|
Posted on 01/17/2021 3:57:23 PM PST by ransomnote
Q is the result of the sacrifices and commitment of countless patriots to win back our captured country from the Deep State and achieve the transformation President Trump promised in this campaign video. President Trump has said the awakening of the public is key to this transformation.
Q describes this awakening as follows:
"The Great Awakening ('Freedom of Thought’), was designed and created not only as a backchannel to the public (away from the longstanding 'mind’ control of the corrupt & heavily biased media) to endure future events through transparency and regeneration of individual thought (breaking the chains of ‘group-think’), but, more importantly, aid in the construction of a vehicle (a ‘ship’) that provides the scattered (‘free thinkers’) with a ‘starter’ new social-networking platform which allows for freedom of thought, expression, and patriotism or national pride (the feeling of love, devotion and sense of attachment to a homeland and alliance with other citizens who share the same sentiment).When ‘non-dogmatic’ information becomes FREE & TRANSPARENT it becomes a threat to those who attempt to control the narrative and/or the stable.
When you are awake, you stand on the outside of the stable (‘group-think’ collective), and have ‘free thought’.
"Free thought" is a philosophical viewpoint which holds that positions regarding truth should be formed on the basis of logic, reason, and empiricism, rather than authority, tradition, revelation, or dogma.
When you are awake, you are able to clearly see.
The choice is yours, and yours alone.
Trust and put faith in yourself.
You are not alone and you are not in the minority.
Difficult truths will soon see the light of day.
WWG1WGA!!!" ~ Q (#3038)
The video, Qanon is 100% coming from the Trump Administration, is just one of many excellent responses to the all-important question, "Whom does Q serve?"
Q Boot Camp is a quick, condensed way to learn the background and basics about the Q movement.
Q has reminded us repeatedly that together, we are strong. As the false "narrative" is destroyed and the divisive machinery put in place by the Deep State fails, the fact that patriotism has no skin color or political party is exposed for all to see.
In the battle between those who strip us our constitutional rights, we can't afford to let false divisions separate us any longer. We, and our country, will be forever made stronger by diligently seeking the truth, independence and freedom of thought.
Where We Go 1, We Go All
If you go to Wictor’s site, you should be able to watch the video. It’s “If” by Rudyard Kipling, but it’s about Trump:
https://social.quodverum.com/@ThomasWic
And then Aaron took over leadership from Moses...
Thanks but not mine.
The question is if they can convict someone who is no longer in office.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
the question is if they can convict someone who REMAINS in office
And gentlemen in other channels now a-bed
Shall think themselves accurs’d they were not here,
And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks
That fought with us upon Inauguration day!@@@@@@@@
Well written prose is always a delight to both eye, ear, and mind! WWG1WGA!
Trump pardons Julian Assange !!!
Prolly why PDJT was & is so quiet:
https://freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3926303/posts?page=2580#2580
What’s that Sun Tzu/Trump saying again?
https://earloftaint.com/2021/01/16/how-did-these-things-get-a-hold-of-pennsylvania/
I hope you BOTH emerge victoriously!!
you reminded me of q- q ships
Q-ships, also known as Q-boats, decoy vessels, special service ships, or mystery ships, were heavily armed merchant ships with concealed weaponry, designed to lure submarines into making surface attacks. This gave Q-ships the chance to open fire and sink them. The basic ethos of every Q-ship was to be a wolf in sheep's clothing.
MS. Ugly Gaggy Gaga is singing our national anthem tomorrow.
PUKE/SPIT
The Gritty Patriot
Does anyone notice anything sinister about these new Lady Gaga “Chromatica” Oreo cookies? If you aren’t familiar, the third photo shows just a few images of FBI approved pedophilia symbolism. This...
www.facebook.com
I’m betting he continues to sigh documents up and until noon tomorrow.
I was thinking that audio sounded much more in the style of Juan O Savin - and one of the commenters thought so, too.
