In the context of national security issues and TREASON, use of the word "tribunal" CLEARLY refers to military legal proceedings. He didn't say hearings, Congressional committees, interviews or trials. I am amazed that conservatives can find something so petty to argue against fellow patriots about! Miss America Fist has some very outstanding characteristics (I salute her photo), but she still doesn't get a pass for missing the boat on this one. Most of us know that the tribunals are already in play . . . does she NOT? No matter. She an others appear to have forgotten that WWG1WGA!
Most of us know that the tribunals are already in play
They are not. They are clearly illegal for virtually all domestic crimes. For a civilian to be tried by military tribunals, they pretty much have to be on a battlefield.
The Universal Code of Military Justice spells out who is subject to it, and the cases where it applies to civilians are highly limited.
None of those links work against my argument an enemy combatant is not someone committed a civilian crime. There are covered in a different section of the Universal Code of Military Justice.
I think a lot of people simply are misunderstanding what an unlawful combatant is. The UCMJ refers to these as unprivileged enemy belligerent and defines them as
(7)Unprivileged enemy belligerent.—The term “unprivileged enemy belligerent” means an individual (other than a privileged belligerent) who—
- (A) has engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners;
- (B) has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners;
- or
- (C) was a part of al Qaeda at the time of the alleged offense under this chapter.
The word hostilities is key
(9)Hostilities.—The term “hostilities” means any conflict subject to the laws of war.
This is not a domestic crime. This is hostilities on a battlefield.
If you think I’m just arguing for the sake of arguing, I don’t care.
The point is, civillians can be tried in a military tribunal for simply being labeled an “enemy combatant,” whether they are a US Citizen or not. It can, and has, happened.
You initially said domestic crime. You know what domestic means right? Because you use it as if you think acts of terror can not be domestic. You also said a civilian had to be on a battlefield, “pretty much,” which is verifiable not true, see my last link.
No I very much know that terrorism can domestic. Terrorists are routinely tried in civilian courts. (Which is the kind of the point I keep trying to make) The ISIS terrorist who in 2017 committed the deadliest attack since 9/11 was tried in Federal Court. As were the terrorist from first 9/11 attack and Timonthy McVeigh.
The reason for my imprecision on which crimes the UCMJ applies to is I'm trying to just to stick to the law and not the silly idea that there is a raft of people who are going to be charged with crimes. But basically, unless you are in the military, have been in the military, a military contractor or took up weapons against the United States, you ain't going to GITMO.
You’re also quoting the definition of “unprivileged enemy belligerent,” not “enemy combatant.”
Because they are the same and UEB is the language used in the UCMJ. From Wiki
An unlawful combatant, illegal combatant or unprivileged combatant/belligerent is a person who directly engages in armed conflict in violation of the laws of war.
Hostilities has a long standing legal definition. It's part of the Law of War, it's part of the Geneva Conventions. In fact, a combatant is defined in the Geneva Convention as someone who has the right to particpate in direct hostilities.
Civillians can be tried in a military tribunal for simply being labeled an “enemy combatant,”
No. They absolutely cannot. People keep making this argument over and over and it's simply false. There's a very, very specific legal definition of what an enemy combatant is. I'll go beyond my "pretty much" comment and use the exact language used in the Universal Code of Military Justice that I linked to above.
(A) has engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners;
OR
(B) has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners;
OR
(C) was a part of al Qaeda at the time of the alleged offense under this chapter.
So unless you meet the three criteria above or are you are member of the military or retired military or a military contractor serving with or accompanying an armed force in the field during a time of war, are a member of National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration assigned to the Military, or any of the other folks here http://www.ucmj.us/sub-chapter-1-general-provisions/802-article-2-persons-subject-to-this-chapter you are not going before a military tribunal.
Here's the TL/DR
Are civilians sometimes subject to the UCMJ? Yes.
How often does this occur? Exceedingly rarely. More than 99.99% of civilian criminals have nothing to worry about with regards to the UCMJ.
Is the military going to swoop in and scoop up Donald Trump's political enemies and snatch them away to Gitmo? No. Of course not.
