HRC’s lawyers have undoubtedly already developed her argument to be de-listed as an enemy combatant. She (and others) know that they will be prosecuted as traitors (one way or another). But Hamdi v Rummy doesn’t really fit the things HRC (and others) have done. Hamdi was accused of bringing arms against US forces (as a US citizen himself). What would be the argument, under the Law of Armed Conflict, that HRC could be detained and prosecuted (I am assuming U1 will be the basis)? In the cases of Hamdi and of the Americans that aided Nazis (executed! Kek), both cases were justified explicitly by Congressional authorizations. What Congressional authorizations could be argued for the detention and prosecution of HRC (and others) as enemy combatants? If the justification is solely the EO, it will indeed be perceived as a witch hunt. Any LawFagAnons have the details? Are there active Congressional authorizations that could be used in conjunction with the EO to bring them justice by men and women in uniform?
I understand the nature of her crimes. What I am asking, is, are there Congressional authorizations that allow her crimes to be considered enemy combatant? Or is it just the EO? Is China or Russia currently considered enemies of the USA by Congress? Selling access to her servers and data is CLEARLY treasonous! I am asking how crimes like that can be prosecuted in mil tribunals if we are not at war or in armed conflict (Congressionally Authorized) with China or Russia.