Debunked: Fake City / "US Army Trains for Martial Law In US."

Status
Not open for further replies.
Mick West said:
Your definition of "helps local and state authorities to restore and maintain law and order" is very far from this.
Click to expand...
Mick, this is not my definition of martial law. It is your definition of "not martial law":
Mick West said:
it's not about martial law. It's about "is to help local and state authorities to restore and maintain law and order. " - i.e. provide assistance in implementing civil law.
Click to expand...

Mick's West's definition of Non-martial law: "help local and state authorities to restore and maintain law and order" - i.e. provide assistance in implementing civil law.

Aabridged Wikipedia definition of martial law: "Imposition of military power...on a temporary basis (to) maintain order and security..."

Regarding this:
Mick West said:
Or as the Supreme Court put it in 1876:
https://www.courtlistener.com/scotus/sxM/united-states-v-diekelman/
Content from external source
Martial law is the law of military necessity in the actual presence of war. It is administered by the general of the army, and is in fact his will. Of necessity it is arbitrary; but it must be obeyed.
Click to expand...
I don't think you had the intention to conflate the maintenance of law and order we were originally discussing with cities under siege at as you did above in quoting the Supreme Court decision of 1876 in: US v. Diekelman. To quote the Diekelman decision, "The city was practically in a state of siege by land, but open by sea, and was under martial law." Diekelman is not relevant and quoting it in this context was inappropriate.

The Princeton definition that martial law is "usually only temporary—when the civilian government or civilian authorities fail to function effectively (e.g., maintain order and security, and provide essential services)" speaks directly to the issue that we are discussing...and also seems to precisely fit your definition of "not martial law."

If you'd like to have a back and forth on defining martial law, we could open up a new thread and perhaps submit the consensus "best definition" to Wikipedia to see if the other contributors agree. In the meantime, let's not conflate maintenance of law and order with wartime martial law. They represent the opposite ends of a sliding scale.
 
Last edited:
curtispenner said:
Mick, this is not my definition of martial law. It is your definition of "not martial law":


Mick's West's definition of Non-martial law: "help local and state authorities to restore and maintain law and order" - i.e. provide assistance in implementing civil law.

Aabridged Wikipedia definition of martial law: "Imposition of military power...on a temporary basis (to) maintain order and security..."

I don't think you had the intention to conflate the maintenance of law and order we were originally discussing with cities under siege at war as you did above in quoting the Supreme Court decision of 1876 in: US v. Diekelman. To quote the Diekelman decision, "The city was practically in a state of siege by land, but open by sea, and was under martial law." Diekelman is not relevant and quoting it in this context was inappropriate.

The Princeton definition that martial law is "usually only temporary—when the civilian government or civilian authorities fail to function effectively (e.g., maintain order and security, and provide essential services)" speaks directly to the issue that we are discussing...and also seems to precisely fit your definition of "not martial law."

If you'd like to have a back and forth on defining martial law, we could open up a new thread and perhaps submit the consensus "best definition" to Wikipedia to see if the other contributors agree. In the meantime, let's not conflate maintenance of law and order with wartime martial law. They represent the opposite ends of a sliding scale.
Click to expand...
So every time the National Guard is called out to help with natural disaster relief, martial law is imposed?
 
curtispenner said:
If you'd like to have a back and forth on defining martial law, we could open up a new thread and perhaps submit the consensus "best definition" to Wikipedia to see if the other contributors agree. In the meantime, let's not conflate maintenance of law and order with wartime martial law. They represent the opposite ends of a sliding scale.
Click to expand...

I think it's quite adequately defined. Martial law involves suspension of civilian law, and arbitrary rule by the army. There's nothing to suggest this facility is training for that.

You claim that the army is training for martial law, you support this claim by using a simplistic definition of martial law that includes "helps local and state authorities to restore and maintain law and order". Yet that type of thing is quite specifically NOT martial law.
 
Mick West said:
Martial law involves suspension of civilian law, and arbitrary rule by the army. There's nothing to suggest this facility is training for that.

You claim that the army is training for martial law, you support this claim by using a simplistic definition of martial law that includes "helps local and state authorities to restore and maintain law and order". Yet that type of thing is quite specifically NOT martial law.
Click to expand...
Now we are in the sliding scale which represents martial law. I agree with the sentiment of the US Constitution you highlighted in the Wikipedia article above in regards to there being a high legal bar on the suspension of Habeus Corpus vis-a-vis the imposition of martial law in the US. I'm pretty sure that Americans' desire to not be detained lacking sufficient cause or evidence is why we are all discussing this in the first place. This raises the interesting point of whether this training represents a disregard for Habeus Corpus and/or an intention to violate the US Constitution.

