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.
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.
And it appears everything is dysfunctional