Final answer:
Martial law is a less severe restraint on liberty than arrest; under martial law, an individual may be detained without the full legal process but can continue performing military duties. It has historical precedence, such as during the Civil War, yet raises concerns about the balance between civil liberties and national security.
Step-by-step explanation:
The term you are looking for is martial law. Under martial law, the individual's right to habeas corpus can be suspended, meaning that they can be detained without the usual legal processes. This is a lesser restraint than an arrest because the person may still perform their full military duties unless otherwise directed. This was especially relevant during the Civil War when President Abraham Lincoln authorized the arrest and detention, without trial, of suspected Confederate saboteurs and sympathizers in Union-controlled states. These actions were part of the government's effort to maintain national security during a time of war, where certain civil liberties were restricted for the greater good.
Detainment under martial law creates specific boundaries, often broader geographically than an arrest, where individuals might still contribute to military efforts unless instructed otherwise. This contrasts with the normal criminal proceedings where one's liberty is substantially more restricted. Yet, it does introduce a degree of instability as it interferes with typical due process rights, leading to debates on the balance between civil liberties and national security.
Historically, such restrictions, and the subsequent fluctuations of freedoms, have profoundly affected the individuals and groups subjected to them, leading to tension and potential instability in democracy as well as the balance of society at large.