Ultimately my opinion that the best way to avoid imposition of martial law is to object to it and the notion of imposing it, which I am doing here.

This debate has highlighted an important quote which I'm not sure Jefferson actually said but which I've heard attributed to him that "The level of tyranny you live under is exactly the amount you are willing to put up with."

Those who drafted the US Constitution obviously were willing to put up with very little tyranny. We now seem willing to put up with much more. We mustn't confuse the level of tyranny we are willing to live under with being the level of tyranny that someone else must accept. The thing about rights is that they need to be asserted to exist. If no-one demands them they disappear. In the sense that they are asserted by the individual, they can not be taken by others who feel they don't exist. Our words and deeds change the common law every day. By not raising red flags when seeing this type of training, we would be acquiescing to changing the law for the worse, in a direction that contravenes our immutable rights.
 
Last edited:
As a Marine (98-06), we trained for MOUT (Military Operations in Urban Terrain) which included Martial Law training as well. The rules for same were very well laid out. The ONLY time the military would be involved is if there is an absolute and total break down of government whereby people's lives are in danger. Period. The notion that its a facist or stalin-esque ideology as seen in V for Vendetta or 1984 is absurd. The US Military learned a very hard lesson during the Civil War, and its not something they want to get involved in again.. which is exactly what would happen if a national version of Martial Law were declared... or if there was a military-esque Coups overthrowing government.

The scenarios we trained for were, no bullshit, very strictly guided with specific rules set forth.. Marines fight like they train and train like they fight. Our primary goal was the preservation of civilian life.. period. The ROE or Rules of Engagement were extremely measured, and -minimum- force used to subdue those who got aggressive (and no, not just for the sake of safety). We used facilities like the one spoken about in this thread to get used to dealing with fatal funnels, ambushes, rocks and molotov cocktails being hurled from random locations.. picking out dangerous individuals (carrying weapons, creating a direct threat of bodily harm or death).. things of that nature. There are other mitigating circumstances that will occur.. but they mostly revolve around protecting government buildings etc during a total break down of government.

As to the definition of the US Military being involved in Martial Law when involved in aid requests for disasters.. thats not my understanding of how it works. Our mission in those cases is to render aid and basically just be extra bodies on the ground to assist local emergency services with search and rescue, or sandbagging streets etc for floods, or assisting with evac situations but even then we are held responsible to the local governments and were only allowed to do so much. We render aid, we dont enforce laws. We will, however, respond with force when needed when it comes to military installations or CPs (Command Posts) being over run or attacked, but even then we trained to use less than lethal tools.. bean bag guns, CS paintballs etc... Lethal force is was pounded into us as an absolute and total last resort.. a lot has changed since the 60s.. both 18 and 19.
 
Gary Cook said:
Thanks. I know I just had a lapse of braining. =)
Click to expand...
I'm sure the National Guard trains for riot prevention and isolation tactics. I'm sure they train for viral outbreaks in conjunction with the CDC. I'm sure there are military exercises that prepare our troops to assist in national disasters like Katrina. Why wouldn't they, and shame on them if they aren't training for such scenarios. But I feel 100% certain that they don't have a training exercise titled "martial law practice";)
 
curtispenner said:
Ultimately my opinion that the best way to avoid imposition of martial law is to object to it and the notion of imposing it, which I am doing here.
Click to expand...
Why would you object to it totally? What happens if we have another major natural disaster and state/city government(s) aren't capable of handling the situation? What if we another LA riot on our hands and the police aren't capable of handling the situation? What would you rather do in those situations?
 
