18 ms·

The Drone that Killed my Grandson

708 points by dr_ 13y ago

cinquemb 13y ago
This is what amazes me about our country: We can get riled up over being told by mainstream media that we are being watched despite whistle blowers telling us so for years, incited by the same media to riot over an incident that happens every day untelevised, and not bat an eyelash when our own citizens are assassinated for the world to see by our government. "Today, nobody cares… but tomorrow, they will…"
- rooshdi 13y ago
  The government has leverage to control mainstream media, and thus manipulate people's perceptions. If you're labeled a terrorist by their organization, you are not human anymore and your rights are nullified. Sad, but power does what it wants.
  - cinquemb 13y ago
    If you're labeled a terrorist, you are not human anymore and your rights are void. Well, from what we have seen, it's more like if you are even within a kill zone of the latest guided bomb of someone who has been labeled a terrorist, you are not human anymore and your rights are now null. And we will have to be naive if we think it will stop here…
    - sdoering 13y ago
      No, but you most likely will be labled a combatant after the fact. Even when you were a young child, that got killed in a drone attack. Only recently the US did tell its people, that the so called precision strikes (mostly from the CIA) did kill innocent people. Until then it was: "We did only kill terrorists, enemy fighters and combatants." Sorry, to say that, but the EX-POTUS Jimmy Carter seems to have gotten it right: "America does not have any functioning democracy" http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=de&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sueddeutsche.de%2Fpolitik%2Funterstuetzung-fuer-prism-enthueller-ex-praesident-carter-nimmt-snowden-in-schutz-1.1723726 http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=de&sl=auto&tl=en&u=... And everything above I said knowing, what is said of the killed father. Knowing him allegedly being an Al-Qaeda-Member and recruiter and so on. If the government had so much on him (and his son), why not trial him (even in absence) and let a jury decide? Why use methods, worthy of some ruthless dictator, or the governments from humanities darkest moments? Coming from Germany (and knowing, that our government is not one bit better, but not equipped that efficiently) I really do not understand, how any sane American official can tell the world, that the US is the democratic role-model for all to follow.
  - res0nat0r 13y ago
    As per today's developments, I think the conspiracy theories related to the government controlling the media and labeling them unhuman terrorists can stop. See: Dzhokhar Tsarnaev on the cover of the Rolling Stone.
    - gee_totes 13y ago
      I'm actually pretty happy about that cover. We need to start having a more nuanced view of people. A common thread between the three people in this discussion: Trayvon Martin, Dzhokar Tsarnev, and Abdulrahman Al-Awlaki is that they are all young men who were killed and can be commonly reduced to stereotypes to fit a narrative (young black man up to no good, terrorist, terrorist). But, when you dig a little deeper, it turns out there's a person under that sterotype! I'm happy to see the media start to see this and a national conversation grow around this; hopefully it will make us better human beings.
      - ferdo 13y ago
        > A common thread between the three people in this discussion: Trayvon Martin, Dzhokar Tsarnev, and Abdulrahman Al-Awlaki.... They were all also unarmed when they were murdered.
        droithomme 13y ago
        Dzhokhar is alive, he's in custody.
        ferdo 13y ago
        Thanks. I misread the name.
    - onebaddude 13y ago
      When people insinuate government control of the media, they aren't implying that the editorial boards of every form of media run their material by a government representative, to which they get a yay/nay. It's quite a bit more nuanced that that. So I'm not sure that seeing Dzhokhar Tsarnaev on the cover of a mainstream magazine should end the "conspiracy theories".
- ealloc 13y ago
  Hold on. Why do so many civil liberty proponents such as yourself insist on dismissing and trivializing the Trayvon Martin case? Isn't it possible to care about both racism and wiretapping/drones/secrecy a the same time? Isn't racism one of the most serious issues in the US? Why are you so sure any riots were 'incited by the media', rather than an autonomous response from the many people directly affected by racism?
  - cinquemb 13y ago
    As a black man, who grew up in the "ghetto", seen friends killed by former friends, and robbed by my own friends, I learned a little bit to know that if you are going to go out into the streets against the same government (if at best, most of the time it is just to rob some stores and burn down a popeyes in anger) that commits acts of violence against is own citizens extrajudicially, then you aren't really trying to solve any problems… civil liberty proponents I just love it when people place this label upon me because I adapted to train of thought of not wanting to fight anyone else's battles… when you get called a nigger by refs at your soccer games when you're the only black kid on the field and keep on playing with your team because you just want to play, come back and tell me how I should respond.
  - rooshdi 13y ago
    Both are serious issues, but the mainstream coverage and outcry over the Trayvon Martin case drastically overshadowed Abdulrahman al-Awlaki's. It's very telling of the power of those in government and mainstream media and how if they stamp you as a terrorist and drone you without due process, most of their constituents will accept it without a second thought.
    - Qantourisc 13y ago
      Serious, no, tapping is serous the drones are HORRIBLE!
  - moocowduckquack 13y ago
    The media trivialised the Trayvon Martin case by demanding moral absolutism for an incident with only two witnesses, one of whom was dead. The whole incident is appalling, however there was never going to be a satisfactory conclusion to that trial unless a lot of solid evidence one way or the other had somehow turned up.
NoPiece 13y ago
This is the wiki page for Anwar al-Awlaki, the son of the author who was the target of the drone strikes. It is worth reading for some context on the family. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki
- flexie 13y ago
  Context on the family? Is the son guilty of his father's crimes?
  - vicks711 13y ago
    You are assuming son is innocent.
  - eksith 13y ago
    Last I checked, we weren't governed by Klingon law, but sadly it seems to be the case that you can be held guilty of the crimes of your father. I don't mean to trivialize this, but my geek brain can't quite find any other imagery surreal enough to explain in another way.
  - VladRussian2 13y ago
    playing devil advocate... err.. CIA analyst - the son would probably wanted revenge and would get "radicalized" by the murder of his father. Vendetta for that reason is pretty much killing all (male) members of the family, including children.
    - Ygg2 13y ago
      Wait wasn't that the same reasoning Nazi's used when gassing people (i.e. why the prefer killing families). That way you are safe from Vendetta. If you have to worry about Vendetta from those you afect with your drone strikes, you are doing it wrong.
    - coopdog 13y ago
      Uh oh, does that mean we're about to see the families of all the collateral damage get wiped out too? And what about their families... what about Kevin Bacon...
neya 13y ago
My first reaction was "What the fuck?" (Sorry for the profanity) Imagine an alternative scenario wherein the grandfather had created his own drone that killed some random government agency dude (by mistake). He'd been labelled a terrorist. But, now the government officials that killed his grandson aren't terrorists because they work for the government. What a skewed definition we (and the media) have set for terrorism! Sigh!!
- briancaw2 13y ago
  This guy's son was a bad enough dude that he got put on a terrorist kill list. I think we should at least consider that we might have an unreliable narrator. Edit: what I said was that folks should, like with any article, do some investigating before they jump to conclusions. I merely stated that the close ties to known terrorists provides more motivation for this. But yall are obviously just looking for any opportunity to get all righteous, so keep down voting and not even reading what I said.
