The End of The Show (part 1)
My mini dig on military tribunals leads me to some interesting places. First stop was the rationale for Martial Law and military tribunals and also the Posse Comitatus Act. I believe that we’re on a collision course with all. Martial Law is suspension of the civilian system of functions and law and order and its replacement with military control. Martial Law can suspend habeas corpus in cases of violent uprisings or in cases of a serious threat to public safety or national security (think AntiFa).
Martial Law doesn’t have to encompass the entire nation. It can be imposed only in certain areas. Martial Law doesn’t have to be authorized by Congress, it can be unilaterally imposed by POTUS. In 1878, the Knott Amendment (the Posse Comitatus Act) was passed by Congress. This Act states that the US Army and Air Force may not be used in domestic law enforcement activities unless authorized by Congress. Q has pointed us to this Act multiple times. Why? Because it restricts POTUS from using the Army and the Air Force in the event of the imposition of Martial Law. But what’s more important than this is what the Act DOES NOT restrict: POTUS’s authority to call up the Marines, the Navy, and the National Guard in the event of Martial Law. Additionally, there were several exceptions and exclusions to the rules—most of which were eventually repealed by Congress after the G.W. Bush presidency. But Congress unwittingly gave this authority (and more) back to the president during the Hussein presidency under the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, signed into law by Hussein on December 31, 2011.
Here is the most interesting and controversial part of the law: The detention sections of the NDAA begin by "affirm[ing]" that the authority of the President under the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists (AUMF), a joint resolution passed in the immediate aftermath of the September 11, 2001 attacks, includes the power to detain, via the Armed Forces, any person, including a U.S. citizen, "who was part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners", and anyone who commits a "belligerent act" against the United States or its coalition allies in aid of such enemy forces, under the law of war, "without trial, until the end of the hostilities authorized by the [AUMF]". The text authorizes trial by military tribunal, or "transfer to the custody or control of the person's country of origin", or transfer to "any other foreign country, or any other foreign entity".
Read that again. Its actually very significant to where we are now. Military tribunals are obviously not public events. People can be arrested and detained and secretly transferred to any place {including foreign countries} and held there (think GITMO).
-
What may be construed as a hostility against the United States?
-
What may be construed as a belligerent act against the United States?
-
Could threats of public violence being stoked by the media and certain leftist organizations meet these criteria?
-
Could public acts of violence being carried out by AntiFa meet these criteria?