How Team Obama Justifies the Killing of a 16-Year-Old American

[Quantum Windbag]

The way I understood the story at the time was the kid was with two men that were targets. If that was indeed the case, I still have no problem with it.

The way I understood it is that the administration won't even comment on what happened, so that's speculation as far as I can tell. Regardless, who's to say that just because they targeted somebody, keeping in mind their definition of "combatant," that it was justified?

The administration did comment....they said he wasn't the target and he was in the wrong place at the wrong time.....that they didn't know he was present.

Of course they said that.

 

[Harry Dresden]

Hell....just the Bush SANCTIONS killed at least 100,000 Iraqi Children....without the need for high explosives

Sanctions against Iraq - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yes, Bush was a murderer too, along with Clinton and Bush Jr. They, however, never used drones to assassinate American citizens.

oh....you mean the traitor American who disowned his country, was a self proclaimed jihadist against his own country, a regional commander of Al-Quaida tried in-absentia by the Yemini government for attacks he carried out there and was wanted dead or alive, who's personal phone number was found during 9/11 investigations, wrote for a terrorist magazine?

Yeah....fuck him.

i concur.....

 

[Wehrwolfen]

Asked about the strike that killed him, a senior adviser to the president's campaign suggests he should've "had a more responsible father."

Cornered by reporters with video cameras, former White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, a senior adviser to President Obama's reelection campaign, attempted to defend the kill list that the Obama Administration uses to determine whose body should next be blown apart. American drone strikes have resulted in hundreds of dead innocents in the last four years, even as the program has killed a number of high-level al Qaeda terrorists. There are two remarkable things about the ensuing exchange, which eventually turns into a discussion about a dead 16-year-old kid:

Obama Top Adviser Robert Gibbs Justifies Murder of 16 Year Old American Citizen - YouTube

First, it's vital for the uninitiated to understand how Team Obama misleads when it talks about its drone program. Asked how their kill list can be justified, Gibbs replies that "When there are people who are trying to harm us, and have pledged to bring terror to these shores, we've taken that fight to them." Since the kill list itself is secret, there's no way to offer a specific counterexample. But we do know that U.S. drones are targeting people who've never pledged to carry out attacks in the United States. Take Pakistan, where the CIA kills some people without even knowing their identities. "As Obama nears the end of his term, officials said the kill list in Pakistan has slipped to fewer than 10 al-Qaeda targets, down from as many as two dozen," the Washington Post reports. "The agency now aims many of its Predator strikes at the Haqqani network, which has been blamed for attacks on U.S. forces in Afghanistan." The vast majority would never make their way to New York or Washington, D.C., and the Obama Administration would never agree to rules that permitted only the killing of threats to "the homeland."

How Team Obama Justifies the Killing of a 16-Year-Old American - Conor Friedersdorf - The Atlantic

I wish I could say his response is unbelievable, but, frankly, I have no problem believing this whatsoever. The man is a sociopath.

I wonder just how many completely innocent civilians and other noncombatants were killed in 2003 as 'shock and awe' was unfolding on American television as the US bombing campaign of Baghdad was underway. If you recall, the bombing campaign started right after Bush had the UN withdraw their weapons inspectors who were going about their business. But I digress.

Yup, conservatives (and others, undoubtedly) sat in their living rooms waving their fists in the air while they stuffed their faces with fattening food and cheap American beer. Meanwhile, half a world away, countless (certainly in the 10s of 1,000s) of innocent men, women, and children were being killed, maimed, and/or ultimately became homeless in a dangerous war zone as shock and awe was underway. And since that day, I have not heard even ONE conservative utter a word of regret at all the "collateral damage" (otherwise known as the unintended deaths and suffering) caused by a conservative American president who prosecuted this "war of choice" for nonexistent WMDs.

Would you care to be the first one?

Strange logic. I think you've been using it since you were in kindergarten just as this administration has been doing. The Johnny did it to doesn't hold water any more. Going around justifying bad policy because it was done by the previous administration doesn't work in the adult world.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

oh....you mean the traitor American who disowned his country, was a self proclaimed jihadist against his own country, a regional commander of Al-Quaida tried in-absentia by the Yemini government for attacks he carried out there and was wanted dead or alive, who's personal phone number was found during 9/11 investigations, wrote for a terrorist magazine?

Yeah....fuck him.

We're discussing Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, not Anwar al-Awlaki. Though, for the record, I still don't see where the administration is given the authority to assassinate any American citizen, regardless of what they've allegedly done, without due process of law.

Was he the target of the attack? What was he doing with Al Quaida people? Did the US government know he was with the target beforehand?

I think that saying he was "assassinated" is quite the stretch.

