Much of this is actually happening here, now; but it is being done more covertly. I'm not sure what you mean by "military control of the judiciary;" would executive control of the judiciary not be pretty much the same thing?
I'm not talking about simply stacking the courts - every executive has done that. I'm talking about firing any federal prosecutor who pursues cases "uncomfortable" to the executive branch.
It's not really what
I mean, DC it's intrinsic to defining
Martial law. Hasn't some level (at least) of De Facto control of the Judiciary been been in the hands of the Executive, pretty much since day one through the means you suggest (and I did to HG)? Taking the next logical step would include doing what you suggest, and yes I see evidence of that happening, as I assume do you. I agree, it's a dangerous step.
What's missing from this is an evident understanding of what Martial Law really means, or rather the understanding I'm working from. You are talking about abuse of constitutional process by a
civilian government primarily through other civilians, not directly and (key here) unilaterally by the miliitary. Dictatorship usually (but not necessarily) runs on a broadly similar track, but it's not the same thing.
Some definitions:
Cambridge Dictionaries Online - Cambridge University Press
Martial Law definition
Martial law administrator legal definition of Martial law administrator. Martial law administrator synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.
Curfew has not been declared, but some analogs have been put in place over the last 6 years. Travel restrictions, in most cases, are not wholesale, but can be deployed ad libitum without explanation.Again, the Constitution has not been declared officially suspended, but significant portions have been declared officially "suspendable" on a whim.
No it hasn't (and analogues exist in the UK too) and in fairness while it's not a prerequisite for martial law, typically they fit hand in glove. I already discussed travel 'restrictions'. I wasn't meaning airport security on which HG left on an obscure tangent, after all I'm subject to those in the UK and when I come to the US and elsewhere, unless he (or you) are suggesting the UK is under Martial law also? That said, I don't like them. I think they are largely self serving and ineffective but that's only one piece of a much bigger and more complex picture.
By uttering either the phrase "national security" or the phrase "enemy combatant", the executive branch invokes its "right" to suspend amendments 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 14, and more insidiously, amendments 1 and 5. Those are supposed to be basic and inalienable, but they are completely suspended/disregarded routinely and without repercussion.
Yes, but not nationally, unconditionally and for all citizens, at least so far as I'm aware? They're the key requirements aren't they;
unconditional and national? The subversion of selective amendments for
any reason is a dangerous thing, I've said that here many times. That such subversions routinely go unchallenged, or rather unchallenged to the point of enforcing their reversal is a dangerous precedent.
Again, as I said to HG, I think events of the last 5/6 years don't bode well for the US. But right now, from my perspective (and that's all it is), I can't agree that a state of Martial law exists in the US homeland, not even a De Facto one, but you're certainly on the right track.
Secret courts are STRICTLY forbidden by constitution and by law, but are commonplace due to "national security." Indefinite incarceration is strictly forbidden, incarceration without formal charges is strictly forbidden, torture is strictly forbidden - but they occur on a frequent and ongoing basis. The right to face your accusers is unconditionally guaranteed, but that right is circumvented if only you are declared to be an "enemy combatant." How do you get that designation? Can't tell you, it's a secret.Don't forget Rummy Rumsfeld's "snowflake" memos. In those memos, he advocated keeping the public in a state of panic by periodically upping the alert level (among other completely unethical manipulations.)
Indeed, the situation in Guantanamo (as the usual example) is untenable, despicable and immoral and IMO in flagrant violation of just about every relevant statute, domestic or international one cares to mention. However it's
not occuring the continental US, last time I checked. If Martial law
were declared in a US dependency that wouldn't automatically mean Martial law applied to the continental US would it?
That was why I specifically said to AE - "In the continental US".
Of course, I'm sure such things do occur on the mainland too, and that is something about which you (et al) should be very concerned. However I don't think such things are anything recent.
Rumsfield's strategy of periodic hikes in threat status was pretty transparent and yet, dissapointingly effective. I've commented on this and related diversionary tactics here before.
When I saw the Musharraf headline in The Washington Post, I immediately imagined George and Dick commenting during their daily breakfast meeting: "Shit, why didn't we think of that? Martial law would make our agenda so much easier than the subterfuge we've been using!"
Indeed, I can imagine. But for the reasons I mooted, it seems unlikely. The fact the citizens of the US feel (rightly) their constitutional rights and protections are being eroded and trampled upon doesn't mean the country is in a de Jure state of Martial Law. I can understand why some may feel it's in a De Facto state, but I'm not sold on that, not yet.
This may sound odd, but it's almost as if some posters here
want such a situation to come to pass, so they can
'fight for their rights' in a more hands on fashion, planning for riots almost 18 months in advance of a highly unlikely
hypotethical scenario. After all, if Bush refuses to vacate, he'll pretty much have to give up any (remaining) pretext of acting in the nation's best interests, and the doom-mongers will have their day. Of course, by then it may not matter.
I'm not including you in that, DC you have too much sense, and a military background not to realise the futility of such a wish. But many like to talk the talk, without being willing to walk the walk. I can't help but suspect that is a key factor in how the erosion of rights has been such a pushover for the Bush admininistration, and one they count on. Of course that's not a situation unique to the US.