Does Patriot Act allow for martial law?

I was talking with my husband about the supposed 'terror threat' the other day and he said that it could be that Bush wants to allow or create a terror threat that is thwarted at the last minute so he can declare martial law via the Patriot Act. Anyone know if there is such a provision, and what it would take to allow Shrub declare martial law?

martial law is when someone with cooperation of the military decides that the official law is best suspended.

since you're suspending official law, official permission is irrelevant.

it's all about whether or not you can get away with it.

I wouldn't mind

ALthough a growing majority hate Bush, they are ingrained to follow orders - that is their training and mindset. Voting one way is one thing, actively going up against the burro-cracy - that is another, very different situation. Won't happen soon.

..the military and CIA in Iraq seem to have done an end run around the Bush junta when they raided Chalabi, leaving the PNAC cabal in DC scrambling for an explanation. It was beautiful to see.

Mutiny is a serious step. If we get another few years of Bush bungling, either through hopelessly corrupt elections or a declaration of martial law after a faked terra attack, we just might see it.

If Bush attempts to declare martial law after losing the election or even in the days prior to the election when it becomes obvious that it will be beyond fixing, then the military could rebel and throw him out. If this happens before the election, then they would simply allow the vote to go forward. Under those circumstances, Bush would get almost no support; even many Freepers would abandon him.

For my part, I will regard the circumvention of popular will through a declaration of martial law by Bush as a declaration of civil war.

Basically handing over government and police powers to the National Guard under the state emergency management agency. They say it was for natural disaster preparedness but it's timing was bizarre and AFAIK it's the first time that it'd ever been done.

just about sums it up

"martial law is not a law in the proper sense of the term. It is the exercise of the will of the military commander, who takes upon himself the responsibility of suspending ordinary law in order to ensure the safety of the state. It is declared, by a proclamation issued by the executive, that ordinary law is inadequate to cope with the circumstances, and provides exceptional means of arrest and punishment of persons who resist the government or aid the enemy."

I don't think the P act covers martial law...no need to it's already easily done.

But relax both the left and the right wouldn't stand for abuse of martial law.

welcome to DU!

Oh, like they're gonna come out and ask us first?

"Uh, you folks mind terribly much if I suspend the Constitution and authorize the police to put their weapons on 'full auto'?"

I'm not gonna relax, it'd get bloody. All those tanks and A-10 Warthogs, y'know...

the soldiers in the military would turn their tanks and A-10's on the American people.

I could see martial law being declared in a city after an attack(that's what it's for) but not nationwide...take the foil off.

The Patriot Act contains many violations of constitutional principles, but nothing that bad. According to the summary of the Patriot Act from the ACLU, most of the problems with the law have to do with circumventing the First, Fourth and Fifth Amendments. The Patriot Act expands the government's authority to search private personal records and to do so without notifying the target of the investigation. Some of the most egregious features of the act allow for government searches of private records held by third parties, the prohibiting the custodian of those records from informing the target of the investigation, and reduced judicial oversight. Other features of the Act create a new, poorly defined crime of "domestic terrorism", provide for domestic surveillance by the CIA and provide for the indefinite detention of non-citizens.

Mr. Bush would like to renew the Patriot Act. Not only should he be rebuffed in his efforts, but Congress should act immediately to repeal the above-named parts of the act. American citizens should engage in civil disobedience to the Patriot Act until it is repealed.

A further danger to civil liberties is presented in the drafted Domestic Security Enhancement Act, nicknamed Patriot Act II by its detractors (of which I am one). Provisions of this legislation would end the government's obligation disclose the identity of those detained in a terror investigation until charges are filed, allow the government to obtain credit and library records of private citizens without a warrant and allow for the deportation of legal immigrants without a hearing.

The drafted legislation also contains what is perhaps the most outrageous proposal to come from any administration ever: Section 501 provides that an American may be stripped of his citizenship if that citizen provides support for what the President or the Attorney General deem to be a terrorist organization. This would allow the government to detain indefinitely and without charge a native-born American as an undocumented alien under the provisions of the law enacted in 2001.

Again, these acts are odious and unworthy of public support. The proper response is civil disobedience. Many local governments and even some states governments have passed resolutions against the Patriot Act and even directed local government to refuse cooperation with Patriot Act investigations. These local ordinances should take this one step further and provide that the local authorities will disclose to any target of a Patriot Act investigation that federal agents are gathering information about him.

CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS
TITLE 32--NATIONAL DEFENSE
SUBTITLE A--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
CHAPTER V--DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
SUBCHAPTER A--AID OF CIVIL AUTHORITIES AND PUBLIC RELATIONS
PART 501--EMPLOYMENT OF TROOPS IN AID OF CIVIL AUTHORITIES

67 FR 30627
§ 501.4

Martial law.

It is unlikely that situations requiring the commitment of Federal Armed Forces will necessitate the declaration of martial law. When Federal Armed Forces are committed in the event of civil disturbances, their proper role is to support, not supplant, civil authority. Martial law depends for its justification upon public necessity. Necessity gives rise to its creation; necessity justifies its exercise; and necessity limits its duration. The extent of the military force used and the actual measures taken, consequently, will depend upon the actual threat to order and public safety which exists at the time. In most instances the decision to impose martial law is made by the President, who normally announces his decision by a proclamation, which usually contains his instructions concerning its exercise and any limitations thereon. However, the decision to impose martial law may be made by the local commander on the spot, if the circumstances demand immediate action, and time and available communications facilities do not permit obtaining prior approval from higher authority (§ 501.2). Whether or not a proclamation exists, it is incumbent upon commanders concerned to weigh every proposed action against the threat to public order and safety it is designed to meet, in order that the necessity therefor may be ascertained. When Federal Armed Forces have been committed in an objective area in a martial law situation, the population of the affected area will be informed of the rules of conduct and other restrictive measures the military is authorized to enforce. These will normally be announced by proclamation or order and will be given the widest possible publicity by all available media. Federal Armed Forces ordinarily will exercise police powers previously inoperative in the affected area, restore and maintain order, insure the essential mechanics of distribution, transportation, and communication, and initiate necessary relief measures.

http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_00/32cfr501_00.html

This is from the Code of Federal Regulations.

However, it would be easy to imagine the present group of Banana Republicans abusing this provision in order to concentrate power in their hands.

Thanks for posting.

military assets are spread from hell to gone and the cops ... any cop will tell you that you can only police people as much as they'll let you. Cops outnumbered 10K to 1.