This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report. The week in which this happened: March 15 to 21, 2020

This  level-5 vital article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Military history: Technology This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion not met Supporting materials: criterion not met Associated task forces: /  Military science, technology, and theory task force Law Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

The United States section reads: "The Military Commissions Act of 2006 possibly rescinds these limits by suspending habeas corpus, but the law is not clear on whether it applies to U.S. Citizens." I believe the provisions of the MCA suspending habeas corpus were declared unconstitutional in Boumediene v. Bush. Should this be noted after the quoted sentence, or should the sentence be deleted? Tayl1257 (talk) 17:34, 21 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I removed the sentence b/c the suspension of habeas corpus would not affect the Posse Comitatus Act's limits on the military's role in law enforcement, the sentence wasn't sourced, and Boumediene held that the MCA's suspension of habeas was unconsitutional. 72.66.50.88 (talk) 22:36, 7 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Shouldn't the Movies Category moved down to the bottom since it's least relevant to martial law?

"This happend in Tian Am Men Square." Quote needs cleaning up. pelling, and surely specific examples come later? 86.138.50.227 13:11, 12 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The following sentence contains a word that does not apply to all instances, and that word is granted. The sentence is: Usually martial law reduces some of the personal rights ordinarily granted to the citizen, This does not apply to the United States. The Constitution of the United States does not grant rights; the rights of the People of the United States are natural and inherent, not granted; the Constitution is really the marching orders granted to public servants by the People, not the reverse. Other countries have similar ideology, while others believe government does indeed grant people rights. How to avoid being bias to one or the other is my question. I think the sentence needs to be something like: Usually martial law circumvents some of the due process laws of the country and seeks to contain or limit personal rights ordinarily belonging to the citizen, or something similar. I don't think my suggested sentence has bias toward a country with natural/inherent rights or granted rights. I'll leave it for someone else to change. What do you think? Ol Murrani Kasale (talk) 23:38, 11 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Save for several amendments that say such silly things about the rights of one not being permitted to disparage the rights of another and all. Get into the 21st century, rather than the 19th!Wzrd1 (talk) 06:26, 8 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It is not evident in the article, but it should be noted that martial law is usually simply martial rule. As pointed out in Ex parte Milligan, there is not a set of laws that come into play and the other laws are set aside (the article begins by stating martial law to be "the system of rules that takes effect when the military takes control of the normal administration of justice.'" There is usually no set of rules which come into play - some countries may have such a set of "martial laws", but the U.S. doesn't, nor do many other countries - law is simply suspended. Martial law is usually the setting aside of the law in the place of military rule, but the article makes it seem otherwise - like we can look up somewhere the martial laws in some law book. - Matthew238 02:44, 10 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have to agree as do many others. "Martial Law" simply means he/she with the most firepower gets to make the rules. That's why Americans are not so scared of Martial Law. (Well, maybe the Soccermoms would be) There are 80 MILLION Armed Americans....(with everything from Thompson Submachine guns, AK-47's, 50 cals, pistols and who know how many shotguns and high powered rifles), and they're not going to allow the "National Guard" abuse them. Period.

Martial Law means you will defend what you have with your life, even if it means having to kill a government agent(s).

OK, you are ABSOLUTELY RIGHT! Katrina proved it. ALL of the disaster zone had rights, nobody helping them out of poopzone was accepting of their rights.

As a correction of the previous mistake, we should correct by damming the Mississippi river totally, above the area. If nobody instantly suggests a "valid" defense, they die. Along with the REST of the "unfortunate, as they have zero means to support themselves in our survey. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wzrd1 (talk • contribs) 06:30, 8 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This article is very badly constructed. The topic is ostensibly martial law, but there are few examples of martial law given - most are states of emergency.203.184.41.226 (talk) 03:55, 25 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

From the article:

Studies have been recently produced for an Internet martial law, in order to prevent or prosecute eventual dangerous crimes that could be committed on or through the Internet for war, guerrilla or terrorism purposes.

Removed until someone can provide a cite supporting this.

--

Dec, bhuston: From the article:

Martial law is the system of laws and rules that take effect (usually after a formal declaration) instead of ordinary laws when a particular situation requires that a military authority takes control of the normal administration of justice (and usually of the whole state).

This says "Martial law takes effect when required". This has been removed for NPOV reasons. How can it be said that every declaration of ML was necessary?

• another, probably more important, thing to say is that Martial Law is generally not a "system of laws and rules that take effect (usually after a formal declaration) instead of ordinary laws", but a complete absence of law. It is better described as "military rule" - see U.S. Supreme Court cases regarding "Martial Law" in the U.S. - Matthew238 07:50, 21 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

marshal law was also declared 4 days befor 9-11-0167.80.129.11 23:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"The United States has been in a declared state of national emergency since March 9, 1933 (see Senate Report 93-549"

My browser crashes when I try and search the contents of the .pdf that is linked to, so I'm having trouble checking it.

