Would then-Senator Sununu have ever condemned such a program under President George W. Bush? Of course not. This is an allegation as breathtaking in its hypocrisy as it is devoid of respect for our collective intelligence and memory. President Bush precipitated the slaughter of a hundred thousand Iraqis in order to bring down one man and now he calls on the constitutional principle of checks and balances because of 3 "American citizen deaths",  at least one of whom was actively plotting against the US (underwear bomber).   If Senator Sununu has his way,  every el Qaeda commander only needs an American-born terrorist in his retinue and he is bullet-proof. The GOP will deport American citizens because they were born to illegals, but killing them without due process even when they take up arms against "their country" is odious. Better that we let these "citizens" act against us with impunity or risk the lives of our special ops personnel to apprehend them.  

Senator Sununu, if President McCain or Romney was running the drone program, would you have the same compunctions? Just for the record, are you now or have you ever been a member of the American Civil Liberies Union? Serioulsy, I am very interested in your answer.

Let's say we're down the road apiece, and a President LooneyTunes has managed to make it to The White House from The Republican Party...pick a name, any name...Sanctorum, Bachmann, Gingrich, Perry, Huckabee, Robinson, Akin, Mourdock, Trump, Reed, Cruz, Cain, Paul, LaPierre (what the heck, I figured throw him in too), or any other religious nut or southern redneck. Now, Let's give these same powers to any one of these Daffy Ducks...are you with me so far? Somehow, and call me crazy, but am not comforted by Brennan's assurance that "Americans...would be please to know that we're (we're=any of 1000s of bureaucrats in the federal Government) very diciplined, very judicious in how we use these authorities", with any one of these straight-jacket types calling the final shot. 

If this article was written by one of the lefties in the "guarded"section of the Globe, readers would have agreed with it. Sorry, John you have the (R) next to your name so prepare for the bashing. How dare you criticize the Leader, the peace prize winner, man of the year.

I for one do not care for this policy and its useage one little bit.  I get all the arguemnts for it.  I approve of the targets.  I dislike the policy intensely.  However, for John to make the argument is beyond comprehension.  If a Republican were President he would make the argument that the President had the right to kill a US citizen sitting at the Dunkin Donuts and that the collateral damage was the cost of war. 

The policy is bad for many of the reasons John lists, the big problem is that in another circumstance John wouldn't list them. Therein lay the problem with so many American's and their political thinking.  A Dem. does it is an attack upon the Constitution, a Republican does it, it is all fine and dandy at least to John.  For the left take the story and merely flip it.  You don't even need a re-write.  For a vast majority of the pubilic it is simply well the "bobble head" I like, likes it.  So it must be good. 

You know John I wish that you and others could perhapsjust once in awhile try to find the middle.

Bush and Cheney lead us into a War in Iraq under false pretenses where there were thousands of U.S. casualties and yet you don't seem to be critical of this. 

John, you aren't worth the newprint it takes to prnt your screed.

I agree with those that think that GOP Sununu is hypocritical. I also agree that this is a scary policy but to claim that no American president has ever used his powers to kill others is naive. The Vietnam war is famous for its indiscrimate killing of unarmed civilians and this power was passed down from the administration to the generals to low level troups without sanction. How many people were sent to Guantanomo without  any proof of wrong doing and how many individuals were shunted from one country to another in order to torture them "legally" under President Bush? Be fair JOhn Sununu and write about how we LIberals expect better from our leaders and are disappointed when they act like Republicans.

It is thoroughly zany that the best the lib cheerleaders for Obama can up with as parallel behavior by a Republican is the US liberation of Iraq.  These people have no memory that our effort was approved by congress, and warranted because Saddam Hussein had failed to live up to the terms of his surrender in the first gulf war.  In other words, that effort had all the congressional approval and legal process that the Obama Drone program lacks.  But these people are cheerleaders, not serious thinkers.

Most Americans do not oppose the Drone program per se.  But we despise the utter hypocrisy that the program reveals.  George Bush was practically called a war criminal by these same cheerleaders-for his use of warantless wiretaps, for heaven's sake.  He was never seen as a leader tying to keep Americans safe.  His decisions were difficult, but were created with the same goal as the Obama drone program-to attack our enemies, and to prevent the next attack.

Obama himself is the worst offender.  He travelled the world telling every audience he could find that America "lost its way" and "failed to live up to our values" under Bush.  He promised to reverse this course-and was awarded the Nobel Peace prize because of it.  Then, he realized that Bush was successful because these policies were sound, and he maintains 99% of them, and steps up the Drone assassination program to heights that Bush never dreamed of.  

He politicized the war effort, and then maintained those same policies.  Only cheerleader could NOT be angered by such conduct.

"And it’s one tragedy that the president can’t blame on someone else." John, after an unusually reasonable article about an important subject, you lost it by inserting a last, highly partisan paragraph. Just couldn't resist, could you? Using drones to target individuals for execution in countries where we are not at war is something that we really need to look at as a nation and decide if it is something we should be doing just because we can. Aside from questions of legality and whether this program may actually be counter productive, we need to realize that in the very near future this is something every industrial country (heck, anyone with enough money)will be able to do.

