[–] Are_we__sure ago (edited ago)
Dude Q followers on this board have been talking civil war for month and months and months.
That rhetoric is being issued by the AntiFa.
You may want to have a chat with this Nazi asshole.
BearDolphin1488 0 points (+0|-0) 5.7 hours ago Lol please. I want war so I can not only kill the invaders, but so I can hang the passive traitors who have allowed it to get this bad. You might call me not an America., I think the same about you, I guess you better hope I'm not willing to use violence, huh? Lol low t beta faghot. Your weakness is pathetic. Guess what, there are A Lot of pissed off veterans who have two decades of combat insurgency experience. Good luck
..
Q is talking about Military War Crime Tribunals for treason.
Which would basically be illegal and require a coup to implement. If you don't understand this fact, you should take a civics class. It would be in violation of several laws to move forward with something like this.
[–] Rocky_Bindhamer ago
Actually, I think I'm talking to an Anti-QAnon shill.
Did you read drop 2380 last night?
Do you comprehend what it was saying about making non-military arrests for the FBI & DOJ agents making illegal and treasonous acts?
Did you read "Enemy Combatant" under "Military Law v Civilian Law"?
Under the Geneva Convention, because terrorist organizations are not signatories to the convention nor adhear to the tenets of LOAC or the convention, their terrorists fall under "Unlawful Combatants" until after a Military Tribunal considers whether they were involved with war crimes are to be remanded over to trial or released, and reclassifies them. If they are to be put on trial, they are classified as "Enemy Combatants".
During times of war, civilians canbe and have been tried by military tribunals for sabotage, revealing classified information to the enemy, human rights atrocities, impersonating military in order to trespass into military installations, etc. They enter into a different form of justice based on their acts that is very different from the civilian courts system as they weren't civil crimes.
They strayed from civil law and into the realm of International Maritime Law. Where there is no rights to such pleasantries as habeous corpus and they don't have the same rights.
Military members understand that the UCMJ is such a legal system and they may be retried for crimes they were already tried for in the civil courts. Under International Maritime Law one can receive double jeopardy punishments.
I'm retired from the military. However, the military still considers me "Inactive Reserve". If I got popped for say... Dealing drugs, I could be hauled into a military court martial trial, which is a form of International Maritime Law/Military Tribunal. Those who take government office that require them to take the "Oath of Office" take on the same risks.
Violent protesters who injure innocents and damage property are engaging in acts of terrorism, not free speech, and may during wartime, be subject to International Maritime Law or deemed an "Enemy Combatant" by a tribunal.
The AntiFa don't know what their actions are potentially exposing themselves to.
[–] Rocky_Bindhamer ago (edited ago)
Review the Geneva Convention, who it pertains to, unlawful combatants, LOAC and the laws involving military tribunals. Military tribunals are not illegal. There were several connected to WWII which required no coup.
NAZIs are National Socialists NOT alt-rights (a term coined by the leftist media) or conservatives.
The KKK and American NAZI party were creations of the Democrat party and they used to rally together. They are still hard-core Democrats.
There was no 1964 get up and switch parties after the Civil Rights Act. That was a myth created by Soros' UK Gold Market scam partner Safras after he got control of Encyclopedia Britanica. The Civil Rights fix started with the elimination of the Democrat's Jim Crow Laws and continued until a 1984 bill signed by Reagan. There were very few Democrats on board for any of them.
[–] Are_we__sure ago
HAHAHAHAHAHA......HAHHA.....okeydoke.
oh goodness.
Not when used legally, no. In this case they would hella illegal.
Given that we are not talking about unlawful combatants or any Armed Conflict, LOAC wouldn't apply. US laws have severe limits on when civilians could face a military tribunal. Using the military to make arrests would be a violation of the Posse Comitatus Act.
Yes, but it did require....you know....WWII. That's a helluva pre-requisite.
Do you think you're talking to an infant? 1964 called and just started laughing at you.
Yeah, you do think you are talking to an infant. Good Lord.