  - kevingadd 13y ago
    I'm sorry but that's just wrong. Nothing fucking justifies killing a 16-year-old American citizen, accused of no crime, without due process. NOTHING.
    - VladRussian2 13y ago
      >killing a 16-year-old American citizen, accused of no crime, without due process. step 1. killing non-Americans outside, accused of no crime, without due process - ok step 2. killing Americans outside, accused of no crime, without due process - so-so, the public seems to be getting used to it step 3. ... (hint : not a profit)
    - insuffi 13y ago
      Does anything justify killing a 16-year-old non-american citizen without due process? Just saying. This post is largely about how people in the war-driven countries are perceived by Americans as just abstract figures, instead of real people, thus, making it easy for them to be pro-war. EDIT: To the comment below: You know exactly what I meant when I said it - the us vs. them mentality. Case in point: Latvian hacker about to be extradited to the US for allegedly committing computer crimes. Guess what? U.S. has not supplied a single item of evidence about anything - they just know that he did it. This, as we can see, spills over to other departments of the u.s. government - fighting terrorism, national security, etc. Seems like they just come up with random crap to do for the fun of it.
flexie 13y ago
The sad and dangerous thing that has happened is that a new category of criminals has been made: Terrorists. Once someone is put in that category all his rights cease to exist. It's sort of like the outlaws of medieval Europe. The only right thing to do is to start treating terrorist suspects exactly like those suspected of any other crimes, be it murder, theft, rape etc.
- aaronbrethorst 13y ago
  We used to do that. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_McVeigh#Arrest.2C_trial.2C_conviction_and_sentencing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_McVeigh#Arrest.2C_trial... http://www.cnn.com/US/9801/08/yousef.update/ http://www.cnn.com/US/9801/08/yousef.update/ Unfortunately, Congress isn't so keen on going back to that system. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-04-04/khalid-sheikh-mohammed-9-11-planner-to-get-military-trial-at-guantanamo.html http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-04-04/khalid-sheikh-moham...
  - chronic25 13y ago
    Who cares.
  - anaptdemise 13y ago
    Well, the US had a "prohibition on assassination" until 9/11[1]. The Clinton administration felt it was prudent to indict Bin Laden of a crime before taking any action on him[2]. We have come a long way. The tone of the article is a little off to me. Truthful portrayal of the grandfathers emotion, but... [1]http://archives.cnn.com/2002/LAW/11/04/us.assassination.policy/index.html http://archives.cnn.com/2002/LAW/11/04/us.assassination.poli... [2]https://www.fas.org/irp/news/1998/11/98110602_nlt.html https://www.fas.org/irp/news/1998/11/98110602_nlt.html
    - joering2 13y ago
      Thanks for this. I recall years ago Clinton getting some heat from saying on national news that they are going after OBL to "kill him". He had to be explaining himself from using word "kill" and that it wasnt what he was trying to say. Damn, when I come to think about how much of a frog in boiling water the USA become, to be okay with some unmanned aircrafts flying over foreign soil and dropping bombs in an attempt to kill people, it gives me goose bombs! At the end of the day, the true reason why I can still sleep well is that fact that like Rome Empire, the USA Empire will fall too. Observing closely for last 8 years from within the system, there is no other way to go. Its too late to wake up the masses. Let's only hope that when it collapse, those in majority will have good intentions, hopefully setting up Government 2.0.
vacri 13y ago
It should be noted that some people believe that governments should also be held accountable for killing innocents that are foreign citizens. I realise that "but he was a citizen" holds some cachet with the American national story, but really it shouldn't. An innocent is an innocent, and the concept of 'collateral damage' has no place outside total war.
- rdtsc 13y ago
  That is sort of an interesting issue. "Oh but he is a Citizen!, you see. Constitution something, something...". If he wasn't a citizen and just a local goat herder. Meh, who cares. Ok, kill him. That is kind of the thought process. Quite perverse. Constitutional or not, it just serves to limit the debate and to constrain opinions. Now even as far as Constitution goes, this is wrong. But what if the piece of paper signed couple of hundred years ago, allowed it. Would that make it ok? What about all the other people in those countries, murdered by US pilots from Langley by a push of the button. "Oh but we don't deliberate target civilians, we are an exception, not like those other terrorists, these are all accidents" everyone would chime in. But are they? How can we be sure? If the contracts to build drones and the jobs involved in killing terrorists are paid related to how many terrorists are killed. Pretty sure soon enough the'd find way to target as many civilians as necessary in order to keep busy. An added benefit is that each person killed probably spawns a couple dozen future terrorists. Can't imagine a parent, sister, child of a victim not wanting to inflict likewise damage to the country that did this to them.
  - grey-area 13y ago
    That is kind of the thought process. Quite perverse. Constitutional or not, it just serves to limit the debate and to constrain opinions. It also damages the reputation of the US throughout the world. That has effects on US business, and US citizens when they travel.
    - deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]
  - 13y ago
j2d3 13y ago
I have no words. There is just nothing
Qantourisc 13y ago
Isn't this a war crime because they are not at war with ? Telling you the rest of the world hates America land is the enslaved. Ps.: I tend to avoid products made in any crappy country, this includes the US.
- sdoering 13y ago
  No it is not an international "warcrime". As everybody is labled enemy combatant after the fact (as in "after the killing is done"), it is totally in line with the international war. There does not have to be an official declaration of war, to use war-like tactics (and to kill so called enemy combatants). But what does might count as a war-crime, is the fact, that the us mostly shield their drone operators with civilian shields. The drones are for example operated from German military bases, that are embedded in civilian regions. A drone-pilot is a combatant, as he clearly fights. So these combatants are embedded in a country, that is not part of this conflict. Shielded by (for a fact) foreign civilians. And shielding is outlawed by international law regarding war and war-like conflicts. So the US just might use this argument in their favor, as the Al-Qaeda clearly used the 16 year-old (and the other civilians) as shields - so Al-Qaeda would be responsible for their death (or so a perverted ruling might go). The (not so) "fun" fact here is, that this (the shielding of US drone-pilots) happens with the knowledge of the German government and that they do not only not seem to care, but nobody here in Germany does give a damn, as nearly no one (journalists) tells these facts to the people. Some (say Afghan) combatant could just walk up to these drone pilots and shoot them in the head. It would be an act of a war like conflict (like shooting a soldier in battle). It would not be a "normal" crime. OK, but nobody would look at it this way. It would be labeled an act of terror.
Buzaga 13y ago
So, with the kill lists, it's 'one hop' that's 'allowed'...
vicks711 13y ago
Bleeding heart liberals are going bonkers!
downandout 13y ago
The American citizenry tends to be OK with this kind of thing as long as it happens far away from us. But imagine the reaction if the cafe where this occurred were in the US, and the drone was controlled by a foreign government. That singular event would ignite a US invasion or possibly nuclear assault against the country responsible. People in other countries are also people. They have the same reactions and emotions that we would when a foreign entity blows up their businesses, families, and friends. We have so far been lucky that none of our victims have had the military power and political will to retaliate in the vicious and violent manner that we would. That will not always be the case, and I do not look forward to the day when our own brutality is visited upon us.
