A secret council makes the decision. In theory they get Obama's approval, but it is not clear if it is considered necessary. Regardless, the council members are under the umbrella of Obama's administration.
Wait - were the two kids the targets of this attack or were they randomly at the AQ hideout? If they weren't the target, did the US know they were there?
That sucks. But the antiwar article is just terrible. If you're going to post something from antiwar.com, at least post the prowar.com article on the subject too.
Collateral damage happens all the time. Millions of innocent people have died from different wars. The concern here is if the kids were targeted or did they just happen to be there while they were targeting a someone important.
Probably why the USA is investing in these Kamikaze Drones. http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.b0b893fb04aee2445cb9d54b02462bd7.2f1&show_article=1 They are meant to take out just the target.
uhm . . .it seems Anwar al-Awlaki and his family's b****ing and moaning had a few reprecussions Rocket River
The problem is. . . Al Quaida talks like that. To them . . the 9/11 Victims are just collayeral damage in a war against the west. I don't agree . . . but When does enough 'Collateral Damages' . . .becomes an atrocity? or simply wrong? Do we have a magic number for that? Rocket River
I didn't think the son was a target of the attack but collateral damage when they were attacking an Al Qaeda stronghold. Not that it makes it OK, but it is different to the kid being a target.
Yes - seems like this would be useful to know this before passing a judgment one way or another. If there was an American hanging out in the Bin Laden compound and got killed in the crossfire of the assault, would people be equally outraged?
