Drone Strikes - Obama Advisor Justifies Killing Innocent 16-Year-Old

[rachel1]

&feature=plcp

"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.

Abdulrahman al-Awlaki was the son of Anwar al-Awlaki, an al Qaeda propagandist killed by a U.S. drone a year ago. But the child was killed in a separate strike some two weeks after his father was killed. Gibbs wasn't entirely familiar with the situation, and didn't know that al-Awlaki's son was killed two weeks after his father was killed, a person familiar with his thinking at the time he was interviewed told HuffPost. We Are Change bills itself as a non-partisan media organization "working to expose corruption."

"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."

Gibbs had initially attempted to wave off a question about the boy. "I'm not going to get into Anwar al-Awlaki's son. I know that Anwar al-Awlaki renounced his citizenship, did great harm to people in this country." Anwar Al-Awlaki, born and educated in the U.S., was a senior al Qaeda recruiter and propagandist, American authorities have said.

But the reporter pressed him, noting that the teen had not renounced his citizenship and was underage. The Atlantic suggests that if Gibbs is giving the genuine rationale for the killing, it's grounds for impeachment." Cenk Uygur analyzes Gibbs' reprehensible answer and gives insight into its implications.

*Read more from Ryan Grim/ Huffington Post:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/24/robert-gibbs-anwar-al-awlaki_n_2012438.html

*View the original video from We Are Change:

Support The Young Turks by Subscribing http://bit.ly/TYTonYouTube

Support The Young Turks by Shopping http://bit.ly/XhuNqO

Like Us on Facebook: http://www.fb.com/tytnation
Follow Us on Twitter: http://bit.ly/OkX87X

Buy TYT Merch: http://theyoungturks.spreadshirt.com/

Find out how to watch The Young Turks on Current by clicking here: http://www.current.com/gettyt


Just imagine the outrage if a foreign official justified the murder of 16-year-old US citizens by use military drones.

You can bet there would not just be national condemnation but international condemnation yet I've found little-to-no outrage with Gibbs's statement.

[whathehell]

1. That's fucked up.

Gibbs has some problems.

[geckosfeet]

2. Gibbs should know enough to not discuss the matter. I do think he was stating his personal

opinion and not policy, but he should keep his opinion to himself.

And that of course. is my opinion.

[Downwinder]

3. If the father is a bad guy, you target and kill the kids?

[Tx4obama]

7. The son was NOT the target of the drone, the terrorists in the car were the target.

The 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.

[alp227]

10. Uhh cool rationalization. Fact is, drones still kill the innocent.

[rachel1]

11. Indeed. I wonder if the justifications for drone strikes are similar to the pro-collateral damage

justifications used by supporters of the bloodshed committed by the US military in the Vietnam War...

[aquart]

12. Yes. Name a war procedure that doesn't.

Personally, I like a method that doesn't kill, maim, or traumatize American soldiers.

I prefer it.

Alexander the Great, a more hands-on warrior, knew not to leave his enemy's children alive even if that child was his little brother.

[redgreenandblue]

20. So in other words, you believe American lives are worth more than non-American lives.

[02potato]

16. drones kill who we say is/are bad (their will be no discussion) thank you...

Whom ever our president decides whom to kill is right and good...

Its the best of all possible worlds! "Candide"

[aquart]

13. No, you hand out daffodils. DID YOU SEE WHAT HAPPENED IN BEIRUT?

Syria went after one man and took out a NEIGHBORHOOD. Children and all.

Get a grip and look at how SMALL our body count is in relation to that random butchery.

It SHOULD be dangerous to stand next to our enemies.

[Downwinder]

14. So 9/11 would have been O.K. if they had named a target?

Or My Lai and Tiger Force were justified if they got one Viet Cong?

[aquart]

15. What?

They didn't. None of those acts were like these. Apples and oranges and you REALLY need to study your fruit.

You haven't the faintest idea what you are whinging about and my second inclination is to say, "Please...proceed."

