It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

TH3WH17ERABB17 -Q- Questions. White House Insider's postings -PART- -e11even-

page: 200
131
<< 197  198  199    201  202  203 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 8 2018 @ 01:44 PM
link   
a reply to: queenofswords

spreading on twitter, it is on my twatter timeline for more info. Don't know how to screen shot and share




posted on Sep, 8 2018 @ 01:48 PM
link   
a reply to: queenofswords

If I understand correctly, treason, sedition, insurrection are all acts of war.
Therefore, anyone charged with those crimes would be considered an enemy combatant and a military tribunal would be appropriate.
Cornell University has a very informative page about all this and more that you may be interested in.
Treason, Sedition and Subversive Activities




posted on Sep, 8 2018 @ 01:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: ModusPonus
a reply to: queenofswords

spreading on twitter, it is on my twatter timeline for more info. Don't know how to screen shot and share


If true, I'm sure the NYT will print a retraction or apology or explanation and CNN and the rest of the TDS pundits will cover it on their talking points. (Don't hold your breath!)



posted on Sep, 8 2018 @ 01:49 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Sep, 8 2018 @ 01:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: queenofswords
a reply to: butcherguy



Unless I am unaware of some change, no military tribunal can be conducted on a U.S. citizen.



QOS, it is a bit more complicated. There are several other "laws" (really rules) that apply to folks in government that differentiate between those in government (public) versus those outside (private) and how folks are handled if they are involved in actions that are ultimately designed to damage the US or hurt the population at large. Lindsey G's hearing "questions" was to point out that anyone (private or public) that conspires with an "enemy" during war - which we are in, can be tried by tribunal if their actions are considered against the interests of the US at large. It is still a trial, but secrecy is likely important RE: other bad actors.

Then there are other "laws" most done by Clinton and Bush that are now being used to create Tribunals - Warrior posted links to the one's they are using and I cannot remember which HR act it was. Those "laws" have created lists of things that kick folks over into tribunals if their actions fit the outline - that's what Warrior's crew are using for the Human Traffickers.

The consideration is what is "war" and when are we in it. LG's questions were to lay out for the population who would listen that we are in fact at war - have been forever really. But he was careful to distinguish that regular folks are not involved here, only the worst of the worst and those folks will be kicked into a tribunal if warranted. Once in, they are not going to get their situation kicked into an administrative court or a constitutional court (all of that is still in place but undergoing massive reorganization to be true and fair).

What I am curious about and do not know the answer, is if say Johnny boy was guilty of serious treason/sedition was/is the NSA records allowed to be used as "evidence"? Since it is war, not a civil or basic criminal action where NSA stuff is not allowed due to chain of evidence etc? During war spies testify against spies etc, so for me it stands to reason those "recordings" might be available - surely they were presented to Johnny boy regardless of admissibility. I can imagine No Name seeing his face, hearing his voice and so on from MI's recordings etc.



posted on Sep, 8 2018 @ 01:58 PM
link   
a reply to: ModusPonus

rah rah rah...


WHERE IS THE ACTION?



posted on Sep, 8 2018 @ 02:00 PM
link   
a reply to: carewemust

sorry new Q+ post
edit on 8-9-2018 by ModusPonus because: added line



posted on Sep, 8 2018 @ 02:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: CADpro
Last night, I watched Bourne Ultimatum. WoW...this movie all about spies & assassins where C_A had HQ in a room filled with NSA people kinna like you could imagine Q being a part of this team. This team had access to everything...street cams, train station cams, phones, bank records, you name it. Even though it was all in a movie, it could be very close to Q's environment. It was fun to imagine all this.


Enemy of the State with Gene Hackman and Will Smith is like that too.



posted on Sep, 8 2018 @ 02:19 PM
link   
a reply to: queenofswords


Unless I am unaware of some change, no military tribunal can be conducted on a U.S. citizen.


Changes noted below:


The government was able to court-martial Ali thanks to a 2006 amendment to Article 2(a)(10) of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), 10 U.S.C. § 802(a)(10). Prior to 2006, the UCMJ had authorized military trials for civilians "serving with or accompanying an armed force in the field," but only during "time of war," which CAAF's predecessor had interpreted during Vietnam to require a formal declaration of war--thereby barring such a trial during Vietnam and effectively turning the provision into a dead-letter (we haven't declared war since 1942).

