• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

You mean a war with a country with no WMD's? I would argue that the number of Americans KIA and wounded in Iraq and the cost of the war in Iraq are pretty big deals but whatever.

no, like tapping phones, renditions, etc. Not sure how you read into that support for the Iraq war, or confuse such as a claim that Bush didn't deserve to be criticized for anything


It's not excuse making. This thread isn't about hypocrisy in politics. I just find it interesting that you think this is some major issue and seem to ignore the fact it happens all the time.

Yes it is, when it's clear that opposition to Bush's attempt to collect executive power and his abuse of civil rights was central to left wing politics during that time


For individuals that drone attacks and GITMO were important to....it's still important.

you could have fooled me ...


That was my previous point. Conservative does not mean "screaming bloody hell over abortions". Just like Liberal doesn't mean everyone has one view on drone attacks and the killing of US citizens.

uhh, the issue is pretty central to conservative politics in this country, and certainly eye brows would be raised if a majority of that group came out in support of abortions
 
So you're saying we see the same amount of opposition to phone tapping under Bush as we see of Obama's drone strikes?

LOL

Repulsive progressive hypocrisy - Salon.com

No I'm saying tribalism is a human trait not a partisan trait. I'm saying that individuals that feel very strongly about the issue haven't shifted but it was used as a bludgeon by individuals on the left against Bush that really didnt' care that much. Just like how Republicans use median income and poverty rates against Obama when in power they don't give 2 ****s about either metric.

Actually the Liberals that "support killing US citizen via drone attacks" I would guess are a lot like you. You seem kind of like a partisan hack who would shift views based on whose in the White House. You exhibit the same identity politics/tribalism style views you would expect.
 
1) where did I claim you were deflecting? I said you were insane for suggesting that support was always bipartisan, because opposition to such programs under Bush defined liberalism in this country for many years

You didn't, but it was said

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.

2) My point, again, was that the issue only became bipartisan when a democrat entered the white house.

Very true.



again, where is the right currently taking issue with it? For the two situations to be analogies the right would have to largely reject the policy under Obama, and only start supporting it when he left office

There's plenty of Bush-era holdovers that have been jumped on by hyper-partisans. For example Guantanamo, and at some point Iraq and Afghanistan became "Obama's wars" though he started neither of them.
 
No I'm saying tribalism is a human trait not a partisan trait. I'm saying that individuals that feel very strongly about the issue haven't shifted but it was used as a bludgeon by individuals on the left against Bush that really didnt' care that much. Just like how Republicans use median income and poverty rates against Obama when in power they don't give 2 ****s about either metric.

lol, but in one case we are talking about the US govt blowing up one of it's very own citizens.

Actually the Liberals that "support killing US citizen via drone attacks" I would guess are a lot like you. You seem kind of like a partisan hack who would shift views based on whose in the White House. You exhibit the same identity politics/tribalism style views you would expect.

lol. Cognitive dissonance must be a bitch. But no, I always saw the issue as rather complex (open to debate), but always side with caution on issues concerning civil liberties
 
There's plenty of Bush-era holdovers that have been jumped on by hyper-partisans. For example Guantanamo, and at some point Iraq and Afghanistan became "Obama's wars" though he started neither of them.

I was rather clear in referencing this topic, and never even came close to claiming the right was immune to playing politics. What I did claim is that they have been largely consistent on the issue of drone strikes, and that it's extremely cynical to play politics with what you view at one point as murder.
 
lol, but in one case we are talking about the US govt blowing up one of it's very own citizens.
Which obviously 1/2 have of Liberals don't care about and a large number of conservatives don't care about.

lol. Cognitive dissonance must be a bitch. But no, I always saw the issue as rather complex (open to debate), but always side with caution on issues concerning civil liberties
Actually I've never been against drone attacks and have never been for drone attacks on US citizens without due process. I don't know how cognitive dissonance applies here. In fact I've posted on quite a few threads on the subject.

Maybe you should look up what the word means or explain how it applies?
 
Which obviously 1/2 have of Liberals don't care about and a large number of conservatives don't care about.

again, the encroachment on civil liberties by the Bush administration were defining planks for his opposition. So I highly doubt those numbers would have been similar, prior to Obama taking office


Actually I've never been against drone attacks and have never been for drone attacks on US citizens without due process. I don't know how cognitive dissonance applies here. In fact I've posted on quite a few threads on the subject.

Maybe you should look up what the word means or explain how it applies?

bro, you joined in sept of 2011 and we are talking about an ideological shift that occurred during the transition from Bush to Obama, as executive.
 
Well, his father certainly was. No evidence has been presented that the son was involved in any plots against the United States. So far, the Obama Administration won't even make an unsubstantiated CLAIM that he was.