Is this right? The sentence makes it sound like the U.S. has been in a continuous declared state of emergency since 1933. Sdr 19:51, 2 August 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Technically correct, but an entirely stupid statement to make in an article on martial law. FDR's 1933 declaration of a state of emergency was so he could take control of the country's finances, the ability to do that was later revoked by congress in the 70's, mooting the point. In any case, what FDR put down in an EO is entirely pointless to a discussion about martial law, especially when you consider that it's a mooted EO, one of a kind that can't happen again. It may have also been sunsetted by congresses actions, but not too sure. I'm going to remove it. --69.136.240.8 11:38, 9 August 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article says, "For many years the Canadian government could institute martial law through a piece of legislation known as the War Measures Act." But the articles on the War Measures Act and the October Crisis explicitly say that War Measures Act is not an example of martial law.

I don't know much about this, but it is possible that the War Measures Act, while allowing for martial law, was nt used to the maximum degree that constitutes martial law. So while it made it possible for martial law, it wasn't used that way.

Has martial law ever been invoked in the US before the New Orleans incident? 198.45.23.220 19:56, 30 August 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Could someone point to an actual reference of martial law being declared in New Orleans? The only such references I've seen are from half-assed journalists who spell it "marshall" law, which hardly speaks to their credibility.

Troops have been deployed to assist civil authorities. A curfew is in effect in certain areas. Neither of those two things means that martial law has been declared.

If martial law has been declared, it should be a trivial matter to find out who exactly declared it. Usually, that's the President of the US. I'd think such an announcement would be easy to corroborate, and yet I can find no confirmation from the usual news services. Searching CNN, ferinstance, yields nothing.

I'm removing that claim. --- left unsigned by User:68.81.82.213

Since people can't seem to be bothered to go to the linked page and read the report from the Times-Picayune, I'm reprinting it here:

Martial law clarified Tuesday, 9:02 p.m.

The state Attorney General's office on Tuesday sought to clarify reports in some media that "martial law' has been declared in parts of storm-ravaged southeast Louisiana, saying no such term exists in Louisiana law.

But even though no martial law exists, Gov. Kathleen Blanco's declaration of a state of emergency gives authorities widespread latitude to suspend civil liberties as they try to restore order and bring victims to safety. Under the Louisiana Homeland Security and Emergency Assistance and Disaster Act of 1993, the governor and, in some cases, chief parish officials, have the right to commandeer or utilize any private property if necessary to cope with the emergency.

Authorities may also suspend any statute related to the conduct of official business, or any rule issued by a state agency, if complying would "prevent, hinder or delay necessary action to mitigate the emergency.

It also gives authority the right to compel evacuations, suspend alcohol and weapons sales and make provisions for the availability and use of temporary emergency housing.

The law gives mayors similar authority, except they do not have the right to commandeer private property or make provisions for emergency housing, according to a background brief prepared by the state Attorney General's office.[[1]]

Peyna 01:33:20, (UTC)

Does this sound like an oxymoron or a contradiction to anyone else? The New Orleans stub begins by stating the imposition of Matial Law by General Andrew Jackson in 1812; then, the sub-stub, "Hurricane Katrina", seems to be bogged down by semantics "because no such term exists in Louisiana state law," regardless of "New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin nominally declar[ing] 'martial law' and sa[ying] that 'officers don't have to worry about civil rights and Miranda rights in stopping the looters.'" What's going on? It sounds like people are writing tax codes or something. Not only was there a presence of armed military personnel (unrestrained by domestic law, or regard for the general welfare of citizens), but there were non-governmental Mercenaries who could not be restrained even under military code. What occured may have set a modern precedent of a neo-Martial Law. I respect the clarity and the great deal of research that goes into Wikipedia; however, I believe people need to refer to actions as to what they are. For instance, if a federal, state, or local law does not describe the act, in detail, of cutting off or the removal of a man's testicals, then, regardless, the act is still considered castration or "the making of a eunich or steer." Likewise, what occurred in Louisiana during the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina was, at least, Martial Law. I would like the wording of the sub-stub to be considered for revision.

Martial law was not declared. A state of emergency was declared. This is very different. The military assisted the civil authorities, which they can do with or without declarations of states of emergency. Why is there any confusion here?203.184.41.226 (talk) 03:58, 25 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Right now the article starts by reading "Martial law is COOL". But when you try to edit/clean it, the "cool" sentence does not show up at all. Is that a hacker trick?195.70.48.242 11:45, 2 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yeah, there was vandalism, but was probably corrected before you click the edit button. Peyna 12:27, 2 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

the vandalism is back, now the phrase is he he he boobies, but it does not appear on the edit page ((unsigned contribution))

Looks like a similar situation. Keep in mind that a lot of people monitor the "recent changes" section, especially from unregistered users, so a lot of vandalism is caught literally seconds after it occurs. Reverting it is quite simple as well; just look at the history, select the version that is the non-vandalised version and then when that version of the page comes up, click "edit", make a note in the edit summary of what you are doing and click save page. (It will have a warning that you are editting an old version of the page).

