He was a boy who hadn't seen his father in two years

[Catherina]

Last edited Thu Feb 7, 2013, 06:19 PM - Edit history (1)

[center][/center]

Abdulrahman al-Awlaki wasn't on an American kill list. Nor was he a member of Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninusla. Nor was he "an inspiration," as his father styled himself, for those determined to draw American blood; nor had he gone "operational," as American authorities said his father had, in drawing up plots against Americans and American interests.

He was a boy who hadn't seen his father in two years, since his father had gone into hiding. He was a boy who knew his father was on an American kill list and who snuck out of his family's home in the early morning hours of September 4, 2011, to try to find him. He was a boy who was still searching for his father when his father was killed, and who, on the night he himself was killed, was saying goodbye to the second cousin with whom he'd lived while on his search, and the friends he'd made. He was a boy among boys, then; a boy among boys eating dinner by an open fire along the side of a road when an American drone came out of the sky and fired the missiles that killed them all.



...

There has been no similar public discussion over the death of Abdulrahman al-Awlaki because there was, until now, no hard information available about the death of Abdulrahman al-Awlaki. A 16-year-old American boy accused of no crimes was killed in American drone attack, and the administration has neither acknowledged his death or acknowledged that it killed him. It has, indeed, done everything it possibly can to avoid saying how and why it killed him, and has answered the Freedom of Information Act lawsuit brought by the ACLU with a blanket insistence that it is not obligated to confirm or deny the existence of the CIA's drone program, much less disclose information about those the drone program has killed.

...

http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/abdulrahman-al-awlaki-death-10470891#ixzz2ABHMgELN

[centre][/center]

WASHINGTON -- A 16-year-old American boy killed in an Obama administration drone strike "should have (had) a far more responsible father," Obama campaign senior adviser Robert Gibbs says in a new video released by the group We Are Change.

...

"I would suggest that you should have a far more responsible father if they are truly concerned about the well being of their children. I don't think becoming an al Qaeda jihadist terrorist is the best way to go about doing your business," Gibbs, the former White House press secretary, told the interviewer from We Are Change, when asked to justify "an American citizen that is being targeted without due process, without trial -- and, he's underage, he's a minor."

...

"Again, note that this kid wasn't killed in the same drone strike as his father," writes The Atlantic's Conor Friedersdorf. "He was hit by a drone strike elsewhere, and by the time he was killed, his father had already been dead for two weeks. Gibbs nevertheless defends the strike, not by arguing that the kid was a threat, or that killing him was an accident, but by saying that his late father irresponsibly joined al Qaeda terrorists. Killing an American citizen without due process on that logic ought to be grounds for impeachment."



Friedersdorf also notes the distinction that al-Awlaki's son was not killed as a consequence of the strike against the father, but was hit separately. Esquire's Tom Junod covered the son's killing:

He was a boy who hadn't seen his father in two years, since his father had gone into hiding. He was a boy who knew his father was on an American kill list and who snuck out of his family's home in the early morning hours of September 4, 2011, to try to find him. He was a boy who was still searching for his father when his father was killed, and who, on the night he himself was killed, was saying goodbye to the second cousin with whom he'd lived while on his search, and the friends he'd made. He was a boy among boys, then; a boy among boys eating dinner by an open fire along the side of a road when an American drone came out of the sky and fired the missiles that killed them all.

http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/abdulrahman-al-awlaki-death-10470891#ixzz2ABHMgELN

...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/24/robert-gibbs-anwar-al-awlaki_n_2012438.html

God have mercy on innocents around the world, to include within America, who in no way support the crimes taking place right now but are being dragged into them to enrich criminals lusting for profits.

[tblue]

1. Elsewhere on DU someone's saying Obama is the greatest president of his lifetime.

Maybe if the op is 5 years old.

This poor kid who was killed because his dad was considered a bad guy,

[Catherina]

9. My country right or wrong

My President right or wrong


Obama's loose definition of “an associated force” is the same one terrorists used to murder thousands of Americans who worked in the World Trade attacks.

It's a short-sighted, slippery, immoral slope.

[Scootaloo]

16. Well, to be totally fair...

"Best president in my lifetime" really is not a terribly high bar for most people here.

[otohara]

21. Are We Stupid

did you vote for PBO in November?

[Scootaloo]

61. Yup.

Want to know the presidents in my lifetime?

Ronald Reagan x2, George Bush, Bill clinton x2, GWB x2, and now Obama. Sorry, out of that lineup, Obama's taking the gold. You'd actually have to go all the way back to 1944 For obama to become the second best.

As I said, it's not an incredibly high standard, especially if we're going to let adherence to US foreign policy weigh in.

[countmyvote4real]

62. +1

[xtraxritical]

73. I would have to say Dwight Eisenhower was the best President in my life time.

Barrack has been a major disappointment on many levels and Eric Holder is even worse.