Svartbjørn said:
As a Marine (98-06), we trained for MOUT (Military Operations in Urban Terrain) which included Martial Law training as well. The rules for same were very well laid out. The ONLY time the military would be involved is if there is an absolute and total break down of government whereby people's lives are in danger. Period. The notion that its a facist or stalin-esque ideology as seen in V for Vendetta or 1984 is absurd. The US Military learned a very hard lesson during the Civil War, and its not something they want to get involved in again.. which is exactly what would happen if a national version of Martial Law were declared... or if there was a military-esque Coups overthrowing government.
Click to expand...
He makes a very good point, because once you go all the way with full out martial law across the nation as curtispenner is proposing, you can't come back from that. It would be devastating to our American Way of life. The economy would collapse, inflation would go through the roof, and people would stop going to work. It would be like an apacolypse. People shooting at neighbors, supermarkets with empty shelves, manufacturing and production would cease, government would shut down (city/state) federal would be limited. People that propose these ideas of Martial Law, never think it through, like what does the government have to gain from it. There is no sense in this fear mongering idealogy. Our government is quite contempt collecting taxes from working citizens.
 
How does the fact that forces are trained so they know what to do in a martial law situation, and may use this facility to do that, justify implying that they are planning to implement it imminently?
(amid immaterial impish impudence)
 
If a situation arose that martial law needs to be implemented, I'd be more scared of my fellow citizen than the troops. At least I know they aren't going to kill me for my can of beans.
 
Soulfly said:
If a situation arose that martial law needs to be implemented, I'd be more scared of my fellow citizen than the troops. At least I know they aren't going to kill me for my can of beans.
Click to expand...

I don't think any conspiracy theorist is proposing it needed to happened if it did. The whole point is that largely it would of been manufactured as an event.
 
How? Can you ensure no society-wide disaster is going to happen? You have the cure for the zombie apocalypse?
 
Pete Tar said:
How? Can you ensure no society-wide disaster is going to happen? You have the cure for the zombie apocalypse?
Click to expand...
I do so every day in my words and deeds. Of course I can not ensure a society wide disaster will never occur. But since such a scenario is not at all likely, I'd be much happier to see our troops training along side Fire and Rescue teams for the type of roles that Svartbjørn is talking about.

And this is the best remedy I've seen so far for the Zombie Apocalypse. Instructions: stack lots of them and hold on tight. :)

 
Last edited:
Gary Cook said:
Do you think there has been zero training in the USA for potential Marshall law?
Click to expand...
I think the USA do and should train for several different scenarios of urban violence, one of them is a mass USA citizens riot. As Mick pointed out, there are several interpretations for what a martial law is, so one of the trainings may have included one of the definitions as a possible scenario.

What is debunked is that this specific city was built for the army to train for an impending martial law, in any one of the definitions.
 
BPD said:
I think the USA do and should train for several different scenarios of urban violence, one of them is a mass USA citizens riot. As Mick pointed out, there are several interpretations for what a martial law is, so one of the trainings may have included one of the definitions as a possible scenario.

What is debunked is that this specific city was built for the army to train for an impending martial law, in any one of the definitions.
Click to expand...

I think that is the point and where I got it wrong myself. Stick to the specific claim as Mick would say. The claim being debunked is that Martial law is being planned in that alleged fake city. If anybody asked me I would say that martial law is almost certain at some stage.
 
Gary Cook said:
there may be no evidence of it recorded on the net but that doesnt mean it is not being planned. Just saying.
Click to expand...
It certainly could be planned by nefarious fools hoping to profit in any number of ways. If this happened I trust that we would hold these people accountable under Nuremberg type trials.

In terms of the claim that this fake city is not used for martial law type training, I find this a bit of a stretch given that it looks just like an American or Canadian city. Church and all! I find the church most disturbing.

Perhaps it is for a planned invasion of Canada! In this case I'm sure us Canadians would fare just as well as in 1812 :)
 
curtispenner said:
Yes...I find the notion of a war in any major city pretty much equally disturbing. Although I'd obviously be a bit more disturbed if it were mine. :p
Click to expand...

So you agree that Fort A.P Hill is not designed specifically for training soldiers to fight in North American cities and that it can be used to represent ANY urban environment?
 
Last edited:
Trigger Hippie said:
So you agree that Fort A.P Hill is not designed specifically for training soldiers to fight in North American cities and can be used to represent ANY urban environment?
Click to expand...
Well, if they wanted to train for an urban environment in another country they would want to replace the North American signage (i.e. "Railroad Crossing") with signage from that country instead of from America. I couldn't find an english to Uzbek translator to find what would go on here:


The US DOD has proven very well that budget is no issue...so I'm sure they could procure Uzbek Railroad Crossing and Handicapped parking signs instead of English if indeed Uzbekistan was their intended target.

I think it is for what they said it was for, which is whatever it is they think "comes next". Let's all hope that isn't a violation of the Constitution!
 
