That is if his Justice Department would lock up the crooks in our government. The people would see that his administration would be seeking justice. And I think I agree with most of the people here-we need to have military tribunals-as the courts are corrupt. These people need to be punished and punished hard for their crimes. Many may have committed Treason against the United States. So I say either get the arrests made-Pam Bondi-or leave the administration of our great president's. What say you all? I don't have/know all the answers, but I believe this would help a lot! Or at least let the people know ARRESTS are coming (soon).
Comments (5)
sorted by:
Is there a legal path for military tribunals?
Our courts are so corrupt, we need something to get us out of this morass. If we can't get the courts straight then what sense does it do to charge anyone?
Well civilians are to be tried in civilian courts they have the US constitution on their side! We would work around/with civilian court's as it sits now. So let's get the courts straightened out so we can trust the judges on the bench. And are above reproach in their honesty and rulings! How do we figure that out??
In military legal proceedings, there is a "jury," though it is officially referred to as a panel and its members as members. These panels perform a role similar to a civilian jury by acting as the trier of fact to determine guilt or innocence. Wikipedia Wikipedia +3 Who Makes Up the Jury Pool? The jury pool is not drawn from the general public but exclusively from active-duty military personnel. The pool and selection process are defined by specific criteria: Legally Blonde AF Legally Blonde AF +3 Selection Authority: Unlike civilian juries selected at random, military panel members are handpicked by a convening authority, typically a high-ranking officer (such as a 2 or 3-star general). Selection Criteria: The convening authority must select members who are "best qualified" based on age, education, training, experience, length of service, and judicial temperament. Rank Requirements: All panel members must be senior in rank (or at least equal) to the accused. A lower-ranking service member cannot sit in judgment of a higher-ranking one. Officer vs. Enlisted: If the accused is an officer, the panel must consist entirely of officers. If the accused is enlisted, they have the right to request that at least one-third of the panel be composed of enlisted members. Otherwise, the panel may be all officers. Exclusions: Members cannot be in a training status, deployed, or from the same command if it might cause a conflict of interest, though they are generally stationed at the same installation where the trial occurs. Wikipedia Wikipedia +9 Key Differences from Civilian Juries Size: Military panels are typically smaller, often consisting of 4 members for special courts-martial and 8 for general courts-martial (12 for capital cases). Verdict: Except in cases where the death penalty is possible, a unanimous verdict is not required. Conviction usually requires a three-fourths majority. Questioning: Panel members are often permitted to ask questions of witnesses during the trial, subject to the judge's approval. Wikipedia Wikipedia +5 AI responses may include mistakes. For legal advice, consult a professional.
AI can sometime lead us in the wrong direction. Not because of the question, all the time, but because of what isn't asked. I thought that military tribunals should have to be used in cases of treason. Civilians are just that and need to be tried by civilian courts.