It seems to me we are being prepped as an engine of effective and decentralized "counter-propaganda" in the coming event of marshal law enacted to round up those enemy combatants connected to the attempted destruction of humanity and The United States (pedovores et al.).
Information such as the following will be necessary to synthesise in a memetic fashion as a means of combating the inevitable hysteria to come.
Excerpted from:
U.S. Dept of Justice
Office of the Deputy Assistant Attorney General
Memorandum for Daniel J. Bryant
Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legislative Affairs
June 27, 2002
It is also settled that the President's authority to detain an enemy combatant is not diminished by a claim, or even a showing, of American citizenship. See, e.g., id. at 37 ("Citizenship in the United States of an enemy belligerent does not relieve him from the consewuence of a belligerency which is unlawful."); In re Territo, 156 F.2d at 144 ("[I]t is immaterial to the legality of petitioner's detention as a prisoner of war by American military authorities whether petitioner is or is not a citizen of the United States of America."); Colepaugh v. Looney, 235 F.2d 429, 432 (10th Cir. 1956), cert. denied 352 U.S. 1024 (1957) ("[T]he petitioner's citizenship in the United States does not … confer upon him any constitutional rights not accorded any other belligerent under the laws of war.").
The fact that a detainee is an American citizen, thus, does not affect the President's constitutional authority as Commander in Chief to detain him, once it has ben been determined that he is an enemy combatant. As the Supreme Court has unanimously held, all individuals, regardless of citizenship, who "associate" themselves with the "military arm of the enemy" and "with its aid, guidance and direction enter this country bent on hostile acts are enemy belligerents within the meaning of the Hague Convention and the law of war." 317 U.S. at 37-38. Nothing further need be demonstrated to justify their detention as enemy combatants. The individuals need not be caught while engaged in the act of war or captured within the theatre of war. See id. at 38 ("Nor are petitioners any the less belligerents if. … they have not actually committed or attempted to commit any act of depredation or entered the theatre or zone of active military operations."). They need not be found carrying weapons. See id. at 37 ("It is without significance that petitioners were not alleged to have borne conventional weapons…."). Nor must their acts be targeted at our military. SEe id. ("It is without significance that … their proposed hostile acts did not necessarily contemplate collision with the Armed Forces of the United States. [The rules of land warfare] plainly contemplate that the hostile acts and purposes for which unlawful belligerents may be punished are not limited to assults on the Armed Forces of the United States."). Accordingly, all "those who during time of war pass surreptitiously from enemy territory into our own, discarding their uniforms upon entry, for the commission of hostile acts involving destruction of life or property, have the status of unlawful combatants …" Id. at 35.