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

http://reason.com/blog/2012/11/26/president-obama-briefly-worried-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/world/white-house-presses-for-drone-rule-book.html?_r=0

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?

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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 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?

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?

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.

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.

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.

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?"

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.

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.

Was the "radical" cleric Anwar al-Awlaki whom we killed along with his 16 yo son a terrorist? He gave anti American speeches, but I don't believe he has ever been associated with planning or implementing an attack on US interests.

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.

[quote name=Predicto;9285701

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' date=' 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.

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.

On the issue of does the technology matter, I think it does on the perception front. Have you seen one article in a U.S. news source refer to our invasion of Pakistan? Would we see it if every one of our drone strikes involved putting boots on the ground? An invasion would get a far different reaction from Congress.

I think one of my concerns comes from the use of people with eyes on the ground at least allows for an option of surrender. How does one surrender to a drone? How does one declare oneself peaceful? It feels like the use of drones is intensely impersonal which seems a hell of a way to kill (I know a bomber is the same). The use of the drones just seems a way of short circuiting all of the protections against absolute power to kill any one at any time any where. Where are the checks and balances? What is enough?

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

We have been since we decided that we were at war on Terror, and declared that anyone who wasn't with us was against us.

This has been understood since the decisions to go to war were made in the wake of 9/11.

the enemy doesn't give a crap about any sorts of rules of engagement or national boundaries. In fact they ignore such things because it gives them an advantage.

So, if we are going to fight this war, we better have been prepared to be ready to fight this KIND of war.

frankly, if McCain had won, we'd be in the same boat, and the complaining would be reversed.

We love to blame ourselves, but we never seem to blame the enemy.

Oh right! Because the enemy is the __ democrats / __ republicans (choose one.)

Pandoras box is open. There is no closing it.

now who opened it, and why?

Did we open it because we felt like flying some model airplanes round and killing people with them?

or did we open it because some seriously evil people forced us to fly our model airplanes around to hunt them?

~Bang

On the issue of does the technology matter, I think it does on the perception front. Have you seen one article in a U.S. news source refer to our invasion of Pakistan? Would we see it if every one of our drone strikes involved putting boots on the ground? An invasion would get a far different reaction from Congress.

I think one of my concerns comes from the use of people with eyes on the ground at least allows for an option of surrender. How does one surrender to a drone? How does one declare oneself peaceful? It feels like the use of drones is intensely impersonal which seems a hell of a way to kill (I know a bomber is the same). The use of the drones just seems a way of short circuiting all of the protections against absolute power to kill any one at any time any where. Where are the checks and balances? What is enough?

In regards to the invasion of Pakistan, I assume you are referring to the Osama bin Laden raid. I think if we used drones to kill Osama bin Laden in Pakistan, the news would have been just as positive. I think bin Laden is a different animal than what we're talking about.

Boots on the ground v. drones is sort of an interesting issue, and I see your point. But are drones less personal than any other air craft? How does someone surrender to an F-14 either?

Humor me for a moment, and entertain a hypothetical.

A horrible, proven, no doubt about it terrorist is found. He is residing in a flat in a London suburb. We have solid, definitive proof that, from this flat in which he is sitting at the moment, he is planning a massive terrorist attack on the Western world. This attack includes damage done to the United States, England, and other number of key sites in the Western world. In short, there is not a smidge of doubt that he is a terrorist and a serious threat to both us and our allies. Are you comfortable with the President of the United States (regardless of which president or political party) ordering a drone strike to fly over and destroy the building in which he is residing, killing him, his family, and a few civilian neighbors. Are you comfortable with the president ordering this strike on his own, without collaboration with the English (in whose country the terrorist is currently residing)?

Personally, I think in this situation, we need to work with the English to take the guy out. I'm less concerned with the drone vs boots on the ground debate of it as I am with the president making the decision independent of the nation in which it will occur. Sure, we can all say "it's just Afghanistan" or "Why do we need to talk to Pakistan first?" but I'm just not sure you can waltz into another country and start killing terrorists without some sort of a cooperative effort.

Humor me for a moment, and entertain a hypothetical.

