Interesting analysis on halfchan:

archive.fo/0O5Es

The big fish must be fried before a military tribunal, there is no other way to do it.

So, first we should notice the President has the authority to detain Unlawful Enemy Combatants in order to protect the nation AND to punish them for their crimes with a military tribunal. That raises the question of who an Unlawful Enemy Combatant might be and how they get put in that class.

We then observe the Military Commissions Act of 2006 grants the President or the SecDef the authority to establish a tribunal that determines whether an individual is an Unlawful Enemy Combatant. If the tribunal determines the individual to be an Unlawful Enemy Combatant, their ass belongs to the military. They may be detained and tried before a military tribunal for the crimes they committed that caused them to be declared Unlawful Enemy Combatants.

(That means that even as US Citizens, they have no recourse to civilian courts.)

>1/4

Guess what the Executive Order of Dec. 21st did? Declared a state of National Emergency due to serious humans rights abuses and corruption, worldwide. But while that EO only talked about blocking/seizing property, by declaring a state of National Emergency other measures became available.

Why were only foreign persons listed in the Annex to the EO?

Misdirection. Don't look at nationalities, look at the representative acts they committed. The EO can easily apply to US citizens, but one has to decipher it to see that.

Then we discover another Executive Order on "Protecting Americans Through The Lawful Detention of Terrorists". In another masterful stroke of misdirection, this EO says "Today, the United States remains engaged in an armed conflict with al‑Qa’ida, the Taliban, and associated forces, including with the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria." It sounds like more "war on terror" but what that EO really did was cancel Obama's EO shutting down Gitmo to re-establish Gitmo's future availability.

We are in a state of armed conflict, but that EO does NOT mention that we are also in a state of National Emergency to deal with the problem with corruption and serious human rights, which leads anyone reading this to the impression that detainment only applies to those groups mentioned in the EO.

WRONG.

>2/4

Sec. 2 (c) says "In addition, the United States may transport additional detainees to U.S. Naval Station Guantánamo Bay when lawful and necessary to protect the Nation."

As we now know, appointed tribunals can declare US citizens Unlawful Enemy Combatants based on their corruption or human rights abuses and place them in military detention for trial before a military tribunal. That means Gitmo WILL be available to deal with the swamp creatures. Detention. Military Tribunals. Meat sandwiches.

>3/4

All pieces are now in place to start taking the pieces off the board. The financial action authority to freeze their funds was issued on Dec. 17th. The authorization to start detaining them was issued just before the SOTU and ensured Gitmo would be available. But who pays attention to EO's these days?

Instead, everyone will be talking about the SOTU address and the MEMO.

Give the team credit where credit is due, the two referenced EO's are rather artfully written. Unless one already understands the issue of an Unlawful Enemy Combatant, it doesn't look like it impacts US Citizens in any meaningful way. WRONG.

We have front row seats to the greatest show on earth and the curtain has just gone up.

>4/4

>>232825

Forgot the pic for this post.