Summary

Portrait of Tom C. Clark Tom C. Clark McElroy v. United States (361 U.S. 281…

The only other authorities cited in support of court-martial jurisdiction over civilians appear to be opinions by the Attorney General and the Judge Advocate General of the Army. However, the 1866 opinion of the Judge Advocate General (cited in support of the Government's position) was repudiated by subsequent Judge Advocate Generals. [4] To be sure, the 1872 opinion of the Attorney General, dealing with civilians serving with troops in the building of defensive earthworks to protect against threatened Indian uprisings, is entitled to some weight.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of Tom C. Clark Tom C. Clark McElroy v. United States (361 U.S. 281…

It likewise appears entirely possible that the present 'specialist' program conducted by the Department of the Army [5] could be utilized to replace civilian employees if disciplinary problems require military control. Although some workers might hesitate to give up their civilian status for government employment overseas, it is unlikely that the armed forces would be unable to obtain a sufficient number of volunteers to meet their requirements.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of Tom C. Clark Tom C. Clark McElroy v. United States (361 U.S. 281…

Singleton, supra, additional practical alternatives have been suggested in the case of employees of the armed services. One solution might possibly be to follow a procedure along the line of that provided for paymasters' clerks as approved in Ex parte Reed, supra. Another would incorporate those civilian employees who are to be stationed outside the United States directly into the armed services, either by compulsory induction or by voluntary enlistment.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature