Oi, it's really not a big deal. they only use that on people who are a danger to society. Our government isn't going to start pulling masses off the street and lock them up.
Government is given power by the people to govern the people; the second the people decide not to consent to a government, that government no longer has power.
If our government started pulling people off the street our country would riot. There'd be a revolution. This isn't worth worrying about.
Lincoln put the state of Maryland under Martial Law during the civil war. Maryland was on the southern boarder with the Confederation so Lincoln declared martial law in the state to snuff out any uprisings and make sure Washington D.C. wouldn't be taken.
Very well said....^^^^^
well, no one will ever be truly "free" in america or anywhere else..
Nothing is free in this world.....that includes freedom....don't believe me, ask any soldier who's crossed that pond and has actually engaged combat...
Your only save if your White, other wise ur a prime target of this law esp if your Muslim.
You obviously have a very shallow view of the bigger picture....I'm black, does that make me a prime target/suspect....no it just puts me in with the majority of those who are affected....
Lincoln, I would argue, was definitely more of a dictator than a sovereign leader. He stopped US mail, suspended habeas corpus, and closed ports without the permission of Congress. He did what he "wanted" to secure the position of the Union through brute strength of the army. He stationed battleships outside Southern ports to pretty much starve the Confederacy.
Don't freak out guys. As long as a conservative Republican doesn't become president, all people will be safe (Romney, Santorum, even Gingrich). Watch C-Span and you'll see how awful Republicans talk about other races.
Lincoln wasn't a dictator....you guys speak of nothing you know anything about....Lincolm was doing what he
HAD to do. There is a difference between doing what's needed and doing what's has to be done. People in some leadership roles don't wanna do what has to be done because they've already waived that it'll probably affect them too...more harm than help. But if it's to get the job done so you can benefit from it later....then by all means do it....it's what we call on the battlefield "Steeling ourselves for the things to come".
AS far as I know, he attacked southern ports to stop southern troops from getting supplies they need to sustain themselves in the field, a pretty basic tactic if you're at war to win...hell I'd do it....cut off the enemy supply line, how could they fight without ammo or food to keep going. In my eyes you're only going to keep going and die, or realize that you're done, surrender or yield.....that's just the way war works......just sayin....