The Government Assassination of a kid from Denver.

reply to post by Indigo5



This exactly.
I can picture it now if bleeding hearts have it their way.
Soldier 1: we are under heavy fire
Soldier 2: Do not engage, we must apprehend them for a fair trial.
Soldier 1: They are trying to kill us.
Soldier 2: Allegedly! Allegedly trying to kill us. We have to prove it in court.

OtherSideOfTheCoin
He didn't do anything!

How do you know that?

Like i said in my last post

overratedpatriotism
I think the problem with this particular case, and many others, is transparency. If it was a mistake and he was in the wrong place at the right time fess up. If he was targeted for a reason present the reason.

And until that transparency happens I cannot do as others are and praise this kid like he is going to be the next saint. I can only complain about the lack of that transparency the government has provided with this incident.

Another wonderful act of the US. I wish things were different, I LOVE AMERICA. But damn it i'm so tired of this. Drones should be outlawed, its bull# that we can hit a button and unload hellfire missiles on some poor guy drinking a cup of coffee.

reply to post by overratedpatriotism


He was sitting in a out door restaurant with a bunch of his cousins in Yemen

I really do fail to see how you can say that he would ever have presented a clear and present danger to the national security of USA in that setting.

And until that transparency happens I cannot do as others are and praise this kid like he is going to be the next saint. I can only complain about the lack of that transparency the government has provided with this incident.

We can agree that transparency is needed

But i am not parsing him like the next saint.

I am saying that he was assassinated by his own government who have so far failed to provide any clear and offical reason as to how this happened or been held accountable for his death.

benrl


A better question is should the US government be bound by its own internal laws in any action it takes.

On US Soil? Yes...every day of the week and twice on Sunday.

On foreign soil? That would make most US Soldier's a criminal by domestic standards.

Now...I do am not 100% pro drone policy or legal framework, but I do think there are questions worth asking and thinking about that benefits the debate. So will respond to rational debate, not so much ideological rants or sniping...not directed at you.

His father was jihad, like father like son. No one can say to me with 100% that Anwar was not teaching his son how to follow in his footsteps.. This guy was ready to avenge the death of his father. Hit them before they hit you, this is the REAL WAR.. Don't think they would think twice about doing it to you.

benrl

Indigo5

benrl

This is a moral question not a legal one.

Morally do free men and women deserve a trial.

Do their children deserve to face execution for their parents sin.

Do we ask such questions on a battlefield? What if the enemy by definition has no allegiance to a geography, has staked out no geographic field of battle and has made innocents their declared target?

Do you believe that it was the United States Government's intent to Kill the boy?

Battlefield my ass these are assassinations in peoples homes, while they sleep, while they celebrate weddings.

Call all combat age people insurgents, it may help you and dick cheney sleep at night, but no one else is buying that crap New-speak 1984 nonsense.

Are we at war in Pakistan? if we aren't that is no battlefield, its illegal actions abroad against a sovereign nation.

ETA: Sorry misspoke, YEMEN, christ I can't even keep track of who we are bombing.

edit on 30-10-2013 by benrl because: (no reason given)

And here you lost me...

Adrift from the debate that needs to be had and instead opting for rant and BS.

Good day...

reply to post by starfoxxx

His father was jihad, like father like son. No one can say to me with 100% that Anwar was not teaching his son how to follow in his footsteps

He spent most of his time being raised in Yemen by his grand father, how influential his fathers teachings were on him is unclear, he hadn't seen him in two years.

Thats a bit like saying we should assassinate all of Bin Ladens kids just in case they one day try to get vengeance, only worse because we are talking about a American kid.

This guy was ready to avenge the death of his father.

There is no evidence of that what so ever right now his Grandfather is pursing a legal case against the American government though the center for constitutional rights to get justice. He is not taking up violence to get revenge for his son and grandson so there is no reason that Abdulrahman would have used violence.

Hit them before they hit you, this is the REAL WAR.. Don't think they would think twice about doing it to you.

So your saying its ok to assassinate a kid because of what you think he might one day do in the future absent of any evidence just because of who his father is?

I cannot agree with you on that, its just wrong.

