If there is civil strife that doesn't permit the use of federal courts, then the conditions for military tribunals have been met.
The other condition is the trial of enemy combatants. They can be tried by military tribunals rather than civilian courts as happened during World War II. You would have to show that the people you are trying in a military court are in fact enemy combatants.
This isn't as simple as you think.
No. But the public has expectations. We're divided by black hat design and now faced with IA or Martial Law, the more people understand that there really was no other way, that all avenues were exhausted, the fewer lives will be jeopardized by civil unrest.
I don't know if there's truth in the comments about the coup in Myanmar right now, but note their MSM (and ours) is posing it as being against the will of the people. Had IA been already been declared in the US, some (too many?) would wonder why, if the POTUS and his supporters had a good case, wouldn't they wait to have their case heard before the SCOTUS?
If there is civil strife that doesn't permit the use of federal courts, then the conditions for military tribunals have been met.
There hasn't been civil strife preventing the use of federal courts. I believe the white hats want to avoid the devastating toll civil unrest can take on our nation; the MSM and our enemies would take particular advantage of it (mayhem if possible) and beg the UN to intervene to "save us" from freedom.
The other condition is the trial of enemy combatants. They can be tried by military tribunals rather than civilian courts as happened during World War II. You would have to show that the people you are trying in a military court are in fact enemy combatants.
We know the federal attorney's were unable to take up the matter of foreign interference re election fraud. If a court will rule that those enacting election fraud were doing so in service to foreign enemies, we would like then lay claim to the fact that they are enemy combatants. I don't know what court would be willing to hear the testimony and evidence against Justice Roberts - unless we factor in Military Tribunals.
I don't think it's simple, and I doubt you know how complicated I think it really is. I've tried to express that we have a fraction of the needed information and we often don't consider combinations of decisions or many of the alternatives being weighed, not just at key pivot points, but every step along the way.
I don't believe we have enough information to address all, or even most, of the complicating factors. Any discussion on thread of what lies in front of us is, by definition, simplified in the absence of factual considerations.
When things reach a point of “unchartered waters” as they have since the election, it’s not difficult to understand that new directions and unprecedented actions are likely to be taken.
The practical difficulty is trying to save a nation through application of its laws while at the same time the legal system is being sabotaged from within.
When a ship is sinking, you throw overboard as much of its contents as you can. Some of those items might include structural components—parts of the vessel you tear off to save the rest.
It really isn't that complicated, courts won't hear things they don't want to hear or best construction can't hear because of their masters. Illegal combatants have no rights but human rights. More than aborted babies have.