The history page is a great resource for getting to the bottom of these kinds of events; you can easily compare any two past versions. If you look at it now, you will see that the vandalism to which you refer was corrected in one minute. Peyna 17:26, 2 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Who can declare Martial Law ? The president can as Commander in Chief of the US military.

On the state level, the Governor can call out all National Guard units in his/her state

On the local level, the County Sheriff's Office can only call out the one unit that is in the local National Guard Armory for aid.

Next time you see on the news about some disaster hitting some state, you will see National Guard soldiers on patrol, and/or aiding people, and/or forcibly restoring law and order. Usually, troops who are enforcing protocol regarding Martial Law, have shoot to kill orders to quell criminal actvities, civil disturbances. See General Funston, who, with the mayor of 1906 San Francisco, initiated Martial Law to forcibly quell the disorder that resulted from a earthquake that hit the city. These troops had shoot to kill orders to put a stop to the chaos. Martial Law 01:01, 2 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Answer

One user asked about Martial Law being declared in the US before what happened in New Orleans. The answer is YES. Civil War,yes, the 1906 earthquake in San Francisco, yes, to forcibly restore law and order, to stop rampant crime and looters, Hawaii, yes, until 1944, after Pearl Harbor was attacked in 1941. Please see the article. Martial Law 03:05, 3 January 2006 (UTC) martial law is not Big textBig textBig textBig textwooooooohat all because it helps us in our living example; there would be no people outside the home or street in 12:00 because when the military caught them there will be punished.........Reply[reply]

The Wikipedia article is a mess of misinformation

Martial law essentially means the exercise of legislative or judicial powers by a military force. It is an opposite of civil law. Much of what the article talks about fails to maintain the proper distinction.

In the U.S., implementation of martial law would require the suspension or violation of multiple provisions of the constitution, which is by definition unconstitutional. Neither the president nor congress nor any of the States has the authority to declare actual martial law under any circumstances.

Ex parte Milligan had nothing to do with martial law, it merely dealt with the suspension of habeas corpus. Suspension of habeas corpus does not imply martial law. Suspension of habeas corpus is rather a constitutional provision consistent with civil law. Nothing in President Lincoln's 1863 proclamation involved any assignment of legislative or judicial powers, over civil matters, to the military.

When, in accordance with the constitutional provision, habeas corpus is suspended during certain emergencies, that only gives law enforcement (whether civilian police, military forces, or other) the power to hold people without trial until the civilian courts are functional and constitutionally legitimate civil trials can resume. It should be noted that suspension of habeas corpus does not give law enforcement itself the power to try or to sentence civilians. Those are judicial powers that the constitution forbids the executive branch (which the military is part of) from ever usurping.

Nor was The Posse Comitatus Act about martial law. It was a prohibition on the use of the federal military to perform law enforcement tasks within the states. This, doesn't directly deal with martial law either; although it does make it a bit more difficult for martial law to become established.

Using the military for civilian law enforcement is quite arguably constitutional; the military is a part of the executive branch of government, and one legitimate power of the executive branch is to oversee the enforcement of the nation's laws. The deeper issue motivating the passage of The Posse Comitatus Act was that the U.S. has a federal system, with powers divided between the national government and the States. Using national military forces for local law enforcement was considered by a great many people to infringe upon the power of each State to oversee the enforcement of laws within its own borders. Later acts placed limitations on the powers of the F.B.I. and other federal police for the same reason of protecting State's rights.

Anyway, the fact remains that neither the President nor Congress nor any State has any power to declare martial law. An actual declaration of martial law is illegal in the US as it categorically violates the supreme law of the land. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.81.31 (talk) 03:18, 6 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It could happen the way things are today.-Boba fett 32 (talk) 14:45, 3 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

IF the US were to be attacked again, it is a good bet that Martial Law will be declared, mainly to forcibly preserve law and order, and to keep innocent foreign nationals from being attacked in retaliation for the attack. The Patriot Acts are as CLOSE to declaring Martial Law with out actually declaring Martial Law. Martial Law 23:35, 3 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

para sa akin maganda panga ang martial law kasi walang lalaban sa gobyerno sa ganoong paraan napag tutuunan ng gobyerno ang problema ng bawat pilipino... nanggugulo lang naman ang oposisyon dahil ang gusto nila sila ang malagay asa pwesto at magamit ang pamahalaan sa pang sarling inrteres. madami ding balimbing tulad ni drilon,cory,guingona, at marami pa na sabik sa kapangyarihan... sinasabi lang ng ga oposisyon na hindi makatarungan ang martial law kasi hindi sila makakapag salita ng kasinungalingan at paninira sa gobyerno.. napaka ganda nga ng pamamahala ni gloria. talagang mahirap lang ang buhay ngayon at huwag natin isisi sa gobyerno ang kahirapan dahil tayo na mismi ang may kasalanan,,, BY;; hero18rovy's'loren

The above paragraph appears to be Korean.

