>>537152

>>536442

lawyerfag here. Military tribunals have only limited application to US citizens in the US. The reason Gitmo is outside of the US is that it removed US legal jurisdiction from the equation for american enemy combatants.

Under martial law, the military operates the police, courts, and legislature instead of the civilian government.

In any event, all trials are subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice , found here: http:// www.ucmj.us/

Although a person held under Marshal Law detention cannot challenge his detention, rules of trials still remain.

>>537190

Lucifer failed in that role. Jesus did not. See also Ezekiel 28:

“You were the anointed cherub who covers;

I established you;

You were on the holy mountain of God;

You walked back and forth in the midst of fiery stones.

15 You were perfect in your ways from the day you were created,

Till iniquity was found in you.

16 “By the abundance of your trading

You became filled with violence within,

And you sinned;

Therefore I cast you as a profane thing

Out of the mountain of God;

And I destroyed you, O covering cherub,

From the midst of the fiery stones.

>>537204

no, it has not. And a national emergancy does not equal martial law.

>>537206

The SDG's are not a bad thing. they may be naive, but they are not evil: http:// www.who.int/mediacentre/events/meetings/2015/un-sustainable-development-summit/en/

>>537252

The attachments to the EO included a discussion of the legal grounds for two cases in which military trials would, and would not, be appropriate/legal for amerian citizens. The distinction revolves around how active the person charged was in treasonous activities.

>>537272

It is true that the oldest textual evidence for the greek NT has the number 616.

>>537381

That EO was specific to the seizure of assets. It had nothing to do with military courts.

Military courts do not try civilians, unless that civilian in in the employ of the military, or labeled an enemy combatant- which has it's limits as per the legal opionin attached to the Q post Jan 26: http:// www.endusmilitarism.org/PDF/military_detention_of_US_citizens_and_18_USC_4001a.pdf

>>537393

if the charged is labeled an enemy combattent (or unlawfull combattent), yes.

>>537402

Martial law will render them non-functional.

>>537459

The UCMJ still applies under martial law

>>537470

wrong. Read the judcial opinon Q posted Jan 26, and note the difference between Milligan and Quiran. see p 6

http:// www.endusmilitarism.org/PDF/military_detention_of_US_citizens_and_18_USC_4001a.pdf

>>537503

a state of emergancy is not the same thing as martial law

>>537513

I spelled it wrong in one location, true. I do know about then, as I am exmilitary, and represented persons charged.

>>537530

There have been instances when local martial law was enacted- e.g. in hawaii after pearl harbor attack

>>537536

you are correct. They are not the same thing.

>>537568

Of course US citizens can be declared enemy combatants. I never said they could not. The legal opinion Q posted jan 26 shows how that works.

>>537570

http:// www.endusmilitarism.org/PDF/military_detention_of_US_citizens_and_18_USC_4001a.pdf

from Q jan 26. read page 6 for the distinctions made