Q,

We've all been thinking about Gitmo and the prospect of trying the traitors in military tribunals. HOWEVER, SCOTUS has long looked down on trying civilians in military courts unless they are considered "enemy combatants" who were "arrested" on foreign territory by US forces.

A stretch of authority could be given to persons arrested in the District of Columbia as it is a federal "reservation." Lincoln was able to arrest traitors within DC.

I fail to see how our theoretical rounding up of traitors who are civilians within the several states can be done constitutionally and within keeping of SCOTUS precedents.

The topics that you cited in your last post do not address this key issue.

POTUS cannot send the marines to arrest me here in Houston and send me to GITMO without my lawyers getting me released and remanded to a civilian court.

The guidance given simply affirms that all federal laws will be harmonized along with the UCMJ for offenses for those who are subject to the UCMJ in the first place.

HRC does not fit the present definitions allowed. Hussein would be a possible stretch as he was the NCA and thus the head of all military forces.

The only historical exception to the rule of civilians being subject to military arrest is during a state of war. We saw this last with the internment of Japanese-Americans.

So, please tell all of us how the civilian traitors will be arrested and how it will be constitutional.