The assassination of 16 y/o American citizen Abdulrahman al-Awlaki. That's part of what she shouted

[Poll_Blind]

WP: U.S. airstrike that killedAmerican teen in Yemen raises legal, ethical questions



PB

[Tx4obama]

1. Text below posted previously on DU...

Anwar al-Awlaki's SON grew up OUTSIDE of The USA and he was NOT the target of the drone.

Anwar al-Awlaki

In "44 Ways to Support Jihad," another sermon posted on his blog in February 2009, al-Awlaki encouraged others to "fight jihad", and explained how to give money to the mujahideen or their families after they've died. Al-Awlaki's sermon also encouraged others to conduct weapons training, and raise children "on the love of Jihad."
Also that month, he wrote: "I pray that Allah destroys America and all its allies." He wrote as well: "We will implement the rule of Allah on Earth by the tip of the sword, whether the masses like it or not." On July 14, he criticized armies of Muslim countries that assist the U.S. military, saying, "the blame should be placed on the soldier who is willing to follow orders ... who sells his religion for a few dollars."In a sermon on his blog on July 15, 2009, entitled "Fighting Against Government Armies in the Muslim World," al-Awlaki wrote, "Blessed are those who fight against American soldiers, and blessed are those shuhada (martyrs) who are killed by them."

---------------------------------------

Did you catch that? " ... raise children "on the love of Jihad."

He and his SON can not be compared to a average American father and son - the 'teenager' was the son of one of the Most Wanted members of Al Qaeda.

al-Awlaki's son lived in Yemen since 2002 - he was NOT raised like an American, The son was raised 'on the love of Jihad'.

There have been children as young as six years old that have been trained by members of Al Qaeda.

------


AND...

Anwar al-Awlaki's son knew the men he was with in the car were his father's terrorists buddies.
He traveled from the town he was living in to the town/place the terrorists were meeting,
the drone attacked one of the top terrorists after everyone left the building the meeting was being held in, they were in a car.
If he hadn't been hanging around the terrorists at the time of the drone strike he would still be alive.
He was NOT the target of the drone the terrorists were.

TIP: If you don't want to die from a drone strike then do not ride around in a car in Yemen with known terrorists.

------

He was NOT the target of the drone.

Two U.S. officials speaking on condition of anonymity stated that the target of the October 14, 2011 airstrike was Ibrahim al-Banna, an Egyptian believed to be a senior operative in Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. Another U.S. administration official described Abdulrahman al-Aulaqi as a bystander who was "in the wrong place at the wrong time", stating that "the U.S. government did not know that Mr. Awlaki’s son was there" before the airstrike was ordered

[nadinbrzezinski]

2. The division of pre-crime must pay well

Oy

[patrice]

28. I hope you will demonstrate your bona fides for this statement by demonstrating how you are not

a propagandist yourself.

Nadin, I really do hope that you will.

[nadinbrzezinski]

153. Perhaps you should do well to read The actual book

I fear it went over head. Especially since the bad actor we were going after is still alive. Yup, the government has finally admitted it.

So...we killed a sixteen year old before he committed a crime.

We only are horrified since this was an American kid. We've done this a lot. You can go read Scahill's take on this.

By the way, learn this term: Blowback

[truth2power]

73. Thank you for your post, nadin.....

It cuts through the BS to the reality of the situation we find ourselves in.

My concerns were not at all allayed by the words of Mr. Obama this afternoon.

How can people of conscience.....?

[Fantastic Anarchist]

81. I got your back, Nadin.

Oy, indeed.

How does this thread only have three recs? This site isn't very progressive, I guess.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

4. None of the details about the son or his upbringing are in any way relevant.

The one point that you raise that I do think is incredibly important is that the son's death was an accident.

It's every bit as bad to kill a fifteen year old who was not "raised as an American" as it is to kill one who is.

But it's clearly nowhere near as bad to kill a fifteen year old by accident as it is to kill one on purpose.

I think that the US has to answer the case that it is overly cavalier about collateral damage from its drone strikes, and doesn't make enough effort not to kill innocent civilians with them (I don't use stronger language than that only because, while I guess that it probably doesn't even come close to making enough effort, that is only a guess).

But that's clearly not as bad as doing so deliberately.

[The Magistrate]

6. He was A Combatant, Sir: A Young One, And Not the Target, But A Participant

Accident really is not quite the right word. He was in the close company of a leader who was aimed for; you do not get to where he was without involvement.

[MNBrewer]

10. So you may claim, but you have no evidence to provide to prove your claim, other than proximity.

[The Magistrate]

12. His Up-Bringing And Connection Make It Obvious, Sir

And so does the fact of proximity, when what you are in close company with is a high officer in a violent conspiratorial enterprise. Access to such persons is, shall we say, limited, as a matter of protective routine. People who are not trusted do not get within blast range....

[MNBrewer]

15. I believe that's called circumstantial evidence and is not probative.

Vengeance is the the word I believe you have in mind when you bring up "upbringing". Like father, like son. Apples and trees, chips off old blocks, etc.

Tainted blood, so to speak.

[The Magistrate]

17. Thank You For The Laugh, Sir

"Not quite enough for a conviction, but more than enough to break knees in an alley."

