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

Trump wrestles with handling American enemy combatants

His case loomed in the background last week as the Trump administration publicly grappled with whether to prosecute the suspect in the New York terror attack — a lawful permanent resident of the U.S. — or do as the president and some Capitol Hill Republicans suggested, and send him to the U.S. detention camp at Guantánamo Bay.

This is an extremely unsettled part of U.S. law that has vexed every administration since 9/11. Although the law is clearer when an American is captured fighting in an active combat theater, rather than carrying out a “lone-wolf” attack in the United States, U.S. policy on American enemy combatants has largely been decided by narrow, individual court rulings.

Detainee experts say there is little question that the military has the authority to hold a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident as an enemy combatant — a designation which denies the detained their Miranda warning and allows them to be interrogated under military rules.

This is one of the reasons that the U.S. hasn’t sent anyone to Guantánamo Bay since 2008 — sending an ISIS fighter or ISIS-inspired attacker to the detention facility would almost certainly trigger an immediate legal challenge that the government could lose.

Sending an American to Guantánamo Bay for the first time would raise even more unanswered questions about what additional legal protections a detainee would be entitled to as a U.S. citizen

thehill.com...

Obviously they have been working on things behind the scenes since this time. Including expanding Gitmo.

The new executive orders?

I wonder how exactly the will work retroactively if they only take effect in 2019.

If the entire court system changes it stands to make sense older crimes will be tried within the new system but old rule SENTENCING will take place.

I imagine these new processes will also be used for illegal aliens. As well as enemies of the state ie. Those that took an oath etc.

Finding the legal definition of 'combatant' would be helpful.
Sadly for me it hasn't been as easy as it sounded at first and I need to step out for a bit.

To TOL:
Oh the irony if the NDAA came back to bite Bush's, Clinton and Obama on the @$$!!!

originally posted by: queenofswords
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.

If memory serves me, I beleive in some message Q pointed to the legal definition of an "enemy combatant." It seems to me it was fairly broad, not necessarily requiring arms or combat. But it works like you said. If a civilian crosses the line, they become an enemy combatant and tribunals can apply.

a reply to: cimmerius

Related:

In a filing today with the federal District Court for the District of Columbia, the Department of Justice submitted a new standard for the government’s authority to hold detainees at the Guantanamo Bay Detention Facility. The definition does not rely on the President’s authority as Commander-in-Chief independent of Congress’s specific authorization. It draws on the international laws of war to inform the statutory authority conferred by Congress. It provides that individuals who supported al Qaeda or the Taliban are detainable only if the support was substantial. And it does not employ the phrase "enemy combatant."

...

In its filing today, the government bases its authority to hold detainees at Guantanamo on the Authorization for the Use of Military Force, which Congress passed in September 2001, and which authorized the use of force against nations, organizations, or persons the president determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the September 11 attacks, or harbored such organizations or persons. The government’s new standard relies on the international laws of war to inform the scope of the president’s authority under this statute, and makes clear that the government does not claim authority to hold persons based on insignificant or insubstantial support of al Qaeda or the Taliban.

Department of Justice Withdraws “Enemy Combatant” Definition for Guantanamo Detainees

a reply to: jadedANDcynical

Obama era policies just muddied the waters even more, didn't they.

From your link dated Mar. 13, 2009:


Example:

The government’s new standard relies on the international laws of war to inform the scope of the president’s authority under this statute, and makes clear that the government does not claim authority to hold persons based on insignificant or insubstantial support of al Qaeda or the Taliban.

Typical Obama approach:

International laws instead of clarifying and solidifying our own parameters.
Wording that provides lots and lots of gray area ("insubstantial support")

What constituted the definition of "insignificant"? Did one American soldier have to die? Did ten? Is $100,000 donation to AQ or Tal enough, or does it require $10,000,000.

Typical Eric Holder/Barack Obama dumbassedry.

a reply to: queenofswords

The sort of wishy washy policy that Trump would hate.

The build up of gitmo suggests to me they plan to use it. I'm guessing they have been working on clearing up the muddy waters in these areas.

