Over at Lawfare,
I've flagged a fine new article in the Military Law Review,
"The Case of the Murdering Wives: Reid v. Covert and the Complicated Question of Civilians and Courts-Martial," by Captain Brittany Warren (Vol. 212. 2012, p. 133; link goes to jagcnet.army.mil.) The article goes into fascinating detail about the actual facts and circumstances of
Reid v. Covert, as well as a discussion of historical practices dating back to 17th century Britain and the application of the Articles of War to "camp followers." It then comes back to the present to discuss the circumstances of civilians in courts-martial in US law.
Let me add a comment that goes far afield of Captain Warren's article, but one raised in my mind by the detailed discussion she offers of the "murdering wives case" in its own context and time. (I don't want to suggest that my discussion reflects her views in that article, so I've decided to make it a separate post here at OJ.)
Reid v. Covert is a case sometimes raised in a different context - one for which it is not really dead-on, however, though sometimes referenced in relation to it.
Reid is the question of the extraterritorial application of the US Constitution, and whether a civilian US citizen lawfully present on a US military base in time of peace, with a SOFA in operation (ie, 1950s Germany), is entitled to a regular US civilian trial with all Constitutional protections in a capital murder case rather than trial in military court under the UCMJ - answer, yes. But, if that's
Reid, what about a US citizen who has fled the US to places not controlled in law or fact by the US, and is engaged in violent operations against the US from abroad as part of a terrorist group - is that US citizen nonetheless entitled to trial in a regular civilian court, or at least some form of judicial due process, and at least an implication that this US citizen can't be lethally targeted in the way that a non-citizen lawful target could be?
