I never said that there wasn't. Here is what I said:
Military tribunals are completely out of the purview of the DOJ and not part of their system. The judges are officers, the attorneys are JAG officers and the defendants are in the military or subpect to it, like enemy combatants. I am not aware of any way that the DOJ would make recommendations relating to tribunals. Huber would not be part of the military tribunal system.
Mine was in response to a question asking whether Huber could work with a military tribunal. You seem to have read things into it that were clearly not there.
Why am I thinking if military arrests these treasonous b@$t@^&s, that alone could sure redirect somebody’s “purview”. No?
Otherwise, why has Q been making sales on the idea of tribunals?
Why am I thinking if military arrests these treasonous b@$t@^&s, that alone could sure redirect somebody’s “purview”. No?
Otherwise, why has Q been making sales on the idea of tribunals?
For the first time, I’m learning something courtesy of a troll.
Your explanations are excellent. The fact that he forced you to make those distinctions is helpful in honing our arguments. Although I *might* have figured this out on my own, your answers make it easy to understand how Huber and tribunals both fit into the scheme of things. I hadn’t really thought about it before.
Thanks!
I have the worst memory ever and am terrible at going to find stuff to post.
But I do know I read that, either in an EO or amendment to the military code of justice, or something, that indeed the AG (which would include Huber) and/or the Department of Homeland Security would be working in conjunction with the military on some tribunals or other.
Maybe some researcher type will be able to find that. I learned it from a Q post.
So, Defiant. Your basic premise is wrong, in this case.
Bagster