[Egalitarian Thug]

58. Fair point. n/t

[TheMadMonk]

41. No. Killed for being in the wrong place at wrong time.

JUSTIFIED, by saying he should have picked a better dad.

[Yavin4]

48. Here's how you can get back at him

Don't ever vote for him as president. That'll show him.

[Autumn]

2. So this kid "should have (had) a far more responsible father,"? ????

fucking stupid. Completely disgusting remark.

[Catherina]

10. It makes you wonder what excuse will be used for the collateral damage

in our own country.

I imagine we'll be told those kids shouldn't have been there, that they placed themselves in harm's way by being near a protest zone or wherever.

It's a completely disgusting remark that speaks volumes about people who justify that crime.

To this day, the administration still hasn't explained why it murdered a 16 year old in cold blood, not only does it not intend to, but it says it doesn't have to.

When the next Bush comes along, people here will be singing a different tune but it will be too late for them to be taken seriously by anyone.

[Autumn]

17. That statement sickens me to the very core of my being.

Any excuse will do, even to the point of blaming a child for being born.

[840high]

38. Makes me sick. Just a young lad.

[indepat]

35. Surely collateral damage will be held to an acceptable level for only then could

the bereaved take solace that their loved one had not died in vain, that the loved one's death has served some greater purpose, that of making America safe only for domestic right-wing extremists to operate freely without any significant governmental interference.

[Catherina]

66. Well done

When Karma kicks in for all these war crimes, I'm not going to wail along with certain compatriots and demand more blood because this country is knowingly, deliberately digging its own grave while mocking all the horrified Americans and Rights organizations warning it about the coming, inevitable, blow-back.

[Honeycombe8]

57. Not delicately worded, but I think he meant the dad, living w/AQ in Yemen,

knowing that AQ and he, himself, were being targeted by the U.S., brought his son with him to Yemen. That doesn't excuse a targeted killing of the son, if the son wasn't involved in something suspicious or living with AQ. But it is pretty irresponsible to put your son in harm's way like that, unless there was some purpose he wanted his son there for. Otherwise, why wouldn't he leave the son where he was before, in school, getting an education for a future life? That's how I take the statement. But he wasn't clear, so hard to say. And certainly, in such an area, it wasn't hard to foresee that the son would get killed inadvertently. I think it's a pattern for AQ to raise their sons and groom them to become AQ terrorists. Indoctrination starts early. I can see where someone would assume a 16 year old was well on the way of being indoctrinated to AQ thought and behavior. But that's an assumption.

[Autumn]

110. The article stated the kid snuck out of the family home to look for his Dad.

The Father was an AQ member and as such a scumbag. But to a young child a parent is their parent and there is love there. The rest of what happened seems to be a gray area.

[Honeycombe8]

111. 16 is almost grown, esp in tribes. He was no "young child." US says he wasn't the target,

anyway. That strike killed an AQ operative, who the strike was aiming for. This guy and his friends were collateral damage. Sad, but Yemen, that area, is a stronghold of AQ, and additionally, there were civil war activities going on. Yet the dad moved his family to live in the AQ region, knowing how dangerous it would be. It was foreseeable that the family would get harmed or killed, and the dad, too.

The dad may have been American born, but his ties with America were tenuous, at best. He was raised for years from a young age in Yemen..then returned to the U S for a college education, sticking to involvement with muslim groups, and not interacting with non-muslim Americans. He moved around a lot, becoming a Muslim leader, with ties to the 9/11 terrorists, the underwear bomber, the Fort Hood terrorist, and others.

It seems reasonable to assume the dad was raising his kids to think like him, as he had been raised in Yemem to think. The tribe provides the "education." The dad did not need to be present for that. Notwithstanding, the U S says this kid wasn't the target. That seems logical...how likely would it be that they would have intelligence on this non AQ kid and his friends in an eatery? It seems more likely that they were following the AQ operative that was killed.

The drone attacks were approved by the Yemen govt, which had been trying for years to oust from their country.

[Autumn]

116. No, I don't believe he was a target either.

Just a boy looking for his Dad.

[Honeycombe8]

117. Not anymore. He knew by that date that his dad had been killed in a drone attack. He was hardly

a "boy" at age 16. Technically, yes. But in the middle east, age 16 is practically an adult. They start becoming suicide bombers at 19 or thereabouts. Not this guy...but in the terrorist tribes in the middle east.

But it's sad. Lesson learned. If you move to live around AQ in the Middle East, don't expect anything good to happen to you.

[Freddie Stubbs]

75. If his father had not brought him to Yemen, this would not have happened

[Autumn]

76. This part in the article says the boy had snuck off to find his Father.

"He was a boy who hadn't seen his father in two years, since his father had gone into hiding. He was a boy who knew his father was on an American kill list and who snuck out of his family's home in the early morning hours of September 4, 2011, to try to find him. He was a boy who was still searching for his father when his father was killed, and who, on the night he himself was killed, was saying goodbye to the second cousin with whom he'd lived while on his search, and the friends he'd made. He was a boy among boys, then; a boy among boys eating dinner by an open fire along the side of a road when an American drone came out of the sky and fired the missiles that killed them all."

