Legal, Ethical and wise? – Obama’s drone attack kills 16 year old American Abdulrahman Anwar al-Awlaki from Colorado

king-putz1Today, propaganda minister Jay Carney declared that Obama’s decision to target Americans with drones with no specific reasons given, is legal, ethical and wise.  So tell me then, how legal, ethical and wise is it to kill a 16 year old kid named Abdulrahman Anwar al-Awlaki from Denver Colorado? Yes, Abdulrahman was the son of Anwar al-Awlaki, an American citizen and now dead Muslim terrorist, but what justification could Obama possibility have to kill his 16 year old son?  Imagine if you will that this was George W. Bush. The media would be calling for his head, the Senate and Congress Democrats would be calling for impeachment. But alas, it’s the Messiah Obama, so killing 16 year children with drone strikes, with no explanation given isn’t newsworthy.



It’s an Obama world.

No TweetBacks yet. (Be the first to Tweet this post)

Comments

  • Tjexcite

    It is only an Obama world when people on the right worry about the well being of Al Qaeda offspring who is visiting him in Yemen and he is very much a member of Al Qaeda as well. He was not in Yemen as a tourist visiting his father but a terrorist in training, being raised in the ways of Jihad. If and when Adam Gadahn is finally ended with a drone strike the left and some on the right will say he was a just a good boy from California or something.

    • LissaKay

      So you believe that it is OK for American citizens to be sentenced to death without an indictment, without a trial, without a judge, without a jury … without even being charged of a crime? Only because of who is father was, and his father never lifted a finger to harm an American – yes, he was a propagandist and recruiter for AQ and did deserve to be held accountable for his actions against the interests of the United States.

      But this was a 16 year old kid – who was NOT visiting his father at the time of his death, his father had already been assassinated by Obama two weeks before he was also assassinated … an American citizen who has just as much right to due process of law as any other American citizen, and yes, that includes Gadahn as well.

      Unless you think it’s OK for the president to just decide all on his own who gets the death penalty …. if so, make your case. Now imagine you or someone you care about being declared an enemy of the state by the president and targeted for death.

      • Tjexcite

        Was he targeted in Denver and so called assassinated in Denver Colorado or Yemen with the permission of the Yemen government. They did not object to the drone strike in Yemen and would have done it themselves if they could. If he stayed in Denver he would still be alive. Then when he turns 18 or did something he could will be arrested for as home grown terrorist and a supporter of terror and given due process if law and given all protection due

        Any American in Al Qaeda and just being by an Al Qaeda base is valid target for a drone strike or a live strike from a F-18. Just wait until Al Qaeda get the idea that just having an American born member in the terror cell and they are safe from attack

        How will it work for the army on the ground to ask for passports to make sure none of the people in the cell are Americans before the drone over head fires a hellfire missile at compound that just shooting at the army convoy.

        • LissaKay

          It does not matter where he was when he was targeted. Our rights are protected by the Constitution wherever we go. The permission or lack thereof from the Yemeni government does not override the Constitution.

          IF he had participated in some illegal activity – no matter his age – then yes, he could be arrested and given due process and he would STILL have the protections of the Constitution, just like any other American citizen.

          IF an American citizen is actively engaged in combat or hostile acts against the interests of the United States, then of course, our armed forces can fight back just as they would any other hostile combatant. Having an American citizen in a terror cell will not protect the cell from being targeted. But specifically targeting the American for death is very much a violation of Constitutionally protected rights.

          Further, the child had never been involved in any terror activities – he was targeted because of who his father was. Sure, he could someday have decided to follow in his father’s footsteps, but no one could know that he would, and last I checked, no one can be arrested – much less killed – for something they might do in the future. Even his father had never engaged in hostilities against the US. He was a propagandist and recruiter, which are activities worthy of being arrested and imprisoned, but certainly not sentenced to death on the whim of one man.

          Again … make the case for the president being allowed to decide all on his own who may live and who may die. Forget specific people or specific crimes. Just answer the question – should the president be able to target American citizens for death?

          • Tjexcite

            Against all enemies, foreign and domestic is not just part of an oath but the charge to do what must be done to protect the free world from all enemies where ever they live. Have them be born in Saudi Arabia or Denver. That is what the whole was in fight against ALQ is about. At least is should be and under Bush it was.

            I see where you are coming from and how a person who promotes and preaches jihad is different than someone who kills for jihad. I do not, when they are doing ether one a foreign land. If he was a “propagandist and recruiter” on US soil the whole drone thing is not an option and that is when they are to be imprisoned after given a fair legal trial.

          • LissaKay

            I see you cannot or will not answer the question.

          • Tjexcite

            How about this. “should the president be able to target American citizens for death?”

            Yes. When they are a sworn enemy and a member of a group that wants to destroy the western way of life and not on US soil. It has been the practice for all 44 presidents and the only thing different now is they can send a drone to do it and not an army.

          • LissaKay

            When the military engages the enemy, it is on a battleground and the enemy is an active participant in hostile activities targeted at the military or American interests.

            These drone attacks are hitting people while they sit in their home, or as in the case of the 16 year old, while eating dinner at a barbecue.

            Are you still going to be OK with the idea when Obama starts targeting Americans for what they think and say?

  • amazingoly

    NOT legal, not accepted, and they worried and ranted about some waterboarding. Due process and trial is legal.