Q ~ Trust Trump's Plan ~ 01/17/21 Vol.327, Q Day 1178

It looks like Simon has finally put out a video discussing today’s events, although it’s not just Simon, but also includes Charley Ward, David Rodriguez and Tiana Islam.

https://www.bitchute.com/video/BVRCyEOAH5ex/

“The original military commissions in Gitmo were carried out under presidential order and ruled unlawful by the Supreme Court.”
Both Mark Levin and Justice Clarence Thomas were alarmed by that judicial legislation. And while Ann Coulter is now ‘out’ she is a smart scholar and she too wrote a strong legal opinion.

Justice Thomas was on the losing end of a 5-3 decision.

The opinions of Mark Levin or Ann Coulter do not overrule or change the Supreme Court ruling.

Holding a Gitmo military tribunal without Congressional approval could subject the officials involved to a charge of war crimes (violation of Geneva convention) in addition to violation of U.S. law.

See Opinion of the Court at 613:

Whether or not the Government has charged Hamdan with an offense against the law of war cognizable by military commission, the commission lacks power to proceed. The UCMJ conditions the President’s use of military commissions on compliance not only with the American common law of war, but also with the rest of the UCMJ itself, insofar as applicable, and with the “rules and precepts of the law of nations,” Quirin, 317 U. S., at 28—including, inter alia, the four Geneva Conventions signed in 1949. See Yamashita, 327 U. S., at 20–21, 23–24. The procedures that the Government has decreed will govern Hamdan’s trial by commission violate these laws.

The MCA only applies to alien unlawful enemy combatants. No such commission could be authorized to function against an American citizen in the United States for an alleged domestic crime.

The Military Commissions Act of 2009 (MCA 2009): Overview and Legal Issues Jennifer K. Elsea Legislative Attorney August 4, 2014, R41163

At page 9:

Citizens who fit the definition of “unprivileged enemy belligerent” are not amenable to trial by military commission under the MCA.

In Boumediene v. Bush, 553 U.S. 723 (2008), the Supreme Court positively held that the Gitmo detainees had the constitutional privilege of habeas corpus, and in so doing struck down the 2006 MCA § 7 as unconstitutional.

Held:
1. MCA § 7 denies the federal courts jurisdiction to hear habeas actions, like the instant cases, that were pending at the time of its enactment. Section 7(b)’s effective date provision undoubtedly applies to habeas actions, which, by definition, “relate to . . . detention” within that section’s meaning. Petitioners argue to no avail that § 7(b) does not apply to a § 2241(e)(1) habeas action, but only to “any other action” under § 2241(e)(2), because it largely repeats that section’s language. The phrase “other action” in § 2241(e)(2) cannot be understood without referring back to § 2241(e)(1), which explicitly mentions the “writ of habeas corpus.” Because the two paragraphs’ structure implies that habeas is a type of action “relating to any aspect of... detention,” etc., pending habeas actions are in the category of cases subject to the statute’s jurisdictional bar. This is confirmed by the MCA’s legislative history. Thus, if MCA § 7 is valid, petitioners’ cases must be dismissed. Pp. 736–739.
2. Petitioners have the constitutional privilege of habeas corpus. They are not barred from seeking the writ or invoking the Suspension Clause’s protections because they have been designated as enemy combatants or because of their presence at Guantanamo. Pp. 739–771.

The Military Commissions Act of 2006 was revised by the Military Commissions Act of 2009. It is codified Federal law under Title 10, United States Code.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/subtitle-A/part-II/chapter-47A

10 U.S. Code Chapter 47A - MILITARY COMMISSIONS
SUBCHAPTER I—GENERAL PROVISIONS (§§ 948a – 948d)
SUBCHAPTER II—COMPOSITION OF MILITARY COMMISSIONS (§§ 948h – 948m)
SUBCHAPTER III—PRE-TRIAL PROCEDURE (§§ 948q – 948s)
SUBCHAPTER IV—TRIAL PROCEDURE (§§ 949a – 949o)
SUBCHAPTER V—CLASSIFIED INFORMATION PROCEDURES (§§ 949p–1 – 949p–7)
SUBCHAPTER VI—SENTENCES (§§ 949s – 949u)
SUBCHAPTER VII—POST-TRIAL PROCEDURE AND REVIEW OF MILITARY COMMISSIONS (§§ 950a – 950j)
SUBCHAPTER VIII—PUNITIVE MATTERS (§§ 950p – 950t)

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/948c

10 U.S. Code § 948c - Persons subject to military commissions
Any alien unprivileged enemy belligerent is subject to trial by military commission as set forth in this chapter.
(Added Pub. L. 111–84, div. A, title XVIII, § 1802, Oct. 28, 2009, 123 Stat. 2576.)