You’re still basing your entire argument off the premise that “hostilities” somehow can’t be civillians and you aren’t making it clear how that is so. I see nothing indicating that a civilian cannot meet the criteria. The language uses “OR” not “AND,” you only need to meet one criteria. You’ve presented nothing saying a civilian can’t meet one of those criteria and be labeled an enemy combatant.
You keep saying “no, citizens can’t be tried in tribunal by being labeled enemy combatant,” and then go on to list criteria that is not at all excluding of citizens in any of its language or definitions.
You are missing my point. People are making the argument that people whose crime is treason or child trafficking or sedition or terrorism can tried at GITMO just by labelling them an enemy combatant and that is false.
I am not saying civilians cannot be enemy combatants, but the fact is this designation doesn't apply to vast majority of domestic crimes. Child trafficking doesn't get you to GITMO
The theory is the changes made to the UCMJ which went into effect Jan 1 will allow for Trump to use the military to make a mass sweep of arrests within the US and send tens of thousands of people to GITMO for domestic crimes -- there are suppossedly 70,000 sealed indictments just waiting to be unsealed. This theory is bullshit because nothing changed on Jan 1 with regards to who is subject to the Universal Code of Military Justice.
Stage 4: Meanwhile - Go after the low hanging fruit such as MS-13 and other gangs, sex traffickers, dope peddlers, enablers such as CEO’s with their corrupt schemes. Hollywood, Disney, Google, Facebook, etc… And, Imprison the real deep state enablers temporarily with multi thousands of “Sealed Indictments”. As long as the indictments remain sealed, their money and lawyers, as well as the corrupt media can do nothing… but wait for the sword of Damocles to fall. In progress, and Getting near completion, because stage 5, the final onslaught against the deep state has been announced. You cant lock up rich powerful corrupters until you have a place to put them, where their money don’t work, and their lawyers have to stay in military barracks until their clients trial comes up.
We have been waiting for the ticket punch line for a while.
Stage 5:
Now, as promised, here is a review of just how long these plans have been laid. Enter CAMP JUSTICE, Aka Gitmo…
The White Hats knew from the beginning that the monstrous construction at GITMO would take a lot of work, attract a lot of attention, and have to be done quickly. DJT fits well here, because he is a master at solving construction problems. He has done that all his successful life,
Ok I understand you now. I believe we were both misunderstand each other’s points. I totally agree that those crimes won’t lead to military tribunals. It’s going to be more the proponents of cultural Marxism, those actually working with foreign entities to destroy America. Of course they’re guilty of other civillian crimes, but those won’t be what leads to the tribunals. I believe we’re in agreement.
view the rest of the comments →
AmericanVictory ago
In the context of national security issues and TREASON, use of the word "tribunal" CLEARLY refers to military legal proceedings. He didn't say hearings, Congressional committees, interviews or trials. I am amazed that conservatives can find something so petty to argue against fellow patriots about! Miss America Fist has some very outstanding characteristics (I salute her photo), but she still doesn't get a pass for missing the boat on this one. Most of us know that the tribunals are already in play . . . does she NOT? No matter. She an others appear to have forgotten that WWG1WGA!
QisforQuakery ago
They are not. They are clearly illegal for virtually all domestic crimes. For a civilian to be tried by military tribunals, they pretty much have to be on a battlefield.
The Universal Code of Military Justice spells out who is subject to it, and the cases where it applies to civilians are highly limited.
Muntanolva ago
Not true since 9/11.
QisforQuakery ago
Absolutely false. Here's the current law https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/802
last change to it was about 2007.
Muntanolva ago
This is a military order.
https://www.loc.gov/law/help/usconlaw/pdf/Detention_JNSL&P.pdf
https://billofrightsinstitute.org/educate/educator-resources/lessons-plans/presidents-constitution/military-tribunals/
https://lawreview.vermontlaw.edu/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/renzo.pdf
QisforQuakery ago
None of those links work against my argument an enemy combatant is not someone committed a civilian crime. There are covered in a different section of the Universal Code of Military Justice.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/948a#7 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/948c https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/948b
I think a lot of people simply are misunderstanding what an unlawful combatant is. The UCMJ refers to these as unprivileged enemy belligerent and defines them as
The word hostilities is key
This is not a domestic crime. This is hostilities on a battlefield.
