Um what? Did you see the scoreboard? I’ve submitted irrefutable judicial precedent supporting my position. I posted this elsewhere but I’ll share it here for you since apparently you are having trouble following along.

This issue is actually not “up for debate” and there are not “two sides to it” purely legally speaking.

First, here is what the constitution says about your rights an American citizen:

The civilian justice system is outlined in the Fifth Amendment which states:

“No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”

Additionally, there are further protections in the 14th Amendment which states:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

More directly, the Procedural due process clause of the 14th states that When the government seeks to burden a person's protected liberty interest or property interest, the Supreme Court has held that procedural due process requires that, at a minimum, the government provide the person notice, an opportunity to be heard at an oral hearing, and a decision by a neutral decision maker.

In summary, a citizen, not involved in the military, not in a time or zone of war is only and specifically and exclusively subject and entitled to the protections and provisions of the civilian and federal justice system. This is not limited by the severity, or nature of the offence including murder, conspiracy or espionage.

Lets look at 3 such cases which make it clear that a citizen cannot be subject to military jurisdiction:

O'Callahan v. Parker

The June, 1969 landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court in O'Callahan v. Parker" has, held unconstitutional any prosecution by court-martial under the Uniform Code of Military Justice for any peacetime offense cognizable by an American civilian court, having no military significance, committed off post while neither the accused nor the victims were performing any military function, which crime neither involves the security of military posts or of military property or flounts military authority.

Ex parte Milligan

December 17, 1866 supreme court decision that a civilian, not in military service and resident of a state in which civilian courts are still functioning has a right when charged with a crime to be tried and punished in district or federal court with full constitutional protections. In addition, neither the President nor Congress has the authority to suspend the right of habeas corpus.

Hedges v. Obama

According to the text of Section 1021 of the NDAA provided that the U.S. President may authorize the armed forces to indefinitely detain the following persons set forth in § 1021(b)(2) of the NDAA:

A person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces.

Section 1021(e) of the NDAA, provided:

Authorities.—Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.[25]

These provisions have been upheld, and the delineation is clear; an American citizen may not be subjected to these provisions of indefinite military confinement. Furthermore, any American citizen may not for any reason be subject to military tribunal including a civilian who commits a crime on a military base, or a civilian caught or participating in an act of espionage or sabotage.

All of these cases would be tried in a US Federal Court, where Maxwell now finds herself. She is being held in a NY jail and she is represented by attorney Lawrence Vogelma