To be clear - The ACLU should be credited for its consistency on the matter. They have been calling out their views of illegal procedures as it relates to how "terror suspects" are handled by the US government. Those of which are American citizens in particular.
The point that we must understand is that they big difference between then and now is with the news media and the array of left-wing interest groups. Previously they sought to take down an unfavorable president. Thus they took the news feed from the ACLU and used it for their indictments and protests.
Today their goal is to protect a favorable president so, even though the ACLU is putting out news feeds the forces of amplification have disconnected the RCA cable from their amplifier.
Samir Khan was an American citizen who departed the United States in order to work as a media operative for Al Queda.
Khan was killed by a American CIA drone strike in Yemen as another American citizen - Senior Al Qaeda leader Anwar al-Awlaki. This is not a debate on the JUSTIFICATION of this air strike in the larger "War On Terror".
This post is a documentation of the differences in the "care and handling" in the calls for "Due Process" from the usual suspects.
Relatives of Samir Khan, the former Long Island man killed last week in a U.S. drone strike in Yemen, broke their silence this week to question the government's tactics in pursuing American citizens who were deemed terrorists.
Khan, a naturalized U.S. citizen born in Saudi Arabia, was killed alongside American-born Muslim cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, leader of al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula.
Khan, 25, published Inspire, an online magazine encouraging terror acts, but relatives who live in Charlotte, N.C., asked why the killings took place without trials.
A statement from Zafar and Sarah Khan said, "Our late son Samir Khan never broke any law and was never implicated of any crime. . . . Why couldn't there have been a capture and trial? Where is the justice?"
The statement went on to cite the U.S. Constitution's Fifth Amendment due-process clause, which says no person should be deprived of life without due process, "yet our government assassinated two of its citizens."
Jibril Hough, a family spokesman affiliated with the Islamic Center of Charlotte, said Khan's relatives, who are citizens, felt it necessary to speak out as Americans.
"They know this is a broader discussion that America needs to take up," he said.
But David Schanzer, director of the Triangle Center on Terrorism and Homeland Security at Duke University, in Durham, N.C., said al-Awlaki and Khan had turned themselves into enemies of the state.
"If you join an armed foreign force that is in conflict with the U.S., you have become a legitimate target," Schanzer said.
President Barack Obama said the strike that killed al-Awlaki and Khan was "a major blow to al-Qaida's most active operational affiliate" and gave no signs of stepping back such operations. "We will be determined, we will be deliberate, we will be relentless, we will be resolute in our commitment to destroy terrorist networks that aim to kill Americans."
Hough said the American Civil Liberties Union has been in touch with the Khans.
ACLU Deputy Legal Director Jameel Jaffer criticized the killings: "The government's authority to use lethal force against its own citizens should be limited to circumstances in which the threat to life is concrete, specific and imminent."
I have to credit President Obama for learning the hand that he was dealt and adeptly using it. On the one hand he has the advantage of hindsight to understand the mistakes made by the Bush Administration on the subject of handling of terror suspects and the progressive flash back it triggered. Secondly Obama is keenly aware that his left-wing base is loathed to stand against him and he is able to cross a line that is further beyond where Bush could have gone with reference to the Left.
By killing terror suspects Obama has destroyed the being that the ACLU and others can claim 'habeas corpus" over. The suspect's body has been blown to bits and thus there is no body that they can demand due process for any longer. It effectively "cuts to the chase" and closes the debate. Where as Bush had - a prison and several human beings alive who can give testimony to the ACLU lawyers - under Obama the ACLU only has body fragments and their words are inadmissible in court.
In an ironic turn of events the JingOists use Obama's boldness to note that his right wing critics don't give him CREDIT for being strong. In their own dishonesty they move from the debate over justifications and/or due process and instead render an indictment against their enemies charging them with "moving the goal posts" in their willingness to accept Obama.
In their own bigoted blindness they can't see that now BOTH LEFT AND RIGHT ARE IN AGREEMENT OVER KILLING TERRORISTS. Ironically Obama brought the left MORE RIGHTWARD!!!!!!
This is what happens when you have "Permanent Friends" rather than "Permanent Interests". You begin to "take one for the team" but that ONE becomes a total compromise as the transactions continue to flow.
We are not at the point of attempting to figure out "What Can Obama DO Before The Left Will Rise Up Against Him?"