[slag]

There has been talk on these threads of military tribunals. I can’t find anywhere that Q has ever mentioned it.(if someone can find one, I stand corrected) The only reference I can find comes from Dilley.(whom I know a lot of people follow but I need some salt)

Can someone explain how US citizens would be tried in military tribunals. The SC has ruled that no US civilian can be tried by the military. If military is used the MSM would scream Coup and the populous wouldn’t go along.

Just trying to understand the methodology of how this will all take place.

[ichabod1]

Well, we’re not sure, but I would say for military tribunals to work we would have to be under martial law. We are already operating under a declared (quietly) state of emergency. If that scenario played out presumably the msm would be gagged.

[aMorePerfectUnion]

Q & Military Tribunals - a self-help link

[defconw]

https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6167856

[Steven W.]

Good discernment re Dilley and what he "adds" to the narrative.

However there were a couple "Q" posts alluding to such which Dilley then ran with; whether he actually has real sources or he's just extrapolating "Q" posts and current events (like Mattis going to Gitmo @ Christmas) ... like the rest of us ...

Prior Post #613 (Jan 27 2018 00:42:19 EST)

http://www.endusmilitarism.org/PDF/military_detention_of_US_citizens_and_18_USC_4001a.pdf
Q

Prior Post #553 (Jan 19 2018 00:04:38 EST)

The TELL.
How can we listen in, track, and monitor American citizens [bad actors]?
[We hear you].
[We see you].
What must we LEGALLY demonstrate in order to gain such warrants?
FISA?
Do we TRUST the FISA judges?
MIL INTEL?
State Secrets?
Why is this relevant?
Who can we TRUST?
Expand your thinking.
Q

[saywhatagain]

I did not do a complete search, but the use of Military Tribunals are "implied." And yes, implied does not make it so. The use of tribunals is mostly found in the "conversations" surrounding the posts.

Post 619 is interesting in its meaning and tribunals being "implied"

I post in more than a needed for some context. I always think its a good idea to back and read old posts again and again to gain more insight and understanding. I agree, the idea of Military Tribunals has some uncomfortable connotations. Will see

Q Post #619

Note the last drops on the other board.
Think logically.
Refer to past crumbs
. YOU HAVE MORE THAN YOU KNOW.
Do you expect HRC, GS, Hussein, etc to stand in a PUBLIC courtroom w/
potential
crooked judges and tainted ‘liberal’ juries?
How do you defuse a bomb?
Knowledge of which wires/strings to cut?
Q

Q Post #4 and part repeated in Post #6

POTUS will not be addressing nation on any of these issues as
people begin to be indicted and must remain neutral for pure
optical reasons. To suggest this is the plan is false and should
be common sense.
Focus on Military Intellingence/ State Secrets and why might
that be used vs any three letter agency
What SC decision opened the door for a sitting President to
activate - what must be showed?

Q Post #11 and repeated in part (small part)

Key:
Military Intelligence v FBI CIA NSA
No approval or congressional oversight
State Secrets upheld under SC
Who is the Commander and Chief of the military?
Under what article can the President impose MI take over
investigations for the 3 letter agencies? What conditions must
present itself? Why is this so VERY important? Who surrounds POTUS? They lost

this very important power _ the one area of the govt not corrupt and
directly serves POTUS.

Another clue in Q Post 23 in reference to CIA outposts