TCM Turner Classic Movie Channel, founded in 1994 by Ted Turner, who was so dumb he married Hanoi Jane. Is it any wonder TCM would kiss ChinaPedoJoe’s patootie......derps gotta derp.
go with THIS song instead - Trump’s favorite
nessum dorma
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cWc7vYjgnTs
VRWCarea51 wrote:
“#2884 if true Trump just run over the turtle with a pavement roller! Let the vultures pick at it.”
He just did; see Steven w.’s post:
https://freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3926303/posts?page=2889#2889
Hate to bust your bubble, but the ASSANGE pardon is Fake News.
So bio warfare and the overthrow of the Government with the 2018 eo could have triggered the war part of the clause, and Bank statements of receiving funds from the CCP tied to an overt act to aid and abet the overthrow plus 150,000,000 witnesses might enable treason charges in a military tribunal.
Your creative writing skills are impressive.
Just tossing the Constitution and the other laws in the basement until you have completed your unlawful mission will work also. It worked for Lincoln who financed a war with an unconstitutional unapportioned income tax, and stuffed the Supreme Court with a tenth justice, and so on and so forth. Just make believe.
You appear to be missing proof of biological warfare, the overthrow of the Government, verifiable statements from a bank, and about 150,000,000 witnesses, plus a properly authorized military tribunal with jurisdiction to try the unnamed defendant. Other than that, its all good. In order for a military tribunal to have jurisdiction, the civilian courts need to be closed by some necessity.
What was really unfortunate was that President Trump apparently used the 2018 EO to overthrow his own government and didn't know it. I thought Trump was still President.
The last person executed for treason appears to have been William Mumford in 1862.
tied to an overt act
Conspiracy theory. Unfortunately, conspiracy is not a violation of the laws of war.
In view of the U.S. Supreme Court opinion in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 548 U.S. 557 (2006), have no fear and few hopes.
Hamdan, Opinion of the Court at 566-67:
Justice Stevens announced the judgment of the Court and delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts I through IV, Parts VI through VI–D–iii, Part VI–D–v, and Part VII, and an opinion with respect to Parts V and VI–D– iv, in which Justice Souter, Justice Ginsburg, and Justice Breyer join.Petitioner Salim Ahmed Hamdan, a Yemeni national, is in custody at an American prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. In November 2001, during hostilities between the United States and the Taliban (which then governed Afghanistan), Hamdan was captured by militia forces and turned over to the U. S. military. In June 2002, he was transported to Guantanamo Bay. Over a year later, the President deemed him eligible for trial by military commission for then unspecified crimes. After another year had passed, Hamdan was charged with one count of conspiracy “to commit... offenses triable by military commission.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 65a.
Hamdan filed petitions for writs of habeas corpus and mandamus to challenge the Executive Branch’s intended means of prosecuting this charge. He concedes that a courtmartial constituted in accordance with the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), 10 U. S. C. §801 et seq. (2000 ed. and Supp. III), would have authority to try him. His objection is that the military commission the President has convened lacks such authority, for two principal reasons: First, neither congressional Act nor the common law of war supports trial by this commission for the crime of conspiracy— an offense that, Hamdan says, is not a violation of the law of war. Second, Hamdan contends, the procedures that the President has adopted to try him violate the most basic tenets of military and international law, including the principle that a defendant must be permitted to see and hear the evidence against him.
The District Court granted Hamdan’s request for a writ of habeas corpus. 344 F. Supp. 2d 152 (DC 2004). The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reversed. 415 F. 3d 33 (2005). Recognizing, as we did over a half century ago, that trial by military commission is an extraordinary measure raising important questions about the balance of powers in our constitutional structure, Ex parte Quirin, 317 U. S. 1, 19 (1942), we granted certiorari. 546 U. S. 1002 (2005).