Muntanolva ago
You said domestic crime.
If you think I’m just arguing for the sake of arguing, I don’t care.
The point is, civillians can be tried in a military tribunal for simply being labeled an “enemy combatant,” whether they are a US Citizen or not. It can, and has, happened.
QisforQuakery ago
No I very much know that terrorism can domestic. Terrorists are routinely tried in civilian courts. (Which is the kind of the point I keep trying to make) The ISIS terrorist who in 2017 committed the deadliest attack since 9/11 was tried in Federal Court. As were the terrorist from first 9/11 attack and Timonthy McVeigh.
The reason for my imprecision on which crimes the UCMJ applies to is I'm trying to just to stick to the law and not the silly idea that there is a raft of people who are going to be charged with crimes. But basically, unless you are in the military, have been in the military, a military contractor or took up weapons against the United States, you ain't going to GITMO.
Because they are the same and UEB is the language used in the UCMJ. From Wiki
Hostilities has a long standing legal definition. It's part of the Law of War, it's part of the Geneva Conventions. In fact, a combatant is defined in the Geneva Convention as someone who has the right to particpate in direct hostilities.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combatant https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/hostility
HOSTILITY. A state of open enmity; open war.
No. They absolutely cannot. People keep making this argument over and over and it's simply false. There's a very, very specific legal definition of what an enemy combatant is. I'll go beyond my "pretty much" comment and use the exact language used in the Universal Code of Military Justice that I linked to above.
So unless you meet the three criteria above or are you are member of the military or retired military or a military contractor serving with or accompanying an armed force in the field during a time of war, are a member of National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration assigned to the Military, or any of the other folks here http://www.ucmj.us/sub-chapter-1-general-provisions/802-article-2-persons-subject-to-this-chapter you are not going before a military tribunal.
Here's the TL/DR Are civilians sometimes subject to the UCMJ? Yes.
How often does this occur? Exceedingly rarely. More than 99.99% of civilian criminals have nothing to worry about with regards to the UCMJ.
Is the military going to swoop in and scoop up Donald Trump's political enemies and snatch them away to Gitmo? No. Of course not.
Muntanolva ago
You’re still basing your entire argument off the premise that “hostilities” somehow can’t be civillians and you aren’t making it clear how that is so. I see nothing indicating that a civilian cannot meet the criteria. The language uses “OR” not “AND,” you only need to meet one criteria. You’ve presented nothing saying a civilian can’t meet one of those criteria and be labeled an enemy combatant.
You keep saying “no, citizens can’t be tried in tribunal by being labeled enemy combatant,” and then go on to list criteria that is not at all excluding of citizens in any of its language or definitions.
QisforQuakery ago
You are missing my point. People are making the argument that people whose crime is treason or child trafficking or sedition or terrorism can tried at GITMO just by labelling them an enemy combatant and that is false.
I am not saying civilians cannot be enemy combatants, but the fact is this designation doesn't apply to vast majority of domestic crimes. Child trafficking doesn't get you to GITMO
The theory is the changes made to the UCMJ which went into effect Jan 1 will allow for Trump to use the military to make a mass sweep of arrests within the US and send tens of thousands of people to GITMO for domestic crimes -- there are suppossedly 70,000 sealed indictments just waiting to be unsealed. This theory is bullshit because nothing changed on Jan 1 with regards to who is subject to the Universal Code of Military Justice.
Here's an example of what I am arguing against
https://voat.co/v/GreatAwakening/2899192
Muntanolva ago
Ok I understand you now. I believe we were both misunderstand each other’s points. I totally agree that those crimes won’t lead to military tribunals. It’s going to be more the proponents of cultural Marxism, those actually working with foreign entities to destroy America. Of course they’re guilty of other civillian crimes, but those won’t be what leads to the tribunals. I believe we’re in agreement.