On September 30, 2011, the United States initiated a drone attack that killed Anwar al-Awlaki, a member of Al Qaeda. What makes this different from similar drone strikes is that Anwar al-Awlaki was an American citizen. The controversial decision to put a hit out on an American without the due process guaranteed in our Constitution divided the blogosphere. Glen Greenwald, in an article on Salon.com, condemned the Obama Administration for ignoring due process and carrying out an assassination against an American citizen.

On her blog TexasSparkle, Kathleen McKinley responded to Greenwald's article, arguing that because Anwar al-Awlaki was a dangerous terrorist, the United States was justified in assassinating him. But as soon as Mrs. McKinley begins she changes the subject. She spends a paragraph discussing how the left would be outraged if President Bush, instead of Obama, had ordered the assassination of an American citizen without due process. She then claims that since President Obama has continued the Bush regime's policies against terrorism (such as the PATRIOT Act and rendition), these constitutionally controversial policies are the right course of action. When she gets back on topic, this is what she says:

Greenwald is wrong because Anwar al-Awlaki lost his American rights by joining al-Qaeda. He then made himself a target of war, as defined by Congress. Awlaki was especially dangerous. It is estimated that the majority of al-Qaida attacks against America was planned or inspired by Al-Awlaki, including the 2009 Fort Hood shooting, the 2009 Christmas Day underwear bomber, and the botched 2010 Times Square attack. The only reason Americans didn’t die with the underwear bomber, and the Times Square bomber were faulty detonators. The notion that this monster did not deserve to die by our hands in war is absurd.

So by Kathleen McKinley's reasoning Anwar al-Awlaki not only relinquished his citizenship by joining with Al Qaeda, but he made himself a target of war by either planning or inspiring attacks against America. Thus, because Anwar al-Awlaki turned against America, he deserved to die without due process.

Let's break down her argument into a more recognizable form:

1. If President Bush had issued the order to kill an American citizen without due process, Liberals would be outraged.

2. President Obama has continued President Bush's policies in the War on Terror.

3. Therefore, these policies are the right course of action.

4. Anwar al-Awlaki gave up his American rights by joining Al Qaeda.

5. Anwar al-Awlaki planned or inspired attacks against America, which made him a target of war.

Conclusion: It was right to kill Anwar al-Awlaki without due process.

Kathleen McKinley's argument contains a few different fallacies. Premise 1 is a red herring because it distracts the audience by shifting their attention away from the argument at hand. Even if all Liberals are hypocrites as she implies, does that refute any of Greenwald's claims? No it doesn't. Premise 2 asserts that since Obama continues Bush's policies, Bush's policies are the right course of action. This premise commits the fallacy of Begging the Question by asserting shaky premises and pretending they support the conclusion. Just because Obama follows Bush's policies, does that mean they are the right course of action? Of course not.

Premise 4 and 5 commit the fallacy of Suppressed Evidence. Even though McKinley quotes the part of Greenwald's article that mentions the doubt surrounding al-Awlaki's true role in Al Qaeda, she completely ignores this information when making her argument. Premise 4 also begs the question, does joining Al Qaeda remove al-Awlaki's rights as a citizen? The freedom of association guaranteed by the First Amendment contradicts her assertion. And even if the circumspect evidence in Premise 5 is true, should al-Awlaki be executed for hate speech? Possibly, but that is something for our Judicial system to decide.

Kathleen McKinley's argument never justifies why we should forget about the constitution. But it is worrying to think that she is okay with President Obama, who she doesn't seem to like very much, having the power of judge, jury and executioner. I think somebody needs to make funeral arrangements because this argument is...