[Freddie Stubbs]

77. He snuck out and went to Yemen?

[Autumn]

80. The Esquire article said he snuck out of the family home to find his Father.

I don't know where his family home was. The boy was born here in Colorado. His Father was born in New Mexico and his Mother was born in Egypt.

[mike_c]

81. his father did not bring him to Yemen...

...and even if he had, how would that have made the son guilty, two weeks after the Obama administration had already killed his dad?

[xxqqqzme]

105. How warped is that?

Through the accident of birth, you got a crap dad, so we get to kill you?

[Tx4obama]

3. You left out a lot of info. See below...

Anwar al-Awlaki's SON grew up OUTSIDE of The USA and he was NOT the target of the drone.

Anwar al-Awlaki

In "44 Ways to Support Jihad," another sermon posted on his blog in February 2009, al-Awlaki encouraged others to "fight jihad", and explained how to give money to the mujahideen or their families after they've died. Al-Awlaki's sermon also encouraged others to conduct weapons training, and raise children "on the love of Jihad."
Also that month, he wrote: "I pray that Allah destroys America and all its allies." He wrote as well: "We will implement the rule of Allah on Earth by the tip of the sword, whether the masses like it or not." On July 14, he criticized armies of Muslim countries that assist the U.S. military, saying, "the blame should be placed on the soldier who is willing to follow orders ... who sells his religion for a few dollars."In a sermon on his blog on July 15, 2009, entitled "Fighting Against Government Armies in the Muslim World," al-Awlaki wrote, "Blessed are those who fight against American soldiers, and blessed are those shuhada (martyrs) who are killed by them."

---------------------------------------

Did you catch that? " ... raise children "on the love of Jihad."

He and his SON can not be compared to a average American father and son - the 'teenager' was the son of one of the Most Wanted members of Al Qaeda.

al-Awlaki's son lived in Yemen since 2002 - he was NOT raised like an American, The son was raised 'on the love of Jihad'.

There have been children as young as six years old that have been trained by members of Al Qaeda.

------


AND...

Anwar al-Awlaki's son knew the men he was with in the car were his father's terrorists buddies.
He traveled from the town he was living in to the town/place the terrorists were meeting,
the drone attacked one of the top terrorists after everyone left the building the meeting was being held in, they were in a car.
If he hadn't been hanging around the terrorists at the time of the drone strike he would still be alive.
He was NOT the target of the drone the terrorists were.

Here's a TIP: If you don't want to die from a drone strike then do not ride around in a car in Yemen with known terrorists.

[Mojorabbit]

5. Of course he can be compared to any young boy who admires his father.

He did not deserve to be killed because of that.

[Tx4obama]

7. He was NOT the target of the drone.

Two U.S. officials speaking on condition of anonymity stated that the target of the October 14, 2011 airstrike was Ibrahim al-Banna, an Egyptian believed to be a senior operative in Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula.[3] Another U.S. administration official described Abdulrahman al-Aulaqi as a bystander who was "in the wrong place at the wrong time", stating that "the U.S. government did not know that Mr. Awlaki’s son was there" before the airstrike was ordered

[Mojorabbit]

11. Nevertheless, he was. I was responding to your post that he was not your normal 16yo. n/t

[rhett o rick]

15. I am confused. Are you saying he deserved it because of his training and his father?

or are you saying it was a terrible mistake? What is the WH saying?

The rationalization that our drone killers didnt know he was Awlaki's son is bogus. They didnt care who the other victims were. Their deaths can be classified as collateral damage.

[tavalon]

22. Then why did the Press Secretary make that disgusting comment about his father?

As well, it really doesn't make him less dead if he wasn't the actual target of the drone, does it?

[randome]

45. Possibly because he wasn't aware of all the facts.

[noiretextatique]

26. no, he was collateral damage

and that makes it A-OK!

[proud2BlibKansan]

31. So it's okay that he died, since he wasn't the target?

Is that what you're saying?

[840high]

40. Doesn't matter - he's dead.

[SkyDaddy7]

88. I totally agree with you!

Just thought I would let you know considering the typical DU pounding you are receiving! LOL!

[Bonobo]

102. Based on the anonymous word of the people who killed him.

What the hell do you think they're going to say? That they killed a teen on purpose?

But seriously, dude, you're exhibiting magical thinking if you think it was an accident.

