I expect the US to recognize that the rights granted to its citizens by the Constitution are to be respected even when it's inconvenient to do so. I expect Americans to be granted a trial, be given access to attorneys, have the right to remain silent, to require warrants for their papers and possessions, and to be considered innocent unless proven guilty, even if they join ISIS and participate in genocide. Otherwise, the entire premise of a Constitutional government and the rule of law becomes a farce.

At the very least, I expect the US to not simply shrug its shoulders, decide it's too complicated and just kidnap and kill Americans instead.

> This guy has made himself an unlawful enemy combatant. His choice. No one forced him to join ISIS and participate in genocide.

While I am sympathetic to this perspective, I don't think it's too much to ask that they prove it.

> Do we really expect US soldiers to be trying to mirandize people on the battle field because they might turn out to be US citizens? What about preserving the chain of evidence and securing the crime scene?

No one is saying any of that, that I can see. All that's being demanded is that now that this person is known to be a US citizen, that he be charged with a crime if he's to be held.

What are the actual rules/international law for this sort of thing? According to Wikipedia they at least have a flag: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_th...

Why wouldn’t a criminal prosecution have any chance of succeeding?

The chain of evidence is tainted and inadmissible in court. Can't trust what you find at the crime scene because it wasn't protected. The guy wasn't read his rights. Good luck finding people willing to testify. He and his buddies probably killed them all.

This isn't a criminal situation. It's a war situation.

The habeas relief talked about here is not about a criminal prosecution, so your predicate doesn't seem to hold in the first place. Secondly, there's an established protocol for interviewing people detained in a war zone and mirandizing etc (See e.g. the current prosecution of Abu Khattala https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmed_Abu_Khattala , who got mirandized only after intelligence interviews etc., by a clean team.). Simplifying you can interview people before mirandizing, you just can't use it in front of court.

FWIW, so far the civil courts have a way higher success ratio than the absurd military courts system. It's not that hard to convict people on the basis of material support charges etc.

The earlier comment was a response to someone asking about how criminal laws apply. You’re right that it isn’t necessarily a criminal question, but I think the original commenter was confused, not the person you replied to.

I don't think so. Note that tomohawk, who I responded to, is also the originator of this whole thread. And the first post started talking about mirandizing, which is a criminal law concept, no?

You convinced me.

It seems extremely likely that most juries would probably convict an ISIS traitor on testimony alone. Actually it seems pretty likely that they would convict a ham sandwich if you put a little ISIS flag on it.

Our constitution was written for times of war and peace. When he stopped being an enemy outside our lines with a gun and started rotting in a prison cell it became a criminal issue.

I'm not concerned with his well being. I'm concerned about setting a precedent that allows people to be detained without proof applying to innocent people.

Thank you. I'm sure your point will be lost in a flurry of defensiveness, but this is an important detail OP is being ignorant. The whole point of adhering to the judicial process, whether guilt is obvious or not, is to insure protection for the innocent minority, not the guilty majority.