Anonymous ID: da1a48 Sept. 18, 2022, 5:56 a.m. No.17537581   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>7589 >>7603 >>7681 >>7712

>>17537157

>Characteristically, Trump was lying. He ended his single tenure having placed 231 men and women on the federal bench,

fake news always gets it wrong

Would military tribunal judges be considered Federal?

 

Shadow to Sessions by design.

 

Thank you for your service to our Country, Mr. Trey Gowdy!

Thank you for your service to our Country, Mr. Bob Goodlatte!

Your sacrifices will never be forgotten.

Q+

 

Thank you for your service to our Country, Mr. Jeff Sessions!

Your sacrifices will never be forgotten.

Q+

 

What if there's another prosecutor (outside of DC) assigned by SESSIONS w/ the same mandate/authority?

ONE FOR THE HISTORY BOOKS?

 

TRUST SESSIONS.

TG departure [HEC].

NOT to testify.

NOT needed to testify.

Think logically.

NO NEED to step down if needed to TESTIFY.

DO NOT chase MISINFO.

What ROLE might TG be walking into?

 

Logical thinking required.

A) How can arrests occur prior to removing the corruption from the DOJ & FBI?

B) How can arrests occur prior to safely securing a majority in the SUPREME COURT [CONSTITUTION - RULE OF LAW]

C) What is the role of the SENATE?

>role of GOODLATTE?

>role of GOWDY?

>role of SESSIONS?

>GOODLATTE, GOWDY, and SESSIONS ALL RESIGNED

>GOODLATTE, GOWDY, and SESSIONS ALL RESIGNED.

>Who did SESSIONS appoint in NOV 2017?

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/sessions-federal-prosecutor-evaluating-alleged-fbi-doj-wrongdoing-no-second-special-counsel-for-now

>Who is HUBER?

>Who RE_CONFIRMED HUBER?

>WHO ORIGINALLY APPOINTED HUBER?

>IMPORTANCE OF PARTISAN OPTICS?

>Mandate charged to HUBER?

>Resources provided to HUBER?

>Who is HOROWITZ?

>Mandate charged to HOROWITZ?

>Resources provided to HOROWITZ?

>Who was SESSIONS' CHIEF OF STAFF?

>What were the responsibilities of WHITAKER?

>WHAT IS THE role OF A CHIEF OF STAFF?

>SHADOW PLAYERS ARE THE DEADLIEST [STEALTH]

>What is the advantage of having a ‘temp’ (‘acting’) in a leadership position?

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-40684697

“The appointment itself, on 21 July, triggered a shake-up at the Trump White House. Chief of Staff Reince Priebus and spokesman Sean Spicer both left their posts over his hiring.” —Mission Successful

>Laser designator(s) locked on target(s)

>Who was assigned directly to SESSIONS by POTUS?

>Mandate charged to Ezra Cohen-Watnick [Defense Intelligence Agency]?

>NAT SEC ADVISOR TO SESSIONS [counterintelligence and counterterrorism]?

>Who briefed NUNES on classified intel re: HUSSEIN spy campaign v. POTUS?

https://www.businessinsider.com/ezra-cohen-watnick-doj-hired-trump-order-devin-nunes-2018-4

>Who briefed Goodlatte & Gowdy on classified intel re: DOJ & FBI?

>>

>THE WORLD IS WATCHING.

THE WORLD IS WITNESSING THE TRUE IDENTITY OF THE D PARTY.

WAR.

Q

 

Rogers departure. Intel.

Sessions departure. Law.

Kelly departure. Warfare/MIL

Mattis departure. Warfare/MIL

Notice a pattern?

Anonymous ID: da1a48 Sept. 18, 2022, 6:34 a.m. No.17537681   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>7712

>>17537581

THE WORLD IS WITNESSING THE TRUE IDENTITY OF THE D PARTY.

WAR.

Q

 

2961

Q !!mG7VJxZNCI 03/04/2019 16:13:05 ID: 461c8a

8chan/qresearch: 5505190

Anonymous 03/04/2019 16:08:04 ID:17a74a

8chan/qresearch: 5505069

>>5504953

“War-like Posture”

 

>>5505069 (/pb)

Is there a benefit (think public optics) to allowing your enemy to open the front door?

'War-like' Posture Activated?

Thank you for playing.

Q

 

>>17537581

>Would military tribunal judges be considered Federal?

 

Military Tribunals Have a Controversial History

Roundup: Media's Take

 

facebook sharing button

twitter sharing button

pinterest sharing button

email sharing button

sharethis sharing button

 

Keith Suter, in the Daily Telegraph (Sydney, Australia) (April 12, 2004):

 

One of US President George W. Bush's most controversial decisions in the war on terrorism is the creation of military tribunals to try suspects, including two Australians. Part of the President's problem is that American military tribunals have a long and controversial history.

 

Military tribunals use military officers as the prosecution, defence, judge and jury, and there is no role for civilians. They are used to deal with military crimes that do not arise in most civilian legal systems, such as spying and sabotage.

 

Tribunals are answerable only to the President – they have no oversight from Congress, civilian appeal courts or the public. The media are often excluded from trials and the defence team is appointed by the military.

 

During the War of Independence from 1776 to 1783, General George Washington used military tribunals to try people accused of spying for Britain. The US constitution gives the president broad powers in wartime as the nation's commander-in-chief.

 

During the American Civil War (1861-1865), Abraham Lincoln's government set up military tribunals and denied people their right to trial by jury. The accused were unable to challenge the legality of their arrest and conviction.

