US Goverment Executes 16 Year Old From Colorado

Sort of a misleading leadin to story.
I understood he was a passenger in a vehicle with a terrorist who was marked for elimination.
I would say as the military says "collateral damage".
Was unintended, not an execution.

Originally posted by camaro68ss

Originally posted by DerbyCityLights
Awlaki was a treasonous traitor to America. A crime punishable by death during war time according to the law. If you don't want to be targeted, don't be a traitor and trick the youth into blowing themselves up for your cause. Not only was he treasonous, but he was a coward (as all of those pieces of feces are) who trick their youth into becoming suicide bombers.

how do you know the son was a traitor? he was no suicide bomber other wise this would not be a story. Wheres your source? how do you know he was a traitor? do you just belive what the goverment tells you? Its people like you is the reason we have a constitution and trials by peers.

edit on 6-12-2011 by camaro68ss because: (no reason given)

The kids family said that he went to go look for his father, surly his family members were concerned for his safety? I mean they knew who the father was and they knew that where the boy wanted to go was a "hot spot".

They LET him go there, the kid couldn't have obtained his passport and left the country on his own, not without breaking many laws anyway.

Another fact is that the boy was not a specific target, he just happened to be in the same building with known major terrorist leaders. Do you think it was just a coincidence that his father was a big terrorist supporter,he was obviously sent for by his father, he was in the same building with some terrorist leaders and the terrorist leaders were bombed ?

The United States intelligence were likely watching him and his father's every move and listening to every word they were saying, for months probably even years before they struck the leaders that the father and son were associated with.

They were at the wrong place at the wrong time, they are either collateral damage or more likely just as guilty as those terrorist leaders.

We can't wait for them to strap a bomb and kill many innocent people before we label them a terrorist. If you are closely associated with known terrorist leaders, share the same views as those terrorists and indeed are in the same building as those terrorists when those terrorist leaders get bombed then you got what you deserved.

Now as for the boy I don't agree with killing minors but its obvious that his father had him there, his father is the one that put his life in danger. The United states was striking legitimate targets.

According to his relatives, Abdulrahman left the family home in the Sana'a area on Sept. 15 in search of his fugitive father who was hiding out with his tribe, the Awalak, in the remote, rugged southern province of Shabwa. Days after the teenager began his quest, however, his father was killed in a U.S. drone strike. Then, just two weeks later, the Yemeni government claimed another air strike killed a senior al-Qaeda militant. Abdulrahman, his teenage cousin and six others died in the attack as well. A U.S. official said the young man "was in the wrong place at the wrong time," and that the U.S. was trying to kill a legitimate terrorist — al-Qaeda leader Ibrahim al-Banna, who also died — in the strike that apparently killed the American teenager.

NewWorldOrderReport.com

-Alien

There are really 2 sides to this coin... On one hand I agree with the OP. That our government has no right to drone strike someone half way from orbit outside a combat zone without due process. Even if he was considered a terrorist. Thats why it's called the "war on terror", if your fighting a word not just a group of people you can chase "terror" all around the world. Then the world is your combat zone. Double speak at it's finest.

On the other hand this guy was a threat and needed to be delt with. Blowing him off the face of the earth doesn't seem like the right answer to me. They should atleast try and get some info out of this guy before they execute. Age doesen't matter to me here if your a threat your a threat... PERIOD

I live in Colorado myself and am big into going to the shooting/trap range here. On a few occasions there were large groups of middle eastern men (18-30) at the range being filmed by a few women in full burka's. I try not to profile anyone but the whole thing caught my attention. It also drew the attention of my father, and most people at the range that day. Was a little tense when everyone was checking in. A room full of guns and people who know how to use them...

I really hate these misleading story titles. Is the story so without merrit, it might get overlooked?

reply to post by FlyersFan
ok it seems to have worked , there is a wording in here in have a problem with Hostile and Belligerent other than that it is fime

S.1867
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Engrossed in Senate [Passed Senate] - ES)

Subtitle D--Detainee Matters

SEC. 1031. AFFIRMATION OF AUTHORITY OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES TO DETAIN COVERED PERSONS PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE.

(a) In General- Congress affirms that the authority of the President to use all necessary and appropriate force pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40) includes the authority for the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons (as defined in subsection (b)) pending disposition under the law of war.

(b) Covered Persons- A covered person under this section is any person as follows:

(1) A person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored those responsible for those attacks.

(2) A person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces.

(c) Disposition Under Law of War- The disposition of a person under the law of war as described in subsection (a) may include the following:

(1) Detention under the law of war without trial until the end of the hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force.

(2) Trial under chapter 47A of title 10, United States Code (as amended by the Military Commissions Act of 2009 (title XVIII of Public Law 111-84)).

(3) Transfer for trial by an alternative court or competent tribunal having lawful jurisdiction.

