The death of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin under circumstances deemed to be self defense by the court has ignited riots and countless death threats, yet the undisputed murder of a 16-year-old US citizen and resident of Denver via an Obama-initiated drone strike with no trial whatsoever has generated virtually zero outcry.
The result of our scripted media theater system here in the United States, it turns out that the people really do only lash out against stories that are given the most attention — especially when it comes to the death of those underage. In this case, we have a 16-year-old United States citizen that was killed without any form of a trial. Instead of actually looking at the evidence and taking the case to court, 16-year-old American Abdulrahman was killed from an Obama drone strike while eating at a restaurant.
There’s no question that Abdulrahman’s family is linked up with Al Qaeda, especially with his father being the notorious Anwar al-Awlaki, who was also reportedly killed in a 2011 drone strike. But the case of this 16-year-old American Abdulrahman is a perfect example of how the media literally picks which murder story they’d like to highlight depending on what fits the agenda. When we cheer on the motif that we need to abandon all forms of trial for ‘terrorists’ and just kill them instead, we’re cheering away our rights.
Cheering Away Our Rights
And that is what is essential to understand. The decision to follow the Constitution when it comes to US citizens does not come down to whether or not someone has ‘terrorist’ ties and may potentially be somewhat involved. Consider the scenario of this kid’s death and realize that the legal process was entirely bypassed on purpose by the Obama administration and swiftly ended with a drone strike targeting a public restaurant.
It was a death that took place back in October of 2011, when one of Obama’s innocent-killing drone strikes hit a restaurant in southern Yemen. Killing not only the 16-year-old US citizen but his teenage cousin and five other children (who went unnoticed because they weren’t US citizens), the Obama administration took until May of 2013 to admit that it was responsible for the death of Abdulrahman. And remember, we’re not talking about a kid who was given the opportunity of a trial or any constitutional rights, we’re not talking about a case that may or may not have been self-defense (like the Trayvon case), we’re talking about a kid who was sitting in a restaurant one second before being blown up by a drone strike.
Was he linked up with terrorists via his family line? Yes, but if you think I am supporting terrorists then you may be missing the point here: it’s not about the boogey man terrorist. When we are selective with to whom we apply the Constitution, to whom we apply basic freedoms, you can bet you will quickly lose yours next. It starts with the ‘evil terrorists’ losing their rights, then it’s your turn.
And remember, these are also the same type of drone strikes that kill 50 innocent people for every 1 ‘terrorist’ — the loose term that virtually means nothing.
There’s a new piece in the New York Times that I believe will be majorly huge over the next few days, which involves Abdulrahman’s grandfather speaking out about his death via the Obama administration’s strike. In the report, the grandfather lays down the circumstances in which his grandson was killed — by his own government and without a trial. From the story:
“My grandson was killed by his own government. The Obama administration must answer for its actions and be held accountable.”
We will see whether or not the grandfather’s piece and the overall coverage ends up hitting the overall media. The New York Times articles has already started picking up among some news outlets, but the fact remains that the mainstream media really only chooses pieces to feature that they can slant. Yet here we have a 16-year-old killed by the Obama administration with no trial, no coverage, nothing. Just taken out and setup as a precedent to go ahead and deem US citizens fit to die without any constitutional rights.
Are you next?