BAGSTERAny thoughts on this one guys? What role can the Military intelligence and NSA (or Q) play in the indictment thing?
My only thought is the gathering of intelligence for evidence in the criminal proceedings. Is there something else I'm not thinking about? And what does "BANG" mean. Pull the trigger or what?
MEADSJN: Suppose the crimes involved planning, plotting, fomenting, instigating, or some other form of active involvement in a plot to create a war, or nuclear war, or massive civil unrest, or an invasion, against the USA and its people.
Then suppose your nation's main investigative and law enforcement organizations were key players in such events, and such corruption, as well as key players in the legislative and judiciary, as well as former elected and appointed members of such groups.
Justice cannot come from such corrupted groups of people. Who then could the nation depend on to pursue justice against such powerful and inter-connected groups of criminals?
Only the military. After that, only We the People, and that would turn into a Bosnian scenario (times 1000) in a hurry.
No matter how much pre-release, softening up and eventually MSM coverage of Deep State wrong-doing is done by Q supporters, and the press, I don't think the widespread use of the military to effect the arrests of civilians would ever be considered anything other than a military coup by many (probably most) people in the United States. And I'm just talking about arrests.
The US Citizenry has a long standing antipathy to the US of the US Military in police actions. It was hated as far back as the Civil War when Lincoln did it. The resulting Posse Comitatus Act has been the law since 1878.
None the less, it is possible and has been done, rarely. The 1967 Detroit Riots were put down by active duty US Army troops (combined elements of 82nd and 101st Airborne), not the Michigan National Guard. (National Guard use in riots and disasters is un-exceptional)
Still I think most people would see a huge difference between using the Army as a last resort to end terrible riots and arson after the National Guard has failed, and using them to go house-to-house to arrest 30,000 civilians based on previously sealed indictments.
(For instance, imagine if Obama had sent the military out to round up "right wing terrorists" and arrested thousands of patriots based on some sort of pretext. Would you evaluate the evidence, or site Posse Comitatas, the Constitution, and long standing American tradition before calling for Rebellion)
Just thinking ahead here there would be three main vectors of resistance to the Counter-Coup if it was executed this way. They would be: the main-stream media, the Congress (particularly if in Democratic control, but likely either way) and the Federal Judiciay.
These are interlocking vectors of resistance. The press would call the President's actions unconstitional. Liberal Federal Judges (are their any other kind? not many, apparently) would quickly declare the actions illegal, and issue writs of habeas corpus. Of course Trump could order the military to ignore these, and suspend the Writ of Habeas Corpus, as Lincoln did during the Civil War, but that would require or be the equivalent of claiming we are at war. And of course, when Lincoln did it the Congress passed a special act to give him that extraordinary power Habeas Corpos Suspension Act of 1863. Does anyone think that the Congress would give such an act to Trump?
So, in my estimation Trump would have to order the military to ignore Federal Courts, while simultaneously ignoring the Press largely calling him a usurper and the Congress working (even harder) to impeach him.
In such a situation would the military follow those orders? I think it's an open question, and probably at best you would have both pro and anti Counter-Coup troops, at all levels of the US Armed Forces.
And then, the next step that is being suggested, is that the "white hats" will take these tens of thousands of military detainees and tell us that they are not going to be tried in US Federal Courts, but rather by Military Commissions.
Even some of those who might have been convinced that the military arrests were a necessary expedient might have trouble with this announcement. The idea of the American citizens right to a "trail by a jury of your peers" is a deeply ingrained one.
In fact, as I've shown in my previous post: the history of the U.S. Military in running any sort of trials is abysmal.
Again you would have the three vectors going nuts: the Press telling the Judges what to do, the Judges telling the press what they've done and everyone in all three arenas calling for Trump's impeachment and removal (if not even more drastic measures like summary arrest by troops loyal to the Constitution). And they would have some pretty good rationale for those calls. After all:
A military tribunal is an inquisitorial system based on charges brought by military authorities, prosecuted by a military authority, judged by military officers, and sentenced by military officers against a member of an enemy army.And: The United States has made use of military tribunals or commissions, rather than rely on a court-martial, within the military justice system, during times of declared war or rebellion.
Subjecting citizens to such a regime is currently illegal under U.S. law, and is unlikely to gain any legitimacy in the eyes of most people after it occurs. Again, this is a long standing precedent:
The use of military tribunals in cases of civilians was often controversial (in the Civil War era), as tribunals represented a form of justice alien to the common law, which governs criminal justice in the United States, and provides for trial by jury, the presumption of innocence, forbids secret evidence, and provides for public proceedings.Critics of the Civil War military tribunals charged that they had become a political weapon, for which the accused had no legal recourse to the regularly constituted courts, and no recourse whatsoever except through an appeal to the President.