For the reasons that follow, we conclude that the military commission convened to try Hamdan lacks power to proceed because its structure and procedures violate both the UCMJ and the Geneva Conventions. Four of us also conclude, see Part V, infra, that the offense with which Hamdan has been charged is not an “offens[e] that by . . . the law of war may be tried by military commissions.” 10 U. S. C. § 821.
At 597-600
Quirin is the model the Government invokes most frequently to defend the commission convened to try Hamdan. That is both appropriate and unsurprising. Since Guantanamo Bay is neither enemy-occupied territory nor under martial law, the law-of-war commission is the only model available. At the same time, no more robust model of executive power exists; Quirin represents the high-water mark of military power to try enemy combatants for war crimes.The classic treatise penned by Colonel William Winthrop, whom we have called “the ‘Blackstone of Military Law,’” Reid v. Covert, 354 U. S. 1, 19, n. 38 (1957) (plurality opinion), describes at least four preconditions for exercise of jurisdiction by a tribunal of the type convened to try Hamdan. First, “[a] military commission, (except where otherwise authorized by statute), can legally assume jurisdiction only of offences committed within the field of the command of the convening commander.” Winthrop 836. The “field of the command” in these circumstances means the “theatre of war.” Ibid. Second, the offense charged “must have been committed within the period of the war.” 28 Id., at 837. No jurisdiction exists to try offenses “committed either before or after the war.” Ibid. Third, a military commission not established pursuant to martial law or an occupation may try only “[i]ndividuals of the enemy’s army who have been guilty of illegitimate warfare or other offences in violation of the laws of war” and members of one’s own army “who, in time of war, become chargeable with crimes or offences not cognizable, or triable, by the criminal courts or under the Articles of war.” Id., at 838. Finally, a law-of-war commission has jurisdiction to try only two kinds of offense: “Violations of the laws and usages of war cognizable by military tribunals only,” and “[b]reaches of military orders or regulations for which offenders are not legally triable by court-martial under the Articles of war.” Id., at 839.29
All parties agree that Colonel Winthrop’s treatise accurately describes the common law governing military commissions, and that the jurisdictional limitations he identifies were incorporated in Article of War 15 and, later, Article 21 of the UCMJ. It also is undisputed that Hamdan’s commission lacks jurisdiction to try him unless the charge “properly set[s] forth, not only the details of the act charged, but the circumstances conferring jurisdiction.” Id., at 842 (emphasis in original). The question is whether the preconditions designed to ensure that a military necessity exists to justify the use of this extraordinary tribunal have been satisfied here.
The charge against Hamdan, described in detail in Part I, supra, alleges a conspiracy extending over a number of years, from 1996 to November 2001. All but two months of that more than 5-year-long period preceded the attacks of September 11, 2001, and the enactment of the AUMF—the Act of Congress on which the Government relies for exercise of its war powers and thus for its authority to convene military commissions. Neither the purported agreement with Usama bin Laden and others to commit war crimes, nor a single overt act, is alleged to have occurred in a theater of war or on any specified date after September 11, 2001. None of the overt acts that Hamdan is alleged to have committed violates the law of war.
These facts alone cast doubt on the legality of the charge and, hence, the commission; as Winthrop makes plain, the offense alleged must have been committed both in a theater of war and during, not before, the relevant conflict. But the deficiencies in the time and place allegations also underscore—indeed are symptomatic of—the most serious defect of this charge: The offense it alleges is not triable by law-ofwar military commission. See Yamashita, 327 U. S., at 13 (“Neither congressional action nor the military orders constituting the commission authorized it to place petitioner on trial unless the charge proffered against him is of a violation of the law of war”).
There is no suggestion that Congress has, in exercise of its constitutional authority to “define and punish . . . Offences against the Law of Nations,” U. S. Const., Art. I, § 8, cl. 10, positively identified “conspiracy” as a war crime.
thanks, porkchop. welcome!
Hmmm that’s a new piece of information for me....delighted to hear it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
