We are doing the same thing Israel does... We target folks we don't like and call them terrorists; we then label everyone who dies proximal to the target a terrorist also. Trusting in the obliviousness of the US people to cloak the offensiveness of the policy.
For those outraged Obama's put the clear guidelines on hold after his election victory.. Get over it. President Obama is said to personally approve every target of these assassinations; so what exactly does codifying the implementation guidelines do? Nothing.
The outrage is the technology, and the use of that technology without independent collaboration without a declaration of war.
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.[/QUOTE]
Agreed. I think Obama is a serious and deep thinker on the subject of abuse of power. I feel he's fell off a cliff with his use of drone strikes, justifying his decisions along the lines of keeping American's safe. I think it's an argument which can basically be used to sweep away all checks on power which have been carefully inserted into our government by the framers of the constitution. It's the same trap Lincoln and Roosevelt fell into; only their abuses were temporary and defensive in nature rather than reaching out and murdering folks ( US citizens and foreign nationals) abroad.