I don't remember the punk's name, but wasn't there some American kid locked up in a detention facility a few years back who had been swept up from the battlefield and strongly suspected of firing on Americans?

As I recall, the Left protested mightily that he was being denied his Constitutional rights as an American citizen. And the Right objected that joining the enemy and shooting at Americans was a pretty clear declaration of denunciation of citizenship and the civil rights associated with citizenship.

Now, the Left is defending the assassination of Al Awlaki and the right are complaining that his Constitutional rights were violated.

Sheesh.

If in a just war, someone goes over to the other side, he makes himself an enemy combatant. He chooses to become a target. That's easy.

At the same time, I'm afraid that once the State justifies assassination of those the State deems to be enemies of the State, a dangerous line has been crossed. I don't think Attorney General Eric Holder is bright enough to see that the line applies to him and his boss just as much as it did to the previous president.

Holder is reported as saying, "The unfortunate reality is that our nation will likely continue to face terrorist threats that at times originate with our own citizens,"

True enough. But worrisome when connected with some of the DHS idiocy in defining what is a terrorist threat.

"Al-Awlaki's father sued to try to stop the government from killing his son, arguing he had to be afforded the constitutional right to due process. But U.S. District Judge John Bates in Washington refused to intervene in al-Awlaki's case because he said the courts do not have the authority to review the president's military decisions.
Holder pointed out that decision in his speech. "The Constitution guarantees due process, not judicial process," Holder said."

That's not what Holder was saying about military tribunals at Guantanamo. But hypocrisy is a defining attribute for this gang. I'd rather not depend upon Holder and Obama for what constitutes 'due process.'

I seldom agree with the ACLU, but I do this time:
"Few things are as dangerous to American liberty as the proposition that the government should be able to kill citizens anywhere in the world on the basis of legal standards and evidence that are never submitted to a court, either before or after the fact," Shamsi said. "Anyone willing to trust President Obama with the power to secretly declare an American citizen an enemy of the state and order his extrajudicial killing should ask whether they would be willing to trust the next president with that dangerous power."

And that is good advice to my friends on the Right: Anyone willing to trust President Bush with that sort of power should ask wether they would be willing to trust President Obama with that dangerous power.