John Sununu writes a column that is always predictable. Why can't he drop the party line. His America did not elect Mitt Romney to The White House.

For the most part, the comments here are straight out of the liberal playbook:

If your dude has totally screwed up, talk about someone else and what they did.  Try to make it sound like they were MUCH worse, even if it has absolutely no correlation.  Obfuscate.  Leave out facts if it helps make your argument sound better.

But what is really interesting is that this is about a team of guys who like to do underhanded secret stuff that has caused other problems, like Fast N' Furious.  They stonewalled that one really well.

Of course, the Lame Stream Media likes to help them out as much as possible.  Yes We Can!  Yes We Can!

I love how the left attacks the writer or the source when they have no answer to the facts.

On another fine Obama note:

A pro-Hezbollah, pro-Hamas candidate for the Iranian presidency, a man linked to Iranian-controlled front groups, brought former Republican Nebraska Senator Chuck Hagel to speak at Rutgers University in 2007, according to another professor on campus.

Hooshang Amirahmadi, who led Rutgers’ Center for Middle Eastern Studies when Hagel came to campus, is the founder and president of the American-Iranian Council. He arranged for Hagel’s speech on March 2, 2007, the faculty source told The Daily Caller.

I'd love to hear what those brilliant folks that gave him a Nobel Peace Prize are saying now.

Mr. Sununu's criticism of Obama's policies on drones and assassination are largely valid; his attempt to slide past the reality that the foundation for those policies was constructed by the GW Bush administration is simply pathetic. What other reason could he possibly have to bring up John Brennan but studiously avoid mentioning that Brennan was one of the Bush administration architects of the claims to power that Obama has wrongly continued and extended?

where is the aclu when you really need them

In light of the unnecessary Iraq War fiasco it's laughable to see Mr. Sununu parsing the difference between "imminent" and "immediate" threats.  What a buffoon.

Sununu's arguments, coupled with the on-going Whitey Bulger court case, raise some very scarey scenarios.  Local and state police agencies here and there in the U.S. are seeking ways to start using drone aircraft for their own purposes.  This push by politically powerful police officials may in t he fairly close future result in availability of such aircraft for nonfederal agencies, but at whose behest?  There is not a major push to require a narrow band of federal supervision - perhaps by courts or prosecutors or some sort of third party bureaucracy - of  local cops who may find themelves willing to launch drones, as much for 'fun' as true police purposes.  Would courts be available to stop such cavalier use of technological gimcracks in the hands of sometimes irresponsible local or state cops?

The Bulger case shows the level of corruption that federal authorities can reach in the relations of Whitey Bulger and FBI agent Connolly and his supervisor. Mr. Morris.  With availability of  technology like drone aircraft, what would prevent a similar level of corruption in the near future to stop local or state police agencies from seeking, and perhaps being given, some sort of authorization to murder American citizens (criminals, maybe) as chosen by those police? It would seem to be a lot safer to use a drone aircraft to bomb a guy in a car than send a SWAT squad after such a person.

Partisan commentary fails to move the debate. Sununu has been consistent in his position; as post-script to the 2011 al-awlaki drone strike or his pro habeus corpus position for Guantanamo detainees. Can we all agree that an elected administration is wielding increasingly more effective individual-combatant strike technology is doing so in a constitutionally-supported, auditable, effective, and as circumstances allow, transparent means available.

If a person in the street is holding a weapon and says he will kill Americans, he is shot down. Al-Awlawki 's weapon was the forces at his command and he made no secret what he intended to do with them. What's the problem?

Sununu--Neither Democrats or Republicans wanted to know anything about the dirty job our armed forces and President are expected to do involving the drones. It saves our warriors and citizens lives thats all we are concerned about. I support a FISA court type proceeding naming people we will kill via drone--as long as the list is kept secret. Release the names after they are dead a few years. But Sununu you are a hypocrite!!!!!!!

"BAMDAD118"  You apparently didn't read the article.  You say the Pres. should be doing what he is doing and then say,"great article John."  John is blasting the President for what he is doing. So you either support the Pres. and object to John or you are against the drone policy and disagree with John.  You can't do both.

It seems a number of the right wing commentators here are saying the same thing.  I support what John says, when in fact John is objecting to the policy that you support, which is the use of drones.  It is as if you don't get the question. 

I dislike the policy, but understand why.  I'm just not sure it is a road we want to travel.  My objections to the policy are very similar to John's yet I find it funny for John to say it in that he wouldn't say it if a Republican was Pres. 

Take "begolfing" for instance, he says, "I love how the left attacks the writer or the source when they have no answer to the facts."  Now I don't consider myself left although I think "be" does.  But really "be" you oppose the drone policy or do you merely oppose who currently is using the policy.  As I said I'm not comfortable with it regardless of who is doing it. 

I am just thrilled that HHK just loves his Secret Government Controlled Airborne Death Squad.

Frankly, any president thinking this is a good idea, is a president we can do without.  I don't care what party he belongs to.