Hacker News Reader

just because someone copied one sentence from some online reference it doesn't mean that the court used it for arguing their decision.

https://media.cadc.uscourts.gov/opinions/docs/2026/09/26-104...

> Whatever paradigmatic examples individual members of Congress may have had in mind, the statutory definition is not limited to “adversar[ies],” 10 U.S.C. § 3252(d)(4), and instead covers “any person,”

View on HN

You're not addressing the argument, though. No one is saying that the target must be an "adversary".

Anthropic's actions were not sabotage, malicious, or subversive. That seems to be a requirement of the definition.

I tried to hint in my comment that the argument is completely different. the supply chain risk is just what the media runs with. (yes, it's in the opinion, but that is the weaker part. and the court agrees, that it basically does not apply to Anthropic.)

there's section 4713 which is roughly "Secretary of War can pull the nat.sec. card, bye"

Reply on news.ycombinator.com