Talk:Martial law

message: The United States section reads:  "The Military Commissions Act of 2006 possibly rescinds these limits by suspending habeas corpus, but the law is not clear on whether it applies to U.S. Citizens."  I believe the provisions of the MCA suspending habeas corpus were declared unconstitutional in Boumediene v. Bush.  Should this be noted after the quoted sentence, or should the sentence be deleted?  Tayl1257 (talk) 17:34, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Military Commissions Act of 2006 and ''Boumediene v. Bush''

message: "This happend in Tian Am Men Square."
Quote needs cleaning up. pelling, and surely specific examples come later? 86.138.50.227 13:11, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Save for several amendments that say such silly things about the rights of one not being permitted to disparage the rights of another and all. Get into the 21st century, rather than the 19th!Wzrd1 (talk) 06:26, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Strange opening

message: It is not evident in the article, but it should be noted that martial law is usually simply martial rule. As pointed out in Ex parte Milligan, there is not a set of laws that come into play and the other laws are set aside (the article begins by stating martial law to be "the system of rules that takes effect when the military takes control of the normal administration of justice.'"
There is usually no set of rules which come into play - some countries may have such a set of "martial laws", but the U.S. doesn't, nor do many other countries - law is simply suspended. Martial law is usually the setting aside of the law in the place of military rule, but the article makes it seem otherwise - like we can look up somewhere the martial laws in some law book. - Matthew238 02:44, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, you are ABSOLUTELY RIGHT! Katrina proved it. ALL of the disaster zone had rights, nobody helping them out of poopzone was accepting of their rights.
As a correction of the previous mistake, we should correct by damming the Mississippi river totally, above the area.
If nobody instantly suggests a "valid" defense, they die. Along with the REST of the "unfortunate, as they have zero means to support themselves in our survey.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wzrd1 (talk • contribs) 06:30, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Martial rule

message: From the article:
:Studies have been recently produced for an Internet martial law, in order to prevent or prosecute eventual dangerous crimes that could be committed on or through the Internet for war, guerrilla or terrorism purposes. 
Removed until someone can provide a cite supporting this.
--
Dec, bhuston: From the article:
: Martial law is the system of laws and rules that take effect (usually after a formal declaration) instead of ordinary laws when a particular situation requires that a military authority takes control of the normal administration of justice (and usually of the whole state).
This says "Martial law takes effect when required". This has been removed for NPOV reasons. How can it be said that every declaration of ML was necessary?
*another, probably more important, thing to say is that Martial Law is generally not a "system of laws and rules that take effect (usually after a formal declaration) instead of ordinary laws", but a complete absence of law. It is better described as "military rule" - see U.S. Supreme Court cases regarding "Martial Law" in the U.S. - Matthew238 07:50, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Miscellaneous

message: "The United States has been in a declared state of national emergency since March 9, 1933 (see Senate Report 93-549"
My browser crashes when I try and search the contents of the .pdf that is linked to, so I'm having trouble checking it.
Is this right?  The sentence makes it sound like the U.S. has been in a continuous declared state of emergency since 1933.  Sdr 19:51, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this right? 

message: Has martial law ever been invoked in the US before the New Orleans incident? 198.45.23.220 19:56, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Martial law was not declared.  A state of emergency was declared. This is very different. The military assisted the civil authorities, which they can do with or without declarations of states of emergency.  Why is there any confusion here?203.184.41.226 (talk) 03:58, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Orleans 

message: Right now the article starts by reading "Martial law is COOL". But when you try to edit/clean it, the "cool" sentence does not show up at all. Is that a hacker trick?195.70.48.242 11:45, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism? 

message: Who can declare Martial Law ? The president can as Commander in Chief of the US military.
On the state level, the Governor can call out all National Guard units in his/her state
On the local level, the County Sheriff's Office can only call out the one unit that is in the local National Guard Armory for aid.
Next time you see on the news about some disaster hitting some state, you will see National Guard soldiers on patrol, and/or aiding people, and/or forcibly restoring law and order. Usually, troops who are enforcing protocol regarding Martial Law, have shoot to kill orders to quell criminal actvities, civil disturbances. See General Funston, who, with the mayor of 1906 San Francisco, initiated Martial Law to forcibly quell the disorder that resulted from a earthquake that hit the city. These troops had shoot to kill orders to put a stop to the chaos. Martial Law 01:01, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Who...

