[bagster]

Cboldt, ol' chum ol' pal.

If what you way is true, then Q is either mistaken, lying, or a Larp.

I will have to side with Q on this one.

Bagster

[EasySt]

Perhaps it is a complicated business.

I wish I had captured an argument an anon was making a few days ago about how in national emergencies, military lawyers could be put in place to assist civilian courts in navigating matters involving national security complications.

[Cboldt]

-- If what you way is true, then Q is either mistaken, lying, or a Larp. --

Said another way, either I or Q is mistaken, lying, or a Larp. (and larp won't apply to I)

[JockoManning]

Agreed, Bags.

My speculation is . . . given POTUS' 156 IQ; given high IQ military intel and high ranking Officers vigorously supporting POTUS--evidently including military Judge Advocates; . . . there MUST be SOME logical reasoning postulating a RELATIVELY Constitutional justification for military tribunals IN THE CURRENT NATIONAL EMERGENCY SURVIVAL CONTEXT.

imho, it is relatively unlikely that such a justification would be very tenuous, weak, prone to being overturned etc. I don't think POTUS et al are that stupid.

I'm not real clear about the legal distinctions between war/National Emergency; about vulnerable civilians in 'war time;' etc. A lot of that seems like hair-splitting and therefore legally weak, prone to being very challenged, if not overturned.

Could it be the intensity of the treason? Conceivable but I don't know that THAT would make something legally more solid.

Could it be that the expected ground-swell of a huge proportion of the populace DEMANDING something like a military tribunal? Conceivable but I doubt that would make something legally more solid.

So, I'm left with the conviction that there must be something fairly unknown or a slant not considered that would make military tribunals something of a slam-dunk for military tribunals to be successfully operant in this National Emergency context.

Is it conceivable that the outrage could be so extreme and long enduring that they could push through a tweak of the Constitution through sufficient numbers of States such that in a National Emergency of extreme factors, a military tribunal would be explicitly stated as not only allowed but fitting and called on? Conceivable but I doubt such a protracted, convoluted process would be leaned on for military tribunals. That's just not so logical, to me.

It is a bit mystifying. That does not mean that when it all comes down to the wire, it will still be mystifying.

[Disestablishmentarian]

If what you way is true, then Q is either mistaken, lying, or a Larp.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I am not aware of Q ever saying civilians would end up in military tribunals.

Are you sure that wasn't a Q wanna-be?

Personally, I do not see it happening ... but I will rethink that position if someone can show me a clear message from Q that it is part of the plan.

Even then, I might suspect it was Q trolling the RATS, because military tribunals for civilian Americans (not directly tied to terrorism) would be a drastic and irrevocable step away from the Constitution and the principle that elected representatives of the People control the military.