will the usa enact martial law if there is another terror attack?

Answer 1

There already is a type of martial law in act.
Cynthia McKinney's Full Remarks on Bush Impeachment Bill

Mr. Speaker:

I come before this body today as a proud American and as a servant of the American people, sworn to uphold the Constitution of the United States.

Throughout my tenure, I've always tried to speak the truth. It's that commitment that brings me here today.

We have a President who has misgoverned and a Congress that has refused to hold him accountable. It is a grave situation and I believe the stakes for our country are high.

No American is above the law, and if we allow a President to violate, at the most basic and fundamental level, the trust of the people and then continue to govern, without a process for holding him accountable, what does that say about our commitment to the truth? To the Constitution? To our democracy?

The trust of the American people has been broken. And a process must be undertaken to repair this trust. This process must begin with honesty and accountability.

Leading up to our invasion of Iraq, the American people supported this Administration's actions because they believed in our President. They believed he was acting in good faith. They believed that American laws and American values would be respected. That in the weightiness of everything being considered, two values were rock solid: trust and truth.

From mushroom clouds to African yellow cake to aluminum tubes, the American people and this Congress were not presented the facts, but rather were presented a string of untruths, to justify the invasion of Iraq.


President Bush, along with Vice President Cheney and then-National Security Advisor Rice, portrayed to the Congress and to the American people that Iraq represented an imminent threat, culminating with President Bush's claim that Iraq was six months away from developing a nuclear weapon. Having used false fear to buy consent, the President then took our country to war.

This has grave consequences for the health of our democracy, for our standing with our allies, and most of all, for the lives of our men and women in the military and their families--who have been asked to make sacrifices--including the ultimate sacrifice--to keep us safe.

Just as we expect our leaders to be truthful, we expect them to abide by the law and respect our courts and judges. Here again, the President failed the American people.

When President Bush signed an executive order authorizing unlawful spying on American citizens, he circumvented the courts, the law, and he violated the separation of powers provided by the Constitution. Once the program was revealed, he then tried to hide the scope of his offense from the American people by making contradictory, untrue statements.

President George W. Bush has failed to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States; he has failed to ensure that senior members of his administration do the same; and he has betrayed the trust of the American people.

With a heavy heart and in the deepest spirit of patriotism, I exercise my duty and responsibility to speak truthfully about what is before us. To shy away from this responsibility would be easier. But I have not been one to travel the easy road. I believe in this country, and in the power of our democracy. I feel the steely conviction of one who will not let the country I love descend into shame; for the fabric of our democracy is at stake.

Some will call this a partisan vendetta, others will say this is an unimportant distraction to the plans of the incoming Congress. But this is not about political gamesmanship.

I am not willing to put any political party before my principles.

This, instead, is about beginning the long road back to regaining the high standards of truth and democracy upon which our great country was founded.

Mr. Speaker:

Under the standards set by the United States Constitution, President Bush, along with Vice President Cheney, and Secretary of State Rice, should be subject to the process of impeachment, and I have filed H. Res.1106 in the House of Representatives.

To my fellow Americans, as I leave this Congress, it is in your hands to hold your representatives accountable, and to show those with the courage to stand for what is right, that they do not stand alone.

Thank you.

(Reprinted courtesy, Atlanta Progressive News)

Answer 2

It would depend on the severity of the attack and the amount of disarray caused. While it is within the power of the president to enact martial law, use of such requires extraordinary circumstances in order to be justified.

tham153: Just an FYI. If you do not believe a President can declare martial law, you need to review the War Powers Act. Further, the Military Commissions Act does not apply to American Citizens even if they are termed as Enemy Combatants. The rights of citizens are preserved including Habeas Corpus.

Answer 3

Prolly not but it's a possibility.

to address some of the more moronic comments already made.

"Really, do you think a band of religious nuts are more of a threat than the Japanese Empire was?" Yes - Islamic is at war all over the world. 95% of all the lives lost are due to militant Muslims. Islam has bloody borders. The only difference is that they don't play nice and announce that they are at war. They just say it: "Convert to Islam or die!"

Congress woman CMK is a socialist nut. No American cares what the Socialists want. And she's off the board nutty.

Please people get a grip. There is a big bad world out there any your BDS is preventing you from seeing it.

Answer 4

So you are saying that a mass attack against civilians in this country was less devestating than a military attack against military targets in Pearl Harbour?

This logic is extremely flawed. What happened at Pearl Harbour was in a time of war, and like it or not we were involved way before Pearl Harbour. However in contrast you have 9-11 that was a personal attack on the US gov, freedom, and the American people.

Nothing is going to stop terrorists from planning attacks against this country until we take them on and realize that we are in grave danger if we fail. Iraq was the first step in finally trying to bring an organized civil government to a region that is plagued with dictatorship and Islamic terrorists. How long can the world survive when we have children being taught from birth to hate everyone that does not embrace Islamic culture?

Answer 5

I seriously doubt martial law would have any kind of public support, and consequently would have little-to-no support in Congress.

If the government did enact martial law, then the terrorists really would have won.

Answer 6

the united states is in a state of siege. not by any foreign power, not by international terrorists, rather we are under siege by a group of business, political and military leaders.

the patriot act is tantamount to martial law. constitutionally guaranteed freedoms have been suspended. traditional values have been superceded.

i refer you to a time tested scientific principle: if it looks like a duck and it quacks like a duck, most likely, you got yourself a duck.

Answer 7

Only if the terrorists are running around similar to the movie "Red Dawn." Then we have no choice because people like me will be running around hunting terrorists.

Answer 8

you would be suprised to know that they are doing it now, but its so incognito that not even most of congress know's about this. what i could say is that when bush resigns we are all in trouble.

Answer 9

The country is too big and there are not enough police to enforce it.