STOP BRINGING IT UP !

Constitution Trumps war.

The constitution says nothing close to what you blurted out above.

The constitution guarantees a trial before punishment by the government. It ensures that life liberty and property are secure. Please read the constitution. No where does it give the government the right to kill citizens.
The idea of killing in self defense (or the defense of others) is that they are trying to remove your rights so you can defend yourself.

Not if you are an enemy combatant. Constitution does not specifically address foreign actors in any way. They are not citizens and we are under no obligation to wait till they attack us before we strike. You really need to twist and stretch for your interpretation. Luckily no one with any sense accepts your theory.

We were talking about a US citizen. Doesn't matter if they were an enemy combatant or not. Right to a Fair trial was violated.

Ok, I see what you’re saying but I think a US citizen who becomes an enemy combatant no longer retains protections. They are forfeited. The question would be if they actually were enemy combatants, if they were, no constitutional violation exists.

Nope. Constitution trumps any law made after it. Now they could have held a trial, invited him to show up, came with a guilty verdict, and 12 jurors could have sentenced him to death to be carried out by the military and that would have been legal.

I don’t think so. A US citizen that is an enemy combatant is not entitled to a trial. In this particular case the application of enemy combatant is in question and is likely not truly applicable, but if a US citizen is firing or actively acting against US forces they are an enemy combatant and subject to extreme force with no trial. If they are captured there may be a case for a trial. It is not illegal to kill a IS citizen engaged in active opposition to US forces.

They can only be killed if they are an imminent (immediate) threat to another person's life. The guy we are talking about was driving down a road.

As I said the assignment of enemy combatant is in question, but if he indeed is deemed an enemy combatant it doesn’t matter if he is shooting, driving or running away from the action. He could be in a command bunker and it doesn’t prohibit killing him.

Nope sorry. Constitution overrides military law and any law congress makes. You can't be deprived of life liberty or property without due process. Which means a trial.

“ Only if you are in imminent danger of taking someone's life. You must literally have the weapon in hand and pointing it at someone else.”

So if you are behind a tree shooting at IS forces and you run to another tree you can’t be legally shot because you weren’t actively pointing a gun. We have to wait until you get to the next tree to shoot back. Sorry but that’s ridiculous. Enemy combatants do not have broad constitutional protections.

No, you have the gun in your hand and are an imminent threat. However if you are unarmed and driving down a long highway, then you aren't an imminent threat. Do you understand the difference?

“No, you have the gun in your hand and are an imminent threat. However if you are unarmed and driving down a long highway, then you aren't an imminent threat. Do you understand the difference?”

😆 I understand, and I disagree with your contention. You went from you have to be pointing the weapon, to you have to be carrying a weapon and neither are exclusive. If you are not carrying a weapon and just running ammo to a machine gun nest engaging US troops you are still an enemy combatant. If you are with a group that is displacing to the rear you can be engaged until you actively surrender. Not a constitutional nor Geneva convention violation for any of those actions.

“Nope sorry. Constitution overrides military law and any law congress makes. You can't be deprived of life liberty or property without due process. Which means a trial.”

You absolutely can be deprived of life, liberty and property without a trial if you are an enemy combatant. If you are captured annd detained and you are a citizen you have the right to question your status of enemy combatant. However if you actively serve a foreign government, caliphate, or military in opposition to US forces you have effectively renounced your US citizenship even if you don’t declare that as your intention. If you serve as a terrorist you fall under unlawful combatant with a whole different set of rules and the constitutional protection you get is against indefinite detention. You are also subject to military court, so in this case it supersedes the constitutional protections of citizens.

Nope. The only exception is if you are immediately threatening the life of someone at that point you can be killed to save a life. If you are not an active combatant (i.e. you are actively in the process of operating a deadly weapon) you cannot be killed. You can be arrested and put in jail.

So we agree, if you are actively involved in action against US forces you can be killed without violating the constitution. If you are running away from the battle you can be killed. You do not have to be in the act of firing a rifle. You just need to be part of the enemy force.

Only if you are in imminent danger of taking someone's life. You must literally have the weapon in hand and pointing it at someone else.