[Riftaxe]

109. And this is why he is less dead today!

[Catherina]

6. Despicable. Off to permanent ignore with you n/t

[DinahMoeHum]

68. I'm sure "Tx4obama" considers that an honor.

n/t

[SunSeeker]

23. Thanks for the info. Looks like the OP's Finding Nemo story is a bit off. nt

[NYC Liberal]

36. Of course they did, otherwise the OP would make a bit more sense.

[Egalitarian Thug]

59. Absolutely sick and disgusting. You should be ashamed of yourself. n/t

[Autumn]

82. Do you have the link to what you quoted? I didn't see that in the article

Thanks

[Solly Mack]

4. That's a heinous statement.

"I would suggest that you should have a far more responsible father if they are truly concerned about the well being of their children."

[Catherina]

19. Heinous. Depraved. Despicable. Chilling.

One of the most frightening, absolutely chilling things is that he also reserves the *authority* to approve drone strikes where the identity of target is “unknown”.

What? Excuse me? No wonder they refuse to be accountable.

I'm chilled to the bone over how bad things are in our brave new democracy.

Indeed, the whole deliberation process inside the Obama administration has been kept secret, a continuing process of morbid over-classification that even today contains secret internal legal opinions on targeted killings. The government refuses even to acknowledge that a drone air force operates over Pakistan – a fact that everybody knows including the hundreds of injured and displaced Pakistanis. This drone air force uses, what The New York Times called, “signature strikes against groups of suspected, unknown militants.”

...

Critics point out how many times in the past that departments and agencies have put forth misleading or false intelligence, from the Vietnam War to the arguments for invading Iraq, or have missed what they should have predicted such as the fall of the Soviet Union. This legacy of errors and duplicity should restrain presidents who execute, by ordering drone operators to push buttons that target people thousands of miles away, based on secret, so-called intelligence.

Mr. Obama wants, in Mr. Fein’s view, to have “his secret and unaccountable predator drone assassinations become permanent fixtures of the nation’s national security complex.” Were Obama to remember his constitutional law, such actions would have to be constitutionally authorized by Congress and subject to judicial review.

With his Attorney General Eric Holder maintaining that there is sufficient due process entirely inside the Executive Branch and without Congressional oversight or judicial review, don’t bet on anything more than a more secret, violent, imperial presidency that shreds the Constitution’s separation of powers and checks and balances.

And don’t bet that other countries of similar invasive bent won’t remember this green-light on illegal unilateralism when they catch up with our drone capabilities.

http://nader.org/2012/11/30/reining-in-obama-and-his-drones/

[countmyvote4real]

63. +1

[xchrom]

8. Du rec. Nt

[Blue_In_AK]

12. Like a kid gets to choose his parents?

What a ridiculous statement to make. The "sins of the fathers" sounds so Old Testament.

[Autumn]

14. Sure they do, that little sperm should have seen the danger and swam the other way.

He chose to get the egg first and made a very poor choice.

[WillyT]

13. K & R !!!

[Demo_Chris]

18. Note his shifty eyes and the "gun" fingers aiming at his friends

In one of the image he even has a small child as a hostage!

Seriously, I invite you to consider this:

Every single person in these pictures, including the infant, might well have been blown to bloody bits by the "justice bomb" which took out this kid. No trial, no crime, no oversight, no questions allowed. Again, every person in these pictures might now be dead, and WE did it.

[Catherina]

20. I know :(

WE did it. And when they come after "US", then the finger-pointing will begin that it wasn't US, it was "them", it was politicians, it was the media, it was Bush, it was the CIA... Bullshit. WE did it since we supposedly have government by representation.

[Demo_Chris]

25. Well said. But before they judge us we few are judging ourselves.

[Catherina]

44. Drone Nation, in more ways than one sadly. n/t

[countryjake]

27. K&R!

No matter the nationality, I will never merely accept the murders of children and other innocent civilians as "collateral damage", not when it is done in my name.

Thank you for this thread, Catherina.

[Catherina]

43. Nor I

I don't get how people who support these crimes can even sleep at night.

[abelenkpe]

28. Are we really advocating for Obama's impeachment here? nt

[FSogol]

32. Sure looks that way.

[Smilo]

29. "should have (had) a far more responsible father,"

really Gibbs, really? That is such a sick, idiotic and quite Republican statement. Is this administration now far right in their view of what (a) responsible parent is, (b) what a (non) innocent child is and (c) it is just fine to go out and kill children because hey - he shouldn't have been there.

If you think drones are bad now, wait until they get the full green light - then we will see how America seeks justice - Pakistan rails against drone strikes which are done on a regular basis into Pakistan - a country that we are not at war with. As for saying oh, but it's the Taliban/Al Qaeda/etc., how would America feel if for instance the UK fired drones on Boston and said, oh it's not about you, it's about members of the IRA in hiding - and oops, sorry that non-IRA people were killed, but we will try again tomorrow.

All drones will do is lead to more people hating America - and a vicious circle starting.

[ReRe]

83. Drones....

beget drones. Killing begets killing. War begets wars. Hate begets hate. Period.

