Define “this power”.
Given your previous poorly-reasoned arguments, I doubt what you have just asserted about me is true.
Please note you did NOT answer my question. In any case, I will try to get us back on track to good manners and proper debate protocal by answering your question.
In the hands of political actors, including of course our current commander-in-chief, power can be roughly defined as the authority to use force, fraud, or confiscation of wealth to achieve certain goals. Polticians who have this power will always be tempted to abuse it, especially if it unchecked. Granting the arbitrary power to torture (or order ehnanced interrogation if you prefer) s especially dangerous, especially when given to a man who loves the exercise of power down to his very soule(in this case Obama).
A good place to begin in a study of the meaning of power are the works of Lord Acton. Of course, Acton had no conception of the tremendous rise and abuses of political power that would follow in the century after his death. Please read the following in the context of current events:
"I cannot accept your canon that we are to judge Pope and King unlike other men with a favourable presumption that they did no wrong. If there is any presumption, it is the other way, against the holders of power, increasing as the power increases. Historic responsibility has to make up for the want of legal responsibility. Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority: still more when you superadd the tendency or certainty of corruption by full authority. There is no worse heresy than the fact that the office sanctifies the holder of it. "
Let me repeat my question again. Why do you trust Obama not to abuse the power to order torture and/or enhanced interogation? What checks do intend to put on him? Would you prosecute him if he abused it or kept these abuses secret, and if so, how?