Assuming the United States were to declair Marital Law, what would be the ethics of resistance?

Question

Assuming the American Government were to declair martial law and eliminate all civil rights- such as, but not limited to habius corpus ("the body of evidence" as an example which has been law for 800 years) Where would the ethical line be crossed between obediance to the Government, and a Resistance Movement?

I was thinking its been almost 20 years now since a US Marine Captain asked his Marines if they would do house to house sezure of weapons if ordered- he was relieved of command. But looking at the rate the government is almost abusing its people where would you draw the line?

I think we're about where Nazi Germany was about 1934ish, but I'm not sure.

How about when they start forcing people to be "Chipped" with RFIDS?

Answer 1

I was thinking the same thing the other day. here's something I came across while surffing, what do you think about it
and this is before the latest constitutional infringement


HARLEY SORENSEN
Are Parallels To Nazi Germany Crazy?
VIEW FROM THE LEFT
Harley Sorensen, Special to SF Gate
Monday, January 26, 2004

•Printable Version
•Email This Article

Harley Sorensen
Archive



The customers always write. I get about 400 e-mails in response to my columns every week, which might explain why I didn't answer yours. Here, slightly edited, is one of the more interesting ones from last week. It's from Herr Moellers in Germany:
"Dear Mr. Sorensen,
"I have many American friends and used to go on business travel to the U.S. a lot (I stopped doing that after even our European governments have given in to Uncle Sam's appetite for information about individuals traveling to God's Own Country), and I am shocked by the deterioration of democracy in a country that I used to love. This administration is a shame and the destabilization they have brought to the world is scaring the s** out of me.
"My father was a Nazi soldier and he realized during the war what he and most of his generation was led into. I have learned from him that a nation can be guilty and that we must stop the arrogance of the powers at the very beginning. To me, America is becoming truly scary and the parallels to the development in Germany of the thirties (although the reason behind it are totally different) are sickening.
"Thank you for writing about this development. The world is waiting for signs of opposition in the Unilateral States of America!"
Herr Moellers' e-mail is typical of a half dozen or so I've received over the past year from people with intimate knowledge of Nazi Germany.
I respect experience, so I'm inclined to believe what these people are telling me. Perhaps their memories help explain the attitude of Germans toward the Bush administration these days.
They've been there, they've done that. They know what a corrupt government smells like.
But are they "over the top"? Are they overreacting to a normal swing of the pendulum in American politics?
To make a comparison between Germany in the 1930s and America now, I relied on a Web site called "A Teacher's Guide to the Holocaust." The passages in quotations below are taken from the site.
"With Adolf Hitler's ascendancy to the chancellorship, the Nazi Party quickly consolidated its power. Hitler managed to maintain a posture of legality throughout the Nazification process."
Whether by chance or design, George W. Bush is the most powerful American president in modern history. Not only does he have both houses of Congress beholden to him, but the majority of the Supreme Court is acting like a quintet of Bush lapdogs. And it all appears legal.
"Domestically, during the next six years, Hitler completely transformed Germany into a police state."
Civil libertarians insist that this is happening here now, with the USA Patriot Act in force and Patriot II on the table.
"Hitler engaged in a 'diplomatic revolution' by negotiating with other European countries and publicly expressing his strong desire for peace."
Nobody can accuse Bush of being overly diplomatic, but, like all political leaders, he is an apostle for peace, even while starting two wars during his brief tenure.
In 1933, the Reichstag, Germany's parliament building, was burned to the ground. Nobody knows for sure who set the fire. The Nazis blamed communists. "This incident prompted Hitler[,then Germany's chancellor,] to convince [German President Paul von] Hindenburg to issue a Decree for the Protection of People and State that granted Nazis sweeping power to deal with the so-called emergency."
The Reichstag fire parallels the Sept. 11 attacks here, and Hindenburg's decree parallels our USA Patriot Act.
Soon after Hitler took power, the concentration camp at Dachau was created and "the Nazis began arresting Communists, Socialists and labor leaders ... . Parliamentary democracy ended with the Reichstag passage of the Enabling Act, which allowed the government to issue laws without the Reichstag."
With Bush leading all branches of government around by the nose, there's a question whether parliamentary democracy still exists here. Certainly, concentration camps exist, if we're willing to call the lockup at Guanténamo Bay what it really is. And the USA Patriot Act allows the president to effectively take citizenship rights from any American-born criminal suspect.
"Nazi anti-Semitic legislation and propaganda against 'Non-Aryans' was a thinly disguised attack against anyone who had Jewish parents or grandparents. Jews felt increasingly isolated from the rest of German society."
How comfortable do American-born Arabs feel in the United States today?
While the German concentration camps were being built and Jews were being persecuted, in 1936 Nazi Germany hosted the Olympic Games and put its best face forward to the world. We have the Super Bowl.
In the mid- to late 1930s, Germany was able to annex nearby territories without firing a shot. That was because of the threat of the German military, the strongest in the world at the time. That might be compared with the sudden flexibility of Iran, Pakistan, Syria and Libya, all of whom are aware that Bush will do more than just threaten; he'll do it.
When one is comparing then and now, I think the most interesting factor is that most German Jews remained in Germany until it was too late. They just couldn't believe Hitler was as dangerous as some people said he was. The more prescient Jews (most often those who could afford to do so) got out, however.
Hitler came to power in 1933, but the killing of Jews (and others) didn't begin until five years later, in 1938, with the historic Kristallnacht ("Night of Broken Glass") on Nov. 9. On that day, "nearly 1,000 synagogues were set on fire and 76 were destroyed. More than 7,000 Jewish businesses and homes were looted, about 100 Jews were killed, and as many as 30,000 Jews were arrested and sent to concentration camps to be tormented ... ."
We haven't seen anything like that here, nor does it appear to be one the horizon, yet one must wonder about the hundreds shut away in Guanténamo Bay and in other lockups in the United States and throughout the world.
I haven't space here to list all of the apparent comparisons between then and now, but you can see them for yourself by reading the teacher's guide mentioned earlier.
My conclusion is that some comparisons between modern times and Nazi Germany are valid, and some are not. Enough are valid, in my opinion, however, for us to be wary, and as vigilant as humanly possible.
Whatever happens in this year's election, I would hope that Congress, the Supreme Court and the president himself start reeling in the power of the presidency. It has been expanding ever since Franklin D. Roosevelt, if not before, and now it is way out of proportion to what the Founding Fathers had in mind for our system of checks and balances.
Our current president has the power to turn the world into turmoil with a mere stroke of the pen. No man should have that much power, no matter who he is.
Harley Sorensen is a longtime journalist. His column appears Mondays. E-mail him at [e-mail].

