4 ms·

I get that this answer might seem overly terse, but there are a group of unnamed prisoners in Guantanamo Bay sitting there, not getting the benefit of due proce

by bmelton 13y ago

I get that this answer might seem overly terse, but there are a group of unnamed prisoners in Guantanamo Bay sitting there, not getting the benefit of due process that they are obligated. Under the NDAA, the president has the authority to enshrine anyone he wishes, subject to zero oversight, to a similar fate. Under the PATRIOT Act, we've bombed American Citizens suspected of possibly committing a crime in the future without the benefit of oversight, due process, or any of the Constitutional protections ordinarily afforded to American citizens. Aside from that, there are far more instances throughout history, but those are the (IMO) most egregious offenses under the current administration at least.

diminoten 13y ago
So no one, then?
- bmelton 13y ago
  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.
  - diminoten 13y ago
    So how would you rewrite the poem? 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.
    - bmelton 13y ago
      > 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. That should probably be in there somewhere.
      - diminoten 13y ago
        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.
        bmelton 13y ago
        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.
- eliasmacpherson 13y ago
  They've silenced over 200,000 people with national security letters. Nick Merrill is one example. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicholas_Merril https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicholas_Merril https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mpRp-D5v5NQl https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mpRp-D5v5NQl https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eT2fQu50sMs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eT2fQu50sMs Brewster Kahle is another from archive.org: http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/elements/2013/06/what-its-like-to-get-a-national-security-letter.html http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/elements/2013/06/what-...
  - diminoten 13y ago
    I can't tell if you're being funny or not by linking to two YouTube videos, a New Yorker article, and a Wikipedia page that doesn't exist. Also, that's not the kind of silencing we're talking about. We're talking about the act of blackmail using data collected by spying programs.
    - bmelton 13y ago
      Interestingly, the Wikipedia article works in non-SSL mode. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicholas_Merrill http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicholas_Merrill works, but https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicholas_Merrill https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicholas_Merrill doesn't. Edit: more oddly, they now both appear to work? Edit: far less oddly, it looks like the OP just forgot to include the trailing 'L', and I hadn't noticed.
    - eliasmacpherson 13y ago
      I apologise for the quality of the sources of information. I can't find alternatives. It's interesting to note Obama's speech on NSL's from 2005 five minutes in to the first youtube video. As an authority on such issues he should be held in high enough regard for you. "Then they came for the blah, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a blah." In responding to the above, you said: "What group is no longer here because the CIA/NSA have decided they shouldn't exist?" The absence of voices contesting this apparatus is used as a defence for the NSL's and a similar mechanism used under FISA. 200,000 is a huge number. Their dissenting voices don't exist legally, they cannot speak out. Imagine this: "I didn't speak out for the blah because I got a national security letter." I see no mention of blackmail, who were you talking to about blackmail?
- onetwofiveten 13y ago
  I guess you're getting down voted because it's an emotional issue. But you're right, so far, the number of people targeted by the NSA/CIA with extreme methods (i.e. drone strikes, imprisonment without trial, rendition, warrantless spying, blackmail) seems relatively small, and it seems to be mostly restricted to non-Americans or people that the American public don't really care about. That doesn't mean it's okay. Think about what's going on here. The USA has basically created for itself a secret police with powers that, in practise, are very close to those of an agency like the KGB or the Stasi. Sure, as you point out, these new powers are not being used to cart people away wholesale. But you should still be very nervous. Even now, we might be past the point of no return. That's not just hyperbole on my part. The way I see it, it's very easy to get into in a kind of ratchet situation where powers and abuses can only increase over time. We may already be there. It's politically very difficult to reduce powers for any agency, let one that pushes both military and law enforcement buttons. Even if calls for reform get taken seriously, they may be dealt with by sacrificing a scapegoat and making superficial changes. Even if there was a strong serious concerted political effort to reform the NSA and CIA do you really trust them not to interfere with it? Do you strongly believe, without any doubt, that the NSA and CIA are above blackmailing their own politicians?
  - bmelton 13y ago
    > seems relatively small, and it seems to be mostly restricted to non-Americans or people that the American public don't really care about. For what it's worth - that's the very point of the poem, that it always starts with the undesirables, minorities, or peoples to whom the population wouldn't object to. The tacit implication there is that those people were all portrayed as evil first, allowing public acceptance of their abuse. For the most part, even after Hitler started murdering Jews, he was still enjoyed pretty strong popularity.
    - diminoten 13y ago
      The poem is one massive slippery-slope fallacy, and it's also a poem, not reality. It's fiction. Just like 1984, Brave New World, or any other literary piece that gets bandied about these days. Absolutely zero anchor in reality. And "Jews" isn't the same as "terrorists". The US isn't going after people based on what they look like or who their parents are, they're going after people based on what they do and say. I know, it's shocking, that when you try to enter into violent combat with a nation-state, that nation-state is going to kill you. Those assholes.

