I've followed @Mil_Spec on Twitter ever since he reported on the mysterious Special Operations "training" raid in LA on the Guatemalan House of Culture a couple years ago. He's a very dedicated aircraft observer (aka "plane fag"). He frequently reports on patterns of military aircraft activity -- how many birds are up, what types, what they may be doing, interesting call signs, and anomalies to usual training operations.
Today he published a piece on his website presenting data that leads him to believe Maxwell was actually taken to GITMO by U.S. Marshalls. Have a look. It's pretty interesting.
https://www.monkeywerxus.com/blog/get-maxwell-just-as-i-suspected
https://archive.vn/AgL6J
view the rest of the comments →
FairbairnSykes77 ago
This is false. In order for her (or any citizen) to be tried by a military court she would need to be declared an “enemy combatant” per the Law of Armed Conflict. Further according to the Uniform Code of Military Justice:
“In a time of declared war or a contingency operation, persons serving with or accompanying armed forces in the field...”
HR-6166 signed by GWB in 2006 further clarifies tribunals are exclusive for violations of the laws of war”
Nothing in the charging instrument comes anywhere close to this for Maxwell. She can only, ONLY be tried in an American Federal Court per her constitutional rights.
It is completely illegal for the government to do so in any fashion and a 3rd rate public defender would be able to get it thrown out and overturned if any entity even considered attempting this.
TLDR; tribunals for citizen non combatants is illegal.
Vindicator ago
Is that true if she is a spy for a foreign government?
And what about Trump's changes to the UCMJ and Executive Orders mentioned here and here?
Legal stuff makes my head spin.
FairbairnSykes77 ago
“Enemy combatant” is a separate legal definition from being charged with espionage or an unregistered foreign agent. If you look at the history of intelligence breaches where Americans like Hanssen are apprehended they are tried in civilian courts and sentenced to civilian prisons. Only if they are arrested while in active duty can they be tried under the UCMJ. Unfortunately Trump does not have the authority to unilaterally change this via executive order, it would require the house and senate plus a constitutional amendment to not violate a citizens rights.
In addition, you can read the charges against Maxwell, she is not being charged with espionage.
If you are interested , you can research the Combatant Status Review Tribunal (CSRT) process from Gitmo and how it was found to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court (Boumediene v. Bush)
Mil_Spec ago
Bingo. What US Agency employed Ghislaine? What Administration? Which 5 eyes?
Double agents get the rope.
Charges can be added by the Prosecution.
FairbairnSykes77 ago
She is not currently active duty American military. Therefore...she’s a civilian....therefore civilian justice system. Come on guys this like BASIC shit.
Yes future charges could hypothetically be brought, but as I said, even if they were, it’s not enough to be declared an “enemy combatant” which is the only other legal criteria for a tribunal.
Mil_Spec ago
S.E.S.
Vindicator ago
This is a good thread. I like seeing both sides of this topic. I wish there was a really detailed, ELI5, fully-sourced run down on both sides of the argument.
For years, we had a guy (@AreWeSure, @Are_We_Sure and several other iterations) concern trolling every Podesta, Hillary and Alefantis post. He was always "debunking" stuff. When pizzagate researchers protested outside Comet Ping Pong, one of Podesta's co-workers at Georgetown, a lawyer, showed up and tried to debunk the brochure showing the pizzagate Wikileaks emails and Alefantis Instagram posts. He was always very condescending and dismissive. I never could shake the feeling it was the same guy. :-)
FairbairnSykes77 ago
This issue is actually not “up for debate” and there are not “two sides to it” purely legally speaking.
First, here is what the constitution says about your rights an American citizen:
The civilian justice system is outlined in the Fifth Amendment which states:
“No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”
Additionally, there are further protections in the 14th Amendment which states:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
More directly, the Procedural due process clause of the 14th states that When the government seeks to burden a person's protected liberty interest or property interest, the Supreme Court has held that procedural due process requires that, at a minimum, the government provide the person notice, an opportunity to be heard at an oral hearing, and a decision by a neutral decision maker.
In summary, a citizen, not involved in the military, not in a time or zone of war is only and specifically and exclusively subject and entitled to the protections and provisions of the civilian and federal justice system. This is not limited by the severity, or nature of the offence including murder, conspiracy or espionage.
Lets look at 3 such cases which make it clear that a citizen cannot be subject to military jurisdiction:
O'Callahan v. Parker
The June, 1969 landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court in O'Callahan v. Parker" has, held unconstitutional any prosecution by court-martial under the Uniform Code of Military Justice for any peacetime offense cognizable by an American civilian court, having no military significance, committed off post while neither the accused nor the victims were performing any military function, which crime neither involves the security of military posts or of military property or flounts military authority.
Ex parte Milligan
December 17, 1866 supreme court decision that a civilian, not in military service and resident of a state in which civilian courts are still functioning has a right when charged with a crime to be tried and punished in district or federal court with full constitutional protections. In addition, neither the President nor Congress has the authority to suspend the right of habeas corpus.
Hedges v. Obama
According to the text of Section 1021 of the NDAA provided that the U.S. President may authorize the armed forces to indefinitely detain the following persons set forth in § 1021(b)(2) of the NDAA:
A person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces.
Section 1021(e) of the NDAA, provided:
Authorities.—Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.[25]
These provisions have been upheld, and the delineation is clear; an American citizen may not be subjected to these provisions of indefinite military confinement. Furthermore, any American citizen may not for any reason be subject to military tribunal including a civilian who commits a crime on a military base, or a civilian caught or participating in an act of espionage or sabotage.
All of these cases would be tried in a US Federal Court, where Maxwell now finds herself. She is being held in a NY jail and she is represented by attorney Lawrence Vogelma
Mil_Spec ago
You keep ignoring the likelihood ghislaine was a 5 eyes asset, not a mere civilian.
FairbairnSykes77 ago
That clause is limited to active duty marine, army, navy, coast guard. DoD only. Civilian intelligence is the same as a civilian federal employee for the purposes of this definition. It’s the reason the espionage act of 1918 was never ratified, it violates this condition.
I’m not ignoring it, being an intelligence agent, or more likely an asset for a domestic or even foreign service does not qualify for the military callout in the 5th amendment. Think about all the spies we have caught, they were all tried in civilian federal court. Now please don’t misunderstand, my point for all of this is not saying she won’t go to court, and serve prison time, my point is only to help clear up a common legal misconception that civilians can under some circumstances be prosecuted by military tribunal. The only way is to meet the definition of “enemy combatant“ either “lawful” or “unlawful”.
Being a spy, or an intelligence asset does not meet this criteria.
Hurley1855 ago
K street lawfag lurker here. What you have posted is correct. In addition Ghislaine Maxwell is currently in Brooklyn at the Metropolitan Detention Center in Sunset Park, where she will stay until arraignment.