Martial law is the imposition of military rule by military authorities over designated regions on an emergency basis—(usually) only temporary—when the civilian government or civilian authorities fail to function effectively (e.g., maintain order and security, and provide essential services), when there are extensive riots and protests, or when the disobedience of the law becomes widespread. In most cases, military forces are deployed to subdue the crowds, to secure government buildings and key or sensitive locations, and to maintain order. Generally, military personnel replace civil authorities and perform some or all of their functions. In full-scale martial law, the highest-ranking military officer would take over, or be installed, as the military governor or as head of the government, thus removing all power from the previous executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government.
Martial law can be used by governments to enforce their rule over the public. Such incidents may occur after a coup d'état (Thailand 2006); when threatened by popular protest (China, Tiananmen Square protests of 1989); to suppress political opposition (Poland in 1981); to stabilize insurrections or perceived insurrections (Canada, The October Crisis of 1970). Martial law may be declared in cases of major natural disasters, however most countries use a different legal construct, such as a "state of emergency".
Martial law has also been imposed during conflicts and in cases of occupations, where the absence of any other civil government provides for an unstable population. Examples of this form of military rule include post World War II reconstruction in Germany and Japan as well as the southern reconstruction following the U.S. Civil War.
Typically, the imposition of martial law accompanies curfews, the suspension of civil law, civil rights, habeas corpus, and the application or extension of military law or military justice to civilians. Civilians defying martial law may be subjected to military tribunal (court-martial).
Iran’s anti-Israel rhetoric ups the ante
Either Israel is engaged in the most elaborate ruse since the Trojan Horse or it is on the cusp of a pre-emptive strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities.
What’s alarming is not just Iran’s increasing store of uranium or the growing sophistication of its rocketry. It’s also the increasingly menacing annihilationist threats emanating from Iran’s leaders. Israel’s existence is “an insult to all humanity”, says President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. “Anyone who loves freedom and justice must strive for the annihilation of the Zionist regime.”
Explains the country’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei: Israel is “a true cancer tumour on this region that should be cut off”.
Everyone wants to avoid military action, surely the Israelis above all. They can expect a massive counter-attack from Iran, 50,000 rockets launched from Lebanon, Islamic Jihad firing from Gaza, and worldwide terror against Jewish and Israeli targets, as happened last month in Bulgaria.
Yet Israel will not sit idly by in the face of the most virulent genocidal threats since Nazi Germany. The result then was 6 million murdered Jews. There are 6 million living in Israel today.
Time is short. Last-ditch negotiations in Istanbul, Baghdad and Moscow have failed abjectly. The Iranians are contemptuously playing with the process. The strategy is delay until they get the bomb.
What to do? The sagest advice comes from Anthony Cordesman, military analyst at the Centre for Strategic and International Studies, hard-headed realist and a believer that “multilateralism and soft power must still be the rule and not the exception”.
He may have found his exception. “There are times when the best way to prevent war is to clearly communicate that it is possible,” he argues. Today, the threat of a US attack is not taken seriously. Not by the region. Not by Iran. Not by the Israelis, who therefore increasingly feel forced to act before Israel’s more limited munitions – far less powerful and effective than those in the US arsenal – can no longer penetrate Iran’s ever-hardening facilities.
Cordesman therefore proposes threefold action.
1. Clear US redlines
It’s time to end the ambiguity about American intentions. Establish real limits on negotiations – to convince Iran that the only alternative to a deal is pre-emptive strikes, and to convince Israel to stay its hand.
2. Make it clear to Iran that it has no successful options
Either their program must be abandoned in a negotiated deal (see point 1, above) on generous terms from the West (see point 3, below) or their facilities will be physically destroyed. Ostentatiously let Iran know about the range and power of our capacities – how deep and extensive a campaign we could conduct, extending beyond just nuclear facilities to military-industrial targets, refineries, power grids and other concentrations of regime power.
3. Give Iran a face-saving way out
Offer Iran the most generous possible terms – economic, diplomatic and political. End of sanctions, assistance in economic and energy development, trade incentives and a regional security architecture. Even Russian nuclear fuel.
Tellingly, however, Cordesman does not join those who suggest yielding on nuclear enrichment. That’s important because a prominently leaked proposed “compromise” would guarantee Iran’s right to enrich, though not to high levels.
