Could this be the reason Republicans are in a panic over the current foreign policy debate?

[ProSense]

Obama’s Smart Move on Drones
by Michael Tomasky

The president’s civil-liberties record is far from ideal. But, says Michael Tomasky, at least give Obama credit for exploring ways to limit his own power.

At John Brennan’s CIA confirmation hearing last week, which came right after the leak of the controversial Justice Department memo about the targeting of U.S. citizens, Sen. Dianne Feinstein said that the Senate was reviewing proposals for special courts to oversee the program. At least that way, this awesome power to determine that a U.S. citizen had forfeited his right to due process by joining an enemy army wouldn’t repose in one person. Then on Saturday, The New York Times noted that President Obama has been considering exactly this move. This provides a good occasion, then, to reflect on a difference between Obama and his predecessor—Obama has certainly continued and maybe even expanded some dreadful Bush-era practices on wiretapping, but at least he’s apparently willing to relinquish some executive power. And that serves as a reminder that while we always have to be on guard against abuse of executive power, it’s also the case that some presidents are less creepy than others, and that in the post-9/11 era, we don’t have much choice but to live with a lot of ambiguity in these matters.

The Times article cites a number of senators—Feinstein, Ron Wyden, Saxby Chambliss, freshman Angus King—expressing their concern about the fact “that a president can use secret evidence to label a citizen a terrorist and order his execution without a trial or judge’s ruling.” For several paragraphs, you’re reading this piece thinking that it’s a building congressional hue and cry that will force the Obama administration to submit to judicial reviews of the targeting of citizens.

But then you get to this sentence: “An administration official who spoke of the White House deliberations on the condition of anonymity said President Obama had asked his security and legal advisers a year ago ‘to see how you could have an independent review’ of planned strikes. ‘That includes possible judicial review.’”

Now, let me acknowledge the obvious, which is that the Obama administration hasn’t implemented this review. The leak of this memo to Mike Isikoff of NBC may indeed have been made by someone frustrated that the process wasn’t moving fast enough. Carrying this change through is going to require legislation, and then these courts will need to be set up. Equally obviously, a secret court of the type envisioned is not going to satisfy civil libertarians, not only because it’s secret, but because the target would presumably have no representation at hearings.

- more -

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/02/09/obama-s-smart-move-on-drones.html

I think Republicans are in a panic over the current debate, which is an indictment of not only drone strikes, but also the use of force, specifically ground wars. Look at the bluster and whining from Cheney and Graham. This is why they're attacking the President's nominees.

The fact is the country is tired of war and if drone strikes are subject to oversight that could put a damper on the next neocon adventure, possibly war with Iran.

Romney’s Five Wars
http://www.juancole.com/2012/10/romneys-five-wars.html

Remembering Bush, accurately
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022343435

[ProSense]

1. Kick! n/t

[OregonBlue]

2. I agree. There were articles on GOP sites accusing the President of leaking the memo

himself. They are seeing their war on terror slipping away before their very eyes and they are becoming hysterical. They are making billions off DHS and DOD contracts.

[Demo_Chris]

3. I am missing your point...

Why would the GOP be concerned about this? They aren't the ones claiming the right to execute US Citizens whenever they want. Even BUSH didn't go that far.

[ProSense]

4. Ah yes,

"Why would the GOP be concerned about this? They aren't the ones claiming the right to execute US Citizens whenever they want. Even BUSH didn't go that far. "

...Bush didn't go "that far" in killing a known terrorist, huh? Again, the statement conflates all U.S. citizens with terrorists. Bush used drones to target terrorists. Given that the program was secret during the Bush years and no justifications were sought or presented, you have no idea what Bush did or didn't do. Still, I love the "Even BUSH didn't go that far." It's as if targeting a terrorist is worse than launching an illegal war or sanctioning torture. Those were also done in the name of Bush's war on terror.

Remembering Bush, accurately
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022343435

The fact is that Republicans are out in force voicing their support for the policy. The other day John Bolton said it was simply a continuation of the Bush policy. All bullshit. They know the next Republican administration can't have what Bush had in place, unaccounted for drone strikes. It's out in the open now.

Republicans are thinking about the future, and they would love to see a drone policy that has no oversight beyond the executive.

My colleagues will have more to say about the white paper soon, but my initial reaction is that the paper only underscores the irresponsible extravagance of the government's central claim. Even if the Obama administration is convinced of its own fundamental trustworthiness, the power this white paper sets out will be available to every future president—and every "informed high-level official" (!)—in every future conflict. As I said to Isikoff, that's truly a chilling thought.

http://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security/justice-departments-white-paper-targeted-killing