- veidr 13y ago
  > I do not look forward to the day when our own brutality is visited upon us. Many people around the world would say that one of those days was September 11, 2001.
  - downandout 13y ago
    9/11 was a single horrific event carried out by a small number of radicals. I don't think it holds a candle by any metric to the lives lost and damage done in an actual government-run war scenario. We don't yet have foreign bombers blowing up cafes on a regular basis because somebody on their hit list was inside, but because of our actions, we someday might.
    - angersock 13y ago
      And on that afternoon, there will be rage upon the twitters, and that evening, the news. And on the following day, we'll bomb the everliving christ out of the people we think are responsible, and on some day hence, we will be bombed in response. The wheel turns--might as well get into the drone and bomb business. :(
      - Volpe 13y ago
        Actually I think you'll bomb a bunch of other random people (Iraq, Afghanistan), and continue to treat the responsible "country" (Saudi Arabia) as an ally and friend. Just before people rewrite history, afganistan and iraq governments had nothing to do with 9/11.
girvo 13y ago
I do not understand how these extra-judicial killings cannot be challenged in a US court of law, in a democratic republic like the USA that attempts to "promote" "democracy" around the world. Checks and balances... and yet, in this case, there aren't any. How the hell is that supposed to work, and what can be done about it? That's not rhetorical, what can a US citizen do about this?
- anaptdemise 13y ago
  > what can a US citizen do about this Recall your elected officials or not vote for incumbents. Especially those who sit on intelligence, judicial or defense committees. I have a problem with an Executive and paramilitary bureaucracies (CIA) that feel no civilian visible court has jurisdiction over them and no one should hold them accountable for their actions or mistakes.
semiprivate 13y ago
How are we still allowed to be a member of the UN? If these aren't war crimes then they're surely still crimes, just you know, not-war crimes. What boggles my mind is how these countries allow the US to run drone strikes on their citizens. I mean, Yemen has a government and they're like, "Yeah sure, target and kill innocent people and blow cafes and shit up in our country. Cos you know, terrorism and all that."
badmadrad 13y ago
I'm sorry but I find it hard to empathize with a man who himself and his son Anwar have taken so much from this country in terms of education and opportunity and returned nothing but religious vitriol, anti-american rhetoric, and bloodshed.
- jlgreco 13y ago
  Prove it. The US Government didn't.
- olive_ 13y ago
  What you have in addition to your prejudices?
victorhooi 13y ago
Ok, I love how this page seems to have been swarmed with DOWN WITH THE US IMPERIALISTS, and AMERICA == TYRANNY style comments. The parent article is incredibly slanted - the author ever so conveniently forgets to mention that his son was a senior Al-Qaeda recruiter, who was "advisor" to the 9/11 bombers, the Fort Hood shooter, the underwear bomber and a whole host of others. Even his own Yemeni government tried him in absentia, and ordered him captured "Dead or Alive". You can argue that the death penalty is wrong, and he should have faced a US court (although I somehow down he or say Osama Bin Laden was likely to actually show up in a US court, even if given half the chance). However, please don't be another ignorant reader who doesn't know where Yemen is, or any of the context here.
- srisa 13y ago
  So, it is okay if Denmark or India drop a bomb on wherever David Headley is in USA, killing him and whoever is with him. And, it is also okay if Headley's child is killed in another drone strike on US soil. As per Mr. Gibbs, the child's father should have been more responsible.
  - thoughtsimple 13y ago
    He's in federal prison--effectively for life.
- boomlinde 13y ago
  I'd argue with you, but I thought I might as well argue with any one of your relatives.
decryptthis_NSA 13y ago
The government repeatedly made accusations of terrorism against Anwar — who was also an American citizen — but never charged him with a crime. No court ever reviewed the government’s claims nor was any evidence of criminal wrongdoing ever presented to a court. He did not deserve to be deprived of his constitutional rights as an American citizen and killed. Surprised he wasn't charged, just as a formality. At least then they would have said he "refused to answer to an arrest warrant...blah blah...plan to kill Americans." Unless the matrix is playing tricks on me, he did admit to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki a lot of stuff that we call terrorism. Generally speaking, if you refuse to surrender, they can't take you in and are plotting to kill someone, the police can kill you. But to throw a freaking bomb from 10000 feet in a cafe just to kill a person...that's a huge no-no. It just doesn't win you any friends. If it was his car, I could see it, traveling with dangerous people, is dangerous.
rooob 13y ago
Anwar al-Awlaki was a bad man, who lured a lot of young men to their deaths by his toxic propaganda. He exchanged emails with the Fort Hood shooter, the Christmas Day bomber, the Times Square Bomber, and who knows how many others. Wikipedia has a long, long list. I feel bad for his son, but not as bad I feel for his victims. I notice one thing that is missing in Anwar's father's article is any sense of remorse-- any sense that Anwar's actions were wrong. Bad things happen during war. Sometimes people are killed who shouldn't be. But when the instigators of said conflict refuse to take responsibility, I have no sympathy. Save your tears for someone who deserves them-- like the women who are killed in "honor killings" by assholes like this, the countries that are third world shitholes because of theocracies, or maybe the prostitutes Anwar apparently favored. But not for people who start a war, and then whine about the casualties to their side.
grey-area 13y ago
This raises some questions which I think it's important to answer if you support this sort of drone strike, or even if you are just sympathetic to the concept of targeted assassination of suspects. Is it legal to kill people on secret suspicion, rather than after conviction in a public court of law? Is it legal to kill families and associates as well as the suspects themselves? If this is legal for the US in Yemen, why is it not legal on US soil? Is it legal and permissible for other nations to drone people in the US?
omarali 13y ago
"Our position needs to be reiterated, and needs to be very clear. The fact that the U.S. has administered the death and homicide of over 1 million civilians in Iraq; the fact that the U.S. is supporting the deaths and killing of thousands of Palestinians, does not justify the killing of 1 U.S. civilian in New York City or Washington D.C. And the deaths of 6,000 civilians in New York and Washington D.C. does not justify the death of 1 civilian in Afghanistan." ~ Anwar Al-awlaki; October 2001 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j2Ofg2BacIM http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j2Ofg2BacIM
gadders 13y ago
Very sad that people die, but the father has blood on his hands and was a justified target. I also doubt that the son was just hanging out with his mates playing Chess. He was probably with his Dad's lieutenants.
- rooshdi 13y ago
  You'd be surprised. Chess is a popular game in that region. I know I've played a few games there. Sometimes you're just playing with anyone in the cafe that wants to. You might not even know them.
  - gadders 13y ago
    Playing chess with his Dad's lieutenants then :-)
- acjohnson55 13y ago
  Wow, so now sons are guilty for the crimes of their fathers in America? Doesn't that sound just the least bit insane to you?
alan_cx 13y ago
Truth justice and the American way: Judge and jury for Americans, cowardly drone strike murder for sub-humans.
jurassic 13y ago
The author's son, Anwar al-Alwaki, on why the world hates the US: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-jf462h_Is http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-jf462h_Is