Answer 2

Maybe I see things entirely too black and white, but ethically speaking, it's wrong to break the law, so the ethical line to be crossed is when you break the letter and usually the spirit of the law.

Perhaps a better question would be "when does it become ethical to Resist a government rather than to follow it".

In the case of the American government, it would be more ethical to Resist--break the law--when the American government no longer follows the law and legislated means of resistance are no longer available. For example, the government declares Martial Law and eliminates all civil rights. In such a case, the only ethical thing to do is resist and, if necessary, insurrection because the legitimacy of the American government rests with the agreement of those governed and those governed see the Constitution as the government and everyone else is "in the government" or "part of the government". The Presidency isn't a person, it's a position, and we all know it. Because that's the paradigm, getting rid of a tyrant is mandated in the Constitution itself and precedented by colonial behavior not 250 years ago. Ethically? It's our history and our responsibility.

Answer 3

If such were to happen here, resistance is the most all-American thing citizens could do. We have never been the sort of people to sit quietly under a dictatorship, and once we realized that's what we had, we'd rise up and retake our country. If it took the arrest and imprisonment of thousands of bureaucrats from George Bush on down, that's what we'd do. We'd build a twenty-lane highway to freedom, with George swinging a hammer busting the rocks along with his neo-fascist cronies to make it happen!!!!!

Answer 4

First of all if martial law was declared who cares about what ethics are involved if people want to resist they will. No one cares about semantics. That is what is great about us we think for ourselves and act. Lets just hope the liberal left does not keep trying to take guns from citizens with the right to carry them or their will be a lot of trouble in this country.

Answer 5

The 2nd Amendment preserves our right to bear arms against the government if it becomes tyrannical. According to philosopher John Locke, when government breaks the social contract with the people, the people have the right to overthrow that government.

Answer 6

I would hope top military officials would declare such an order unlawful and take over the government until legitimate and true representatives of the people could be elected .

Answer 7

We are nowhere near a Nazi style government. I don't see any goosestepping soldiers, death camps, Nazi rallies, etc.

Answer 8

You assume to much.

Answer 9

I believe you are a paranoid conspiracy theorist...
Utter nonsense....

Answer 10

YES.........