So... willing to kill enemies in a gray-area, not willing to tell us what the legal justification is.
I've said it before. Obama: not that different from Bush, Jr.
How many examples before I get even a grudging admission that it's at least partially true?
5 comments:
It's a great example of the fact that presidents tend to accrue power and give it up only reluctantly, if at all.
Yes, Obama's record on this and the other civil liberties issues has been ... disappointing, to put it mildly. I've never disputed that.
On the other hand, he hasn't invaded anybody, is following through on his promises to end the wars, has ended torture and most of the secret detention centers.These are not trivial things. Remember that McCain as much as pledged to bomb Iran. Bush was bellicose and delegated whole chunks of his foreign policy to subordinates.
What I am saying here is that though I agree with you that Obama has been much more, I dunno, what's the word ... Hawkish? ... than I would like or he had promised, there's still quite a bit of daylight between him and the other guys.
Also, no posts in 4 months and we post within 37 minuted of each other? And we synchronized our harassment of Jim? We are oddly on the same wavelength.
I think you're conveniently forgetting some things. Yes, he is keeping the powers from Bush, but he's adding some new fresh ones, like killing Americans overseas without due process. This is more or less exactly what his predecessor would have done had the situation presented itself.
Agreed, with the caveat that it's impossible to prove a counterfactual. FWIW, it sounds like these are oval office discussions which are careful & deliberate and only with POTUS' approval is a name put on the kill list. History suggest W would have signed off on the program in general and delegated the targeting authority to mid-level CIA operatives or some such. I also admit that I would have objected to the drones a lot more from W, but my feelings towards W and O are complex and multi-layered; it's an oversimplification to reduce it to mere partisanship.
So, Obama asserts a new and deeply troubling authority; we agree on this. He seems to be doing it in a thoughtful and responsible manner which isn't exactly a saving grace but at least mitigates some of the criticism.
Rather than argue the partisan point, though (i.e. is Obama different than Bush), might it be more productive to discuss whether it's the right thing for POTUS to do?
a priori:
• There still exist AQ and affiliates who actively plan attack on the US
• It's unwise/impossible to fight them on the ground around the world.
• Any POTUS in office during a major attack will be held responsible, rightly or not.
• There does not seem to be any legally controlling authority regarding the power of POTUS to order these killings.
So, what should POTUS do, be it Pres W, O, Romney, or Bristol Palin?
The strikes are scary from a civil libertarian point because there doesn't seem to be any restraint other than the prudence/benevolence of the POTUS. There is, as you note, no due process. There are also collateral damages from these strikes, including civilian casualties and the anti-US sentiment they engender.
OTOH, this seems to be a genuine expression of the war powers of the executive. Due process is a legal concept most commonly applied to criminal cases. While I do think that would-be terrorists arrested in the US should be handled by DOJ not DOD, it seems that folks actively participating in anti-US terrorism activities overseas are best dealt with by the military.
Which of course brings us to the knotty question of whether the war on terror is an eternal war giving POTUS military powers forever.
It's a hard question. So, if you were POTUS and you knew where Zawahiri was, and you had a predator standing by, what would you do?
So, Obama asserts a new and deeply troubling authority; we agree on this. He seems to be doing it in a thoughtful and responsible manner which isn't exactly a saving grace but at least mitigates some of the criticism.
I don't think it mitigates the criticism because my criticism is not that any individual call to kill a person is necessarily the wrong call.
The criticism is that allowing the president to decide on a new power and to justify it to himself in private and never to share the justification for the power is insane. And wrong. And will necessarily result in a future behavior that will be illegal.
Which of course brings us to the knotty question of whether the war on terror is an eternal war giving POTUS military powers forever.
And that's an aggravating and related factor.
One's guiding principle should always be that the first thing you say when the government asserts a power is "no, you don't have the right to decide that." Then you listen carefully before grudgingly allowing the practice.
If the answer to your initial "no" is "Well we're going to kill people, see, and it's legal, but we won't tell you why." Then your answer has to remain a resolute and prejudiced "no".
Obama's attitude towards Presidential power is every bit as troubling as Bush's. My guess would be we wouldn't see better from Romney. And the current Supreme Court? We're screwed.
Post a Comment