alt Hacker Newsjust 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,”
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.