An unlawful combatant is acting on behalf of an enemy of the US. It could be applied domestically in time of civil war, but otherwise it would normally be a foreign enemy. If the rogue American was acting on behalf of radical islam, with which we are at war, you could make the argument that the American is an unlawful combatant and try them before a Military Tribunal. Under the SC decision that we talked about a while ago, the rogue would be entitled to a hearing as to whether they were an unlawful combatant. That could also be a military proceeding or a civilian one, so long as due process were observed.
If the rogue American is acting on behalf of a band of CIA deep staters who want to control the US government, that would be treason and attempted murder, but perhaps not allow for a military tribunal.
Not necessarily, he may be operating on his own behalf, but what makes him unlawful is the lack of gov't sanction and being recognizable in the field.
If encountered in a engaged in hostilities they may be killed and if captured tried for war crimes.
thanks, you two!
How about if, for instance, the rogue CIA were acting in concert with the (previously enemy) Norks, or Iran, or Al Qaeda or ISIS, or China in the attempt to destroy the legitimate government of the US?