>>373

I want to talk about this a bit because it is still confusing me.

Military Law v. Criminal Law

I am not a law fag but I have looked at the Supreme Court cases Justice K talked about with LG. I've looked at the only time Military Tribunal was used to try US citizens. And I've looked at the Court Martial statutes.

First the only time US Citizens were tried by military tribunal was the 4 conspirators responsible for Abe Lincoln's assassination. Habeas corpus had been suspended during the Civil War and had not yet been reinstated.

Ex parte Milligan (1866) was the supreme court case that stated that trial of US Citizens in military courts is unconstitutional any time the US courts are functioning.

Johnson v. Eisentrager (1950) was the supreme court case that stated that foreign prisoners of war held overseas at US military installations who had not set foot on US soil could not be tried by military tribunal.

There are many cases of the US government v. enemy combatant that all upheld that US citizens must be tried by civilian courts if they are charged with a crime, including those who are deemed enemy combatants, and in every case a writ of habeas corpus is not denied to them.

Unless and until the courts are suspended by the President and ratified by the Congress, all criminal prosecutions must be carried out in the US courts and habeas corpus will not be denied.

The military law does not apply to citizens while the courts are functioning. It does not apply even to enemy foreign combatants who have not put foot on American soil. Military law applies only to military personnel or to civilians during a time when the civilian courts are suspended.

So, Q, does this mean the Congress will get behind this President to suspend basic constitutionally guaranteed rights of habeas corpus and trial in a civilian court? Will President Trump, who loves this country and loves the Constitution suspend it?