U.S. actions 'appall' family of slain al-Qaida blogger

[Freddie Stubbs]

Source: The Charlotte Observer

The Charlotte family of Samir Khan, the al-Qaida propagandist killed in a U.S. airstrike Friday, ended its silence Wednesday night.

In a statement, the family cast the 25-year-old Khan as a "law-abiding" U.S. citizen who was assassinated by an American government that has not "contacted us with any news about the recovery of our son's remains (or) offered us any condolences."

"As a result," the family added, "we feel appalled by the indifference shown to us by our government."

Khan's family moved to Charlotte from New York in 2004. A year later, while a student at Central Piedmont Community College, the young Khan started a radical blog, which he wrote in the basement of his family's home in northeast Charlotte.

Read more: http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2011/10/06/2667614/us-actions-appall-family-of-slain.html

---

Somebody call the wambulance! He was supporting terrorists and got what he deserved. I support President Obama on this.

[monmouth]

1. A writer in the basement of his family's home..Says it all for me..n/t

[Freddie Stubbs]

17. If he had stayed in his parents basement, he would probably still be alive today

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[AtheistCrusader]

3. +1. After Jar Jar binks and all the shitty dialog I had to sit through, one line rings true.

"So this is how Democracy dies. To thundering applause."

[idiotgardener]

31. ^ This (nt)

[Freddie Stubbs]

5. Why have a rational dialogue when you can just insult people?

[AtheistCrusader]

56. You meant to reply with this to the original poster, right?

[Angry Dragon]

4. May your soul finally find peace that eludes it now

[BulletproofLandshark]

6. Which laws did he break? n/t

[Ghost Dog]

8. Thought crime.

n/t

[Freddie Stubbs]

14. Treason

[Angry Dragon]

18. Congress found him guilty of treason??

I believe congress only has that right

Evidence??

I believe many American CEOs, politicians, media and many others are guilty of treason
I have all the facts I need but I am not allowed to show you these facts
Should the US drone attack these people also??

[Freddie Stubbs]

21. Congress gave the President the power to use all necessary and appropriate force against

organizations who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

[Angry Dragon]

23. You called treason

did Congress give up that power to the President??

[Freddie Stubbs]

25. I was mistaken. Congress gave the President the power to go after

nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

[Angry Dragon]

26. I do not feel you and I will agree on this subject however

I feel that the elected officials, the CIA, the military
have overstepped
We create more terrorists than we kill
We kill more civilians than terrorists
We destroy whole towns
We fund people that work for the CIA and then we call them terrorists (bin Laden)
We do not have the right to kill civilians just because they are meeting someone
A drone attacked a convoy of cars, when all they were doing was driving to a far away town
Women and children died, because some person (idiot) 10,000 miles away 'thought' they saw a gun
These are countries were people live in tribes and they carry guns
Terrorists and Patriots are the same people just on different sides of the same fence

I feel this country has lost its soul because they are so afraid of not being #1
that they have forgotten what it is like to determine how you want to be governed
Democracy is not determined by the end of a gun

[LiberalLovinLug]

27. Very well put

The idea of American Exceptionalism which is obviously met with appalling horror by every other nation, is fast becoming an accepted notion within the US borders, thanks to FAUX News, Reich wing radio, the GOP, and a growing force in the Democratic Party as well. It is now gone over to land of the absurd where even Democrats cheer on assassinations of suspects, and are fine with the military industrial complex deciding peoples fate, even if they are American citizens. No trial necessary.

It won't be long before organizers of things like Occupy Wall Street will be targeted even within the borders. Maybe not (yet) with a Democratic President, but with the GOP going into crazyland, the next time they steal an election victory they will have all the powers that Obama consolidated and expanded. So go ahead and cheer on Obama's frontier justice with no trials, just be prepared to get what you asked for.

[Flatulo]

55. Certainly the concerns you raise are valid; if not today, then perhaps tomorrow.

I personally think it would be better if a court were to oversee the use of such drastic and unprecedented power.

However, I don't think the POTUS as CiC can simply do nothing when American-born Jihadis issue calls to to kill Americans.