[MNBrewer]

20. You're welcome

I'm quite please to be considered laughable by someone of your "caliber".

[rug]

27. And a fine standard employed by our government.

Now that we know its standard for breaking knees, what is its standard for homicide?

[The Magistrate]

33. You Live In The World You Live In, Sir

Be aware of its ways....

[rug]

34. So I do. I'd like to keep more of us here without my government's removing them.

[The Magistrate]

38. We Are Talking Cases, Sir, Not Totals

The point at issue here is whether the young man was involved jihadi activity. There is every sign that he was. It is undisputed the person who was the target of the war-head was involved, and no question the young man was in close proximity.

[rug]

44. "involved (in) jihadi activity" is not the standard enunciated today.

From the AP:

Ahead of the address, Obama signed new "presidential policy guidelines" aimed at illustrating more clearly to Congress and the public the standards the U.S. applies before carrying out drone attacks. Officials said the guidelines include not using strikes when the targeted people can be captured, either by the U.S. or a foreign government, relying on drones only when the target poses an "imminent" threat and establishing a preference for giving the military control of the drone program.

Neither is "close proximity".

[The Magistrate]

48. Since He was Not the Target Of the Attack, Sir, That Has No Relevance

The man in whose company he was was considered to be posing an imminent threat, and was attacked accordingly. The young man was in range of the war-head's blast, by most accounts in the same automobile. My comments are aimed at the evident pretense by some here that we are to regard him as some youthful innocent; there are abundant grounds for regarding him as a junior combatant. Because of them, I do not much care what befell him.

[rug]

49. Ah, no relevance. Perhaps these comments today will supply that.

"For me, and those in my chain of command, these deaths will haunt us as long as we live," he said. Before any strike, he said, "there must be near-certainty that no civilians will be killed or injured - the highest standard we can set."

[The Magistrate]

51. So You Come Back, Sir, To Whether He Was a Civilian Or Not

I have given my grounds for not regarding him as a civilian; you have not given me any reason to change my view or challenging its grounds.

[rug]

53. I would be surprised if he was a combatant.

Perhaps as surprised as him.

WASHINGTON -- President Barack Obama has never commented publicly on the targeted drone strike that accidentally killed Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, a 16-year-old American boy and the son of al Qaeda leader Anwar al-Awlaki. But a new book released Tuesday reveals Obama was "surprised and upset and wanted an explanation" when he learned of Abdulrahman al-Awlaki's October 2011 death, which one former White House official calls "a mistake, a bad mistake."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/23/obama-anwar-al-awlaki-son_n_3141688.html

[The Magistrate]

56. Again, Sir, You Provide No Argument

That some dismay at 'the optics' would be expressed is hardly remarkable, it is easy to look bad when a young man is killed, and killed shortly after his father is killed. But that is not a judgement on whether he was actually a participant who would rate as a combatant, only a recognition of a possible public relations problem.

As near as can be made out, you seem to be proceeding on the assumption that because he was just sixteen, he could not have been involved. That is mere sentimentality.

[rug]

59. You're right. I did not provide an argument, I provided a conclusion: "a mistake, a bad mistake."

And it's not my conclusion.

Don't you worry a bit about me being sentimental. This murderous fiasco has nothing to do with sentimentality.

[The Magistrate]

62. Well, Sir, I Have To Go Cook, And Clearly You Are Not Up To the Demands Of Actually Arguing A Point

So wear it in good health if you think you have succeeded.

[rug]

63. I usually don't argue a point. I demonstrate it.

Fell free to scroll back after your meal.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

74. By the same token, it's not remarkable that the government

... would take the necessary steps to indicate that he or his father were an imminent threat. Speaking of assumptions, you are making the opposite assumption that he is guilty (he was not tried in a court of law). In my opinion, my assumption that he is innocent until proven guilty, or posed no threat trumps yours - as yours provides no recourse for correction.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

71. This is very dangerous ground and ground based on assumptions ...

... or what authorities have told you.

Regardless of his guilt or innocence, the government has, in fact, killed him. The only determination of his guilt is a verdict rendered by the very power that has killed him; a judge, jury and executioner.

Extremely dangerous grounds.

[The Magistrate]

85. It Will Save Me Time, Sir, Simply To Renew A Previous Post....

The largest problem in discussion of this matter is that it does not fit neatly into familiar categories, leaving people to choose that which suits them best, rather than that which might be the most accurate fit.

The source of this poor fit with existing categories is that what is actually occurring is a passage of hostilities between a state actor and a non-state actor, namely the United States and a loose-knit movement of Islamic fundamentalists who manage to wield on occasion in places military power approximating that of an established state.

That such hostilities exist, and are pressed from both sides, is beyond argument: that is a fact. One may view the hostilities as more or less justified from either side, or as being of one degree of seriousness rather than another, and adopt a view accordingly of what policies may be most appropriate to their conduct, but to deny that such a state of mutual, and mutually pressed, hostilities exists, is to remove oneself from sensible conversation, waving a flag inscribed 'Carry on without me, folks, I am not taking this any more seriously than you ought to take me.'