[redgreenandblue]

18. Actually they were. A person who accepts the death of innocents for their agenda is a terrorist.

Plain and simple. It doesn't matter if it is one innocent or five thousand. The scale may be different but the quality is the same. There is no moral difference between justifying 9/11 and justifiying drone strikes. Both are done by people with a political agenda who are willing to kill for that agenda.

[limpyhobbler]

4. he should have called security and had them all tasered.

Last edited Fri Oct 26, 2012, 12:10 AM - Edit history (1)

just kidding

[MrSlayer]

5. I can see being upset about this if he was the target.

But being that he was with the targets, my sympathies just aren't there. Perhaps he should have been here going to school or playing football or something that other regular 16 year old kids are doing. The reason this isn't a big story here and there isn't much outrage is because he was in Yemen with a bunch of al-Qaeda people and ended up being collateral damage. If they droned a 16 year old kid in Denver for no apparent reason there would be much outrage. That's the difference. I can understand people not liking it, I can even see people not liking the killing of his father but no one cares about this kid because of where he was and who he was with. That's the bottom line.

[Tx4obama]

6. The 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.


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.

[still_one]

8. Sounds reasonable

[Galraedia]

9. This is b#llsh!t

The father got his family involved with terrorists. The kid wasn't even the target. He was at the wrong place at the wrong time and around a group of people he should have never been around. This libertarian NDAA drone strike paranoia needs to stop. It's annoying.

[Trivium]

17. wow, your outlook is the foundation that tyranny is built upon

"This libertarian NDAA drone strike paranoia needs to stop. It's annoying."

Really? Really? Perhaps you need to take a trip outside the corporate bubble that is present day America. The police/surveillance states there grows each day. Right in front of your face.


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

Top Secret America: The Rise of the New American Security State

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/top-secret-america/

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

Congress Passes Bill to Proliferate Drone Use in US Airspace (FAA says up to 30,000 by 2020)

http://techland.time.com/2012/02/08/congress-paves-way-for-unmanned-drones-in-u-s-commercial-airspace/

Ready to see drones flying over your house? A new bill passed by Congress will give commercial, private and military unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) greatly increased access to U.S. airspace that’s currently reserved only for manned planes. Right now drones are mostly limited to the U.S.-Mexico border and military airspace, as well as use by around 300 public agencies located far away from cities and airports. That is now scheduled to change by September 30, 2015.

The main focus of the bill is the FAA’s adoption of NextGen, a program that will allow commercial aircraft to install and use GPS technology for steeper, more efficient take-offs and landings instead of the ridiculously outdated way things are done now. All in all, this should help make air travel a lot more time efficient. We shouldn’t, however, ignore the implications of letting drones into airspace that was previously off-limits. While the military and local police forces have long been able to use UAVs in operations on U.S. soil, the prospect of commercial and privately owned drones presents plenty of new questions.

First, there’s the issue of privacy. Rigging a cheap drone with a video camera was no problem for an Occupy protestor; http://techland.time.com/2011/12/21/occupy-wall-streets-new-drone-the-occucopter/ how hard would it be for someone with deeper pockets to finance a drone with even more powerful surveillance equipment to monitor, well, who knows what? How will we know what purposes any private citizen has for deploying a drone overhead?

Then there are the corporations. Forbes http://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2012/02/07/congress-welcomes-the-drones/ points out that companies like Google could ditch their Street View cars and start deploying advanced, autonomous drones to roam the country for incredibly thorough mapping. If the idea of fleets of corporate-owned drones monitoring us from above doesn’t scare you, then you are a much less paranoid person than I.

clip

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

Send In The Drones: The Predator State Goes Domestic


http://freedominourtime.blogspot.com/2011/12/send-in-drones-predator-state-goes.html

“Eventually, we’ll have to put an end to this, one way or another.”