What do you think the POTUS should do, if anything, to deal with people like this?

[gratuitous]

42. Submit, Comrade

Trim your ideals to fit this year's fashion. All the cool kids are doing it. You don't want to be out of step, do you? Failure to conform may be all right today, but not tomorrow. Confess your love for Big Brother.

[Flatulo]

45. I think you may be conflating several different issues.

First, it's my belief that we were passive in the face of al Qaeda's aggressions for far too long, which convinced them that Americans were fat stupid cowards. This emboldenment led to escalating attacks on American interests in the '90s and culminated in 9/11. So, doing nothing is simply not an option. As much as you may hope that all people can be reasoned with, we are dealing with religious fanatics. They can't be reasoned with. Try reasoning with a Creationist or a Birther sometime if you have a few spare days.

We also know from emperical experience that invading whole countries is a mis-directed use of American power and resources. John Kerry, Al Gore, and yes, Barack Obama agree with this viewpoint and prefer pinpoint strikes as a response to aggression, and I think they're spot-on.

The argument that we make more terrorists than we kill is specious - we could have sat out WWII and all be speaking German now (ever hear of the Amerika bomber?) by arguing that killing Germans just pisses them off. Well, yeah. That's the nature of conflict. You kill the enemy, he recruits more fighters, and so on. You fight until the other side becomes exhausted or runs out of resources.

Now if you don't believe that America is in a conflict with radical Islam, that's fine, but I think you'd be absolutely wrong. Mr. Obama seems to understand this, and seems to further understand that it would be not only unnecessary, but unhelpful to fight this like a conventional conflict. That's why I support the use of Drones whole-heartedly. Never before in history has deadly force been wielded with such precision and minimal loss of innocent life.

If you want to further argue that America is a terrorist state, than I would add that I sincerely hope that we certainly are striking terror into the hearts of those who declare open hostilities on us.

As to the rest of your post, yeah, we've got a lot of problems with special interests running our government, and our decline in the world order, but I don't think those generally valid beefs have a lot to do with the current discussion, which is the extra-judicial killing of an American citizen.

[ronnie624]

49. I can't help but notice

you chose not to touch the part about the US government destroying entire cities and killing more civilians than terrorists do (by many orders of magnitude).

Terrorists attack the U.S. because of its government's foreign policies, not because of religious fanaticism.

You have been thoroughly propagandized.

[Flatulo]

54. Yes, we have done these things. Dresden, Hiroshima, Falluja...

But the reason for the 9/11 attacks were the stationing of US troops on Saudi soil, not the past transgressions you may be referring to.

I'm not saying 'they hate us for our freedoms' is quite right, but there is a strong non-tolerance of infidels in Jihadist propaganda, especially as regards our presence in Muslim countries.

All over the world, Islamic radicals are carrying out attacks that bear no relation to transgressions on the part of the host country. Catholic schoolgirls are being beheaded in the Phillipines for being Catholic. Innnocent Thais are being attacked for no reason having anything to do with America's behavior.

And Mr. Obama was handed a bagful of shit to hold in both Iraq and Afghanistan, would you agree? And yet he has shown remarkable restraint in the conduct of the wars there. There has been no large-scale immolation of population centers. It has been largely an anti-insurgency operation with (I believe) great care taken to not harm non-combatants. Of course one can cite exceptions, but these are deviations, not policy.

Wouldn't you agree that it would be relatively easy for the US to pound Afghanistan into rubble? And yet we've framed the rules of engagement in such a way as to put US personnel at great risk before engaging the enemy. The Drone program is part of thia strategy and I support it.

I appreciate your response.

[Psephos]

52. You make good points, but overrate the fear "of not being #1".

Most people don't really give a fuck about abstractions like that. Most are motivated by their own circumstances.

It never has and never will keep me up at night worrying about whether the US is #1, whatever that means (I suspect it's like being the #1 university or #1 football team - in other words, an opinion). Rah rah US! means little compared to having a decent job, people you love and who love you back, and dreams that have a possibility of being realized.

