No, because he is not part of an enemy army. Or if he is, not one we’re at war with or even know about. We go with what we know. He’s a criminal suspect.
I don’t know if those calling for him to be tried as an enemy combatant never played Paranoia as kids, or never knew anything else.
From yahoo news:
So, it’s done. They Mirandized his ass.
No choice. It’s required at the initial appearance under Rule 5(d) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.
They could have chosen to delay charging him.
Like those Yemenis, amirite!? Say no more, saynomore!
Rule 5(a):
He’s clearly in custody (under arrest) since the time they pull him out of the boat. There can be no “unnecessary delay,” nor is there reason to.
“You have the right to have remained silent. Pretty much everything you already said will be used against you. You have the right to have had an attorney…”
Huh. I was under the impression he was not quite a citizen yet, that his immigration was not complete. Not that I think a non-citizen should be treated differently.
I would have liked to see another option: “No, because that is not how civilized countries with respect for their own democratic traditions treat accused criminals.”
My understanding was that this issue arose with respect to US citizens living outside the US, and therefore outside the jurisdiction of the Courts, and that the President was asserting that power as part of his C-in-C powers, in order to protect the national security of the US. That is clearly a controversial position, but can a US citizen take arms against the US from outside the US, and yet be entitled to full due process, or can the US protect itself by taking military action against that citizen?
But, I’ve never seen it asserted that the President can order the assassination of a US citizen in the US, when the civil courts are open for business (see Ex parte Milligan)? That strikes me as a significant difference from the example of ordering assassination against a US citizen outside of the US. It does not seem inconsistent to say that in the case of a US citizen in the US, the executive cannot designate as an enemy combatant and defeat the citizen’s rights to be tried in the civil courts, according to the ordinary law of the land.
I could see an exception if they start to band together in large formal military brigades and operate against our communication lines. The American Civil War was waged by “enemy combatants” and not “criminals.” There wasn’t any option but to address the issue using a military response.
But onesies and twosies bombers, acting on their own, without so much as financial backing? Pfui. Not worth dirtying our hands with. They’re criminals, and the courts can have 'em.
(Also, I want the courts’ protection, because some day, I might happen to be seen on a public security camera nearby the scene of an explosion, and, by God, I want my full constitutional right to a complete legal defense!)