Disregarding the absurdity of a 16yr old threatening a world superpower, what if they're not a legitimate threat? And how do we, the people, have any idea if the threat is legitimate or not? We're not privy to the evidence, we're not even able to trust in a judicial process. It's strictly after-the-fact hearsay. Extending this line of thinking can take you down a pretty unpleasant path.
If it was an AQ camp then it is bad luck on their part for being there at the wrong time. Still an investigation into the attack should be called for. DD
Do you think Wilson's generals publicly stated which targets they were going to attack? This is a really poor comparison as you are comparing the strategic decision to go to war with tactical decisions of who to target. In this case there was a public authorization of force that was passed by Congress to target Al Qaeda. That is the legal equivalent of a declaration of war. Regarding this specific situation I find this disturbing and as other posters mentioned the key question to me was this boy a specific target or was this just a case of being at the wrong place at the wrong time. Neither are good but I think it is much worse if the US is deliberately targeting children.
Currently, the administration has refused comment on the issue. The Washington Post reports that "officials would not discuss the attack in any detail, including who the target was.” The post was able to confirm that his age was 16 and published his birth certificate. I'm sure if they get pressed on the issue, the administration will conveniently 'leak' some memo in their favor that provided authorization, or will offer the claim that he was connected to Al-Qaeda and was collateral damage in an attack on militants. The fact of the matter is that we'll never know the veracity of such claims. The absence of any meaningful oversight means that there's little accountability for those carrying out potentially illegal strikes against innocent civilians, in this case a 16-year old US Citizen reportedly at a barbecue with friends. That, and also the fact that most people in this country simply dont care anymore.... There's lots more to be said, but I think Greenwald said it best:
#1 Hearsay goes both ways... we do not know what or why he was there. I do find it odd that he just happened to be where known terrorists were expected to be. At 16, he is a young man. It is not pretty, but I would not be surprised if they knowingly killed him because they do not want to deal with him in a few years. One of the absolute worst things that the USA people has ever done is allow the Patriot Act to pass, I knew it was a disaster at the time... the Alien and Sedition Act x 1000..... However, after 911 the American people decided that they would tolerate having less rights, and would compromise what were supposedly basic rights and values cherished by Americans. The cat is out of the bag... and now, 10 years later, I wonder, did we ever really value those rights, or where they always an illusion. Yes, I agree, it can.... and it has, for many thousands of years.... we are no different. It is not pretty, but it is reality. It is disapointing but not surprising.
I suspect that they knew he was there... why was he at an AQ camp? Our international policy has taken a sharp turn towards that of Israel. This is about crushing the next generation of terrorists being destroyed. Is it short sighted? Yeah, I think so, like the war on drugs... To the poster that said it is absurb that a 16 year old is a threat to a super power.... people would have said the same thing about Bin Laden or any of the terrorists prior to 911. Personally.... we are now in the middle of it, hard to change course. The policies of the Bush administration will have an ENORMOUS long term impact on this country..... and to think, all this over a few hanging chads.
Actually, President Obama is doing exactly what he said he would do when running for president. He said he would expand the use of drones to take out AQ and other terrorists, particularly the leaders, whether that use crossed borders (as in the borders of Afghanistan), or not. He went far beyond what Bush, for whatever reason, was willing to do and, unsurprisingly, has reaped the results. That many attempt to discredit him for what amounts to being more successful at taking out the leaders of our most bitter terrorist foe than President Bush says more about the extremists in the Republican Party and their equally extreme "tea party" friends than it does about Mister Obama.
Actually, I have not seen a real strong effort to discredit Mister Obama on his use of force with foreign policy.... when he was elected, they loved to call him soft and inexperienced. Ever since he dumped Bin Laden's body at sea, I have heard very little. I suspect it is because he has been far better at it than Bush. Honestly, most of the critics seem to be from the left. I have heard a number of liberals express disbelief and anger at our foreign policy. Also, everything you said about Obama being true to his word concerning drones, ect, I agree with.... however, I do not think either the left or the right listened, or thought he would do what he has done. As I stated earlier, he is stuck in a catch-22. I will say this, he has been very effective at foreign policy... the issue is whether the course he has taken is right or not.
If our actions result in so much collateral damage how can we justify being better than the terrorists. There is a reason why countries with so many natural resources like Iraq remains crap whereas a country like japan with not many natural resources is one the world largest economic producers. Its based on principals and hopefully this country doesn't continue on the path to the dark side.
