This week, the Obama administration released a so-called “white paper” outlining the legal argument for killing Americans with drones. The argument, which states that such killings are justified when an “informed, high level official” determines that an attack by an American affiliated with Al-Qaeda is “imminent,” raised more questions than it answered. What is meant by imminent? Does this executive prerogative apply at home, only abroad, or only in war zones? Can this rationale even explain all the current strikes, namely the targeted killing of Anwar Al-Awlaki’s 16 year-old son? Everywhere I turn, from the New York Times to “Morning Joe,” these questions, and many more, are being asked. Liberals and conservatives alike seem to realize that the Administration’s policy shows unsettling signs of executive branch overreach. The level-headed Jon Meachem, executive editor of Random House, described the Administration’s legal justification as akin to the arbitrary application of law characteristic of a “king.” At the very least, the use of drones to kill American citizens was not what the American people, especially Democrats, expected from the man who promised to close Guantanamo and derided the Bush Administration for its abuse of executive power.
So, in the next couple of weeks (especially with the onset of John Brennan’s CIA confirmation hearing), the Obama Administration will face a healthy debate about checks and balances, the integrity of the Constitution, calls for more disclosure, and outrage about the Administration’s ostensible overreach. I hope that as a country we approach the debate with the realization that making national security decisions often involves balancing the competing priorities of protecting civil liberties and assuring the safety of our borders. Extreme policy solutions—ending the drone program completely or letting it continue unfettered—are unworkable. If we keep this in mind, the next couple of weeks could see: the creation of a set of rules and ethical guidelines that govern the new and expanding drone technology, a display of American leadership in the field of international law, and a partial fulfillment of Senator Obama’s campaign promise to restore America’s standing in the eyes of the world. However, if we do not honestly address the complexities of national security policy, and either naively call for the end of the program or stubbornly defend the President’s policies as they currently stand (perhaps wanting to avoid acknowledging the painful similarities between President G.W. Bush and President Obama on the matter of executive power), then we show immaturity unbecoming of the potential opportunity this moment offers.