Sen. Lindsey Graham’s curious questions to Judge Kavanaugh on military tribunals for U.S. citizens

The Trump White House insider who calls himself Q has repeatedly posted about military tribunals and sealed indictments, now numbering an extraordinary 40,483 as of June 30, 2018.

Military tribunals in the United States are military courts designed to try members of enemy forces during wartime, operating outside the scope of conventional criminal and civil proceedings. The judges are military officers and fulfill the role of jurors. Military tribunals are not courts martial.

The Military Commissions Act of 2006 limits military tribunal trials to non-citizens only.

On September 5, 2018, during Day 2 of the Senate confirmation hearing for Supreme Court nominee Judge Brett Kavanaugh, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) asked Kavanaugh a series of very interesting questions that seem to make a case for American citizens being subject to military tribunals.

In the event that YouTube is censoring the video, you can watch the exchange on C-SPAN here.

Here’s my transcript of the Graham-Kavanaugh Q & A:

Graham: So when somebody says, post-9/11, that we’d been at war, and it’s called the War on Terrorism, do you generally agree with that concept?

Kavanaugh: I do, senator, because Congress passed the authorization for use of military force, which is still in effect. That was passed, of course, on September 14, 2001, three days later.

Graham: Let’s talk about the law and war. Is there a body of law called the law of armed conflict?

Kavanaugh: There is such a body, senator.

Graham: A body of law that’s called 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: So, if you’re in Afghanistan, do your constitutional rights protect you against your own government?

Kavanaugh: If you’re an American in Afghanistan, you have constitutional rights as against the U.S. government.

Graham: Isn’t there also a long settled law that goes back to the Eisentrager case (I can’t remember the name of it)….

Kavanaugh: Johnson v. Eisentrager.

Graham: Right, that American citizens who collaborate with the enemy are considered enemy combatants?

Kavanaugh: They can be, they’re often, sometimes criminally prosecuted, sometimes treated in the military.

Graham: Let’s talk about can be. I think 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 longstanding 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 can 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: Yes, Hamdi [v. Rumsfeld].

Graham: So the bottom line is on every American citizen know you have constitutional rights, but you do not have a constitutional right to collaborate with the enemy. There is 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 difference?

Kavanaugh: I do understand that there are different bodies of law of course, senator.

Q picked up on the significance of Graham’s questions. On the same day as the confirmation hearing, Sept. 5, Q published post #2093, which highlights the distinction Graham made between military law vs. criminal law.

Lindsey Graham has a J.D. from the University of South Carolina. Before he entered politics, he was a U.S. Air Force officer and JAG (judge advocate general).

It is noteworthy that of all the constitutional rights to which American citizens are entitled, Sen. Graham specifically mentioned the Fourth Amendment, which prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures and requires “reasonable” governmental searches and seizures to be conducted only upon issuance of a warrant, judicially sanctioned by probable cause. On December 21, 2017, President Trump signed an executive order blocking the property of persons involved in “serious human rights abuse or corruption”.

See also “Did John McCain really die from brain cancer?

~Eowyn

Better than Drudge Report. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!

Please follow and like us:
0
 

17 responses to “Sen. Lindsey Graham’s curious questions to Judge Kavanaugh on military tribunals for U.S. citizens

  1. I just now saw this article posted here. I also don’t recall getting an email that this was article was posted, like I usually do. I know that if I had, I would have already read it. Strange!😎

    I watched this video of Graham and Kavanaugh a couple of days ago. I was very surprised by Graham’s questions, and he seemed to be laying out the very scenario that Q has laid out since last October. The questions also seemed to come out of nowhere, and were completely different from those asked by others to Judge Kavanaugh.

    Something else odd is that video from McCain’s funeral, where Lindsey Graham was approached by Huma Abedin, while Generals John Kelly and James Mattis stare them down.

    I also find it unusual that nobody else has left comments about this article.

     
  2. Portland Teachers Communist, Transgender Agenda Guideline,q etc.
    Thank you for your article which has put us parents in the Portland Oregon Regiona on the alert and starting defensive actions.
    Would please tell me how you found out about the Teachers Guideline , who made the distribution and who paid for both.
    The reason for your helping us is so I can present legitimate information to approximately 70 large church pastors.
    Please consider helping us. Jeff

     
  3. I would love to know that Q is “real” and not mere hope porn or a disinformation campaign to keep us occupied. Don’t the swamp rats have access to Q posts as well? If it were true, wouldn’t they be scurrying into the sewer or rushing to the nearest airport to escape?

