The INS may seek denaturalization if the applicant made a false oral statement under oath (regardless of whether the testimony is material) with the subjective intent of obtaining immigration benefits. Alternatively, the INS may seek denaturalization if the applicant procured naturalization by concealment or willful misrepresentation of a material fact. In either case, the INS must prove its complaint by clear, unequivocal, and convincing evidence.
http://www.justice.gov/olc/ina340.htm
As the reference goes on to explain, such evidence must be established in either a judicial or an administrative proceeding; however, the naturalized citizen may appeal for judicial review of any adverse decision. In other words, every citizen has a right to trial in a court of law.
The Constitution is our best friend; it is the head that whispers warnings against doing things that our emotions scream at us to do.
That sounds reasonable (if not a little legalistic) if nothing else is going on except trying to remove a naturalized citizen’s citizenship for the causes mentioned. A nice, little, boring episode of “Law and Order”.
Of course, that’s not what we’re talking about here, at all. It’s hard to see how the Boston Marathon bombing could NOT be considered a terrorist attack on the US and its citizens, and that this would have direct implications on the validity of his oath of citizenship. Since this determines the protections he receives and the manner in which he is tried, I would think that a Judge who can chew gum and walk at the same time can review this and make an appropiate determination before any trial.