MAJIC EYES QNLY (is back!) - Series 7 of LAW OF WAR: THE STORM part 1 of 3
(rumble.com)
📜 𝐋𝐀𝐖 𝐎𝐅 𝐖𝐀𝐑 ⚖️
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (92)
sorted by:
Normally, most people hear court martial, and think of trials of military personnel...
BUT courts-martial...
But but but ex parte Milligan! Civilians can't be tried by military tribunals!
Yeah, but no...
The questions over Milligan & co.:
Were the regular courts in Indiana, open and functioning as normal? Yes.
Was the geographic and legal jurisdiction of Indiana in am actual state of war (due to invasion or insurrection)? Neither POTUS Lincoln nor Congress declared that Indiana was considered to be in a state of rebellion, whereas other states like VA, NC, SC, GA, FL, et al. were declared by both to be in a state of rebellion with no legitimate functioning republican government, state courts or federal courts.
So technically, plainly read, the accused did have a strong argument that their rights to trial in regular court were violated. The Court ruled correctly. However, this set a precedent that would become all the more complicated by the changing nature of modern war without defined geographical battlelines.
The USA has been in a very broadly defined state of war since Sept 2001. Against what enemy? Terroists, ambiguously defined. Where? Everywhere. The circumstances of today are massively different compared to those of 1860s Indiana. And Court precedent has already evolved to adapt to new circumstances.
And that's where Graham/Kavanaugh exchange comes in...
SCOTUS post-Milligan precedent to consider:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamdi_v._Rumsfeld
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rasul_v._Bush
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/327/1/
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnson_v._Eisentrager
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_parte_Quirin
Just like the precedent over the federal Judiciary's authority to be involved in adjudicating Electoral disputes, precedent over law of war issues has continued to evolve over time.
Tldr; during time of war (ongoing since 2001... and longer, though undeclared), civilians, even American citizens, on American territory or not, can be held by the US government for crimes of treason, aiding and abetting enemies, insurrection and rebellion, and if regular courts are not open and functioning, can be tried by military courts.
🍿
How do we get the indented quote? I haven't been able to find post code for that yet :D
Also, "martial rule can never exist when the courts are open" and confined martial law to areas of "military operations, where war really prevails"
That quote helps me understand how the Esdras prophecy in the Apocryphal texts (2nd Esdras 11) plays out with this plan. The beasts heads wakes up after no president's remain (Biden removed with less time than Trump's removal) & then the middle head eats up the left & right IIRC.
If the courts & legislature are eaten up/removed, then those qualify the military to do the courts martial of all bad politicians & deep state members that the military chooses legally.
Thanks for this connection fren!
If you just put a ">" in front of the text, it'll put it into indented quote, or you could highlight the desired quote text and click the 3rd symbol from left, the " quotation marks.
Exactly. So long as there are legally functioning legislatures and courts, then the Constitution can be upheld. But when you have complete legal breakdowns, like what happened from 1860-1865, where entire state governments, executives and courts, engaged in open insurrection and rebellion against the federal government, they only thing that could be done is martial law, with military governors, administrators and tribunals/commissions/courts. This is long standing constitutional and common law legal precedent. Albeit, the legal thinking has evolved over the past two centuries to adapt to modern developments and circumstances.
Despite the numerous abuses, the cases of insurrection and rebellion, of treason and acts of war against the USA, occuring over the past 2 years (and longer), so long as there are legal remedies and legitimate, functional governments and courts, the military cannot intervene. Imo, the Rubicon had already been crossed though. I understand the long game being played, though I'd have personally taken a more Lincolnesque approach.