Amazon.com Widgets
  • Yes, but only in extreme circumstances.

    Only in the most dire situation, perhaps in the wake of a totally epic disaster, should martial law be employed to keep some order and protect people. This would be some kind of giant destruction, like a huge bombing by a warring country, a nuclear accident, or an asteroid impact -- the sort of devastation that only a strong and centralized authority can guide people through.

  • "NAGRARALLY kami tapos hinuli kami"

    The reason why many people suffered because they kept on resisting. The first few rallies that ended up in torture SHOULD have been a warning, but many kept on rallying. They were going AGAINST law during that time, that's why they suffered from torture. Freedom? Heh, might as well be suffering from poverty than suffering from torture and being dead. To "Anti-Marcos" supporters, kudos to you, you kept on resisting knowing you were gonna get tortured, you kept on rallying and you kept on getting hurt. You wanted freedom? Then you should've just obeyed and could've avoided a lot of suffering. You wanted freedom but you ended up getting constrained. It's like walking into a bear trap, KNOWING it was a trap.

  • To Serve and to Protect us from the radicals

    So many foolish people, Martial Law is only implemented when there is too much unrest, too much lawlessness. Don't fear Martial Law, welcome it because in the long run, it is protecting your Constitutional rights - why are so many not intelligent enough to see that? From what I can see, Martial Law should be hoped for if things become ugly. To not want Martial Law is to say you want to take the law into your own hands - something I would not desire to see!

  • To Serve and to Protect us from the radicals

    So many foolish people, Martial Law is only implemented when there is too much unrest, too much lawlessness. Don't fear Martial Law, welcome it because in the long run, it is protecting your Constitutional rights - why are so many not intelligent enough to see that? From what I can see, Martial Law should be hoped for if things become ugly. To not want Martial Law is to say you want to take the law into your own hands - something I would not desire to see!

  • The way we win matters.

    Achieving peace does not matter. The way we achieve peace matters. The risk is too much if martial law will be implemented such as the lives of the innocents as well as their future. We don't need mass sacrifice in order to achieve peace. Dsa ads aasd sad adsd dsa

  • I don't see the implications

    When I look what martial law would entail I fail to see any thing good that would come out of it. Though yes you can argue that in order to save the country from some sort of terrorist attack we need to enact the martial law, I disagree. I think that with the right actions there would be plenty of ways to fight terrorism without forcing the citizens to give up their rights. I will say that at the moment i can't really think of many good ways that the government would fight a large terrorism attack within the U.S, but I digress and stand by my first motion that martial law just doesn't have the benefits needed to justify it.

  • No cuz no

    No asd sadas sd a asdasd asd asd sd sdsa asd as sa dasdas as sadas sada s das sa dad ad asd ad d ddd sda asdasd asd asd asdasd sad asdasdasdasdasd asd asd sad asdasd asd asdas asdasd asdasd asdasd as dasda sd asdasdasdasd sa sa asdsad sa d asd as

  • Under no circumstances

    Dries up the foreign investment. Bad for your future. And worst of all unconstitutional. If you need further proof just look at the dire consequences faced by the people living under dictators in the past and future. No sane person will ever support the decision to enforce martial law in his land. Peace out!

  • Martial law by any other name?

    When Lincoln declared martial law in the suspension of habeas corpus during the Civil War it was overturned by the Supreme Court.
    Now it is often cloaked under the name of a "state of emergency" or a "national security threat."
    The military should never be in charge of anything. I sincerely doubt that the people would be unable to maintain civil judicial functions if necessary.

  • It is a travesty of humanity

    Martial law is a suspension of the federal constitution, human rights, seagal and justice system, and even democracy. It is shear chaos and for what? National security or because our political leaders want to be temporary-dictators.

    Everyone has rights and martial law completely deprives us of that. The military have the power to confiscate people's houses and to even conduct executions on the spot without a trial, there is a curfew and anyone who is caught being outside during that is shot, anyone who is insubordinate is also shot. Is this freedom? Is this democracy? Or is this deprivation of human rights and shear tyranny?

  • "Total security is total tyranny" (Ron Paul)

    Martial law is a clear violation of our constitutional rights , when martial law is enacted the government locks down the country for protection from "terrorists". But who's really the terrorist locking down its own country and basically treating innocent law abiding citizens like animals in a cage, like prisoners. Call me crazy, but this seems to be just an excuse for the federal government to take over the system and our currency (which seems almost worthless now due to inflation) I'm a 17 year old high school student who just wants people to understand my opinion. These corrupt groups in the shadows of our government need to stop focusing on the war on terror and focus more on the currently rising national debt caused by ridiculous government spending.

  • Un-Constitutionality of Martial Law

    No where in the Constitution was martial law meant to be implied by the Federal government. It was the peoples right to expel the Federal government if need be and the Federal Government instituted the right to apply martial law if the people decided to repel the government. They have used every tactic to legitimize it with terrorist act claiming it is needed to fight terrorist but the true terrorist have been the government themselves. A prime example would be the house to house searches in Boston where peoples rights were disregarded and the Constitution was tossed aside like a piece of scrap paper.

  • Martial law is not acceptable.

    Almost no places in the world have martial law because it is not acceptable. Governments only declare martial law in times of great chaos when the military is needed to restore order. This is a last resort which was never intended to be in place under normal circumstances in society.

  • No, not even in extreme circumstances

    The idea of martial law exists for extreme circumstances--when things are so bad that only a complete lock down will keep everyone "safe." However, who is the one determining when it should happen, and what constitutes "safe?" Last I checked, I'm an adult and I have the right to decide if an environment is safe or not. Yes, the government should give me information and guidelines, but I don't trust anyone else to decide that I cannot leave my house or exercise my freedoms.


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.