by bmelton 13y ago

diminoten 13y ago

So no one, then?

bmelton 13y ago
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.
- diminoten 13y ago
  So how would you rewrite the poem? 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.
  - bmelton 13y ago
    > 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. That should probably be in there somewhere.
    - diminoten 13y ago
      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.
      - bmelton 13y ago
        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.
eliasmacpherson 13y ago
They've silenced over 200,000 people with national security letters. Nick Merrill is one example. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicholas_Merril https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicholas_Merril https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mpRp-D5v5NQl https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mpRp-D5v5NQl https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eT2fQu50sMs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eT2fQu50sMs Brewster Kahle is another from archive.org: http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/elements/2013/06/what-its-like-to-get-a-national-security-letter.html http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/elements/2013/06/what-...
- diminoten 13y ago
  I can't tell if you're being funny or not by linking to two YouTube videos, a New Yorker article, and a Wikipedia page that doesn't exist. Also, that's not the kind of silencing we're talking about. We're talking about the act of blackmail using data collected by spying programs.
  - bmelton 13y ago
    Interestingly, the Wikipedia article works in non-SSL mode. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicholas_Merrill http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicholas_Merrill works, but https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicholas_Merrill https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicholas_Merrill doesn't. Edit: more oddly, they now both appear to work? Edit: far less oddly, it looks like the OP just forgot to include the trailing 'L', and I hadn't noticed.
  - eliasmacpherson 13y ago
    I apologise for the quality of the sources of information. I can't find alternatives. It's interesting to note Obama's speech on NSL's from 2005 five minutes in to the first youtube video. As an authority on such issues he should be held in high enough regard for you. "Then they came for the blah, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a blah." In responding to the above, you said: "What group is no longer here because the CIA/NSA have decided they shouldn't exist?" The absence of voices contesting this apparatus is used as a defence for the NSL's and a similar mechanism used under FISA. 200,000 is a huge number. Their dissenting voices don't exist legally, they cannot speak out. Imagine this: "I didn't speak out for the blah because I got a national security letter." I see no mention of blackmail, who were you talking to about blackmail?
onetwofiveten 13y ago
I guess you're getting down voted because it's an emotional issue. But you're right, so far, the number of people targeted by the NSA/CIA with extreme methods (i.e. drone strikes, imprisonment without trial, rendition, warrantless spying, blackmail) seems relatively small, and it seems to be mostly restricted to non-Americans or people that the American public don't really care about. That doesn't mean it's okay. Think about what's going on here. The USA has basically created for itself a secret police with powers that, in practise, are very close to those of an agency like the KGB or the Stasi. Sure, as you point out, these new powers are not being used to cart people away wholesale. But you should still be very nervous. Even now, we might be past the point of no return. That's not just hyperbole on my part. The way I see it, it's very easy to get into in a kind of ratchet situation where powers and abuses can only increase over time. We may already be there. It's politically very difficult to reduce powers for any agency, let one that pushes both military and law enforcement buttons. Even if calls for reform get taken seriously, they may be dealt with by sacrificing a scapegoat and making superficial changes. Even if there was a strong serious concerted political effort to reform the NSA and CIA do you really trust them not to interfere with it? Do you strongly believe, without any doubt, that the NSA and CIA are above blackmailing their own politicians?
- bmelton 13y ago
  > seems relatively small, and it seems to be mostly restricted to non-Americans or people that the American public don't really care about. For what it's worth - that's the very point of the poem, that it always starts with the undesirables, minorities, or peoples to whom the population wouldn't object to. The tacit implication there is that those people were all portrayed as evil first, allowing public acceptance of their abuse. For the most part, even after Hitler started murdering Jews, he was still enjoyed pretty strong popularity.
  - diminoten 13y ago
    The poem is one massive slippery-slope fallacy, and it's also a poem, not reality. It's fiction. Just like 1984, Brave New World, or any other literary piece that gets bandied about these days. Absolutely zero anchor in reality. And "Jews" isn't the same as "terrorists". The US isn't going after people based on what they look like or who their parents are, they're going after people based on what they do and say. I know, it's shocking, that when you try to enter into violent combat with a nation-state, that nation-state is going to kill you. Those assholes.