(March 6, 2019 at 10:58 am)Yonadav Wrote: Although a person's service in the armed forces of a foreign country may not constitute a violation of U.S. law, such action could serve as a predicate act for the relinquishment of U.S. citizenship under 349(a)(3) of the INA [8 U.S.C. 1481(a)(3)] under two circumstances. Section 349(a)(3) provides for loss of U.S. nationality if a U.S national voluntarily and with the intention of relinquishing U.S. nationality enters or serves in the armed forces of a foreign state engaged in hostilities against the United States or serves in the armed forces of any foreign state as a commissioned or non-commissioned officer. Note that the administrative presumption of intent to retain nationality does not apply to voluntary service in the armed forces of a state engaged in hostilities against the United States, and thus such action could be viewed as indicative of an intention to relinquish U.S. nationality, although each case is examined on its own with a view to the totality of the circumstances.
https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/...rvice.html
Outside law, our values matter.
On the issue of being pragmatic alone, it still makes more sense to bring the accused onto our soil, and put them through our system, where we have control. It makes no sense to leave them outside our borders where we have no control over them. El Chapo was not a citizen, but he will spend the rest of his life in an American prison and even he had a trial.
If we don't want to be like ISIS, or like North Korea, then we should back up our values and apply them to all accused. We don't value crime or violence, but we do value protection of a system that protects the innocent too. You value courts and juries not for the accused, but as an oversight to prevent mob rule and dictatorships.