That's the thing though, we don't know that he was with anybody from al-Qaeda. The administration is being vague, and not talking about the incident at all. Gibbs saying that Anwar should have been a better father is the most I've seen anybody connected to Obama say about Abdulrahman. Regardless, even if they did claim that he was with members of al-Qaeda, why should we believe them? As I've already pointed out their definition of terrorist is any military-age male within a strike zone. Which means if you're around 18 or older and just happen to be killed by a drone you're automatically chalked up as a combatant. Forgive me if I don't take that claim seriously. But furthermore, we know the administration already lied when they originally discussed this strike. They claimed Abdulrahman was a 21 year old insurgent, again basing their definition of insurgent on the fact that he was an adult male that happened to be killed by their strike, and it wasn't until the family released his birth certificate that they backed off that claim. So why believe people that we know have already lied about the situation? The family, on the other hand, claims Abdulrahman was at a barbecue with his cousin, who was also killed in the strike. So far I have no reason to believe the administration, and every reason to believe the family. But again, the administration is claiming they can't say anything in the name of national security, which of course is the opposite of what they're doing in the case of Abdulrahman's father. They're spiking the proverbial ball in his case.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

The way I understood the story at the time was the kid was with two men that were targets. If that was indeed the case, I still have no problem with it.

The way I understood it is that the administration won't even comment on what happened, so that's speculation as far as I can tell. Regardless, who's to say that just because they targeted somebody, keeping in mind their definition of "combatant," that it was justified?

The administration did comment....they said he wasn't the target and he was in the wrong place at the wrong time.....that they didn't know he was present.

After they lied about his age.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

The way I understood the story at the time was the kid was with two men that were targets. If that was indeed the case, I still have no problem with it.

The way I understood it is that the administration won't even comment on what happened, so that's speculation as far as I can tell. Regardless, who's to say that just because they targeted somebody, keeping in mind their definition of "combatant," that it was justified?

The Constitution gives the president the power to take out those that have taken up weapons against the US of A and have committed treason. Thus making the boy a legitimate target.

First off, the boy committed nothing resembling treason. Anwar al-Awlaki may or may not have committed treason, but the Constitution says nothing about the President having the authority to declare somebody guilty of treason. In fact, treason is only discussed in Article 3 of the Constitution, which pertains to the judiciary. Therefore, only the courts can declare somebody guilty of treason, and there would naturally need to be a trial. There was no trial for Anwar al-Awlaki, and certainly none for Abdulrahman who was only guilty of being the former's son.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Also, if the boy was hanging around al-Qaeda, why didn't Robert Gibbs just answer the question with that? Surely Robert Gibbs of all people is on top of Obama's talking points. But he just threw some nonsense out about it being the fault of Anwar al-Awlaki, who was already dead.

 

[Steelplate]

The way I understood it is that the administration won't even comment on what happened, so that's speculation as far as I can tell. Regardless, who's to say that just because they targeted somebody, keeping in mind their definition of "combatant," that it was justified?

The administration did comment....they said he wasn't the target and he was in the wrong place at the wrong time.....that they didn't know he was present.

Of course they said that.

Well, there you go. You don't believe it....can't and don't care to change your mind....it's your right......but then again, over the past four years.....people like you have made the "truthers".....people who believe GWB was behind the WTC attacks on 9/11....look rational.

Face it.....you're no better.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

...

what a snore fest

 

[Steelplate]

what's it say when we swear in a president? or even when we join the military? "all enemies....foreign or domestic"

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

States Rights Crackers all of a sudden care about killings? If I were from the South I'd crawl under a rock when a discussion is about the morality of killing

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

16 year old's murder and maim other people every day. It's about time we stopped treating killers as innocent children

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Conor Friedersdorf is one of those losers who attacks both parties and imagines that makes him non partisan. LOL

 

[Two Thumbs]

Asked about the strike that killed him, a senior adviser to the president's campaign suggests he should've "had a more responsible father."

Cornered by reporters with video cameras, former White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, a senior adviser to President Obama's reelection campaign, attempted to defend the kill list that the Obama Administration uses to determine whose body should next be blown apart. American drone strikes have resulted in hundreds of dead innocents in the last four years, even as the program has killed a number of high-level al Qaeda terrorists. There are two remarkable things about the ensuing exchange, which eventually turns into a discussion about a dead 16-year-old kid:

Obama Top Adviser Robert Gibbs Justifies Murder of 16 Year Old American Citizen - YouTube

First, it's vital for the uninitiated to understand how Team Obama misleads when it talks about its drone program. Asked how their kill list can be justified, Gibbs replies that "When there are people who are trying to harm us, and have pledged to bring terror to these shores, we've taken that fight to them." Since the kill list itself is secret, there's no way to offer a specific counterexample. But we do know that U.S. drones are targeting people who've never pledged to carry out attacks in the United States. Take Pakistan, where the CIA kills some people without even knowing their identities. "As Obama nears the end of his term, officials said the kill list in Pakistan has slipped to fewer than 10 al-Qaeda targets, down from as many as two dozen," the Washington Post reports. "The agency now aims many of its Predator strikes at the Haqqani network, which has been blamed for attacks on U.S. forces in Afghanistan." The vast majority would never make their way to New York or Washington, D.C., and the Obama Administration would never agree to rules that permitted only the killing of threats to "the homeland."

