Alright man. I can tell you have a big stake in this. Obviously you’re not reading/engaging with the source material. Otherwise you wouldn’t be asking questions that have been answered.

I gave you two court settled situations in which the fourth and fifth amendment don’t apply in the context of imminent threat. The first, for example, law enforcements confrontation with a dangerous individual. Second, the impossible weight put on the govt to observe due process in the face of imminent threats. Please refer to the court cases above. They are cited for a reason. Those are not my words. They are not the words of the executive branch. Those cases/opinions are the words of the judiciary. Refer to them. If Al-awlaki hadn’t been a combatant in a foreign force targeting the US, this may not have applied. But he was.

If he had been in the US the govt couldn't have said that they were unable to attempt to apprehend him—-it wouldn't have been believable. Being in Yemen, and the fact that both the DOD and CIA said it was not possible to launch an operation (given they had attempted, which they said they had) for capture due to extraordinary circumstances, it was not in the govts court to provide due process in the face of imminent threat. In the case of Al-awlaki the self-defense justification holds merit when the United States' response to an armed attack is necessary and proportionate. The United States can invoke self-defense prior to an actual attack.

U.S. citizens who serve as soldiers for the enemy can be shot without trial during military operations but must be afforded a trial as traitors if they can be captured (Which the military apparatus deemed not possible).

For example, before the United States killed him, Al-Aulaqi should have been given notice that he was wanted for treason, or another crime, and that if he refused to return and stand trial, then he would be considered a military target. Functionally, A1-Aulaqi had notice that he was on a kill list. The media had been abuzz about killing him, and his father even filed an unsuccessful lawsuit on his behalf.138 Nonetheless, he did not return to the United States for trial.

You can’t ‘assassinate’ an individual once they enter the throngs of a foreign force. They are considered a legitimate military target. targeted killing" denotes a state's intentional and premeditated use of lethal force through agents acting under color of law against a specific, reasonably unobtainable individual. Targeted killing and assassination are similar but distinct operations that commentators often conflate. assassinations are killings that are politically motivated and use subterfuge, while targeted killings are military strikes. This distinction is important because President Ronald Reagan's Executive Order 12,333 bans assassination.

Please, just read the documents. Thanks.

>I gave you two court settled situations in which the fourth and fifth amendment don’t apply in the context of imminent threat.

There was no imminent threat. He was not on a battlefield. He was not in the active process of causing harm. Nobody would care if we were killed on an battlefield having taken up arms against US soldiers. But that isn't what happened. And the people who killed him can't just change the definition of the battlefield to "the world" and call it justifiable. I mean, they can and they did because neocons are gonna neocon. But it's very clearly and obviously unconstitutional.

>If he had been in the US the govt couldn't have said that they were unable to attempt to apprehend him—-it wouldn't have been believable.

That's not true, and in fact the correct interpretation of the "active threat" requirement can be found in numerous police shootings or barricaded gunman situations. An oft cited example is the BLM activist who murdered 5 cops in Dallas from a barricaded nest in a parking garage - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_shooting_of_Dallas_police.... Authorities sent in a robot with explosives to kill him, and it can be justified with very few people arguing against. An anti-US dissident saying provocative things in a blog or on youtube videos, is not the same.

>Nonetheless, he did not return to the United States for trial.

On what charge? He was never charged with a crime. That was the entire point of the lawsuit, so why are you being dishonest?

The AUMF says nothing about geography. Refer to the comment above. Hamdi rendered the constitutional override argument unnecessary. AUMF stood in for a declaration of war endorsed by all three branches. And before you say, “Acts of Congress cannot and do not supersede the Constitution”, Stop putting arguments into my mouth. I am arguing that the constitution was followed in this situation. The entire question is what process is due, and it is far from clear that the necessary process was a trial.

Irrelevant example. Imminent. Not active.

