The Fifth Amendment specifically states that the CIC can kill an enemy in a public emergency and he doesn’t need an indictment to take the puke to trial..
Where are "unalienable rights" or "limited Constitutional government" in that justification? The United States has been operating under a state of emergency continuously since 1933.
Huh? What part of the 5th amendment covers this? There is an exception for “cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger.” Are you seriously suggesting that Awlaki’s case arose “out of” the land or naval forces or in the Militia? That would presuppose that Awlaki was in the land or naval forces or in the Militia of the United States at the time of his case.
I know you are not suggesting that Awlaki’s killing was justified by the fact that the US is at war, since, as we all know, the US is not, in fact, at war. War can only be declared by Congress, and Congress has not declared War, so we are not in a state of War. Like it or not, that’s the fact.
If it is the passage that I am looking at, it says "in times of ACTUAL war". Show me where Congress declared "ACTUAL war" on Yemen.
We are at war with a tactic -- "Terror" -- not a specific country, nor has the government specifically declared it only on al Qaeda. The legal options have been kept open to mean anyone, anywhere, any time the government declares you to be an enemy of the state. Obama was just the first to exercise this open ended option using extreme prejudice.
That is not what the 5th amendment states.
I suspect that you are referring to this part of the amendement, “except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger.”
Our muslim friend was not in the armed forces, or in the milita, and so this language doesn’t apply to him. Apart from his not belonging to U.S. armed forces, this exception does not apply to the rest of the amendment.
Now to answer any argument that he was in a land force, this language does not generically refer to any armed forces, as first, the land and naval forces should be interpreted consistently with the rest of the Constitution, and Article I, Section 8 refers to “the land and naval forces” as being under the control of the U.S. Congress. Thus, “the land and naval forces” has to refer to U.S. forces.