— I see tribunals. Last treason was. —
Cite the case.
I was reading about the Hunter Commission the other day on the military commission that was set up for those who were accused of being in on the President Lincoln assassination. I also read President Lincoln had some military commissions going on during the civil war.
Of course I do understand, this was war and post war times. I do understand why some would be very cautious using military commissions and tribunals. For me, it depends on how serious our Constitutional Republic was at risk by these corrupt people. I’m not going to rule out the use of military tribunals because of that.
Plus, there has been quite a bit of money alloted in the last Ommibus bill for military tribunals. Q did mention there was a 16 year plan to take down our Constitutional Republic (many of us understand the set up for this has been going on even longer).
That alone is an act of war against this country if true (domestic enemies). One thing we’ll all have to swallow the red pill where these corrupt people have been at war with us all along. If Q is correct, then military tribunals cannot be ruled out for these traitors.
CGato
Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507 (2004) is the modern case of a civilian aimed at a military tribunal. Reaching a conclusive opinion was short circuited as the Bush admin eventually shuttled Hamdi to the civilian courts. Scalia's dissent in Hamdi is pretty good.
Where the Government accuses a citizen of waging war against it, our constitutional tradition has been to prosecute him in federal court for treason or some other crime. Where the exigencies of war prevent that, the Constitution's Suspension Clause, Art. I, S:9, cl. 2, allows Congress to relax the usual protections temporarily.
Thomas came out in the opposite direction ...
The Executive Branch, acting pursuant to the powers vested in the President by the Constitution and with explicit congressional approval, has determined that Yaser Hamdi is an enemy combatant and should be detained. This detention falls squarely within the Federal Government's war powers, and we lack the expertise and capacity to second-guess that decision. As such, petitioners' habeas challenge should fail, and there is no reason to remand the case.
It is one thing to be heavy-handed with Hamdi, and another thing to be heavy-handed against a somewhat popular politician, even one that sold the country to the highest bidder.
I encourage at least a skim through the Scalia and Thomas dissents in the Hamdi case to get a reasonable idea of the arguments that would be sure to surface, should Trump choose to prosecute ANY American citizen in a military tribunal. Not saying it can't be done, but the tidy way is to get Congress to suspend habeas corpus. That is a big deal, as Biden would say.
“Q did mention there was a 16 year plan to take down our Constitutional Republic”