Talking about the well-settled body of law about how an American can be treated as an enemy combatant under US military law, if they make war against their country.
Chills, anons! We're getting closer…
Fantastic little 1:35 video from POTUS.
Afterward, the assembled Sheriffs are whistling and cheering. You will too!
https://twitter.com/i/status/1037456816601485316
>>2892310 The insane NYT tops even itself. Their raverhood has reached escape velocity and is zooming past Saturn. Going bankrupt soon—about the same time some of those lying pukes are named in the sealed indictments.
Formatted with punctuation. There are a few mis-transcribed words but the overall gist is accurate.
Excerpt from Lindsay Graham questioning of Judge Brett Kavanaugh at confirmation hearing, 9/5/2018.
Q: So when somebody says post 9/11 and that we've been at war and it's called the war on terrorism, do you generally agree with that concept?
A: I do, Senator, because Congress passed the authorization for use of military force which is still in effect and that was passed of course on September 14 2001 three days later.
Q: Let's talk about the law of war. Is there a body of law called the law of armed conflict?
A: There is such a body, Senator.
Q: Is there a body of law that's called basic criminal law?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Are there differences between those two bodies of law?
A: Yes, senator.
Q: From an American citizen's point of view, do your constitutional rights follow you if you're in Paris (unintelligible)
A: (unintelligible) Yes
Q: Okay, so if you're in Afghanistan, do your constitutional rights protect you against your own government?
A: If you're an American in Afghanistan, you have constitutional rights as against the US government, sir– long-standing, that's long-settled– all in there also long-settled law that–
and it goes back to the Eisentrager case.
Q: I can't remember the name of it – Johnson v. Eisentrager?
A: Right, that American citizens who collaborate with the enemy have [been] considered enemy combatants. They can be– they can be– they're sometimes criminally prosecuted, sometimes treated in the military.
Q: Let's talk about can be– I think the under Supreme Court precedent right for them again there's a Supreme Court decision that said that American citizens who collaborated with Nazi saboteurs were tried by the military; is that correct?
A: That is correct.
Q: I think a couple of were executed?
A: Yeah.
Q: So if anybody doubts there's a long-standing history in this country that your constitutional rights follow you wherever you go, but you don't have a constitutional right to turn on your own government and collaborate with the enemy of the nation, you'll be treated differently? What's the name of the case, if you can recall, that reaffirmed the concept that you could hold one of our own as an enemy combatant if there were engaged in terrorist activities in Afghanistan? Are you familiar with that case?
A: Hamdi.
Q: Okay. So the bottom line is on every American says you have constitutional rights, but you do not have a constitutional right to collaborate with the enemy?
A: There's a body of law, well developed long before 9/11 that understood the difference between basic criminal law and the law of armed conflict.
Q: Do you understand those differences?
A: I do understand that they're different bodies of law. Of course.
Transcriber's note: This was a machine transcription containing several minor errors. The anon adding formatting but left the inaudible words in place.