Search 'Military' on Q posts, the military is all over this. If you're involve in crimes against America, you're an 'Enemy Combatant' & subject to Military Justice, this bypasses Civilian Law.
This is not quite correct. Military law is in fact a subset of civilian law, enacted via the Congress.
It's not that it 'bypasses' civilian law. Rather, that certain actions will qualify one as an enemy combatant (you have to be working with a foreign power engaged in war with the US) in which case one falls under the jurisdiction of the military code of justice.
Treason, which involves crimes against the country, does not necessarily qualify one as an enemy combatant (according to the definitions described in the Law of War manual, 2016 version).
Terrorism, especially if funded by foreigners, would definitely qualify one for enemy combatant status, though. Treason by elected officials, if they have mandatory meetings with foreign agents such as, oh I don't know, AIPAC maybe...
But more fundamentally, if the people engaging in activities against the country and its Constitution are illegally occupying a capitol, would that not be an invasion, and/or if they engaged in a coup, don't these both independently qualify people as enemy combatants? I think they get there multiple ways, honestly. The low level tools cheating in the polls and with the ballot counting are probably not enemy combatants, but it would have been fun to see them squirm in military court.
One can get a good introduction to the relevant concepts of enemy combatant in the Law of War Manual.
AFAIK, a person can only be an enemy combatant if there is a state of war between the country and a foreign power. Then, there are different categories of enemy combatant, such as those in uniform and those not in uniform. Certain rights are assigned to these various actors under the Geneva Conventions.
Terrorism, I think, would not necessarily qualify someone as an enemy combatant. Treason, too, does not require that a state of war exists. Bush used the term "enemy combatant" to detain the (accused) members of alqaida re: 911. The fact that Bush redefined the term might give us pause as to whether in fact it was justified. (Because we can trust G Bush and his clique about as far as we can throw them).
There are very clear definitions for all these things, and they are not just vague concepts or indiscriminate ideas. The definitions don't depend on what you or I think, but rather are defined under law, including both criminal law and military law.
Addendum
See, for example, 4.3 under Section IV of the LoW manual:
4.3 LAWFUL COMBATANTS AND UNPRIVILEGED BELLIGERENTS
In addition to distinguishing between the armed forces and the civilian population, the law of war also distinguishes between “privileged” and “unprivileged,” or “lawful” and “unlawful” combatants. As the Supreme Court has explained:
Lawful combatants are subject to capture and detention as prisoners of war by
opposing military forces. Unlawful combatants are likewise subject to capture
and detention, but in addition they are subject to trial and punishment by military
tribunals for acts which render their belligerency unlawful.
“Unlawful combatants” or “unprivileged belligerents” are persons who, by engaging in hostilities, have incurred one or more of the corresponding liabilities of combatant status (e.g., being made the object of attack and subject to detention), but who are not entitled to any of the distinct privileges of combatant status (e.g., combatant immunity and POW status)
I don't know if members of a coup would qualify as 'enemy combatants'. I think a coup would more likely be seen as an insurrection than as an armed hostility by another state.
If the Military is in charge then who’s the CIC? And if Trump is the CIC then why would he say “I HOPE the military revolts at the voting booth”? Would the CIC give the order to take over at the voting booth?
Trump is acting CiC and has access to the Nuclear Football, that way the DS can't conduct nuclear launches during the Great Awakening as part of the great reset agenda through Biden.
Exactly, I swear some of these people have zero critical thinking skills. If the military were in charge why would they revolt against themselves? That would be the opposite of what we want. Revolt of the military only serves us if the cabal is currently in charge.
It all falls under the same chain of command. It will be made monolithic by that command the moment any part is discovered not to be onboard with the orders.
Of course the CIC would give the order to secure the voting booth. It's 2016 all over again LOL!
Unless they allow another steal to happen so we can have a precipice moment. For that to happen it really comes down to what SCOTUS says about the current 2020 election fraud case.
I hear that as, The military revolting against what the left is saying that Trump said about them being suckers. I heard it when it was said also and this is my opinion.