(4) Transfer to the custody or control of the person's country of origin, any other foreign country, or any other foreign entity.

(d) Construction- Nothing in this section is intended to limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force.

(e) Authorities- Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities, relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.

(f) Requirement for Briefings of Congress- The Secretary of Defense shall regularly brief Congress regarding the application of the authority described in this section, including the organizations, entities, and individuals considered to be `covered persons' for purposes of subsection (b)(2).

S.1867
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Engrossed in Senate [Passed Senate] - ES)S.1867
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Engrossed in Senate [Passed Senate] - ES)

Subtitle D--Detainee Matters

SEC. 1031. AFFIRMATION OF AUTHORITY OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES TO DETAIN COVERED PERSONS PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE.

(a) In General- Congress affirms that the authority of the President to use all necessary and appropriate force pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40) includes the authority for the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons (as defined in subsection (b)) pending disposition under the law of war.

(b) Covered Persons- A covered person under this section is any person as follows:

(1) A person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored those responsible for those attacks.

(2) A person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces.

(c) Disposition Under Law of War- The disposition of a person under the law of war as described in subsection (a) may include the following:

(1) Detention under the law of war without trial until the end of the hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force.

(2) Trial under chapter 47A of title 10, United States Code (as amended by the Military Commissions Act of 2009 (title XVIII of Public Law 111-84)).

(3) Transfer for trial by an alternative court or competent tribunal having lawful jurisdiction.

(4) Transfer to the custody or control of the person's country of origin, any other foreign country, or any other foreign entity.

(d) Construction- Nothing in this section is intended to limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force.

(e) Authorities- Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities, relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.

(f) Requirement for Briefings of Congress- The Secretary of Defense shall regularly brief Congress regarding the application of the authority described in this section, including the organizations, entities, and individuals considered to be `covered persons' for purposes of subsection (b)(2).

SEC. 1032. REQUIREMENT FOR MILITARY CUSTODY.

(a) Custody Pending Disposition Under Law of War-

(1) IN GENERAL- Except as provided in paragraph (4), the Armed Forces of the United States shall hold a person described in paragraph (2) who is captured in the course of hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40) in military custody pending disposition under the law of war.

(2) COVERED PERSONS- The requirement in paragraph (1) shall apply to any person whose detention is authorized under section 1031 who is determined--

(A) to be a member of, or part of, al-Qaeda or an associated force that acts in coordination with or pursuant to the direction of al-Qaeda; and

(B) to have participated in the course of planning or carrying out an attack or attempted attack against the United States or its coalition partners.

(3) DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF WAR- For purposes of this subsection, the disposition of a person under the law of war has the meaning given in section 1031(c), except that no transfer otherwise described in paragraph (4) of that section shall be made unless consistent with the requirements of section 1033.

(4) WAIVER FOR NATIONAL SECURITY- The Secretary of Defense may, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Director of National Intelligence, waive the requirement of paragraph (1) if the Secretary submits to Congress a certification in writing that such a waiver is in the national security interests of the United States.

(b) Applicability to United States Citizens and Lawful Resident Aliens-

(1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS- The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.

(2) LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS- The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to a lawful resident alien of the United States on the basis of conduct taking place within the United States, except to the extent permitted by the Constitution of the United States.

(c) Implementation Procedures-

(1) IN GENERAL- Not later than 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the President shall issue, and submit to Congress, procedures for implementing this section.

(2) ELEMENTS- The procedures for implementing this section shall include, but not be limited to, procedures as follows:

(A) Procedures designating the persons authorized to make determinations under subsection (a)(2) and the process by which such determinations are to be made.

(B) Procedures providing that the requirement for military custody under subsection (a)(1) does not require the interruption of ongoing surveillance or intelligence gathering with regard to persons not already in the custody or control of the United States.

(C) Procedures providing that a determination under subsection (a)(2) is not required to be implemented until after the conclusion of an interrogation session which is ongoing at the time the determination is made and does not require the interruption of any such ongoing session.

(D) Procedures providing that the requirement for military custody under subsection (a)(1) does not apply when intelligence, law enforcement, or other government officials of the United States are granted access to an individual who remains in the custody of a third country.

(E) Procedures providing that a certification of national security interests under subsection (a)(4) may be granted for the purpose of transferring a covered person from a third country if such a transfer is in the interest of the United States and could not otherwise be accomplished.

(d) Effective Date- This section shall take effect on the date that is 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, and shall apply with respect to persons described in subsection (a)(2) who are taken into the custody or brought under the control of the United States on or after that effective date.
for it does leave it open to interpretation that could be harmful to the USA

Originally posted by camaro68ss

You first must be found guilty, denounce you citizenship is not a treasons act.

Once you've renounced your citizenship, You are then to be considered as any other human being. When you have no citizenship to protect you, declaring Jihad on the United States will guarantee you what this boy got. Even though I don't believe this boy did enough to warrant a remote kill assassination, I do believe he had to know he had it coming.

