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.

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.