Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507 (2004) is the modern case of a civilian aimed at a military tribunal. Reaching a conclusive opinion was short circuited as the Bush admin eventually shuttled Hamdi to the civilian courts. Scalia's dissent in Hamdi is pretty good.
Where the Government accuses a citizen of waging war against it, our constitutional tradition has been to prosecute him in federal court for treason or some other crime. Where the exigencies of war prevent that, the Constitution's Suspension Clause, Art. I, S:9, cl. 2, allows Congress to relax the usual protections temporarily.
Thomas came out in the opposite direction ...
The Executive Branch, acting pursuant to the powers vested in the President by the Constitution and with explicit congressional approval, has determined that Yaser Hamdi is an enemy combatant and should be detained. This detention falls squarely within the Federal Government's war powers, and we lack the expertise and capacity to second-guess that decision. As such, petitioners' habeas challenge should fail, and there is no reason to remand the case.
It is one thing to be heavy-handed with Hamdi, and another thing to be heavy-handed against a somewhat popular politician, even one that sold the country to the highest bidder.
I encourage at least a skim through the Scalia and Thomas dissents in the Hamdi case to get a reasonable idea of the arguments that would be sure to surface, should Trump choose to prosecute ANY American citizen in a military tribunal. Not saying it can't be done, but the tidy way is to get Congress to suspend habeas corpus. That is a big deal, as Biden would say.
Thanks for the info but I was just pointing out where it previously has happened where you requested. I also pointed out my stance on military tribunals. I do understand the need to be cautious with them.
If the treason is as bad as Q has stated it is, especially if they can prove there was a real coordinated effort to take down our republic, then I won’t rule them out.
CGato