I suspect some of President Trump's people occasionally scan this board and I'm hoping to get some clarification on something I stumbled across last night.
I was watching a documentary on the assassination of President Lincoln and something they said about military tribunals caused me to do an internet search.
I came across a Supreme court decision called ex parte Milligan. I really tried to find out the answers to my questions without bothering anyone but the internet information was a bit unclear.
BUT...as near as I could determine -- when the Supreme court makes a decision that decision stays as legal precedent unless a future Supreme Court reverses the decision.
I could find no verification online that ex parte Milligan has been reversed. My question is -- where does that leave us in the here and now? For several years, people have been counting on military tribunals to step in and save the day. If I read ex parte Milligan correctly and it has not been reversed -- this concept of military tribunals dealing with these criminals is impossible. Am I mistaken?
Will someone clarify as I would never have thought my interest in history would have dug up something so...I think I want to say disappointing. I believe a lot of people are counting on military tribunals because the court system is so corrupt.
Thank you in advance for your consideration and hopefully an answer to my questions.
Im not a lawyer, nor do I play one on GAW. Probably the answer lies with the corrupt civilians being classified as enemy combatants. I believe the SCOTUS ruled about that in a case called Hamdi during the baby Bush administration just after 9-11.
Ding, ding, ding. We have a winner. The democrats turned themselves into enemy combatants.
AFAIK this is correct. Patriot Act allows US Govt to target anyone deemed a terriorist. Additionally, Trump's EO extended the definition of terrorist to include crimes against humanity which further broadens the net given to the MIL to catch these baddies.
I read that in my head as "Mother in Laws". Oh, spiteful and vindictive wenches...that's nasty. Wait- Military. That's different then.
Got to ramp up the coffee consumtion.
Thank you.
SCOTUS narrowed the Milligan precedent in the 1942 case Ex parte Quirin. They ruled that it does not protect those classified as unlawful enemy combatants under the laws of war.
I think there were also a couple cases that came up during the aftermath of 9/11 that further addressed unlawful enemy combatants. And, there are Q posts where Lindsey Graham was asking Brett Kavanaugh very pointed questions about how the law treats unlawful enemy combatants. Unfortunately, I don’t have time to dig them up right now.
Thank you.
Ex parte Quirin (1942) is a landmark Supreme Court of the United States decision that upheld the federal government's authority to try "unlawful enemy combatants" in military tribunals during wartime, even when civilian courts are fully operational. Decided during World War II, it serves as the primary counter-precedent to Ex parte Milligan, carving out a major exception for individuals who violate the international laws of war
Thank you.
Been rumored for a while Barron and Don Jr. are possibly lurking here.
Never heard this one before. What is this rumor based on?
Like most rumors it's based on someone saying "Rumor is..."
Man I love it here :)