Thursday, June 4, 2020

No. Defense Secretary Esper, Trump is the Commander in Chief

Staff Writer, DL Mullan 
Insurrection / Enemy Combatants

___________________________________

Defense Secretary Mark Esper is wrong. So wrong the question becomes why is he in a position of leadership in our government?

“The option to use active duty forces in a law enforcement role should only be used as a matter of last resort, and only in the most urgent and dire of situations. We are not in one of those situations now. I do not support invoking the Insurrection Act,” Esper stated. 

But insurrection is already taking place. Once peaceful protests erupt into violence, mayhem, death and destruction, these demonstrations are no longer protected rights under the First Amendment in the Bill of Rights. 

Former Ambassador Alan Keyes sums up the Presidents rights and responsibilities under the Constitution in this interview: Only the Commander in Chief Can Stop Civil Insurrection

When life, liberty, and property are being taken from the American people without due process of law, then yes, Mr. Esper, President Trump can act accordingly through the Constitution with the power of the military. 

The Insurrection Act has been updated: 
Public Law 109-364 (H.R. 5122) Oct 17, 2006 2014-06-19

Section 1076
Major changes:

Changed the title of the law from "Insurrection Act" to "Enforcement of the Laws to Restore Public Order Act"

Specifies situations in which the President can invoke martial law (natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident or other condition in which the President determines that domestic violence has occurred to the extent that state officials cannot maintain public order). These had not been specified before.

Spells out the President's obligation to inform Congress within 14 days when he determines to exercise the authority, and every 14 days thereafter, during the exercise of the authority. This had also not been specified under the Insurrection Act.
President Trump has many other powers granted to him by Congress in the war on terror.

For example:

In 2012, the U.S. Congress passed the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) with relatively little attention from the media―despite the freedoms it obliterated. The NDAA was enacted to empower the U.S. military to fight the war on terror. But buried in this law are two provisions (Sections 1021 and 1022) that authorize the indefinite military detention, without charge or trial, of any person labeled a “belligerent”―including an American citizen.

These NDAA provisions (which have been re-approved by Congress and signed by President Obama every year since 2012) override habeas corpus―the essence of our justice system. Habeas corpus is the vital legal procedure that prevents the government from detaining you indefinitely without showing just cause. When you challenge your detention by filing a writ of habeas corpus, you must be promptly brought before a judge or into court, where lawful grounds must be shown for your detention or you must be released.

Under Section 1021, however, anyone who has committed a “belligerent act,” can be detained indefinitely, without charges or trial, as a “suspected terrorist.” This is a direct violation of the U.S. Constitution and our Bill or Rights. In The Federalist No. 84, Alexander Hamilton stressed the importance of the writ of habeas corpus to protect against “the favorite and most formidable instruments of tyranny.”
Another illustration of the power of the Presidency:
A. Military Commissions Act of 2009. Title XVIII of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2010 (the NDAA), signed into law in October 2009, replaced the Military Commissions Act of 2006 with the Military Commissions Act of 2009 (MCA 2009).
The concept of our military commissions "which by law are only for defendants who are not citizens of the United States" remains widely disparaged around the world as a second-class justice system. Some allied countries have refused to provide crucial witnesses or evidence for use in the tribunals.
Arizona has illegal aliens participating in the riots: DACA Illegal Aliens Among 200 People Arrested in Phoenix, Arizona Riots. Those individuals constitute an invading foreign force waging war within the United States.  

ANTIFA and other militant organizations are also contributing to the lawlessness. 

And, have you forgotten about: 
The detainee provisions passed as part of the National Defense Authorization Act for FY2012, P.L. 112-81, affirm that the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF),P.L. 107-40, in response to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, authorizes the detention of persons captured in connection with hostilities. The act provides for the first time a statutory definition of covered persons whose detention is authorized pursuant to the AUMF. During debate of the provision, significant attention focused on the applicability of this detention authority to U.S. citizens and other persons within the United States. The Senate adopted an amendment to clarify that the provision was not intended to affect any existing law or authorities relating to the detention of U.S. citizens or lawful resident aliens, or any other persons captured or arrested in the United States. This report analyzes the existing law and authority to detain U.S. persons, including American citizens and resident aliens, as well as other persons within the United States who are suspected of being members, agents, or associates of Al Qaeda or possibly other terrorist organizations as “enemy combatants.” The Supreme Court in 2004 affirmed the President’s power to detain “enemy combatants,” including those who are U.S. citizens, as part of the necessary force authorized by Congress after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. In Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, a plurality held that a U.S. citizen allegedly captured during combat in Afghanistan and incarcerated at a Navy brig in South Carolina is entitled to notice and an opportunity to be heard by a neutral decision maker regarding the government’s reasons for detaining him. On the same day, the Court in Rumsfeld v. Padillaoverturned a lower court’s grant of habeas corpus to another U.S. citizen in military custody in South Carolina on jurisdictional grounds, leaving undecided whether the authority to detain also applies to U.S. citizens arrested in the United States by civilian authorities. Lower courts that have addressed the issue of wartime detention within the United States have reached conflicting conclusions. While the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit ultimately confirmed the detention authority in principle in two separate cases (one of which was subsequently vacated), the government avoided taking the argument to the Supreme Court by indicting the accused detainees for federal crimes, making their habeas appeals moot and leaving the law generally unsettled. A federal judge enjoined the detention of persons on the basis of providing support to or associating with belligerent parties under one prong of the definition enacted as Section 1021 of the National Defense Authorization Act for FY2012, P.L. 112-81 (Hedges v. Obama), but the decision has been reversed on appeal on the basis of standing. This report provides a background to the legal issues presented, followed by a brief introduction to the law of war pertinent to the detention of different categories of individuals. An overview of U.S. practice during wartime to detain persons deemed dangerous to the national security is presented. The report concludes by discussing Congress’s role in prescribing rules for wartime detention, subsequent legislation in the 112th Congress that addresses the detention of U.S. persons, and legislative proposals in the 113th Congress to further address the issue (H.R. 1960, S. 1147, H.R. 2325, and H.R. 3304.
At the moment, the rioters along with city mayors and state governors who are allowing the wanton destruction of American life, liberty, and property fit this definition of a belligerent/enemy combatant. As well, mayors and governors have allowed protests to turn into the legal definition of Rebellion or insurrection.
18 U.S. Code § 2383. Rebellion or insurrection

Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
Yet these enemy combatants, militant revolutionaries, and illegal aliens continue to get bailed out of jail to terrorize their neighbors. Enough is enough. These people have no right to behave in this manner.

President Trump as Commander in Chief has numerous options open to him, including the military.

So please, Mr. Esper, tell Americans again the vastness of your wisdom because your knowledge is lacking and it shows.

Sources: Breitbart, Survival Monkey, Banned Video, American Bar, Cornell Law,   

Get All the Latest News... Follow the VDP Gazette by Email