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/948d

10 U.S. Code § 948d - Jurisdiction of military commissions
A military commission under this chapter shall have jurisdiction to try persons subject to this chapter for any offense made punishable by this chapter, sections 904 and 906 of this title (articles 104 and 106 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice), or the law of war, whether such offense was committed before, on, or after September 11, 2001, and may, under such limitations as the President may prescribe, adjudge any punishment not forbidden by this chapter, including the penalty of death when specifically authorized under this chapter. A military commission is a competent tribunal to make a finding sufficient for jurisdiction.
(Added Pub. L. 111–84, div. A, title XVIII, § 1802, Oct. 28, 2009, 123 Stat. 2576.)

Whatever acts, real or imagined, that may apply to the 2020 election, the persons involved would not qualify as alien unprivileged enemy belligerents, nor would they be subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice for the U.S. Armed Forces, nor would they be subject to the laws of war.

Read the label. Make sure it is d, not dl or l.

L is rejected by body and it depletes your d alpha tropipherol

I am brand spanking new here so I don’t know how posting works...ransomnote; since you are MQD here, I post to you. And btw, thank you for all you have done here...it is a calling from on High! And bagster and the rest of you...I have have enjoyed your insight and the very special way you “sword fight” the trolls and shills to take a hike. As a 13 year FR lurker, I have become more pi$$ed off every single day by the dealings of the DS and had to get into the game. I have followed Q and the Q threads for 3 years now...YOU ARE THE NEWS now as Q has said many times. Don’t EVER forget it!

Along that line of thinking, as we know that DJT is a brilliant man, we have to think of the Art of War and his 5D chess playing ability (Q confirmed, if I recollect). He is not finished,... as a matter of fact, he has said “The best is yet to come” just today as he left from Andrews AFB. If I remember my Q posts, I believe Q said the same thing. (proof). DJT Jr. and Kimberly Guilfoyle said the same thing in the past day or so.

Imagine this picture: Beijing Hiden(with Commiela by his side) trying to play 5D chess with DJT...I am laughing already! The game was over before it started!

Stay the course...keep digging as YOU ARE THE NEWS...prepare for the long game because this isn’t over...”The Best Is Yet to Come”!