I support the vigorous removal of so-called 'conspiracy' kinda comments from Wiki. My favorite is that the whole U.S. might be under martial law after a dirty bomb or something similar. Imagine how many troops and police it would take to contain a 'nation-wide' panic of 330 million over 3 million square miles! Martial law is not lawlessness and snipers running amok. It's control over a specific area to stop crime, not a stoppage of regular life (except in the case of evac). *rolls eyes*

Many of the related links seem very biased; a majority seem to be (outrageous?) conspiracy theories regarding 9/11, others are (propaganda?) about "concentration camps" in the United States (at the very least, this terminology is absurd, never mind if the "martial law" article is the best place for this type of link). A couple link to simple Google searches - I don't think a Google search qualifies as a good Related Link, as anyone is clearly capable of a Google keyword search. Sites tend to be vaguely related to martial law at best, totally irrelevant and distracting at worst. I can see one or two links for the sake of being well-rounded, but there really is a flood of these very partisan and often unprofessional sites. I'm fairly new to the Wikipedia community - are there any general guidelines for the links section? Would trimming some of those excessive links be justified? Maybe a See Also... section linking to other Wikipedia articles is a better approach? See the "Concentration Camp" Wikipedia article - no questionable links - and that is the section many of these would be better suited for.

User:Android79 may have some recomendations. Please sign your statements w/ 3 ~ or 4 ~s. Martial Law 05:08, 14 January 2006 (UTC) Please find on my Userpage a list of wikipedia resources. Martial Law 05:09, 14 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Find on Jeff Rense's Homepage, material concerning Martial Law and that ilk from time to time. Martial Law 05:11, 14 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Here is two items of this nature:

Protest anything, go to jail

Another If you protest, you go to jail article

If these links are malfunctioning, go to www.rense.com. and see these articles:

"Create An E-Annoyance...Go To Jail for A Federal Crime" and "Bush To Criminalize Protesters Under Patriot Act"

Martial Law 05:41, 14 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've removed the section on Northern Ireland. Martial Law has never been declared in Northern Ireland in modern times.

Can we have some citations to prove that martial law was ever declared in Troubles period, c.1968-1995? My recollection is that the troops were basically enforcing normally-passed laws (although some, like Internment, were more severe than laws usually found in peaceful places). People detained (other than internees) were also brought in front of civilian courts, not military ones, even though the Diplock courts were structured differently from ordinary courts in the rest of the UK (no juries). -- Arwel (talk) 20:49, 15 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

' 'WHY DID FERDINAN MARCOS DECLAIRED MARTIAL LAW VVHH Y8 UI LU , YL; AW0T8I3469 6U49 Y95 Y T]]

R TY05Y=HYA E YO]YAW390K5UY THUAOpQ NT96 _0

Er, do we really want Movie examples right at the start of the article, talk about "clutching at straws". Shouldn't that sort of information be at the end of an article, In fact it doesn't even sound wiki-like, I don't know much about editing wikipedia, but that does look wrong. anyone? Ryan4314 05:27, 18 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That section by all means needs to be moved to the end of the article and heavily revised--Tabun1015 14:19, 18 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• It looks bad and is totally unncessary. Id propose removing it altogether, it just makes the article look unprofessional. TSMonk 05:12, 22 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Can't Believe this hasn't been sorted yet, this section was added by a guy called GamerSD on the 29th of January. I'm going to delete it, but if anyone else sees a reason while it should stay in please put it back. My point is, if I delete it and someone goes out of their way to put it back, then obviously there's at least some reason why it should stay. If no one puts it back I really don't think the article will suffer. Ryan4314 23:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In the US and some other nations, when Martial Law is declared, the military and police forces do indeed have orders to kill anyone committing any crimes. In 1906, a General Funston exercised this order after San Francisco was destroyed in a major earthquake. For example, if people are seen looting a store, house, they are shot and killed on site by any police and/or military patrols in the area. Can this be placed ? Martial Law 20:30, 19 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I remember watching a show about the San Francisco Earthquake, and I recall them stating that General Funston acted without orders, and that the shooting of looters (or bystanders who were in the way), was little more than a bunch of disorganized soldiers shooting at whatever moved. There was no declaration of martial law, although many people assumed that it had been declared, which is probably what you are thinking of.--Tabun1015 02:56, 20 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Here is a link that shows what I'm talking about.--Tabun1015 23:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have removed an entry plagued with typographical errors and devoid of any capitalization and most sentence structure. Additionally, the removed paragraphs contained many more opinions than they did facts. Though the information presented in the entry was not completely incoherent, Wikipedia is a formal information source and, thus, such informal entries as that should not remain. Please make an effort to proofread all future entries for misspellings, grammatical errors, and informality.