We're living the Old Testament all over again.

[baldguy]

30. Why was he in Yemen?

The target of the drone strike seems to have been a member of al Qaeda. Was he meeting with al Qaeda?

[Tx4obama]

33. Yes, he was meeting with folks that knew his dad that were connected with al Qaeda.

See comments #3 and #7.

alQaesa member al Banna was the target of the drone.

[Autumn]

84. Do you have the link to what you quoted in posts #3 and #7

I would like to read that article too.

[Catherina]

65. So the whole world needs to be out of range of our drones?

He was looking for his father, like most kids would do.

This was a ghastly crime that had the ACLU and other Human Rights Organizations up in arms. And the administration lied through its teeth. First they said it was all hunky dory and that he wasn't a teenager but an al-Qaeda militant in his 20, which is just a criminal justification since this administration classifies all the military-aged victims as al-Qaeda militants posthumously. Then the family produced the birth certificate and anonymous apologists came up with the collateral damage spin.

Was he meeting Al-Qaeda? Lol. He was at a family barbecue and both him and his 17 year old cousin were killed, ripped to smithereens by a Hellfire missile US taxpayers sent over. Sure he was meeting Al-Qaeda if you buy the government's lie that all young men in zones of US interest are Al-Qaeda militants.

[Demo_Chris]

101. Excellent post.

[harmonicon]

34. This happened well before the last election. Why are you up in arms about it now?

Yeah, our president murders Americans. I get that. It makes me furious, but I also voted for him twice, each time knowing to expect this kind of shit.

I'm not excusing it at all, but why get upset now? A press conference confirming what we've known for years? *yawn*

[Le Taz Hot]

37. And two of the Party Faithful

show up, in this thread, to defend this. THIS is one of the many reasons I hate partisan politics -- it allows the partisan to justify anything, including the murder of innocents.

[Catherina]

42. I have no tolerance left

I think my ignore list doubled today. And considering how big it was before, that's quite a feat.

The horror is bad enough without having to deal with apologia.

[hue]

39. Where is the culpability for the adults he was with?? He was with known terrorists!

It is heartbreaking to know this child/Boy--a US citizen-- was killed in Yemen. Yet He "snuck away" from home/ran away from the home He lived in with His Grandfather who was raising Him to find His Father who He knew was being targeted by the US. Any child who runs away from the safety of their home is at risk whether they live in the US or any other country in the world.
The US government did not know who was accompanying the terrorists they were targeting. Surely they did not know of Abdulrahman al-Awlaki's quest to find His father. The deserts of Yemen are not safe places for many reasons.
So why did the group of men He was with not send Him back to His Grandfather's? Abdulrahman knew He was doing wrong as He wrote a letter to His Mother regarding His running away. And why is there no mention of the lack of value for this Child's life from the adults who actually knew who He was and His age?? If they loved and respected His father they would have protected and honored his Son.
Drones are used for many reasons; they do not risk US lives, they are able to fly--for the most part--quietly and go to places our forces cannot easily reach. The are more covert than our obvious forces. They are actually less expensive than manned expeditions. They kill less civilians than for example carpet bombing of years ago. Drones are a result of an effort to minimize human loss. It is and was known that American citizens' safety was not and cannot be guaranteed in Yemen.
This is not a cut and dry case of our military carelessly or willfully killing a US citizen. The target was a group of terrorists including a known leader who had openly waged jihad on the US; al-Qaeda leader Ibrahim al-Banna who was killed in that strike. Other members of the targeted group were known terrorists as well. So did they care about al Awlaki's son?? Did they care even a little--a fraction of what we seem to care in hindsight??
And how was our military to know the Boy was not simply a driver, mechanic, or terrorist in training??

[Yavin4]

47. Hey, don't let actual facts ruin an emotionally manipulating story designed to portray

the administration as blood thirsty killers of an innocent high school kid. Because all innocent American teens run around Yemen with known terrorists.

[Number23]

49. Perfectly said. This story unsettles me, but for me, the most important issue is why in hell

a 16-year old would leave his family in the dead of night to seek out his father who, according to this OP, he hadn't seen in 2 years and was well known to be a staunch supporter of an organization that seeks to destroy the US.

16 is a kid in Western cultures, not so much in others. We don't know WHAT he was trying to do and that's the only truth of this matter.

don't let actual facts ruin an emotionally manipulating story designed to portray the administration as blood thirsty killers of an innocent high school kid.

Considering that the vast majority of Americans (83%) and LIBERAL DEMOCRATS (77%) support the use of drones, it's easy to understand why some would have felt the need to ratchet up the errrr... EMOTIONAL quality of this story.

For reference: 'Liberals love drones too' http://www.salon.com/2013/02/07/liberals_love_drones_too/

[Yavin4]

50. Also, the kid was not targeted.

His associates were. The OP is trying to manipulate the posters here by leaving out critical information.