How Team Obama Justifies the Killing of a 16-Year-Old American - Conor Friedersdorf - The Atlantic

I wish I could say his response is unbelievable, but, frankly, I have no problem believing this whatsoever. The man is a sociopath.

We are at war with terrorist.

awful shit happens.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

kill baby kill!!!!

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

what's it say when we swear in a president? or even when we join the military? "all enemies....foreign or domestic"

I'm pretty sure it doesn't say we assassinate "all enemies... foreign or domestic."

 

[Lovebears65]

Asked about the strike that killed him, a senior adviser to the president's campaign suggests he should've "had a more responsible father."

Cornered by reporters with video cameras, former White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, a senior adviser to President Obama's reelection campaign, attempted to defend the kill list that the Obama Administration uses to determine whose body should next be blown apart. American drone strikes have resulted in hundreds of dead innocents in the last four years, even as the program has killed a number of high-level al Qaeda terrorists. There are two remarkable things about the ensuing exchange, which eventually turns into a discussion about a dead 16-year-old kid:

Obama Top Adviser Robert Gibbs Justifies Murder of 16 Year Old American Citizen - YouTube

First, it's vital for the uninitiated to understand how Team Obama misleads when it talks about its drone program. Asked how their kill list can be justified, Gibbs replies that "When there are people who are trying to harm us, and have pledged to bring terror to these shores, we've taken that fight to them." Since the kill list itself is secret, there's no way to offer a specific counterexample. But we do know that U.S. drones are targeting people who've never pledged to carry out attacks in the United States. Take Pakistan, where the CIA kills some people without even knowing their identities. "As Obama nears the end of his term, officials said the kill list in Pakistan has slipped to fewer than 10 al-Qaeda targets, down from as many as two dozen," the Washington Post reports. "The agency now aims many of its Predator strikes at the Haqqani network, which has been blamed for attacks on U.S. forces in Afghanistan." The vast majority would never make their way to New York or Washington, D.C., and the Obama Administration would never agree to rules that permitted only the killing of threats to "the homeland."

How Team Obama Justifies the Killing of a 16-Year-Old American - Conor Friedersdorf - The Atlantic

I wish I could say his response is unbelievable, but, frankly, I have no problem believing this whatsoever. The man is a sociopath.

I wonder just how many completely innocent civilians and other noncombatants were killed in 2003 as 'shock and awe' was unfolding on American television as the US bombing campaign of Baghdad was underway. If you recall, the bombing campaign started right after Bush had the UN withdraw their weapons inspectors who were going about their business. But I digress.

Yup, conservatives (and others, undoubtedly) sat in their living rooms waving their fists in the air while they stuffed their faces with fattening food and cheap American beer. Meanwhile, half a world away, countless (certainly in the 10s of 1,000s) of innocent men, women, and children were being killed, maimed, and/or ultimately became homeless in a dangerous war zone as shock and awe was underway. And since that day, I have not heard even ONE conservative utter a word of regret at all the "collateral damage" (otherwise known as the unintended deaths and suffering) caused by a conservative American president who prosecuted this "war of choice" for nonexistent WMDs.

Would you care to be the first one?

were any of them American citizen. this was in a war. Shit happens. Obama sought out Americans without due process and killed them and in the process killed a child.

 

[Katzndogz]

obama is claming a permanent disposition matrix where he seizes the power to kill anyone in the world anytime he feels like it.

Of such concepts are world wars made.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

what's it say when we swear in a president? or even when we join the military? "all enemies....foreign or domestic"

I'm pretty sure it doesn't say we assassinate "all enemies... foreign or domestic."

You're still upset President Lincoln bent a few laws in order to save the Union and free the slaves.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

what's it say when we swear in a president? or even when we join the military? "all enemies....foreign or domestic"

I'm pretty sure it doesn't say we assassinate "all enemies... foreign or domestic."

You're still upset President Lincoln bent a few laws in order to save the Union and free the slaves.

"Bent a few laws" is quite the understatement, but this topic isn't about Lincoln or the Civil War, is it?