Now, I do believe the military is in control and will be handling our elections, covertly.
I think you've evolved to emanate hopium from your pores.
Trump added, "I hope that the military revolts at the voting booth", meaning our only choice is to vote
Unless you want to read that the military has always been in charge of SELECTIONS not elections and he's hoping this will cause them to SELECT Trump regardless of the outcome. But that's very cynical!
I found that Joe Rambo seems to post a LOT of subjective and non-critical thinking, and for that reason, I'm not particularly a big fan.
For example,
First Trump basically says there are investigations going on... "Let's see what happens."
That's ONE possible explanation or interpretation. But there are other just as (if not more) reasonable explanations:
They should be prosecuted. Let's see what happens..." could very well mean "when I get back in to the WH, they will be prosecuted!"
Also, notice how Joe Rambo has selectively edited the clip to EXCLUDE the very thing that Trump was talking about that gives it the context:
"that I said this.... and they put it out, and it's been going around for 3 years. And it's just like Russia, Russia, Russia, Ukraine, Ukraine, Ukraine...." and he proceeds to give other examples of hoaxes and false information the deep state has put out.
So what is it that he said that they put out and has been going around for three years? (And why did Joe Rambo edit it out?)
u/Axodeth offers one explanation (in comments under this post):
what the left is saying that Trump said about them being suckers
That actually makes sense. but what Joe Rambo concludes does NOT make sense.
He "hopes the military revolts at the ballot boxes"?!! Has the Military been in charge this whole time?
IF the military has been "in charge" (which, by the way, is a 1000 times different to the patriots "being in control", then WHY would Trump want them to revolt? Contradictory ideas.
This is a big problem that certain sections of the Great Awakening community face: they get so caught up in a subjective interpretation of what's going on, WITHOUT applying critical thinking (i.e. looking for possible alternative explanations for something and then vetting their own interpretations), and then run and run and run by employing confirmation bias.
I.e. some folks think that somehow, the military has taken over the US, and that the US is under some type of SECRET military occupation (martial law), and that the military is "in charge". But they also seem to ignore (imo) all the counter arguments to that reality, counterarguments based in law, the constitution and critical thinking.
(one example: If the Cabal ruled us and kept us in ignorance in order to decide everything for us, how is enacting secret martial law in order to control us any different? Where is the basis in law, constitutional or otherwise?)
Some folks do not seem to consider alternative explanations for what they observe. Personally, my own thinking aligns more with the reasoning and research of Patel Patriot, as outlined primarily in the Devolution Series.
Note: Q never says the military is in charge or that the military are "in control". Q famously writes "Patriots in control" and in several drops writes "We are in control". But being "in charge" and being "in control" are two different things.
In charge implies someone or something has legal, organizational or ethical authority over (something), but "in control" simply means that someone or something is directing where something is going. ("He was in control of the car", (he gained control of the company")
It's a pretty big leap from the patriots being in a dominant and controlling position on the game board vis-a-vis game theory to the military being in charge under martial law.
To truly vet and find out what is going on, one needs to be able to critically question one's own ideas and entertain alternative explanations.
In my opinion, the force of influence held by folks like Joe Rambo is largely emotionally based and non-critical (i.e. not critical thinking based). He may be right, or he might not be. But wishful thinking and ignoring confirmation bias is antithetical to Q-type thinking.
Think for yourself.
Trust yourself.
Research for yourself.
Be in control of yourself.
NEVER let someone else DRIVE YOU.
Hmmmm.... I suppose I didn't consider that. I guess I feel like HOW people approach information is the most important priority, and I tend to be critical of what looks to me like a flawed or less than robust approach, but I suppose even just expanding thinking to include ideas you never considered is an important aspect for those beginning the journey. Everyone is on a different stage in the journey, and I can understand that this should be taken in to account. Hmmm...
Search 'Military' on Q posts, the military is all over this. If you're involve in crimes against America, you're an 'Enemy Combatant' & subject to Military Justice, this bypasses Civilian Law.
Yes!
Military is in Control.
now... let's talk about your health!.. ~Dave....
