I refreshed my memory of the law by reading the Supreme Court case in Hamdi, and the concurring opinions. It was a 4 judge plurality, so how it would come out with a new court remains to be seen. But the way it was written, Hamdi’s trial by military was tied to the existence of a Congressional resolution of military action against radical islamic terrorists. Whether military tribunals could be extended to actions by US citizens on behalf of general bad actors who are not involved on the other side of an actual war remains to be seen. That interpretation would stretch existing case law. The discussion between Kavanaugh and Lindsey Graham was entirely in the context of combat authorized by Congress—WW2 and the War on Terror declared after 9/11.
130,000 on-line at qmap.pub. WOW!
Hamdi's hearing was conducted to determine his status IAW LOAC.
It will be interesting to see how it plays out, I personally dislike the idea of one who disregards the Constitution while committing acts but tries to hide behind the document when called to account. For the foreigners in this war, no reason to bring them to trial since they are all (but a few) unlawful combatants. The gov'ts involved will likely cut 'officials' loose and disavow any knowledge of their actions. Perhaps for those players, their own gov't will exact the toll to satisfy the US public desire for vengeance.
The scenario where PDJT is akin to Cincinnatus is disagreeable as well since I'd like to have him for all 8 years.