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.

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.

"HHK"  You seem to miss the idea that one man's mass murderer is another man's hero.  The question is always how do we diminish the myth surrounding the man.  Using "Kitchner" as a name you should be well aware of myths, his wasn't a bad one, but still one.

The point being a humiliating show trial may have served a far greater purpose, perhaps not, we will never know.

Sen. Sununu will have to strain a little harder if he truly wants to convince people that it's wrong to take out al qaeda commanders who spend every waking moment refining demonic plans to kill Americans in great quantities.

I don't agree with much of what Sununu has written here -- the base accusations and characterizations of the administration. I'm sure they think that they're doing what's best for the country, but they're wrong.

It's a bit uncomfortable for me to agree with Sununu on a basic principle, but we shouldn't be engaged in assassination of American citizens without charges and a trial. It seems to me to be a flagrant violation of our constitutional rights, which apply to all citizens regardless of what they're alleged to have done.

The President is not judge, jury and executioner. In fact, the President is none of those things. At most he is the policeman and prosecuting attorney.

HHKitch, it's nice to know that you think the President and those below him who are deciding who to target with drones are infallible.  If the Bush-Cheny team had only been so wise, I'm sure we could have moppd up all the islalmists in the world by now. 

"HHK"  We don't "know" what a liberal reaction would have to a trial nor do we know what the response of Islamist apologists, whoever they may be, what their reaction would have been.  The shading of a nations "values" if you will are dangerous events.  If your enemy leads you to acts that you would not normally do, there is a level of victory in it for the enemy.

Again I get the policy.  There is even a part of me that prefers over the useage and the endangerment of troops.  It still however makes me very uneasy.

The rule of law, which recognizes the rights of individuals, is what separates the US and other western countries from despots and terrorists.  I am afraid that President Obama's drone program maybe outside of the rule of law, with no end in sight.  It is high time that this be addressed directly by the 4 branches of government to make sure we are not heading down a slippery slope.  Otherwise, Historyisjust that, you may just need all those high powred weapons.

I don't see this as a left or rfight issue or a Democrat or Republican issue. Sununu is right when he says this is something that never should have happened but it did. That sets a bad precedent. That Congress and the Judiciary care little about it is typical of what's going on in our country. The FBI was out of control, and perhaps still is, but Congress and the judiciary shut their eyes to its abuses. 

What we can be assured of if the president, unlike any elected executive in the history of democracies, can claim a right to delegate power to others to kill people then each succeeding president will expand on that power. Perhaps it will be used on the homeland some day against people protesting against government policies on the grounds they are imminent threats to the people in power. 

If your are interested in this issue you may want to read Glenn Greenwald who has been decrying the president's use of these powers for years.

Senator Sununu, are you now, or have you ever been, a dues-paying member of the organization known as the American Civil Liberties Union? A simple yes or no will suffice.

I see HHK is still spewing his ideas of Airborne Death Squad Drones under control of a Secret Committee as being a wonderful idea in our country.

Old Joe Stalin would have loved the idea, Mao would have wanted them too, Pol Pot would have bought them. Hitler?  No doubt.

And HHK is here to tell us they are a great idea, cause they save lives.  Uh huh.  All of these dangerous ideas start out with "saving" something, usually lives.

why the hypocrasy? lincoln did what it took to win the war, as did fdr and truman. why cant obama? war has been declared, by congress, authorizing the commander in chief to protect us. any traitor to the us is not covered by our bill of rights. he is the same enemy as any other terrorist against us.

I , for one, do so like my habeus Corpus rights and would like to preserve them for as long as possible. Targeted assassinations of the "bad guy" of the day is not setting a healthy precendent. Collateral damage is also so bothersome to ignore. I mean, killing a target with his or her minor children is soo messy. Gotta hate those weddings too!!! Such a bloody mess.

We have a legal system and procedures that must be respected and honored and upheld. We should not give away our rights to Habeous Corpus without a huge fight.

Israel has used targeted assassination in its systematic ethnocide of the indigneous population for years, taking many innocent lives along with its' targets. We do not want to become like the Zionists who have little or no regard for the lives of those it colonizes. Yell "terrorist" and it gives you the right to target those whose land you wish to occupy....or resources you wish to steal...

As you can see  many of the people that defend the drone executions use the term, "Islamist" as if this justifiies the act of extra-judicial murder. The United States cannot go down the amoral road of execute first, as questions later. This is not the kind of country we want.

This from a guy who supported the national security letters!!!