‘Basic Criminal Law Vs. The Law Of Armed Conflict’
This Exchange Between Lindsey Graham And Brett Kavanaugh From The Kavanaugh Confirmation Hearing, Will Be KEY In The Coming Years Of Revelations, Prosecutions And Executions.
I Cannot Emphasize Enough The Significance Of The Exchange Between Graham And Kavanaugh From Kavanaugh’s Confirmation Hearing. If ‘Nothing Can Stop What’s Coming’… I’m Convinced The Great Awakening Will Hit Its Climax With Swift Military Tribunals — Death Penalty, Or Life Imprisonment.
This Is A Global Collaborative Effort Of ‘White Hats’, As Countless Nations Have Fallen Into The Hands Of The ‘Vipers’, Forced To Play Along, Forced To Spend Billions To Satisfy Countless Organizations, Foundations, And Commissions, Slowly Draining Each Country’s Wealth.
Graham: “So, When Somebody Says Post 9/11, That We’ve 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, And That Was Passed, Of Course, On September 14th, 2001, Three Days Later.”
Graham: “Let’s Talk About The Law In War. Is There A Body Of Law Called ‘The Law Of Armed Conflict’?”
Kavanaugh: “There Is Such A Body, Senator.”
Graham: “Is There A Body Of That’s Law 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 4th Amendment Protect You, As An American, From Your Own Government?”
Kavanaugh: “From Your Own Government, Yes.”
Graham: “Okay. 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: “Is There A Long Standing…”
Kavanaugh: “…That’s, That’s Long Settled Law.”
Graham: “Isn’t There Also Long Settled Law That, It Goes Back To Isenstrator 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.”
Graham: “They Can Be?”
Kavanaugh: “They Can Be. They’re Often, Some, They’re Sometimes Criminally Prosecuted, Sometimes Treated In The Military System.”
Graham: “Let’s Talk About ‘Can Be’. I Think The…”
Kavanaugh: “…Under Supreme Court Precedent.”
Graham: “Right. 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 Is A Long Standing History In This Country, That Your Constitutional Rights Follow You Were Ever You Go, But You Don’t Have A Constitutional Right To Turn On Your Own Government, 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: “Okay, So The Bottom Line Is, I Want Every American Citizen To Know 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 Understand They’re Different Bodies Of Law, Of Course, Senator.”
(End Transcription)
During The Exchange Above Between Graham And Kavanaugh Two U.S. Supreme Court Decisions Were Referenced. The First Was ‘Johnson v. Eisentrager’. ’The Germans Argued That Their Courts-Martial Violated Their Fifth Amendment Due-Process Rights.’
NationalReview.Com — Explaining Eisentrager
The Second Was ‘Hamdi v. Rumsfeld’. ‘Does The Constitution Grant An American Citizen Held In The United States As An Enemy Combatant The Due Process Right To Challenge The Factual Basis For His Detention Before An Impartial Decision Maker?’
CaseBriefs.Com — Hamdi V. Rumsfeld
Did The Recent Guantánamo Upgrades Include A Lethal Injection Execution Chamber? A [Black Hat] Graveyard? With The New Facilities And Increased Troop Deployments, Guantánamo Is Prepped And Ready For Military Tribunals, Sentencing, And Long Term Incarcerations.
…
(To Be Continued.)
