You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

speedisavirus ago

Yeah, you realize that 1) that only impacts military members and none of them are currently implicated in anything serious and 2) there is nothing of note in this that has any implications you claim.

Blacksmith21 ago

You do realize you are 100% wrong, don't you? Anyone implicated can be categorized as an enemy combatant, civilian or military, and can be tried under UCMJ.

Are_we_sure ago

Nope.

Blacksmith21 ago

Considering you have never served in the Armed Forces, I place no credence in anything you regurgitate. You may want to educate yourself, little man:

https://learningconlaw.wordpress.com/2009/02/15/the-ucmj-and-civilians/

thisistotallynotme ago

Let us know what branch you served in, and please provide photographic proof.

After all, I could say I'm Emperor Napoleon II, and you'd just have to take my word for it.

Blacksmith21 ago

Yeah, right, PII. I'll get right to it.

Since you're playing constitutional scholar, and I am not one, I can only guess its because service members covered under UCMJ, cannot claim Constitutional safeguards and protections.

thisistotallynotme ago

:)

I definitely deserve the downvoats for this one. it was the "little man" part that honestly made me post. I notice you haven't told us what branch you served in, though.

Anyway, the UCMJ is squarely in admiralty/international jurisdiction, a higher court. Every court above Federal Court (including FISC) needs not recognize constitutional guarantees. If you'll notice, nobody's complaining about Trump's rights violated under FISC surveillance; they're focusing on the validity of the application.

Blacksmith21 ago

I gave you a few of both - up and down. Fortunately for you, they weren't the dick-flavored downvoats I save for flaming asshats.

You do understand how "selectors" work when running a database query, right? Think doxxing. What would a selector do? I'm paranoid for a reason.

thisistotallynotme ago

That's a damned good answer.

Blacksmith21 ago

Not my first rodeo, friend. You might like an old post of mine, especially edit 1: https://voat.co/v/pizzagate/2402762

I live in the Swamp for a reason.

Are_we_sure ago

Considering you have never served in the Armed Forces,

LOL. And the first year law student you cite? What was her service?

Considering you have this wrong, can I say you never served? Because your logic and command of the facts are pretty shaky here.

Here's the actual law which lists all the folks subject to UCMJ. Point to to the part that supports your claim.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/802

Blacksmith21 ago

Nice try. I'm definitely no JAG. I provided enough links above to show the amendments to the UCMJ by Executive order, supported by existing laws supporting the broadest definitions of who can be tried under UCMJ. The decision and threshold of WHO can be tried under UCMJ is determined by POTUS, if required. And which the Supreme Court will drive a truck through any turd injunction they throw it.

Sorry bottom boy. You lose.

Are_we__sure ago

You're definitely a jagoff who is making shit up about the UCMJ. And since the law actually does not back you up, you've resorted to wishful thinking.

And for those just following along the reason he is wrong and the reason the Q induced fantasy of folks going to Gitmo will never happen is the civilians covered by the UMCP are military contractors serving in war zones. It's meant to cover situations similar to those guys who worked for Eric Prince who massacred 17 civilians in Iraq. (In that specific case they were working for Department of State, not DOD and we're tried in federal court ). The 2007 change to the law was making sure it applied to military operations short of declared war.

thisistotallynotme ago

it's rather depressing how many people upvoated him on nothing more than a weak Appeal To Authority. I'll be happy to absorb some downvoats for defending you.

That being said, If you were in charge of the Executive Branch, how would you (assuming you think you can) try civilians under military tribunal? Would you use the December Executive order that declares Human Traffickers to be Enemy Combatants?

Also, What branch of government (Executive/Judicial/Legislative) controls the military? Yes, congress gives them authority to go to war, but which branch controls the military? Which branch controls FISA? Which branch controls the Department of Justice and FBI? Why are they all the same branch? coincidence?

Are_we_sure ago

Why would i want to try civilians under military tribunal? I don't get it. Just because it's easier? There's no legal basis for it and it would thrown out by the courts.

Even terrorists have been tried in Federal court including the guy who led the attack in Benghazi. http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-benghazi-terrorist-20171001-story.html

Would you use the December Executive order that declares Human Traffickers to be Enemy Combatants?

There is no such executive order.

The executive order from 2017 was all about implementing a law congress passed called the Global Magnitsky Act. It does not declare anyone to be an Enemy Combatant, it doesn't apply to Americans, it does not apply to any person or entity other than a list proposed by Congress and vetted by State Department and the Treasury Department and folks related to that original list.

https://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/sanctions/Programs/Documents/12212017_glomag_faqs.pdf

What it does do is freeze the US based assets of these folks and essentially cuts them off from US banks which in effect cuts them off from the global banking system as if you deal with this people, you can possibly face sanctions yourself.

As a result of designations pursuant to the E.O., all of the property and interests in property within U.S. jurisdiction of the designated individuals and entities are blocked, and U.S. persons are generally prohibited from engaging in transactions with them. ..... Accordingly, a U.S. person generally may not engage in any transactions with such an entity, unless authorized by OFAC.

Essentially these are human right violators who are beyond the reach of US law, so they will face economic sanctions and are added to the list of sanctioned folks maintained by the Office of Foreign Assets Control within the Treasury. When we talk about sanctions on Iran or North Korea, it's this list we are talking about. This is the mechanism. Banks and others (like real estate companies like the Trump Organization) have to follow the Know Your Customer laws that prevent bribery and money laundering

What is KYC ?

Know your customer (KYC) refers to due diligence activities that financial institutions and other regulated companies must perform to ascertain relevant information from their clients for the purpose of doing business with them.

One of the basics of KYC is on they on this list.

Also, What branch of government (Executive/Judicial/Legislative) controls the military? Yes, congress gives them authority to go to war, but which branch controls the military? Which branch controls FISA? Which branch controls the Department of Justice and FBI? Why are they all the same branch? coincidence?

Wow. Are you Q?

Military is part of the executive branch with Congressional oversight/appropriations.

FISA is Judicial. FISA was set up by Congress as a Judicial check on the Executive Branch.

DOJ and FBI are Executive.

Why are they all the same branch?

They are not. You are mistaken. FISA is really FISC. The FISA act set up the FISC court, or United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court which is part of the Judicial branch.

United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court

thisistotallynotme ago

There is no such executive order.

Oh shit. did I just prove you wrong?

I delineated here all the parts of the executive order that apply.

Unfortunately, this pretty much negates the entire middle of your post, so forgive me for not responding directly to it; The executive order should speak for itself.

They are not. You are mistaken. FISA is really FISC. The FISA act set up the FISC court, or United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court which is part of the Judicial branch.

You are correct, but if you'll notice, the Defendant and Prosecution are both under the Executive Branch. Plus, the judges are appointed by the Chief Justice of SCOTUS (Executive-appointed). Again you're technically correct (the best kind of correct!). Every other entity I mentioned was Executive-run, so the same question applies: Why are they all in the same branch? is it a coincidence?

KnightsofHubris ago

Oh shit. did I just prove you wrong?

Of course you didn't. You are still wrong about this order says. And you seem to just be making shit up

If you need help: * Section 1(a)(ii) applies to expatriated peoples (such as HRC, Obama).

WTF? Explain to me how you think HRC or Obama are expatriated? Do you simply not know what the word means?

This EO is due to the US law called the Global Magnitsky Act. The law requires an EO for enforcement because Congress cannot seize assets themselves. The mechanism for enforcement relies on other previous laws. You should read that law and the FAQs put out by the Treasury Department if you really want to understand what is.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-bill/284 https://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/sanctions/Programs/Documents/12212017_glomag_faqs.pdf

Unfortunately, this pretty much negates the entire middle of your post, so forgive me for not responding directly to it;

I'm sorry, but you are 180 degrees from the facts here.

You are correct, but if you'll notice, the Defendant and Prosecution are both under the Executive Branch. Plus, the judges are appointed by the Chief Justice of SCOTUS (Executive-appointed). Again you're technically correct (the best kind of correct!).

