No point in wasting any more of your own time or mine.
Your 50 non-answers are noted. When someone starts a political thread, they just kind of take what replies they get. If someone starts a thread without significant content, it's really not expected that you'll be able to convince that person out of self-imposed darkness. You actually respond for others to consider, perhaps much later.
Does this mean they don't support democracy and due process? It's hard to say. Maybe they see it as a means to an end.
You're confusing process with due process. Probably 100 million people have been murdered by their governments in the last 100 years. The great majority of them probably received legal process - an actual piece of paper authorizing arrest, some sort of disposition by an official, perhaps a ratification of the killings after they occurred. All on the record, all of it "legal" on paper, and all a sham.
Due process requires more, it's sometimes said that what's required is "fair play and substantial justice." You can't hand someone a blank piece of paper. It has to invoke a law. The law itself has to have been enacted in a legal way. And the law has to be interpreted in a reasonable manner. You can't know if these conditions have been satisfied unless you know the facts of the case to see if the law is applicable.
Again, the question being presented here is really a hypothetical: "Would you support a person who's had some charge filed against them by some government entity?" Absent a detailed scenario, I don't think there's much interesting in the question, but it does seem like anyone who would answer that question with a flat "No" lies outside of the traditions described in the Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights, and the Gettysburg Address, in that they think the government owns the people, instead of vice versa.
