It might, but it doesn't clearly do so. Due process does not mean a trial. It means what is reasonable under the circumstances. The length of the paper tries to show that there are no reasonable alternatives in the case capture is not feasible. It's a non trivial argument.
Yes it does, because the protections provided by the constitution allow for the deprivation of life, liberty, property, etc. in accordance with the "due process of law."
There is no law here. Only an arbitrary, internal memo.
Police routinely use lethal force against armed suspects. The armed bank-robber doesn't get a trial before he gets shot. While this is a low-bar, morally, it's not something unlawful. It's not even particularly controversial, unless there's a clear abuse of power.
The difficulty with this kind of armed-conflict is similar to the problems with prosecuting higher-ups in organized crime. They won't be holding the gun, or directly doing the dirty work. They are actively involved in planning operations, though.
Is this a dangerous policy? Sure. Will there be cases of abuse? Yes, like any government policy (note, I'm not singling out government here; it's a property of any collective system where individuals don't bear full responsibility for their decisions).
Yeah, there is no room for abuse in that little gem.
The US Supreme Court has already decided at least once that the AUMF could not be cited in defense of the goverment's actions (in this case, military tribunals) because those actions violated the principles of the Geneva Conventions, among others.
That's the whole problem with this. The accused never get a chance to defend themselves in court, are presumed guilty and sentenced without any reasonable defense.
