There are foreign governments and international forces likely behind this that cannot be touched by the charade of a Massachusetts criminal trial. There is a reason we have a Federal Government, and I think it takes an extremely narrow view to think there are not Federal and international aspects to this attack that need the leeway accorded by Enemy Combatant status to pursue. Of course, I don’t expect the Obama administration to successfully prosecute this, but that does not alter where the responsibility lies.
Of course a lawyer can argue anything (as long as you have money), but there would be quite a lot of proof needed to be able to argue that I, as a natural born citizen were an Enemy Combatant. You would have to show extensive contact with foreign powers or the swearing of allegiance to some entity in conflict with th US, I would think, for it to make sense, along with a clear intention to “attack” the US or its citizens.
It seems pretty clear to me in this case. The swearing of an obviously false oath cannot be seen to reasonably protect him, I would think.
Proving he swore a false oath in order to strip his citizenship in order to try him as an enemy combatant in a military tribunal seems like a convoluted way of going about things. We would have to show that he intended to do this stuff when he made the oath, not at any time thereafter. That could be very tricky, unless there is a bunch of evidence we don’t know about. Maybe there is. What legal entity would make that determination? The FBI? Homeland Security? INS? Federal Court?
Try him for Treason and murder and be done with it.
“There are foreign governments and international forces likely behind this that cannot be touched by the charade of a Massachusetts criminal trial.”
Nonetheless that charade must be carried out while Washington identifies & deals with those foreign and international forces. Washington does not need anything more than information to do its job.(presuming it even has a legitimate job here, which I agree is almost certant)
“There is a reason we have a Federal Government, and I think it takes an extremely narrow view to think there are not Federal and international aspects to this attack that need the leeway accorded by Enemy Combatant status to pursue.”
I agree that there are such aspects but they don’t need or deserve “leeway accorded by Enemy Combatant status” to pursue. The man is clearly not a combatant as he is, was not captured on a battle field, but Massachusetts, or would you claim that we are in a State of Civil War?
If you are to make such a claim where is the Government attempting to take control of Washington, and what evidence do you have that this man was part of the army of said government?
Frankly recognizing him as what he is far more beneficial because an enemy combant has to be released at the end of hostilities because a combatant is not a criminal but an enemy solder held simply to keep him out of the fight.