What is your reaction about martial law?

Answer 1

Sometimes, in a democracy, it is necessary. Such as, to augment civilian authority when it is either overwhelmed and/or breaks down.

Also, note that in the U.S., declarations of martial law do NOT replace the civilian criminal/civil code of law with the UCMJ military law. That is, while the military may be brought in to help enforce law and restore order, civilians CANNOT be tried under military law - rather, they are still tried under normal civil law. However, the declaration of martial law invokes a change in normal civil law, allowing for restrictions on "normal" rights during the emergency.

This may seem like a trivial difference, but it is a critical one. To use a simple example, while under martial law, it would not be possible to prosecute a civilian for refusing a legal order from a military officer, nor would it be possible to prosecute a newspaper editor for criticizing the local military commander. However, it would be possible to forbid public gatherings, or confiscate all the local populace's weaponry.

One final note: under the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 and the Insurrection Act of 1807, US Military personnel (excluding the Coast Guard) are expressly forbidden from ANY law enforcement role, except when specifically authorized to do so by an act of Congress. There are certain exceptions to this general rule, but, they are very narrow and severely restrict the President's ability to use the US military as any form of police on US soil. The National Guard is expressly exempt from these restrictions, when it operates in its own state, or when another state expressly invites other NG units into that state. In 99% of the times that there is any person wearing military outfits enforcing the law in a state, they will be National Guard folks, not US Army or other US Military persons.