Steven Douglas
THREAD - A PRIMER ON
MILITARY TRIBUNALS/COMMISSIONS
Local, state and federal courts have been notoriously resistant to hearing, let alone judging, election matters.
As for foreign interference (by ‘foreign enemies’ by definition), civilian courts don’t have jurisdiction. Military Tribunals/Commissions do.
A Military Commission, a form of Military Tribunal, is a unique proceeding in which enemy forces are tried during times of war *OR REBELLION*.
A US civilian deemed an ‘enemy combatant’ by a military commission can also be tried by one (see post above, Graham’s questioning of Kavanaugh during his confirmation hearings).
Military tribunals operate outside the realm of conventional criminal and civil courts, and are presided over by military officers. These officers act as judges and jurors in findings of both fact and law, and are also the ones who impose sentences.
How else do they differ?
Since no lay people are involved in tribunals (as jurors), and because tribunals are often a primary vehicle for investigation, no preliminary investigation is required. Neither is a hearing before an investigating officer. For this reason the rules for presenting evidence are also MUCH more lax.
The entire notion of due process is even different (e.g., Miranda warnings and search warrants are not required).
Most importantly, for the sake of national security (among other reasons), ALL elements of a military tribunal may be conducted in secret.
I will add to this later. Just laying foundation for now.
https://social.quodverum.com/@StevenDouglas
I wonder if there’s another reason the SS call button has been removed from the Resolute desk in the Oval office? The Dems have laughed it off as getting rid of PDJTs Diet Coke call button but that call box has been there through multiple presidencies.
Thank you for all the pings I missed.