Israel, U.S. divided over latest IAEA report on Iran
Israel believes the report backs up claims that Tehran has sped up its nuclear project, while the White House insists that findings don’t change the working assumption that there is still time to resolve the crisis diplomatically.
Israel believes that the IAEA report, due to be published this week, backs up claims that Tehran has accelerated its nuclear project. The White House, however, insists that the findings do nothing to alter the working assumption that there is still time to resolve the crisis diplomatically.
The new centrifuges are thought to be capable of enriching uranium to a level higher than the 20 percent needed for research purposes.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who met on Friday in Jerusalem with U.S. Congressmen Mike Rogers, who heads the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, said that the new information contained in the soon-to-be-released report is "further proof that Iran is galloping toward obtaining nuclear capability and that it continues to ignore the demands of the international community."
In contrast to Netanyahu's unequivocal interpretation of the new IAEA report, the White House was more circumspect. Speaking to the New York Times, White House spokesman Tommy Vietor said that "there is time and space" for a diplomatic solution to the Iranian nuclear crisis.
Another senior American official, speaking on condition of anonymity, told the New York Times that the new information contained in the IAEA report is "not a game-changer."
According to the official, while it is true that Iran has increased the rate at which it is enriching uranium to a level of 20 percent, any move to enrich uranium to a level of 90 percent - the level needed for military purposes - "would not be a quiet affair." The official added that "the IAEA is in the facility regularly and they would detect a move" to build a weapon.
Over the weekend, representatives of the IAEA met with Iranian officials to discuss a demand to allow United Nations inspectors to visit the Parchin facility. Iran has been accused of researching and developing its military nuclear project at Parchin. This weekend's contacts - which come after a two-month hiatus - ended without agreement and without a date being set for the next round of negotiations.
Meanwhile, a U.S. think tank published satellite imagery on Friday which it said showed "pink colored material" covering a building at a sensitive military site in Iran which UN nuclear inspectors want to visit.
The Institute for Science and International Security said the tarp at the Parchin military complex might be an attempt to conceal alleged clean-up work there at a time when Iran is under growing international pressure to open up its disputed nuclear program to scrutiny.
read more at: http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/israel-u-s-divided-over-latest-iaea-report-on-iran.premium-1.460690
An Israeli attack on Iran would help, not harm, Obama’s reelection
Hard to believe that a seasoned Americanologist such as PM Netanyahu would think otherwise.
President Barack Obama pauses during an interview with The Associated Press at the White House, Aug. 23, 2012, in Washington.
Both developments, according to press reports, were part and parcel of Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu considerations in pressing for an early attack. Republicans, it was said, not only subscribed to this assessment but also were egging Netanyahu on to in order to help Mitt Romney’s chances in November.
The Israeli commentators, it sometimes seemed, accepted this conventional wisdom as if it was cast in stone.
It was left to political strategist Karl Rove, grandmaster of Republican tactics and chief advisor to the pro-Republican super-PAC “American Crossroads”, to blow this cockamamie theory out of the water.
Appearing on Fox News last week, Rove made clear that any flare up with Iran would only serve Obama’s interests. Americans, he said, would instinctively rally around their Commander in Chief and Obama’s standing in the polls would immediately improve.
Rove went a step further and more or less warned Israel not to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities too early. In a comment that did not receive the media attention it deserved, Rove said that a military strike on Iran needs to wait until what Rove described as “a moment of vulnerability” - and that won’t happen until the Iranians bring all their fissile material “to a central site in order to be machined into a weapon or weapons.”
“They’ve got to wait until it’s brought together”, Rove said, and one can assume that such a moment won’t arrive, according to Rove’s strategic calculated, before November 6.
All four panelists on NBC’s Chris Matthews show this Sunday concurred with the political part of Rove’s analyses. A war with Iran, former ABC broadcaster Sam Donaldson said, would change the dynamics of the election campaign, draw attention away from the troubled economy and allow Obama to showcase his experience while accentuating Mitt Romney’s lack thereof. Foreign affairs and national security, after all, is the one area in which Obama enjoys a clear advantage over Romney in all the public opinion polls, they noted.