message: One user asked about Martial Law being declared in the US before what happened in New Orleans. The answer is YES. Civil War,yes, the 1906
earthquake in San Francisco, yes, to forcibly restore law and order, to stop rampant crime and looters,
Hawaii, yes, until 1944, after Pearl Harbor was attacked in 1941. Please see the article. Martial Law 03:05, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Answer

message: Martial law essentially means the exercise of legislative or judicial powers by a military force.  It is an opposite of civil law.  Much of what the article talks about fails to maintain the proper distinction.
In the U.S., implementation of martial law would require the suspension or violation of multiple provisions of the constitution, which is by definition unconstitutional.  Neither the president nor congress nor any of the States has the authority to declare actual martial law under any circumstances.
Ex parte Milligan had nothing to do with martial law, it merely dealt with the suspension of habeas corpus. Suspension of habeas corpus does not imply martial law.  Suspension of habeas corpus is rather a constitutional provision consistent with civil law. Nothing in President Lincoln's 1863 proclamation involved any assignment of legislative or judicial powers, over civil matters, to the military.
When, in accordance with the constitutional provision, habeas corpus is suspended during certain emergencies, that only gives law enforcement (whether civilian police, military forces, or other) the power to hold people without trial until the civilian courts are functional and constitutionally legitimate civil trials can resume. It should be noted that suspension of habeas corpus does not give law enforcement itself the power to try or to sentence civilians. Those are judicial powers that the constitution forbids the executive branch (which the military is part of) from ever usurping.
Nor was The Posse Comitatus Act about martial law. It was a prohibition on the use of the federal military to perform law enforcement tasks within the states. This, doesn't directly deal with martial law either; although it does make it a bit more difficult for martial law to become established.
Using the military for civilian law enforcement is quite arguably constitutional; the military is a part of the executive branch of government, and one legitimate power of the executive branch is to oversee the enforcement of the nation's laws. The deeper issue motivating the passage of The Posse Comitatus Act was that the U.S. has a federal system, with powers divided between the national government and the States. Using national military forces for local law enforcement was considered by a great many people to infringe upon the power of each State to oversee the enforcement of laws within its own borders. Later acts placed limitations on the powers of the F.B.I. and other federal police for the same reason of protecting State's rights.
Anyway, the fact remains that neither the President nor Congress nor any State has any power to declare martial law. An actual declaration of martial law is illegal in the US as it categorically violates the supreme law of the land.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.81.31 (talk) 03:18, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: The Wikipedia article is a mess of misinformation

message: IF the US were to be attacked again, it is a good bet that Martial Law will be declared, mainly to forcibly preserve law and order, and to keep innocent foreign nationals from being attacked in retaliation for the attack. The Patriot Acts are as CLOSE to declaring Martial Law with out actually declaring Martial Law. Martial Law 23:35, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Another 9-11 attack..

message: Many of the related links seem very biased; a majority seem to be (outrageous?) conspiracy theories regarding 9/11, others are (propaganda?) about "concentration camps" in the United States (at the very least, this terminology is absurd, never mind if the "martial law" article is the best place for this type of link). A couple link to simple Google searches - I don't think a Google search qualifies as a good Related Link, as anyone is clearly capable of a Google keyword search. Sites tend to be vaguely related to martial law at best, totally irrelevant and distracting at worst. I can see one or two links for the sake of being well-rounded, but there really is a flood of these very partisan and often unprofessional sites. I'm fairly new to the Wikipedia community - are there any general guidelines for the links section? Would trimming some of those excessive links be justified? Maybe a See Also... section linking to other Wikipedia articles is a better approach? See the "Concentration Camp" Wikipedia article - no questionable links - and that is the section many of these would be better suited for.
User:Android79 may have some recomendations. Please sign your statements w/ 3 ~ or 4 ~s. Martial Law 05:08, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Issues with Related Links 

message: I've removed the section on Northern Ireland.  Martial Law has never been declared in Northern Ireland in modern times.
Can we have some citations to prove that martial law was ever declared in Troubles period, c.1968-1995? My recollection is that the troops were basically enforcing normally-passed laws (although some, like Internment, were more severe than laws usually found in peaceful places). People detained (other than internees) were also brought in front of civilian courts, not military ones, even though the Diplock courts were structured differently from ordinary courts in the rest of the UK (no juries). -- Arwel (talk) 20:49, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Northern Ireland 

message: Er, do we really want Movie examples right at the start of the article, talk about "clutching at straws". Shouldn't that sort of information be at the end of an article, In fact it doesn't even sound wiki-like, I don't know much about editing wikipedia, but that does look wrong. anyone? Ryan4314 05:27, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That section by all means needs to be moved to the end of the article and heavily revised--Tabun1015 14:19, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Examples in Movies beginning 

