A journalist asked [White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs], ‘Do you think that the killing of Anwar al-Awlaki’s sixteen-year old son who was an American citizen is justifiable?’
Instead of ruling al-Awlaki‘s killing an accident, or even manufacturing him as a terrorist threat, Gibbs retorts, ‘I would suggest that you should have a far more responsible father if they’re truly concerned about the well-being of their children.’ This is what should be called the Dr. Seuss economy of death. Don’t be sad ’cause he had a bad, bad dad.
Leaving aside the open lies and distortions peddled here, in the brief glimpses of clarity that belie the greater secrecy matrix (if the CIA sometimes kill people without knowing their identities, why should you?), Gibbs’ claim is profound. The last time I saw this line of thinking put forward as a logical argument was on a segment of Al Jazeera’s The Stream. Pakistani journalist Madiha Tahir asked Georgetown professor Christine Fair (at 15:19), who referred to bin Laden’s wives as ‘terror mamas’ and his children as ‘terror spawn’: ‘At what point does someone become a legitimate target for you?’
After dismissing Tahir as an ‘obnoxious troll,’ Fair responds to the show host (who asks whether she actually called bin Laden’s kids ‘terror spawn’) by saying, ‘Yeah, technically they are the spawn of terrorists and I’m not gonna back down by that.’ (MARYAM MONALISA GHARAVI) More here.
…
similarly reprehensible logic was offered by joe klein, an avid (or rabid) obama supporter. it can be summarized as “it’s either their children or ours.” as glenn greenwald explains in his brilliant piece “Joe Klein’s Sociopathic Defense of Drone Killings of Children” this argument is a sham in many ways: first of all it’s hardly a level playing field so that americans r worried about the survival of their children; secondly, killing someone else’s children cannot guarantee one’s security; and finally, justifying the killing of children, for any reason whatsoever, is simply morally disgusting.