[Number23]

53. I know he wasn't targeted. But to be honest, that doesn't make his situation less tragic to me

My heart goes out to him tremendously. But at the end of the day, we have no idea what he was doing and why. And all of the manipulation and twisting of facts won't change that.

[JI7]

55. i think the dad's terrorist friends probably

got him to go there.

[sibelian]

72. "And why is there no mention of the lack of value for this Child's life"

What?

[Yavin4]

46. Do you have any information on the 13 people that Nidal Malik Hasan Killed?

Any stories about their families?

[Catherina]

54. Do you have any information on the millions the US government has killed?

Any stories about their families?

[JI7]

56. no, but if we had done away with the ground war and used drones it would have cut down

the numbers of innocents killed.

[Catherina]

64. Whose innocents? Only the invading soldiers with lethal weapons from our side?

Pakistani Interior Minister Rehman Malik reported last year that there had been 336 drone attacks on Pakistan alone over the previous eight years, claiming 2,300 victims. Some 80 percent of those killed were innocent civilians.


US Research admits this. The corporate media admits this. Everyone except the apologists and the warriors working in the Department of Predatory Drones admits this. There's no way anyone who's looked into this can make the claim that drones save lives with a straight face, unless the other victims' lives don't count.

(CNN) -- ...

The study by Stanford Law School and New York University's School of Law calls for a re-evaluation of the practice, saying the number of "high-level" targets killed as a percentage of total casualties is extremely low -- about 2%.

The report accuses Washington of misrepresenting drone strikes as "a surgically precise and effective tool that makes the U.S. safer," saying that in reality, "there is significant evidence that U.S. drone strikes have injured and killed civilians."

It also casts doubts on Washington's claims that drone strikes produce zero to few civilian casualties and alleges that the United States makes "efforts to shield the drone program from democratic accountability."

...

drone strikes go much further than simply killing innocent civilians. An entire region is being terrorized by the constant threat of death from the skies," said Reprieve's director, Clive Stafford Smith.

"Their way of life is collapsing: kids are too terrified to go to school, adults are afraid to attend weddings, funerals, business meetings, or anything that involves gathering in groups. Yet there is no end in sight, and nowhere the ordinary men, women and children of North West Pakistan can go to feel safe."

http://edition.cnn.com/2012/09/25/world/asia/pakistan-us-drone-strikes

The warmakers are lying again. What a surprise.

[ieoeja]

85. You just implied drones kill more people than invading armies.

Our invading troops in Iraq killed hundreds of thousands.

Our drones the world over have killed hundreds. Followed by a period.

So the answer to "whose innocents?" would be "their innocents".


But then again:

You posted several hundred reports on Libya per day during the early days of the uprising there, many of them "proving" that the Ghadaffi was a Western puppet. The day the West started backing the rebels, you went quiet. 24 hours later:

You posted several hundred reports on Libya every day, many of them "proving" that the rebels were Western puppets. Until a few of us cross-posted your threads, and you had to abandon that particular anti-Western propaganda campaign.

Have fun playing DUers! I'm sure you're not the only one here, just the worst. Not "worst" as in "most damaging propaganda". But "worst" as in "really screwed yourself with that Libya thing".

[Catherina]

87. Lol. What a hoot you are. I understand that was complex but that's no excuse

for your falsehoods and what you're trying to do. Fail. Complete and utter fail. And goodbye too because I don't have the desire or inclination to spend my time with people who have the gall to so blatantly misrepresent things.

[JI7]

96. nice to see there are some others who still remember that

[joshcryer]

104. I remember that.

Gotta bang out the Two Minutes Hate every now and again. I see it a lot here, hell, even The Magistrate got heat for pointing out the politically obvious. If I lived in the 8th most murderous place in the world I'd be more concerned about the poor kids dying in the streets every day, over American bloodlust, myself. The drone war polls high and unconventional warfare is the future for the United States. Hell, Obama's cutting down the nuclear stockpile for that reason.

Bad thing about it? Unconventional warfare means less dead military men, which in the end means more support by bloodthirsty Americans for it. Objectively, though, Obama is less murderous than Bush II, and possibly even Clinton (Kosovo) and Bush I (post-Desert Storm atrocities), hell, even Regan and President Carter if you consider their meddling in Latin America.

[Bonobo]

106. Hundreds? Wrong. Thousands. In Pakistan alone, it is thousands. nt

[midnight]

51. I just don't know how we allow this....very very sad...

[woo me with science]

52. K&R And it is all being done in our names. nt

[WillyT]

60. Kick !!!

[Oilwellian]

67. We should have had a more responsible president

He did run as an anti-war candidate after all. We deserve answers to why he's participating in this unilateral war, in so many countries, and killing so many civilians.

