Skip to main content

View Diary: Assassination Rationales Then & Now--And How Awlaki Didn't Meet Any of the Criteria (163 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Yep, I was wrong, he went looking for his father. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Bisbonian, Hayate Yagami, aliasalias

    http://articles.washingtonpost.com/...

    Nasser al-Awlaki said Abdulrahman was in the first year of secondary school when he left Sanaa to find his father. He wrote a note to his mother, saying he missed his father and wanted to see him. The teenager traveled to the family’s tribal home in southern Yemen, but Anwar al-Awlaki was killed Sep. 30 in Yemen’s northern Jawf province, about 90 miles east of the capital.
    So, the way to erase the collateral damage numbers is to claim they're all terrorists, got it.

    I keep forgetting.

    Tutu: Bush, Blair should face trial at the Hague

    Nobel Peace Prize Laureate Desmond Tutu called Sunday for Tony Blair and George Bush to face prosecution at the International Criminal Court for their role in the 2003 U.S.-led invasion of Iraq

    Tutu, the retired Anglican Church's archbishop of South Africa, wrote in an op-ed piece for The Observer newspaper that the ex-leaders of Britain and the United States should be made to "answer for their actions."

    So, since we're harboring a known War Criminal, should we be targeted and killed by an outside military force, it's okay???

    -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

    by gerrilea on Tue Feb 05, 2013 at 03:09:59 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  more intellectual dishonesty from you (0+ / 0-)

      hardly surprising, though.

      No one's claiming this;
      S

      o, the way to erase the collateral damage numbers is to claim they're all terrorists, got it.

      I keep forgetting

      The argument is that the son of Al-Awlaki was in fact collateral damage and not a terrorist. This is the very opposite of the position that you are attributing to me.
      •  It's official US policy (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        aliasalias, gerrilea

        http://www.dailykos.com/... (sourcing in original diary)

        Mr. Obama embraced a disputed method for counting civilian casualties that did little to box him in. It in effect counts all military-age males in a strike zone as combatants, according to several administration officials, unless there is explicit intelligence posthumously proving them innocent.

        "He who fights monsters should see to it that he himself does not become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you."

        by Hayate Yagami on Tue Feb 05, 2013 at 04:23:54 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Not exactly relevent here (0+ / 0-)

          That's the rationale for making the strike in the first place. Arguably a sensible policy, since if you had to make 100% sure there was not one civilian combatant, you could almost never make a strike. It's not the rationale for justifying the killing afterwards, as the poster above was claiming and apparently, attributing said policy to me.

          •  You're right I did do that, didn't I? Apologies. (0+ / 0-)

            You did however justify the murder of an innocent child because "he went with bad company", to paraphrase you, correct?  You then tried patronizing me by telling my my mother surely taught me better than to hang around with bad crowds.

            You blamed the victim.

            And it is exactly relevant, you justify the killing of innocent Americans through the use of drones by the CIA, an intelligence agency, not even our military.  Who gave them the hardware? Who authorized the use of military hardware by a civilian intelligence agency? The POTUS!

            The US CONSTITUTION:

            Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the United States Constitution, sometimes referred to as the War Powers Clause, vests in the Congress the power to declare war, in the following wording:

                [Congress shall have Power...] To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

            Note it doesn't say the POTUS or a civilian agency under his direct command may wage war in foreign lands.

            Or is the argument now going to be "it was a police action" akin to Law Enforcement????  Then we'd have to ask who's law is being enforced here, surely not "We The People's Law".

            -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

            by gerrilea on Tue Feb 05, 2013 at 05:50:15 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Nope (0+ / 0-)

              I didn't justify the murder because there was no evidence that there was  any murder that needed.   Al-Awlaki Jr. wasn't murdered. I see no evidence to support that theory. Most logically, he was collateral damage, because he voluntarily got into a car with known AQ operatives in an area where he knew or should have known that both the Yemeni and US governments were taking aggressive, lethal action against militants.  There's no logical reason to believe that the U.S. government intentionally targeted him.
              And no, I didn't intend to patronize you. I ask that question in all seriousness. My parents warned me growing up about not getting mixed up with the wrong crowd as it can get you into trouble, even kill you. I.E. Don't get in the car with the driver who's been drinking, stay away from those who do drugs, etc. The same logic ought to apply to the late Al-Awlaki family.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site