Martial law supposedly implemented in the US

[Greg Broiles]

At 05:45 PM 10/16/2001 -0500, measl at mfn.org wrote:
>On Tue, 16 Oct 2001 jamesd at echeque.com wrote:
>
> > According to Pravda, the US is now under martial law
> >
> > http://english.pravda.ru/main/2001/10/08/17359.html
>
>For all intents and purposes, we are.

Well, no. "Martial law" usually implies that civil authorities have been 
replaced or overriden by military command, and that civilian law is not in 
effect, having been replaced by orders from a military command structure; 
and it's usually imposed on formerly hostile territory, or territories 
considered very close to conflict spatially or temporally.

That has not happened in the US, except arguably at the ground zero site, 
and even there it sounds like it's civilian police officers and elected 
officials, not military officers, who are setting policy.

Unconstitutional, in many cases? I think so. Martial law? No, that's not 
accurate. That term has historically meant a lot more that some National 
Guard troops in the airports.


--
Greg Broiles
gbroiles at well.com
"We have found and closed the thing you watch us with." -- New Delhi street kids