• 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

Please let me know when more facts come out, because I have read nothing that indicates he was specifically targeted.
 
I like how you continue to reply with the same obscure response.

1. Care

2. To

3. Elaborate?

Look, his father was a traitor who deliberately put his son in harm's way. Very sad for the son, I agree, but had his father NOT chosen his al Qaeda path, the son would be alive.
 
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.

Yeah, there's a convincing case to be made that somebody who leaves his country and lives in a terrorist haven, surrounded by Al Qaeda terrorists, is just a tourist.
 
His father had been dead for two weeks, when the drone strike hit the kid.
The kid, an American citizen, was denied due process and was basically murdered.

No, he was a casualty of war. One started on September 11, 2001 with 3,000 American deaths. He chose his side and paid the price.
 
Yeah, there's a convincing case to be made that somebody who leaves his country and lives in a terrorist haven, surrounded by Al Qaeda terrorists, is just a tourist.

Dude was 16 years old, it's not like he had a choice where he lived.
 
No, he was a casualty of war. One started on September 11, 2001 with 3,000 American deaths. He chose his side and paid the price.

Please substantiate your claim that this kid "chose his side." Because so far even the Obama Administration won't claim that he did anything wrong.
 
Look, his father was a traitor who deliberately put his son in harm's way. Very sad for the son, I agree, but had his father NOT chosen his al Qaeda path, the son would be alive.


Let me try again:lol:

I said "sins of the father" blah blah blah

You said "not at all" blah blah blah

Yet you continue to explain this in a way that lines up with "sins of the father":lol:

Secondly, the CIA identified his son as a "military-aged combatant" before the drone strike. Explain how a 16 year old US citizen with no ties to a terrorist group (unless of course "sins of the father") in a country the US is not at war with is a "military-aged combatant"?

But of course, this is not an abuse of power, his father put him in harms way:lol:
 
I think if american terrorists, supported by the President, had flown jet airplanes into major cities in Canada then any assassination of the President would be considered as a continuation of the war begun by those terrorists.

So let me get this straight..in order for terrorists to be safe from any threat from the United States, they just need to find a sympathetic american to come and live with them?

Again, you will be providing proof that this was an innocent American citizen who was specifically targeted by the United States? And please, try to find some reputable news source for this 'proof', not one of the typical 'US is the source of all evil in the world' garbage sites that generally get referenced in threads like this.
 
Let me try again:lol:

I said "sins of the father" blah blah blah

You said "not at all" blah blah blah

Yet you continue to explain this in a way that lines up with "sins of the father":lol:

Secondly, the CIA identified his son as a "military-aged combatant" before the drone strike. Explain how a 16 year old US citizen with no ties to a terrorist group (unless of course "sins of the father") in a country the US is not at war with is a "military-aged combatant"?

But of course, this is not an abuse of power, his father put him in harms way:lol:

Your last question is a joke, right? I wonder how many innocent people in the world have been killed by 16 year old warriors.
 
Let me try again:lol:

I said "sins of the father" blah blah blah

You said "not at all" blah blah blah

Yet you continue to explain this in a way that lines up with "sins of the father":lol:

Secondly, the CIA identified his son as a "military-aged combatant" before the drone strike. Explain how a 16 year old US citizen with no ties to a terrorist group (unless of course "sins of the father") in a country the US is not at war with is a "military-aged combatant"?

But of course, this is not an abuse of power, his father put him in harms way:lol:

You're right. It does line up with sins of the father. Too bad his father cared more about spilling American blood than he did his own son.
 
I didn't say it was a terrorist country. I said it was a haven for terrorists. Which it is. Much like Pakistan.

Al Qaeda In Yemen | FRONTLINE | PBS

Try informing yourself on these issues.

Same difference:lol:

There are estimates of a few hundered, at most, terrorists suspects in Yemen. The government has been fighting with them since before 9/11, after they fought with the Russians.

We have thousands. By your logic, any country with a few terrorist suspects is a "terrorist haven":lol:

Edit: State Sponsors of Terrorism. How about that? They are all the same, just word play:lol:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Sponsors_of_Terrorism

Notice how Yemen is not on the list buddy:lol:
 
Last edited:
Well, if it's true that its only a few hundred, then it's a few hundred minus a few now. Don't try and get me to shed tears for these bastards. They deserve whatever they get, and so do those who shelter them and associate with them.
 
Yeah, there's a convincing case to be made that somebody who leaves his country and lives in a terrorist haven, surrounded by Al Qaeda terrorists, is just a tourist.

I hope you are being sarcastic.
 
You are so uninformed it is pathetic:shock:

He was in Yemen. YEMEN! When the hell was Yemen a terrorist haven:lol:

When has it not been?
 
