We the People are being bombarded nearly each day with additional allegations about Joe-Joe Biden and his illegal storage of documents containing sensitive information.
So, now perhaps is an appropriate time to review the term and the process of a “military tribunal.”
This from westernjournal.com.
Military tribunals in the United States are military courts designed to judicially try members of enemy forces during wartime, operating outside the scope of conventional criminal and civil proceedings.
A military tribunal works as a military court, but one that isn’t exclusive to military personnel. Civilian parties can actually be the subject of charges.
In fact, at one point, the administration of George W. Bush proposed military tribunals in an effort to convict “unlawful enemy combatants,” compared to a regular investigation by, say, the Department of Justice.
Unlike a military court martial, which focuses on military members, a military tribunal investigates others, such as contractors and even someone masquerading as the president.
Why now a military tribunal?
– Because this entire situation surrounding Joe-Joe as well as other members of the Biden family—classified documents, and involvement with Ukraine and China—is simply a mess. What’s more, there are allegations of Hunter Biden having had access to documents containing sensitive information and peddling this material to Ukraine and China.
– We the People cannot trust the FBI to conduct a thorough unbiased investigation based on what several whistleblowers have said, as well as their track record throughout the Trump years.
– Likewise, the DOJ is compromised and incapable of accomplishing anything trustworthy. They are in a duck-and-cover mode when it comes to anything related to the Obiden Regime as is well evidenced by the way it dismissed Hunter Biden’s laptop, and again, their track record throughout the Trump years.
– Attorney General Merrick Garland is compromised and not to be trusted and should not be allowed anywhere near this investigation.
– Further, the Obiden Regime has not been fully cooperative thus far. Yes, House Republicans are forming committee(s) to look into the matter but We the People must expect a struggle from The Regime every step of the way. A military tribunal will cut through the B.S.
Again, why a Military Tribunal?
Because this is essentially the least biased way to investigate a case. No nonsense, no favoring this side or another—simply military members looking closely at the facts of the case. Not those involved with the case, not those whom it could possibly help or hurt, just the plain ol’ facts. No DOJ involvement. No FBI involvement. Just qualified military investigators.
The following from militarytribunal.com.
Following is a comparison of some rules for military tribunals for terrorism/treason suspects with courts-martial and civilian courts.
| RIGHT TO COUNSEL | COMPOSITION OF JURY | VOTE REQUIRED TO CONVICT | RULES OF EVIDENCE | VENUE FOR APPEALS | |
| CIVILIAN FEDERAL COURTS | Accused chooses own lawyer, or one is provided if the accused cannot afford one. | 12 members drawn at random. | Unanimous decision to convict and to impose sentence, including the death penalty. | Strict federal rules of evidence apply, including of custody chain of evidence. | United States Court of Appeals, then the Supreme Court |
| COURTS- MARTIAL | Government provides a military lawyer; accused can request one of own choosing. Can also pay for a civilian lawyer. | For serious offenses, at least five military members selected by the commanding officer. | Two-thirds vote to convict in non-capital cases; unanimous vote required for conviction and sentencing in death penalty cases. | Strict military rules of evidence apply, virtually identical to the federal rules of evidence. | Cases are subject to review by military Court of Criminal Appeals, the Court of Appeals for Armed Forces and then the Supreme Court. |
| MILITARY TRIBUNALS | A military lawyer provided, and the accused can replace with one of own choosing. Accused can also pay for a civilian attorney. | Three to seven military officers appointed by the military. Seven members required for death penalty cases. | A two-thirds vote required to convict. Decision to impose the death penalty would have to be unanimous. | Evidence can be admitted if it “would have probative value to a reasonable person.” | A review panel appointed by the Secretary of Defense, which could include civilians temporarily appointed as officers. |
