[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.

[yucky]

>You see the word future there, don’t you? It’s right there.

Ah yes, the wording used to permanently deprive Constitutional rights because "I said so". That seems legit to you?

>And since terrorist qualify as combatants…voila!

This then applies to Antifa, Proud Boys, BLM, Communists & Qtards too, just as the founders intended. How convenient.

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

YEs you have said clearly that the Constitution is literally irrelevant if the government wants you dead. And you think that sounds correct.

>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

Name another US citizen put on a "Kill List", and denied Due Process while begging to be charged for 18 months with a crime. You can't, because it's never happened before.

Now about that question you absolutely refuse to answer, let's try it again shall we? Give me a legitimate reason why the government wouldn't charge him with a crime. They talked to the family countless times over that 18 months and received repeated assurance he would turn himself in as soon as he was charged, since it would guarantee his safety. So why didn't the government charge him?

[trevorboaconstr]

I can see your reading comprehension and capacity to process simple case, that has been re-explained to you numerous time, is simply not up to the task.

Have a nice day.

[yucky]

Now about that question you absolutely refuse to answer, let's try it again shall we? Give me a legitimate reason why the government wouldn't charge him with a crime. They talked to the family countless times over that 18 months and received repeated assurance he would turn himself in as soon as he was charged, since it would guarantee his safety. So why didn't the government charge him?