Excerpt of your excellent post:
“ He is not finished,... as a matter of fact, he has said “The best is yet to come” just today as he left from Andrews AFB. If I remember my Q posts, I believe Q said the same thing. (proof). DJT Jr. and Kimberly Guilfoyle said the same thing in the past day or so.”
~~~~~~~~~
On behalf of the FReeQs who build the threads, maintain moral and ornament the place, thankQ for the supportive words. President Trump and others are conveying the best is yet to come and they don’t mean Biden, they mean FREEDOM from swamp creatures like Biden. :)

Well, thank you very much for your outstanding references that quite frankly were very well laid out with much labor as to your part. As you can see I am not a lawyer, and I very much appreciate your effort and very valuable time.

But I am not trying to write a enjoyable story, I actual find the situation quite distasteful, if fascinating.

However I think having the bio weapon, (it is patented, therefore man made), released deliberately, by restricting all flights out of Wuhan domestically but open internationally, clearly shows intent. And matched with the stated strategy papers leaked from China speculating that as a viable strategy to weaken an opponent as a strategic, not tactical move is damning on Chinas Part.

The purchase of 600 million dollars of Dominion shares, the 305th intelligence battalion tracing and recording the interference with the election and the 2018 eo spelling out that an attack on our critical infrastructure is considered an act of War places the paid for cooperation with the ccp to block discovery as a act of treason DURING A TIME OF WAR if said EO was invoked.

(Sorry for he all caps, too lazy to html this entire post for a little bold)

So, as per above the only question remains is who tries for treason, in theater, during a time of war with the use of a weapon of mass destruction, a political figure like Biden after committing treason to overthrow the government by abetting the foreign power in its act of War. Will it be military or civilian courts?

Especially with Biden taking of disbanding the US Army and inviting China in for domestic “defense” On his first day in office? Are we surrendering already?

His acceptance of Bribery in multiple schemes with China is overwhelming established at this point. It could be simply postulated that he is a spy for that foreign power that is at war with us.

Seems pretty clear to me a firing squad is warranted by the DOJ. My guess is the Army will do the firing squad either before or after it is disbanded.

Because if Biden hands us all over to the Chinese, obviously everyone in the Pentagon is a dead man walking.

TY, I’ll check it out

Thank you so much for the time and effort!

Clarence Thomas was incorrect?

I need to read this when I have the time.

Has anyone read the Marshall Report today? woah!

I actual[ly] find the situation quite distasteful, if fascinating.

Just having a Biden/Harris administration is distasteful.

However I think having the bio weapon, (it is patented, therefore man made), released deliberately, by restricting all flights out of Wuhan domestically but open internationally, clearly shows intent. And matched with the stated strategy papers leaked from China speculating that as a viable strategy to weaken an opponent as a strategic, not tactical move is damning on Chinas Part.

It is not clear if you state this as hypothetical speculation or as fact. The government has not adopted a position that it was a deliberate release.

As a bio-weapon, the Wu-Flu is not particularly effective. It is not extremely lethal as is Ebola. It does not disable the population in general. Government lockdowns and regulations disable large sectors of the population.

If engaging in speculation, you may consider the possibility that the timing of the release just happened to provide maximum benefit to one political party. The first Dem debate looked like a clown show. There was no viable candidate acceptable to the Dem establishment. In 2016, Wikileaks demonstrated that the Dem powers rigged the primaries for Hillary and against Bernie. This time, everyone miraculously dropped out to leave Biden as the only one left. Joe was as animated as Bernie Lomax (Weekend at Bernie's). He could not survive the rigors of a traditional campaign. And the Wu-Flu comes and Trump cannot hold his giant rallies, and Joe doesn't need to campaign at all. There was no political campaign, there was a marketing campaign, with endless advertising selling a product. The Wu-Flu release did not have to be an enemy action to start a war, it could have been a symbiotic action in coordination with the powers that be who wanted Trump out and Biden in. Perhaps it was just fortuitous timing and not letting a crisis go to waste. As speculation, it is worth pondering.

The purchase of 600 million dollars of Dominion shares, the 305th intelligence battalion tracing and recording the interference with the election and the 2018 eo spelling out that an attack on our critical infrastructure is considered an act of War places the paid for cooperation with the ccp to block discovery as a act of treason DURING A TIME OF WAR if said EO was invoked.

I am not aware of U.S. legal cases regarding the virus blocking some sort of discovery. Perhaps China was not forthcoming with the international community, but that is not treason in the U.S. There have been discovery issues in election cases, but that is not about the virus.

There was, and is, no state of war. The EO does not state that there is an existing attack on our infrastructure which has been identified as an act of war. The only way to put the nation in an official state of war is for the government to explicitly acknowledge a state of war by some overt act. A declaration of war would work, but in the civil war (officially The War of the Rebellion, perhaps most accurately The War Between the States) a proclamation of a blockade worked, as such is an international act (a nation cannot blockade itself), not a domestic act (closing of the ports) and recognized a conflict between belligerent powers (recognized the Confederacy as the de facto government of the affected area). For all legal purposes, the Supreme Court identified that proclamation, and that date, as the start of that war, and not anything that came before. That case is The Protector, 79 U.S. 700 (1870).

