Research you say? Hmmm... Civilians in military courts? Hmmm.  So you say the short version is that you just can’t at all.   Really?  Ya think? But hang on, didn’t you hear Lindsay Graham have a little chat LIVE with Brett Kavanaugh in front of half the country about the US still being in a state of war, because congress passed the authorisation for the use of military force on 14th September 2001, which Kavanaugh said was/is still in effect. Graham then asked him about whether a US citizen in Afghanistan carried his constitutional rights with him and Kavaugh answered yes, for example he still had the 4th amendment protection from the US Government, and Kavanaugh confirmed that was  based on long settled law. Graham then asked if there was another case based on long settled law where US citizens that collaborate with the enemy are considered enemy combatants, and Kavanaugh replied “Yes Senator, Johnson versus Eisentrager”. Graham then said to Kavanaugh that he thought that there was a Supreme Court decision that said that US citizens who collaborated with Nazi saboteurs  lost their 4th amendment rights and were tried by the military, and asked if that was correct. Kavanaugh answered “Yes”. Graham then said that he thought a couple of them were executed, and Kavanaugh answered “Yes”.  Graham then summarised the position and mentioned another case in Afghanistan where US citizens were treated as enemy combatants and again lost their 4th amendment protections against the US government, and Kavanaugh said the case was Hamdi.  Now this exchange was clearly undertaken to announce very definitively to the USA that US citizens could be tried by military courts as enemy combatants, and lose their constitutional rights, and that this was based on long settled law and the actual cases were named.     I believe this may have been in preparation for the current situation in the US, where some have suggested that it may possibly transpire that US citizens have collaborated with enemies of the USA, with the intention of overthrowing a lawfully elected US President, which would seem to perhaps fit the precise definition of TREASON, and would therefore possibly put those citizens in the exact same position as those who collaborated with Nazi saboteurs. Now that is just my memory of the conversation, so it may be a bit rough around the edges, however you can look it up, since it is doubtless available to view in the public records of the hearing. Or you could just watch it, so you could see the expressions, tone and body languages of the speakers.  Here is a link https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=z3T_1b2Y57E