message: In the US and some other nations, when Martial Law is declared, the military and police forces do indeed have orders to kill anyone committing any crimes. In 1906, a General Funston exercised this order after San Francisco was destroyed in a major earthquake. For example, if people are seen looting a store, house, they are shot and killed on site by any police and/or military patrols in the area. Can this be placed ? Martial Law 20:30, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I remember watching a show about the San Francisco Earthquake, and I recall them stating that General Funston acted without orders, and that the shooting of looters (or bystanders who were in the way), was little more than a bunch of disorganized soldiers shooting at whatever moved.  There was no declaration of martial law, although many people assumed that it had been declared, which is probably what you are thinking of.--Tabun1015 02:56, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Shoot To Kill Orders

message: Should pakistan be added to the list?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.21.211.86 (talk) 19:13, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pakistan??? 11/03/2007 

message: The current content of the section on India is ridiculous and the same has no connection with the concept of Martial law. Such contents reflect poorly on the credibility of wikipedia. Sometimes such contents continue to remain on the Free Encyclopedia as other editors don't want to tread in the mess. --Bhadani (talk) 14:50, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have surrendered, and have stopped effective editing of wikipedia! Kindly try to contact other editors who may be interested to show better spirit and courage, as I do not want to make myself indecent in the company of vested wikipedians. --Bhadani (talk) 17:15, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Section on India

message: Article reassessed and graded as start class. --dashiellx (talk) 11:29, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008 

message: Other than what?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.126.248.156 (talk) 20:31, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "other countries"? 

message: Read http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2008/06/20080626-4.html that.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.92.216.106 (talk) 09:27, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  United states in martial law right now. 

message: Where is the definition of martial law in the article?... WinterSpw (talk) 07:00, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition? 

message: True martial law is not something that the mayor of Schenectady, NY has the power to impose or invoke.  The only one who might be able to do so would be the governor of the state, and even that is questionable.  I think this is just political hype and I vote for it to be removed from this page unless anything more substantial or factual can be added.  Mullaneywt (talk) 20:03, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought the same thing when I read it. I'm removing it. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 18:15, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Schenectady, NY 

message: And why is he being quoted in this article? All that is stated in this article tells me that he is one individual who made a statement to Congress -- possibly a fringe opinion which lacks any context or justification for being notable. Not even in American right-wing circles. This quotation even  lacks a source -- which means it can be deleted simply for being an unattributed statement. -- llywrch (talk) 03:44, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who is Norman Olsen? 

message: Need citation for this.  Can't find any references to it on google.
==== Oxford, Mississippi during Civil Rights Era ====
During the US Civil Rights Era, after an African American was admitted to the University of Mississippi, a major riot broke out involving residents and students against the US Marshals who were protecting James Meredith. Residents knew the Army had been dispatched to assist, so they took down street signs to hinder the Army's progress. Once daylight came, the Army was able to navigate their way to the University and dispel the remaining rioters. As a result, Oxford was placed, by order of Congress and President John F. Kennedy under Martial Law for 1 year as a punishment and to allow the Army to enforce James' enrollment at the University. It was the only US city in the 20th Century to be placed under full Martial Law.
Roadrunner (talk) 23:42, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oxford, Mississippi 

message: During the US Civil Rights Era, after an African American was admitted to the University of Mississippi, a major riot broke out involving residents and students against the US Marshals who were protecting James Meredith. Residents knew the Army had been dispatched to assist, so they took down street signs to hinder the Army's progress. Once daylight came, the Army was able to navigate their way to the University and dispel the remaining rioters. As a result, Oxford was placed, by order of Congress and President John F. Kennedy under Martial Law for 1 year as a punishment and to allow the Army to enforce James' enrollment at the University. It was the only US city in the 20th Century to be placed under full Martial Law.
Roadrunner (talk) 23:42, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oxford, Mississippi during Civil Rights Era 

message: This article has been reverted by a bot to  as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) This has been done to remove User:Accotink2's contributions as they have a history of extensive copyright violation and so it is assumed that all of their major contributions are copyright violations. Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. VWBot (talk) 13:59, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright problem 

message: There is arguably a distinction between a civilian "state of emergency" which was put in place by the (formally) civilian Egyptian government in 1981 and in place for thirty years, versus the military state of "martial law" which was de facto declared by vice president Omar Suleiman, on behalf of the president, as the presidential powers were transferred from the former president Hosni Mubarak to the supreme military council of Egypt and thus concluded the 2011 Egyptian Revolution. The supreme council then dissolved the parliament and suspended the constitution for at least six months or until general elections could be held.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.176.226.32 (talk) 19:43, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  2011 Egyptian Revolution 

