Epic fail – via the Charlotte Observer:
An official from the U.S. State Department has called the Charlotte family of al-Qaida propagandist Samir Khan to offer the government’s condolences on his death in a U.S. drone attack last week in Yemen, according to a family spokesman.
“They were very apologetic (for not calling the family sooner) and offered condolences,” Jibril Hough said about the Thursday call from the State Department to Khan’s father, Zafar.
The phone call came a day after the family released a statement through Hough that condemned the “assassination” of their 25-year-old son – a U.S. citizen – and said they were “appalled” that they had not heard from the U.S. government to discuss their son’s remains or answer questions about why Khan was not afforded due process.
On Friday, State Department spokesman Harry Edwards confirmed to the Observer that the call had been made, but said “privacy issues” kept him from offering details.
Hough said the Thursday conversation lasted a few minutes.
“It wasn’t just ‘I’m sorry’ and hang-up,” said Hough, who added that the phone call included no discussion of the status or condition of Khan’s remains.
Khan was killed along with cleric Anwar al-Awlaki.
Dr. Rusty Shackleford, who is a must-read on homegrown terrorism right here in the great state of North Carolina, writes in response:
So, we kill a terrorist and then we …. apologize to the family for killing the terrorist? What’s next, paying the parents of suicide bombers, like Hamas and Fatah?
Please tell me this is part of some larger duplicity which leads to the entire Kahn family being deported and/or indicted?
I’ve always had a rather low opinion of State. But after this, I’m left to wonder which side of the War on Terror they’re really pulling for?
What I want to point out to readers who may not know the background on Khan is that what he published was not just fiery rhetoric in support of al Qaeda. No, he published actual bomb making instructions. Khan’s bomb making instructions were followed by Naser Abdo, who was arrested before he could detonate the bomb near Fort Hood.
So, even under our rather broadly protective post-Brandenburg 1st Amendment jurisprudence what Khan was advocating would not be protected since his publications did actually incite people to violence — which was exactly his point.
For crissake, this was a guy who advocated killing American civilians in malls and nightclubs!
If this is the base that Obama’s State Department is pandering to — one that cannot distinguish a traitor from ordinary citizens — then God help us.