Should pakistan be added to the list? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.21.211.86 (talk) 19:13, 3 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The current content of the section on India is ridiculous and the same has no connection with the concept of Martial law. Such contents reflect poorly on the credibility of wikipedia. Sometimes such contents continue to remain on the Free Encyclopedia as other editors don't want to tread in the mess. --Bhadani (talk) 14:50, 4 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree. After a terrorist attack, a so called red alert is issued in order to launch a man hunt. It is in no way similar to martial law. The emergency clause of the Indian constitution cannot be invoked that easily. If emergency is declared according to this article, then how do you explain that there would be reporters on the scene and any and all kinds of political dissent is allowed? It wasn't even declared during the Indo-Pakistan and Indo-China wars since the war had been limited to the border areas and there was NO anarchy within the country.And HOW exactly are the actions of the British Raj and General Dyer (ie before 1947) be termed as the actions of the Republic of India??? Emergency was declared in India only ONCE between 1975 and 1977. The rest of the information is plain wrong.Andy anno (talk) 01:01, 8 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I second that. The whole section needs to be revamped. India has to mean the Republic in this context and the 'NOTE:-' is appallingly uncharacteristic of WP.--Sayitaintsojoe (talk) 19:01, 6 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have surrendered, and have stopped effective editing of wikipedia! Kindly try to contact other editors who may be interested to show better spirit and courage, as I do not want to make myself indecent in the company of vested wikipedians. --Bhadani (talk) 17:15, 7 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have taken the commented-out text on India out of the article, since it was confusing the sub-section on Egypt. It is repeated below: Keepitshort (talk) 14:25, 20 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Article reassessed and graded as start class. --dashiellx (talk) 11:29, 5 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Other than what? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.126.248.156 (talk) 20:31, 13 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Read http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2008/06/20080626-4.html that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.92.216.106 (talk) 09:27, 29 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Where is the definition of martial law in the article?... WinterSpw (talk) 07:00, 30 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please visit Martial Law for a definition of the term and for several examples of it throughout history.

True martial law is not something that the mayor of Schenectady, NY has the power to impose or invoke. The only one who might be able to do so would be the governor of the state, and even that is questionable. I think this is just political hype and I vote for it to be removed from this page unless anything more substantial or factual can be added. Mullaneywt (talk) 20:03, 23 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm having trouble finding anything about it on the times union (the large local newspaper). Seems like this comes from "slow newsday" type of report. I agree it is political posturing, hasn't happened, and is a diversion from the subject of the article. Remove. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.76.32.19 (talk) 17:01, 1 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I thought the same thing when I read it. I'm removing it. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 18:15, 24 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And why is he being quoted in this article? All that is stated in this article tells me that he is one individual who made a statement to Congress -- possibly a fringe opinion which lacks any context or justification for being notable. Not even in American right-wing circles. This quotation even lacks a source -- which means it can be deleted simply for being an unattributed statement. -- llywrch (talk) 03:44, 21 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I feel as though the example given for Canada with the October Crisis is inaccurate. The War Measures Act was NOT introduced to stabilize the government after a Financial Crisis as the article would seem to imply.

It was introduced after a request from the Quebec Government (Using a mechanism QUITE different from the WMA) for help in dealing with a coming insurrection. I plan on changing this unless someone can tell me why this is worded this way? Dphilp75 (talk) 21:09, 25 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You can reorganize as you please, so long as these basic facts remain clear:

• On October 15:
  • At 14:00, Robert Bourassa announces that he has requested the Canadian army to help the police protect politicians and public buildings. (He makes this request under the terms of the National Defence Act, not the War Measures Act.)
• On October 16, at 4:00, the federal cabinet proclaims the existence of an apprehended insurrection and issues a decree granting exceptional powers to the police under the War Measures Act. The result is the temporary suspension of Quebecers' civil liberties, which is followed by a series of arrests and searches without warrant.

-- Mathieugp (talk) 15:39, 26 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My first thought is to sum all that up with a sentence along the lines of "In Canada in 1970 in response to a different mechanisim used by the Premier of Quebec" with links to the October Crisis page as it contains all of the above information? Dphilp75 (talk) 17:35, 26 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The sentence: "or stabilize government following economic crisis (The October Crisis - Canada 1970)." is plain wrong and can be just removed in my opinion. Besides, the War Measures Act was not the same as invoking martial law. Some of the effects are possibly the same, but the means is not the same. As for the army being in Quebec under the National Defence Act, that has even less to do with Martial law per se. I think anything we add to this page should go under the heading Canada. -- Mathieugp (talk) 19:32, 26 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree the sentence can be removed; That was sorta what I was getting at! ;) And I think that simply using the phrase "different mechanism" is sufficent rather than explain that it was under the NDA, since, again, that is discussed on the October Crisis page (I would include a link to it) but I am happy to leave it in if you think it's that important..