Kek! 😺
This is not quite correct. Military law is in fact a subset of civilian law, enacted via the Congress.
It's not that it 'bypasses' civilian law. Rather, that certain actions will qualify one as an enemy combatant (you have to be working with a foreign power engaged in war with the US) in which case one falls under the jurisdiction of the military code of justice.
Treason, which involves crimes against the country, does not necessarily qualify one as an enemy combatant (according to the definitions described in the Law of War manual, 2016 version).
Thanks for your input.
Terrorism, especially if funded by foreigners, would definitely qualify one for enemy combatant status, though. Treason by elected officials, if they have mandatory meetings with foreign agents such as, oh I don't know, AIPAC maybe...
But more fundamentally, if the people engaging in activities against the country and its Constitution are illegally occupying a capitol, would that not be an invasion, and/or if they engaged in a coup, don't these both independently qualify people as enemy combatants? I think they get there multiple ways, honestly. The low level tools cheating in the polls and with the ballot counting are probably not enemy combatants, but it would have been fun to see them squirm in military court.
One can get a good introduction to the relevant concepts of enemy combatant in the Law of War Manual.
AFAIK, a person can only be an enemy combatant if there is a state of war between the country and a foreign power. Then, there are different categories of enemy combatant, such as those in uniform and those not in uniform. Certain rights are assigned to these various actors under the Geneva Conventions.
Terrorism, I think, would not necessarily qualify someone as an enemy combatant. Treason, too, does not require that a state of war exists. Bush used the term "enemy combatant" to detain the (accused) members of alqaida re: 911. The fact that Bush redefined the term might give us pause as to whether in fact it was justified. (Because we can trust G Bush and his clique about as far as we can throw them).
https://www.britannica.com/topic/enemy-combatant
There are very clear definitions for all these things, and they are not just vague concepts or indiscriminate ideas. The definitions don't depend on what you or I think, but rather are defined under law, including both criminal law and military law.
Addendum
See, for example, 4.3 under Section IV of the LoW manual:
I don't know if members of a coup would qualify as 'enemy combatants'. I think a coup would more likely be seen as an insurrection than as an armed hostility by another state.
https://dod.defense.gov/Portals/1/Documents/pubs/Law-of-War-Manual-june-2015.pdf
I think you're right and most of our problem people would likely be unlawful combatants. Who are therefore not entitled to normal combatant rights lol
DJT did describe himself as a "wartime president" and declare that the US had been subject to an attack greater than Pearl Harbor.
Hmmm....
Remember when we were little kids, how ridiculously intense was our desire for Christmas morning to please hurry up and arrive?
This is like that
It is picking up pace. We will see more & more progress, but I think we've reached the point of NCSWIC. It's a runaway train.
If the Military is in charge then who’s the CIC? And if Trump is the CIC then why would he say “I HOPE the military revolts at the voting booth”? Would the CIC give the order to take over at the voting booth?
Trump is acting CiC and has access to the Nuclear Football, that way the DS can't conduct nuclear launches during the Great Awakening as part of the great reset agenda through Biden.
OPTICS.
Exactly, I swear some of these people have zero critical thinking skills. If the military were in charge why would they revolt against themselves? That would be the opposite of what we want. Revolt of the military only serves us if the cabal is currently in charge.
Your daily reminder that 'the military' is not a single monolithic entity
It all falls under the same chain of command. It will be made monolithic by that command the moment any part is discovered not to be onboard with the orders.
Of course the CIC would give the order to secure the voting booth. It's 2016 all over again LOL!
Unless they allow another steal to happen so we can have a precipice moment. For that to happen it really comes down to what SCOTUS says about the current 2020 election fraud case.
I hear that as, The military revolting against what the left is saying that Trump said about them being suckers. I heard it when it was said also and this is my opinion.
Now, I do believe the military is in control and will be handling our elections, covertly.
What makes you think now they're doing it? Surely Trump knew in 2018 there was cheating, so why not 2020?
I think you've evolved to emanate hopium from your pores.
