US airstrike apparently kills Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, 16-year old son of Anwar al-Awlaki

[BlueCheese]

http://www.salon.com/2011/10/20/the_killing_of_awlakis_16_year_old_son/singleton/

Two weeks after the U.S. killed American citizen Anwar Awlaki with a drone strike in Yemen — far from any battlefield and with no due process — it did the same to his 16-year-old son, Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, ending the teenager’s life on Friday along with his 17-year-old cousin and seven other people. News reports, based on government sources, originally claimed that Awlaki’s son was 21 years old and an Al Qaeda fighter (needless to say, as Terrorist often means: “anyone killed by the U.S.”), but a birth certificate published by The Washington Post proved that he was born only 16 years ago in Denver. As The New Yorker‘s Amy Davidson wrote: “Looking at his birth certificate, one wonders what those assertions say either about the the quality of the government’s evidence — or the honesty of its claims — and about our own capacity for self-deception.” The boy’s grandfather said that he and his cousin were at a barbecue and preparing to eat when the U.S. attacked them by air and ended their lives. There are two points worth making about this:

(1) It is unknown whether the U.S. targeted the teenager or whether he was merely “collateral damage.” The reason that’s unknown is because the Obama administration refuses to tell us. Said the Post: “The officials would not discuss the attack in any detail, including who the target was.” So here we have yet again one of the most consequential acts a government can take — killing one of its own citizens, in this case a teenage boy — and the government refuses even to talk about what it did, why it did it, what its justification is, what evidence it possesses, or what principles it has embraced in general for such actions. Indeed, it refuses even to admit it did this, since it refuses even to admit that it has a drone program at all and that it is engaged in military action in Yemen. It’s just all shrouded in total secrecy.

Continued...

[Capitalocracy]

1. See, the rules are different when you're a terrorist.

When you're a terrorist, apparently it only takes 16 years to turn 21.

K&R for those who still care about little inconveniences like the rule of law.

[Tx4obama]

2. He was hanging around with terrorists. He wasn't the main target.

The drone attacks were reported last week on Friday, October 14th.

[EFerrari]

3. Yes, terrorists were throwing a barbeque for teenagers.

Always know who your host is, kids.

[hack89]

16. No - the adults simply didn't care for his safety. nt

[joshcryer]

4. That doesn't make targeted killings moral, in fact this underscores why they're not.

[tkmorris]

6. And how would you know that?

Do you know who the target was?

[EFerrari]

7. I read the OP?

[Tx4obama]

8. Because some of the TERRORISTS killed in the drone attack were named in other articles. n/t

[EFerrari]

9. And we know that's true just as we know the kid was 21

because the Pentagon said so. Oh, wait.

[Exilednight]

11. Make sure you add "killed a 16 year old US citizen with a drone" to your

long partial LIST of what Obama has done since January 2009.

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

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

[Exilednight]

10. Great, now we're killing kids. I don't care who the hell we were targeting. If you're not sure

that a child could get hurt, then don't do it.

[JCMach1]

12. Not really, if we are going to do this at all

then you have to accept the fact that people will be killed...

(or, and here's the kicker... we shouldn't be doing it at all)...

[Exilednight]

13. There are ways to ensure that we only kill the people intended and not occur

collateral damage. People just don't want to talk about it because that would mean putting our soldiers in harms way.

[JCMach1]

14. No such thing as clean war... if you go

you have to know the consequences...

[Exilednight]

15. Yes, but technically we're not at war with anyone. We just "authorize the use of force" n/t

[JCMach1]

17. Which are just weasel words for shooting without a congressional declaration

However, our government did authorize it...

I don't necessarily disagree with you... I just think it has to be on different grounds.

If (and that's the key point) the POTUS authorizes use of force then we have to accept the consequences as a nation. Or, as a people, we have to stop it.

[Exilednight]

18. I completely agree with what you're saying. I should of threw a sarccasm tag my post. n/t

[kentuck]

19. Damn!

Can't we end this shit? :-(