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 de

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.