Who are you,an American politician?
Probably the same level of evidence required to prove the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Comforting, isn’t it?
Since the Obama administration isn’t waterboarding suspects over and over and has put more emphasis on actual intelligence gathering, yes, there’s some comfort to be found there.
And BTW, we have been far too lenient with terrorists and the nations that harbor them. The fact that Tora Bora is not a nuclear wasteland, the people of Afghanistan have received generous international support, and no President has overtly challenged Pakistan on their continued sponsorship of Al-Qai’da and the Taliban is ample evidence of America’s mercy and compassion towards people who have not and could never suffer enough for what they did to us and continue to do to us.
You’re confusing brutality with effectiveness, solosam.
Which is irrelevant to the issue of enemy combatants operating in a foreign country, because being at war with the US isn’t a crime one can be put on trial for. The Constitution does not require that any quarter be offered or given to enemies during wartime, regardless of whether they were Americans before they defected and started killing American civilians in the service of an enemy organization.
Calling someone an “enemy combatant” doesn’t magically make the Constitution not apply anymore. We learned that from the numerous court cases during Bush’s administration when he argued that US citizens who were designated enemy combatants weren’t entitled to any Constitutional protections and the Supreme Court rejected his argument. If you are a US citizen, even if you are living abroad and you’re a really bad guy, still applies. You can’t get around the Constitution simply by calling someone a fancy name.
Again, saying something does not make it true. There is no “does not apply in times of war” sticker on the Constitution. And the Supreme Court has repeatedly said that parts of the Constitution does apply to US citizens living abroad, or even foreigners on US territory. Again, simply calling someone an “enemy” doesn’t let you end run around the Constitution.
There is nothing in the Fifth Amendment that invalidates the conduct of an authorized, legal war.
One question here. The Fifth Amendment states that it applies to “any person.” Nobody here doubts that the President can order an attack on foreign nationals overseas as part of a lawfully authorized war. If a foreign national is lawfully attacked by the US armed forces, what due process was he subject to?
nevermind, didn’t see that the thread had two more pages
The Supreme court has, as generality, interpreted the “any person” as applying to US citizens, people present in the United States, and foreign nationals on US territory. They have not, to my knowledge, applied it to foreign nationals in foreign lands.
So the Supreme Court has attached a “does not apply” caveat to the Fifth Amendment, and the scope or rationale of that caveat does not actually appear in the Constitution?
Germany no. Lebanon yes.
??? Don’t a great majority of our Constitutional freedoms simply end at the water’s edge? Does the Fourth Amendment prohibit a CIA spy from going through the luggage of a foreign suspect in his hotel in, say, Bucharest?
Assume that an American citizen had defected to Nazi Germany during WWII, joined the German Army, and was stationed on the beaches of Normandy during D-Day, and assume also that the Allies knew that particular soldier would be there on that day.
Would they have been obligated not to use lethal force against him, since he’s an American citizen and deserves a fair trial? If he couldn’t be identified by eyesight, would it have been necessary for the Allies to question all of the German troops present regarding their citizenship status before they opened fire?
Read the fucking thread. This has already been explained: an enemy combatant engaged in combat operations against the United States can be shot.
Not what I would call an invasion.
Well, OK, strictly speaking it is, but that’s really more the kind of covert skulduggery and tit-for-tat pinpoint annihilation that I’m talking about in the context of “how we’ve traditionally dealt with terrorists”. Notably, Israel didn’t hold Lebanon’s state actors responsible for the massacre, or even having those people on their soil, nor sought to damage them beyond throwing remarkable quantities of egg in their faces.
Merkavas didn’t pour across the border, is what I’m trying to say (and not just because they weren’t invented at the time ! 
Figure of speech, roll with it) - was that even a suggestion at the time ?
And the operation was based on solid intelligence to boot. Not “may haves”, not “could bes”.
Then I fail to see why an enemy combatant engaged in combat operations against the United States can’t be killed by drone strike.
Because he is neither an enemy combatant nor engaged in combat operations against the United States. That’s a bit of a sticking point, you know.
Many in this thread have commented that there’s no special caveat about the Fifth Amendment not applying in times of war. My point is that everyone accepts that the application of the Fifth Amendment is not universal despite there not actually being any text in the Constitution providing those caveats.
To put it another way, if you point out that there is no text explaining that the Fifth Amendment does not guarantee judicial approval of military operations against Americans, I can point out there’s no text explaining that the Fifth Amendment doesn’t require judicial approval for military operations against foreigners. We all agree the latter would be absurd; so what makes the former statement true? Arguing about the meaning of text that isn’t in the Constitution is a rather difficult thing to do.
But, thus far, the courts have found no Fifth Amendment rights for those targeted by military operations at all. So, one point in my favor.
They applied that “caveat” to the entire Constitution. They also interpret the meaning of “due process”, “seizure”, and “reasonableness”.
So, tell me Ravenman, where is your Supreme Court case that holds the due process clause doesn’t apply to US citizens during war?