We’re not in an armchair. This is our country; they’re responsible to us.

And they are responsible for protecting us too.

They have far more information and understanding regarding our enemies than we could ever have. What makes you think that you could possibly be qualified to comment on the necessity and efficacy of the program when you lack the experience and day-to-day responsibilities that they have?

Would you trust grandma with cybersecurity? It's the same principle here. No one here knows anything about national security and defense, so maybe we should stop judging programs that have been deemed to be extraordinarily effective when deployed against (non-citizen) enemies of state.

Obviously, the discussion gets a bit thornier when citizens are involved, but that is not the case here.

It’s like any other job requiring specialized skills. Imagine a plumber came over to your house and did a bunch of stuff, and when he was done, there were a bunch of weird pipes running through your house and you could hear water gurgling in the wall. And he says “it’s incredibly effective”. Do you say, “sure, I mean, I’m not a qualified plumber”? No, at the very least, you’d demand he convince you.

A foundational element of democracy is that government functions are accountable to the citizenry.

The plumber example doesn't work because the stakes are trivially. Lives are at stake with national defense, so we are willing to accept greater extremes if it is what is necessary and effective at protecting us.

You have this backward. There being more at stake is precisely why we need better oversight and accountability.

This is moving the goalposts: "it's inappropriate for you to have an opinion" vs "you are a powerless peon, so ha". Also, I don't know what you mean by "in theory"; government by the people is very much the basis of government here.

It mentions “by the people” however the roles and the power exists without people’s continued consent, which makes the words worthless.

Even the people who are directly in charge of protecting the country have raised concerns about this.

Reading the article, the opposite is mentioned - almost every leader that has come across the program has praised its effectiveness and has called it an "easy decision."

We are in charge of protecting our country. We choose who does it, and should hold those who don't do it appropriately accountable.

> It does not target US citizens, so there isn't really any concern here.

Ah, sorry I didn't catch the Socratic Irony you were employing until you served up this meatball.

This is the part where the interlocutor points out "but the first time most of us even heard about the Disposition Matrix was when it was used against Anwar al-Alwaki -- a US citizen!"

Maybe it's just me, but I'm fine with your citizenship rights being revoked when you plot to kill foreigners and join Al-Qaeda and become a commander of a terrorist organization.