Talk:National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007

Martial law

Martial law is a very specific thing. It is characterized by military rule. If civil authority remains in force, then it is not martial law.

It's also a freighted term, meant to frighten people and as such, unless specificaly dentoed by the circumstances, the very use of the term should be avoided.

RTO Trainer 21:07, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Sec. 333 of the Act states that: "The President may employ the armed forces, including the National Guard in Federal service, to restore public order and enforce the laws of the United States when, as a result of a natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident, or other condition in any State or possession of the United States, the President determines that domestic violence has occurred to such an extent that the constituted authorities of the State or possession are incapable of maintaining public order." This sounds like martial law to me. CClio333 (talk) 02:14, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The amendments were repealed four months ago in the 2008 defense authorization. das (talk) 15:14, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Both the original Act, the 2006 changes, and the 2008 return to the original Act is described in much better detail on the Insurrection Act page, so I propose that H.R. 5122 be changed to a redirect to the Insurrection Act. CClio333 (talk) 15:24, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

It's probably fine for the Act to have its own article, as the only feature of the Act wasn't the amendments to the civil unrest statutes (Insurrection Act). The act includes over 3100 sections that amount to almost 1000 pages, and deals with funding for the entire military and defense infrastructure of the United States. The act can certainly be referenced in the Insurrection Act article, as it is, but it's a very, very, large piece of legislation, of which the Insurrection Act amendments were a very, very small part, and which already get thorough treatment in the Insurrection Act article. If anything, the title of this article should be changed to something like "John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007", which reflects its final official name and status as public law. das (talk) 15:35, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I added a small addition that mentioned it repealed much of the text in 2008 with linked text that connects to the insurrection act 74.88.247.89 (talk) Me — Preceding undated comment added 13:08, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I came to the realization that the merge was be ineffective almost right after I posted the proposal. The name change sounds good to me, and I think that the legislation that repealed that section of the act should be added to the resources section, plus any new commentary on the repeal. CClio333 (talk) 15:40, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

"Amendment to Section 1076 of the law"

This section needs work to clarify what parts of Section 1076 of the 2007 Act were superseded by Section 1068 of the 2008 Act and how the difference constitutes martial law.—dah31 (talk) 03:02, 2 June 2020 (UTC)