In an era where national security is paramount, the discussion around military tribunals has resurfaced, not as a relic of past conflicts, but as a necessary tool for contemporary justice. The advocacy for military tribunals, especially in the context of recent political and security challenges, underscores a fundamental truth: sometimes, conventional judicial systems are not equipped to handle threats that undermine the very fabric of national security.

The case for military tribunals hinges on several key arguments. Traditional courts, bound by extensive legal procedures, can often delay justice, particularly in cases involving national security. Military tribunals, by design, expedite the process, ensuring that threats are neutralized swiftly, which is crucial in preventing further harm or espionage. Military law, with its focus on discipline, order, and security, provides a framework uniquely suited for cases where the accused are involved in acts against the state or military. This specialization ensures that the complexities of military strategy, intelligence, and security are not lost in translation to civilian courts.

From the Civil War to World War II, military tribunals have been utilized when the nation’s security was at stake. These precedents show that in times of war or national emergency, such tribunals are not only justified but necessary for maintaining order and security. Contrary to common misconceptions, military tribunals can be transparent and accountable, especially when conducted under the scrutiny of both military and civilian oversight. The structure ensures that while justice is swift, it is also fair, adhering to the principles of law that respect due process.

Addressing criticisms, the argument for military tribunals isn’t about subverting justice but ensuring it. Critics argue that military tribunals bypass constitutional rights, particularly the right to a jury trial. However, in scenarios where individuals are accused of acts that directly threaten national security, the argument for exceptional measures holds. The Constitution itself allows for exceptions during times of war or public danger, as seen in cases like Ex parte Quirin, where the Supreme Court upheld the use of military tribunals for unlawful combatants. Moreover, the fear of authoritarianism is mitigated by the checks and balances inherent in the U.S. system. The President, Congress, and the judiciary each play roles in ensuring that military tribunals do not overstep their bounds. The judiciary, in particular, has the power to review and intervene if rights are egregiously violated.

From a broader perspective, the call for military tribunals isn’t just about addressing immediate threats but also about sending a message. It reaffirms the nation’s commitment to protecting its sovereignty and the rule of law. By using military tribunals, the U.S. demonstrates its resolve to handle threats in a manner that conventional courts might not be designed for, thereby potentially deterring future acts against the state.

In conclusion, the advocacy for military tribunals in the current climate is not about subverting justice but about ensuring it. These tribunals represent a robust response to unique challenges that threaten national security, offering a blend of efficiency, expertise, and justice that civilian courts might not always provide. While the debate will continue, the necessity of military tribunals in certain scenarios is clear, reflecting a pragmatic approach to safeguarding the nation while upholding the principles of justice.

Is the deeply flawed and dementia impaired Joe Biden the best the Democrats have to offer?

The Democratic establishment has wholeheartedly gotten behind the former vice president of the United States Joseph Robinette Biden, as the Democratic nominee for President of The United States in 2020. Did they give it a test drive, kick the tires, check the engine or even look up the blue book value? The answer is a resounding NO! Joe Biden was the best of a bad socialist lot. There was a plethora of manufactured cookie cutter candidates. Bernie Sanders seemed the logical choice…..but! Bernie was an Independent who caucused with the Democrats. Bernie openly and proudly professed his affinity for socialism, at least coherently. The painful truth for the Bernie Bros was the Democrat establishment would never let an Independent/ Socialist drive the party off of the electoral cliff of a 2020 national election.

The party turned to Joe Biden to save the day. The best of a bad lot. The former VP with a solid connection to the first Black President of the United States and the all important Black vote. This may be death by a thousand cuts. We already know Joe is a walking, talking, stuttering gaffe machine. His son, brother, son-in-law and others have all profited handsomely from his position and name in big time national politics. He has the Tara Reade debacle. There is the firing of the Ukraine prosecutor who was investigating the corrupt Ukrainian gas company his son Hunter was working for. His team seems to be wisely trying to let Joe out in public view only when absolutely necessary. He has more skeletons in his closet than a thriller video! They say when life gives you lemons, make lemonade. Cheers to the left.

By Michael Ameer

(Via Zerohedge)

The Saturday release of the FBI’s heavily redacted FISA warrant application for Carter Page reveals that the Obama administration, eager to make a case to spy on a US citizen (and arguably the Trump campaign) cobbled together a combination of facts and innuendo from Page’s business dealings in Russia, several press reports of varying reliability, and of course, the infamous Clinton-funded “Steele Dossier,” which the FBI went to great lengths to justify despite being largely unable to verify its claims.

Perhaps the most concerning takeaway, however, is the stark disconnect between the FBI’s multiple allegations against Page versus the fact that he hasn’t been charged with a single crime after nearly two years of DOJ/FBI investigations.

Once issued, the FISA warrant and its subsequent renewals allowed the Obama administration to better spy on the Trump campaign using a wide investigatory net. As such, the October, 2016 application painted Page in the most criminal light possible, as intended, in order to convince the FISA judge to grant the warrant. It flat out accuses Page of being a Russian spy who was recruited by the Kremlin, which sought to “undermine and influence the outcome of the 2016 U.S. presidential election in violation of U.S. criminal law,” the application reads.

In order to reinforce their argument, the FBI presented various claims from the dossier as facts, such as “The FBI learned that Page met with at least two Russian officials” – when in fact that was simply another unverified claim from the dossier.

(Read More)