People like Andrew Sullivan and left-liberals (or is that redundant these days?) would be having a fit. After all, assassinating an American citizen without anything remotely approaching due process of law is stretching the bounds of lawful warfare to the breaking point. But because Barak Obama did it, it seems to be okay. Which is damned lame.
Update: Commenter Chris Tompkins opines that "Andrew Sullivan is ambivalent. Glenn Greenwald is definitely having a fit."
Greenwald is indeed having a fit. As well he should. But that's hardly surprising. Greenwald has been on the side of the angels on these issues for a long time and has never put party ahead of principle. In cintrast, I don't think Sullivan is at all ambivalent. There's nothing ambivalent about what he said:
My own position is that we are at war, and that avowed enemies and traitors in active warfare against the US cannot suddenly invoke legal protections from a society they have decided to help destroy. ...
Back in 2001, I wondered if Bush would be the president to win this war, while hoping he would. I wondered if his errors might lead to a successor who learned from them. That hope has now been fulfilled - more swiftly and decisively than I once dared to dream about.
As far as I call tell, Sullivan still views Obama through the proverbial rose colored glasses most of the time.