message: I agree with those saying that this article needs to be completely rewritten as it messes up the civillian notion of a "state of emergency" with the military notion of "martial law". Those two circumstances needs their own two different articles on wikipedia. As people have pointed out it is not even legal under the constitution of most countries to declare martial law. Rather, martial law is only used in the utmost extreme circumstances such as a Coup de Etat, within a Revolution or after a territorial takeover in a war. It basically means the complete cancellation of the entire civil governmental structure, including the civillian police forces, the courts, the parliamentary system with any written or custom laws including the constitution. This is extremely serious circumstances when the military framework expands to comprise the entire territory. In other words, this is when the Generals rule the land as they whish and delegate powers back and forth to former civilian institutions as they whish and making the rules as they go through military communiques.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.176.226.32 (talk) 20:29, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewrite Article: Distinguish Martial Law from State of Emergency. 

message: "The War Measures Act was a Canadian statute that allowed the donkeys in the government"
That can't be right can it? Donkeys?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.163.250.68 (talk) 06:00, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  "The War Measures Act was a Canadian statute that allowed the donkeys in the government" 

message: This: At least two American lawmakers have stated on the record that, in their opinion, Section 1031 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 legalizes or authorizes martial law in the United States. Senator Mark Udall stated "These provisions raise serious questions as to who we are as a society and what our Constitution seeks to protect...Section 1031 essentially repeals the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 by authorizing the U.S. military to perform law enforcement functions on American soil."[14]
Is clearly outdated and / or incorrect. If you read the text of the bill that was signed into law you find that section 1031 concerns itself with requirements on SecDef for quarterly briefings to congress. As it stands, this paragraph pushes a fringe theory or just inaccuracies. I propose deleting it completely. Any objections?
SherwoodAndersson (talk) 16:52, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Two and a half years have passed since the proposal above. I see that no objections were expressed. I also see that the content at issue is still present in the article. Was present, I should say; I have justt WP:BOLDly removed it. I'm no expert, but it does seem incorrect and/or outdated. I've also read some in NDAA 2013#Feinstein-Lee Amendment which appears to impact this. Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 04:22, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  United State, section about NDAA 2012 is incorrect 

message: Should the recent implementation of martial law in Boston be included in here? I'm having trouble finding sources that aren't spun in an asinine Infowars-style way, but a transcript of the 2013-04-17 Deval Patrick briefing from a reliable source would work fine. ExtremeSquared (talk) 17:14, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I was just looking here to see if there were any sources other than Infowars/Natural News/crazy websites that were calling it "martial law."  I could find NONE with a Google search, probably because it wasn't martial law the way *I* have always understood martial law to be (IANAL).  I found no legal discussion on the internet of "martial law" in Boston, and you can bet if there were real martial law implemented, there'd be tons of lawyers arguing over it. But I'm going to keep looking, because I'm tired of crazies on the internet. (Futile pursuit, I know.)  98.230.21.139 (talk) 00:30, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

text: Well, somebody put the Boston statement back in, without any support whatsoever. At what point does dumping unsupported stuff into this article become vandalism? Poihths (talk) 02:54, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

text: The Gov Patrick briefing would probably be a valid source. In the briefing, measures are outlined which fall in line with the definition of martial law in the header of this article. The fact that de facto martial law was declared, rather than explicit martial law puts the Boston section in a grey area. It's going to be a touchy section to write encyclopaedically. ExtremeSquared (talk) 20:15, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Boston 2013

message: I am disappointed that there is no description of the etymology, or history, of the Martial Law. When was the term first used?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.160.216.254 (talk) 02:02, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  History of the term 

message: The Governor of Iowa declared martial law in Newton, Iowa in 1938 to allow reopening of the Maytag plant there. This was a historic labor dispute that was ultimately settled as a result of martial law. For background information see Franklin Bechly who was Iowa State Judge for this case. Eyeze (talk) 12:40, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  The 1938 Maytag Strike 