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
InclinedPlane 13y ago
Watch this as well: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mp8ajGyAGO0 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mp8ajGyAGO0
kkouddous 13y ago
For a deep dive into this watch/read http://dirtywars.org http://dirtywars.org.
jheriko 13y ago
its a shame there is not such outcry about the many pakistani and other nationality civilians who have been and continue to be killed regularly by drone attacks... they far outnumber all of the american military personnel who have died in service over the last 10 years, except we have indiscriminate proportions of women and children and not people who chose to become tools of perhaps the most evil regime in the world today (at least when viewed from the outside objectively) :/ can we start trying us government officials as war criminals as if they came from any other country on the planet please?
dil8 13y ago
An absolute disgrace that a so called democracy can have a list of people its going to kill...
runn1ng 13y ago
An important note (that doesn't justify US government in any way, just completes the picture) The father of the boy was Anwar al-Awlaki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki from wikipedia: U.S. government officials said that he was a senior talent recruiter and motivator who was involved in planning terrorist operations for the Islamist militant group al-Qaeda. With a blog, a Facebook page, the al-Qaeda magazine Inspire, and many YouTube videos, the Saudi news station Al Arabiya described him as the "bin Laden of the Internet." U.S. officials say that as imam at a mosque in Falls Church, Virginia (2001–02), which had 3,000 members, al-Awlaki spoke with and preached to three of the 9/11 hijackers, who were al-Qaeda members. In 2001, he presided at the funeral of the father of Nidal Malik Hasan, an Army psychiatrist who later e-mailed him extensively in 2008–09 before the Fort Hood shootings. During Al-Awlaki's later radical period after 2006–07, when he went into hiding, he was associated with Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the Nigerian who attempted the 2009 Christmas Day bombing of an American airliner. Al-Awlaki was allegedly involved in planning the latter's attack. According to the original article though: The government repeatedly made accusations of terrorism against Anwar — who was also an American citizen — but never charged him with a crime. No court ever reviewed the government’s claims nor was any evidence of criminal wrongdoing ever presented to a court. He did not deserve to be deprived of his constitutional rights as an American citizen and killed.
- aet 13y ago
  I notice that this guy is tied to 9-11 and the Fort Hood shooting.
  - runn1ng 13y ago
    Yes. And for that, US has this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Military_Force_Against_Terrorists https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Milit... IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons. ...which, in my opinion, includes the father and maybe those other person killed in the drone attack on the boy. So there is a legal justification for the killings, in my opinion (I am not a lawyer and I am not a US citizen).
tome 13y ago
I don't get it. Isn't Yemen friendly to the US? That's why they allow these drone strikes, right? So why not just go and arrest the guy?
ttt_ 13y ago
Colateral damage aside, doesn't bombing rescuers and funerals classify as terrorism? Seriously...
salaami 13y ago
are we the new, improved version of hitler's nazis? or is it the corporate greed looking to maintain the military-industrial complex that is looking for targets?
rfctr 13y ago
Suppose the US government is right, and it is totally OK to indiscriminately kill a bunch of bystanders and innocents to get to a single target who allegedly is an enemy. Isn't it OK then to selectively, cleanly, kill one alleged enemy with Polonium tea? Why these two cases get so different coverage?
faceplanter 13y ago
The first comment (as of right now) makes me sick to my stomach: "Why are we providing a platform for families of terrorists to advocate against American national interests? They should have considered the consequences of targeting the United States and its citizens with violence before they walked down that path. Our intelligence services and armed forces have done a commendable job keeping Americans safe. I thank them for their service, and for keeping my family safe. I have no time or desire to listen to this sorry speech about human and civil rights from someone who did not stop his son from advocating violence."
twoodfin 13y ago
Who would have guessed that this submission's comments would be dominated by 9/11 truthers? Fascinating. Keep these great posts coming!
username42 13y ago
If we surrender all our civilization progress just because of a "war against terrorism", then the terrorism has won and we are not better than our opponents.
kumarski 13y ago
One of my questions is, what can I do? Which politicians have power/control over this situation and who are their funding sources? Which of these funding sources can be pressured based on SEO/growth hacking/bad press?
joering2 13y ago
Personal POV: if we have Democracy in US and its fine to drone other countries' people in the name of fight with terrorism, then I am looking forward to the day of Iraq being a full blown Democracy, which is the day that the former President George W. Bush (as seen by many Iraqs as a hard-core terrorist) will be droned down on US soil for a war crimes he committed in Iraq.
Roboprog 13y ago
Irony: http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transcript.html http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transc... ... For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury: For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies: ... I suppose this is next: ... He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures. He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power. He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation: For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us: For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States: ... I don't know whose name to throw on this, though. King George, King Barack, ??? I suppose we need some kind of voting system overhaul (runoff, proportional, ???) to end the rule of the corporate sponsored 2 parties.
TallGuyShort 13y ago
Part of the related legal battle happens tomorrow: "Oral argument on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss will be heard by Judge Rosemary M. Collyer of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia on July 19, 2013, at 10:00 am. " Source: http://www.ccrjustice.org/targetedkillings http://www.ccrjustice.org/targetedkillings
snambi 13y ago
whats the point of killing random people?
ChikkaChiChi 13y ago
I guess I fail to see the point why a Drone is somehow less appropriate than killing with a rifle or dropping a bomb from a manned cockpit? Is there anyone in the world that actually thinks one is somehow worse than the other? "To my mind, to kill in war is not a whit better than to commit ordinary murder." - Albert Einstein Agreed, Albert. Drones included.
wehadfun 13y ago
This is terrible but honestly the majority of Americans will not know much less care that this happened. Most could not even name their mayor. If you asked most American's what Yemen was they would probably think it was some sort of fish or something. We need a leader. Like a MLK that can rally us to fight for stuff like this. Though I appreciate all the efforts that Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, and the rest of the black leaders do. If stuff like this continue we will all have bigger problems then overzealous neighborhood wanabe cops
Fuxy 13y ago
Drones will get cheaper to manufacture and then America will have a problem again. As they had with the nuclear arms race. They could send drones to a foreign country but that would just make that country send their drones to America. Until that happens America has got the upper hand but boy will any one appreciate the irony when Americans get killed by foreign drones. Don't make everybody out to look like a terrorist and expect them to not get pissed off and become what you made them look like. Hell this guy might not have been a terrorist before but now that he lost his entire family terrorism might not sound that bad. I'm waiting for the day they mess with the wrong family.