Traditionally, states faced with hostilities pressed by a non-state actor refuse to treat adherents of the non-state body as belligerents, but rather consider them simply as common criminals, engaged in a variety of felonies. This is, however, a political decision, not something required by existing law. States make this decision, when they do, because they feel it casts the non-state actor in a bad light, and makes it easy for people to ignore the political aims of the non-state body, so that no one needs bother considering whether these aims are legitimate or not. The benefits to a state from this course are obvious, but it does come at some cost, at least to a state which has some tradition of liberty under law. This cost is restriction of state action against the hostile non-state actor to the bounds of ordinary police enforcement of criminal law; the whole panoply of warrants for search and arrest, trial with evidence and defense, and so forth. This can render dealing with the hostile non-state body somewhat more difficult, and more time consuming, all of which may well allow the hostile non-state body appreciably greater scope for action.

But a state may well decide, and certainly is within its rights to decide, to treat the non-state body pressing hostilities against it as a belligerent party, as an object for the war-fighting power of the state to engage. While this does elevate the political status of the non-state actor somewhat, the state may gain benefits more than commensurate with this. Put bluntly, at war, the state is free from any constraints of police enforcement and court adjudication of criminal law in its treatment of adherents to the the non-state body it regards as being at war with it. No one ever served a search warrant on a pill-box, no one ever set out to place members of an enemy infantry regiment under arrest and bring them to trial. Enemy combatants in the field are simply killed, and if taken alive, are simply held prisoner until hostilities are concluded. The state is bound only by treaties it has entered into regarding the conduct of war, into which concepts of criminal law and civil liberties simply do not enter.

The third possible category which exists is insurrection. Insurrection must arise within the bounds of a state, and be conducted by persons who are inhabitants or citizens of the state, and are expected to show it loyalty accordingly. If one takes an expansive view of the United States as Empire, it would be possible to class the hostilities the loose-knit body of Islamic fundamentalists are pressing against the United States as insurrection: one would have to regard them as subjects of the Empire, whose writ runs over the whole of the Islamic world. If one does view the thing as, in some sense, an insurrection against imperial rule, the thing is simply brought back to the case of warfare, for a state's or an empire's relation to an insurrection is one of war, where the insurrection is powerful enough to maintain control of some portion of territory within its bounds, and field organized armed forces. This condition, as a matter of fact, obtains in several places at present ( providing one is prepared to accept, even if only for purposes of argument, that those places are within the imperial bounds of the United States ).

It is the presence of citizens of the United States among the adherents of the non-state body engaged in hostilities which gives this categorical uncertainty ( or in some cases, deliberate blurring ) its great heat. Such persons, if the matter is regarded as not being warfare ( commonly on the grounds that war occurs only between states ), would be entitled to the full range of protections and rights under the Constitution. If the matter is regarded as warfare, however ( on the reasonable ground that the non-state body they have cast their lot with meets the qualifications for a belligerent party ), then such persons are simply enemies in the field, and liable to all the hazards of participation in war against a state, with their citizenship becoming immaterial, save for its placing them at hazard of prosecution for treason should they be taken alive.

My personal view is that the matter ought to be regarded as warfare. A citizen of the United States who adheres to an external body engaged in hostilities with the United States is just one more combatant in the field against the United States, with no right to be treated as anything but a combatant in the field against the United States. It is proper for the authorities of the United States to continue to treat such a person as a citizen, if he is taken alive. But the authorities of the United States are under no obligation to take extraordinary steps to take him alive, rather than kill him in the course of military operations against the belligerent party he has joined.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

133. I'll Save You Nothing

Last edited Fri May 24, 2013, 04:59 AM - Edit history (2)

With all due respect, I'm operating in principles of universality. You are not. Your whole cut and paste was a red herring. I'd love to indulge in it, but I don't feel like it, even though you thought you'd get away with it.

You are, no doubt, highly intelligent. And so, with that said, there's no way you can defend this.

You want an argument, and you have asked others of this. No, sir, we don't have to. I'll tell you again; we don't have to defend our position whether you want to call someone an "enemy combatant" or not.

Civilized people, which, I hope you are citizen of (I have no love, nor care of state) don't kill each other. Whether they are what we call the enemy or not.

You either abide by what are our natural principles are, or you, my friend, are the enemy. And when I say that, I mean you are a reactionary. And when I say that, sir, I extend my hand, to let you no further step in the hand of our other enemies. It ends now or we are who we fight.

Sir, I beg you to look at my side. I've presented an argument. One that you have to face, and then you have to look in the mirror.

What does your conscience tell you?

[The Magistrate]

149. Always Nice To Start The Day With A Belly Laugh, Sir

I appreciate deeply the amusement you have provided me.

I would rate the best comedic line of the thing as 'civilized people don't kill each other': put bluntly, it is hard to identify much else that civilized societies do besides organize killing of people. You will have to put in some real work to top that....

[Fantastic Anarchist]

151. Amazing ...

[Fantastic Anarchist]

70. So says the authority that has used violence

So says the authority that has used said violence it objects to by killing a 16 year-old boy. Of course, such assertions are going to be made after-the-fact.

He was a terrorist, and so we killed him, because he was a terrorist.

QED

[stevenleser]

39. That's everyone's wish. The only disagreement is to the degree that it is possible and still

keep the terrorist threat as low as possible.

[rug]

46. I get where you're coming from, Steve, but often hesitation is a better course than regret.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

75. Therein lies the rub ...

Regardless of the actor, murdering people willy-nilly is terrorism. How to contain terrorism and maintain terrorism are diametrically opposed concepts.

[stevenleser]

79. Correct, but that isn't what we are doing

You definitely cannot say that drone strikes are killing people willy billy. There are other criticisms to be made to be sure, but that isn't one of them

[Fantastic Anarchist]

80. Two points:

Even if my term is wrong, which it isn't, I don't think the deceased care one whit about semantics.

Second, if any by-stander is killed by a drone strike, and that person is random, that satisfies the definition of willy-nilly.

[stevenleser]

124. No, and no

Semantics is the difference between 1st degree murder (and its punishments, life in prison or the death penalty) vs self defense killing which would entail no punishment at all. The deceased may not care, but it makes a big difference how society views the person doing the killing. The semantics argument that you and others try to make and think it means something doesn't actually mean anything at all.

And no, that doesn't satisfy the definition of willy-nilly. If someone takes an automatic weapon and goes on a busy city street and opens fire at people randomly, that's willy nilly.

If someone is specifically trying to kill person A and they do but person B is caught in the crossfire, that's not willy-nilly.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

134. Really?

You are applying semantics and then wish to back away from it.

I'm the one that didn't apply it.

Yes, killing makes a "difference <how> society views" things. And the killing, however, it's done does make a difference, as you assert.

Your rejoinder only bolsters my argument, and I thank you for acknowledging that.

If someone takes an automatic weapon and goes on a busy city street and opens fire at people randomly, that's willy nilly.

Exactly what I was exampling in my original post. If someone is killed via drone attack, and happens upon a street, and had <as the Magistrate puts it> no part in "non-state hostilities", then, my friend, that is to quote myself, "willy-nilly." That makes it terrorism.

If you don't like that definition, then you can take that up with our state department. I'm well-versed in defending this argument, and I invite you to persuade me to defect from what I think is the political and moral position from which I hold.

Please sir, as our President says, "continue" ...

[HiPointDem]

94. Report of brussels group says more civilians are killed by drones than terrorists.

On Tuesday, the Brussels-based International Crisis Group (ICG) published a report entitled “Drones: Myths and Reality in Pakistan” that says the United States’ refuses to acknowledge that the CIA-led drone campaign “undermines efforts to assess the program’s legality.”

According to the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, the United States’ drone strikes in Pakistan have killed up to 3,587 people since 2004.

In September 2012, a report by the Stanford Law School and the New York University School of Law gave an alarming account of the effect that assassination drone strikes have on ordinary people in Pakistan’s tribal areas. The report noted, “The number of ‘high-level’ targets killed as a percentage of total casualties is extremely low -- estimated at just 2%.”

http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2013/05/22/304751/terror-drones-mostly-kill-civilians/

[Fantastic Anarchist]

106. That is alarming. Thanks for posting. nt

[HiPointDem]

93. +1

[Fantastic Anarchist]

69. Ways can be changed with knowledge ...

... and failing that, sometimes with violence. While the state holds the only legal monopoly on violence, should it transgress too much, illegal means by those it inflicts upon, have in the past, and will continue into the future, to change "the world you live in, sir."

Caveat: I'm not advocating violence in my rejoinder to you, but I am expressing a fact of life; a foundation you employed by your pronouncement of "You Live In The World You Live In, Sir."

[otohara]

84. What's With The "Sir" Business?

it's so very condescending.

[davidthegnome]

105. It is?

In what way is it condescending? It's generally how I address any adult male who's name I don't know. It's formal, certainly - but more polite than condescending.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

19. Even to their children? N.T.

[The Magistrate]

21. Since It Is Obvious You Understand The Ludicrous Stretching You Are Engaged In, Sir

The matter can be allowed to drop.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

65. As is the charge of the government ...

... and the accused conveniently cannot contest such charges.

[randome]

13. 'Evidence' means nothing in an accident.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[Luminous Animal]

72. Funny but that "leader" has never been named.

Oh, they came up with a name initially, but guess what? That leader, Banna, wasn't there and is still alive.

So, who was the target.

And what do you mean by "he was in close company". He was sitting on a blanket eating with his cousins none who were affiliated with Al Qaeda.

[stevenleser]

8. I dont disagree with much about what you say but I would argue that with regards to collateral

damage, the fact that a drone is being used shows the care to avoid collateral damage. An F-16 firing a maverick or a tomahawk fired from a ship offshore or a special forces attack would all cause many more casualties.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

22. But "not firing anything at all" was also an option.

The US Army clearly felt that killing his father was important enough to justify risking killing other people too.

Without knowing the military logic behind the decision, I can't dispute it, but I don't blindly trust the people making it to place enough value on the lives of non-American civilians as opposed to those of Americans.

[stevenleser]

25. That's always an option for all involved. I encourage you to pursue it equally with all parties.

We can end this pretty quickly if you can convince Al Qaeda and their affiliates not to attack again.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

26. So you're happy with moral equivalence with Al Quaeda?

No-one on DU has the ability to vote for people who will stop Al Quaeda from killing people.

Many DUers to have the ability to influence the US rules of combat.

I, at least, believe that those rules should be more ethical than "anything Al Quaeda would do is fine".

[stevenleser]

29. There is something wrong with the idea that no one should try to hurt each other?

Let me know how you feel that is wrong.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

35. It's wrong because there are situations in which not trying to hurt someone is morally wrong.

If, for example, someone is trying to hurt innocent people, it's morally wrong not to try to stop them, by force if need be.

If everyone adopted that principle simultaneously, it would be great, but that's the wrong question - the right question is "how should I live my live, given that everyone else will act as they are probably going to?".

[cstanleytech]

128. There are other options you and others seem to keep overlooking though to.

Anwar al-Awlaki had the option to work with our country to build a bridge between our country and the muslim part of the world in order so that both sides could hopefully have better understanding of each other and he also had the option of not assisting al Qaeda and or groups like them in recruiting more people.
He choose however to do the exact opposite and regretfully his son ended up paying for those choices.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

132. I'm not interested in al-Awlaki's options.

I take it as read that 1) he was a bad person and 2) there was nothing to be done about that.

What I am concerned about is how the US government, whose actions it *is* at least potentially possible to influence, responded to the pre-existing fact that there are bad people out there.

I don't know for sure that it's been unduly cavalier about civilian damage in its response, but nor am I confident enough that it hasn't been to be comfortable.

I *am* confident enough that AQ are bad people, and that everyone I speak to will already believe that, that I don't see any need to investigate it further.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

137. Wow.

I can't let that go unrefuted.

You know absolutely nothing except for what the government, and as while we're at it, our executioners have told you. Neither do I.

I'll grant both of us that.

Someone is dead. Our government has called him a terrorist (or the son of a terrorist - as if that makes it more defensible).

You and I don't know for sure.

Are you comfortable with this?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

152. As I said in the third paragraph of the post you're replying to, no. N.T.

[Bonobo]

148. Can you say "bad person" again, pretty please?

It kinda reminds me of kindergarten and I'm feeling wistful.

[baldguy]

32. But the kid was just there for the bar-b-que!

[Tx4obama]

37. I think it was his 'family' in the USA that first said he was at a BBQ, the reports I read said...

... the car that was targeted by the drone was leaving from a building where the Al Qaeda members had just held a meeting.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

64. Well, that makes it alright then.

Whew, I was beginning to think that we murdered someone who hadn't committed a crime.

It is prima facia that he was the son of a terrorist, and so he is guilty as charged. Penalty, death!

Glad we got that cleared up!

[leveymg]

78. My USC spouse spent ten years of childhood in Germany. Does that make it more ok to kill my spouse?

Your thinking is typical of petty bureaucrats and secret policemen worldwide.

You're also misrepresenting a number of facts in your apologia for assassinating minor children, but that probably doesn't matter to you.

[The Magistrate]

3. He Should Have Been Someplace Else, Sir

This one is well back towards the rear of my queue for things to sympathize with and be outraged over.

[stevenleser]

5. Exactly. I'm hoping we find what I call a post-drone solution to the Al-Qaeda and affiliate problem

too, but I am not going to freak out if that solution doesn't happen this year or the next.

[morningfog]

108. Or ever. As long as it's a Dem in, right?

[stevenleser]

127. Actually ignored, no, I had no problem with Bush going after actual terrorists either. nt

[MNBrewer]

11. And you're "The Magistrate"

so your list prevails.

[The Magistrate]

14. It Certainly Does For Me, Sir

And I fail to see any reason why I should not state my view of the thing. Can you supply me with one?

[MNBrewer]

16. Yes sir

whatever you say sir, Magistrate. You're correct, by definition, Magistrate, sir. sir.

[The Magistrate]

18. So You Have No Objection To My Stating My View Of The Matter, Sir?

[MNBrewer]

23. I object not to the existence, but rather to the content of the opinions you express

[The Magistrate]

31. Then Let Us Review, Sir, So The Matter Is Clear

Your reaction to my stating the thing was of little concern to me was to protest that my stating my view meant that it should be determinative and no disagreement was allowed. You pressed that for another reply, while engaging in an exceptionally lame effort at mockery. Now you seem to be acknowledging that I have a right to express my view, and that your problem with my having expressed it is not that it is imposing on anyone, but simply that you do not like it. I do not care whether you like it or not, whether you agree with it or not, whether you like me or dislike me or ignore me completely. I will simply observe that if you had an actual argument to make, any real point to press, anything that might serve to convince or sway others to your point of view rather than mine, you would have done better to lead with that, rather than trot out the old 'someone's saying something I don't agree with so my views are being stifled and shut down' wheeze you made your opening bid.

[patrice]

42. Consider the paternalistic assumptions about the rest of us that you make in such statements. wow.nt

[randome]

7. Of what relevance is the fact that he was American?

If others' lives are just as important as our own, then why highlight the fact of his nationality?

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[stevenleser]

9. The argument is that an American is entitled to the bill of rights and a non-American is not

I guess. It's not my argument.

[treestar]

58. +1

If he had happened to have been born in Yemen, or born in Yemen not of American parents, then it would be OK if drones struck him? IMO they are trying to stir up outrage based on bigotry.

It's like OK for Awlaki to plan to kill us, why, because he was born here? But we can get rid of Yemeni-borns who make the same plans and work right beside him. And this is the guy who entered the US on a student visa when he didn't have to, because he was a citizen!

[JI7]

101. i agree, i never understand why they keep bringing that up

so if he had not been american they would be ok with what happened ?

[JoePhilly]

24. Your picture fails because ...

If we were able to capture him, he'd have been arrested, not shot in the head at close range.

[librechik]

30. yeah? Still puzzled about what happened to the chechen friend of Tamerlan Tsarnaev

(Marathon Bomber)who got shot during FBI interrogation YESTERDAY.

[JoePhilly]

36. Definitely part of the cover-up.

[MNBrewer]

45. Those Unnamed Sources Are No Longer So Sure Tamerlan's Friend Pulled a Knife

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2013/05/23/ibragim_todashev_ap_s_sources_now_unclear_whether_tamerlan_s_friend_had.html

"Three law enforcement officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, said initially that Todashev had lunged at the FBI agent with a knife. However, two of those officials said later in the day it was no longer clear what had happened. The third official had not received any new information."

How can it be unclear?

[JoePhilly]

47. Awe come on ...

Its so obvious.

The three drug dealers in Boston were money men. They were killed to cut links back to their financial sponsors in the government.

This guy killed them.

And now the FBI killed him.

I bet Alex Jones is all over this story.

[MNBrewer]

50. He's probably not

He's got his hands full with the "Tornado Weapon" story.

[patrice]

40. Please, for the sake of your own case against this, could everyone opposed to these kinds of actions

, please convince me in regards to your opposition to "free"-lance killing too? Is it okay for anyone to threaten others and kill as long as they, whoever they are, don't use drones?

You know, the stimulus for drone attacks, if you oppose murder for hire by whomever, could you please make that clear by citing appx. how much of it is going on and where and what your best estimates are of who it is that engages in these PRIVATE actions of threat and extortion through violence? - otherwise it appears as though you SUPPORT killing as long as it isn't done by drones.

..................

Thank you for your help in constructing a more accurate understanding of what your case is.

[joelz]

43. This is just

murder period.

[patrice]

57. This is murder too.

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/read-transcript-of-obamas-speech-on-counterterrorism-policy

Lethal yet less capable al Qaeda affiliates. Threats to diplomatic facilities and businesses abroad. Homegrown extremists. This is the future of terrorism. We must take these threats seriously, and do all that we can to confront them. But as we shape our response, we have to recognize that the scale of this threat closely resembles the types of attacks we faced before 9/11. In the 1980s, we lost Americans to terrorism at our Embassy in Beirut; at our Marine Barracks in Lebanon; on a cruise ship at sea; at a disco in Berlin; and on Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie. In the 1990s, we lost Americans to terrorism at the World Trade Center; at our military facilities in Saudi Arabia; and at our Embassy in Kenya.These attacks were all deadly, and we learned that left unchecked, these threats can grow. But if dealt with smartly and proportionally, these threats need not rise to the level that we saw on the eve of 9/11.

Or do you assume all of that is justice somehow? Please, I'd like an answer to this question.

[sagat]

52. and here I thought the "terrorist sympathizer" trope was RWNJ fiction

Guess I was wrong.

[arely staircase]

54. taking your son to high level al-quaeda meetings should raise some ethical questions too

or at least questions of judgment.

[Tx4obama]

67. The father was already dead at the time the son went to the meeting

The father, Anwar al-Awlaki, died: September 30, 2011

The drone strike that targeted senior al-Qaeda member Al-Ibrahim al-Banna (and accidentally killed the al-Awlaki's son) was October 14, 2011

[arely staircase]

68. apparantly he learned nothing from that eom

[ProSense]

55. Here is the

video:

Obama’s Counterterrorism Speech Interrupted By Heckler...(updated with full video)http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022891704

Apparently, the fact that significant changes to U.S. foreign policy were announced today is less important than the heckler.

Links to excerpts of the speech is also posted.

[patrice]

60. k, so if I can't get an answer to #40, I am forced to conclude that the killing IS OKAY as long as

it is freelance . . .

and, now that I think about it, that would have to include freelance, non-government, use of drones, cause it appears that it isn't the killing that is the problem, but who is doing it and private drones even that equation up.

[Pragdem]

61. Shit happens. nt

[GoneFishin]

66. I don't believe his killing was a coincidence or an accident.

My opinion is that as a U.S. citizen and surviving son of an extra-judicially killed U.S. citizen his existence was politically inconvenient. Now there is no muss, no fuss.

[marshall]

76. She's barking at the wrong car

This is not on Obama.

[truth2power]

77. Saved the picture. I will never forgive that heinous act. n/t

[Hell Hath No Fury]

82. Forget it, Poll Blind --

Medea Benjamin is a big jerk who should just shut the fuck up. Or so I have been told here repeatedly today.

This isn't the old DU. Too many folks here with their fingers in their ears going "la-la-la-la I can't hear you".

[Poll_Blind]

83. I thought it was interesting what a frenzy could be caused simply by relaying what...

...the lady was saying (that I could make out) and posting a link to the previous article I'd posted on that topic along with the editorial cartoon. I expected it to get a handful of replies at most.

That so many felt they absolutely had to weigh in support of a policy the President distanced himself from and questioned the ethics and necessity of mainly reflects on the mindless, tribal tendencies of some here.

And, apparently, how embarrassingly little they actually listened to his speech. If the President himself logged into DU and merely posted a re-phrased version of the concerns he acknowledged in his own speech...he would be shouted down in an orgy of wildly unnecessary partisan groupthink.

I posted some time back that when DU is at its worst, it's little more than a Democratic-themed sports bar. That assessment still holds, sadly.



PB

[Hell Hath No Fury]

86. Kool-aid --

Not just for GOPers anymore. "Democratic-themed sports bar" - man, you said a mouthful. I won't say anymore, because I've already had one post locked today.

Thank you for at least trying.

[woo me with science]

89. Well said.

What an embarrassment.

[markpkessinger]

92. I have never understood . . .

. . . those whose first loyalty is to a particular politician, as opposed to principle.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

147. I agree ..

But as long as you know that even the President doesn't believe his bullshit.

[boilerbabe]

88. people who dissed Bush all those years are all of a sudden concerned about "respecting the

president of the US." the only reason these folks didn't like bush is because he wasn't a democrat. if he were a democrat they would been contorting themselves to stick up for him as well.

[Scurrilous]

150. "..the only reason these folks didn't like bush is because he wasn't a democrat."

What utter garbage.

[whatchamacallit]

87. Wow, all the way fucked up "Kid had it coming cuz he was likely to become a terrorist" apologias

Last edited Thu May 23, 2013, 11:48 PM - Edit history (1)

would indicate our most effective policy would be to rub out the entire family of every enemy combatant or suspected terrorist. If it was justified on a hunch this time, why not every time? This place is filled with diseased hearts and minds.

[Bonobo]

90. The arguments I have seen defending this seem to amount to:

1. He was an enemy combatant; it is obvious because of the people he was with.

2. (in contradiction to #1): He wasn't targeted. (Wait! I thought you said he was a....oh, forget it.)

3. He shouldn't have been there.

[jeff47]

100. 1 and 2 are not contradictory.

He was an "enemy combatant", and he was not the target of this attack. Another "combatant" in the car was the target.

[Bonobo]

115. But the defenses for the action are themselves in contradiction.

One cannot defend the action by saying he was an enemy combatant AND it was an accident. The logic of such a defense is farcical.

[jeff47]

122. No, they're not.

We do not target all "enemy combatants" at all times.

The target is the guy we're shooting at. If another "enemy combatant" is nearby, they will likely be killed. But that other person is not the target - the missile was pointed at someone else.

[Bonobo]

123. Yes they are.

A. His killing was okay because he was an enemy combatant. (presumably the killing of ANY enemy combatant is okay)

B. His killing was okay because it was an accident (presumably if it had been intentional than there would be a problem)

Do I need to spell it out more clearly? The rationalizations are contradictory.

If you defend the killing because he was a "combatant" then you do not need to defend it as accidental, right? If you defend it as accidental, you are implying that if it had been done intentionally (the killing of a 16 year old American) then it would have been a crime.

So which is it? Is killing a 16 yr. old American, never accused of any crime EVER, okay?

Or are you saying that it was just the accidents of war? And if so, why do you need to cling to defining him as a combatant?

It points out your internal hypocrisy and possibly (I hope) your moral unease.

[jeff47]

125. Why do you bother replying if you don't bother to read the posts?

The target is the person with the laser designator on him.
Anyone else who dies in the explosion is not the target.

[Bonobo]

126. I read your post.

Now answer the question.

Is the killing justifiable because he was a combatant?

If you answer yes, then the "accidental" killing need not be accidental in order to excuse what is, for most, a morally repugnant action.

If the answer is no, then the claim that it was "accidental" can be seen for what they likely are, an excuse.

Now what is your answer?

[Bonobo]

130. .

[Fantastic Anarchist]

142. Holy fuck balls ... look upthread

I thought I was alone.

[Bonobo]

144. Can you give me a clue?

Looking at too many assholes makes me feel like a proctologist.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

146. LOL ...

Good, I feel like I have hems.

No, I've been fighting upthread, the same as you.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

143. I have a laser pointed on me.

Am I a target?

Do I deserve to die?

[Recursion]

141. No, it's not. Plenty of combatants have been killed without being targeted

So, no.

[Recursion]

136. 1 and 2 don't contradict each other. There are plenty of combatants we don't target (nt)

[Bonobo]

139. I think I covered that above.

No further comment unless you can bring something new or unless you can answer the question I posed that your compadre refused to.

[Recursion]

140. Nope, you didn't

So, yeah, nothing further until you non-vacuously address my point. Cheers!

[Bonobo]

91. Posts saying he was accidentally hit belong in the Creative Speculation forum. nt

[Bolo Boffin]

96. Any standard that would require that would put posts saying he was targeted there, too. n/t

[Bonobo]

98. Hmmm, let me think about that....

His father had been targeted a few weeks earlier...check.

The chances of being hit by a drone strike on any given day, even if you are among "bad guys" has to be rather small -and he was most likely not "with" them for a very long period of time since he was just looking for his father and not actually a member of any organization there.... check.

Nope..I would say the available evidence would lead most reasonable people to assume he was targeted and, as you like to point out, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

That it was an "accident" and he was "in the wrong place at the wrong time" does not pass the smell test and seems to stray into the general region of unlikelihood.

[Bolo Boffin]

99. It's amazing how "does not pass the smell test" always manages to confirm one's own bias. n/t

[Bonobo]

114. It is equally amazing how people will accept anything

no matter how preposterous as long as a government spokesman says it is so.

That too is a bias, albeit one sanctioned by the official position of the people committing the crime in the first place.

[Bolo Boffin]

120. Until I have a reason to discount what the Obama administration has said...

I'll think what I like, thanks. And no, I don't trust your personal incredulity.

[Bonobo]

121. I would expect no less.

BTW, the opposite of incredulous is CREDULOUS. Look it up.

[Recursion]

135. Holder said, yesterday, that he was not the target

Statements by Holder are not woo.

[Bonobo]

138. Yeah, that settles it! nt

[HiPointDem]

95. The rationalizations on this thread for execution without trial, execution of bystanders, execution

of children -- are disgusting.

[whatchamacallit]

97. Sometimes I have to check I didn't accidentally wander into Free Republic n/t

[HiPointDem]

103. on certain issues there's no difference.

[jeff47]

102. So we should invade Yemen?

We have 3 options:

1. Do nothing. Results in attacks.
2. Invade Yemen so we can capture these people and put them on trial. Like we did with Saddam.
3. Drone strikes.

#3 is the least bad of only bad options.

[HiPointDem]

104. i don't see how your comments follow from anything i said. i nevertheless doubt your conclusion.

[jeff47]

111. It appears you are saying we should not do drone strikes.

That leaves options 1 and 2.

Which would you like? Another attack that makes 3/4 of the country go batshit crazy for neocons, or an invasion?

If you happen to have a time machine, that would open option #4, don't be fucking morons in the 1950s.

[still_one]

107. A hypothetical. If we could have killed OBL to prevent 9/11, but in doing so perhaps kill

members of his family, should we have done it?

[jeff47]

112. If capture and prosecution is not an option, then bombing is the least-bad alternative.

That bombing will likely kill innocents. Which is why it's "least-bad" and not "good".

[still_one]

116. I think most would say Yes because of the lives it would save, and this is really what

It comes down to

[graham4anything]

131. Yes same thing with Hitler the week before he gave the orders to load up the trains

A drone killing Hitler and say 5 people standing next to him could have saved 20 million plus lives

AND what is long forgotten is
the 5 people standing next to him almost statistically assuredly would have died by Hitler's hands in war anyhow

So saving 20 million lives, and on 9-11 saving 3000 lives is far more important.

this enemy combatant could easily have chosen to call his father in, like the Unibomber's mother did
that he didn't well, says it all where his allegiance is.
Plotting treason/sedition/overthrow of the government is historically in our times, always a death penalty case.

[kwassa]

113. Sorry you are disgusted, but ...

We are essentially at war with terrorists who are attacking us

If you read the history of warfare, it is full of collateral damage, as warfare is extremely imprecise at any time. There are unfortunately major civilian casualties in any form of it.

And, I doubt most accounts of the number of civilian casualties, as there are no independent objective sources on the ground of these mostly inaccessible places.

[HiPointDem]

117. where are these 'terrorist' attacks on 'us' taking place? because the only war *i'm* seeing

where i live is the class war.

[kwassa]

118. There are no drone strikes in the class war ...

only endless slow attrition.

[HiPointDem]

119. i repeat, where are these terrorist attacks in this 'war' against 'us' taking place? because the

last one i heard of was more than 10 years ago.

the only current 'war' i know about is the US war in 74 countries. and 'we' are the aggressors.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

145. Disgusting, insane, reactionary, fascist ...

You name it, but if this is what passes for "liberal", I want no part of it.

I AM A PROGRESSIVE. It reinforces my thought on the liberal and progressive divide. Democrats, whom of course can be both, have to decide.

I am a PROGRESSIVE:

I'll state my positions here:

I believe in a "free market"*
*Market meaning that labor possesses the means of production and the distribution thereof. (I don't think liberals think the same)
I believe in total freedom of body and soul - this means everyone, no one excluded
I believe in civil rights
I believe in women's rights - which is redundant
I believe in environmental protectionism
I believe that the Democratic Party is only slightly worse than the Republican Party
I believe that the Oligarchy will kill us all
I believe that any party is always against the common interest

If I get banned, I only apologize for saying the above not more often.

[ZRT2209]

109. her behavior today resulted in her having zero credibility in my opinion

obnoxious idiot, shouting down someone who was trying to agree with her. moron.

[ZRT2209]

110. she looked like a crazed maniac, she has NO IDEA how to effectively advocate for anything.

[MrSlayer]

129. I know she means well but she came off like a fool today.

That foolish kid wasn't the target but he was hanging with the target. And chances are that in a few years he would be a target. It would be hard to convince me that this kid wasn't brought up to be a jihadist like his old man and that he wouldn't have followed the footsteps.

He wasn't the target but it probably prevented a future problem.

It's a hard position but a necessary one.