In 2006, Congress expanded that authorization to also allow such trials during a "contingency operation," which federal law defines as virtually any overseas deployment (and some domestic ones) where troops are or may become involved in operations against an "enemy of the United States or against an opposing military force." Ali can't be tried in a civilian U.S. court because the usual hook for civilian criminal jurisdiction in such cases, the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act (MEJA), doesn't allow trials of "host country nationals." Thus, Ali became the first civilian contractor to be tried by a U.S. court martial under the 2006 amendment.

...

Recall that the statute authorizes trial by court-martial of any civilian, of any citizenship, "serving with or accompanying an armed force in the field" during a contingency operation. And the government's theory of the merits turns not on Ali's status as a host-country national, but rather on the fact that he's a non-citizen enmeshed with forward-deployed units in a foreign combat theater.



Military Jurisdiction Over Civilians: Why the Supreme Court Should Grant Cert. in Ali
edit on Sun Sep 9 2018 by DontTreadOnMe because: trimmed overly long quote AND added tags IMPORTANT: Using Content From Other Websites on ATS



posted on Sep, 8 2018 @ 02:30 PM
link   
a reply to: jadedANDcynical

Thanks J&C....very helpful additional information.

However, I am still not seeing where a U.S. citizen can be tried under a Military Tribunal. They CAN be tried under a court martial. It still sounds like Military Tribunals are reserved only for non-U.S. citizens. Am I missing something?



posted on Sep, 8 2018 @ 02:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: ModusPonus
a reply to: CADpro

Love that movie! did you guys see this drop on Twatter yet? NYT's letter from the white house is a USC Student paper


@mightycassandra ran it thru the turnitin.com and it hit 100% LOL these people are STUPID
#DOITQ


Would make a great new thread.



posted on Sep, 8 2018 @ 02:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: ModusPonus
a reply to: carewemust

sorry new Q+ post


i know. i was talking to Q.



posted on Sep, 8 2018 @ 02:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: Elostone
a reply to: queenofswords

If I understand correctly, treason, sedition, insurrection are all acts of war.
Therefore, anyone charged with those crimes would be considered an enemy combatant and a military tribunal would be appropriate.
Cornell University has a very informative page about all this and more that you may be interested in.
Treason, Sedition and Subversive Activities



Thanks for that info. Very helpful.

Again, however, are we mixing up Military Tribunals and Courts Martial? Two different things.

I really am looking for a definitive answer, and still see where only non-U.S. citizens can be tried under a MT. However, they CAN be tried by court martial. I think different rules apply to each and that is where I'm going with this.

I have heard some speculate that No Name may have been tried already via a secret Military Tribunal and given the death penalty. I do not see this happening as MTs are for non-U.S. citizens and Courts Martial are NEVER done in secret.



posted on Sep, 8 2018 @ 02:39 PM
link   
a reply to: queenofswords


Military tribunals were born out of necessity. Operating outside the realm of conventional criminal and civil courts, they are unique proceedings in which enemy forces are tried during times of war or rebellion. Military commissions are a form of military tribunal, though the terms are sometimes used interchangeably. Tribunals only try members of enemy armies, not civilians who have allegedly broken the law (though sometimes civilians accused of being combatants are tried in a tribunal). Military officers, fulfilling the role of jurors, act as judges and impose the sentence.


Difference Between Court-Martial and Military Tribunal

So if a civilian can be shown to have been acting for the benefit of a foreign power, they could then be subjected to a Tribunal.


The Differences

First, of course, as we mentioned above, the basic purpose and definitions of courts-martial and tribunals are different. Additional differences include the following:

Courts-martial include a preliminary investigation, which often includes a hearing before an investigating officer. Tribunals do not.
In tribunals, Miranda-type warnings and search warrants are not required. In addition, evidence obtained by torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment is excluded from the trial.
Courts-martial are governed by the Manual for Courts-Martial. Commissions are governed by the Manual for Military Commissions.
In a court-martial, the accused may hire counsel at no cost to the government. The accused may also do this in a tribunal, but the right is subject to certain limitations. For example, the civilian counsel must be a United States citizen and admitted to the practice of law in the United States, amongst other qualifications.



posted on Sep, 8 2018 @ 02:46 PM
link   
Here is the twit link to@mightycassandra about the NYT op-ed / USC student paper.

