The Obama administration has a funny definition of due process.

Last year, Attorney General Eric Holder defended the administration’s right to kill American citizens who are allegedly terrorists, specifically the radical Yemeni cleric and alleged al-Qaida leader Anwar al-Awlaki who was killed in 2011.

“The Constitution guarantees due process, not judicial process,” Holder told a crowd at Northwestern University in March 2012.

I don’t know what goes on in Eric Holder’s mind, but when I think of due process, I’m thinking of the standard courtroom affair: a judge, a prosecution and, hey, maybe even some evidence. In fact, Holder’s statement made myself and many others wonder exactly what kind of process is “due” for Americans accused of being terrorist leaders.

“Trial by jury, trial by fire, rock-paper-scissors – who cares,” comedian Stephen Colbert joked on his show after Holder’s conference.

Thankfully, we’ve finally learned.

NBC News released a 16-page white paper from the Department of Justice on Feb. 4 that laid out the Obama administration’s justification for the targeted killing of an American citizen like al-Awlaki.

The memo specifically listed three criteria that sufficiently determine whether an American citizen can lawfully be targeted for assassination by our government: (1) If an “informed, high-level official” has determined the individual poses an “imminent” threat of violent attack against the country, (2) capturing the individual is “infeasible” and (3) the operation is to be conducted in a manner consistent with the laws of war, then the Obama administration considers the assassination lawful.

Yet, these criteria are shady.

Who is this “high-level official” and how do we determine if he or she is “informed”?

Is it right to give this one person sole discretion in determining the fate of an American citizen without any oversight from the other branches of government? Are we just to trust that this official has sufficient evidence that a citizen is a senior al-Qaida leader? And who or what determines whether capture is “infeasible,” or is “capture” purely a theoretical possibility put there only to make our policy seem more humane?

By working under these justifications, the executive branch has the power to accuse a citizen of being an al-Qaida leader without proving such a fact.

Obama and his team can simply state that such person is a terrorist leader, and legally, according to the memo, it is treated as though this person was convicted in court.

That is simply too much power.

Even the Obama administration’s definition of “imminent” is sketchy.

The memo states specifically “the condition that an operational leader present an ‘imminent’ threat of violent attack against the United States does not require the United States to have clear evidence that a specific attack on U.S. persons and interests will take place in the immediate future.”

What?

Obviously, the administration isn’t trying to justify this power logically or morally, but legally.

The memo frequently cited the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force, which granted the president the power to use lethal force against al-Qaida and its “associated forces.” It also cited Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, a 2004 Supreme Court case which authorized the use of force against American citizens considered enemy combatants.

However, the legality of an action does not inherently make it right.

Slavery was once legal, the Espionage Act of 1917 and the Sedition Act of 1918 made it legal to imprison and deport those who made anti-war or anti-military remarks and the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II was backed by Supreme Court rulings.

And even in the Hamdi case, the Supreme Court determined that those citizens accused of being enemy combatants still must have due process rights and the ability to challenge their enemy combatant status in front of an “impartial adjudicator.”

Conservatives who truly oppose government power must ask themselves how they feel giving the executive branch sole discretion in deciding if an American citizen can be assassinated.

Liberals must ask how they would feel if former Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney or Rep. Michelle Bachmann, R-Minn., had this power.

Awlaki may not have been a great man, but he was not in an active battlefield carrying out any attacks when he was killed. The evidence that he played an operational role in terrorist plots is based on hearsay and trust in our government’s word.

This is too much power, and it’s time we called the government out on it.