But I wonder if you could explain how the War Measures Act *ISN'T/WASN'T* Martial Law in every sense but perhaps the name? It suspended Civil Liberties, gave the Government the ability to take direct control of the Army over from Quebec, thereby superseding the NDA statute and even allowed people in British Columbia to be arrested! Dphilp75 (talk) 23:51, 26 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What I suggested basically was to remove the sentence and replace it with... white space. :-) I agree that the proclamation of the WMA had the same effect as martial law from the perspective of citizens who were arrested. I am actually not informed about people in BC who were arrested. Where can I read more about this? -- Mathieugp (talk) 02:53, 27 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Need citation for this. Can't find any references to it on google.

Oxford, Mississippi during Civil Rights Era

During the US Civil Rights Era, after an African American was admitted to the University of Mississippi, a major riot broke out involving residents and students against the US Marshals who were protecting James Meredith. Residents knew the Army had been dispatched to assist, so they took down street signs to hinder the Army's progress. Once daylight came, the Army was able to navigate their way to the University and dispel the remaining rioters. As a result, Oxford was placed, by order of Congress and President John F. Kennedy under Martial Law for 1 year as a punishment and to allow the Army to enforce James' enrollment at the University. It was the only US city in the 20th Century to be placed under full Martial Law.

Roadrunner (talk) 23:42, 7 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This article has been reverted by a bot to this version as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) This has been done to remove User:Accotink2's contributions as they have a history of extensive copyright violation and so it is assumed that all of their major contributions are copyright violations. Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. VWBot (talk) 13:59, 10 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is arguably a distinction between a civilian "state of emergency" which was put in place by the (formally) civilian Egyptian government in 1981 and in place for thirty years, versus the military state of "martial law" which was de facto declared by vice president Omar Suleiman, on behalf of the president, as the presidential powers were transferred from the former president Hosni Mubarak to the supreme military council of Egypt and thus concluded the 2011 Egyptian Revolution. The supreme council then dissolved the parliament and suspended the constitution for at least six months or until general elections could be held. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.176.226.32 (talk) 19:43, 13 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A military council purporting to suspend the constitution - which it has no legal power to do - is simply a military coup. It has nothing to do with martial law.

I agree with those saying that this article needs to be completely rewritten as it messes up the civillian notion of a "state of emergency" with the military notion of "martial law". Those two circumstances needs their own two different articles on wikipedia. As people have pointed out it is not even legal under the constitution of most countries to declare martial law. Rather, martial law is only used in the utmost extreme circumstances such as a Coup de Etat, within a Revolution or after a territorial takeover in a war. It basically means the complete cancellation of the entire civil governmental structure, including the civillian police forces, the courts, the parliamentary system with any written or custom laws including the constitution. This is extremely serious circumstances when the military framework expands to comprise the entire territory. In other words, this is when the Generals rule the land as they whish and delegate powers back and forth to former civilian institutions as they whish and making the rules as they go through military communiques. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.176.226.32 (talk) 20:29, 13 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"The War Measures Act was a Canadian statute that allowed the donkeys in the government"

That can't be right can it? Donkeys? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.163.250.68 (talk) 06:00, 18 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This: At least two American lawmakers have stated on the record that, in their opinion, Section 1031 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 legalizes or authorizes martial law in the United States. Senator Mark Udall stated "These provisions raise serious questions as to who we are as a society and what our Constitution seeks to protect...Section 1031 essentially repeals the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 by authorizing the U.S. military to perform law enforcement functions on American soil."[14]

Is clearly outdated and / or incorrect. If you read the text of the bill that was signed into law you find that section 1031 concerns itself with requirements on SecDef for quarterly briefings to congress. As it stands, this paragraph pushes a fringe theory or just inaccuracies. I propose deleting it completely. Any objections?