But hey, he got his get out of jail free card from the Justice Department for this illegal act, just as Bush's torture program got one from Yoo so many years ago. Life in America will become interesting when other countries acquire Drone capabilities and justifiably attack us in the same way because hey, we're setting the precedent. We may as well get used to walking around with a big, red bulls-eye on our backs.

K&R

[me b zola]

69. K&R

[sibelian]

71. But... but... but but but the PROS OUTWEIGH THE CONS....

sob

[white_wolf]

74. I think the Nobel Committee should take that Peace Prize back.

What Obama and his administration are doing is disgusting and it's sickening that so many people on this site are lining up to support him.

[mike_c]

78. in our names....

This is shameful.

[Taverner]

79. Waiting for the concern trollers in 3...2...1...

[randome]

89. You don't need to be 'concerned' to point out that it was said this kid was collateral damage.

He wasn't targeted, according to officials. Now as to what Gibbs had to say about it, that he was killed because of his father, was likely something he made up off the top of his head because he didn't have any facts.

It was a stupid thing to say.

What is more likely?

That someone at the controls of the drones simply wanted to kill him because of his father?

Or that, since he was with a group of terrorists, he was killed 'incidentally'?

Mind you, I'm not saying it's good that we are killing ANYONE but the idea that someone wants to wipe out a family lineage is ludicrous. There is no evidence of that being the case, just a lot of noise from people who prefer to believe the worst.

And what Gibbs said certainly didn't help.

[Taverner]

93. We're on the same side

And yes THIS stinks to high heaven

I just know some will support Gibbs and co even if they disembowel puppies on live TV

[randome]

95. Got you.

[Demo_Chris]

100. Terrorist puppies or regular? nt

[ReRe]

86. K&R

Thanks for this post, Catherina. I must part ways with those who advocate or otherwise condone the killing of children or innocents, either "over there" or stateside. Collateral damage is never acceptable. It is a sad day in the history of America.

[Catherina]

90. It's sad and dark

It's disgusted me to have seen people, in this very thread, repeated the same bigoted, ugly, prejudiced accusations that were tossed around during the Vietnam War. How dare anyone repeat sick filth such as they don't care for their children so it's hunky dory to kill them?

[randome]

91. Other than Gibbs, who is saying that?

[Douglas Carpenter]

92. thanks for posting -- knr

[Neoma]

94. First time I've seen his picture.

[The Link]

97. "Some of us don't equate terrorists to ordinary Americans."

What I read as an excuse for drone policy. On this forum.

[HiPointDem]

99. "should have (had) a far more responsible father" = sick, disgusting. *they* killed him.

[Democracyinkind]

103. Question. Did Anyone on DU have a non-responsible father?

Question. Does anyone on DU think that should earn him the death sentence?

[Riftaxe]

108. Damn good question

that will be lost in the echo chamber of "our guy did it, so it must be good and righteous..."

Ignoring the fact that those claiming the title of righteous are probably the most evil gits history has every produced.

There is no excuse, none.

[Riftaxe]

107. You should be ashamed

for putting a face, on what normal people already recognize.

I am sure he was quite evil, 16 year olds tend to be...

[Catherina]

112. I am

I am... But seriously, I'm quite ashamed of how willingly some of my fellow countrymen demonize whatever racial, ethnic or religious group is the enemy du jour.

Before the US went and murdered, along McNamara's estimate, 3.4-3.8 Vietnamese, it was the same lies, the same demonization. Government officials said the Vietnamese didn't love their children the way we do and didn't mourn their deaths. Oliver Stone used some actual footage of this in "Untold History". It was chilling to listen to. And now we read it here.

[Catherina]

113. Sad thing is, as Wikileaks revealed, they went after al-Awlaki because OBL was old news

and they need to keep the populace terrorized enough to support whatever and however to want to wage their wars.

New Wikileaks E-mail Dump Shows Wasted Drone Efforts

By ELIZABETH FLOCK
February 8, 2013


A Yemeni holds up a banner during a protest against U.S. drone attacks in the capital Sanaa, Jan. 28, 2013.


On Wednesday, a confidential Justice Department memo acquired by NBC made waves for its justification for the extrajudicial killing by a drone of Anwar al-Awlaki, an American citizen suspected of association with al-Qaeda. Thursday, protesters stormed CIA director nominee John Brennan's Senate confirmation, upset over the White House's drone policies.

Less noticed was another related development: Wikileaks this week released another round of E-mails sent by private intelligence company Stratfor, several of which shed light on the quest to capture Awlaki. WhoWhatWhy.com, a nonprofit investigative journalism site which first analyzed the E-mails, says what's most interesting about them is their candor.

In one alleged E-mail sent in September 2010, a top Stratfor official wrote to a colleague that U.S. government agencies were exaggerating the importance of nailing al-Awlaki.

