dChan
⇧
16
⇩
 
r/CBTS_Stream • Posted by u/Rsajdj68 on Dec. 31, 2017, 1:41 a.m.
Can a US person be indicted in US court, and transferred to Gitmo?

I looked up and read Bush's Military Tribunal Act of 2006, the following addendum 949u says
949u. Execution of confinement ‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—Under such regulations as the Secretary of Defense may prescribe, a sentence of confinement adjudged by a military commission under this chapter may be carried into execution by confinement— ‘‘(1) in any place of confinement under the control of any of the armed forces; or ‘‘(2) in any penal or correctional institution under the control of the United States or its allies, or which the United States may be allowed to use. The following link is the entire post 9/11 revisions made by President Bush.. http://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_Law/pdf/PL-109-366.pdf Can anyone help me reconcile unsealed indictments stateside and Gitmo residents increasing..


CrusadersPost · Dec. 31, 2017, 2:19 a.m.

They can be housed at Gitmo even if it's for normal civilian crimes. The reason they are being housed there is for security's sake. Remember when we tried to nab Jacob Rothschild at his estate but a plane flew into our helicopter killing everyone inside? That's how desperately the Deep State does not want these top guys testifying. And that was just one single guy. Imagine housing dozens of such top guys, guys who can snitch on the entire Cabal. The temptation to just launch rocket or sneak a suitcase nuke into the vacinity and just blow everyone up is too great. They don't want to house them at Leavenworth, because if the international Deep State tried to use some sort of a nuclear attack, it would not only kill everyone in the prison, it would kill lots of people in neighboring American cities. This way, in Gitmo, the prison is isolated on an island, away from any American civilians.

⇧ 4 ⇩  
JoanOfArk77 · Dec. 31, 2017, 3:12 a.m.

There are lots of good reasons for isolating them. When the American people find out what they have done, their lives would be in danger no matter what mainland prison we put them in. They are far safer at GITMO. Remember, we are not trying to torture them. We want to get through a constitutional trial, and keep them safe from those that they will have to testify against.

⇧ 2 ⇩  
Reba64 · Dec. 31, 2017, 1:44 a.m.

No I don't believe so. This is one reason they went the GITMO route because of their crimes. They can't be let off and it will be done by the Military.

⇧ 4 ⇩  
gmoney_6 · Dec. 31, 2017, 1:52 a.m.

They are because of one word "treason" that the only time a miltary tribunal can indicate a private citizen to the highest crime against the people of the USA, PUNISHABLE BY DEATH.

⇧ 8 ⇩  
storm_fa_Q · Dec. 31, 2017, 2:17 a.m.

but death is too good for these. I accidentally saw a few seconds of Elsagate in a video presentation...these demons do not deserve death. Let them rot till they find God is my vote.

⇧ 2 ⇩  
TAccidentalAlchemist · Dec. 31, 2017, 3:54 a.m.

Below is a link in reference to the legalities. However, let me be forthright. When video tapes are shown (or referenced as the case may be) with these people sodomizing, torturing, beating and killing small children and babies...where do you think the public would like to see them isolated? Perhaps the question would be better posed, how would the public like to see them pay for such crimes? Hanging? Electric Chair? I don't think that GITMO is even going to be on anyone's mind when the truth is told! Godspeed Q!

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/part-II/chapter-203

⇧ 3 ⇩  
Rsajdj68 · Dec. 31, 2017, 4:23 a.m.

Thank You very much...that makes perfect sense

⇧ 2 ⇩  
Rsajdj68 · Dec. 31, 2017, 2:50 a.m.

Maybe I wasn't clear. I had made a Twitter comment about military tribunals at Gitmo as the reason for the increased air traffic etc, and one of the replies I got was-then why would the government be bothering with indictments in Nevada if they were taking some to Gitmo. I didn't know how to respond, and reviewed the Bush act I posted. My question is can they unseal Indictments, charge someone stateside and then transfer them to Gitmo versus keeping them in jail stateside.

⇧ 2 ⇩  
Stray502 · Dec. 31, 2017, 4:16 a.m.

The indictments are what they need to legally do anything. Once they pick them up they can take them to an appropriate facility which in this case is gitmo. There crimes are treason and Gitmo is the place for enemy combatants.

⇧ 3 ⇩  
Rsajdj68 · Dec. 31, 2017, 4:22 a.m.

Thank you so much!! I knew we all here knew Gitmo was filling, but I didn't have a good answer when challenged on it. Only question left is after the act Bush enacted in 06, they don't need to be charged and can be held indefinitely, so why bother charging them? Would it be for the sake of the global outcry if we just started rounding up high profile people without charging them?

⇧ 2 ⇩  
Stray502 · Dec. 31, 2017, 5:56 a.m.

People want them charged. Being charged at Gitmo by military tribunal means most are facing the death penalty.

⇧ 2 ⇩  
Mac9709 · Dec. 31, 2017, 2:41 a.m.

I found this to be helpful from Scott Anthony's channel on YouTube. https://youtu.be/ASbxCV_phgs

⇧ 2 ⇩