3 ms·

The Constitution doesn't specify that due process necessarily involves the judicial branch. Al-Aulaqi v. Panetta cited precedent that civilian courts should not

The Constitution doesn't specify that due process necessarily involves the judicial branch. Al-Aulaqi v. Panetta cited precedent that civilian courts should not interfere with the military chain of command and that warmaking and national defense powers lie with the executive and legislative branches. In this case, the executive informed the congressional oversight committees more than a year before the assassination. https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2012cv1192-36 https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2012cv1...

bumby 3y ago
>The Constitution doesn't specify that due process necessarily involves the judicial branch. Doesn't the 5th amendment specifically guarantee the right to indictment by a Grand Jury for 'a capital or other infamous crime'? Or was this considered moot because the same amendment gives a caveat for a 'time of war or public danger'?* Your link seems to recognize this distinction and seems to sidestep the 5th amendment question by narrowing the scope (although I admit I haven't read it all in detail): >"The Court recognizes that its holding regarding the political question doctrine is inconsistent with Judge Bates’s decision in Al-Aulaqi v. Obama. That earlier case alleged that the United States’ intention to kill Anwar Al-Aulaqi violated the Fifth Amendment. In contrast, the instant Complaint raises the issue more directly and acutely, asserting a claim for damages for the actual taking of Anwar Al-Aulaqi’s life without regard to Fifth Amendment protections." *this obviously adds some additional risk to perpetual 'global wars on terrorism' and the ability to rules-lawyer your way into any outcome you want