• 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

Kandahar

Enemy Combatant
DP Veteran
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.
 
"The second notable statement concerns the killing of 16-year-old American citizen Abdulrahman al-Awlaki."

Doesn't sound like an American to me.

One thing you 3rd world Muslims need to understand is that there is a big difference between an "American Citizen" and an "American."

One scene that is firmly etched into the minds of all actual Americans is the picture of the pretty young American girl, dressed up in her nicest clothes for work, probably excited about her first job, jumping to her death out of the window on the 24th floor of the World Trade Center because the fire caused by the Muslims was burning her. Americans love their children and American fathers are particularly protective of their young daughters. We spend all of our time worrying about them and trying to protect them from evil.

You will not be forgiven by Americans for your barbarous behaviour, nor do we care about Al-Alawki's kid. You will never be welcome in America. This is not the place for you to whine.

Believe it.
 
Last edited:
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 US is a fascist Corpocratic tyranny - this is part of the deal

And now the Corporation has been given the satus of a person in the USA by the US supreme court.

Although one must state that the US constitution and bill of rights have been suspended by the Patriot Acts (great Orwelian double speak name that, the Patriot act - lol) and the NDAA. So in effect calling a corporation a person doesnt offer constitutional protection, because there is NO constitution - not that the corporate fascist instrument requires protection - it owns everything and controls everyone - especially the state and its military machine

The American people have a huge job ahead of them
 
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.

Dangerous precedents in both cases IMO.


Holy crap, a rational post. And here I thought it was going to come crashing down after the OP (who certainly has an understandably concerning point).
 
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.

I disagree that it's as simple as recruiting Americans. If they could, I'm sure they would. But very few Americans have any interest in their agenda. Al-Qaeda mostly operates in (and recruits from) places with power vacuums or large disaffected Muslim communities.

However, I agree that we need to have some provision for targeting Americans. This is one area where our legal system has not caught up to the realities of our era. As I've said before I think it should have to be approved by a federal judge before the president is able to act, and should be subject to a three-part test: 1) Has the person committed a felony? 2) Is the person an ongoing threat to the United States? 3) Is the person physically located in a country where he/she cannot be extradited? If the answer to any of those questions is "no," then the president should not be allowed to target them.

This is why I have a problem with the killing of Abdulrahman al-Awlaki. It's hard for me to believe that a 16-year-old kid living in Yemen is an ongoing threat to the United States. His father, sure. But not him. If he's shown to have been intimately involved in planning terrorist attacks, that would be a different matter. So far the Obama Administration has not even deigned to provide a reason for why he was killed, or even suggested there WAS a valid reason.

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.

Agreed.
 
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.
 
Gunslinger Obama gives a very bad name to constitutional law professors.

And the great Liberal Left finds itself in the uncomfortable position of having to defend lawlessness by the Executive Branch and the other two. It would be hard-pressed to have an open and honest discussion regarding just where in the US Constitution the President is authorized to kill people without due process.

The Attorney General must offer pure sophistry in claiming that due process does not include judicial process.

A very sad state for this country. :roll:
 
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.

It sounds like what you're saying is that the rule of law is a bad thing.

You should be happy, because the government and many americans agree with you.
 
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.
 
There's widespread bi-partisan support because Bush had the same thing, and it's likely Romney will too if he gets the chance.

You mean kinda like there was widespread bipartisan support for slavery?
 
"The second notable statement concerns the killing of 16-year-old American citizen Abdulrahman al-Awlaki."

Doesn't sound like an American to me.

That's not race-baiting at all...nope couldn't be. You're not a liberal.
 
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 is wide spread bi-partisan support for killing suspected terrorist but NOT for treating them like "criminals" and putting them into our justice system once they are captured.
 
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.
 
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.

Oh, absolutely. While there is bi-partisan support, it's just a matter of time before that evaporates. There's discontent in both parties over it. The only question is will one party change it's mind, or are we facing an 1856-type situation where one party splits apart over the issue and a new party is formed by the discontents in both.
 
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.

Oh we have crossed the line, clearly.

There is no constitutional authority for the Prez to do what he has done. I challenge anybody to provide such authority in the document. It ain't there.

People can try to rationalize these illegal actions, as they will, but the fact is the actions of the government are illegal both under the Constitution, and under international law. We are, in fact, committing war crimes.

The american political system is rather admiring the Emperor's New Clothes.
 
There's widespread bi-partisan support because Bush had the same thing, and it's likely Romney will too if he gets the chance.

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.
 
In the case of domestic drones, whether they be surveillance or attack drones, what do you suppose the penalty would be to a citizen who took one down? We have laws against illegal search (in theory) so the drones would be instruments of illegal activity.
 
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.

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.
 
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.
 
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.

Khandahar is correct in not bashing Bush. Like, he's not the head-honcho and Obama is.
 
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.
 
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.

Where was he zapped?
 
Back
Top Bottom