Manafort is described in an early Q drop as a plant. I don’t know about Cohen.
I’ve spent some time reading the sections of the Courts-Martial amendments that are to be implemented Jan 2019 (Drop #1926). They appear to originate in December of 2016 (Obama in power but he knew he lost) and were delayed in 2017 and 2018. I don’t know if they will ever be implemented - I note that they include a requirement for a reduction of the number of flag officers and generals - something Obama would have loved. This should be the link:
http://uscode.house.gov/download/bills/114-2/114-328_pp_2071-2154_Div_A-Title-III-V.pdf
I then read through parts of the Courts-Martial documents in force now.
https://s3.amazonaws.com/public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2018-04860.pdf
Around page 28 there’s this:
(i) General courts-martial may try any person who by the law of war is subject to trial
by military tribunal for any crime or offense against:
(a) The law of war; or
(b) The law of the territory occupied as an incident of war or belligerency
whenever the local civil authority is superseded in whole or part by the military authority of the
occupying power. The law of the occupied territory includes the local criminal law as adopted
or modified by competent authority, and the proclamations, ordinances, regulations, or orders
promulgated by competent authority of the occupying power.
(ii) When a general court-martial exercises jurisdiction under the law of war, it may
adjudge any punishment permitted by the law of war.
___________________________
So I looked up the Law of War manual:
http://archive.defense.gov/pubs/Law-of-War-Manual-June-2015.pdf
I’ve skimmed through the first 115 pages, reading sections of interest. I am satisfied it is a very robust document which has been cultivated to address diverse situations including ours.
The document applies the law of war to one group denying sovereignty to another, to a state in conflict with rebels domestic (when it exceeds riot conditions) and foreign agents, when war was never declared (Geneva convention still applies-therefore law of war still applies).
No single section of the Law of War document is the basis of my opinion - I called out too many sections in my notes to provide and they would then removed from context so I don’t see the point of posting them. Basically - it’s my opinion that Q cited the 2018 Courts-Martial document in drop #1926 because it DOES apply to our current situation and the reading I’ve done amply supports that opinion.
I think one reason, among others, that situations like ours (coup attempt/war) civilian courts are not appropriate to hear cases is because the aggressors (Deep State) are bound by the Geneva convention and can be charged with violating the Geneva convention in their conduct; civilian courts (unlike military tribunals) are not prepared in advance to hear those claims.
I don't know if you remember but a few weeks ago I did a lot of research on the conditions under which one can use military tribunals and came up with the same points you make: it's for "war", broadly defined.
The USA's history with it (which is what I was investigating) happened towards the end of the Civil War, and eventually Lincoln was rebuked because he was applying it too broadly.
The operative idea was the same as you have called out in the section (i)(b)whenever the local civil authority is superseded in whole or part by the military authority of the occupying power The US Supreme Court's finding was that the US Court system was still functioning (in the North) even during the Civil War, so arresting civilians and trying them under military law was not warranted.
I would say that if the Justice Department is fully compromised, and the FBI is fully compromised, then you don't have the ability to try people in Civilian Courts any longer. (No prosecutors or investigators who are not tainted).
Let's see, we've had:
So, another 30 top ranking DOJ employees go the same route and the conditions for military tribunals we both discovered in our research could be met, that is: breakdown in the civilian legal authority.
It's great that you put that time into reading the Law of War for us, thanks. Your approach is actually even more useful, that is current law, mine was based on case law. But, they agree.
Thinking of a term for all these leftists desiring “hope and change we can believe in” by abolishing things in America through Antifa and the like.
The new term that strikes me funny is:
Abolishovic - one that demands the destruction or demise of any belief, right, philosophy, or societal organism that leads to human beings living together in a symbiotic relationship resulting in an ever improving economic, social, civil, and just society to include individual freedoms, beliefs, faiths or philosophies that allow mankind to interract in a manner that is open, honest, truthful, and allows for the public and private expression of such beliefs in the arena of public debate without fear of suppression, persection, prosecution, or reprisal.
Any thoughts? Maybe a word and definition for Lexicon consideration?
We must find an adequate description to allow us to properly describe and label the enemy that could be used to rally behind. These people are TOTALLY INTOLERANT of any views but their own but they will use their lack of principle to make allies of their enemy to fight a common foe: The True Freedom and Constitution Loving American!
WINNING BIGLY! WWG1WGA! MAGA!