The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled, with its decision in Ex parte Milligan (1866), that military tribunals used to try civilians in any jurisdiction where the civil courts were functioning were unconstitutional.
In order to introduce Military Tribunals legally to try civilian non-combatants, you have to show that the civil courts are non-functioning (aka corrupt or biased).
Perhaps that is the door the prosecutors are trying to open. Durham may be putting the court in a predicament. Either find the person guilty based on the overwhelming evidence of guilt presented... or have the case shown as proof of a dysfunctional court.
In some cases I think you could argue that the defendants are cooperating with foreign powers and are therefore not non-combatants. It may not be a hot war but it is still a war.
The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled, with its decision in Ex parte Milligan (1866), that military tribunals used to try civilians in any jurisdiction where the civil courts were functioning were unconstitutional.
In order to introduce Military Tribunals legally to try civilian non-combatants, you have to show that the civil courts are non-functioning (aka corrupt or biased).
Perhaps that is the door the prosecutors are trying to open. Durham may be putting the court in a predicament. Either find the person guilty based on the overwhelming evidence of guilt presented... or have the case shown as proof of a dysfunctional court.
@Retaining_H20
Your spot on analysis is greatly appreciated fellow Patriot.
Let's get more 🍿🍿🍿🍿🍿🍿🍿🍿🍿🍿🍿🍿🍿🍿🍿🍿🍿😉
This is good to know! And knowing this, it would make sense we'd have to witness some court screw ups first.
And it appears everything is dysfunctional
In some cases I think you could argue that the defendants are cooperating with foreign powers and are therefore not non-combatants. It may not be a hot war but it is still a war.