I find it hard to believe any titans of industry/banksters/etc. give a shit about the rankings either, because they don't mean much to their business. They do care about whether they can grow their revenue streams, increase their profits, consolidate their power - and increasingly, whether they can stifle competition by getting cozy with government through lobbying and rent-seeking. That can be done regardless of the country's ranking. Arguably, it can be done more easily if US standing is weakened. These are the seeds of fascism.

Your list shows a preponderance of official US government figures and institutions as the bad guys. In other words, you're showing that the US government is a chronic fount of power abuse and corruption. I agree. Government cannot be made free of corruption and abuse because human beings cannot be made free of corruption and abuse. So, it's time to shrink the tumor.

[stockholmer]

30. MADNESS!, following the logical path you ply, the POTUS could, in theory, kill anyone, anytime

as long as he or she finds (in a secret proceeding I might add) that target COULD POTENTIALLY, IN THE FUTURE pose any 'threat' in any fashion to anything he or she feels is applicable to the so-called 'war on terror'.

[No Elephants]

32. Bogus resolution and bogus way to interpret said resolution.

Congress has the power to declare real wars.

War on terror is bogus war, like war on drugs or war on poverty.

Wars are between nations, not the U.S. v. a band of thugs.

Even in declaring an actual war, Congress does not have the ability to abrogate other provisions of the Constitution.

Neither does our unitary executive.

[24601]

39. Congress can remove officers of the United States Government

in the Executive and Judicial branches. Each House can also expel it's own members.

You can be found guilty of Treason against the United States - the only crime defined in the Constitution - in a federal court. And conviction requires two witnesses to the same overt act or a confession in open court. (Unlike the old days when John Brown was found guilty & hanged for Treason against Virginia.)

What crime did he likely commit? Material support to Terrorism. But when you hang around with the guy wanted for bank robbery, don't complain if you get caught in crossfire. And if you are wanted for a crime and continue to run away, don't complain when you are stopped by deadly force.

[No Elephants]

59. This was NOT hot pursuit. No one is obligated to turn themselves in in order to

get due process and other Constitutional protections.

Just ask Billy Bulger, Public Enemy No 1, both before and after Osama Bin Ladin.

Responsible for scores of deaths, directly and indirectly--and not just by allegedly operating a website.

Protected by the FBI as an informer while he was killing, causing killings and committing other crimes.

On the lam for the last 16 years.


Arrested politely in Santa Monica, CA and returned to Massachusetts where he awaits trial and all his constitutional rights--counsel, no self-incrimination, appeals process, etc.

The running away bit is bs.

[24601]

61. You almost ALWAYS crack me up with your jokes. Now try to say

*with a straight face* that if Bulger ran and the police judged he would get away, that they would have waved & shouted, "Next time, Billy!" I just wish I could hear your timing - did you have a career in standup?

[BetsysGhost]

7. Slippery Slope

[Xithras]

9. Khan was probably just collateral damage

Khan may have just been a blogger and self-styled journalist of sorts, but there's little doubt that Al-Awlaki was the real deal and the target of the strikes. Khan learned the hard way that riding in cars with terrorists isn't a healthy thing to do.

[madrchsod]

11. yup.... collateral damage or as the saying goes..

shit happens.

[madrchsod]

10. what law did he break ..........?

by your logic a shit load of us leftist commies in the 60`s should be dead.

[Freddie Stubbs]

13. Treason

[Angry Dragon]

19. Facts?? ........... Proof??

[Freddie Stubbs]

22. Congress authorized the President to determine that

[Angry Dragon]

24. So the President has the sole power to determine who lives

and dies over all Americans??

[No Elephants]

33. Can you quote the language whereby Congress did that? And the Constitutional language

that enables Congress to authorize the President?

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Freddie Stubbs]

16. A former constitutional law professor doesn't seem to think that it violates the Bill of Rights

[Angry Dragon]

20. And now he is a Judge ......... good promotion

[stockholmer]

28. w/ a "constitutional law professor" ordering extrajudicial assassinations, who needs a CONSTITUTION?

Appalling, simply appalling!!!!!



