Be Afraid - Be Very, Very Afraid

Let me state right up front that I have no use for home-grown terrorists. Any U.S. citizen who turns against his or her country deserves to die. But...

One of the many things that makes this country great is the rule of law. It may have been perverted in a few times and places, but generally speaking the government must follow due process when depriving citizens of life, liberty, or property.

Which is what makes this so frightening.

Attorney General Eric Holder said Monday that the Constitution does not protect U.S. suspects plotting to kill other Americans

Holder said in a speech at the Northwestern University School of Law in Chicago that the government is within its rights to kill citizens who are senior leaders in al-Qaeda or affiliate groups who pose an "imminent threat" of attack against the USA and whose capture is "not feasible".

The attorney general's remarks come as civil rights advocates have condemned such killings, including the fatal military drone strike in September against Anwar al-Awlaki, the American-born leader of al-Qaeda's affiliate in Yemen.

Last month, the American Civil Liberties Union sued to obtain Justice Department memos authorizing the action and detailing how the government places Americans on "kill lists."

I don't find myself siding with the ACLU very often, but in this case we're on the same page.

Hina Shamsi, director of the ACLU's National Security Project, said that although Holder's speech represented "a gesture towards additional transparency, it is ultimately a defense of the government's chillingly broad claimed authority to conduct targeted killings of civilians, including American citizens."

"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.

What are the criteria for determining if someone poses an imminent threat to the U.S? Who makes that decision? Are you comfortable with allowing some nameless, faceless government functionary to make life-or-death decisions with no transparency or accountability?

I damn sure aren't. Remember, this is the same government that lost money when it had a monopoly on delivering mail.

Holder said opponents of the government's position cling to legal interpretations that are "simply not accurate."

It seems to me that the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America is pretty straightforward. It doesn't require a whole lot of interpretation.

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Where's the indictment? Where's the Grand Jury? Where's the due process of law?

Again, I'm not defending U.S. citizens who are plotting to kill other U.S. citizens. Loathsome though they may be, however, they are protected by the same framework of rights and laws as the rest of us. To allow the government to arbitrarily designate certain individuals for death is too terrifying to contemplate.
 
After all, according to many liberals and government officials -- including Vice President Joe Biden -- Tea Party members are terrorists.