Only the government has the power to determine an official time of war.

So, as per above the only question remains is who tries for treason, in theater, during a time of war with the use of a weapon of mass destruction, a political figure like Biden after committing treason to overthrow the government by abetting the foreign power in its act of War. Will it be military or civilian courts?

Joe Biden is not subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice and cannot be tried by a military court-martial. A court-martial is not a judicial proceeding, but is a creature of the Executive Branch. It has jurisdiction over military members. Even as Commander-in-Chief, Biden is a civilian, exercising civilian control of the military.

He could not be tried for a criminal offense in a civilian court either unless he was first impeached and removed from office. While in office, Slick Willie did not have immunity from a civil case brought by Paula Jones.

That leaves a military commission. This is not a court and is not bound by the same rules and precedents which are binding in the courts.

Neither Joe Biden, nor any other U.S. citizen, is amenable to trial by a military commission. Federal law applies:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/948c

10 U.S. Code § 948c - Persons subject to military commissions
Any alien unprivileged enemy belligerent is subject to trial by military commission as set forth in this chapter.
(Added Pub. L. 111–84, div. A, title XVIII, § 1802, Oct. 28, 2009, 123 Stat. 2576.)

The Military Commissions Act of 2009 (MCA 2009): Overview and Legal Issues Jennifer K. Elsea Legislative Attorney August 4, 2014, R41163

At page 9:

Citizens who fit the definition of “unprivileged enemy belligerent” are not amenable to trial by military commission under the MCA.

The Constitution Art. 1, §8, cl. 9, provides that "Congress shall have the Power... To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court." Congress has authorized military tribunals under the Military Commissions Act of 2009. It has withheld jurisdiction to try U.S. citizens in such a tribunal.

Thank you so much for the time and effort!
Clarence Thomas was incorrect?

Thank you so much for your due diligence!

As you no doubt noticed from your careful reading of my response at #3602, the Clarence Thomas dissent, was overruled by a 5-3 majority at the time of its issuance.

You noted at #3596 that "Both Mark Levin and Justice Clarence Thomas were alarmed by that judicial legislation."

To be noted is that Justice Thomas' dissent had nothing to do with bringing a U.S. citizen to trial before a military tribunal. At issue was whether an alien unlawful combatant had the right to petition for habeas corpus.

This precise question was answered by the Supreme Court in Boumediene v. Bush, Opinion of the Court, 553 U.S. 723, 732-33 (2008).

Justice Kennedy delivered the opinion of the Court.
Petitioners are aliens designated as enemy combatants and detained at the United States Naval Station at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. There are others detained there, also aliens, who are not parties to this suit.
Petitioners present a question not resolved by our earlier cases relating to the detention of aliens at Guantanamo: whether they have the constitutional privilege of habeas corpus, a privilege not to be withdrawn except in conformance with the Suspension Clause, Art. I, § 9, cl. 2. We hold these petitioners do have the habeas corpus privilege. Congress has enacted a statute, the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 (DTA), 119 Stat. 2739, that provides certain procedures for review of the detainees’ status. We hold that those procedures are not an adequate and effective substitute for habeas corpus. Therefore § 7 of the Military Commissions Act of 2006 (MCA), 28 U. S. C. § 2241(e), operates as an unconstitutional suspension of the writ.

That is the supreme law of the land. The 2006 dissent of Justice Thomas in Hamdi is not. Moreover, the use of a military tribunal to prosecute a U.S. citizen is foreclosed by federal law.

The question of subjecting a U.S. citizen to trial by Military commission has been settled by Legislative legislation, the Military Commissions Act of 2009, as codified at 10 U.S.C. 948 thru 950.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/948c

10 U.S. Code § 948c - Persons subject to military commissions
Any alien unprivileged enemy belligerent is subject to trial by military commission as set forth in this chapter.
(Added Pub. L. 111–84, div. A, title XVIII, § 1802, Oct. 28, 2009, 123 Stat. 2576.)

The Military Commissions Act of 2009 (MCA 2009): Overview and Legal Issues Jennifer K. Elsea Legislative Attorney August 4, 2014, R41163

At page 9:

Citizens who fit the definition of “unprivileged enemy belligerent” are not amenable to trial by military commission under the MCA.

U.S. citizens are not going to be rounded up, flown to Gitmo, paraded before a military commission, and executed. Military commissions have no such jurisdiction.

This is from anonup.com
In case anyone is keeping track of the EO’s Biden has “signed.”
https://anonup.com/thread/279891

WooHooo,It worked.

Cocaine Mitch pretending to be ‘OUTRAGED’ by the flurry of Biden EOs. 👉 Jenna Ellis: Supreme Court ruled new EOs can’t override previous EOs...” Which is what Fraud Biden is doing. Now the republicans are pretending to be outraged over the Biden agenda being enacted, while ignoring Supreme Court ruling. THE SWAMP DRAINING IS WARRANTED. These scumbags deserve EVERYTHING that is going to come at them
https://anonup.com/thread/280731

“Holding a Gitmo military tribunal without Congressional approval could subject the officials involved to a charge of war crimes (violation of Geneva convention) in addition to violation of U.S. law.”

Under what circumstances does it become easy to get approval from Congress?

Perhaps not under the Insurrection Act.

Under what circumstances does it become easy to get approval from Congress?

The position of Congress is expressed in the Federal law. Getting their approval involves getting them to change that law.

Getting Congress to approve something is very easy when the political winds are blowing in the right direction. That means public opinion.

I’ll let you put the rest of the pieces together.

Where We Go 1, We Go All