"There's been a ton of media spin and leaks later about Anwar al-Awlaki being the next bin Laden. OBL is becoming old news now," Reva Bhalla, Stratfor's VP of global analysis, wrote to a colleague. "CIA and [Joint Special Operations Command] want a new target to claim success, so there's a concerted campaign going on right now to play up al-Awlaki as the #1 terrorist. Al-Awlaki is much easier to target anyway and they have leads on him, so every agency wants to be the one to say they got him."

...

http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2013/02/08/new-wikileaks-e-mail-dump-shows-wasted-drone-efforts

From: "Reva Bhalla" <[email protected]>
To: "Analyst List" <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, September 4, 2010 3:23:19 PM
Subject: INSIGHT - Yemen - Counterterrorism turf wars in DC

PUBLICATION: background/analysis
ATTRIBUTION: STRATFOR source
SOURCE DESCRIPTION: discussion over sheesha with Yemeni diplomat source
and two of Saleh's younger sons
SOURCE Reliability : B
ITEM CREDIBILITY: 2
DISTRIBUTION: Analysts
SOURCE HANDLER: Reva

Update on those leaks from a couple weeks ago on CIA recommendations to
the administration to carry out drone strikes in Yemen...

The administration has tasked out all the main agencies to give their
recommendations on US counterterrorism policy toward Yemen, with a policy
decision due by the end of the year. There's a huge turf war between CIA
and JSOC over this, which is why all these leaks are coming out. First the
CIA leaked their rec for drone strikes. Then CENTCOM leaked their rec for
$1.2 billion assistance funding for Yemeni special forces (this was all
Petraeus, who has a very good relationship with the Yemenis and goes to
the Yemeni ambo's house pretty regularly for dinner.) The Yemenis are
nervous about Mattis taking over Centcom. THey could deal well with
Petraeus, whom they consider a 'diplomat.' Don't know yet how to read
Mattis.

There's been a ton of media spin and leaks later about Anwar al Awlaki
being the next bin Laden. OBL is becoming old news now. CIA and JSOC want
a new target to claim success, so there's a concerted campaign going on
right now to play up al Awlaki as the #1 terrorist. Al Awlaki is much
easier to target anyway and they have leads on him, so every agency wants
to be the one to say they got him.

--
(name redacted for DU)
Tactical Analyst
Office: (redacted for DU)
Mobile: (redacted for DU)
Strategic Forecasting, Inc.
www.stratfor.com

[Catherina]

114. Some more details: He was coming home

Denver Teen’s Death by Drone Remains Shrouded in Secrecy
By: Kevin Gosztola Monday October 15, 2012 1:06 pm

Photo from Facebook group "Abdulrahman Anwar al-Awlaki - A Crime We'll Never Forget"

...
The teen killed was Abdulrahman Al-Awlaki. He had left home nine days before he turned sixteen to find his father, Anwar al-Awlaki—a Muslim cleric who the Obama administration had placed on a kill list. The teen left a note for his mother, which the Toronto Star’s Michelle Shephard reported begged for forgiveness. The note also explained he missed his father and wanted to talk to him.

Abdulrahman “crawled out a second-story kitchen window and dropped to the garden below” and “crossed the front yard past potted plants and a carnival ride graveyard — Dumbo, Donald Duck, an arched seal balancing a beach ball — debris from his uncle Omar’s failed business venture to install rides in local shopping malls.”

The family guard spotted Abdulrahman, as he left around 6:30 am on September 4, but Abdulrahman was not stopped. He caught a bus to “a cousin’s house in Shabwa province in the south.”

Why Did the US Put My Father on a Kill List?

It is not entirely known what happened on his journey, but Abdulrahman did not make it to his father before a US drone killed him on September 30. According to Tom Junod of Esquire, “The next day, Abdulrahman called his mother from the ancestral village near the Arabian Sea. He had heard about what happened to his father. He was coming home.”

Political unrest had been heightened. Abdulrahman waited two weeks for roads to become safer so he could make his way home. The night before he was to begin his trip back home he said goodbye to new friends and celebrated with six or seven people, “along with a seventeen-year-old cousin.” They sat by a fire under the moonlight and cooked and ate food. That night he was eliminated in a drone attack.

...

http://dissenter.firedoglake.com/2012/10/15/denver-teens-death-by-drone-remains-shrouded-in-secrecy/

[Catherina]

115. CODEPINK with poster of Abdul at Brennan's Senate Hearing on Tuesday

Yesterday CODEPINK activists derailed the Senate Intelligence Committee hearing where John Brennan was questioned to determine his eligibility to head the CIA. We don't think the assassination czar/drone master is fit for the position and we let them know! Call Senator Feinstein's office now and urge her to reject John Brennan for the CIA!: [phone]





https://www.facebook.com/abdulrahman.14.10.2011?ref=ts&fref=ts&_fb_noscript=1


CODEPINK Repeatedly Disrupts Brennan Hearing Calling Out Names Of Civilians Killed in Drone Strikes