Twitter




posted on Sep, 8 2018 @ 02:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: jadedANDcynical
a reply to: queenofswords


Military tribunals were born out of necessity. Operating outside the realm of conventional criminal and civil courts, they are unique proceedings in which enemy forces are tried during times of war or rebellion. Military commissions are a form of military tribunal, though the terms are sometimes used interchangeably. Tribunals only try members of enemy armies, not civilians who have allegedly broken the law (though sometimes civilians accused of being combatants are tried in a tribunal). Military officers, fulfilling the role of jurors, act as judges and impose the sentence.


Difference Between Court-Martial and Military Tribunal

So if a civilian can be shown to have been acting for the benefit of a foreign power, they could then be subjected to a Tribunal.


The Differences

First, of course, as we mentioned above, the basic purpose and definitions of courts-martial and tribunals are different. Additional differences include the following:

Courts-martial include a preliminary investigation, which often includes a hearing before an investigating officer. Tribunals do not.
In tribunals, Miranda-type warnings and search warrants are not required. In addition, evidence obtained by torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment is excluded from the trial.
Courts-martial are governed by the Manual for Courts-Martial. Commissions are governed by the Manual for Military Commissions.
In a court-martial, the accused may hire counsel at no cost to the government. The accused may also do this in a tribunal, but the right is subject to certain limitations. For example, the civilian counsel must be a United States citizen and admitted to the practice of law in the United States, amongst other qualifications.


As always JAC with the citations.


Lindsey Graham Questions Tribunal

I'll toss this back in with the def above. His attached preamble, "we are at war as of 9-14-2001," is the key takeaway - they rehearsed this and for a reason as it has ZERO to do with his confirmation. Rules are different for folks working against.

As for us regular peeps, the reason for his definition is to assure the regular peeps they are still covered by protections and will not be part, but the bad folks not so much.



posted on Sep, 8 2018 @ 02:51 PM
link   
a reply to: jadedANDcynical

J&C, researcher extraordinaire
, thank you!

This confirms my belief that unless a U.S. citizen actually takes up arms and fights against our soldiers as an enemy combatant, any treasonous or seditious act he/she may have committed otherwise will be tried in a court martial proceeding which cannot be done in secret.

This information lays out the different rules applied for MT vs CM.

Basically, the rule is MTs are for members of enemy armies or civilians who fight with them as combatants.

I would say, none of these rules would apply to No Name. If he were charged with any treasonous or seditious act, he would be tried in an open (non-secret) court martial (unless he, of course, actually took up arms against U.S. forces).
edit on 8-9-2018 by queenofswords because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 8 2018 @ 02:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: queenofswords
a reply to: ModusPonus

For real? Has anybody verified this? If true, I wonder if CNN will report it.



Maybe Lanny Davis was a "Ghost" writer.

💥😃💥



posted on Sep, 8 2018 @ 03:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: jadedANDcynical
a reply to: queenofswords

Military tribunals were born out of necessity. Operating outside the realm of conventional criminal and civil courts, they are unique proceedings in which enemy forces are tried during times of war or rebellion. Military commissions are a form of military tribunal, though the terms are sometimes used interchangeably. Tribunals only try members of enemy armies, not civilians who have allegedly broken the law (though sometimes civilians accused of being combatants are tried in a tribunal). Military officers, fulfilling the role of jurors, act as judges and impose the sentence.



Bold mine for emphasis.
This is an interesting and important question.



posted on Sep, 8 2018 @ 03:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Elostone

That is what jumped out at me, too. I may be incorrect, but I interpreted that to mean that if one actually takes up arms or engages in combat against our military forces, he/she is considered an enemy combatant and can be tried in a Military Tribunal.



new topics

top topics



 
131
<< 197  198  199    201  202  203 >>

log in

join