I’m violating my own rules here, but the media are not keeping up with developments, so I’m having to wing it.

Helicopter 1

Helicopter 2

These are chemical containers being unloaded from both helicopters. The commenters on Reddit are far more qualified than I am to extrapolate, but at the base level, the government flying them into the middle of a city is … troubling.

  • jarfil@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    6 days ago

    In the United States:

    Article 1, Section 9 of the US Constitution states, “The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.”

    On a national level, both the US President and the US Congress have the power

    martial law has been imposed at least 68 times in limited, usually local areas of the United States

    Right now, the US border is under “invasion by undocumented alien criminals”, and there is a mounting “rebellion in Los Angeles”.

    Honestly, I’m kind of surprised they’ve been waiting so long, the “invasion” Executive Order 14159 has been in force since Jan 20, 2025… but I guess they first needed to make sure to dismantle any internal opposition, put key people in key places, and so on.

    • jagged_circle@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      6 days ago

      So you’re saying we have to amend the constitution to prevent these criminals from violating our rights?

      What does international law say? Surely it’s a crime against humanity to issue martial law or curfews?

      • jarfil@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        6 days ago

        Martial law, curfews, IDs, “papers”, etc. are intended to protect a nation’s citizens against enemy units… in times of war. The problem comes when someone is allowed to re-classify “some residents” as “enemies”… then you get a civil war.

        International law is a bunch of agreements for peace time, for countries to enforce onto their own citizens. Trying to enforce any law against the will of a country, is an act of war. Most countries, don’t want to go to war, they’d rather look for loopholes like sanctions, that don’t require invading a country and spanking its leaders.

        What you need, is to recognize the early signs of deranged leaders, and prevent them from gaining power. That moment has passed in the US, now it’s in the hands of people with power (money, guns, cult leaders) to decide whether to go into a civil war or not.

        You may try talking to them, but whether they’re willing to listen is a separate question.

        • jagged_circle@feddit.nl
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          6 days ago

          International law covers crimes against humanity. It includes laws protecting citizens from their governments, during peace time

          My point is that curfews and martial law don’t protect people. Its how governments opress people. A crime against their population

          We need that clearly listed in national and international laws. So that if any politician calls for curfews or martial law, they know that’s a direct ticket to a looong prison sentence

          • jarfil@beehaw.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            6 days ago

            A law, to be law, needs to be enforceable, otherwise it’s just a suggestion. International law is only enforceable through voluntary compliance, coercion, or war. Yes, during peace time many countries pick the voluntary way, others need coercion… and some ignore everything.

            Curfews and martial law, are war-time measures. Check how they work in countries openly at war. If you get them in a country “at peace”… well, I have bad news, but it isn’t really at peace.

            When you get a government fighting its own population, that isn’t simply oppression, that’s civil war.

          • Powderhorn@beehaw.orgOPM
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            6 days ago

            And look how much of a shit the U.S. has historically given about these norms. What about Cambodia followed the Geneva Conventions?

            It’s always been an oppressive system here, but we just shifted up a gear by adding the NG.

      • Vodulas [they/them]@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        6 days ago

        AFAIK, there is no international law against declaring martial law. Even if it were the case, this administration has shown they do not give even 1/4 of a shit about the constitution or law.