Just who are they planning to use it for?

I guess we have no way of knowing if there are a bunch of ISIS detainees hanging around in some black site. Or if it is truly meant for "other" types of detainees.

I'm guessing those waiting to see if they are in an unsealed indictment might not know either!

That strategy might be developing a lot of singing birds.😂

Sleeping well bad guys??

twitter.com...

It's all just parody folks...👀

Interesting Thomas Wictor thread about events in Basra Iraq involving Iran:

Link

Reports indicate Iraqi protesters have set fire to #Iran's consulate in this city as #BasraProtests continue against corruption & Tehran-backed Shiite parties.

a reply to: pavil

I just saw this as well.



twitter.com...

It would be so nice to actually see anything important ever on the MSM.

Good thing for Twitter and people like Wictor but it's frustrating!

I wonder where Mattis is today...in Abu Dhabi yesterday.

Eta. Hmm aparently he is in India twitter.com...

Some DECODES on Q Post #2108 from qntmpkts.keybase.pub:

Goodbye, Mr. Rosenstein.
Q

Remember that #2107 says:

#FLY[RR]FLY#
Desperate people do desperate things.
It is during this period of time that surveillance pays off.
When does a BIRD sing?
Q

1) The time difference between these posts is 07:48. I think this either references Air Force 1 (747-8i sometimes called a 748) or a Hawker Siddley 748.
2) Timestamp2Acronyms give GL which is Air Greenland (IATA airline code) and GV which can be Google Video.
3) TimeDelta2Acronyms give NEB which can be Nebraska and ELJ which can be Engineering Log Jam or Event Log Janitor
4) COVFEFE method using "Mr. Rosenstein" (matches grid size from timestamp), gives TR which can be Transmitter/Receiver... a BUG on AF1?

a reply to: RelSciHistItSufi

Except that the aircraft normally used as Air Force One (VC-25A) is a 747-200. The 747-8 hasn't even been moved into the modification center and won't enter service for another 5-6 years.

a reply to: Phelan15

Thanks for pointing that out... not AF1 then... does Air Greenland have any 747-8s or HS-748s?

More on the possible USC origin of the "Op-Ed".

I'm not that thrilled with the source, but it's something to look at.

However, what if, as some on the right suggested, it wasn’t written by a member of the administration at all? What if this strange article, which claimed ‘resistance’ within the White House was constantly undermining the president, was written by, say, a college student? That’s the theory posed by @MightyCassandra on Twitter.

conservativedailypost.com...

a reply to: RelSciHistItSufi

No. According to Wiki they have 10 aircraft in their fleet, seven of which are DHC-8-200s. Their largest aircraft is a single A330-200.

en.m.wikipedia.org...

In the matrixhas an interesting connection between Q#2107 and a special MI unit: “CAPABILITIES. THIS TEAM PROVIDES STRATEGIC SIGNALS INTELLIGENCE SUPPORT TO THE NSA’S UTAH DETACHMENT (UTAH DET)




guys

DECODE on Q Post #2109 from qntmpkts.keybase.pub requiring some build/investigation.

COVFEFE method using "former and current" gives:
IYNNFJIPYORUXKK
IYNNF = Lynn Forester de Rothschild?
JIP = to take unfairly, rob, or short for gypsy
Y = cabal?
RU = Russia?
XKK = ex of KK? or related to the zip company ?

Timestamp2Acronym gives:
FGF = Former Girlfriend
OP = Office of the President? Opening Poster? OP Ed? 114 meanings

TimeDelta to acronym gives:
CN = initials?
JE = initials?
Are there any CNs or JEs in the Office of the President under John Kelly?

a reply to: Phelan15

Thanks for finding the info Phelan15!

DJT

Interesting post.

"Play-book call me"

"306-223?"

223 could be a reverse of 322 = Skull and Bones?

a reply to: crankyoldman

Just spitballing here but do you think every trick Under the Sun has anything to do with the shutdown of the solar Observatory?

a reply to: crankyoldman

Could 306 from the 306223 be 30th June (European date format). Anything special happen on Jun 30th?