Not soon enough.
so when somebody says
25:45
post 9/11 and that we've been at war and
25:49
it's called the war on terrorism do you
25:52
generally agree with that concept
25:55
I do center because Congress passed the
25:58
authorization for use of military force
26:00
which is still in effect and that was
26:02
passed of course on September 14 2001
26:05
three days later let's talk about the
26:07
law and war is there a body of law
26:11
called the law of armed conflict there
26:14
is such a body Center is there a body of
26:16
law that's called basic criminal law yes
26:19
sir
26:20
are there differences between those two
26:21
bodies of law
26:22
yes senator from an American citizens
26:25
point of view do your constitutional
26:27
rights follow you if you're in Paris
26:29
just a Fourth Amendment TEKT you as an
26:32
American from your own government from
26:34
your own government yes okay so if
26:38
you're in Afghanistan do your
26:42
constitutional rights protect you
26:44
against your own government
26:46
if you're an American in Afghanistan you
26:48
have constitutional rights as against
26:50
the US government
26:51
Sarah long-standing that's that's wrong
26:53
settled all in there also long-settled
26:56
law that and it goes back to the
26:59
eisentrager case I can't remember the
27:01
name of it Johnson versus isin trigger
27:03
right that American citizens who
27:06
collaborate with the enemy have
27:07
considered enemy combatants they can be
27:11
they they can be they're often some
27:14
there sometimes criminally prosecuted
27:15
sometimes treated in the military let's
27:17
talk about can be
27:18
I think the under Supreme Court
27:21
precedent right for them again there's a
27:22
Supreme Court decision that said that
27:25
American citizens who collaborated with
27:27
Nazi saboteurs were tried by the
27:29
military is that correct that is correct
27:31
I think a couple of were executed yeah
27:34
so if anybody doubts there's a
27:38
long-standing history in this country
27:40
that your constitutional rights follow
27:43
you wherever you go but you don't have a
27:44
constitutional right to turn on your own
27:47
government collaborate with the enemy of
27:49
the nation you'll be treated differently
27:52
what's the name of the case if you can
27:54
recall that reaffirmed the concept that
27:59
you could hold one of our own is an
28:00
enemy combatant if there were engaged in
28:03
terrorist activities in Afghanistan are
28:05
you familiar with that case Hamdi okay
28:07
so the bottom line is on every American
28:09
says to no you have constitutional
28:11
rights but you do not have a
28:12
constitutional right to collaborate with
28:15
the enemy there's a body of law well
28:17
developed long before 9/11 that
28:20
understood the difference between basic
28:22
criminal law and the law of armed
28:24
conflict
28:25
do you understand those differences I do
28:29
understand that they're different bodies
28:31
of law of course
damn good line of questioning from Q link
Why not? Thought they'd declassify before as Democrats are screaming for it.
If the Democrats want to hang themselves so bad then feed them the rope.
Kek it's amazing isn't it?
There's wall to wall coverage on FOX of this…. and everyone is getting a undisputed lesson in Constitutional Law.
What's the coverage on other channels?
kek no
qanon will send the feds after his sorry ass and lock him in prison
why the fuck bother doxxing someone
Because of the storm that is coming…….and optics.
Because the sheriff will see it differently…. but maybe at that point it will be completely different times.
dead dead dead dead