SherwoodAndersson (talk) 16:52, 7 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Two and a half years have passed since the proposal above. I see that no objections were expressed. I also see that the content at issue is still present in the article. Was present, I should say; I have justt WP:BOLDly removed it. I'm no expert, but it does seem incorrect and/or outdated. I've also read some in NDAA 2013#Feinstein-Lee Amendment which appears to impact this. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 04:22, 28 July 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Should the recent implementation of martial law in Boston be included in here? I'm having trouble finding sources that aren't spun in an asinine Infowars-style way, but a transcript of the 2013-04-17 Deval Patrick briefing from a reliable source would work fine. ExtremeSquared (talk) 17:14, 20 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I was just looking here to see if there were any sources other than Infowars/Natural News/crazy websites that were calling it "martial law." I could find NONE with a Google search, probably because it wasn't martial law the way *I* have always understood martial law to be (IANAL). I found no legal discussion on the internet of "martial law" in Boston, and you can bet if there were real martial law implemented, there'd be tons of lawyers arguing over it. But I'm going to keep looking, because I'm tired of crazies on the internet. (Futile pursuit, I know.) 98.230.21.139 (talk) 00:30, 24 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Martial law is a contradiction is any event - military rule in outside the law. The military in Boston may have behaved illegally - that would be martial law in practice. Incidentally why does the article on New Orleans state martial law was declared, then say it doesn't exist, but a state of emergency was declared? This article is about martial law, not states of emergency. The entire section should be deleted.203.184.41.226 (talk) 03:52, 25 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've found no official sources or statements calling it martial law either. It seems to be a stretch to call it martial law, but it's a stretch that some appear willing to make in order to further a political message of government overreach. I'm in agreement that it should be deleted as, without sourcing, it does not contribute to the historical series of martial law instances and the Boston 2013 manhunt does not appear to fit the definition of martial law. Additionally the entry in its current form does not contain a full, or even a crude, explanation of the situation. I've tagged it with citation needed in the interim. Rbansley (talk) 16:04, 25 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've removed the Boston martial law entry for the reasons I listed above. Should a reliable source be listed with a new entry, then it would likely make sense to include the entry, but it should not be sneaked in within the Katrina entry. Rbansley (talk) 23:32, 25 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, somebody put the Boston statement back in, without any support whatsoever. At what point does dumping unsupported stuff into this article become vandalism? Poihths (talk) 02:54, 1 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Gov Patrick briefing would probably be a valid source. In the briefing, measures are outlined which fall in line with the definition of martial law in the header of this article. The fact that de facto martial law was declared, rather than explicit martial law puts the Boston section in a grey area. It's going to be a touchy section to write encyclopaedically. ExtremeSquared (talk) 20:15, 27 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am disappointed that there is no description of the etymology, or history, of the Martial Law. When was the term first used? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.160.216.254 (talk) 02:02, 20 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Governor of Iowa declared martial law in Newton, Iowa in 1938 to allow reopening of the Maytag plant there. This was a historic labor dispute that was ultimately settled as a result of martial law. For background information see Franklin Bechly who was Iowa State Judge for this case. Eyeze (talk) 12:40, 4 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It seems to me that the definition is imprecise; perhaps not up to the standards of precision some might wish for on Wikipedia. The definition assumes that the country where Martial Law is being implemented *has* executive, legislative or judicial branches in the first place. Clearly, Martial Law can be implemented in any country - not just in, for example, America.

68.197.52.34 (talk) 14:04, 2 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Martial law. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add ((cbignore)) after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add ((nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot)) to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100620033603/http://cup.columbia.edu/media/5004/robinson-tragedy.pdf to http://cup.columbia.edu/media/5004/robinson-tragedy.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ((Sourcecheck))).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check)) (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:41, 10 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Martial law is sometimes confused with the state of emergency. There are conflicting information of Wikipedia for the status and history of these e.g. for Syria: Martial_law#.C2.A0Syria vs State_of_emergency#Syria. It should be revised. —Mykhal (talk) 19:07, 8 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Martial law. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060824203620/http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/egypt/?id=16072 to http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/egypt/?id=16072
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090518164448/http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=42617 to http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=42617
• Added ((dead link)) tag to http://fr.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1150886008109&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091207090214/http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/breakingnews/nation/view/20091205-240233/Martial-law-declared-in-Maguindanao to http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/breakingnews/nation/view/20091205-240233/Martial-law-declared-in-Maguindanao
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.thailawforum.com/laws/Martial%20Law.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check)) (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:25, 4 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Martial law. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added ((dead link)) tag to http://cgi2.cvm.qc.ca/glaporte/1837.pl?out=article&pno=analyse56
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090707174631/http://www.filipiniana.net/ArtifactView.do?artifactID=E00000000001 to http://www.filipiniana.net/ArtifactView.do?artifactID=E00000000001

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check)) (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:52, 5 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Martial law. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140512215528/http://www.defimedia.info/news-sunday/nos-parliament/item/6065-raouf-gulbul--%E2%80%98arrest-first-and-enquire-afterwards-is-not-consonant-with-the-principles-of-human-rights-and-justice%E2%80%99.html to http://www.defimedia.info/news-sunday/nos-parliament/item/6065-raouf-gulbul--%E2%80%98arrest-first-and-enquire-afterwards-is-not-consonant-with-the-principles-of-human-rights-and-justice%E2%80%99.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140512215528/http://www.defimedia.info/news-sunday/nos-parliament/item/6065-raouf-gulbul--%E2%80%98arrest-first-and-enquire-afterwards-is-not-consonant-with-the-principles-of-human-rights-and-justice%E2%80%99.html to http://www.defimedia.info/news-sunday/nos-parliament/item/6065-raouf-gulbul--%E2%80%98arrest-first-and-enquire-afterwards-is-not-consonant-with-the-principles-of-human-rights-and-justice%E2%80%99.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check)) (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:29, 19 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Aren't certain provinces of Italy currently under martial law due to the Coronavirus? Alyssapa7 (talk) 13:47, 16 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• @Alyssapa7: Effectively, yes though I don't know if it's been stated as such by the government. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:00, 16 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Martial law definition;

Please change:

"temporary imposition of direct military control of normal civil functions **or** suspension of civil law by a government,"

To:

"temporary imposition of direct military control of normal civil functions **and** suspension of civil law by a government,"

Reason:

The current definition is leading users to believe that any temporary suspension of any civil law, without military involvement, is by definition "martial law". Canfacts (talk) 01:46, 19 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:34, 19 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The links provided at the end of the definition section of the article are authoritative and suit the purpose. Neither of those links indicates that a temporary suspension of civil law is necessarily martial law.