A horrible, proven, no doubt about it terrorist is found. He is residing in a flat in a London suburb. We have solid, definitive proof that, from this flat in which he is sitting at the moment, he is planning a massive terrorist attack on the Western world. This attack includes damage done to the United States, England, and other number of key sites in the Western world. In short, there is not a smidge of doubt that he is a terrorist and a serious threat to both us and our allies. Are you comfortable with the President of the United States (regardless of which president or political party) ordering a drone strike to fly over and destroy the building in which he is residing, killing him, his family, and a few civilian neighbors. Are you comfortable with the president ordering this strike on his own, without collaboration with the English (in whose country the terrorist is currently residing)?

Personally, I think in this situation, we need to work with the English to take the guy out. I'm less concerned with the drone vs boots on the ground debate of it as I am with the president making the decision independent of the nation in which it will occur. Sure, we can all say "it's just Afghanistan" or "Why do we need to talk to Pakistan first?" but I'm just not sure you can waltz into another country and start killing terrorists without some sort of a cooperative effort.

Well, you'd also have to account for the English leaders possibly being in cahoots with the terrorists as you probably do when dealing with some of these middle eastern countries., You'd have to factor in that some of these other nations often are run by dictators or other non-democratic leadership who may or may not be cooperating with the enemy living within their borders.

I think we'd obviously always consult with known allies with whom we have such a high standing a trusting relationship.

I don't think Yemen or Qatar or other places fit that bill.

~Bang

Humor me for a moment, and entertain a hypothetical.

A horrible, proven, no doubt about it terrorist is found. He is residing in a flat in a London suburb. We have solid, definitive proof that, from this flat in which he is sitting at the moment, he is planning a massive terrorist attack on the Western world. This attack includes damage done to the United States, England, and other number of key sites in the Western world. In short, there is not a smidge of doubt that he is a terrorist and a serious threat to both us and our allies. Are you comfortable with the President of the United States (regardless of which president or political party) ordering a drone strike to fly over and destroy the building in which he is residing, killing him, his family, and a few civilian neighbors. Are you comfortable with the president ordering this strike on his own, without collaboration with the English (in whose country the terrorist is currently residing)?

Personally, I think in this situation, we need to work with the English to take the guy out. I'm less concerned with the drone vs boots on the ground debate of it as I am with the president making the decision independent of the nation in which it will occur. Sure, we can all say "it's just Afghanistan" or "Why do we need to talk to Pakistan first?" but I'm just not sure you can waltz into another country and start killing terrorists without some sort of a cooperative effort.

I'd work with the English because they don't have a material and long history of working with Islamist nutters. The Pakis on the other hand...

Tulane,

I actually did not mean the Osama raid.

I meant the numerous drone strikes we have carried out in Pakistan going after numerous targets some of which fit our profile of terrorists some doing activities fitting our profile of terrorist activity. I've never seen any of them referred to as invasions. For the length of time we have been conducing them, wouldn't Congress have to approve if this was a boots on the ground situation? Instead, these are a series of incursions by drones not people therefor not an invasion in our press. I'm not sure the locals feel the same.

Tulane,

I actually did not mean the Osama raid.

I meant the numerous drone strikes we have carried out in Pakistan going after numerous targets some of which fit our profile of terrorists some doing activities fitting our profile of terrorist activity. I've never seen any of them referred to as invasions. For the length of time we have been conducing them, wouldn't Congress have to approve if this was a boots on the ground situation? Instead, these are a series of incursions by drones not people therefor not an invasion in our press. I'm not sure the locals feel the same.

Ah... In answer to your last question, I don't believe it makes any difference. Whether its boots on the grounds or drones, President has commander in chief powers. Furthermore, its part of what I believe is a declared war in Afghanistan.

I totally understand the concern about checks and balances on the President during times of war. I'm not sure our Constitution actually institutes a whole lot of checks and balances, truthfully, but I can't say that definitively either. However, I see no difference in drone v. non-drone techniques in regards to constitutionality. I don't understand why drones usage prompts such heated debate on this topic though.

Ah... In answer to your last question, I don't believe it makes any difference. Whether its boots on the grounds or drones, President has commander in chief powers. Furthermore, its part of what I believe is a declared war in Afghanistan.

I totally understand the concern about checks and balances on the President during times of war. I'm not sure our Constitution actually institutes a whole lot of checks and balances, truthfully, but I can't say that definitively either. However, I see no difference in drone v. non-drone techniques in regards to constitutionality. I don't understand why drones usage prompts such heated debate on this topic though.

There is a declared war in Afghanistan?