[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"?

[trevorboaconstr]

The full reference:

“ to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.”

You see the word future there, don’t you? It’s right there. Read it. “to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.”

Al-Awlaki was an AQ cheif propagandist and recruiter. It’s entirely applicable. But I guess calling for the death of Americans as part of AQ is totally irrelevant, right? https://imgur.com/a/g97JUa7

And since terrorist qualify as combatants…voila!

And just to reiterate, so it sticks with you this time!

Such killings have occurred in contexts as varied as the Civil War and the Cold War, based on powers vested in Article II of the Constitution (which makes the president the commander in chief of the armed forces) and upheld by the 1866 Supreme Court decision Ex Parte Milligan (which confirms that “command of the forces and the conduct of campaigns” rests with the president).

You have absolutely no understanding of application of case. You don’t seem to be able differentiate between powers of governance and war powers.

In this context, your same tired statement is completely irrelevant, as the situation doesn’t ever arrive at, or need to ask such questions.