Last Monday, President Obama acknowledged the CIA’s covert drone assassination program for the first time, in an online town hall of all places. The president, responding to a question which highlighted the frequency of drone attacks during his term, said that drones have been “very precise” in focusing on “a list of active terrorists.” While both of these claims hold a tenuous link to reality, the most terrifying aspect of “secret” drone warfare is that it provides the commander-in-chief with the most dangerous weapon possible: unaccountability.

Obama says, “drones have not caused a huge number of civilian casualties.” That depends on your definition of “huge.” During Obama’s term, drones have killed between 282 and 535 Pakistani civilians. Worse yet, Democracy Now reports that 175 children have been killed by U.S.-operated drones since 2004.  Even if you believe such a number is not “huge,” it is certainly of consequence. Sure, one effect of ceasing drone strikes would be leaving more potential terrorists alive, but considering recent comments coming out of the Pentagon suggesting the U.S. greatly overestimated Al Qaeda’s capabilities, the bombings probably are not necessary.

There are doubtlessly those who believe that 175 dead Pakistani children are a small price to pay for U.S. security. Quite the opposite: It turns out wantonly killing innocents gives the impression the U.S. is a violent nation deserving of violence in return. The failed Times Square bomber cited drone attacks in Yemen, Somalia and Pakistan as part of his motivation to murder innocent people. His logic may be repellent, but it demonstrates what crude, careless violence begets. If a Muslim nation were recklessly bombing the United States from the sky with so-called “precision strikes” and killing innocent people and medical personnel, one can easily imagine the outraged response.

Both U.S. and Pakistani citizens have suffered as a result of the drone campaign. In 2011, U.S. citizen and alleged terrorist Anwar Al-Awlaki was killed by a drone attack. According to Reuters Magazine’s David Rohde, it was the first time a U.S. citizen had been executed without a fair trial in the nation’s history.

Loyal Democrats will argue the president’s secret reasoning behind ordering such hits — which have not been subject to public deliberation and debate — is surely sound. Shockingly enough, a new poll from The Washington Post finds that 58 percent of Democrats approve of Obama’s secret drone program. Presumably, these Democrats argue we should trust Obama to use his executive power wisely to deploy secret drones. In doing this, Obama has set a precedent. These same Democrats must accept that whoever follows in his footsteps — perhaps President Romney — will have the same power to accuse any citizen of being an enemy and murder him from the sky.

Death from above is not a novel concept. What is innovative about drones is how their status as a new tool of war allows the CIA to designate them “classified.” This means that questions about the program have been met with the old “we can neither confirm nor deny…” line, though the media has fortunately documented drone use.

Obama certainly took a rhetorical hard-line stance against disclosure when commenting on the case of alleged Army whistle-blower Pvt. Bradley Manning. At that time, the President said, “If I was to release stuff, information that I’m not authorized to release, I’m breaking the law.”

Now, White House spokesman Jay Carney says the commander-in-chief cannot possibly commit a security violation, while at the same time asserting he was “not going to discuss … supposedly covert programs.” It is the familiar argument of the Nixon era: If the president does something, it is not illegal.

The doublespeak surrounding a classified tool of war which the president then publicly brags about for its success is enough to make one’s head spin. But the continual official denial serves a very important purpose: It prevents the issue from appearing in court. The ACLU has sued the government in an attempt to uncover the targeting criteria of drone strikes. Obama’s Justice Department, however, has argued the existence of the program is a state secret and therefore cannot be discussed.

This pays off in two ways for the president. Obama can take credit for drone strike “successes” while avoiding the political consequences if drones are used to violate basic rights or wantonly kill civilians. As long as the CIA refuses to disclose the existence of the drone program, the executive branch is effectively shielded from judicial review on the subject of assassinating people who are accused, but not convicted, of terrorism. Imagining that a future leader would give up such staggering power, rather than continuing to abuse it, seems hopelessly idealistic. After all, we’re currently experiencing such a great expansion of anti-democratic secrecy from a president who vowed “transparency will be our touchstone.”

Max Weber spoke about the ethics of responsibility which were necessary for a leader to guide a nation wisely. Such a leadership ethic calls for pragmatism, which means sometimes choosing to do evil to benefit one’s nation in the long run. It also, however, demands accountability. Even if Obama’s drone assaults do suppress the threat of terror in Pakistan, they have set a precedent for secrecy and unaccountability which will pave the way for future abuses.

This, of course, is a remote threat without even considering the immediate consequences of a policy which leads to the death of children and innocents in foreign countries. Unless there is a reversal of this trend, U.S. citizens are left with an uncertain future where the abuses of power may intensify, more enemies be provoked and the moral character of the nation be forever changed.