"We shall test your American citizenship by tossing a 1% loaded coin. If it shows tails, you are American, otherwise you are a foreigner and can be lawfully, legally, constitutionally, military and otherwise politically surveilled."
It would be good if they clarified that as well.
What limits ought we to establish on our government(s) with regard to the rights of citizens of other nations?
http://www.democracynow.org/2013/4/23/jeremy_scahill_the_sec...
Your question is mis-phrased. It should be stated as, "What process is due to someone who is accused of spending a decade waging war against the US?"
It appears to be to be completely nonsensical to use the gravity of the accusations against a person to decide what kind of trial (or not) they should receive. The whole point of the trial is to find out whether the accusations are, in fact, true.
I'm not an expert, but Constitutional Law 101 is that the Constitution generally has territorial scope. It reaches citizens, whether they are on U.S. soil or off U.S. soil, and non-citizens who are on U.S. soil. It makes intuitive sense: non-citizens in say Afghanistan don't have any protections under the Constitution, because the Constitution is an expression of U.S. law and U.S. law has no force in Afghanistan other than to U.S. citizens who are bound to it by virtue of their citizenship.