Trump added, "I hope that the military revolts at the voting booth", meaning our only choice is to vote
Unless you want to read that the military has always been in charge of SELECTIONS not elections and he's hoping this will cause them to SELECT Trump regardless of the outcome. But that's very cynical!
Sometimes, if one consumes enough hopium for long enough, one becomes addicted while not even recognizing that one is addicted.
How do you get that meaning from that quote
Why is this so clandestine?
https://twstalker.com/BrainStorm_Joe/status/1799891939564671062
I found that Joe Rambo seems to post a LOT of subjective and non-critical thinking, and for that reason, I'm not particularly a big fan.
For example,
That's ONE possible explanation or interpretation. But there are other just as (if not more) reasonable explanations:
They should be prosecuted. Let's see what happens..." could very well mean "when I get back in to the WH, they will be prosecuted!"
Also, notice how Joe Rambo has selectively edited the clip to EXCLUDE the very thing that Trump was talking about that gives it the context:
"that I said this.... and they put it out, and it's been going around for 3 years. And it's just like Russia, Russia, Russia, Ukraine, Ukraine, Ukraine...." and he proceeds to give other examples of hoaxes and false information the deep state has put out.
So what is it that he said that they put out and has been going around for three years? (And why did Joe Rambo edit it out?)
u/Axodeth offers one explanation (in comments under this post):
That actually makes sense. but what Joe Rambo concludes does NOT make sense.
IF the military has been "in charge" (which, by the way, is a 1000 times different to the patriots "being in control", then WHY would Trump want them to revolt? Contradictory ideas.
This is a big problem that certain sections of the Great Awakening community face: they get so caught up in a subjective interpretation of what's going on, WITHOUT applying critical thinking (i.e. looking for possible alternative explanations for something and then vetting their own interpretations), and then run and run and run by employing confirmation bias.
I.e. some folks think that somehow, the military has taken over the US, and that the US is under some type of SECRET military occupation (martial law), and that the military is "in charge". But they also seem to ignore (imo) all the counter arguments to that reality, counterarguments based in law, the constitution and critical thinking.
(one example: If the Cabal ruled us and kept us in ignorance in order to decide everything for us, how is enacting secret martial law in order to control us any different? Where is the basis in law, constitutional or otherwise?)
Some folks do not seem to consider alternative explanations for what they observe. Personally, my own thinking aligns more with the reasoning and research of Patel Patriot, as outlined primarily in the Devolution Series.
Note: Q never says the military is in charge or that the military are "in control". Q famously writes "Patriots in control" and in several drops writes "We are in control". But being "in charge" and being "in control" are two different things.
In charge implies someone or something has legal, organizational or ethical authority over (something), but "in control" simply means that someone or something is directing where something is going. ("He was in control of the car", (he gained control of the company")
It's a pretty big leap from the patriots being in a dominant and controlling position on the game board vis-a-vis game theory to the military being in charge under martial law.
To truly vet and find out what is going on, one needs to be able to critically question one's own ideas and entertain alternative explanations.
In my opinion, the force of influence held by folks like Joe Rambo is largely emotionally based and non-critical (i.e. not critical thinking based). He may be right, or he might not be. But wishful thinking and ignoring confirmation bias is antithetical to Q-type thinking.
Q2604
I understand Fractal & recognize this as well but, but feel his viewpoint helps people to expand their thinking...
Hmmmm.... I suppose I didn't consider that. I guess I feel like HOW people approach information is the most important priority, and I tend to be critical of what looks to me like a flawed or less than robust approach, but I suppose even just expanding thinking to include ideas you never considered is an important aspect for those beginning the journey. Everyone is on a different stage in the journey, and I can understand that this should be taken in to account. Hmmm...
After slightly flubbing the word, he stopped; and, instead of changing the wording, he repeated 'military'.
That indicated he (a) MEANT to say it, and (b) desired to reveal it right NOW.
Recall that Trump has said "November 5th will be the greatest day in American history—much bigger than if we did it the more TRADITIONAL way"
and
"This election will be even bigger than 2016, because it WON'T BE TRADITIONAL."
.
ow
for some reason the front of my pants just ripped