- Joined
- Jul 20, 2005
- Messages
- 20,688
- Reaction score
- 7,320
- Location
- Washington, DC
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
Note that this kid wasn't killed in the same drone strike as his father. He was hit by a drone strike elsewhere, and by the time he was killed, his father had already been dead for two weeks. Gibbs nevertheless defends the strike, not by arguing that the kid was a threat, or that killing him was an accident, but by saying that his late father irresponsibly joined al Qaeda terrorists.
How Team Obama Justifies the Killing of a 16-Year-Old American - Conor Friedersdorf - The Atlantic
I don't know what is worse...that the Obama Administration seems to believe that it can order the extrajudicial killings of American citizens without any trial (or even any good reason), or that no one seems to care about it. It's hard to imagine an executive power that has more potential for abuse than this...and yet astonishingly, there seems to be a widespread bipartisan consensus that secret "kill lists" are A-OK.
I don't know what is worse...that the Obama Administration seems to believe that it can order the extrajudicial killings of American citizens without any trial (or even any good reason), or that no one seems to care about it. It's hard to imagine an executive power that has more potential for abuse than this...and yet astonishingly, there seems to be a widespread bipartisan consensus that secret "kill lists" are A-OK.
I can see the problem both ways. However, if were to rule that no American citizen can be killed by drone strikes, then Al-Qaeda can simply recruit Americans and then hide behind them as shields. That's a dangerous precedent and could cause even more harm to life if they aren't stopped in time.
And then of course there is the other side where we let the government decides who gets to be killed and under what circumstances THEY choose to do it for. Right now it's Al-Qaeda, what about other militias, movements, etc. in the future that an administration deems "deserves to be killed". That's a strong power to give a governmnet administration.
Dangerous precedents in both cases IMO.
I can see the problem both ways. However, if were to rule that no American citizen can be killed by drone strikes, then Al-Qaeda can simply recruit Americans and then hide behind them as shields. That's a dangerous precedent and could cause even more harm to life if they aren't stopped in time.
And then of course there is the other side where we let the government decides who gets to be killed and under what circumstances THEY choose to do it for. Right now it's Al-Qaeda, what about other militias, movements, etc. in the future that an administration deems "deserves to be killed". That's a strong power to give a governmnet administration.
I have always wondered why it is OK to kill suspected terrorist and everyone around them but if you happen to capture one of these guys US citizen or not they deserve a "fair trial". It is a schizophrenic policy.
I don't know what is worse...that the Obama Administration seems to believe that it can order the extrajudicial killings of American citizens without any trial (or even any good reason), or that no one seems to care about it. It's hard to imagine an executive power that has more potential for abuse than this...and yet astonishingly, there seems to be a widespread bipartisan consensus that secret "kill lists" are A-OK.
There's widespread bi-partisan support because Bush had the same thing, and it's likely Romney will too if he gets the chance.
"The second notable statement concerns the killing of 16-year-old American citizen Abdulrahman al-Awlaki."
Doesn't sound like an American to me.
You mean kinda like there was widespread bipartisan support for slavery?
There's widespread bi-partisan support because Bush had the same thing, and it's likely Romney will too if he gets the chance.
There was until 1856.
I wasn't speaking so much to the historical record--you're quite right on what you've said. I'm speaking more to the moral issues raised by both questions, especially as to the thread subject of assassination of people without due process, rather Stalinesque with modern american technology.
I don't particularly like the idea of killing an American citizen without charges, trial, or conviction, especially when said citizen is not actively targeting U.S. citizens or allies at the time of their death.
We captured Sadam and let his people put him on trial. We captured the 9/11 masterminds. We actually tried to have them tried in non-military courts for their crimes. We captured and provided medical care for the asshole who killed soldiers at Ft. Hood. We arrested, detained, and charged all of those attempted bombers that the FBI set-up in Dallas, Chicago, and New York.
Yet we go overseas and target somebody (a minor, no less) via drone attack because they are allegedly members of a terrorist group? How dangerous was this 16 year old boy that we couldn't utilized our partnership with Yemeni officials to have him captured and extradited? Further, how can we ever be assured that these methods won't be utilized within our own borders? The govt. is already using drone technology for "surveillance". How much harder would it be to arm and target one to use against a perceived threat?
It's a fine line, and I think we're a hair's width away from crossing it if we haven't already.
There's widespread bi-partisan support because Bush had the same thing, and it's likely Romney will too if he gets the chance.
I don't know what is worse...that the Obama Administration seems to believe that it can order the extrajudicial killings of American citizens without any trial (or even any good reason), or that no one seems to care about it. It's hard to imagine an executive power that has more potential for abuse than this...and yet astonishingly, there seems to be a widespread bipartisan consensus that secret "kill lists" are A-OK.
Theeeeere it is. It took all the way to the end of the page to deflect to Bush. WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT BUSH. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT OBAMA AND DRONE STRIKES.
I'm not sure which is worse: seemingly indiscriminate killings by drone strike or refusal to use them to protect our consulate. Both amount to murder as far as I'm concerned. I hear it's good to be king, evidently it excuses all kinds of behavior. Right now I'd be happy to have a horny guy back in office, at least the payload he's delivering isn't fatal.
Can't deal with the reality that this policy has been in effect and will likely stay in effect no matter who wins?
I'm not blaming Bush, though your outrage over his same actions is notedly absent. I'm pointing out that there's bi-partisan support, meaning both Democrats and Republicans. Last I checked, Bush was the last Republican President. There's not much evidence that this policy pre-dates him, so proving bi-partisan support before him would be difficult.
Sounds to me like he was the member of a foreign army that is engaged in armed conflict with the United States, which would allow the government to strip him of his citizenshop, thereby taking away the government's obligation to observe his constitutional rights.
If he was a member of "a foreign army that is engaged in armed conflict with the United States," no evidence of it has been forthcoming. All we have is the Obama Administration's word...and actually, they won't even make that claim. Are you really comfortable with the President of the United States unilaterally being able to deem whoever he wants a "member of a foreign army" without any judicial oversight or evidence? That's a very dangerous road to go down.
Furthermore, this kid was only 16 years old, which as far as I'm concerned means he is not of sound mind to renounce his citizenship anyway.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?