No. I'm correct in all respects. The Chief Justice of the SCOTUS is nominated by the Executive, but confirmed by the Senate.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsuccessful_nominations_to_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States#List_of_unsuccessful_nominations

And once appointed the executive branch, the Chief Justice is now free to act. So every member of the FISC is picked by the Judiciary.

I don't know what you mean by this

the Defendant and Prosecution are both under the Executive Branch.

The Defendant? This can't be what you mean. A defendant is only used in a trial. And the subject of an investigation could be anyone. It could be you or me, doesn't have to be in the executive branch at all.

Every other entity I mentioned was Executive-run, so the same question applies: Why are they all in the same branch? is it a coincidence?

Do we need to watch SchoolHouse Rock to figure out how our government is set up and what the balance of powers are about?

Can you now see how a sitting President could use the above executive order and all of his Executive Branch Agents to do exactly what we're saying he's doing?

You need learn about the things you are speaking about. You're just off by a significant degree. The President and the Executive Branch have a lot of power, but it's not unchecked and the President is charged by the Constitution to "take care that the laws be faithfully executed."

This is a case of executive carrying out a law passed by Congress. His powers in this case do not exceed what the law specifies.

thisistotallynotme ago

lol, you replied from the wrong account! Now we know that @KnightsofHubris and @Are_we_sure are the same account! Now we get to watch him backpedal on why he said "No. I'm correct in all respects" to SOMEONE ELSE'S POST.

I love that you ignored all the linked evidence, and only focused on whether Barack Obama (a kenyan) and HRC (required to expatriate to be secretary of state and not commit treason by default) were expatriates.

If you didn't notice, there were eight other sections mentioned that you just ignored completely, because you knew they proved you wrong!

So you'll forgive if I don't read your wall of text. You argued everything but the substance of my reply. On purpose, it seems! From an alt account!

KnightsofHubris ago

lol, you replied from the wrong account! Now we know that @KnightsofHubris and @Are_we_sure are the same account!

Yeah, pretty sure Blacksmith knows this.

think- ago

@Vindicator @Crensch @DarkMath @Shizy: please see parent

KnightsofHubris ago

Que es eso?

DarkMath ago

"congress passed called the Global Magnitsky Act."

Ah yes, the follow up to the fraudulent Magintsky Act. Here's where you idiocy led you astray AreWeSure. According to human rights activist and Putin critic Andrei Nekrasov Bill Browder was in reality trying to cover up Magintsky's death by trying to frame Russian police for his murder. Nekrasov started out making a docu-drama in support of Bill Browder and his "lawyer" Sergei Magintsky. Half way through Nekrasov found out Magintsky wasn't a lawyer but an accountant and he hadn't reported any crime at all. He was interviewed by Russian police as a WITNESS to a tax fraud case against Browder. Starting to get the picture?

The Magintsky Act - Behind the Scenes

Nekrasov did a 180 and finished with a documentary that lays out the case Bill Browder is the one most likely responsible for Magintsky's death. It could be the crime of the century. You would have heard more about it had Browder not gotten the documentary banned in the US and Europe. Odd isn't it?

Or is it just more blatant criminality masquerading as charity and human rights? You know where this is going AreWeSure. I sure hope you saved some of that Resist money. It's about to run out.

Big Smile

@Are_we_sure @Vindicator @Crensch @Blacksmith21 @Shizy

thisistotallynotme ago

lololol. You're so heavily-downvoated a troll that you only get 10 comments a day!

My favorite part of this reply is that you admit that you ignored all of it, and then you double-down on only one part. Nobody reading down this far is taking you seriously anymore, so I'll let you have the last word. I'll even give it a pity upvoat, along with this reply. Maybe it'll allow you to have 11 comments per day!

KnightsofHubris ago

Of course, what I do is not trolling. It not about pissing people off, it's about accuracy and logic and a concern for the truth. Which on this board counts as dissent and thus the downvoats.