708 points by dr_ 13y ago

This is what amazes me about our country: We can get riled up over being told by mainstream media that we are being watched despite whistle blowers telling us so for years, incited by the same media to riot over an incident that happens every day untelevised, and not bat an eyelash when our own citizens are assassinated for the world to see by our government. "Today, nobody cares… but tomorrow, they will…"

rooshdi 13y ago
The government has leverage to control mainstream media, and thus manipulate people's perceptions. If you're labeled a terrorist by their organization, you are not human anymore and your rights are nullified. Sad, but power does what it wants.
- cinquemb 13y ago
  If you're labeled a terrorist, you are not human anymore and your rights are void. Well, from what we have seen, it's more like if you are even within a kill zone of the latest guided bomb of someone who has been labeled a terrorist, you are not human anymore and your rights are now null. And we will have to be naive if we think it will stop here…
  - sdoering 13y ago
    No, but you most likely will be labled a combatant after the fact. Even when you were a young child, that got killed in a drone attack. Only recently the US did tell its people, that the so called precision strikes (mostly from the CIA) did kill innocent people. Until then it was: "We did only kill terrorists, enemy fighters and combatants." Sorry, to say that, but the EX-POTUS Jimmy Carter seems to have gotten it right: "America does not have any functioning democracy" http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=de&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sueddeutsche.de%2Fpolitik%2Funterstuetzung-fuer-prism-enthueller-ex-praesident-carter-nimmt-snowden-in-schutz-1.1723726 http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=de&sl=auto&tl=en&u=... And everything above I said knowing, what is said of the killed father. Knowing him allegedly being an Al-Qaeda-Member and recruiter and so on. If the government had so much on him (and his son), why not trial him (even in absence) and let a jury decide? Why use methods, worthy of some ruthless dictator, or the governments from humanities darkest moments? Coming from Germany (and knowing, that our government is not one bit better, but not equipped that efficiently) I really do not understand, how any sane American official can tell the world, that the US is the democratic role-model for all to follow.
- res0nat0r 13y ago
  As per today's developments, I think the conspiracy theories related to the government controlling the media and labeling them unhuman terrorists can stop. See: Dzhokhar Tsarnaev on the cover of the Rolling Stone.
  - gee_totes 13y ago
    I'm actually pretty happy about that cover. We need to start having a more nuanced view of people. A common thread between the three people in this discussion: Trayvon Martin, Dzhokar Tsarnev, and Abdulrahman Al-Awlaki is that they are all young men who were killed and can be commonly reduced to stereotypes to fit a narrative (young black man up to no good, terrorist, terrorist). But, when you dig a little deeper, it turns out there's a person under that sterotype! I'm happy to see the media start to see this and a national conversation grow around this; hopefully it will make us better human beings.
    - ferdo 13y ago
      > A common thread between the three people in this discussion: Trayvon Martin, Dzhokar Tsarnev, and Abdulrahman Al-Awlaki.... They were all also unarmed when they were murdered.
      - droithomme 13y ago
        Dzhokhar is alive, he's in custody.
        ferdo 13y ago
        Thanks. I misread the name.
  - onebaddude 13y ago
    When people insinuate government control of the media, they aren't implying that the editorial boards of every form of media run their material by a government representative, to which they get a yay/nay. It's quite a bit more nuanced that that. So I'm not sure that seeing Dzhokhar Tsarnaev on the cover of a mainstream magazine should end the "conspiracy theories".
ealloc 13y ago
Hold on. Why do so many civil liberty proponents such as yourself insist on dismissing and trivializing the Trayvon Martin case? Isn't it possible to care about both racism and wiretapping/drones/secrecy a the same time? Isn't racism one of the most serious issues in the US? Why are you so sure any riots were 'incited by the media', rather than an autonomous response from the many people directly affected by racism?
- cinquemb 13y ago
  As a black man, who grew up in the "ghetto", seen friends killed by former friends, and robbed by my own friends, I learned a little bit to know that if you are going to go out into the streets against the same government (if at best, most of the time it is just to rob some stores and burn down a popeyes in anger) that commits acts of violence against is own citizens extrajudicially, then you aren't really trying to solve any problems… civil liberty proponents I just love it when people place this label upon me because I adapted to train of thought of not wanting to fight anyone else's battles… when you get called a nigger by refs at your soccer games when you're the only black kid on the field and keep on playing with your team because you just want to play, come back and tell me how I should respond.
- rooshdi 13y ago
  Both are serious issues, but the mainstream coverage and outcry over the Trayvon Martin case drastically overshadowed Abdulrahman al-Awlaki's. It's very telling of the power of those in government and mainstream media and how if they stamp you as a terrorist and drone you without due process, most of their constituents will accept it without a second thought.
  - Qantourisc 13y ago
    Serious, no, tapping is serous the drones are HORRIBLE!
- moocowduckquack 13y ago
  The media trivialised the Trayvon Martin case by demanding moral absolutism for an incident with only two witnesses, one of whom was dead. The whole incident is appalling, however there was never going to be a satisfactory conclusion to that trial unless a lot of solid evidence one way or the other had somehow turned up.

NoPiece 13y ago

This is the wiki page for Anwar al-Awlaki, the son of the author who was the target of the drone strikes. It is worth reading for some context on the family. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki

flexie 13y ago
Context on the family? Is the son guilty of his father's crimes?
- vicks711 13y ago
  You are assuming son is innocent.
- eksith 13y ago
  Last I checked, we weren't governed by Klingon law, but sadly it seems to be the case that you can be held guilty of the crimes of your father. I don't mean to trivialize this, but my geek brain can't quite find any other imagery surreal enough to explain in another way.
- VladRussian2 13y ago
  playing devil advocate... err.. CIA analyst - the son would probably wanted revenge and would get "radicalized" by the murder of his father. Vendetta for that reason is pretty much killing all (male) members of the family, including children.
  - Ygg2 13y ago
    Wait wasn't that the same reasoning Nazi's used when gassing people (i.e. why the prefer killing families). That way you are safe from Vendetta. If you have to worry about Vendetta from those you afect with your drone strikes, you are doing it wrong.
  - coopdog 13y ago
    Uh oh, does that mean we're about to see the families of all the collateral damage get wiped out too? And what about their families... what about Kevin Bacon...

neya 13y ago

My first reaction was "What the fuck?" (Sorry for the profanity) Imagine an alternative scenario wherein the grandfather had created his own drone that killed some random government agency dude (by mistake). He'd been labelled a terrorist. But, now the government officials that killed his grandson aren't terrorists because they work for the government. What a skewed definition we (and the media) have set for terrorism! Sigh!!