The U.S. Supreme Court agreed, and unanimously ruled that military tribunals used to try civilians in any jurisdiction where the civil courts were functioning were unconstitutional, with its decision in Ex parte Milligan
Now, let's look at Q's most recent posting:
1664If the plan is for the "white hats" to use the military to make mass arrests and then conduct military tribunals in place of civilian trials then I don't think Q can guarantee us "no Civil War".Q !CbboFOtcZs ID: 8704f4 No.1991829 📁
Jul 1 2018 20:13:38 (EST)
There will be no civil war.
Coordinated MSM hysteria designed to instill fear - change narrative.
NK is NOT advancing their weapons program.
Coordinated MSM hysteria designed to instill fear - change narrative.
FAKE NEWS!
Q
And whatever one thinks of Q and his posts, he's never claimed to be prophet with the ability to see the future, so I won't credit him with that ability either.
The idea of 30,000 arrests with some, many or all being made by the military and those detained put to military tribunals for judgement is so far outside the boundaries of American law, precedent and history that truly no one could say what the final outcome of such a bold move would be.
To be clear, this is only my opinion, based on some of the major themes I've seen put forward by Q and his interpreters.
One reason I remain skeptical about this course of action is it seems completely at odds with Trump, who shows an admirable patience in dealing with even the most spurious claims by Federal Judges, allowing, for instance, his travel ban to make it's way to the Supreme Court. There were other actions he could have taken, but he took the most conservative and conventional.
Under the "Military Commissions Scenario" I think he would have to silence the role of the Federal Judges at the initiation. They are probably the only one of the three vectors he can try to sideline without even worse blowback.
Turning off even obnoxious media like CNN would be viewed very dimly by most Americans, we do appreciate our first Amendment.
Dismissing Congress would be even worse. It is an unthinkable violation of the Constitution and clearly mark the end of the Republic, even if it was intended to save it.
So, I rate any of those extremely unlikely, and pretty bad as an idea.
And of course Q has recently promised us "no Civil War". To make that promise I adduce that he is NOT part of a cabal that is planning for the imminent widespread use of the military to arrest and bring to trial corrupt people in our government and other institutions. Because if he were he would know that Civil War is distinct possibility in the aftermath to such actions.
Instead: more OIG reports, and no military arrests. This seems like both the prudent and likely plan.
CHEERS!
Your assumption is based on the idea (a fallacy) that the Bolshie commiepukes are more numerous and powerful than they really are.
I'm more curious about what the answer is to that question, Jack.
I don't think he was alluding to any Armageddon/doomsday/civil war scenario like what you are talking about.
So basically, I think you are referring to a situation (disastrous civil war with Trump becoming Julius Ceasar) that is not only not being planned for, but being planned to be prevented.
I understand you are only describing that doomsday scenario as a possible repercussion of actions that you say will not happen, but I go further. I see no scenario in which that will happen that would be anything other than initiated 188% by the enemy.
The Donald, like you say, is being very careful to not be the tyrant they are making him out to be. He will continue thus. Hence the STAGES, indictments being one of them.
And that's how your ten mile long screed becomes useful. Without trying to belittle your thought process (it's a valid one) and at the risk of sounding pompous (I am the pompous jackal, after all) I think you may have inadvertently and through no fault of your own, answered Q's question.
Think stages.
What role can MIL INTELM play?
What role can NSA play?
BANG!
If you combine Q's other post and the words "No civil war" then the role Military INTELLIGENCE and the NSA can play is in PREVENTING civil war.
Hasn't Q told us all along that the very purpose and mission of his operation was to bring the PAIN and to educate and prepare the public so that when the PAIN comes, the public, through people like us, will be calmed and informed?
Why, yes. Yes he has.
In other words.
Trust the plan.
I am satisfied with that answer now, thanks to you Jack. Though, like some Romans long ago, you know not what you do.
p.s. I see your wall of text, and raise you a TL/DR.
Bagster
That was a very cogent, well-reasoned, post. I have never gone along with the idea of military tribunals and mass arrests as being part of the plan, if there is one. I do think President Trump has been under the protection of military intelligence, and I think they probably prevented the expected fraud that Hillary needed to be elected. I think what MI’s support of Trump was intended to accomplish was the need for a military coup our counter-coup, which would entail the kinds of things that you are describing. It was either execute a plan that get the right guy in office and then dismantle the deep state, or force the White Hats to have to choose between two terrible options—taking over or not taking over.
Good job.
Excellent post.
The whole “military tribunals” thing is disinfo—probably started by those wishing to discredit our side in general, Q and President Trump.
Remember, some of the early Q interpreters have proven to be charlatans.
If there are any military trials they will involve military personnel or possibly intelligence community types ... who disgraced themselves by deliberately attacking the United States and the rule of law.
I do believe there will be some high-profile prosecutions before this is over, but the political genius who occupies the Oval Office is well aware that the swamp draining must (and WILL!) occur through lawful processes and the ballot box.