Obama personally oversees Al-Qaeda ‘kill list’

reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin


He had no problem killing Anwar Al-Awaki and his 16 year old son.

reply to post by RealSpoke

He had no problem killing Anwar Al-Awaki and his 16 year old son.

The nationality of the individual killed in a “targeted killing” has no bearing on the legal justification in regards to the jurisprudence applied by the American government when it comes to neutralise terrorist threats.

In the case of Anwar Al-Awaki, the justification for this killing is that it was an act of self defence, which does not constitute assassination. It is an extension to the same morality that justifies a police officer shooting an armed and dangerous criminal who is going to kill innocent civilians. This comparison can be difficult to comprehend and I admit that it is a difficult concept to accept as being the morally right thing to do. Weather one believes this is the correct course of action is a personal judgement as currently the American administration is legally justified in its current use of covert drone strikes to neutralise perceived terrorist threats by successfully claiming that these operations are acts of self defence against an enemy of the state. It would be absurd to claim that each and every one of these drone strikes is legally justified in this way; however one would have to go through each individual operation and judge its legality, Al-Awaki was legal his son was collateral damage.

It is not my intention in posting in this thread to persuade you that drone attacks are morally correct rather to attempt to inform you as to how the administration justifies them.

reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin


Then they could claim anyone as a terrorist, kill them, and then claim self defense.

reply to post by RealSpoke

Then they could claim anyone as a terrorist, kill them, and then claim self defense.

No they couldn’t, the onus is on the administration to prove that the individual targeted for killing is a terrorist in accordance with American law and that this individual presents a clear threat to the national security of America.

They couldn’t for example, brand you a terrorist unless you were to actually be regarded as a terrorist under American law or be a member of one of the prescribed groups. If they were to walk up to your front door, shoot you in the head and then justify it by saying “he was a terrorist this was self defence”, they would have to prove that you really were a terrorist who was a clear and present danger to the national security of the United states and that it was not possible to capture you alive.

It seems that for some reason that there is an army of members on ATS who believe that “they” can brand anyone a terrorist and kill anyone “they” want. This is not true.

Tried to start a thread with this breaking news but got busted.


So incase you don't know--

David Axelrod Denies Attending 'Kill List' Meetings (VIDEO)
www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/03/david-axelrod-kill-list-meetings_n_1566138.html

7 hours ago ... Obama campaign strategist David Axelrod said on Sunday that reports of him attending President Obama's weekly "Terror Tuesday" meetings ... David Axelrod Denies Attending 'Kill List' Meetings: Obama campaign strategist ...