briancaw2 13y ago
This guy's son was a bad enough dude that he got put on a terrorist kill list. I think we should at least consider that we might have an unreliable narrator. Edit: what I said was that folks should, like with any article, do some investigating before they jump to conclusions. I merely stated that the close ties to known terrorists provides more motivation for this. But yall are obviously just looking for any opportunity to get all righteous, so keep down voting and not even reading what I said.
- kevingadd 13y ago
  I'm sorry but that's just wrong. Nothing fucking justifies killing a 16-year-old American citizen, accused of no crime, without due process. NOTHING.
  - VladRussian2 13y ago
    >killing a 16-year-old American citizen, accused of no crime, without due process. step 1. killing non-Americans outside, accused of no crime, without due process - ok step 2. killing Americans outside, accused of no crime, without due process - so-so, the public seems to be getting used to it step 3. ... (hint : not a profit)
  - insuffi 13y ago
    Does anything justify killing a 16-year-old non-american citizen without due process? Just saying. This post is largely about how people in the war-driven countries are perceived by Americans as just abstract figures, instead of real people, thus, making it easy for them to be pro-war. EDIT: To the comment below: You know exactly what I meant when I said it - the us vs. them mentality. Case in point: Latvian hacker about to be extradited to the US for allegedly committing computer crimes. Guess what? U.S. has not supplied a single item of evidence about anything - they just know that he did it. This, as we can see, spills over to other departments of the u.s. government - fighting terrorism, national security, etc. Seems like they just come up with random crap to do for the fun of it.

flexie 13y ago

The sad and dangerous thing that has happened is that a new category of criminals has been made: Terrorists. Once someone is put in that category all his rights cease to exist. It's sort of like the outlaws of medieval Europe. The only right thing to do is to start treating terrorist suspects exactly like those suspected of any other crimes, be it murder, theft, rape etc.

aaronbrethorst 13y ago
We used to do that. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_McVeigh#Arrest.2C_trial.2C_conviction_and_sentencing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_McVeigh#Arrest.2C_trial... http://www.cnn.com/US/9801/08/yousef.update/ http://www.cnn.com/US/9801/08/yousef.update/ Unfortunately, Congress isn't so keen on going back to that system. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-04-04/khalid-sheikh-mohammed-9-11-planner-to-get-military-trial-at-guantanamo.html http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-04-04/khalid-sheikh-moham...
- chronic25 13y ago
  Who cares.
- anaptdemise 13y ago
  Well, the US had a "prohibition on assassination" until 9/11[1]. The Clinton administration felt it was prudent to indict Bin Laden of a crime before taking any action on him[2]. We have come a long way. The tone of the article is a little off to me. Truthful portrayal of the grandfathers emotion, but... [1]http://archives.cnn.com/2002/LAW/11/04/us.assassination.policy/index.html http://archives.cnn.com/2002/LAW/11/04/us.assassination.poli... [2]https://www.fas.org/irp/news/1998/11/98110602_nlt.html https://www.fas.org/irp/news/1998/11/98110602_nlt.html
  - joering2 13y ago
    Thanks for this. I recall years ago Clinton getting some heat from saying on national news that they are going after OBL to "kill him". He had to be explaining himself from using word "kill" and that it wasnt what he was trying to say. Damn, when I come to think about how much of a frog in boiling water the USA become, to be okay with some unmanned aircrafts flying over foreign soil and dropping bombs in an attempt to kill people, it gives me goose bombs! At the end of the day, the true reason why I can still sleep well is that fact that like Rome Empire, the USA Empire will fall too. Observing closely for last 8 years from within the system, there is no other way to go. Its too late to wake up the masses. Let's only hope that when it collapse, those in majority will have good intentions, hopefully setting up Government 2.0.

vacri 13y ago

It should be noted that some people believe that governments should also be held accountable for killing innocents that are foreign citizens. I realise that "but he was a citizen" holds some cachet with the American national story, but really it shouldn't. An innocent is an innocent, and the concept of 'collateral damage' has no place outside total war.

rdtsc 13y ago
That is sort of an interesting issue. "Oh but he is a Citizen!, you see. Constitution something, something...". If he wasn't a citizen and just a local goat herder. Meh, who cares. Ok, kill him. That is kind of the thought process. Quite perverse. Constitutional or not, it just serves to limit the debate and to constrain opinions. Now even as far as Constitution goes, this is wrong. But what if the piece of paper signed couple of hundred years ago, allowed it. Would that make it ok? What about all the other people in those countries, murdered by US pilots from Langley by a push of the button. "Oh but we don't deliberate target civilians, we are an exception, not like those other terrorists, these are all accidents" everyone would chime in. But are they? How can we be sure? If the contracts to build drones and the jobs involved in killing terrorists are paid related to how many terrorists are killed. Pretty sure soon enough the'd find way to target as many civilians as necessary in order to keep busy. An added benefit is that each person killed probably spawns a couple dozen future terrorists. Can't imagine a parent, sister, child of a victim not wanting to inflict likewise damage to the country that did this to them.
- grey-area 13y ago
  That is kind of the thought process. Quite perverse. Constitutional or not, it just serves to limit the debate and to constrain opinions. It also damages the reputation of the US throughout the world. That has effects on US business, and US citizens when they travel.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
- 13y ago

j2d3 13y ago

I have no words. There is just nothing

Qantourisc 13y ago

Isn't this a war crime because they are not at war with ? Telling you the rest of the world hates America land is the enslaved. Ps.: I tend to avoid products made in any crappy country, this includes the US.

sdoering 13y ago
No it is not an international "warcrime". As everybody is labled enemy combatant after the fact (as in "after the killing is done"), it is totally in line with the international war. There does not have to be an official declaration of war, to use war-like tactics (and to kill so called enemy combatants). But what does might count as a war-crime, is the fact, that the us mostly shield their drone operators with civilian shields. The drones are for example operated from German military bases, that are embedded in civilian regions. A drone-pilot is a combatant, as he clearly fights. So these combatants are embedded in a country, that is not part of this conflict. Shielded by (for a fact) foreign civilians. And shielding is outlawed by international law regarding war and war-like conflicts. So the US just might use this argument in their favor, as the Al-Qaeda clearly used the 16 year-old (and the other civilians) as shields - so Al-Qaeda would be responsible for their death (or so a perverted ruling might go). The (not so) "fun" fact here is, that this (the shielding of US drone-pilots) happens with the knowledge of the German government and that they do not only not seem to care, but nobody here in Germany does give a damn, as nearly no one (journalists) tells these facts to the people. Some (say Afghan) combatant could just walk up to these drone pilots and shoot them in the head. It would be an act of a war like conflict (like shooting a soldier in battle). It would not be a "normal" crime. OK, but nobody would look at it this way. It would be labeled an act of terror.