The apple doesn't fall far from the tree.
 
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 find this a bit disturbing. If the 16yo was actually a threat, actually involved with terrorists plotting attacks on Americans, then I'd be fine with it.

However, so far I have not seen any such assertion... I have not heard any specific reason why he should have been targeted, other than his poor choice of fathers. (/irony)


Anybody know anything more?
 
again, the encroachment on civil liberties by the Bush administration were defining planks for his opposition. So I highly doubt those numbers would have been similar, prior to Obama taking office




bro, you joined in sept of 2011 and we are talking about an ideological shift that occurred during the transition from Bush to Obama, as executive.

Bro the planks of the party are generally decided by the most extreme elements. Does the Republican party planks represent all of your views? If you were polled under a President Romney and the views were different than the planks of your party does that mean you shifted ideologically?

You keep making statements of "I bet if we had poll numbers"...Okay and I bet if a President Gore would of ran up deficits that Bush did right after a surplus the Republican party would be up in arms. I bet if a President Gore passed a Medicare part D that Republicans would be talking about another huge social program and government takeover of medicine. I bet if a President Carter pulled troops out of Lebenon Republicans would be saying he "cut and run" and it showed his weakness. This "what if" game is fun.

I have no idea what the relevance of my join date is. Bush didn't kill US citizens with drones and I've posted on Obama attacking US citizens.

I'm also in no way a dove when it comes to foreign policy despite your belief that EVERYBODY! that's a liberal must be anti-war.
 
Bro the planks of the party are generally decided by the most extreme elements. Does the Republican party planks represent all of your views?

1) I am not a republican

2) Yes, there are many issues that dominate the majority of republicans


I'm also in no way a dove when it comes to foreign policy despite your belief that EVERYBODY! that's a liberal must be anti-war.

I never claimed that every liberal thought a certain way, what I did claim was that opposition to these things under Bush was more wide scale and visible. Which it was
 
The apple doesn't fall far from the tree.

Sorry, "the apple doesn't fall far from the tree" is not a legal doctrine by which the United States of America should operate. At the very least there needs to be EVIDENCE of some wrongdoing...hell, the Obama Administration can't even bring themselves to ACCUSE him of any wrongdoing. And is there any reason this shouldn't be routed through a federal judge? Why do you think the president can be trusted to be the sole judge, jury, and executioner of American citizens?
 
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'm not a huge fan of violence or mindless killing and I'm not condoning it but honestly, the kid probably shouldn't have been hanging around with recognized terrorists in a country that the US had been warning Americans to get out of for the previous year leading up to his death in 2011.

It sounds like the US was targeting Ibrahim al-Banna (also reported dead in that strike). From what I've read he was considered to be one of the most dangerous al-qaeda operatives in Yemen, "who was wanted internationally for "planning attacks both inside and outside Yemen"."

BBC News - Deadly protests erupt in Yemen capital Sanaa


The Atlantic is about a year late with their outrage over this I wonder why...
 
I'm not a huge fan of violence or mindless killing and I'm not condoning it but honestly, the kid probably shouldn't have been hanging around with recognized terrorists in a country that the US had been warning Americans to get out of for the previous year leading up to his death in 2011.

It sounds like the US was targeting Ibrahim al-Banna (also reported dead in that strike). From what I've read he was considered to be one of the most dangerous al-qaeda operatives in Yemen, "who was wanted internationally for "planning attacks both inside and outside Yemen"."

BBC News - Deadly protests erupt in Yemen capital Sanaa


The Atlantic is about a year late with their outrage over this I wonder why...

the Atlantic has been generating press on the issue since it developed
 
I'm not a huge fan of violence or mindless killing and I'm not condoning it but honestly, the kid probably shouldn't have been hanging around with recognized terrorists in a country that the US had been warning Americans to get out of for the previous year leading up to his death in 2011.

It sounds like the US was targeting Ibrahim al-Banna (also reported dead in that strike). From what I've read he was considered to be one of the most dangerous al-qaeda operatives in Yemen, "who was wanted internationally for "planning attacks both inside and outside Yemen"."

BBC News - Deadly protests erupt in Yemen capital Sanaa


The Atlantic is about a year late with their outrage over this I wonder why...

It sounds like you're condoning it. It sounds like you are blaming the dead man for hanging out with the 'wrong' people.

Rationalizing illegal government behavior is a form of condoning it, IMO.
 
It sounds like you're condoning it. It sounds like you are blaming the dead man for hanging out with the 'wrong' people.

Rationalizing illegal government behavior is a form of condoning it, IMO.

