[yucky]

We were not at war with Yemen, and Al-Awlaki was not a soldier. If he were guilty of a crime (which I have no doubt he was) then he should have been charged and convicted and then executed if warranted.

>It was not possible to capture Al-Awlaki.

We know this is a lie. The fact that his family offered to have him turn himself in as soon as he was charged with a crime, proves that there was zero attempt to capture him. The Al-Awlaki family was begging the US Government for over a year to charge him with something so that he would get his constitutionally guaranteed rights.

And that is exactly why the US Government refused to charge him, because doing so would have afforded him his rights in court, which the US Government specifically wanted to avoid. That shows clear intent to deprive a US citizen of his guaranteed rights.

[trevorboaconstr]

Same tired statement you’ve made already. Your points have been addressed. You have provided no sources, included no citations throughout this discussion.

The killing of Anwar al-Awlaki under the 2001 AUMF was constitutional.

[yucky]

>The killing of Anwar al-Awlaki under the 2001 AUMF was constitutional.

Under the 2001 AUMF it would have only been legal if he had planned or participated in 9/11, which he didn't. Read the text of the law.

There was never a justification to not charge him with a crime, especially knowing that he would have turned himself in if they had. But we both know why they didn't, don't we..?

[trevorboaconstr]

This my last reply, since it seems like you don’t wish to read the cited materials. As it explains all of this.

The long list of historical supreme court decisions provide evidence enough that due process under the war powers is not relevant.

Charles Evan Hughe (former chief justice) said, that the power to wage war is the power to wage war successfully in the defense of the republic.

Here are all the cases I’ve cited during this discussion.

Prize Cases -> Milligan Case -> Ex parte Quirin -> Mathews -> Hamdi -> Al-Awlaki

The bill of rights does not apply to the legitimate exercises of military power by the government. Therefore the due process clause and the bill of rights wasn’t even relevant in this target killing. That doesn’t mean there weren’t restrictions.

There’s nothing new about targeted killings (non indiscriminate killing). They were conducted in the George Washington era-the battle of Saratoga during the revolutionary war. They were conducted in World War II (Yamamoto). Targeted killing has been an aspect of every single American war to date.

Under the a AUMF there is no prohibition grounded under the bill of rights. This can be grounded in the Civil War cases where American citizens were directly targeted.

No one is reading the due process clause literally. As it doesn’t distinguish citizens and noncitizens.

The weight of judicial authority rest with a proposition, the due process clause of the fifth amendment and the Bill of Rights generally, simply doesn’t apply to exercise a military force under the War Power. A long line of Supreme Court cases that have their roots in the Marshall Court era, lots of cases that came out of the Civil War, the WWII case Ex parte Quirin is another example (the 1942 decision by the supreme court that upheld the legality of president Roosevelt’s Military commissions of 8 Nazi saboteurs and at least one American.)

When the government is acting not as a government governing people, but rather as the defender of the republic, although there are legal limitations on what it may do, those limitations do not include Bill of Rights protections. The Civil War being the most app example of this. The United States government deprived thousands of citizens of their lives without giving any of them due process. It deprived thousands of other US citizens of their liberty, without giving due process. The seizure of private property as well, without due process.

The US government position was that these US citizens forced war upon the United States. Before they were the lawful objects of the war powers, being used not to govern but rather to defend the republic.

Hamdi is not in contradiction to this because the Hamdi case was under the power of governance and not under the power of war.

It’s in this very specific position where an American citizen is the lawful target of military force under the exercising of war powers, under the long line of Supreme Court decisions that have been cited, Government doesn’t have the ability to choose to use the war powers as opposed to using the ordinary powers of governance.

This argument, an even more strongly supported one on the back of supreme court ruling, invalidates your entire position.

[yucky]

>The long list of historical supreme court decisions provide evidence enough that due process under the war powers is not relevant.

Not a single one references specifically targeting a US citizen who isn't actively engaged on a battlefield and who wishes to turn themselves in to face charges, charges which the government refused to bring.

So no, none of your citations are relevant. All the government had to do was charge him with a crime. The refused to specifically because they needed to deprive him of his Constitutional rights in order to keep their secrets secret. .

[trevorboaconstr]

No, the cases show that the bill of rights have no standing under war powers. That’s it. WAR POWERS. Again. Governance powers, vs War powers. The government does not choose. Your retort is irrelevant.

[yucky]

Not only does that not trump the Constitutional rights of a US citizen, the AUMF text specifically refers to "those who participated in or planned 9/11", which does not apply to Al-Awlaki anyway. So you're not just wrong, you're double wrong.

And you have refused to answer the question posed numerous times - why wouldn't the US Government just charge him with a crime? We're expected to go with "just trust us bro"?