Buzaga 13y ago

So, with the kill lists, it's 'one hop' that's 'allowed'...

vicks711 13y ago

Bleeding heart liberals are going bonkers!

downandout 13y ago

The American citizenry tends to be OK with this kind of thing as long as it happens far away from us. But imagine the reaction if the cafe where this occurred were in the US, and the drone was controlled by a foreign government. That singular event would ignite a US invasion or possibly nuclear assault against the country responsible. People in other countries are also people. They have the same reactions and emotions that we would when a foreign entity blows up their businesses, families, and friends. We have so far been lucky that none of our victims have had the military power and political will to retaliate in the vicious and violent manner that we would. That will not always be the case, and I do not look forward to the day when our own brutality is visited upon us.

veidr 13y ago
> I do not look forward to the day when our own brutality is visited upon us. Many people around the world would say that one of those days was September 11, 2001.
- downandout 13y ago
  9/11 was a single horrific event carried out by a small number of radicals. I don't think it holds a candle by any metric to the lives lost and damage done in an actual government-run war scenario. We don't yet have foreign bombers blowing up cafes on a regular basis because somebody on their hit list was inside, but because of our actions, we someday might.
  - angersock 13y ago
    And on that afternoon, there will be rage upon the twitters, and that evening, the news. And on the following day, we'll bomb the everliving christ out of the people we think are responsible, and on some day hence, we will be bombed in response. The wheel turns--might as well get into the drone and bomb business. :(
    - Volpe 13y ago
      Actually I think you'll bomb a bunch of other random people (Iraq, Afghanistan), and continue to treat the responsible "country" (Saudi Arabia) as an ally and friend. Just before people rewrite history, afganistan and iraq governments had nothing to do with 9/11.

girvo 13y ago

I do not understand how these extra-judicial killings cannot be challenged in a US court of law, in a democratic republic like the USA that attempts to "promote" "democracy" around the world. Checks and balances... and yet, in this case, there aren't any. How the hell is that supposed to work, and what can be done about it? That's not rhetorical, what can a US citizen do about this?

anaptdemise 13y ago
> what can a US citizen do about this Recall your elected officials or not vote for incumbents. Especially those who sit on intelligence, judicial or defense committees. I have a problem with an Executive and paramilitary bureaucracies (CIA) that feel no civilian visible court has jurisdiction over them and no one should hold them accountable for their actions or mistakes.

semiprivate 13y ago

How are we still allowed to be a member of the UN? If these aren't war crimes then they're surely still crimes, just you know, not-war crimes. What boggles my mind is how these countries allow the US to run drone strikes on their citizens. I mean, Yemen has a government and they're like, "Yeah sure, target and kill innocent people and blow cafes and shit up in our country. Cos you know, terrorism and all that."

badmadrad 13y ago

I'm sorry but I find it hard to empathize with a man who himself and his son Anwar have taken so much from this country in terms of education and opportunity and returned nothing but religious vitriol, anti-american rhetoric, and bloodshed.

jlgreco 13y ago
Prove it. The US Government didn't.
olive_ 13y ago
What you have in addition to your prejudices?

victorhooi 13y ago

Ok, I love how this page seems to have been swarmed with DOWN WITH THE US IMPERIALISTS, and AMERICA == TYRANNY style comments. The parent article is incredibly slanted - the author ever so conveniently forgets to mention that his son was a senior Al-Qaeda recruiter, who was "advisor" to the 9/11 bombers, the Fort Hood shooter, the underwear bomber and a whole host of others. Even his own Yemeni government tried him in absentia, and ordered him captured "Dead or Alive". You can argue that the death penalty is wrong, and he should have faced a US court (although I somehow down he or say Osama Bin Laden was likely to actually show up in a US court, even if given half the chance). However, please don't be another ignorant reader who doesn't know where Yemen is, or any of the context here.

srisa 13y ago
So, it is okay if Denmark or India drop a bomb on wherever David Headley is in USA, killing him and whoever is with him. And, it is also okay if Headley's child is killed in another drone strike on US soil. As per Mr. Gibbs, the child's father should have been more responsible.
- thoughtsimple 13y ago
  He's in federal prison--effectively for life.
boomlinde 13y ago
I'd argue with you, but I thought I might as well argue with any one of your relatives.

decryptthis_NSA 13y ago

The government repeatedly made accusations of terrorism against Anwar — who was also an American citizen — but never charged him with a crime. No court ever reviewed the government’s claims nor was any evidence of criminal wrongdoing ever presented to a court. He did not deserve to be deprived of his constitutional rights as an American citizen and killed. Surprised he wasn't charged, just as a formality. At least then they would have said he "refused to answer to an arrest warrant...blah blah...plan to kill Americans." Unless the matrix is playing tricks on me, he did admit to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki a lot of stuff that we call terrorism. Generally speaking, if you refuse to surrender, they can't take you in and are plotting to kill someone, the police can kill you. But to throw a freaking bomb from 10000 feet in a cafe just to kill a person...that's a huge no-no. It just doesn't win you any friends. If it was his car, I could see it, traveling with dangerous people, is dangerous.

rooob 13y ago

Anwar al-Awlaki was a bad man, who lured a lot of young men to their deaths by his toxic propaganda. He exchanged emails with the Fort Hood shooter, the Christmas Day bomber, the Times Square Bomber, and who knows how many others. Wikipedia has a long, long list. I feel bad for his son, but not as bad I feel for his victims. I notice one thing that is missing in Anwar's father's article is any sense of remorse-- any sense that Anwar's actions were wrong. Bad things happen during war. Sometimes people are killed who shouldn't be. But when the instigators of said conflict refuse to take responsibility, I have no sympathy. Save your tears for someone who deserves them-- like the women who are killed in "honor killings" by assholes like this, the countries that are third world shitholes because of theocracies, or maybe the prostitutes Anwar apparently favored. But not for people who start a war, and then whine about the casualties to their side.

grey-area 13y ago

This raises some questions which I think it's important to answer if you support this sort of drone strike, or even if you are just sympathetic to the concept of targeted assassination of suspects. Is it legal to kill people on secret suspicion, rather than after conviction in a public court of law? Is it legal to kill families and associates as well as the suspects themselves? If this is legal for the US in Yemen, why is it not legal on US soil? Is it legal and permissible for other nations to drone people in the US?

omarali 13y ago

"Our position needs to be reiterated, and needs to be very clear. The fact that the U.S. has administered the death and homicide of over 1 million civilians in Iraq; the fact that the U.S. is supporting the deaths and killing of thousands of Palestinians, does not justify the killing of 1 U.S. civilian in New York City or Washington D.C. And the deaths of 6,000 civilians in New York and Washington D.C. does not justify the death of 1 civilian in Afghanistan." ~ Anwar Al-awlaki; October 2001 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j2Ofg2BacIM http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j2Ofg2BacIM

gadders 13y ago

Very sad that people die, but the father has blood on his hands and was a justified target. I also doubt that the son was just hanging out with his mates playing Chess. He was probably with his Dad's lieutenants.

