The last time it was called by the Feds it was maybe during ww2. That's frankly not a terribly in depth source. You may have noticed the previous article you cited which had as its title that the president can't declare martial law.
Look, you don't know what you are talking about, so you are searching everywhere on the internet for something that justifies your opinion, even if your sources contradict one another.
It seems to me that you are mixing up your personal and rather fringe interpretations of US law and jurisprudence, and then casually handwave away anyone who disagrees, or shake a fist at them if its courts or government.
Yeah, sure, i don't know what i'm talking about.
Given that one of two major parties is looking at NATO like why bother? And that you drastically underestimate the isolationist sentiment in the US? Please go find another ally ASAP.
Note you were able to point to exactly nothing you offer us, btw.
Welp, lemme spell it out then. It is in the interest of Poland and any of our nationalists to help political forces that oppose isolationism in USA. Trying to cater to the isolationists on the other hand is a lose-lose proposition for us. Either we get friends who aren't in power, or we get friends who are in power and pride themselves on telling us that few if anyone really is a worthwhile ally, and they don't want to do anything, military especially, if we need it.
The second list has zero mention of thing that help Americans at home. The first, well, it's not nothing, but then helping Intel agencies isn't exactly a positive either for a US population who knows that TLAs aren't always our friends.
Still they are more friends to us than US isolationists, they actually have common interests with us, while the whole sentiment behind isolationists is that they would spend immense amount of effort to argue that there may be a small chance that they don't have common interests with us or anyone else in Europe or Asia.
Your shared value of opposition to communism? Now that's an argument.
Islamists, i mean honest to Allah head chopping jihadists, also share opposition to communism with us, no one can deny that. But that doesn't make them our allies or vice versa, we both understand that. Frenemies at most, in some exotic circumstances, and we all know how dangerous it is to play with frenemies. So keep these contrarian teenager grade foreign policy analysis hot takes to people who don't consider them a joke.
We both know that if you a government in USA had 99% support in USA and sufficient military capabilities to guarantee victory with no major losses, then the most stereotypical of boomercon warhawks would definitely be more likely to launch a global crusade against communism than the isolationists. You know that, i know that.
But that argument fades if you end up with some manner of dictator, which is where all of Europe is headed for their inability to guarantee rights. How long until Law and Justice gets banned?
Who knows (no one)? Who cares (they and their core electorate does, but those to the right it, depends by who)? We in that region have more meaningful problems on our hands than hypothetical dictators.
The government should have asked for Ukraine to send him back to the U.S. then Ukraine can permanently ban him from their country. Either that or the government should have revoked his citizenship. Allowing a citizen to languish in a foreign nation looks bad.
Sometimes it looks good. It shows that you respect your allies, their judgement, and don't disagree with them that this citizen fucked up. All countries in the world, at least in some cases, do let some citizens to languish in a foreign prison even, especially if they are in good relations with that country.
No all reasonable countries ARE that level of "nanny state" Because nations don't like their citizens to be killed yet if a citizen of one nation is fucking around with another state his nation is not officially at war with it becomes a complicated situation. That other state can't allow an enemy, but the nation he is a citizen of does have too look out for their citizen's wellbeing.
A lot of nations don't give much of a fuck if its some kind of widely understood troublemaker. The implied message being that they should have stayed home rather than go screw with allies or neutrals.
The answer is obvious either the nation disavows that citizen, OR they bring him back home. That's how we make sure that American citizens won't be killed by Russia or China or other rivals we aren't at war with.
Those often just say no and there isn't much you can do about it that you wouldn't do anyway.
It's more use if there are cultural differences with countries where relations are more complicated.
But in cases where the foreign country and US government hates the shit the citizen was doing? Why would they waste effort intervening? Say, if a crazy jihadist goes to Russia to do crazy jihadist things and gets arrested, US government will be less inclined to get him out than if, say, a vegetable salesman went to Russia and got arrested for espionage, or even worse, an actual agent went to Russia and got arrested for espionage, then it's a duty to not just try, but to do whatever is realistic.
Hell, in fact there were cases when a crazy jihadist US citizen went to some war torn shithole, didn't even get arrested as it's a shithole, so the US government evacuated him... to the afterlife, with a drone strike.
