During the Bush-era torture debates, I was never able to get past my initial incredulity that we were even having a "debate" over whether the President has the authority to torture people. Andrew Sullivan has responded to some of the questions I posed about his defense of Obama's assassination program, and I realize now that throughout this whole assassination debate, specific legal and factual issues aside, my overarching reaction is quite similar: I actually can't believe that there is even a "debate" over whether an American President -- without a shred of due process or oversight -- has the power to compile hit lists of American citizens whom he orders the CIA to kill far away from any battlefield. The notion that the President has such an unconstrained, unchecked power is such a blatant distortion of everything our political system is supposed to be -- such a pure embodiment of the very definition of tyrannical power -- that, no matter how many times I see it, it's still hard for me to believe there are people willing to expressly defend it.
This is the deal breaker for me regarding President Obama. I will never support an individual who has no problem in authorizing the killing of another human being without any kind of due process, no matter what else he might accomplish. That is so against the grain of what I believe our country should represent. A living, breathing, totally unique human being possibly being snuffed out forever on one person's say-so. That is the ultimate sin.
As Mr. Greenwald says, "The notion that the President has such an unconstrained, unchecked power is such a blatant distortion of everything our political system is supposed to be..."
We're now on the slippery slope. Where will we go from here?
