Moving Towards Martial Law: Greater Oppression and Less Liberty in a Militarized, Hierarchical Society

_{Image © Austin Cline
Original Poster: Library of Congress
Click for full-sized Image}

The imposition of martial law on a free society is one of the ultimate expressions of violent, authoritarian dominance of a few elites over the masses. Rarely does it appear out of the blue, however. It is instead the conclusion of a long list of abuses of liberty in which the people are cowed, dissent is suppressed, and the heavy hand of the law is abused to intimidate anyone who challenges or threatens the authority of those in charge.

Martial law is thus a culmination of many smaller steps taken by a government. Had people sufficiently opposed those smaller steps, they might have staved off the imposition of martial law. Because the government makes those smaller steps seem like reasonable responses to various crises, though, people tend to accept them; when martial law finally comes, they often accept that as the logical conclusion of all that came before.

Too few recognize the dangers early on; even fewer are willing to take a step back and consider that all their previous decisions to accept restrictions on their liberty may have been in error. Once people integrate an increasingly authoritarian system into their lives and outlook, it can be difficult to separate from it. This makes it all the more imperative to prevent matters from reaching this ultimate conclusion.

The problem, of course, is in being able to recognize the signs before it becomes too late. There is also the very important issue of being willing to raise the alarm even when you may be wrong (and of course, when others insist that you're being hysterical). No one wants to look foolish or alarmist and it's inevitable that many, if not most, of the people you have to warn won't believe you. Is it really alarmist, however, to consider this section from Wikipedia’s article on martial law to be disturbing:

“[F]rom 1982-84 Colonel Oliver North assisted FEMA in drafting its civil defense preparations. Details of these plans emerged during the 1987 Iran-Contra scandal. They included executive orders providing for suspension of the constitution, the imposition of martial law, internment camps and the turning over of government to the president and FEMA. FEMA, whose main role is disaster response, is now also responsible for handling U.S. domestic unrest. With recent proposals to criminalize illegal and undocumented immigrants, the United States saw itself immersed in a debate at the end of March and beginning of April about these laws and the role of immigration post-September 11th.”

“A Miami Herald article on July 5, 1987, reported that the deputy of former FEMA director Louis O. Giuffrida, John Brinkerhoff, handled the martial law portion of the planning. The plan was said to be similar to one titled "Rex 84", which Mr. Giuffrida had developed earlier to combat a national uprising by black militants. It provided for the detention of at least 21 million African-Americans in assembly centers or relocation camps. Following a request by the Pentagon in January, 2002, that the U.S. military be allowed the option of deploying troops on American streets, the Anser Institute for Homeland Security in February, 2002, published a paper by current-employee Mr. Brinkerhoff that argued the legality of this. He alleged that the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, which has long been accepted as prohibiting such deployments, had simply been misunderstood and misapplied. The preface to the article also provided the revelation that the national plan he had worked on, under Mr. Giuffrida, was approved by Reagan, and actions were taken to implement it.”

“The full facts and final contents of Reagan's national plan remain uncertain, in part because President Bush took the unprecedented step of sealing the Reagan presidential papers in November of 2001 via Executive Order 13233. The papers in question, some dealing with Reagan-era officials who now have high posts in the Bush administration, were to have been disclosed under the 1978 Presidential Records Act, which said that the documents could be restricted at the most for 12 years after Reagan left office.”

There is another angle to consider as well, though: might it be possible to have martial law without an actual declaration of martial law and without troops on the streets? At first glance that appears impossible — after all, the definition of “martial law” is for military authorities to take over the administration of justice and social control. How can you have martial law without a declaration and without actual troops involved?

What I am suggesting is to look beyond the classic, outward characteristics of martial law and instead consider some of the ways in which a society can move closer to such a state on a deeper level. Examples might include a greater militarization of society and the government (involving the military more and more in things like crime prevention and detection), increasing valorization of the military and martial virtues generally, increasing use of militaristic and warlike terminology in non-military contexts, increasing emphasis on hierarchy and hierarchical structures of authority, increasing strictness and harshness in the administration of justice, and so forth.

When we see such things happening, and especially if they are accompanied by decreased respect for civil liberties, then it seems to me that society is adopting many of the underlying characteristics of marital law even though there are no troops in the streets arresting people and no formal declaration of martial law has been issued. Perhaps “martial law” isn’t the precisely correct term, but I think it’s useful not only because it evokes powerful images, but because it also reminds people about the direction they may be heading. The loss of civil liberties is a serious problem regardless of whether martial law has technically been declared or not.

This image is based on a World War I recruiting poster, asking men to join the ranks of troops marching off to war in Europe.

I'm afraid that personal and work pressures will only allow me to post a single sermon for this and following Sundays, at least during the near future.