Another misplaced piece of the misguided conventional wisdom in Jerusalem is that an Israeli attack that would take place before the elections would force Obama to suppress his supposedly natural inclination to abandon Israel in its time of need. He would have to succumb to overwhelming public pressure and support Israel, both diplomatically and militarily, because of pure electoral considerations, according to this theory.
But this assessment may also be light years away from reality, a by product of the irrationally critical view of Obama’s shared by strident Republican Jewish critics who are close to Netanyahu and to some of his officials and who genuinely believe that Obama is a socialist/pacifist who would like nothing better than to see Israeli cities burn. Only his sense of self-preservation before the elections, they believe, might cause Obama to act against his usual anti-Jewish instincts.
Back on earth, however, it is far from clear that there would be any real pressure by the American public to get the US involved in another Middle East war. Opinion polls on the American public’s attitude towards US military involvement in Iran are all over the place, depending on the wording of the questions, but they consistently show wide support for Obama’s policy of exploring all other options first. They may very well accept the President’s judgment even if he opts against committing the US to a military confrontation.
Secondly, most people who know Obama maintain that if his hand is forced, either by Iran or by Israel, the President would not hesitate to send the American bombers on their way, elections or no elections, not only if Iran attacks American targets directly but also to help Israel, if it turns out that it cannot fend for itself. At the height of an election campaign, such a crisis would doubtlessly entail the fringe benefit of forcing Republican candidates Romney and Paul Ryan to support the President and to put aside their criticism while guns are blazing and American lives are in danger. And any reckoning with Jerusalem over its refusal to accede to the Administration’s demand to give peace another chance my indeed come - but only after the situation has stabilized and the elections are long over.
In fact, the very foundations of a theory that a war before elections would hurt Obama’s chances in the elections are so far fetched that it is actually unreasonable to believe that a seasoned Americanologist such as Netanyahu would subscribe to it. But now that Republicans appear to be actually warning him off – does this mean that war has been postponed? On the other hand, would Netanyahu’s Republican benefactors ever forgive him if it turned out that it was his decision to pull the trigger that actually ensured Obama’s second term?
ALERT: A BRAND NEW Executive Order
just signed by Barack Hussein Obama on July 6th, ONCE AGAIN brings America a step closer to finding itself under MARTIAL LAW with Obama -- this time by giving him dictator-type powers over ALL communications during any so-called "crisis" that he might declare!
As reported by "Tea Party Economist" blogger, Dr. Gary North:
As reported by "Tea Party Economist" blogger, Dr. Gary North:
“Obama has signed an executive order outlining the nationalization of the entire communications system. It is written in bureaucratese. I have no doubt that it was not understood by Obama. It is too detailed. It sets up a powerful new bureaucracy. The language is limited to a national emergency. But an emergency on this scale is almost inconceivable. The government never discusses what could justify an executive order this comprehensive.
If such a threat to the nation (and the world) really exists, the voters should be given a detailed description of its nature. Congress should debate this. Solving it should be a high national priority. If the answer is, "discussing this would create panic," then democracy is a sham. If the answer is, "we don't know what might happen, so we are asserting total control in advance," then this executive order should never have been signed. It transfers too much power to bureaucrats to determine when to implement it.
As Dr. North declares, "This is no longer a nation run by the Constitution."
The executive order itself is long, and very few people will actually bother to read it. But what it does is very clear: it authorizes the White House to take over the entire communications system, simply on "the authority of the President."
The bottom line is this: Obama thinks that this power belongs to the President.
It's more and more obvious that Barack Obama is preparing to DECLAREMARTIAL LAW -- we MUST STOP HIM NOW!
A DHS whistleblower informed the Canada Free Press"that the DHS is actively preparing for massive social unrest inside the United States. He then corrected himself, stating that 'a civil war' is the more appropriate term. 'Certain elements of the government are not only expecting and preparing for it, they are actually facilitating it.'"
A "Reichstag event" refers to a fire started in Germany's legislature during Hitler's rise to power. The fire allowed him to grab emergency powers and eliminate his opposition. While he blamed it on Communists, historians have long believed that Hitler started the fire himself.
According to the anonymous "whistleblower" inside Obama's DHS, this "Reichstag event" would take the form of a staged assassination attempt against Barack Obama, "carefully choreographed" and manufactured by Obama operatives. It would subsequently be blamed on "white supremacists" and used to enrage the black community to rioting and looting, the DHS source warned.