message: It seems to me that the definition is imprecise; perhaps not up to the standards of precision some might wish for on Wikipedia.  The definition assumes that the country where Martial Law is being implemented *has* executive, legislative or judicial branches in the first place.  Clearly, Martial Law can be implemented in any country - not just in, for example, America.
68.197.52.34 (talk) 14:04, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Precision of the Definition 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Martial law. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100620033603/http://cup.columbia.edu/media/5004/robinson-tragedy.pdf to http://cup.columbia.edu/media/5004/robinson-tragedy.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:41, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Martial law is sometimes confused with the state of emergency. There are conflicting information of Wikipedia for the status and history of these e.g. for Syria: Martial_law#.C2.A0Syria vs State_of_emergency#Syria. It should be revised. —Mykhal (talk) 19:07, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Syria: martial law vs exceptional state 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Martial law. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060824203620/http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/egypt/?id=16072 to http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/egypt/?id=16072
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090518164448/http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=42617 to http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=42617
*Added  tag to http://fr.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1150886008109&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091207090214/http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/breakingnews/nation/view/20091205-240233/Martial-law-declared-in-Maguindanao to http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/breakingnews/nation/view/20091205-240233/Martial-law-declared-in-Maguindanao
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.thailawforum.com/laws/Martial%20Law.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:25, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Martial law. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added  tag to http://cgi2.cvm.qc.ca/glaporte/1837.pl?out=article&pno=analyse56
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090707174631/http://www.filipiniana.net/ArtifactView.do?artifactID=E00000000001 to http://www.filipiniana.net/ArtifactView.do?artifactID=E00000000001
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:52, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Martial law. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140512215528/http://www.defimedia.info/news-sunday/nos-parliament/item/6065-raouf-gulbul--%E2%80%98arrest-first-and-enquire-afterwards-is-not-consonant-with-the-principles-of-human-rights-and-justice%E2%80%99.html to http://www.defimedia.info/news-sunday/nos-parliament/item/6065-raouf-gulbul--%E2%80%98arrest-first-and-enquire-afterwards-is-not-consonant-with-the-principles-of-human-rights-and-justice%E2%80%99.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140512215528/http://www.defimedia.info/news-sunday/nos-parliament/item/6065-raouf-gulbul--%E2%80%98arrest-first-and-enquire-afterwards-is-not-consonant-with-the-principles-of-human-rights-and-justice%E2%80%99.html to http://www.defimedia.info/news-sunday/nos-parliament/item/6065-raouf-gulbul--%E2%80%98arrest-first-and-enquire-afterwards-is-not-consonant-with-the-principles-of-human-rights-and-justice%E2%80%99.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:29, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: Aren't certain provinces of Italy currently under martial law due to the Coronavirus? Alyssapa7 (talk) 13:47, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Martial law 

message: The take over of political control by armed forces is known as  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 105.112.182.79 (talk) 13:00, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Government  

message: Nothing on martial law in Russia?
*  "Vladimir Putin may declare martial law in Russia. Here's what it would mean for Russians", USA Today
* But  "No plans to introduce martial law in Russia — Putin", March 5th, tass.com.
There are a number of recent   examples of martial law in Ukraine, but aren't there similar recent examples in Russia? --Azurfrog (talk) 20:55, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  What about Russia? 

message: Note: Since this is a request for removal of unsourced (and weaseled) POV, I believe it should be uncontroversial - especially given the absence of analogous 'current public-opinion povs' in other sections on this page. 86.132.54.27 (talk) 15:51, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done for now: While I agree with the intentions, I'm not sure how I should change it. This can fall under Unclear: X-Y. If you're also unsure you could start a consensus discussion. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:58, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poland - unsourced POV 

message: While its a fact that PR of Poland was an authoritarian regime, Solidarity movement was not the only democratic opposition. Alliance of Democrats (Poland) which was one of the only legal non-communist parties in an eastern bloc country had a relative mobility until martial law within the single-coalition regime. Comrade-yutyo (talk) 10:47, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  PR of Poland opposition 

message: — Assignment last updated by Simmsmls (talk) 18:08, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Advanced Legal Research

message: Please add the Canadian liberal governments 2022 invocation of the emergencies act (formally war measures act) data to the Canadian history section of the page. Sources are current and plentyful as such I have no included specifics for wording or reference. That is for an editor to decide. 2605:8D80:420:7A41:CC6A:243:C11F:3F63 (talk) 07:48, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Actualcpscm (talk) 16:41, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 21 June 2023 

message: The article states: While many countries, the United States for example, do not have the explicit constitutional right to declare martial law, scholars often interpret the law of the United States to allow for the implementation of martial law in times of necessity.
The problem with this statement is that under US constitutional legal philosophy the Federal government has no rights, it only has powers. I see that the sentence begins with 'many countries' but it is mainly about the US. I propose that 'right' be changed to 'power'. Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 02:10, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cconstitutional right v. power