Gary Cook said:
there may be no evidence of it recorded on the net but that doesnt mean it is not being planned. Just saying.
Click to expand...

What good would it do the US to impose absolute and total martial law @Gary Cook? Itd be counter productive in just about every way.. again the whole point behind all of this is the fact that, in SOME way, the rich get richer and those in power get more powerful. Martial Law, in the terms being referred to here, really only benefits the Military. In all reality, the people more equipped to deal with Civil unrest (at least in the US) are the local Police Departments.
 
Svartbjørn said:
In all reality, the people more equipped to deal with Civil unrest (at least in the US) are the local Police Departments.
Click to expand...
That is part of what makes this facility so disturbing. It isn't a Police training facility. It's an army training facility. As we discussed before, martial law is like a sliding scale...or slippery slope...or whatever you'd like to describe it as. It isn't black and white. Some of us called what happened in Boston "martial law". Others of us called it "voluntary shelter in place". It was both or either, depending on perspective. For those looking down the barrel of a gun or being told to leave their homes with their arms above their heads so that they could be searched, I'm quite sure it didn't feel very voluntary. It's all in your perspective.
 
curtispenner said:
Well, if they wanted to train for an urban environment in another country they would want to replace the North American signage (i.e. "Railroad Crossing") with signage from that country instead of from America. I couldn't find an english to Uzbek translator to find what would go on here:


The US DOD has proven very well that budget is no issue...so I'm sure they could procure Uzbek Railroad Crossing and Handicapped parking signs instead of English if indeed Uzbekistan was their intended target.

I think it is for what they said it was for, which is whatever it is they think "comes next". Let's all hope that isn't a violation of the Constitution!
Click to expand...
Could you imagine the giant headache our government would have to deal with if they put signs up in their training city in a foreign language like arabic, syrian, or Uzbek. People would be crying war, and the media would be discussing how our government is preparing to go to war with what ever language of origin was on those signs. Its easier to train in our own language, plus signs are pretty universal in terms of shape and color..
 
curtispenner said:
That is part of what makes this facility so disturbing. It isn't a Police training facility. It's an army training facility. As we discussed before, martial law is a bit of a sliding scale...or slippery slope...or whatever you'd like to describe it as. It isn't black and white. Some of us thought what happened in Boston was martial law. Others of us called it "voluntary shelter in place". It was both or either, depending on perspective.
Click to expand...
How many people were denied habeas corpus during your supposed martial law of the Boston Bombing?
 
curtispenner said:
That is part of what makes this facility so disturbing. It isn't a Police training facility. It's an army training facility. As we discussed before, martial law is a bit of a sliding scale...or slippery slope...or whatever you'd like to describe it as. It isn't black and white. Some of us thought what happened in Boston was martial law. Others of us called it "voluntary shelter in place". It was both or either, depending on perspective.
Click to expand...
I do agree with that the Boston incident seemed a little out of control, and the military moved in rather quickly. But when terrorism strikes a city, one would hope the military does everything in their power to protect us. Sure it was just a bomb, but lets say it was worse, and more was on the horizon. Would you rather have the police protecting us from terrorist or our military which is the most funded in the world?
 
curtispenner said:
That is part of what makes this facility so disturbing. It isn't a Police training facility. It's an army training facility. As we discussed before, martial law is like a sliding scale...or slippery slope...or whatever you'd like to describe it as. It isn't black and white. Some of us called what happened in Boston "martial law". Others of us called it "voluntary shelter in place". It was both or either, depending on perspective. For those looking down the barrel of a gun or being told to leave their homes with their arms above their heads so that they could be searched, I'm quite sure it didn't feel very voluntary. It's all in your perspective.
Click to expand...
Boston sure didn't look anything like any established definition of "martial law" to me. Did you think it was "martial law"?
 
curtispenner said:
Well, if they wanted to train for an urban environment in another country they would want to replace the North American signage (i.e. "Railroad Crossing")
Click to expand...

They also have WMATA rail cars. Clearly the marines will be training to capture the DC subway system.:rolleyes:

It's just a general urban training area. Do you really expect them to make signage for every county? I don't get your logic here.
 