The Obama administration would then use the violence and chaos they created as justification for the imposition of martial law in major urban cities in America, the creation of DHS checkpoints, restriction of travel, and the indefinite delay of the November 2012 elections:
"The DHS takes their marching orders from the Obama administration, from Obama himself, but mostly from his un-appointed czars. And Jarrett, especially Valerie Jarrett. Don't think for a minute that the administration is doing anything to stabilize events in the U.S. They are revolutionaries, and revolutionaries thrive on chaos," he added.
This is getting TOO BIG to hide -- now, even the MEDIA is starting to pick up on the shocking news:
Barack Hussein Obama has signed Executive Orders giving him the power todeclare MARTIAL LAW in America!
Tennessee lawmaker warns of fake Obama assassination plot to stop 2012 elections
By Eric W. Dolan
Will Obama attempt to declare martial law before November election?
Martial Law will NOT be declared
By: Diane Sori
Lately all you see people posting on Facebook are articles that quote unnamed, so-called inside sources all saying that Barack Hussein Obama is going to declare Martial Law to stop the elections from going forward. The sources these articles are taken from are sources whose credibility is anything but stellar as any source that does not name names really has NO credibility whatsoever.
Yet these posts keep appearing all claiming that the Obama administration is working on creating a deliberate racial and/or economic war based on class warfare so that he can declare Martial Law and shut down the elections. However, concrete details are sketchy at best or are the stuff of urban legends. The urban legends are the worst, like the claim that the government is stockpiling every weapon possible to use against ‘We the People’ as they round us up once Martial Law is declared and put us in re-education centers or worse...concentration camps.
Now one ‘supposed’ credible site is even claiming that a staged assassination attempt will be made against Obama that would then be blamed on white supremacists and be used to inflame the black community to start rioting and looting.
Oh please...do you really think the black community will fall for this nonsense. Some like the New Black Panthers and their ilk might feed into this but the majority of the black population can see through this just as easily as you and I can.
Then we have those sites claiming that the National Defense Resources Preparedness Executive Order signed back in March is a lead-in to Obama declaring Martial Law, and all because it authorizes the federal government to identify "requirements for the full spectrum of emergencies, including essential military and civilian demand," and to "control the general distribution of any material (including applicable services) in this civilian market."
However, and a much as I dislike Obama and all he stands for, this order is just your standard government readiness policy. In fact it’s almost identical to those orders issued by administrations ever since the days of the Cold War, including by the administrations of Dwight Eisenhower, Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush.
With Obama losing support daily as Mitt Romney gains traction. Obama in desperation will try all sorts of bravado to try and keep us from getting out and voting and the fear of Martial Law is the mother lode of all bravado...or so he thinks.
First, you need to understand what Martial Law really is and that it is NOT that easy to declare. Martial Law is basically temporary rule by state or national military authorities, imposed on civilian populations during times of war or when civil authority has broken down.
Martial Law has been declared in this country on the national level only once and that was during the Civil War. On the regional level Martial Law was declared also only once and that was during World War II. Otherwise, it’s been limited to the states. Civil uprisings, massive political protests, labor strikes, and riots have caused a few state governors to rightly declare some measure of Martial Law at one time or another.
Under Article I, Section 8, Clause 15, of the Constitution, Congress has the power "[t]o provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress insurrections and repel Invasions." Article II, Section 2, Clause 1, of the Constitution declares that "[t]he President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States." The Supreme Court has interpreted this to mean that a declaration of Martial Law can be imposed by the president or Congress. A governor, on the other hand, may declare Martial Law within their state as the power to do so is usually in their state constitution.
However, both federal or state courts must first still rule if the implementation of Martial Law and the use of troops is justified because Martial Law is legally considered an act of last resort.
So armed with this knowledge you can see that Martial Law cannot just be declared at whim even by a sitting president. The circumstances would have to be extraneous with the chance of total chaos and violence being present for Martial Law to be approved by the courts .
Barack Hussein Obama and his minions might indeed try to instigate a course of events that could lead up to his being able to declare such an action but it’s up to us to NOT fall into that trap.