rooshdi 13y ago
You'd be surprised. Chess is a popular game in that region. I know I've played a few games there. Sometimes you're just playing with anyone in the cafe that wants to. You might not even know them.
- gadders 13y ago
  Playing chess with his Dad's lieutenants then :-)
acjohnson55 13y ago
Wow, so now sons are guilty for the crimes of their fathers in America? Doesn't that sound just the least bit insane to you?

alan_cx 13y ago

Truth justice and the American way: Judge and jury for Americans, cowardly drone strike murder for sub-humans.

jurassic 13y ago

The author's son, Anwar al-Alwaki, on why the world hates the US: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-jf462h_Is http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-jf462h_Is

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

InclinedPlane 13y ago

Watch this as well: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mp8ajGyAGO0 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mp8ajGyAGO0

kkouddous 13y ago

For a deep dive into this watch/read http://dirtywars.org http://dirtywars.org.

jheriko 13y ago

its a shame there is not such outcry about the many pakistani and other nationality civilians who have been and continue to be killed regularly by drone attacks... they far outnumber all of the american military personnel who have died in service over the last 10 years, except we have indiscriminate proportions of women and children and not people who chose to become tools of perhaps the most evil regime in the world today (at least when viewed from the outside objectively) :/ can we start trying us government officials as war criminals as if they came from any other country on the planet please?

dil8 13y ago

An absolute disgrace that a so called democracy can have a list of people its going to kill...

runn1ng 13y ago

An important note (that doesn't justify US government in any way, just completes the picture) The father of the boy was Anwar al-Awlaki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki from wikipedia: U.S. government officials said that he was a senior talent recruiter and motivator who was involved in planning terrorist operations for the Islamist militant group al-Qaeda. With a blog, a Facebook page, the al-Qaeda magazine Inspire, and many YouTube videos, the Saudi news station Al Arabiya described him as the "bin Laden of the Internet." U.S. officials say that as imam at a mosque in Falls Church, Virginia (2001–02), which had 3,000 members, al-Awlaki spoke with and preached to three of the 9/11 hijackers, who were al-Qaeda members. In 2001, he presided at the funeral of the father of Nidal Malik Hasan, an Army psychiatrist who later e-mailed him extensively in 2008–09 before the Fort Hood shootings. During Al-Awlaki's later radical period after 2006–07, when he went into hiding, he was associated with Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the Nigerian who attempted the 2009 Christmas Day bombing of an American airliner. Al-Awlaki was allegedly involved in planning the latter's attack. According to the original article though: The government repeatedly made accusations of terrorism against Anwar — who was also an American citizen — but never charged him with a crime. No court ever reviewed the government’s claims nor was any evidence of criminal wrongdoing ever presented to a court. He did not deserve to be deprived of his constitutional rights as an American citizen and killed.

aet 13y ago
I notice that this guy is tied to 9-11 and the Fort Hood shooting.
- runn1ng 13y ago
  Yes. And for that, US has this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Military_Force_Against_Terrorists https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Milit... IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons. ...which, in my opinion, includes the father and maybe those other person killed in the drone attack on the boy. So there is a legal justification for the killings, in my opinion (I am not a lawyer and I am not a US citizen).

tome 13y ago

I don't get it. Isn't Yemen friendly to the US? That's why they allow these drone strikes, right? So why not just go and arrest the guy?

ttt_ 13y ago

Colateral damage aside, doesn't bombing rescuers and funerals classify as terrorism? Seriously...

salaami 13y ago

are we the new, improved version of hitler's nazis? or is it the corporate greed looking to maintain the military-industrial complex that is looking for targets?

rfctr 13y ago

Suppose the US government is right, and it is totally OK to indiscriminately kill a bunch of bystanders and innocents to get to a single target who allegedly is an enemy. Isn't it OK then to selectively, cleanly, kill one alleged enemy with Polonium tea? Why these two cases get so different coverage?

faceplanter 13y ago

The first comment (as of right now) makes me sick to my stomach: "Why are we providing a platform for families of terrorists to advocate against American national interests? They should have considered the consequences of targeting the United States and its citizens with violence before they walked down that path. Our intelligence services and armed forces have done a commendable job keeping Americans safe. I thank them for their service, and for keeping my family safe. I have no time or desire to listen to this sorry speech about human and civil rights from someone who did not stop his son from advocating violence."

twoodfin 13y ago

Who would have guessed that this submission's comments would be dominated by 9/11 truthers? Fascinating. Keep these great posts coming!

username42 13y ago

If we surrender all our civilization progress just because of a "war against terrorism", then the terrorism has won and we are not better than our opponents.

kumarski 13y ago

One of my questions is, what can I do? Which politicians have power/control over this situation and who are their funding sources? Which of these funding sources can be pressured based on SEO/growth hacking/bad press?

joering2 13y ago

Personal POV: if we have Democracy in US and its fine to drone other countries' people in the name of fight with terrorism, then I am looking forward to the day of Iraq being a full blown Democracy, which is the day that the former President George W. Bush (as seen by many Iraqs as a hard-core terrorist) will be droned down on US soil for a war crimes he committed in Iraq.

Roboprog 13y ago

Irony: http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transcript.html http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transc... ... For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury: For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies: ... I suppose this is next: ... He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures. He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power. He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation: For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us: For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States: ... I don't know whose name to throw on this, though. King George, King Barack, ??? I suppose we need some kind of voting system overhaul (runoff, proportional, ???) to end the rule of the corporate sponsored 2 parties.

TallGuyShort 13y ago

Part of the related legal battle happens tomorrow: "Oral argument on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss will be heard by Judge Rosemary M. Collyer of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia on July 19, 2013, at 10:00 am. " Source: http://www.ccrjustice.org/targetedkillings http://www.ccrjustice.org/targetedkillings

snambi 13y ago

whats the point of killing random people?

ChikkaChiChi 13y ago

I guess I fail to see the point why a Drone is somehow less appropriate than killing with a rifle or dropping a bomb from a manned cockpit? Is there anyone in the world that actually thinks one is somehow worse than the other? "To my mind, to kill in war is not a whit better than to commit ordinary murder." - Albert Einstein Agreed, Albert. Drones included.

wehadfun 13y ago

This is terrible but honestly the majority of Americans will not know much less care that this happened. Most could not even name their mayor. If you asked most American's what Yemen was they would probably think it was some sort of fish or something. We need a leader. Like a MLK that can rally us to fight for stuff like this. Though I appreciate all the efforts that Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, and the rest of the black leaders do. If stuff like this continue we will all have bigger problems then overzealous neighborhood wanabe cops

Fuxy 13y ago

Drones will get cheaper to manufacture and then America will have a problem again. As they had with the nuclear arms race. They could send drones to a foreign country but that would just make that country send their drones to America. Until that happens America has got the upper hand but boy will any one appreciate the irony when Americans get killed by foreign drones. Don't make everybody out to look like a terrorist and expect them to not get pissed off and become what you made them look like. Hell this guy might not have been a terrorist before but now that he lost his entire family terrorism might not sound that bad. I'm waiting for the day they mess with the wrong family.