What’s below is excerpted from a Truth Social thread by JFAnon, responding to someone else’s commentary and speculation that the Brunson case will be set once again for conference, and this time successfully…on the 17th of March. Janine says the decision has already been made on it, and in our favor, just not publicly released as of yet. We’ll see.
In any case, I found this thread to be enlightening and rather satisfying. It’s not just hopium. The bolded emphasis is mine…
On June 12, 2015, just four days before Trump announced his candidacy, the DoD released their very first edition of its Law of War Manual (“LoW”). Until then, DoD had never put forth a DoD-wide manual concerning the LoW. While different branches had their own manuals, a comprehensive manual didn’t exist.
I don’t think the timing of DJT’s announcement was coincidental.
It’s a LONG manual – almost 1200 pages. Chapter 11: Military Occupation (just 84 pages!) is the most relevant section. Here’s a screencap of the chapter outline.
Of importance: My read of the usage of the term ‘belligerent’ in LoW refers to a party actively in conflict on either side. In this case, belligerent occupation refers to one party’s occupation of another party’s territory during a conflict. It doesn’t mean the aggressive jerk in a particular situation.
Additionally, due to poor optics, I think the MIL would be reluctant to use all the powers described in this manual.
The breadth of these powers, however, is Notable.
According to 11.1.3 and 188.8.131.52, the law of belligerent (military) occupation does not apply to liberation of friendly territory (the US). It defines the administration of liberated friendly territory as being governed by a civil affairs agreement between the MIL and the government of the friendly territory.
However, it further explains (and the footnote adds clarity) that if a civil affairs agreement isn’t possible due to other circumstance (like having an unrecoverable election), a military government by a belligerent power is a legal option.
The importance of respecting as much of the occupied state’s existing laws is woven into the fabric of this Manual. As such, I think any law promulgated by the MIL as the occupying power will necessarily be congruent with the Constitution
On to three interesting sections/sub-sections about the breadth of authority vs normal civilian law.
MIL has a duty to respect the laws in force in the Country unless it impacts MIL security.
- 11.7.2 MIL has the authority to censor any and all forms of media (footnote re: 1A is relevant.)
- 184.108.40.206 Notwithstanding the obligation to respect the laws of the Country, MIL has the authority to change municipal laws (think sanctuary cities, for example), specifically calling out of suffrage.
- 220.127.116.11 and 18.104.22.168 provide MIL with the authority to suspend courts if they are corrupt, establish MIL courts to enforce civil laws (not just MIL laws) AND remove judges and prosecutors from office. (see footnote)
- Section 11.11 – Criminal Court is an extension of 11.10 Ordinary Court. It establishes further procedures to remain aligned with the occupied territory’s laws and the Geneva Convention (“GC”). This section would only apply to foreign nationals (not US citizens) in uniform as they would be defined as Protected Persons under the GC.
- Sec 22.214.171.124 and related footnote discusses MIL courts and precedents set in WWI Germany.
Remember that tribunals are very different from civilian court. The judges are the de facto jury, rules of evidence are different, and the defense has very little leeway in terms of delays and shenanigans. Marc Elias will get no quarter here.
Tribunals are expedited justice.
And for your late night reading pleasure, the full monty…
Department of Defense Law of War Manual