Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
Only congress can declare martial law. However, the president does have broad authority to deploy the military and national guard to assist (but not replace) law enforcement.
Do we really have to have this whole conversation again?
Edited by archonspeaks on Sep 13th 2020 at 5:35:33 AM
They should have sent a poet.The military which is commanded by generals who broadly hate him.
So this is an accurate summary.
Edited by Imca on Sep 13th 2020 at 5:36:28 AM
Because there isn’t a single concept of “martial law” in the US legal system, it’s an ad-hoc status applied when legislation is passed that enables the military to act in a law enforcement capability. It’s not as simple as an on/off switch.
The US military is forbidden by law from enforcing US laws internally, do you need me to cite the law?
Trump can maybe federalise state national guard units (I think he needs congressional permission, but I’m not sure), but he can’t legally order them to do a anything to interfere with the election, because election interference is a crime.
Edited by Silasw on Sep 13th 2020 at 12:37:46 PM
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran![]()
![]()
I'm just interested in what the mechanism would be. And since congress is backing Trump, it is possible he could order congress to declare martial law.
And even if he couldn't legally use the military, just declaring martial law would forment a lot of unrest, which is exactly what he wants.
Edited by Redmess on Sep 13th 2020 at 2:48:33 PM
Hope shines brightest in the darkest timesCongress is not backing Trump, the Senate backs Trump (and thus he can’t be removed), but that’s not the same thing as Congress backing him.
Sure Trump could Tweet that he’s declaring martial law, it wouldn’t do anything legally, but that’s never stopped him in the past, I suspect that Twitter would flag the tweet as misleading.
Edited by Silasw on Sep 13th 2020 at 1:09:27 PM
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranOh, you're right, I confuse the terms sometimes. So it would need to be approved by both the senate and house? That seems a bit more robust.
And are you sure there is no specific legislation around martial laws? I thought most countries have provisions on that sort of thing.
Hope shines brightest in the darkest timesTrump would get no support from the house, but would probably get some from the Senate. So he didn't gain anything from Congress but wouldn't immediately find himself impeached and removed.
So his sole hope to pull off martial law would be if the military/national guard/police forces decided they want to break the law to support the losing candidate and join him on a sinking ship. You might get a few die hard Trump supporters to die on that hill, but most are opportunists who would be busy throwing him under the bus.
There’s the Posse Comitatus Act, which forbids the US military from doing domestic law enforcement without congressional approval (which is stated to come int eh form of Congress passing a law okaying it), otherwise martial law is declared at a state (and possibly city) level and involves national guard regiments instead of the military proper.
Edited by Silasw on Sep 13th 2020 at 1:09:09 PM
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranMeanwhile, in some other news:
Well, better late than never, I guess.
Basically, Twitter is tightening its rules on misinformation, specifically about information on elections.
2. Disputed claims that could undermine faith in the process itself, e.g. unverified information about election rigging, ballot tampering, vote tallying, or certification of election results.
3. Misleading claims about the results or outcome of a civic process which calls for or could lead to interference with the implementation of the results of the process, e.g. claiming victory before election results have been certified, inciting unlawful conduct to prevent a peaceful transfer of power or orderly succession.
Note that that last rule seems to be a direct answer on fears that Trump will try to call the election in his favour before votes are completely counted.
Also, Google is improving its search engine to prevent users from accidentally stumbling across misleading or fake news stories.
Part of the surge of Q Anon seems to be the fault of Facebook's slow response to its initial appearance on the platform. The group has now grown so much that the crackdown just led to its members moving to other groups.
The movement is also spreading around the world now, for example to France:
I was not aware the Yellow Vests movement was shadowy. Guess they go on the shit list too.
One commenter noted:
It's interesting that some pastors have called Qanon a "cult" and that it is actually anti-Christian in nature.
https://www.technologyreview.com/2020/08/26/1007611/how-qanon-is-targeting-evangelicals/
https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2020/august-web-only/qanon-is-wolf-in-wolfs-clothing.html
@Silasw, Redmess: What Trump can do, in principle, is invoke the Insurrection Act
...
- when requested by a state's legislature, or governor if the legislature cannot be convened, to address an insurrection against that state (§ 251),
- to address an insurrection, in any state, which makes it impracticable to enforce the law (§ 252), or
- to address an insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination or conspiracy, in any state, which results in the deprivation of Constitutionally-secured rights, and where the state is unable, fails, or refuses to protect said rights (§ 253).
He might claim that, for example, "antifa states" are trying to allow illegal voters to rig the election against the "obvious winner," and thus try to send in troops to "protect the voters' constitutional rights."
However, the military will not obey such an order because it'd be a transparent lie and Trump has no credibility with the armed forces.
Edited by Ramidel on Sep 13th 2020 at 6:49:33 AM
Technically, yes, if they think it would be an illegal order. But then we get into a very murky legal area. It depends on the general and how everyone reacts, to be honest...
The awful things he says and does are burned into our cultural consciousness like a CRT display left on the same picture too long. -FighteerWell, the one who would be in charge of refusing the order would probably be the current Secretary of Defense, Mark Esper (who's against using the Insurrection Act). He's not active-duty military, so the worst Trump can do is fire him - which would make any attempt at using said Act by appointing an acting SecDef even less tenable.
Last time I checked, as a reaction to the Nuremberg Trials and the most common defence, most first world militaries have specifically implemented a requirement to not follow illegal orders from top to bottom. For Trump to successfully turn the military on anything, he needs to somehow get a clear path through every single level of the hierarchy.
And the military brass have no reason to agree with him.
I agree that a lot of the military would not want to follow Trump's orders to carry out what is essentially a coup, should Trump declare martial law. But then, would Trump need the whole US military to follow his orders? Could he not seize power with a handful of high ranking officers in command of useful units, such as intelligence, special forces, maybe a few battalions near DC?
There was a similar scenario in South Korea, when the former president was impeached and removed from office. Documents surfaced that there were plans to declare martial law, use the military to put down the protests, and arrest lawmakers that object. They didn't need the whole military, just some generals in command of a few mechanized infantry divisions and the special forces.
"Enshittification truly is how platforms die"-Cory DoctorowIt's not about agreement though, it is about legality. You cannot simply refuse an order because you disagree or don't like your leader. That would be insubordination.
When you refuse an order, you had better be sure it is illegal.
In that sense, it doesn't really matter if Trump pisses off the military. If he gives a legal order, or he can pressure someone else into declaring it legal, the military would basically be stuck between following orders or risk a court martial offence.
Edited by Redmess on Sep 13th 2020 at 5:46:35 PM
Hope shines brightest in the darkest timesI think being a bit cautious is advisable, but going "well this check exists, ergo no one would ever just break that" is unhelpful and does not hold up to precedent. Presidents have been known throughout history to just claim more powers for themselves.
The awful things he says and does are burned into our cultural consciousness like a CRT display left on the same picture too long. -Fighteer

Can't expect to keep burning bridges without getting burned.