
The Drone that Killed my Grandson - dr_
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/18/opinion/the-drone-that-killed-my-grandson.html?hp&_r=0
======
downandout
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.

~~~
lifeisstillgood
I respect your views and comments and the above is correct and mournful and
valid.

But it suffers from something too common around here - dispassion. Looking at
the wider, geopolitical implications, a step back from the facts and keeping
things on the level of "people" \- not _that_ person.

I read your comment first, then dived into the article. I expected to agree
with you, but I just felt mounting horror, outrage and a realisation that
things are beyond a line I never knew existed. So here is my comment

Jesus H Fucking Christ on a Stick! We are blowing up American Citizens sitting
in cafes and legally it's "untouchable". Are we that fucking removed from
reality that its ok to murder people with no trial or comeback. It seems its
ok to blow away the son and grandson of other country's government ministers
and not expect a war, a prison sentence, or even a mention on CNN

Are we that fragile as a civilisation that the tiny amount of damage terrorism
presents is actually a threat? What did I miss - I thought we had industry,
welfare, science and ingenuity. Stop murdering people.

I am writing to my MP but mostly I would like some figures - there was a
twitter thing that reported gun murders. Can we do the same for drone murders?

~~~
swombat
Seems to me like the horrendous part is the bit where you take a citizen,
accuse them of terrorism, stick them on a "kill list" (wtf!), then execute
them without further due process of law. Bear in mind that "terrorism" now
covers people like an 82-year old catholic nun demonstrating at a nuclear
plant.

If that's not anti-constitutional, your constitution ain't worth shit.

If it is anti-constitutional, your system of "checks and balances" ain't worth
shit.

Either way something fundamental is very broken there.

~~~
ankitml
It is not _something_ , Government of USA is running lots of programs without
any checks and balances necessary for a functional democracy. And
surprisingly, this very govt is interested in bringing democracy to other
countries.

~~~
pygy_
There's a running joke about that.

I feel weird linking to an image macro on HN, but it is sadly relevant.

[http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/250x250/34530200.jpg](http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/250x250/34530200.jpg)

------
vacri
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
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
_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.

------
flexie
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.

~~~
InclinedPlane
This is a good analysis but I think it misses the mark a bit.

The problem is very much one of terrorism. The basic idea of terrorism is to
erase the boundaries of the battlefield. The worst possible reaction to that
is to do the same, but that's increasingly what we've been doing. In order to
be capable of fighting a war effectively (even while acting purely
defensively) the rules of the battlefield must necessarily be very much
different from the rules of civilized society.

Increasingly the ideas that police should act like soldiers, that soldiers
should be used for policing, and that the protections inherent in the criminal
justice system are now outmoded and no longer useful in fighting terrorism
have taken hold. But this has occurred concomitant with the expansion of the
"battlefield" in the "war on terror" to encompass no less than the entirety of
human civilization.

The result is that while the terrorists may have knocked a few holes in the
walls we have put up between civilized society under the rule of law and the
near-anarchy of the battlefield the governments of the world have gleefully
participated in shooting vastly more holes in those walls.

~~~
atdepth
The governments of the world aren't the only ones responsible; much of this
has been cheered on and done with the gleeful support of their citizenry.

~~~
Centigonal
I don't recall a pro-expansion-of-governmental-power stance becoming the
majority in any country after late 2005. I could be forgetting something, but
my impression has been that (at least in the US) the public response to the
war on terror was, for a short while, overwhelmingly positive and then, for a
much longer period, in favor of more governmental restraint.

~~~
philwelch
The war on terror was never controversial. Iraq was controversial because it
was seen to be totally irrelevant to the war on terror and because it cost
American money and lives. Aside from a liberal fringe who quickly decided gay
marriage and the symbolism of having a black president was more important than
extraordinary rendition and torture, no one cared about anything else.

------
neya
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
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.

~~~
eksith
You're assuming he was a "bad enough dude" with no evidence to support that
assertion. The burden of proof is _always_ on the accuser. If he was accused
of being worthy of death, let's see some documentation to support that.

At present there are no answers, no explanations, no reasons given besides his
death and the fact he and his father were on a hit list.