Indigo5
reply to post by butcherguy

 

Hey Butch...If you choose to invent and assign statements and conclusions to me that I did not state, then I have no interest in entertaining such BS.

Maybe you should clear things up about whatever point you were trying to make in reference to the subject of the thread.... if I am inventing things by quoting your post!

butcherguy
Indigo5:
Hey Butch...If you choose to invent and assign statements and conclusions to me that I did not state, then I have no interest in entertaining such BS.

Maybe you should clear things up about whatever point you were trying to make in reference to the subject of the thread.... if I am inventing things by quoting your post!

Playing dumb is beneath you...at least I thought so...This was your response to my post

butcherguy

There you have it folks. The 16 year old that is the subject of this thread was a terrorist. .. according to some.

Can anyone tell me where the father's trial was held in an American court on the charges that brought about his execution?

People like to pick on the Texas death penalty, but at least in Texas, when you are sentenced to death they let you know that it is going to happen.... oh, and you get a trial first.

reply to post by Indigo5


Who is playing dumb, digger?

How is your point about terrorism supposed to relate to the 16 year old son?

You say there is no proven evidence of ties to terrorism but that is untrue. Unfairly to the young adult he was tied to his father. The US gov't doesn't have to have proof of anything but they likely believe his son may have been given information so they likely just eliminated him. It sucks but is an unfortunate reality.

starfoxxx
His father was jihad, like father like son. No one can say to me with 100% that Anwar was not teaching his son how to follow in his footsteps. This guy was ready to avenge the death of his father.

And likewise you can't say with any reasonable certainty that this WAS the case. It's got less supporting evidence than WMD's in Iraq.

Hit them before they hit you, this is the REAL WAR.. Don't think they would think twice about doing it to you.

Aren't "we" supposed to be better than "them"? If so why lower ourselves to the medieval practices of a region of The world we can't fully fathom. Boy we're really showing them aren't we! I guess it's to be expected considering we live in a nation where the federal government lives on a policy of " do as we say not as we do" that the general populace would start to act similarly. Sometimes you need to try the carrot before the stick not the other way around. We should be leading by example. We can't run around talkin out our butts about democracy and freedom while simultaneously subverting theirs by bypassing not just out own constitution and laws but those of the host nation as well. We are the hypocrites of the world stage and so very few have any cognizance of this.

Anwar was not a threat to the U.S. at all. Watch this



He actually spoke against terrorism.

To see a devout Muslim not scream things like "we must behead the infidels!", but instead intelligently speak on these truths, probably blew their mind, and they felt they had to take him out.

He was garnering a lot of support within the Muslim communities in and outside of the U.S.

His son that they murdered? Was on purpose, I'm guessing to either send a message to all who wish to open their mouths and start with the dissent, or just to make sure the nobody had anything to say about the true intent of his father.

Neither of them had any plans to bomb America, nor were they even on the side of such thoughts. I'm going to hazard a guess and say that the boy was probably apolitical, and had nothing to do with his fathers movement.

And the op makes a good point; if agents rolled up in his house and murdered him, there would be PLENTY of more hubbub about this.

Although some of us don't think about this, or would deny it, but we are not nearly as affected by the deaths of people in other country's as we are of people who live here. I won't lie, I'd probably feel slightly more angry and shocked if this happened in the U.S. I guess me and others knowing that the U.S. murders left right and center in other country's since it's establishment has made us quite numb.

reply to post by bigman88


Anwar al-Alwaki's last video message conveys well his sentiment..

"Don't consult with anyone on the killing of Americans. Fighting the Devil doesn't require consultation or prayers seeking divine guidance. They are the party of the devils."
www.telegraph.co.uk...

OtherSideOfTheCoin


So your saying its ok to assassinate a kid because of what you think he might one day do in the future absent of any evidence just because of who his father is

The younger brother of the boston marathon bombing was not but a few years older then this guy... 16 is not a kid, a kid is 3-12 when you hit the teens, your responsibility goes up, and by the time you hit 16 your not a kid still... In many parts of the world 16 your a man.. I never said its ok to assassinate anyone. When your fighting the war on terror, I would have to say it would of been better if they caught the boston bomber before he killed and MAIMED children.. This family is such an outstanding example of what not to be when you assimilate into the country.

reply to post by starfoxxx


Sorry i don't mean to be putting words into your moth so correct me if i am wrong.

