What are you saying? That a US Attorney can indict a criminal and then the criminal can be tried by a military tribunal if the crime fits into a military context? That is not surprising. What would be surprising, and that I doubt very much would happen, and which is what everyone seems to think would happen, is that DOJ attorneys would prosecute military tribunals, or that JAGs would be in US DIstrict court prosecuting military defendants. The two systems are separate, and would not be able to work together in a trial. You’re in one or the other.
I think people are confusing two branches of government working together to decide who will do what with two branches merging into one.
I think this might be what Baggie is referring to - but I don’t really understand it:
“Sec. 12. In accordance with Article 33 of the UCMJ, as amended by section 5204 of the MJA, the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security, will issue nonbinding guidance regarding factors that commanders, convening authorities, staff judge advocates, and judge advocates should take into account when exercising their duties with respect to the disposition of charges and specifications in the interest of justice and discipline under Articles 30 and 34 of the UCMJ. That guidance will take into account, with appropriate consideration of military requirements, the principles contained in official guidance of the Attorney General to attorneys for the Federal Government with respect to the disposition of Federal criminal cases in accordance with the principle of fair and evenhanded administration of Federal criminal law.”