"martial law against protestors" suggests violence against protest. What was actually suggested: an overwhelming show of force to disperse, detain and ultima

"martial law against protestors" suggests violence against protest. What was actually suggested: an overwhelming show of force to disperse, detain and ultimately deter lawbreakers If lawbreaker = protestors in your book, then maybe we differ in what constitutes valid protest. Also, Cotton pre-emptively disagrees with your characterisation also: This [law] doesn’t amount to “martial law” or the end of democracy, as some excitable critics, ignorant of both the law and our history, have comically suggested