Aside from those prisoners in Gitmo, the drone-struck Americans, anyone who happened to be near them, and the thousands of others we've killed with drones, you're right -- absolutely no one.
First they came for the terrorists, and I didn't speak because I wasn't a terrorist.
Then they came for the enemy combatants, and I didn't speak because I wasn't an enemy combatant.
Then they came for the traitors, and I didn't speak because I wasn't a traitor.
? I'm just trying to see which part of this is not 200+ years old. Was there ever a time in the history of the US where the US government wasn't "coming" for terrorists, enemy combatants, and traitors? If that's the case, then how do you build a bridge from "terrorists" to "random law-abiding citizen", which is the point of the poem.
> Was there ever a time in the history of the US where the US government wasn't "coming" for terrorists, enemy combatants, and traitors?
There were a couple hundred years in our nation's history where we weren't drone striking American citizens without due process for crimes they might have committed in the future.
Drone strikes may be new, but killing "Americans" isn't.
See: Trail of Tears, Civil War, and many, many, many other instances where the US government sponsored the killing of "Americans" (citizenship hasn't always been this cut/dry thing it is today).
Can you stop begging the question for just one moment so we can have a real conversation, instead of you just shoving platitudes down my throat?
A) drone strikes are just a means to an end, the end being "attack our enemies".
B) The people being attacked are classified as "enemy combatants". Do you realize what this means, as far as a "due process" conversation goes? We're not about to start trying enemy soldiers on the battlefield for breaking laws they're not even bound by (our laws). It's a perfectly reasonable conversation to talk about whether or not the people being attacked are actually "enemy combatants", but can we have that conversation, instead of you just ignoring the implications of what you're saying?
It's immensely hard to talk to people who speak in your terms, do you know that? Your cause is hurt by this behavior, not helped. If someone like me can't stand it, just imagine the feelings of someone in actual power, capable of doing something about it.
Some of those killed were designated enemy combatants. Many of those killed by drone strikes were not, and were simply nearby.
Regardless, the protocol for declaring someone enemy combatant should not be opaque to all but the executive branch. I don't necessarily have a problem with our government interceding to prevent a terrorist attack, but the taking of a life that might be innocent should be more informed than just adding a name to a list -- we've seen the efficacy of that with the No Fly List, where someone whose name was only similar to an actual terrorist was disallowed the ability to fly (to hilarious results).
The ability of a single person to add someone's name to a kill list that will be carried out with zero Congressional oversight is a cessation of ultimate power to the Executive Branch. There is simply no arguing that point whatsoever. The only 'check' on that power is that we trust the Executive to be forthright. Perhaps that's good enough for the current administration, perhaps it isn't, but it certainly bodes poorly for the future.
> If someone like me can't stand it, just imagine the feelings of someone in actual power, capable of doing something about it.
I interact with people in power, and demagoguery is the norm, even behind closed doors. That I happen to actually believe the points that I'm making is probably the only distinction between what I'm saying here and the words of the average politician.
That you, in particular, find it infuriating isn't terribly surprising. Having looked through your comment profile, the pattern I've noticed isn't one terribly indicative of someone tolerant or especially well-mannered.
In the interest of community preservation, I'm happy to just agree to disagree, and suggest that we should discontinue further conversation.
> The ability of a single person to add someone's name to a kill list that will be carried out with zero Congressional oversight is a cessation of ultimate power to the Executive Branch.
According to the Constitution, that's how it works. Congress can pass laws to require the executive branch pass these lists through congress, but they haven't, so the executive branch doesn't have to. That's how the Constitution was designed.
Want to change it? Petition your congressman/woman.
