MEDIA A Drone Was Used to Blow up a US Citizen Without Trial On Thursday. Let That Sink In

[guillaumeb]

200. Que est ce que c'est un misanthrope?

I do understand the meaning of the word and fail to see the relevance, unless you dislike all of your clients.

But using your cite of Boumedienne, I fail to see why you included it. Here is what I found:
=============================================================
On June 12, 2008, the Supreme Court ruled in an historic
decision in Boumediene v. Bush/Al Odah v. United States that
the detainees at Guantánamo Bay have a constitutional right
to habeas corpus, to challenge their detention before a
neutral judge in a real court. The men at Guantánamo have
been struggling for this basic right to be recognized since
2002, when the first prisoners were brought to Guantánamo
Bay, and when the Center for Constitutional Rights’ first
challenge to their detention was filed. In 2004, in Rasul v.
Bush, the Supreme Court upheld the detainees' statutory right
to habeas corpus, and in 2006, in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, the
high court rejected the Bush administration's framework for
military commissions and upheld the rights of the detainees
under the Geneva Conventions.
In the decision, the Court strongly criticized the President and
Congress's attempt to declare that because Guantánamo
was outside the sovereign territory of the United States, the
Constitution did not apply. The Court firmly stated that "To
hold that the political branches may switch the Constitution on
or off at will would lead to a regime in which they, not this
Court, say 'what the law is.'" Furthermore, the Supreme Court
held that the procedures created by the Detainee Treatment
Act were not an adequate substitute for real habeas hearings
and emphasized that the length of our clients' detention
required an end to further delays.
http://ccrjustice.org/home/get-involved/tools-resources/fact-sheets-and-faqs/factsheet-boumediene-v-bushal-odah-v-us
===============================================================
Speaking as a non-lawyer, this case that you cited seems, at least to the untrained eye, to uphold the concept that even non-citizens, whether resident in US territory or not, are afforded the same Constitutional rights as US citizens in the same situation. The case also references the applicability of the Geneva Conventions for the accused. So how exactly does this support the idea that the suspect in this matter had no rights to the judicial process?

And your citation of Garner concerns a fleeing suspect and an imminent danger. In this case, the subject was stationary and the area was cleared.

Your thoughts?