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.