:grr:

[No Elephants]

37. I bet I could find a few hundred who do and are more objective.

[Name removed]

34. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[CJvR]

15. Why should...

...the US care if one of the enemy's cheerleaders (assuming that was all he was) get blown up when they hit an enemy commander?

[stockholmer]

29. becasue due process has been ripped completely out of this action

Do you even remotely fathom the tyrannical precedents that are being set!!??!!

[CJvR]

44. Due process...

...concerns civilian matters. Anyway it is totally irrelevant in this case since this guy was collateral damage and not specificly targeted.

[No Elephants]

35. The rule of law, including the Constitution of the United States.

[CJvR]

43. Matters...

...why in this case, exactly?

[No Elephants]

57. Perhaps you can tell me why the rule of law and the COTUS would NOT matter in this case, in your

opinion and I will take it from there.

As it sits, your question is too vague.

[CJvR]

60. The US...

...bombs a military target (an A-Q commander), where a US citizen happens to be present. The guy was simply collateral damage and if he didn't want to risk getting blown up he should have stayed away from the war and particulary from priority targets.

[No Elephants]

36. Regardless of what he deserved (beside the protections of the Constitution), this is his family

speaking. They lost a son.

Why do they deserve to be treated callously, be it by the administration or by DU posters?

What was their alleged crime?

[Flatulo]

41. I'll agree with you on that. His family should be treated with respect . nt

[No Elephants]

58. Well, that is all the OP is about--how his family is being treated.

Inasmuch as he has already been assassinated, isn't that all that remains?

Some posters post as though they want him killed without due process another few times, but that is not humanly possible, or I think our government would be on it.

[boomerbust]

38. I don't know about anybody else

But I do feel safer with Obama calling the shots.

[Flatulo]

40. Obama did not do this in a vacuum. al-Awlaki's family and the ACLU

did file suit in a US federal court to have him removed from the 'kill list' and it was thrown out.

al-Awlaki very willingly, loudly and publically called for the murder of as many Americans as possible, thereby making a powerful enemy for himself. If he wanted to go the due process route to clear his name (he made no attempt to do so), he could have surrendered to Yemeni authorities and been extradited to the US. Heh could have made a YouTube video denying the charges. But he not only never uttered a word in his own defense, but in fact proudly admitted that he was a Jihadist.

Furthermore, there is no political or geographical boundary in the war against Islamic extremists who call for the murder of Americans, nor should there be. The very nature of terror networks renders due process virtually impossible to implement.

What makes me giggle hysterically is that the same people who wail that 'Bush should have done something' to prevent the 9/11 attacks put up the loudest stink when the US goverment proactively takes these lunatics out.

If Jihadists want to set up shop in a lawless state and issue global calls for murder and mayhem against Americans, as well as actively recruit others to do so, then I'm in for $5 for gas for the next drone.

[msanthrope]

46. "It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that I [am] Al Qaeda to the core." Samir Kahn.

Well, if you are al-Qaeda, you are on the capture or kill list.

[IamK]

47. If they had more sponges and squeegees in Yemen they would get their son back..

until then, they are going to have to wait to bury their terrorist kid....

[MrSlayer]

48. And I'm appalled at Kahn's indifference to his fellow countrymen.

He should picked better friends to hang around with.

[Downwinder]

50. Moral is: If you hear a drone overhead, duck.

Anybody can be a target or collateral damage.

[Little Tich]

51. Samir Khan was the editor of the online magazine Inspire,

here is the wikipedia entry on it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inspire_(magazine)
I will not provide a link to the magazine itself, but it's a pretty nasty read. For example issue, #7 is the 9/11 special issue which commemorates "The Greatest Special Operation of all time". The format is very slick with glossy graphics, and looks like something you would find in any waiting room apart from the content, of course. Personally, I think that this form of global jihad will continue in spite of mr Khan's demise and that issue #8 will unfortunately be out there soon.

[unionworks]

53. he got a - palled

The pall his hand called for. Have fun in imaginary fire place!

[vminfla]

62. I am appalled by the rearing skills of these parents

Khan spent his time and energy fomenting terror, creating a glossy hate-filled magazine called Inspire. Perhaps if he was raised better he would not have been in Yemen writing his screed.