MILITARY JURISDICTION

I appreciate your passion for what you perceive to be truthful - I must say, however, that after researching this subject daily for the past few months I have not found one news analyst, independent or otherwise, who shares your opinion - If you want me to show you on that rat's nest of an Executive Order, you are mistaking me for a lawyer - I am not particularly motivated to try to change your mind, but simply to push back against what I perceive as your inaccurate analysis for the benefit of other readers - Here is the exchange between Kavanaugh and Graham - Instead of you asking me to interpret a highly complicated Executive Order, why don't you tell me the "extremely limited conditions" that you mention could be possible situations in which civilians are tried as "enemy combatants" - What are those limited conditions, and are you suggesting that the "Hamdi" case that was referenced during the exchange meets that criteria? You had a Senator and a Supreme Court Judge agree on it... maybe you know better? Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507 (2004), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court recognized the power of the U.S. government to detain enemy combatants, including U.S. citizens, but ruled that detainees who are U.S. citizens must have the rights of due process, and the ability to challenge their enemy combatant status before an impartial authority.

GRAHAM: Let's talk about the law in war. Is there a body of law called the law of armed conflict?

KAVANAUGH: There is -- there is such a body, Senator.

GRAHAM: Is there a body of law that's called the basic criminal law?

KAVANAUGH: Yes, Senator.

GRAHAM: Are there differences between those two bodies of law?

KAVANAUGH: Yes, Senator.

GRAHAM: From an American citizen's point of view, do your constitutional rights follow you? If you're in Paris, does the Fourth Amendment protect you as an American from your own government?

KAVANAUGH: From your own government, yes.

GRAHAM: OK. So if you're in Afghanistan, do your constitutional rights protect you against your own government?

KAVANAUGH: If you're an American if Afghanistan, you have constitutional rights against the U.S. government.

GRAHAM: Is there a long-standing...

KAVANAUGH: That's -- that's long-settled law.

GRAHAM: Isn't there also a long-settled law that -- it goes back to Eisentrager case, I can't remember the name of it.

KAVANAUGH: Yes, Johnson vs. Eisentrager.

GRAHAM: Right -- that American citizens who collaborate with the enemy have considered enemy combatants?

KAVANAUGH: They can be.

GRAHAM: Can be.

KAVANAUGH: They can be. They're often -- some -- they're sometimes criminally prosecuted, sometimes treated in the military sense.

GRAHAM: Well let's talk about can be. I think the ...

KAVANAUGH: Under a Supreme Court precedent ...

GRAHAM: Right.

KAVANAUGH: Just want to make -- yeah.

GRAHAM: There's a Supreme Court decision that said that American citizens who collaborated with Nazi saboteurs were tried by the military. Is that correct?

KAVANAUGH: That is correct.

GRAHAM: I think a couple of them were executed.

KAVANAUGH: Yeah.

GRAHAM: So if anybody doubts there's a long-standing history in this country that your constitutional rights follow you wherever you go, but you don't have a constitutional right to turn on your own government and collaborate with the enemy of the nation.

You'll be treated differently. What's the name of the case, if you can recall, that reaffirmed the concept that you could hold one of our own as an enemy combatant if they were engaged in terrorist activities in Afghanistan? Are you familiar with that case?

KAVANAUGH: Yeah, Hamdi.

GRAHAM: OK. So the bottom line is on every American citizen, though you have constitutional rights but you do not have a constitutional right to collaborate with the enemy. There's a body of law well developed long before 9/11 that understood the difference between basic criminal law and the law of armed conflict.

Do you understand those differences?

KAVANAUGH: I do -- I do understand the -- there are different bodies of law, of course, Senator.

So why do you suppose that Lindsey Graham just spontaneously began with this line of questioning? Since you are on this site, I assume you are somewhat informed about news - Have you heard about HRC providing the Chinese government with information about US secret agents in China that were assassinated? She also leaked classified military secrets to China and, what a surprise, their new fighter jet looks like a generic replica of US military - Have you heard about how her State Department (along with McCain) supported Antifa with weapons? Have you heard about HRC authorizing the sale of 20% of our uranium resources to Russia, who is certainly not an ally - This is just a small piece of the tip of the iceburg because there is volumes of information on the traitorous deeds of sellout Americans of all walks including politicians, entertainers, news broadcasters - Of course you can't just "say" someone is an "enemy combatant," but nobody needs to because there is ample evidence - "We" don't make that determination, of course, the courts do - We are speculating here with the best information we have available - So the recent $200 million in new construction at Guantanamo Bay was just for looks? We have just defeated ISIS, according to the President, and we are pulling troops out of Syria... So the renovations were for whom?

You seem like a smart person - A little hot-headed and a few extra doses of attitude, but I think that your assumptions both about "the thing I was told about the executive order was false," as you say... You have no idea who I am and, whoever you are, you are not qualified to make unfounded judgments - As far as "sauce" goes, all I hear from you is a crabby and unfounded opinion about this issue - Perhaps you want to believe a "thing you were told about the executive order was false" - I'm no detective, but by the looks of your grammar I hardly assume that you are a law professor.