 

Confederate agents and sympathisers were accused of conspiring to seize Union weapons, liberate prisoners of war and persuade allies in the north to join the South in destroying the Union. About 4000 people were tried by tribunals.

 

One famous tribunal immediately after the Civil War was to try those accused of participating in the conspiracy to kill Lincoln in April 1865. The killer, John Wilkes Booth, had been tracked down and killed on the spot but eight others were rounded up as part of the plot.

 

All eight were found guilty; four were executed and four were sentenced to long prison terms. Historians and legal scholars continue to debate these penalties, with some claiming that they were undeserved.

 

America's use of military tribunals during World War II also remains controversial.

 

After the US entered the war in December 1941, Hitler instructed German naval intelligence to infiltrate the US with sabotage teams and bomb railway stations, water-supply facilities, factories and Jewish-owned stores. The agents were living in Germany but often had American backgrounds and good local knowledge. But they were not highly trained Nazi killers and had only a few weeks' training in military operations….

 

A secret military tribunal was hastily established in Washington DC in July 1942. Seven generals acted as judges and jurors. Military lawyers were appointed to defend the Germans. Colonel Kenneth Royall took his defence duties seriously and midway through the trial he petitioned the Supreme Court on the tribunal's legality. The Court quickly ruled that the tribunal was legal and could proceed.

 

The trial continued. All eight Germans were sentenced to death. The verdicts went to the president, who decided that six should die but [George Dasch, the German leader] should get 30 years and [his partner Ernest Peter] Burger (who had also helped the investigations) should be sentenced to life in jail.

 

A few hours later the six Germans were executed in the electric chair. They were secretly buried in Washington.

 

The memory of the case hangs heavily over scholars and historians and some argue the punishments did not fit the crime.

 

Dasch was sent back to Germany after the war. He was hated as a traitor and he tried to get back to the US, but Hoover kept him out on the grounds that he was a communist. Dasch died in Germany in 1991.

 

Captain Henry Wirz, commandant of Confederate Andersonville Prison during the American Civil War, was hanged in 1885. He was convicted by a military commission for war crimes against Union prisoners and is the only person ever executed in the US for war crimes. Historians believe that he was a scapegoat.

Anonymous ID: da1a48 Sept. 18, 2022, 6:42 a.m. No.17537712   🗄️.is 🔗kun

>>17537681

>'War-like' Posture Activated?

>>17537581

>Would military tribunal judges be considered Federal?

 

2094

Q !!mG7VJxZNCI 09/05/2018 17:33:03 ID:

8chan/patriotsfight: 192

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tocc8EolxXg&feature=youtu.be

[26:00]

Interesting line of questions?

Normal?

Military Law v. Criminal Law.

Think EO.

Think HRC panic.

Do you believe in coincidences?

You have more than you know.

Q

 

Military tribunals in the United States are military courts designed to judicially try members of enemy forces during wartime, operating outside the scope of conventional criminal and civil proceedings. The judges are military officers and fulfill the role of jurors.Military tribunals are distinct from courts-martial.

 

A military tribunal is an inquisitorial system based on charges brought by military authorities, prosecuted by a military authority, judged by military officers, and sentenced by military officers against a member of an enemy army.

 

The United States has made use of military tribunals or commissions, rather than rely on a court-martial, within the military justice system, during times of declared war or rebellion.

 

Most recently, as discussed below, the administration of George W. Bush sought to use military tribunals to try "unlawful enemy combatants", mostly individuals captured abroad and held at a prison camp at a military base at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba.

 

Jurisdiction

 

A military tribunal or commission is most usually used to refer to a court that asserts jurisdiction over persons who are members of an enemy army, are held in military custody, and are accused of a violation of the laws of war. In contrast, courts-martial generally take jurisdiction over only members of their own military. A military tribunal or commission may still use the rules and procedures of a court-martial, although that is not generally the case.

 

Military tribunals also, generally speaking, do not assert jurisdiction over people who are acknowledged to be civilians who are alleged to have broken civil or criminal laws. However, military tribunals are sometimes used to try individuals not affiliated with a particular state's military who are nonetheless accused of being combatants and acting in violation of the laws of war.

History

 

General George Washington used military tribunals during the American Revolution, including the prosecution of British Major John André, who was sentenced to death for spying and executed by hanging.[1] Commissions were also used by General (and later President) Andrew Jackson during the War of 1812 to try a British spy; commissions, labeled "Councils of War," were also used in the Mexican–American War.[1]

 

The Union used military tribunals during and in the immediate aftermath of the American Civil War.[2] Military tribunals were used to try Native Americans who fought the United States during those Indian Wars which occurred during the Civil War; the thirty-eight people who were executed after the Dakota War of 1862 were sentenced by a military tribunal. The so-called Lincoln conspirators were also tried by military commission in the spring and summer of 1865. The most prominent civilians tried in this way were Democratic politicians Clement L. Vallandigham, Lambdin P. Milligan, and Benjamin Gwinn Harris. All were convicted, and Harris was expelled from the Congress as a result. All of these tribunals were concluded prior to the Supreme Court's decision in Milligan.

 

The use of military tribunals in cases of civilians was often controversial, as tribunals represented a form of justice alien to the common law, which governs criminal justice in the United States, and provides for trial by jury, the presumption of innocence, forbids secret evidence, and provides for public proceedings. Critics of the Civil War military tribunals charged that they had become a political weapon, for which the accused had no legal recourse to the regularly constituted courts, and no recourse whatsoever except through an appeal to the President. The U.S. Supreme Court agreed, and unanimously ruled that military tribunals used to try civilians in any jurisdiction where the civil courts were functioning were unconstitutional, with its decision in Ex parte Milligan (1866).