Sheriff Kelly Janke of North Dakota’s Nelson County http://bismarcktribune.com/news/state-and-regional/rural-north-dakota-agencies-question-homeland-security-grants/article_f1dc8d8e-17ea-11df-bb45-001cc4c002e0.html uttered that ominous sentence in mid-September, http://www.valleynewslive.com/story/15463154/lakota-familys-ties-to-radical-group during what the local media giddily described as a stand-off with local farmer Rodney Brossart and his family. By that time, Sheriff Janke, with the help of the Department of Homeland Security and the U.S. Air Force, had already run the table where “non-lethal” means of compelling the family to surrender were concerned. This included everything from the Taser used during Brossart’s June 23 arrest to the precedent-setting use of a Predator-B drone to conduct surveillance of the home several days later to facilitate the arrest of the farmer’s three sons.

The most recent conflict between Janke’s department and Brossart began when a half-dozen stray cattle wandered onto the family’s farm, which is located near the tiny village of Lakota (roughly 100 miles northwest of Fargo). Brossart, who reportedly believed that the cattle were unclaimed and thus belonged to him under a disputed interpretation of open-range law, refused to turn them over to the Sheriff.

A team of deputies tasered the 55-year-old farmer and took him into custody. His daughter Abby, frantic for the safety of her father, tried to intervene; for “striking” the sanctified personage of a deputy, she was arrested and charged with assault. When Brossart’s wife Susan refused to help the deputies locate what they described as “illegal” firearms, she, too, was arrested and charged with lying to law enforcement officers (who are trained to lie http://www.officer.com/article/10233095/training-cops-to-lie-pt-1 and can do so without legal consequence). http://www.republicmagazine.com/news/dont-help-the-police-put-you-in-jail.html When deputies returned the following day, they were reportedly confronted by Brossart’s three sons – Jacob, Alex, and Thomas -- who were allegedly carrying the rifles the police had tried to confiscate the previous day.

This led Sheriff Janke to escalate the confrontation to a full-spectrum military response – including, in the words of the Los Angeles Times, http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-drone-arrest-20111211,0,324348.story elements “from the state Highway Patrol, a regional SWAT team, a bomb squad, ambulances, and deputy sheriffs from three other counties. He also called in a Predator B drone.” That unmanned aerial vehicle, identical to those used in CIA-directed missions in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, and elsewhere, was supplied by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection Agency http://www.uasvision.com/2011/06/06/u-s-customs-and-border-protection-agency-predators-exceed-10000-flight-hours/ (CBP), an affiliate of the Department of Homeland Security. http://www.cbp.gov/

clip
--------------------------------------


U.S. law enforcement agencies authorized by the FAA to use surveillance drones

http://www.mercurynews.com/top-stories/ci_21803966/u-s-law-enforcement-agencies-authorized-by-faa


The number of organizations that have been authorized by the Federal Aviation Administration is estimated to have grown to about 100. They include the Department of Homeland Security, the FBI and numerous universities. About a dozen are law enforcement agencies. Here is a list provided by the Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International, the industry's main trade group.

Arlington County Police Department (Texas)

CAL FIRE (California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection)

Georgia Tech Police Department (Georgia)

Federal Bureau of Investigation

Hays County Office of Emergency Services (Texas)

Houston Police Department (Texas)

Miami-Dade Police Department (Florida)

Mesa County Arizona Police Department (Colorado)

North Little Rock Police Department (Arkansas)

Ogden Police Department (Utah)

Seattle Police Department (Washington)

Virginia Tech Police Department (Virginia)

Texas Department of Public Safety (Texas)

Washington State Department of Transportation (Washington)

clip

As Drone Debate Rages, Police Move on to Million-Dollar Spy Planes

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/10/spy-planes-domestic/

FAA Has Authorized 106 Government ‘Entities’ to Fly Domestic Drones

http://homeland.house.gov/sites/homeland.house.gov/files/Testimony-Dillingham.pdf

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

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out--
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out--
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out--
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me--and there was no one left to speak for me.

Martin Niemöller

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

Benjamin Franklin