2 ms·

I "get" how he could end up in a military tribunal because "laws be-damned" but not sure what sort of tortuous logic they could use to justify that. He was a c

I "get" how he could end up in a military tribunal because "laws be-damned" but not sure what sort of tortuous logic they could use to justify that. He was a civilian when he committed his acts so I believe he would legally be facing a civilian court system. I agree "national security" would be invoked to hush it all up but it would certainly add to the body of evidence that the people in charge got to go.

CoreSet 12y ago
I think they could make some tortured legal case that because he was working as a security contractor with a certain clearance and had access to XX information and signed XXX legal release forms, he could be tried as a member of the military. Or heck, name him an "enemy combatant" and just detain him indefinitely in some Polish blacksite. People will forget his name in time.
- dragonwriter 12y ago
  > I think they could make some tortured legal case that because he was working as a security contractor with a certain clearance and had access to XX information and signed XXX legal release forms, he could be tried as a member of the military. The Supreme Court has already struck down, on constitutional grounds, application of the UCMJ to military contractors deployed with the military on foreign military missions, under express language in the UCMJ applying it to them (the motivation for the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act, which applied US federal civilian criminal law that otherwise applies within the US territorial and special maritime jurisdiction to them.) So I don't see that argument surviving the inevitable habeas petition. > Or heck, name him an "enemy combatant" and just detain him indefinitely in some Polish blacksite. People will forget his name in time. Not in time to mitigate the short term political consequences of being seen disappearing him.

CoreSet 12y ago

I think they could make some tortured legal case that because he was working as a security contractor with a certain clearance and had access to XX information and signed XXX legal release forms, he could be tried as a member of the military. Or heck, name him an "enemy combatant" and just detain him indefinitely in some Polish blacksite. People will forget his name in time.

dragonwriter 12y ago
> I think they could make some tortured legal case that because he was working as a security contractor with a certain clearance and had access to XX information and signed XXX legal release forms, he could be tried as a member of the military. The Supreme Court has already struck down, on constitutional grounds, application of the UCMJ to military contractors deployed with the military on foreign military missions, under express language in the UCMJ applying it to them (the motivation for the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act, which applied US federal civilian criminal law that otherwise applies within the US territorial and special maritime jurisdiction to them.) So I don't see that argument surviving the inevitable habeas petition. > Or heck, name him an "enemy combatant" and just detain him indefinitely in some Polish blacksite. People will forget his name in time. Not in time to mitigate the short term political consequences of being seen disappearing him.