Martial Law
There are no dissenting judges as to the power of the American military. From the president being the commander-in-Chief to the Congress controlling the budget and funding, the military is subject to civilian control.
The numbers listed below are from a high school textbook are estimated. Axis Powers include: Japan military -1,740,000 civilian - 3939,400 Italy military -226,900 civilian - 60,000 Germany military-3,250,000 civilian-2,350,000 5 Primary Allied Powers: United States military-405,000 civilian-68 France military-122,000 civilian-470,000 Britain military-305,800 civilian-60,600 Russia military-11,000,000 civilian-6,700,000 China military-1,400,000 civilian-8,000,000
Civilian law is typically always in place. Military law is only invoked in extreme emergencies. However, military personnel are always subject to military law. The Adjutant General will negotiate with the civilian authorities if there is any situation where it is not definite as to which takes precedence. Actually, in the United States, no military person (or, for that matter, anyone other than the Judical Branch) can arbitrarily decide to enforce military law in a place where it is not currently in place. Not even the President can decide to apply military law in a place where civil law is currently in force (indeed, this is one of the major contentious issues around the classification of terrorists as "enemy combatants", and the legality of this move is still being subject to litigation). The misnowmer "martial law" does not actually apply Military Law, but rather enforce a certain subsection of civilian law. For instance, let's say that there is major rioting in a city, and the National Guard is called in to restore order, and "martial law" is declared by the city's major (or perhaps, the state governor). Members of the National Guard are subject to Military law, and any infractions they commit will naturally be covered by military trial. HOWEVER, should a National Guardsman capture a looter (or other criminal), they are then prosecuted under CIVILIAN LAW, even though "martial law" was declared. Martial law in this case is a specific subsection of civilian law, which criminalizes certain activities which are normally permissible under ordinary civilian law. Back to the original question: as Congress is the creator of both military and civilian law, it can decide whether civilian or military law applies in a situation where the military normally has first jurisdiction. There are a myriad number of places this can occur, so naming them all is not possible. In addition, the Constitution is still the highest law of the land, and is supreme over both military and civilian law. Do note that many crimes are not covered by military law, but only civilian law, so it is entirely possible for a person normally subject to military jurisdiction to be prosecuted by civilian authorities without military acquiecence. For example, Insider Trading is a civilian crime, with no military equivalent, so it would be entirely possible to charge a military serviceperson on a military base with this civilian crime.
A person who is not a member of the military or the police force.
Germany military - 3,250,000 civilian - 2,350,000 Italy military - 226,900 civilian - 60,000 Japan military - 1,740,000 civilian - 393,400 US military 405,000 civilian - 68 (Pearl Harbor) France military 122,000 civilian - 470,000 England military - 305,800 civilian - 6,700,000 Russia military - 11,000,000 civilian - 6,700,000 China military - 1,400,000 civilian - 8,000,000 Poland- from 5.5m to 6.5m all together (not caunting many soldiers who fleed the country and joined army in other countries)
A civilian regime refers to a government that is predominantly made up of civilian leaders who are not part of the military. In a civilian regime, power is usually vested in elected officials and civilian institutions, rather than military authorities.
There are no dissenting judges as to the power of the American military. From the president being the commander-in-Chief to the Congress controlling the budget and funding, the military is subject to civilian control.
Civilian supremacy over the military is manifested through several key mechanisms, including the establishment of a civilian-led government that makes defense policy decisions, legislative oversight of military budgets and operations, and the appointment of civilian officials to top defense positions. Additionally, civilian control is reinforced by constitutional provisions that delineate the roles and powers of military and civilian authorities. This dynamic ensures that military actions align with democratic values and the will of the populace, thereby preventing military overreach or influence in political affairs.
A military controlling government and power is dangerous. It becomes a hunta and can install a military dictator to run the government. When that happens there is a loss of rights by the citizens. Checks on authorities is lost when the authorities can shoot citizens because they protest the government.
There are no dissenting judges as to the power of the American military. From the president being the commander-in-Chief to the Congress controlling the budget and funding, the military is subject to civilian control.
It gives the legal authorities, police, national guard, army, the ability to use lethal force if required.Another View: It places the operation of the police and the administration of law by elected civilian government under the control of military authorities and suspends the rights of Habeus Corpus.
The numbers listed below are from a high school textbook are estimated. Axis Powers include: Japan military -1,740,000 civilian - 3939,400 Italy military -226,900 civilian - 60,000 Germany military-3,250,000 civilian-2,350,000 5 Primary Allied Powers: United States military-405,000 civilian-68 France military-122,000 civilian-470,000 Britain military-305,800 civilian-60,600 Russia military-11,000,000 civilian-6,700,000 China military-1,400,000 civilian-8,000,000
As in most countries, a civilian is normally a person is not in the military. Accordingly, an Australian civilian would be an Australian who is not in the Australian military.
If it's not military; then it's civilian.
A law prohibiting federal military troops to enforce civilian laws.
there are more rules in military than civilian
This is a murky area. If the civilian is acting in a purely civilian category, he/she might be tried by the host nation, or with luck, by a court back in the United States. However a civilian working for the DoD will be repatriated to the US and tried before a military court. Note that active-duty military who break local laws are typically handed over to local authorities for trial on their courts; there are several U.S. Navy sailors in Japanese jails serving time for assault, rape, and similar civil offenses.