Our Guy Administers Kill Lists Perfectly -- Your Guy Couldn't
While Constitutional watchdogs are having a difficult time getting any information on President Obama's kill lists, the New York Times is having no difficulty finding a cooperative White House. From that paper's front page story this weekend:
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 attempt to write a formal rule book for targeted killing began last summer after news reports on the drone program, started under President George W. Bush and expanded by Mr. Obama, revealed some details of the president’s role in the shifting procedures for compiling “kill lists” and approving strikes. Though national security officials insist that the process is meticulous and lawful, the president and top aides believe it should be institutionalized, a course of action that seemed particularly urgent when it appeared that Mitt Romney might win the presidency.
“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.
Mr. Obama himself, in little-noticed remarks, has acknowledged that the legal governance of drone strikes is still a work in progress.
Yes, it really is as simple as this. Apparently Democrats can be trusted to kill 2,500 people with drones (that's the actual figure since Obama took office) but Republicans can't. It makes sense if you think about it real hard, I guess.
As for me, I think the Founding Fathers were on to something with their ideas about constraining government power:
"In questions of power...let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution" -- Thomas Jefferson: Kentucky Resolutions, 1798.
"There is danger from all men. The only maxim of a free government ought to be to trust no man living with power to endanger the public liberty" -- John Adams, Journal, 1772
Of course, I'm sure they would have carved out an exception for Barack Obama, too.
- Comment (30)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (5)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments:
Jun '12
Re: Our Guy Administers Kill Lists Perfectly -- Your Guy Couldn't
Mollie Hemingway, Ed.:
Of course, I'm sure they would have carved out an exception for Barack Obama, too. · · 1 minute ago
Of course they would, Mollie. He is, after all, the Second Coming of Christ, as revealed last night.
Apr '11
Re: Our Guy Administers Kill Lists Perfectly -- Your Guy Couldn't
3500? That is impressive.
Re: Our Guy Administers Kill Lists Perfectly -- Your Guy Couldn't
I had a typo in my original post. It's 2,500. Still impressive:
Aug '12
Re: Our Guy Administers Kill Lists Perfectly -- Your Guy Couldn't
The hubris of the Obama administration just never ceases to amaze.
Dec '11
Re: Our Guy Administers Kill Lists Perfectly -- Your Guy Couldn't
Doubt in the superior morality of liberals is the most scarce resource on the planet.
Jan '11
Re: Our Guy Administers Kill Lists Perfectly -- Your Guy Couldn't
Well, color me thoroughly unsurprised. Why on earth would a President bother to write rules for himself -- except when contemplating his successors -- when neither Congress nor the People can be bothered to check him?
Dec '11
Re: Our Guy Administers Kill Lists Perfectly -- Your Guy Couldn't
I think you are trying to read that with cynical eyes.
Its also just as likely that they didn't want their successor to be put into a position to reinvent the wheel in the middle of hostilities.
I am going to give the benefit of the doubt to Obama on this one. He is probably aware that no matter what happens to the election, the american government goes on, and he cant leave an unorganized mess for the new guy.
He was a new president once, and Mr. Bush did him right, and he is aware he has to pay it forward too.
Not everything he does is in bad faith.
Edited on November 26, 2012 at 6:39pmSep '10
Re: Our Guy Administers Kill Lists Perfectly -- Your Guy Couldn't
Quite obviously, the NYTimes piece makes glaringly obvious that, for Obama, these killings have had a political motive from 1/20/09. And now will continue to do so.
Nov '11
Re: Our Guy Administers Kill Lists Perfectly -- Your Guy Couldn't
I just quoted this because it needs repeating.
Remember when there was an opposition party to the President?
Me neither.
Sep '10
Re: Our Guy Administers Kill Lists Perfectly -- Your Guy Couldn't
Fred Cole
Remember when there was an opposition party to the President?
Me neither. · 7 minutes ago
Well then, how come conservatives didn't speak up months ago when the kill list was written about?
Jan '11
Re: Our Guy Administers Kill Lists Perfectly -- Your Guy Couldn't
Just a wild guess here.
I'm betting that the law written by the Obama Administration will allow us to say, a year from now, that all of the Obama Administration's uses of drone killings were perfectly legal.
Edited on November 26, 2012 at 6:50pmOct '12
Re: Our Guy Administers Kill Lists Perfectly -- Your Guy Couldn't
The only people who have been consistent on this have been Libertarians, and the occasional liberal like Greenwald. An American was assassinated by the US Government, without an arrest, a charge, a trial, a conviction or an appeal. Think about that. And then tell me how to square it with the Constitution. I don't care if he was a terrorist, he was first a US citizen.
And our side has meekly gone along. But I find that with....almost everything.
Dec '11
Re: Our Guy Administers Kill Lists Perfectly -- Your Guy Couldn't
Cough the civil war cough.
bagehot99: The only people who have been consistent on this have been Libertarians, and the occasional liberal like Greenwald. An American was assassinated by the US Government, without an arrest, a charge, a trial, a conviction or an appeal. Think about that. And then tell me how to square it with the Constitution. I don't care if he was a terrorist, he was first a US citizen.
