You still misunderstand. The passage does not “tell a story and signal intent” that the DOJ will be involved in military tribunals, which is what everyone keeps claiming. Kavanaugh testified very clearly that American citizens can be tried by military tribunal as enemy combatants. I have never disputed that, I wrote about it here quite often in the early part of the war on terror. I believed very strongly that al qaeda people should have no rights except to a military tribunal, followed by a right proper hanging.
Kavanaugh and Linda discussed the 1942 Quirin case and the 2004 Hamdi case which stood for that principle. There was no discussion with Kavanaugh about having civilian prosecutors involved in military tribunals. The one document that everyone keeps posting, and which you are referring to, says that military prosecutors should use the guidelines that apply to civilian prosecutors, to the extent that military justice allows. That does not mean that DOJ lawyers and military lawyers work together in tribunals, just that military lawyers should use guidelines developed over centuries of work by civilian prosecutors.
For some reason, everyone jumped on the notion that Huber and the military will be prosecuting together, and that is not what is going on. Cabal members who are enemy combatants can be tried by tribunal. Alternatively, they can be tried for crimes by the US DOJ. The choice of which to utilize will be the President’s.
I’m tiring of explaining this minor point, for which I was battered by several who claimed Kavanaugh said something I was disputing. (He did not). If people still want to claim that DOJ prosecutors will hold military tribunals, go ahead and continue to be wrong. I won’t waste further time on it.
Then we agree 188%
I don't think anybody gives a rat's ass or is disputing WHO prosecutes, but rather whether a civilian can be tried in a military court rather than a corrupt civilian court.
That is the story that's being told to us.
Now we can put our dispute to rest as we are in agreement. Yes?
So simple that even a non-lawyer can get it.
Bagster