & Powder
Well-Known Member
Charles wrote, " ....Oh yes, the military took the central culprits of the bad government, took them to the airport and bought them a one way ticket to anywhere they wanted to go in the world outside of Ecuador. ..."
Did they arrive at their intended destination alive or was it like the Argentinian death flights where the "passenger" was thrown out of the aircraft over the ocean?
The seizure of Ecuador by its own military is more an example of a coup than martial law (although it had a component of martial law during the time the military was the government). It is also one of the very few examples in modern history when a military relinquished power after the coup and held legitimate elections.
My definition of martial law is the temporary suspension of civil government in a time of emergency. It differs from the military assisting the civil government in times of emergency (like deploying troops to restore order after a hurricane or to assist in quelling a riot). The mere presence of the military doesn't equate to martial law.
I was in New York City hours after the Chelsea bombing. There were armed National Guard troops in Pennsylvania Station and Grand Central Terminal and I was happy to see them! They were there assisting the NYPD and federal law enforcement. I don't consider that to be an example of martial law.
In some parts of the world, there is no distinction between the police and the military (I don't care for those places but that's another discussion) . However, there are still civil courts in some of those places. So while the military is the police in those countries, even that isn't martial law. There is still some civil government in place.
Did they arrive at their intended destination alive or was it like the Argentinian death flights where the "passenger" was thrown out of the aircraft over the ocean?
The seizure of Ecuador by its own military is more an example of a coup than martial law (although it had a component of martial law during the time the military was the government). It is also one of the very few examples in modern history when a military relinquished power after the coup and held legitimate elections.
My definition of martial law is the temporary suspension of civil government in a time of emergency. It differs from the military assisting the civil government in times of emergency (like deploying troops to restore order after a hurricane or to assist in quelling a riot). The mere presence of the military doesn't equate to martial law.
I was in New York City hours after the Chelsea bombing. There were armed National Guard troops in Pennsylvania Station and Grand Central Terminal and I was happy to see them! They were there assisting the NYPD and federal law enforcement. I don't consider that to be an example of martial law.
In some parts of the world, there is no distinction between the police and the military (I don't care for those places but that's another discussion) . However, there are still civil courts in some of those places. So while the military is the police in those countries, even that isn't martial law. There is still some civil government in place.
Charles Graff
Moderator Emeritus
Charles wrote, " ....Oh yes, the military took the central culprits of the bad government, took them to the airport and bought them a one way ticket to anywhere they wanted to go in the world outside of Ecuador. ..."
Did they arrive at their intended destination alive or was it like the Argentinian death flights where the "passenger" was thrown out of the aircraft over the ocean?
The seizure of Ecuador by its own military is more an example of a coup than martial law (although it had a component of martial law during the time the military was the government). It is also one of the very few examples in modern history when a military relinquished power after the coup and held legitimate elections.
My definition of martial law is the temporary suspension of civil government in a time of emergency. It differs from the military assisting the civil government in times of emergency (like deploying troops to restore order after a hurricane or to assist in quelling a riot). The mere presence of the military doesn't equate to martial law.
I was in New York City hours after the Chelsea bombing. There were armed National Guard troops in Pennsylvania Station and Grand Central Terminal and I was happy to see them! They were there assisting the NYPD and federal law enforcement. I don't consider that to be an example of martial law.
In some parts of the world, there is no distinction between the police and the military (I don't care for those places but that's another discussion) . However, there are still civil courts in some of those places. So while the military is the police in those countries, even that isn't martial law. There is still some civil government in place.
Yes, I do knows the Ecuadorian Military government was a "golpe del estado" {hit against the state, i.e. coup} Nobody was killed or ever hurt and that includes being thrown out of airplanes Latin American countries are not fungible. Down there they draw a distinction between a "dictadura" (hard dictatorship and a "dictablanda" (soft or bland dictatorship. I will confess that the head of the military government which was made up of the head officers of the Army, Navy and Air Force became a very close friend of mine and we had long talks about the nature of the whole takeover. American or British style democracy works when the population is literate and has a history and tradition of popular sovereignty. We in America have long history starting with the Maga Carta which evolved into what we have now. Ecuador has many illiterates and unsophisticated people who can be easily manipulate by lying politicians. Yes, I know, so what is new about that. At any rate, I came away thinking that in 3rd. world countries, sometimes good responsible military governments work better for the people than bad and corrupt elected governments. On a closing note, There was no connection between the Ecuadorian police and the Ecuadorian military. Like I said in my post, I doubt anybody reading this will understand but continue to think that a military government of any kind must be oppressive, self serving and an anathema to any kind of American political thinking. As a point of understanding, the military take over of Ecuador began the day before arrived and lasted about a year and perhaps a few months more. When election were held, the heads of the three military branches turned the government over to the new elected officials and they all retired. That was about 1979 or 1980 and Ecuador have had elected governments since that time. During the military government period, there was no suspension of civil liberties, censorship of the press, military courts or any kind of repression. I realize this has little or nothing to do with US Martial Law, but thought I would just throw it in as an experience I had that few others will have. It is a different albeit unpopular point of view, but there you have it. There is allot more to the story, but that will suffice for now.
Last edited:
Petrol & Powder
Well-Known Member
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 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.