And our side has meekly gone along. But I find that with....almost everything. · 1 minute ago
Nov '11
Re: Our Guy Administers Kill Lists Perfectly -- Your Guy Couldn't
Patrick in Albuquerque
Fred Cole
Remember when there was an opposition party to the President?
Me neither. · 7 minutes ago
Well then, how come conservatives didn't speak up months ago when the kill list was written about? · 13 minutes ago
The real reason is that the neo-cons painted the Republican party into a hawkish corner, so now that any opposition to an unlimited War on Terror is "letting the terrorists win."
Apr '11
Re: Our Guy Administers Kill Lists Perfectly -- Your Guy Couldn't
I think I'm going to defend the O on this one. I say our enemies should fear us. And stacking up their bodies is a good way to do it. If we hit their relatives/friends in the process? Shucks guess you should avoid hanging out with Americas enemies. Frankly if it were possible I would publish the hit list before we get the people on it, just so there are no ambiguities about who is doing what to whom.
Bombs are cheap, and so are the lives of our enemies. If we were willing to fire bomb whole cities in WWII why be squishy about taking out a car with a terrorist and his family.
Aug '10
Re: Our Guy Administers Kill Lists Perfectly -- Your Guy Couldn't
Patrick in Albuquerque
Well then, how come conservatives didn't speak up months ago when the kill list was written about?
As I recall the conservatives objected to American citizens being on that list, and to Obama's personal involvement in maintaining the list. I don't recall a huge uproar over drone attacks themselves (outside of the libertarians, and the realist wing who said they inflame opinion against the US).
Fred Cole
The real reason is that the neo-cons painted the Republican party into a hawkish corner, so now that any opposition to an unlimited War on Terror is "letting the terrorists win."
Plenty of Republicans are against an unlimited War on Terror. The problem is that the Democrats keep offering bad ideas on the subject, so the Republicans must oppose most of what they propose.
I know the libertarian objections to the WoT, but surely you recognize there are multiple legitimate positions between the non-aggression principle and "unlimited war"? It's not all neo-cons and bleeding hearts out there.
Sep '10
Re: Our Guy Administers Kill Lists Perfectly -- Your Guy Couldn't
Fred Cole
Patrick in Albuquerque
Fred Cole
Remember when there was an opposition party to the President?
Me neither. · 7 minutes ago
Well then, how come conservatives didn't speak up months ago when the kill list was written about? · 13 minutes ago
The real reason is that the neo-cons painted the Republican party into a hawkish corner, so now that any opposition to an unlimited War on Terror is "letting the terrorists win." · 22 minutes ago
We gotta cut that out.
Jun '12
Re: Our Guy Administers Kill Lists Perfectly -- Your Guy Couldn't
Valiuth: I think I'm going to defend the O on this one. I say our enemies should fear us. And stacking up their bodies is a good way to do it. If we hit their relatives/friends in the process? Shucks guess you should avoid hanging out with Americas enemies. Frankly if it were possible I would publish the hit list before we get the people on it, just so there are no ambiguities about who is doing what to whom.
Bombs are cheap, and so are the lives of our enemies. If we were willing to fire bomb whole cities in WWII why be squishy about taking out a car with a terrorist and his family. · 1 minute ago
I concur. Whether it's Adam Gadahn, Saddam Hussein, or Osama bin Laden, I want the terrorists to wet themselves in fear at the very idea of attacking us.
Feb '11
Re: Our Guy Administers Kill Lists Perfectly -- Your Guy Couldn't
Fred Cole
Patrick in Albuquerque
Fred Cole
Remember when there was an opposition party to the President?
Me neither. · 7 minutes ago
Well then, how come conservatives didn't speak up months ago when the kill list was written about? · 13 minutes ago
The real reason is that the neo-cons painted the Republican party into a hawkish corner, so now that any opposition to an unlimited War on Terror is "letting the terrorists win." · 36 minutes ago
I'm not sure it's that simple.
The formula started out being, capture, interrogate, and use the information gained to stop attacks, dismantle the network, and neutralize (both capturing and killing) terrorists. The goal being the intel. Not to say that the program had issues, but it was constructed and approved at the highest level, and carried the views of the Bush admin. that terror networks were to be taken seriously, not swatted away so they don't cause political problems.
Besides, even if the Republicans wanted to scale back such a generous use of ordanace, how do you suppose they go about this? They don't control intelligence policy or the CIA - not many options here.
Feb '11
Re: Our Guy Administers Kill Lists Perfectly -- Your Guy Couldn't
This is actually terrifying. You couldn't find a more perfect example of progressive power lust. It appears that this "program" is nothing more than the mechanism to allow the President to kill when are where he chooses, justified only by his will to power. Obama could care less about restraints, and it looks like the Times is cheering him on.
Between reading Mark Theissen's book on the Bush interrogation procedures, and listening to John Yoo explain the immense care that was taken to craft not only a legal basis for their policy, but a specific purpose (intel) that was intended.
Edited on November 26, 2012 at 8:49pm