Q asks, "Under what article can the President impose MI take over investigations for the 3 letter agencies? What conditions must present itself?"
People like to say Military Tribunals are for the military personnel and can't be used against civilians. You would be mistaken.
“Can military law apply to civilians?” The short answer is yes, but only under special circumstances."
As we continue to read here, those circumstances would be if President Trump signed the Insurrection Act.
https://www.lawsuitlegal.com/military-law/can-civilians-be-tried-in-military-court.php
The Insurrection Act is a law while "martial law" is a concept that doesn't have a legal definition in the U.S. "It's not enshrined anywhere," said Thaddeus Hoffmeister, a law professor at the University of Dayton.
Generally, martial law means that the military takes over civilian control of the government, whereas the Insurrection Act applies to specific instances of rebellion or refusal to uphold the law and requires a state's National Guard or the U.S. military to intervene.
Looking at the section above it says, "Insurrection Act applies to specific instances of rebellion or refusal to uphold the law and requires a state's National Guard or the U.S. military to intervene.
On January 6th, there was a refusal to uphold the law. The law broken would be refusing to look at alternate delegates. This is what the Brunson Supreme Court case is based on.
Also said above, "Requires National Guard to intervene"
When did the National Guard arrive to DC? On the evening of Jan 6th.
https://people.com/politics/national-guard-arrives-on-scene-at-u-s-capitol/
For Trump to initiate the Insurrection act, he must give a proclamation to disperse.
Here is his proclamation.
https://twitter.com/munson_fletcher/status/1604911237896491008
THE ROLE OF MILITARY TRIBUNALS UNDER THE LAW OF WAR
Go to page 7.
Under Article 2 of the Uniform Code, a “declared war” is necessary for a “time of war” to exist (which would then justify the trial of civilians by general court-martial)
https://www.bu.edu/law/journals-archive/international/volume24n1/documents/1-14.pdf
Here, President Trump calls himself a war time President, "In a true sense, We Are At War". This is a war declaration.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vOe4Ksoa5bk
"Military authority takes over civilian rule upon the declaration of martial law. As a result, the military holds immense power to run essential branches of the State, including the police, courts, and legislature or any lawmaking body."
It does not matter what the committee investigating Jan. 6 finds. The recommended criminal charges going to the DOJ against President Donald Trump are null and void. The marker that pushes the military to step forward may be the attempt to arrest President Trump.
We have been waiting for Durham to issue his findings. If we are under martial law, he most likely handed his findings to a military tribunal. Durham just gathered the evidence; military tribunals will prosecute the guilty. Would it make any sense for Durham to hand his recommended criminal charges to the DOJ? At this stage of the movie, the military has overruled the DOJ's authority.
Elon is releasing evidence that solidifies the Durham's special counsel findings. The FBI colluded with the DNC's fake Russia collusion story (Durham) and now the FBI colluded social networking sites to infringe our rights and manipulate the outcome of our 2020 election. (Musk)
You can bet your sweet little ass Trump signed the Insurrection Act on January 6th. We are under martial law, just wait for it, its coming.
Remember this?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9YnMaAsiXIo
Have a Merry Christmas my frens!!!
WWG1WGA!!!
This is a great write up and overview, however there is one issue:
The president doesn't have the authority to declare war by himself, and even if he did there's no court in the world that would accept a casual remark in media as an official act.
So it definitely wasn't a "war declaration" but it could have been POTUS letting us know there was some sort of secret act of congress, or something like that which did officially put us at war.
The president has 48 hours to notify congress if sending troops in to harms way. How many troops has he deployed?
If he has a 48 hour window, that means he has authority to declare war without congregational approval.
The president has limited authority to send troops or direct the military, but explicitly does not have the authority to declare war on his own. Only congress can do that. When it comes to legal matters, technical terms matter. Sending troops somewhere is not the same as an official war declaration.
President has the authority to commit U.S. military forces to armed conflict if he chooses. He must notify congress within 48 hours.
President Trump said he was a war President. He said we are at war. He said we are fighting an invisible enemy. Does he need Congressional approval for that?
War Powers Resolution of 1973
It stipulates the president must notify Congress within 48 hours of military action and prohibits armed forces from remaining for more than 60 days. The Constitution divides war powers between Congress and the president. Only Congress can declare war and appropriate military funding, yet the president is commander in chief of the armed forces.
https://www.nixonlibrary.gov/news/war-powers-resolution-1973