General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: A Note On 'Drone Strikes', Ladies And Gentlemen [View all]jpgray
(27,831 posts)Most times this debate is had the assumption is always that the choice of targets, in terms of individuals identified as worth a droning, is accurate. In many cases we have reason to believe this is true. In the majority of cases we have no idea. The evidence that identifies a terrorist suitable for killing in this way is subject to slim or zero public review, and often only a very limited review from other branches, if any.
If we assume the executive makes zero or very few bad choices now on whom it may target this way, that is no good reason for assuming another executive will do so. As we have no explicit standard or review, we also can only assume the executive makes very few bad choices now. We really do not know beyond those choices that are made public.
To get silly, unlimited power could be justified if a leader was known to be perfectly able and perfectly wise. The further from perfect the leader, the more limited power should be. When I think about this, I remember that the administration responsible for drawing up these lists excommunicated Shirley Sherrod almost instantly, and on the strength of a Breitbart video.
Whatever your view, our leaders will always be less than perfect in wisdom and ability, and this very scarcely limited power should cause concern on that basis. Especially since we may have much worse leaders than those we have now, and this will be a power for use established by precedent.