Here's what my son just learned in 7th grade civics:

The Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment is in many ways the backbone of the rights guaranteed by the Constitution. Due process is the simple notion that the Constitution requires governmental procedures to be fundamentally fair before a person may "be deprived of life, liberty or property."

The Obama administration's "justification" for the targeted assassination of Anwar al-Aulaqi--an American radical cleric who was killed by a U.S. drone strike yesterday--is that "What constitutes due process in this case is a due process in war," which is apparently no process at all.

If any presidential administration is going to commit controversial, and by all standards I can find, illegal, acts (like the targeted killing of an American citizen outside the United States who is suspected of terrorism), then it should be forced to articulate publicly its rationale, not hide behind some secret memo--that's so George W. Bush.

Under the Bush administration, and now the Obama administration, the due process guarantee is losing force as it has historically in times of national security crises.

"Due process in war" means no due process. Once again, anonymous government officials roll out the meme that governmental excesses are reasonable and necessary during times of war.

How's that been working for us? During World War I, the government imprisoned people for years for speaking out against the war effort. During World War II, the infamous and shameful Korematsu case endorsed the internment of more than 110,000 persons based solely on their Japanese ancestry. During the Cold War thousands of innocent people lost their jobs, were the subject of congressional investigations, or were incarcerated for their association with the Communist Party.

An Associated Press story is making the rounds right now (appearing in scores of outlets across the country) about how one of the members of an infamous Stryker Brigade (which killed Afghans for sport) is going to accept a plea deal, and go to prison for less than eight years. The text of this article seems factually solid. We rely on AP stories all the time for government accountability, civil liberties, and whistleblower stories. It's a great organization.

But sometimes, because the Associated Press keeps it brief, important aspects of stories get lost in the shuffle. In this case, it would have been nice if the story text – or more importantly, the headline – had not made it seem like this was the sole whistleblower on the case. Because a very different whistleblower from this Stryker brigade, who is not being charged with murder or any sort of killing, came forward to investigators about these undeniably immoral acts. That whistleblower was severely beaten by his fellow troops. In fact, in reading the Rolling Stones piece about this rogue death squad, that whistleblower wasn't far from being killed (in retaliation) himself.

This is an important distinction, because there are still numerous individuals in America, and the world, who attempt to tar whistleblowers with negative connotations like rats, snitches, finks or whatnot. This headline (and story, to an extent, by its omission) makes it seem like the only whistleblower in the case also had a hand in murder. Which then can raise questions over true intentions of the whistleblower, his personal moral code, etc. In short, this helps keep negative stereotypes going.