>>9326604 [Q]
>[D]s in coordination w/ [D]&[F] assets have launched [as known] a full-scale insurgency attack against the people of the United States in an effort to regain power by any means necessary
>All assets deployed.
>[Current landscape] coordinated and deliberate events to impact [rig] P_election.
>WAR.
>The future of our Republic is at stake.
>Survival as a Nation.
>We Rise or We Die.
>We, the People.
>Q
Graham: So, if anybody doubts there’s a longstanding 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 can hold one of our own as an enemy combatant if they were engaged in terrorist activities in Afghanistan. Are you familiar with that case?
Kavanaugh: Yes, Hamdi [v. Rumsfeld].
Graham: So the bottom line is on every American citizen know you have constitutional rights, but you do not have a constitutional right to collaborate with the enemy. There is a body of law well developed long before 9/11 that understood the difference between basic criminal law and the law of armed conflict. Do you understand those difference?
Kavanaugh: I do understand that there are different bodies of law of course, senator.
>Enemy Combatants
Senator Lindsey Graham Questions Brett Kavanaugh Military Law vs Criminal Law during war on terror
https://youtu.be/3_gmOsnjrZw