Habeas Corpus is a right of any person, not any citizen, so this is moot.

Even if it wasn't, obtaining a treason conviction is exceptionally difficult... particularly since we are not at declared war with any nation state, so it's an impossible crime to commit right now: https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleiii

But if this were not US citizen, I don't think they'd necessarily have US person status, because they are apparently not held in US territory.

Habeas applies to persons, even on foreign soil: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/06-1195.ZS.html

edit: see also U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1989). The case law on this matter is lengthy.

Indeed.

> No, non-citizens in foreign soil do not have any constitutional rights, including habeas.

I think that depends on the context and the definition of constitutional rights. There's no direct habeas, but longer-term military detention theoretically is only available in an declared military conflict. Which in turn depends on things like the 2001/2002 AUMF, and whether ISIS is a successor of AQ etc.

IANAL and absolute armchair amateur non-US citizen interpretation.

> I'm an appellate lawyer.* In a past life, I was an engineer at a cognitive radio startup.

Pretty damn cool.

The courts have held arbitrary and prolonged detention, and forced disappearance are actionable under the statute.

EDIT: s/if/of/ autocorrect typo

I don't think that's true / settled law for US citizens. The current problem rather is that the of identity is unknown, making it hard to establish standing as a next friend to ask for habeas relief. Therefore ACLU is asking for it to be allowed to act as such, arguing that it can't be the case that keeping the identity secret prevents everybody from acting as next friend. Which seems like a pretty fair argument.

Andres

From Wikipedia:

>The November 13, 2001, Presidential Military Order purported to give the President of the United States the power to detain non-citizens suspected of connection to terrorists or terrorism as enemy combatants. As such, that person could be held indefinitely, without charges being filed against him or her, without a court hearing, and without legal counsel. Many legal and constitutional scholars contended that these provisions were in direct opposition to habeas corpus, and the United States Bill of Rights and, indeed, in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld (2004)[38] the U.S. Supreme Court re-confirmed the right of every American citizen to access habeas corpus even when declared to be an enemy combatant. The Court affirmed the basic principle that habeas corpus could not be revoked in the case of a citizen.

You'd have to convict them first, and you'd have to charge them to do that. Keeping a citizen detained without charge is a violation of human rights and something you only expect from a totalitarian regime.

If it walks like a duck. And talks like a duck. Then it's a duck.

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

He has not been convicted of any crime, let alone treason. He hasn't even been formally accused of any crime. He's just locked up, without access to a lawyer, without any charges being laid against him.

Even if true, only after a court /jury decides. "Trump" can't say, "You committed treason, you have no rights," he can accuse you of treason and take you to court.

Even if that was the case how would be the treason verified?

If it doesn't need to be verified, it's like there's no rule of law at all -- authorities merely need to say that someone is a traitor and that's it.

- You can't lose your rights without due process of law. If the mere assertion was enough we could throw anyone in the clink without meeting any burden of proof.

- Treason is only special in that the high bar to prove it is outlined in the constitution and that it carries the possibility of the death penalty. It has no bearing on your rights as a citizen.

- The right to discover whom is being held and for what purpose is so basic that by definition it must apply to everyone including non citizens or else it is worthless because you first necessarily need access to this information or to the party involved to establish the basis of anyone's right. If they disappear you in the night we can't establish that you have rights that are being trampled if all we have is a theory that its you the government is holding in a gulag.

US gov. can violate these at their own peril. It's all based on reciprocity, assuming US citizens would also get worse treatment elsewhere.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boumediene_v._Bush

That'd not hold for areas of active hostilities however.

IANAL.