I believe in some level of personal responsibility. We're not talking about a kid getting caught with the wrong crowd at say a high school party, we're talking about a 16 year old in a country where the US had made it very clear that they could not guarantee the safety of American citizens and urged all Americans in that country to leave. The government was not targeting a 16 year old American in Yemen they were targeting other very dangerous people who he was with, who we declared war against and have been fighting against for quite some time now.

So no I'm not condoning what happened but I'm not going to just blame the US for everything that goes wrong in the world especially in this case when they spent a year warning Americans that their lives were in danger if they remained in that country.
 
I believe in some level of personal responsibility. We're not talking about a kid getting caught with the wrong crowd at say a high school party, we're talking about a 16 year old in a country where the US had made it very clear that they could not guarantee the safety of American citizens and urged all Americans in that country to leave. The government was not targeting a 16 year old American in Yemen they were targeting other very dangerous people who he was with, who we declared war against and have been fighting against for quite some time now.

So no I'm not condoning what happened but I'm not going to just blame the US for everything that goes wrong in the world especially in this case when they spent a year warning Americans that their lives were in danger if they remained in that country.

I understand your point about personal responsibility.

However, the larger point is the rule of law. The government is commanded by its founding document to follow due process before depriving anyone of liberty or life. It did neither.

The federal government is clearly in violation of both US law and international law. The federal government cannot tell the citizen with whom he must associate or not associate.
 
Papa Al-Alawki had renounced his US citizenship.

While Its unfortunte the boy was killed, what was he doing in Yemen?
 
Let's take a look at the bigger picture, here. Drone strikes do not suddenly, magically give the Executive Branch the power (not necessarily legal, but de facto) to kill anyone on the planet at a whim; the President already has that power by merit of his position as Commander in Chief. Before drones, he/she would have ordered an assassin with a regular old M40 to post up behind the target and kill him/her; in other words, the Drone is only another part of an already large and effective arsenal that is at the President's disposal.

All moral and legal issues aside, then, all that is occurring is the forward march of technology enabling different methods of killing. Moreover, this sixteen year old's death is nothing new when compared to some of the brutality inflicted on unarmed, fully surrendered SS Troops by American paratroopers during WWII or the people of Dresden by British bomber pilots after it.

Again, if we put aside our moral lenses, what this sixteen-year-old boy's death shows is that war is still a dirty, dangerous, unpredictable affair in which plenty of 'good' people die and plenty of 'bad' people live fulfilling lives of 'Evil'-- on both sides, no less.

-Duxwing
 
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.

Next question I have is, why isn't someone being charged with homicide, for killing him?
 
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.

The NDAA makes it legal. Doesn't it?
 
Let's take a look at the bigger picture, here. Drone strikes do not suddenly, magically give the Executive Branch the power (not necessarily legal, but de facto) to kill anyone on the planet at a whim; the President already has that power by merit of his position as Commander in Chief. Before drones, he/she would have ordered an assassin with a regular old M40 to post up behind the target and kill him/her; in other words, the Drone is only another part of an already large and effective arsenal that is at the President's disposal.

All moral and legal issues aside, then, all that is occurring is the forward march of technology enabling different methods of killing. Moreover, this sixteen year old's death is nothing new when compared to some of the brutality inflicted on unarmed, fully surrendered SS Troops by American paratroopers during WWII or the people of Dresden by British bomber pilots after it.

Again, if we put aside our moral lenses, what this sixteen-year-old boy's death shows is that war is still a dirty, dangerous, unpredictable affair in which plenty of 'good' people die and plenty of 'bad' people live fulfilling lives of 'Evil'-- on both sides, no less.

-Duxwing
 
Well, his father certainly was. No evidence has been presented that the son was involved in any plots against the United States. So far, the Obama Administration won't even make an unsubstantiated CLAIM that he was.

After reading through the post and the article, I have a question. The article points out he was killed by a drone strike, however, it never actually says he was the target of the drone strike. It may lead you to think that, but doesn't say it outright.

Was he the intended target of the strike or was he collateral damage when the drone struck at another target?
 
Papa Al-Alawki had renounced his US citizenship.

While Its unfortunte the boy was killed, what was he doing in Yemen?

I believe the means of removing citizenship is much more complex than many people make out when discussing this case. Second, I am unsure how that would relate to the question of his child
 
I am as liberal as any lib on this board and I have no problem saying that when it comes to the horrid practice pf drone strikes, particularly signature strikes, Obama is orders of magnitude worse than Bush was. Bush was certainly worse in other areas, but when it comes to wonton use of the drones, the Obama administration reigns supreme.

For every actual terrorist we kill with them I wonder how many we create?
 
Back
Top Bottom