Your citation directly disputes your claim., since it requires charges to be brought. Al-Awlaki was never charged with a crime.
>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.
>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.
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..?
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.
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. .
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"?
“ 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.
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?
Have a nice day.
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.
The laws of war apply under the AUMF.