Last edited:
Soulfly said:
So the military took all the residents of that area into custody?
Click to expand...
They assisted in taking all of these residents into custody, yes. "House Arrest" is included in the definition of "Custody" in Habeus Corpus:

http://blogs.lawyers.com/2011/02/demystifying-the-law-habeas-corpus/

"In Custody" Defined
A petition for writ of habeas corpus can only be filed by a person or on behalf of a person who is in custody. But "custody" has many definitions. For purposes of habeas corpus, you’re in custody if you’re restrained in a way not shared by the general public, such as:

  • Some type of continuing government supervision
  • There’s a possibility you could be imprisoned without a trial, hearing or other court proceeding
The custody requirement includes restraint besides imprisonment, such as:
  • Release on one’s own recognizance or bail pending appeal
  • Release on probation or parole
  • Sentence to a halfway house or community service
  • Being the subject of an out-of-state detainer
  • House arrest or electronic monitoring
Content from External Source
 
curtispenner said:
They assisted in taking all of these residents into custody, yes. "House Arrest" is included in the definition of "Custody" in Habeus Corpus:

http://blogs.lawyers.com/2011/02/demystifying-the-law-habeas-corpus/

"In Custody" Defined
A petition for writ of habeas corpus can only be filed by a person or on behalf of a person who is in custody. But "custody" has many definitions. For purposes of habeas corpus, you’re in custody if you’re restrained in a way not shared by the general public, such as:

  • Some type of continuing government supervision
  • There’s a possibility you could be imprisoned without a trial, hearing or other court proceeding
The custody requirement includes restraint besides imprisonment, such as:
  • Release on one’s own recognizance or bail pending appeal
  • Release on probation or parole
  • Sentence to a halfway house or community service
  • Being the subject of an out-of-state detainer
  • House arrest or electronic monitoring
Content from External Source
Click to expand...
So then how many people were arrested for going outside of their homes?
 
curtispenner said:
That is part of what makes this facility so disturbing. It isn't a Police training facility. It's an army training facility. As we discussed before, martial law is like a sliding scale...or slippery slope...or whatever you'd like to describe it as. It isn't black and white. Some of us called what happened in Boston "martial law". Others of us called it "voluntary shelter in place". It was both or either, depending on perspective. For those looking down the barrel of a gun or being told to leave their homes with their arms above their heads so that they could be searched, I'm quite sure it didn't feel very voluntary. It's all in your perspective.
Click to expand...

I still dont see how its worry some Curtis... Every military on the planet conducts MOUT training because they realized that combat in the future is going to be Urban in nature... Fighting house to house, just like we saw in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Also keep in mind that JUST because there are american signs and words being used, that it DOESNT mean that its being set up for Martial Law. NBC (Nuclear, Biological and Chemical warfare) training on street level ALSO takes place, and considering the greatest threat of that WILL be on the average street, it makes a LOT more sense that the military is going to practice in those types of areas. They're not practicing for it to target their own populace, they're practicing for it incase it HAPPENS to their own populace.. as in dirty bombs set off in a city center or Anthrax, or pick a Biological or Chemical weapon that could be used against the American people by the enemies of the American people.

You're jumping to the single most outlandish and worst case scenario over mundane training that takes place across the world as a "just in case" scenario. No one WANTS it to happen but no one wants to get caught with their pants around their ankles either.

*EDIT: edited for clarity and to break up the single paragraph.
 
It sort of seems like jumping to the conclusion that because the fire department are practising fire drills, then they are planning to set a building on fire.
And if there is a fire then that becomes 'told you so'.
Any proof for a deliberate triggering of martial law can only be found in whatever the triggering event was, the fact they train for possible scenarios is not evidence of false flag martial law and is very poor reasoning.
But it sells.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Y
Pentagon ex-UFO chief says conspiracy theorists in government drive spending
Replies
12
Views
2K
Mendel
Mendel
NorCal Dave
Claim: A UFO crashed in 1933 Italy and the US Recovered it
Replies
8
Views
3K
NorCal Dave
NorCal Dave
NorCal Dave
Claim: CIA Spy Planes Account for Over 1/2 of all UFO Reports in the '50s and '60s in the US
Replies
12
Views
3K
AF_Brat72
AF_Brat72
Mick West
Peings and von Rennenkampff: Reconstruction of Potential Flight Paths for the January 2015 “Gimbal” UAP
2
Replies
48
Views
6K
Mendel
Mendel
John J.
Is "Improved Instrumental Techniques...", Nolan, Vallee, Jiang, Lemke 2022 a useful paper?
2
Replies
45
Views
5K
Z.W. Wolf
Z.W. Wolf

Latest posts

Back
Top