~~~
bwaldrep
No explanations given by the author. Here is some general background on the
father: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-
Awlaki](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki)

Edit: Note I am not defending the killing of the grandson by any means.
However, I did notice that the father was tried in a court in Yemen, and the
judge ordered him to be apprehended "dead or alive."
[http://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/2010/11/08/Cleric-
say...](http://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/2010/11/08/Cleric-says-
American-devils-must-die/UPI-61991289245343) I was just surprised that people
are so suspicious of any claim that the father was anything other than an
ordinary citizen minding his own business, yet accept the narrative presented
in the original article at face value.

eksith asked for evidence that the father was a "bad dude." I provided some.
It is perfectly fine to argue that this isn't justification for death, but
that wasn't briancaw's point. This merely seems to indicate that the narrator
might not be providing the most balanced perspective.

~~~
eksith
Let me ask again... what evidence do you have that _he_ specifically deserved
to be killed without explanation?

Let me put it in another way, since the question doesn't seem to be making
sense to you: If your father happened to be Timothy McVeigh, should the
government target you for death?

Edit: I just read your edit and I apologize for the tone of my post. It wasn't
called for. I could blame the lack of coffee or that I was tired, but the fact
is, these types of stories really bother me and I didn't think it through
before posting.

I'm sorry.

Edit2: My request for evidence was for the _son_ ; not the father. The primary
subject of the article was described as a typical 16-year old with the
misfortune of simply being the son of an alleged terrorist. Where was the
evidence that he deserved death?

~~~
briancaw2
If Timothy McVeigh's son left to go hang out with his dad who was actively a
terrorist and then ended up dead I would dig a little deeper before acting
like our entire intelligence community is evil.

~~~
sarutahiko
If a sixteen year old kid wanted to see his father, whom he hadn't seen in
years, you'd have to dig a little deeper?

Seriously?

Like.. Ignoring everything else wrong with this story, that's still pretty
fucked up for you to even imply.

------
cinquemb
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…"

~~~
ealloc
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?

~~~
rooshdi
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
Serious, no, tapping is serous the drones are HORRIBLE!

------
runn1ng
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._

~~~
streptomycin
Writing nasty things about the US on a blog is not illegal. Helping plan a
terrorist attack is, but unfortunately there's no evidence that Awlaki
actually did that except some heresay from the government. The question is,
should we allow the government to assassinate Americans without any trial or
oversight just because they claim to have some secret evidence?

~~~
runn1ng
What I wrote to your ... sibling?... there is an authorization to use military
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_.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Milit...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Military_Force_Against_Terrorists)

Again I am not sure if this is enough legal justification to kill a US citizen
without a trial.

~~~
streptomycin
Apparently it is enough legal justification since there hasn't been anything
close to a serious legal challenge it. The more interesting question is
whether it is morally justifiable.

------
victorhooi
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
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
He's in federal prison--effectively for life.

------
NoPiece
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
Context on the family? Is the son guilty of his father's crimes?

~~~
NoPiece
The article is written like they were just some regular americans on vacation
in Yemen. If my child was out recruiting for Al Qaeda, and preaching to the
9/11 hijackers, I'd hope that I'd be more self reflective about what I could
have done differently. Maybe take some responsibility instead of complaining
in the New York Times. The son isn't guilty of the father's crimes, but the
father may have some responsibility for the son's crimes. The grandson is an
innocent victim, but he wasn't targeted. That's an ugly mistake.

~~~
kevingadd
How can you define a precision drone strike as 'he wasn't targeted'?

~~~
NoPiece
Because precision means location, not who is at the location.

 _According to U.S. officials the killing of Abdulrahman al-Awlaki was a
mistake; the actual target was an Egyptian, Ibrahim al-Banna._

He wasn't on the target list, he was at the wrong place at the wrong time. If
they knew he was there and were secretly targeting him, Obama should be
impeached.

~~~
bigiain
"Because precision means" … something different to what "normal people" mean
when they use the word "precision", just like when we use the words "collect"
and "no", and our congressional oversight somehow misunderstands us…

(or, alternatively, "because that was the least imprecise targeted attack we
were capable of at the time")

------
semiprivate
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."

------
omarali
"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)

------
girvo
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
> 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.

------
joering2
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.

------
faceplanter
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."

------
Qantourisc
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
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.

------
Roboprog
Irony:

[http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transc...](http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transcript.html)

... 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.

------
grey-area
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?

------
jurassic
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)

------
gadders
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
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
Playing chess with his Dad's lieutenants then :-)

------
username42
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.

------
rooob
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.

------
ChikkaChiChi
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.

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

------
j2d3
I have no words. There is just nothing

------
Fuxy
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.

------
wehadfun
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

------
tome
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?

------
InclinedPlane
Watch this as well:
[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mp8ajGyAGO0](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mp8ajGyAGO0)

------
TallGuyShort
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)

------
rfctr
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?

------
dil8
An absolute disgrace that a so called democracy can have a list of people its
going to kill...

------
jheriko
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?

------
kumarski
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?

------
salaami
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?

------
twoodfin
Who would have guessed that this submission's comments would be dominated by
9/11 truthers? Fascinating.

Keep these great posts coming!

------
kkouddous
For a deep dive into this watch/read
[http://dirtywars.org](http://dirtywars.org).

------
ttt_
Colateral damage aside, doesn't bombing rescuers and funerals classify as
terrorism?

Seriously...

------
snambi
whats the point of killing random people?

------
decryptthis_NSA
_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.

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

------
badmadrad
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
Prove it.

The US Government didn't.

