Reason: President Obama Briefly Worried That His Unaccountable, Murderous Power Might Fall Into Republican Hands

[SkinsHokieFan]

http://reason.com/blog/2012/11/26/pr...rried-that-his

President Obama Briefly Worried That His Unaccountable, Murderous Power Might Fall Into Republican Hands

The first 61 words of this chilling and banal New York Times article are a perfect distillation of how grotesque power appears in the eye of Americans who wield it:

Facing the possibility that President Obama might not win a second term, his administration accelerated work in the weeks before the election to develop explicit rules for the targeted killing of terrorists by unmanned drones, so that a new president would inherit clear standards and procedures, according to two administration officials.

The matter may have lost some urgency after Nov. 6.

A reminder to most Democrats who spent 2002-08 telling us that abuse of executive power was at or near the top of the nation's most urgent moral concerns: You just didn't mean it.

Link for rest

From the NYT article

“There was concern that the levers might no longer be in our hands,” said one official, speaking on condition of anonymity. With a continuing debate about the proper limits of drone strikes, Mr. Obama did not want to leave an “amorphous” program to his successor, the official said. The effort, which would have been rushed to completion by January had Mr. Romney won, will now be finished at a more leisurely pace, the official said.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/25/wo...book.html?_r=0

[Tulane Skins Fan]

You seem very hot on the drone issue. Is it the fact that its drones that upsets you? Would you be less concerned if they were pilot-flown planes?

[SkinsHokieFan]

You seem very hot on the drone issue. Is it the fact that its drones that upsets you? Would you be less concerned if they were pilot-flown planes?

Its the fact that a sitting President has the power to kill anyone that he wants at any time that upsets me and He clearly sees just how bad it is to the point that he was willing to you know make some rules about it IN CASE HE LOST.

Since he won however, all is well, continue the murdering.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

Its the fact that a sitting President has the power to kill anyone that he wants at any time that upsets me and He clearly sees just how bad it is to the point that he was willing to you know make some rules about it IN CASE HE LOST.

Since he won however, all is well, continue the murdering.

The president always has that power though. So, its not drones, per se, that upset you. Its the ongoing war mentality?

[SkinsHokieFan]

The president always has that power though. So, its not drones, per se, that upset you. Its the ongoing war mentality?

Yes, now permanently institutionalized by the Democrats. The worst of Bush 2's policies have been cemented by President Obama.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

Yes, now permanently institutionalized by the Democrats. The worst of Bush 2's policies have been cemented by President Obama.

I never really understood the complaint against Bush either, and I don't understand why this is the worst of Bush's policies. In fact, I really disagree that using drones is anywhere close to the worst of Bush's policies. Whether its drones or not, the President has War Powers.

[Thiebear]

It is telling that the administration was rushing to clean this up until they get to continue the status quo and now the rules are no longer necessary.

if it wasn't, they wouldn't have felt the need.

[Predicto]

I share SHF's concerns over the use of drones. I understand, as a practical matter, why a President in 2012 goes after terrorists this way, but there are no logical limits to the power once it is wielded. I voted for Obama in spite of the drone policy, not because of it. I suspect many people felt the same way.

The article linked in the OP lacks force for me because it assumes that Obama's opponent would have chosen not to use the drones, and thus a vote for Obama would have been a vote against drones and for the curbing of presidential power. I have no reason to believe that is true. If anything, I am fairly certain of the opposite. Unless of course the vote was for Ron Paul, and that was an option I could not countenance for myriad other reasons.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

I share SHF's concerns over the use of drones. I understand, as a practical matter, why a President in 2012 goes after terrorists this way, but there are no logical limits to the power once it is wielded. I voted for Obama in spite of the drone policy, not because of it. I suspect many people felt the same way.

The article linked in the OP lacks force for me because it assumes that Obama's opponent would have chosen not to use the drones, and thus a vote for Obama would have been a vote against drones and for the curbing of presidential power. I have no reason to believe that is true. If anything, I am fairly certain of the opposite. Unless of course the vote was for Ron Paul, and that was an option I could not countenance for myriad other reasons.

I am not trying to argue; I'm trying to educate myself here. I don't understand the concern about drones as a means of war. Why are they worse or more concerning than other powers?

[Thiebear]

I am not trying to argue; I'm trying to educate myself here. I don't understand the concern about drones as a means of war. Why are they worse or more concerning than other powers?

As a means of War? We're at war with 20? known countries?

[Sizzla3000]

As long as he is killing Muslims no one will really give a crap. If he kills anyone of European descent or an Israeli then there will be hell to pay.

[Predicto]

I am not trying to argue; I'm trying to educate myself here. I don't understand the concern about drones as a means of war. Why are they worse or more concerning than other powers?

As a means of War? We're at war with 20? known countries?

Exactly. The "war on terror" has never held legitimacy for me. We are not at war with Pakistan, or Yemen. There is something extremely scary about the President being able to just order a kill on someone, anywhere in the world, because he or she is believed to be a terrorist. It is even more scary when that kill shot naturally takes out all the other people nearby the suspect.

I'd like to say that I have the proper solution for how to go after terrorists in 2012, but I don't. But the way we are doing it now is just not right.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

Exactly. The "war on terror" has never held legitimacy for me. We are not at war with Pakistan, or Yemen. There is something extremely scary about the President being able to just order a kill on someone, anywhere in the world, because he or she is believed to be a terrorist. It is even more scary when that kill shot naturally takes out all the other people nearby the suspect.

I'd like to say that I have the proper solution for how to go after terrorists in 2012, but I don't. But the way we are doing it now is just not right.

Ok, I understand this (same to you Thiebear).

I guess I don't understand why this always comes up through the lens of the use of drones. The president could order such a kill with or without drones, right?

I don't have the answer to when its ok with the "war on terror" either. I do think this is why we have elections. I think as commander in chief, the president can order such a kill with or without drones, anywhere in the world. But, I can't say I'm up on my commander in chief power law.

[gbear]

Now continue the "at war" doctrine a step further. Are we "at war" with anyone who makes drugs illegally sold on our streets? Can a drone kill people harvesting poppy because they are performing a "signature action of a drug cartel employee?"

[Tulane Skins Fan]

Now continue the "at war" doctrine a step further. Are we "at war" with anyone who makes drugs illegally sold on our streets? Can a drone kill people harvesting poppy because they are performing a "signature action of a drug cartel employee?"

Why does the drone have to be in your hypothetical.

Are you ok with a non-drone killing in your hypo, but not a drone killing? That's what I don't get.