First, existing link from the definition section in the article (citation 1)

Second existing link from the definition section in the article (citation 2)

Numerous other sources make it plain the involvement of the military replacing normal functions of civil government is considered martial law, temporary suspension of civil law without involvement of the military is would not be martial law. The word "martial" in martial law refers to military involvement.

I feel the best citation to include would be the US Department of Justice description of martial law even though it is related to a specific country.

https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/martial-law-times-civil-disorder

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/martial-law

https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/american_english/martial-law#:~:text=martial%20law-,noun,remains%20firmly%20under%20martial%20law.

https://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803100136805 Canfacts (talk) 15:56, 19 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The take over of political control by armed forces is known as — Preceding unsigned comment added by 105.112.182.79 (talk) 13:00, 3 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nothing on martial law in Russia?

• "Vladimir Putin may declare martial law in Russia. Here's what it would mean for Russians", USA Today
• But "No plans to introduce martial law in Russia — Putin", March 5th, tass.com.

There are a number of recent examples of martial law in Ukraine, but aren't there similar recent examples in Russia? --Azurfrog (talk) 20:55, 10 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Note: Since this is a request for removal of unsourced (and weaseled) POV, I believe it should be uncontroversial - especially given the absence of analogous 'current public-opinion povs' in other sections on this page. 86.132.54.27 (talk) 15:51, 12 August 2022 (UTC) 86.132.54.27 (talk) 16:35, 12 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

===Poland=== currently concludes with three two sentences of unsourced POV/claims (not, as far as I can see, imported from either of the 'main articles', Martial law in Poland / Polish People's Republic#1970s and 1980s):

Contemporary Polish society is divided in opinion on the necessity of introducing martial law in 1981. It is viewed by some as a lesser evil that was necessary to stop a potential Soviet military intervention as the Warsaw Pact, which Poland signed in 1955, enabled other Eastern Bloc countries to intervene if they believed that communism was in danger.

Imo, this content needs either to be reliably sourced or trimmed (especially, perhaps, given the absence of any such content on either of the much more extensive 'main articles'). If it were to be retained, please note the weasel expression, "viewed by some", as well as the lack of provision of any alternative pov. 86.180.70.10 (talk) 15:00, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Not done for now: While I agree with the intentions, I'm not sure how I should change it. This can fall under Unclear: X-Y. If you're also unsure you could start a consensus discussion. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:58, 17 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

While its a fact that PR of Poland was an authoritarian regime, Solidarity movement was not the only democratic opposition. Alliance of Democrats (Poland) which was one of the only legal non-communist parties in an eastern bloc country had a relative mobility until martial law within the single-coalition regime. Comrade-yutyo (talk) 10:47, 31 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 9 January 2023 and 24 April 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Cec253 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Simmsmls (talk) 18:08, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I just wanted to know where the term originated in an etymological sense. This page features no such section. For instance I thought original that it was "marshal" law named after some fellow named marshal. Similar to the term McCarthyism during the red scare but it is indeed "martial" which i've always thought of as a verb for example to "martial your troops". I guess the term martial law means to "martial the civilians" but i am curious if this conclusion is correct or if there is a different origin for this term. If someone sees this, i beleive this section would be a great contribution to this article. 2604:2D80:BA81:3C00:88C1:FC0:6027:64AC (talk) 01:59, 27 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

From ChatGPT, FWIW:

The term "martial law" has its roots in the Latin language. The word "martial" is derived from "Mars," who was the Roman god of war. In Latin, "martialis" means "pertaining to Mars" or "warlike." The term "martial law" thus reflects a legal system that is associated with military authority and control.

Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 02:14, 7 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please add the Canadian liberal governments 2022 invocation of the emergencies act (formally war measures act) data to the Canadian history section of the page. Sources are current and plentyful as such I have no included specifics for wording or reference. That is for an editor to decide. 2605:8D80:420:7A41:CC6A:243:C11F:3F63 (talk) 07:48, 21 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Actualcpscm (talk) 16:41, 21 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article states: While many countries, the United States for example, do not have the explicit constitutional right to declare martial law, scholars often interpret the law of the United States to allow for the implementation of martial law in times of necessity.

The problem with this statement is that under US constitutional legal philosophy the Federal government has no rights, it only has powers. I see that the sentence begins with 'many countries' but it is mainly about the US. I propose that 'right' be changed to 'power'. Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 02:10, 7 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]