So let me get this straight..in order for terrorists to be safe from any threat from the United States, they just need to find a sympathetic american to come and live with them?

First of all, your inclusion of the word "just" implies that this is an easy thing for them to do. There are very few Americans that would be interested in such an arrangement. Second of all, it's unclear that this kid was just collateral damage in a targeted strike on OTHER terrorists because the Obama Administration will not say.

Again, you will be providing proof that this was an innocent American citizen who was specifically targeted by the United States?

The burden of proof should not be on me. This kid was an American citizen who should be considered innocent until proven guilty. The Obama Administration hasn't even accused him of any wrongdoing. The burden of proof for a president to order the death of an American citizen should be far higher than "I think he's a bad guy." And it should CERTAINLY be higher than "I think he might be a bad guy, but who knows?" This kind of **** should, at the very least, be routed through a federal judge with evidence that 1) he had broken the law, 2) he was an ongoing threat to the United States, and 3) he could not be extradited as a practical matter.
 
Well, if it's true that its only a few hundred, then it's a few hundred minus a few now. Don't try and get me to shed tears for these bastards. They deserve whatever they get, and so do those who shelter them and associate with them.

Obvious back-pedaling:lol:
 
First of all, your inclusion of the word "just" implies that this is an easy thing for them to do. There are very few Americans that would be interested in such an arrangement. Second of all, it's unclear that this kid was just collateral damage in a targeted strike on OTHER terrorists because the Obama Administration will not say.



The burden of proof should not be on me. This kid was an American citizen who should be considered innocent until proven guilty. The Obama Administration hasn't even accused him of any wrongdoing. The burden of proof for a president to order the death of an American citizen should be far higher than "I think he's a bad guy." And it should CERTAINLY be higher than "I think he might be a bad guy, but who knows?" This kind of **** should, at the very least, be routed through a federal judge with evidence that 1) he had broken the law, 2) he was an ongoing threat to the United States, and 3) he could not be extradited as a practical matter.

It just boils down to, at least for some folks, is that the politician who order their deaths, was someone they liked, so it's ok.

Seems that not many have the stones, to stand up for justice and ethics first, rather than politics.
 
It's constitutional because it falls in line with the powers given to the legislative and executive branches in the constitution, the AUMF was a piece of legislation created over 10 years ago, it's been cited in court cases, the supreme court is well aware of it's existence so yes the fact that they have not ruled it unlawful says a lot, it says enough to reasonably say that it is in line with constitutional law (as we interpret it today). Obviously that can change but it's common knowledge that our views and the way we interpret things change with time and that certain laws change in different generation so I shouldn't have to point that out. It holds even more true since the US Supreme court has in the past supported an increase in the powers of the commander and chief if congress also supports the actions taken by the commander in chief (Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer)

Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer

The AUMF is superfluous sophistry, bought into only by those who support the government agenda, or by those who don't understand the Constitution and its principles.

The Prez was ALREADY the C-in-C, and can do as he pleases. In the ideal, he would eventually have to explain his actions to Congress, after any given crisis might pass.

The AUMF was window dressing meant for the gullible and uninformed. In a sense, it was an abdication of responsibility by Congress, and a perverse effort in support of dictatorship.
 
You are so uninformed it is pathetic:shock:

He was in Yemen. YEMEN! When the hell was Yemen a terrorist haven:lol:


Yemen is not a terrorist factory - CNN

Is Yemen a terrorist country

The year before he died the US had been urging American citizens in Yemen to leave and warning American citizens not to go to the country because it was getting increasingly dangerous there:

Thomas F. Vietor, a spokesman for the National Security Council. “For over the past year, the Department of State has publicly urged U.S. citizens not to travel to Yemen and has encouraged those already in Yemen to leave because of the continuing threat of violence and the presence of terrorist organizations, including AQAP, throughout the country.”

Anwar al-Awlaki’s family speaks out against his, son’s deaths - The Washington Post
 
The AUMF is superfluous sophistry, bought into only by those who support the government agenda, or by those who don't understand the Constitution and its principles.

The Prez was ALREADY the C-in-C, and can do as he pleases. In the ideal, he would eventually have to explain his actions to Congress, after any given crisis might pass.

The AUMF was window dressing meant for the gullible and uninformed. In a sense, it was an abdication of responsibility by Congress, and a perverse effort in support of dictatorship.

What about the AUMF do you believe to be unconstitutional?
 
What about the AUMF do you believe to be unconstitutional?

I did not say it was unconstitutional. I said it was superfluous sophistry and apparently a perverse effort at dictatorial powers. Certainly it appears that way 10 years later.

I also said it was an abdication of responsibility and power by Congress. That might be interpreted as unconstitutional, but it is certainly poor governance.
 
Back
Top Bottom