Are you saying that it was justifiable to kill this 16 year old American because of what he might one day in the future do even though there was no proof that it was ever or ever going to be a threat to American national security?

Indigo5
reply to post by bigman88

 

Anwar al-Alwaki's last video message conveys well his sentiment..

"Don't consult with anyone on the killing of Americans. Fighting the Devil doesn't require consultation or prayers seeking divine guidance. They are the party of the devils."
www.telegraph.co.uk...

It looks like you have fallen for their slick deception.

He wasn't saying that Americans are the devil and that they must be fought, he was saying that the the people who want to kill Americans are devils, and are to be avoided and not consulted with. He then says that it is a fight between us, and them. "Them" being the ones who wish to kill Americans, and the greedy, inept rulers middle eastern nations he mentions.

Try harder, dude. This was half assed.

Indigo5
Good summary, though heavy on the appeal to emotion in my personal opinion.

I think Article 3 of the Constitution, describing treason is also worth reviewing.

OtherSideOfTheCoin

If he was still in Denver and a group of armed FBI agents walked into his home under direction from the Whitehouse and executed him by shooting him in the head, there would have been riots on the streets and demands for justice.

With this analogy it would be worthwhile discussing the term "Extra-judicial" which is a strict legal requirement for these drone strikes. Outside the bounds of our judicial system. If the FBI had jurisdiction and resources to arrest someone in Somalia it would not be "Extra-Judicial".

Do the protections of the Constitution follow American citizens around the globe, whatever countries they reside in, and whatever traitorous violence they plan and undertake against America?

This would seem to afford a dangerous immunity for those plotting to kill Americans? placing them beyond the reach of our Justice system and the jurisdiction of our law enforcement, but still afforded all the protections of the same?

edit on 30-10-2013 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)

The appeal to emotion was mostly painting the picture of a child. My son is about that age. Yes...children being killed kind of automatically applies as an "appeal to emotion", just because of how personal it can be to us.

Regardless, I take issue with the common position that the "rights" of US citizens are only for US citizens. The spirit of our consitution was that all men are equal. Not that some are more equal. That our rights are inalienable, and endowed by our Creator. This means that all humans have these same rights, even if their own government imposes restrictions on them. As a "beacon of light", we should consistently maintain that each right we protect in America should be protected for all of mankind.

The same argument was used to justify the treatment of Guantanamo prisoners. We can hold you indefinitely, because you are not afforded the protections of our Constitution, which is designed to ensure that our government does not restrict the rights of all people.

Of course, the absurdity of there being a difference between a Hellfire missile explosion in a restaurant, or a random bomb explosion in a bar/club is difficult to get past. It seems the harder we look for "terrorist", the more we see ourselves looking back at us.

bigfatfurrytexan

The appeal to emotion was mostly painting the picture of a child. My son is about that age. Yes...children being killed kind of automatically applies as an "appeal to emotion", just because of how personal it can be to us.

Regardless, I take issue with the common position that the "rights" of US citizens are only for US citizens. The spirit of our consitution was that all men are equal. Not that some are more equal. That our rights are inalienable, and endowed by our Creator. This means that all humans have these same rights, even if their own government imposes restrictions on them. As a "beacon of light", we should consistently maintain that each right we protect in America should be protected for all of mankind.

The same argument was used to justify the treatment of Guantanamo prisoners. We can hold you indefinitely, because you are not afforded the protections of our Constitution, which is designed to ensure that our government does not restrict the rights of all people.

Of course, the absurdity of there being a difference between a Hellfire missile explosion in a restaurant, or a random bomb explosion in a bar/club is difficult to get past. It seems the harder we look for "terrorist", the more we see ourselves looking back at us.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Agreed, we seem to be violating our most basic principles on a daily basis, all in the name of safety...

Frankly Id take the risk and try to keep our ideology intact.