> It is worth reading for some context on the family.

Good idea. Let's take a look:

"Abdulrahman al-Awlaki was killed at the age of 16 in an American drone strike on October 14, 2011, in Yemen, along with alleged al-Qaeda members two weeks after the death of his father.[250] Nine other people were killed in the same CIA-led attack. Among the dead was a 17-year-old cousin of Abdulrahman.[251] Family members have said that he was on his way to a barbecue.[252] "

Looks to me like people like his father, don't really have to work too hard. We are doing his job for him.

Context on the family? Is the son guilty of his father's crimes?

The article is written like they were just some regular americans on vacation in Yemen. If my child was out recruiting for Al Qaeda, and preaching to the 9/11 hijackers, I'd hope that I'd be more self reflective about what I could have done differently. Maybe take some responsibility instead of complaining in the New York Times. The son isn't guilty of the father's crimes, but the father may have some responsibility for the son's crimes. The grandson is an innocent victim, but he wasn't targeted. That's an ugly mistake.

It is not an article. It is an op-ed. Those are usually subjective comments.

If your son was out recruiting for Al Qaeda or preaching to the 9/11 hijackers you wouldn't want your grandson to be punished for the sins of your son. Also, note that the grandson was killed 2 weeks after a drone killed his father.

> recruiting for Al Qaeda

This is not illegal.

> preaching to the 9/11 hijackers

Protected speech.

Which sins exactly do you refer to?

> recruiting for Al Qaeda, and preaching to the 9/11 hijackers

This is what awlaki said one month after 9/11 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j2Ofg2BacIM

How can you define a precision drone strike as 'he wasn't targeted'?

Because precision means location, not who is at the location.

According to U.S. officials the killing of Abdulrahman al-Awlaki was a mistake; the actual target was an Egyptian, Ibrahim al-Banna.

He wasn't on the target list, he was at the wrong place at the wrong time. If they knew he was there and were secretly targeting him, Obama should be impeached.

"Because precision means" … something different to what "normal people" mean when they use the word "precision", just like when we use the words "collect" and "no", and our congressional oversight somehow misunderstands us…

(or, alternatively, "because that was the least imprecise targeted attack we were capable of at the time")

He might not have been targeted, but that doesn't justify it. Truth is there is no such thing as a precision drone strike (yet).

It's a bit like saying aiming nuke with pin point accuracy. It might have hit its goal, but it destroyed everything else.

Last I checked, we weren't governed by Klingon law, but sadly it seems to be the case that you can be held guilty of the crimes of your father. I don't mean to trivialize this, but my geek brain can't quite find any other imagery surreal enough to explain in another way.

Frighteningly that does seem to be at least part of the official justification, as when asked in an official capacity;

"an American citizen that is being targeted without due process, without trial and, he's underage, he's a minor."

the then White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs replied,

"I would suggest that you should have a far more responsible father if they are truly concerned about the well being of their children."

"I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one Nation under God" … "a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation" (Exod. 20:5)

playing devil advocate... err.. CIA analyst - the son would probably wanted revenge and would get "radicalized" by the murder of his father. Vendetta for that reason is pretty much killing all (male) members of the family, including children.

Wait wasn't that the same reasoning Nazi's used when gassing people (i.e. why the prefer killing families). That way you are safe from Vendetta. If you have to worry about Vendetta from those you afect with your drone strikes, you are doing it wrong.

Uh oh, does that mean we're about to see the families of all the collateral damage get wiped out too? And what about their families... what about Kevin Bacon...

Better just kill everyone to be safe.

Read closely. Abdulrahman al-Awlaki was killed in a separate drone strike, two weeks after his father's death. The real target of that second drone strike is currently unknown.

The fact that it says all these things on Wikipedia doesn't mean that much to me.