     
  4. It’s a strange clip. I’m not sure what I think about the concept. First, whoever was tried under such a circumstance would have to be shown to have collaborated with an established enemy.

    They are claiming that we are “at war” as a result of 9-11. I know what I, and a lot of other people think about that operation, but, even with the official version I’m not sure just “who” that enemy would be. The “alleged” hijackers were supposed to have Saudi passports. We are obviously NOT at war with the Saudis.

    We went to Afghanistan but, again, just who we’re “at war” with is unclear. I’m guessing they’d say “The Taliban”. They also claim to have killed Osama Bin Laden who was “Taliban” (?). That was quite a feat as he was already quite dead.

    Now, if Lindsey and Swisher is signaling I could believe that. He recently appears to have “jumped ship” from the crazed “Never Trumpers” and is now trying to become the “senior statesman (or lady)”. Maybe this is just another way for him to show his new found loyalty to the powers that be.

    I won’t say that they “can’t” try American citizens in this way. I think it’s illegal, but that hasn’t dissuaded them to date. To do that under color of law would require a very tortured interpretation. Maybe he is both signaling his intention and asking in advance for how he would vote in the inevitable Supreme Court appeal.

    It is so messed up at the moment that I’m reluctant to guess. I don’t put anything past them at all. I also have never seen the general public so anxious to say or do anything they think will make them appear to be conformists.

    All of that spells “fear”. When people get fearful they lose their marbles.

     
  5. I don’t have the time right now to do all the research on the 1933 “Trading with the Enemies Act” passed by FDR, but from what I can remember that law basically made every US citizen an “enemy.” Then you have color of law aka Admiralty Law (yellow fringe on all court-based US flags) and the Act of 1871 that made all US citizens CORPORATE ALL CAPS CITIZENS and nolonger sovereign citizens, which is why all Social Security Cards have names in ALL CAPITAL LETTERS. All I know is that whether “Q” is right or not, we are no longer under the Rule of Law and the Bill of Rights has been destroyed in the US. Graham IMHO is just going through the motions.

     
  6. Graham’s questions to Kavanaugh make it clear that Trump’s amendments to the Courts-Martial Law have little to do with long-settled law on enemy combatants. On my reading, I find Trump’s amendments actually fail to act retroactively to bring sufficient justice for decades of past crimes.
    “2018 Amendments to the Manual for Courts-Martial, United States”
    https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2018-amendments-manual-courts-martial-united-states/

     
    • Thank you, HSaive, for your comment, although I’m unclear as to how Trump’s amendments to the Courts-Martial Law pertain to the subject of this post.

       
  7. Could anyone tell if Herr Heinrich Kissinger’s face was in that party photo?
    I couldn’t find him. Also, James Woolsey, Doug Feith, Kristol, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Zakheim, Perle, Cheney, Powell, Rice, Albright, R. Gates, H. Paulson, and Chertoff, should all be in that photo. I’m sure I’m leaving dozens out.

     
  8. Great article, Dr. Eowyn. I have been following some of the Q things, and am intrigued. And Senator Graham’s questions are very curious indeed. If the conspirators are being rounded up and brought to justice, it would be a relief to conservatives to know it. But on the other hand, if it is public knowledge, there would possibly be more outbursts of leftist violence than we currently see.

    “The Quest stands upon the edge of a knife. Stray but a little, and it will fail, to the ruin of all. Yet hope remains while the Company is true.”
    – Galadriel (Lord of the Rings)

     
  9. Imagine if the MT’s were used to prosecute the traitors like John Brennen & co for treason? The whole nest of cultural Marxist Kalergists needs to be fumigated from our government, MSM, etc etc

     
  10. Don’t know why Graham went off on this supposed “tangent” other than to estpablish that there is a diffenence between the Constiutitonal law that follows every American citizen no matter where they are on Earth….and the military law that the Obama Admim refused to apply to terrorists whom committed terrorists acts against the USA, including 9/11 conspirators. Graham was interviewing a potential candidate for the highest and final court in the land, a life-time appointment, and NOT a politically-affilatied partisan from one side or another…..nor a military court official. Distinction noted.

     
  11. I noticed that Graham was particular in his reference to citizens of the United States. One can only assume that the particular United States is the Municipal United States. They also talk about protection from “your government”, without really clarifying which government they are referring to.

     

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *