Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

leveymg

(36,418 posts)
47. Yes, Al-Awlaki's American son was targeted and killed by a drone-launched missile. He was 16.
Sun Feb 24, 2013, 11:03 PM
Feb 2013

It seems that at least half a dozen others died along with him when the CIA targeted the restaurant where he was eating with his 17 year old cousin.
From the Wiki:

Abdulrahman Anwar al-Aulaqi (also spelled al-Awlaki; August 26, 1995[1] – October 14, 2011) was a 16-year-old American citizen who was killed while eating dinner at an outdoor restaurant[2][3][4][5] in an airstrike by an armed C.I.A. drone in Yemen on October 14, 2011. Abdulrahman Al-Aulaqi was the son of Anwar al-Aulaqi, a dual Yemeni-American citizen who worked as a propagandist for al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula.[citation needed] Anwar al-Aulaqi was killed by an airstrike by an armed C.I.A. drone[6] two weeks prior to the death of Abdulrahman al-Aulaqi.

Human rights groups have raised questions as to why Abdulrahman al-Aulaqi, an American teenager, was killed by the U.S. in a country with which the United States is not at war. Jameel Jaffer, deputy legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union, stated "If the government is going to be firing Predator missiles at American citizens, surely the American public has a right to know who’s being targeted, and why."[7]

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.[7] 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.[7]

In the days following the strike that killed Abdulrahman al-Aulaqi, U.S. officials suggested that Abdulrahman al-Aulaqi was not a teenager, but rather a "military-age male" in his 20s.[8] The claim that Abdulrahman al-Aulaqi was a "military-age male" was used as justification for his killing.[citation needed] However, Aulaqi’s family refuted the U.S.'s claim that Abdulrahman al-Aulaqi was of military age by releasing a copy of his U.S. birth certificate showing that he was born on August 26, 1995 and was aged 16 at the time of his death.[1]


Oh, yes, you may argue that Abdulrahman was not "targeted", it was al-Banna who they were really after. But, it seems there is a problem with that claim, as well:

It was initially reported that an Al Qaeda leader named Ibrahim al-Banna was among those killed, but then it was reported that al-Banna is still alive to this day. http://www.esquire.com/features/obama-lethal-presidency-0812-5#ixzz2LsaMaN2f

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

This still doesn't address the issue of extrajudicial execution of US Citz abroad. "A whole bunch of leveymg Feb 2013 #1
No, ProSense Feb 2013 #3
Yes, Al-Awlaki's American son was targeted and killed by a drone-launched missile. He was 16. leveymg Feb 2013 #47
He was not ProSense Feb 2013 #48
Initially, they falsely claimed and attempted to justify this saying he was a 21 years old militant. leveymg Feb 2013 #49
I don't know ProSense Feb 2013 #50
There's a great deal you don't know about al-Awlaki, leveymg Feb 2013 #51
So he ProSense Feb 2013 #52
The technical term for it leveymg Feb 2013 #53
That's some ProSense Feb 2013 #55
If you don't believe me, read what Undersecretary of State Kennedy had to say about leveymg Feb 2013 #56
Words whatchamacallit Feb 2013 #2
Let's see, ProSense Feb 2013 #5
Words are cheap whatchamacallit Feb 2013 #6
Evidently, ProSense Feb 2013 #7
"The rules outside the US are different from the rules in the US" treestar Feb 2013 #4
you spotted the ambiguity bigtree Feb 2013 #12
I actually don't think I'd have a different opinion during a Republican administration treestar Feb 2013 #15
with 'war' it should be all about intent and motive bigtree Feb 2013 #16
The drones don't make a difference to those issues treestar Feb 2013 #17
why does al-Qaeda 'exist?' bigtree Feb 2013 #19
Why do you think it does? n/t ProSense Feb 2013 #20
edited above bigtree Feb 2013 #22
You stated: ProSense Feb 2013 #23
I'll say this bigtree Feb 2013 #27
Here's a good ProSense Feb 2013 #29
Interesting question treestar Feb 2013 #21
Look at the headine of this OP. woo me with science Feb 2013 #8
Thanks for the link ProSense Feb 2013 #9
It's not exactly a neutral headline treestar Feb 2013 #18
I heard that back in ancient America, there was something called the Judiciary MannyGoldstein Feb 2013 #10
+1 I heard about something called the Magna Carta, too. woo me with science Feb 2013 #11
Here: ProSense Feb 2013 #13
Fine, Mr. Prez. Hold an open jury trial, in absentia (if the target refuses to appear), Tierra_y_Libertad Feb 2013 #14
Two points--1) A non-custodial enemy combatant has no right to an Article III court, and 2) msanthrope Feb 2013 #37
The whole argument presupposes that extra-judical killing of civilians Paul E Ester Feb 2013 #24
No ProSense Feb 2013 #26
the center for constitutional rights Paul E Ester Feb 2013 #28
You're conflation ProSense Feb 2013 #30
Targeting a Criminal...without Due Process... Where was that? KoKo Feb 2013 #31
Here, ProSense Feb 2013 #32
As I said in my post above..."They are just getting around to it"... KoKo Feb 2013 #38
ProSense, 2/25/13 - "Targeting a criminal (for death) has nothing to do with "death squads" Bonobo Feb 2013 #33
I can only imagine prosense is trollin, it jumped out at me too...nt Paul E Ester Feb 2013 #34
You have 31 posts and have the nerve to accuse someone of "trollin"? ProSense Feb 2013 #39
Go ahead ProSense Feb 2013 #36
It's just that you "pick out items" and that you leave off the relevant KoKo Feb 2013 #40
Clearly, ProSense Feb 2013 #41
I found both "Big Tree" and "Treestar's" posts on your other OP KoKo Feb 2013 #43
LOL! ProSense Feb 2013 #44
This "Other Post" that you recommended from the "Other Post" KoKo Feb 2013 #45
"Big Tree" & "Tree Star"... KoKo Feb 2013 #46
The folksy ah-shucks way Obama expresses himself in this chilling discussion is... chilling MotherPetrie Feb 2013 #25
overuse of the word "stuff" comes to mind...like it's the kind of thing KoKo Feb 2013 #42
And the legal protections are? Vattel Feb 2013 #35
says its gonna be different; doesn't say how. HiPointDem Feb 2013 #54
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Obama Discusses Targeted ...»Reply #47