The NY Times and independent writer Madison Ruppert both point-out that the White House and DOJ have both failed to provide after six months any legal justification for assassinating American citizens in general legal principle, or specifically to American citizens Anwar al-Alwaki and two weeks later his 16-year-old American son.
Anwar’s father used the US court system for over a year to have the US either charge his son with a crime or remove him from a White House announced assassination list. His argument was rejected.
These acts are in Orwellian contradiction to US Constitution rights.
War law is defined by two major treaties; one each after the first two world wars: the Kellogg-Briand Pact of 1928 and UN Charter. A nation’s use of armed attack is only lawful in response to another nation’s government’s armed attack. The UN Security Council resolved for international cooperation for factual discovery, arrests, and prosecutions against the 9/11 criminals. The US has chosen armed attacks on nations and individuals, in direct opposition to US Constitutional Law and the explicit treaty language the US designed after each of the two world wars.
These are prima facie War Crimes; the same in kind that the US prosecuted in the Nuremberg Trials for Germany’s violation of Kellogg-Briand treaty language. US “leadership” will either surrender in request for Truth and Reconciliation or face similar criminal prosecution as the 99% develops “emperor has no clothes” recognition of War Crimes (2-minute video of trial highlights).
US government assassination is also murder under US state laws (unlawful killing).