I read it, and read that passage. And I don't believe those two sentences adequately cover the issue. Perhaps this discussion is tainted by the submission titl

I read it, and read that passage. And I don't believe those two sentences adequately cover the issue. Perhaps this discussion is tainted by the submission title: "Show us the legal case for executing a United States citizen without a trial." The hostage taker hypothetical is an example that goes against that. That person would be a citizen, not in a battlefield, guaranteed the right to a trial, executed by the government, without a trial. The article does not do a good job of distinguishing that example from Awl Alaki. Meaning I think the central argument isn't all that good, and needs to be more specific / nuanced.