Religious freaks, please don't raise your children to follow your bad example.

You've got to be kidding me. 16 year old kids can shoot or blow themselves up just as easily as a 25, 35 or 55 year old.

Just because you don't have all the intelligence on a target doesn't mean that significant evidence doesn't exist.

As someone who's family is fighting, I say kill them all and let God sort it out.

regardless of whether he was guilty or not guilty the fact that they shoot first and ask/or not ask questions later is alarming.

It will make people fear speaking their mind or doing anything that goes against government. meaning if you do not like what the government is doing you run the risk of being smoked if you take any steps to voice your concern or bring about changes legally.

This is pretty much what was done back in the dark ages... we are sure moving forward.

reply to post by camaro68ss


This is very simple to me, you ask how do we know he was actually a terrorist. Explain why an American, would go to Yemen where Americans are more hated then liked. You may say this was his home and he was visiting, I'd say to that I work with quite a few hondurans who would never return home purely because the crime and death rates are so high, pretty much going home is a death sentence. So in retrospec to this guy, he knew he was going into an unstable environment where life is uncertain and still decided to go anyway. I think you'd have something if he was killed on American soil but he wasn't and he decided his own fate.

If 200 years ago you board a Pirate Ship with your kids, if 100 years ago you march with the Kaiser and dig a trench, or 50 years ago take your kids and march with the Chinese into South Korea, or travel down the Ho Chi Mein trail with your son in a NVA Jeep, chances are you might get KILLED. Give me a friggin break. Save the damn tears. Live with the enemy, die with the enemy.

Originally posted by Plotus
I really hate these misleading story titles. Is the story so without merrit, it might get overlooked?

Yes, those trying to fool people with these type of wrong titles are damaging the peace movement and making regular folk look deceptive. The kid was murdered. My country illegally invaded and murdered one million people. One in a million.

Originally posted by MissingRonnieR
If 200 years ago you board a Pirate Ship with your kids, if 100 years ago you march with the Kaiser and dig a trench, or 50 years ago take your kids and march with the Chinese into South Korea, or travel down the Ho Chi Mein trail with your son in a NVA Jeep, chances are you might get KILLED. Give me a friggin break. Save the damn tears. Live with the enemy, die with the enemy.

You have just made a billion people the enemy. Enemies are not exclusive to one side. You are in favor of killing one billion people, just because they are near somone's enemy?

So, let me get this straight. A person, American citizen, plans attacks to kill other innocent Americans and the government isn't suppose to do anything about it? The guy is in a place unreachable. He had his chance to a fair trial and didn't take it. What are we suppose to do with American terrorists abroad? While they plan and carry out attacks just leave them be while they murder innocents? LOL Get real guys. There's only one way to deal with them and that's to take them out. There's no other way to get to them.

reply to post by pugachev
So you are for thoroughgoing the Constitution, making it right to execute anyone any place?Just on say so?

I didn't say that. I said if someone is conspiring to murder American's and openly states it in videos they release and refuse to answer to an indictment, then they willingly give up their right to due process and are fair game. What do you suggest? Sit back and allow them to conspire and murder American's while being under foreign protection? Our Civil liberties were put in place to protect us from the over reaching hands of our government. Not to allow citizens to murder each other by using what really boils down to a loophole. Does this mean I can sit back in North Korea and savagely murder your family and be forever innocent?

reply to post by pugachev
No not at all , if you do the crime you need to the time ,executing someone on say so is an other matter.
For as it stands 2 need to say so and so was planing on doing such and such to US or its citizens that makes you fair game whether it be true or not.
This is just to dangerous, don't like someone they can be by GOV hands eliminated. do you see what I am getting at?

Originally posted by DerbyCityLights
Awlaki was a treasonous traitor to America. A crime punishable by death during war time according to the law. If you don't want to be targeted, don't be a traitor and trick the youth into blowing themselves up for your cause. Not only was he treasonous, but he was a coward (as all of those pieces of feces are) who trick their youth into becoming suicide bombers.

I wonder if his son was planning to follow in his footsteps. If that is the case, then an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

reply to post by LordBaskettIV


Where do you get that citizenship is taken? It isn't. If you are a traitor, depending on the circumstances, your life is taken, not your citizenship. At the very least you will go to prison for your crimes for the rest of your life. Can you say Gitmo, or Leavenworth?

Originally posted by LordBaskettIV
reply to post by Blaine91555

 

The treason must be proven in a court of law first, and if so their citizenship is then taken. I can understand if someone is killed in capturing stage, but the government must try to bring them to court.

Where do you get that citizenship is taken? It isn't. If you are a traitor, depending on the circumstances, your life is taken, not your citizenship. At the very least you will go to prison for your crimes for the rest of your life. Can you say Gitmo, or Leavenworth?