>The Constitution doesn't specify that due process necessarily involves the judicial branch. Doesn't the 5th amendment specifically guarantee the right to indi

>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