He held the rank of ‘regional commander’ within Al-Qaeda. The government’s actions are consistent with the DPC because al-Awlaki was located, purposefully, in a place where neither the host-state government nor the United States had a plausible opportunity to capture him, and because of his asserted operational role and the resultant premise that he posed an imminent threat to life.

And the court case ruled what? Nothing. It was dismissed.

>Charged with what?

He had notice that the US was after him and, if he wanted, he could have submitted to the court system. The Supreme Court has consistently held, most notably in Matthews v. Eldridge, that the amount of process due is context dependent.

Your citation directly disputes your claim., since it requires charges to be brought. Al-Awlaki was never charged with a crime.

No, in fact, it does not. It supports my claim.

>Hamid only applies to those in custody. It is dictating what due process is required to those people who are already in custody.

No portion of the constitution requires that you capture enemies in a war, and neither does any norm of international law.

Al-Awlaki was not captured. It was not possible to capture Al-Awlaki. It is not required that Al-Awlaki be captured.

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.

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.

>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..?

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.

>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. .

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.

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"?

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.

>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?

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.

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?

The Constitution extends to Congress the power to declare war. But it did not, in fact, declare war, so your claims, like theirs, are irrelevant to the matter at hand, which is murder of US citizens under no legitimate authority.

Your fancy document could be introduced as an attempt at a defense in the trial of the perps, and they could try to persuade a jury it justifies the murder, provided the judge allowed it. That is all the legal value it legitimately has.

There’s about 3 legal documents and 4 Supreme Court cases cited in this thread. Your issues have been addressed in this thread. I would refer to them if I were you. Thanks.

The laws of war apply under the AUMF.

The AUMF was passed by Congress to go after those who planned 9/11, it's literally in the text of the law.

This is addressed above.

> And the people who killed him can't just change the definition of the battlefield to "the world" and call it justifiable. I mean, they can and they did because neocons are gonna neocon. But it's very clearly and obviously unconstitutional.

The Constitution doesn't refer to battlefields at all. It does give Congress the power to declare war, which it exercised via the AUMF. There are numerous cases establishing that, in war, US citizens who are combatants of the enemy are not entitled to special treatment.

He was not a combatant though, and he wasn't even in any of the countries we were "at war" with. So if the government can use the pretext of "bad person sides against US Government in Youtube videos" to reach out and assassinate the person anywhere on earth, (because global war on terror = whole globe), then they have de facto denied Constitutional rights to any US citizens who the government chooses to go after, and does not require the US Government to prove anything.

Also, as has already been said in other posts, the Al-Awlaki family begged the US Government for over a year to charge him with a crime, ANY CRIME, so that he could turn himself in and have his day in court. The US Government refused to ever charge him with a crime specifically so they could deny him his rights.

You guys need to stop pretending this was some American killed on a battlefield while shooting at US soldiers. All it does is make you look dishonest, so what is the point?

Are you going to cite any of this, at all, about the statements made by Awlaki’s family?

Yes, it's been linked twice for you already. Please read back through the thread. You can reference the lawsuit and the public statements made prior to the assassination.

Now, are you ever going to answer why the US Government never bothered to charge him with a crime?

Do we really need to point out that Congress did not, in fact, declare war?

> Do we really need to point out that Congress did not, in fact, declare war?

Congress did, in fact, declare war. It is well established in law that the Cobstitutional power to declare war doesn't require using any particular words, and that it may be conditional on either external events or executive determinations. The AUMF is, Constitutionally, a conditional declaration of war.

>The AUMF is, Constitutionally, a conditional declaration of war.

It's not, but that actually isn't relevant and doesn't matter in the Al-Awlaki case anyway.

The text of the AUMF specifically references those who participated in or planned 9/11, which means it's not relevant to Al-Awlaki. Also, Al-Awlaki's family offered to have him turn himself in the second he was charged with a crime but the US Government refused to charge him since that would immediately guarantee him Due Process which they specifically sought to avoid.