Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
A major manhunt has been underway in the Los Angeles area for Chris Dorner, the former LAPD officer, Navy reservist, and trained marksman who is the prime suspect in the murder of three people, including the daughter of an LAPD captain (who previously represented him in a disciplinary proceeding) and her fiance. A lengthy Facebook message attributed to Dorner vows that he will continue to kill not only members of the LAPD but also their children and spouses until he receives a public apology for what he believes was his unfair firing:
"This will be a war of attrition . . . . I will utilize OSINT to discover your residences, spouses workplaces, and children's schools. IMINT to coordinate and plan attacks on your fixed locations. . . . HUMINT will be utilized to collect personal schedules of targets. I never had the opportunity to have a family of my own, I'm terminating yours. . . . I know your significant others routine, your children's best friends and recess. I know Your Sancha's gym hours and routine. I assure you that the casualty rate will be high."
Surveillance drones are now being used to try to locate him. LAPD are so apprehensive that they have already mistakenly shot at innocent people when they saw vehicles resembling the one they thought belonged to Dorner. Authorities suspect he's hiding in "the icy wilderness" of Big Bear east of Los Angeles which, reported AP, is "filled with thick forests and jagged peaks, that creates peril as much for Dorner as the officers hunting him."
Here's my question: if the surveillance drones detect his location, should the lives of law enforcement agents be risked, along with other civilians, in an attempt to apprehend this highly-trained warrior? Why shouldn't an armed drone instead be immediately dispatched once his location is ascertained and simply kill him?
For those of you who believe it's possible to know someone's guilt without a trial, there is very little doubt about his guilt. Nobody has contested the authenticity of the confession posted in his name, nor the threats of further killing. He admitted and justified the killings on his Facebook entry.
For those of you who believe there is a clear definition of "terrorism", Dorner meets it easily. LAPD chief Charlie Beck today said that Dorner was engaging in "domestic terrorism". That's because he has not only threatened to kill random LAPD officers but also their children and family members in order to terrorize the department into publicly apologizing to him. He vowed to wage what he called "unconventional and asymmetrical warfare" in pursuit of his goal. As intended, the entire community is in terror. If that's not "domestic terrorism" under the conventional defintion, then nothing is.
If they have him pinned down somewhere and apprehension might be difficult, why not? Liberal administrations like Clinton and Hussein have already set the precedent.
If they have him pinned down somewhere and apprehension might be difficult, why not? Liberal administrations like Clinton and Hussein have already set the precedent.
Does this precedent negate due process rights, or is he essentially an enemy combatant?
So when was Mr. Dorner found guilty in court of Law? If he goes down in a shootout, then cops have the Right to drop him, but I don't think America has gotten to "assassination of it's own citizens by drones" quite yet... At least while they are on U.S, soil that is.
He's committing planned terror attacks against government officials. That's an enemy combatant by todays standard. If they can hit him with a missile and only take out 8-9 other civilians, they should do so without hesitation.
So when was Mr. Dorner found guilty in court of Law? If he goes down in a shootout, then cops have the Right to drop him, but I don't think America has gotten to "assassination of it's own citizens by drones" quite yet... At least while they are on U.S, soil that is.
So when was Mr. Dorner found guilty in court of Law? If he goes down in a shootout, then cops have the Right to drop him, but I don't think America has gotten to "assassination of it's own citizens by drones" quite yet... At least while they are on U.S, soil that is.
That's the crux of the issue, of course. Though in the memo it makes no claim that the President can't do this on American soil, so should arbitrary borders matter when it comes to this alleged power? Greenwald poses the question about Dorner potentially fleeing to Mexico, should he be targeted by drone if he can cross the border?
So when was Mr. Dorner found guilty in court of Law? If he goes down in a shootout, then cops have the Right to drop him, but I don't think America has gotten to "assassination of it's own citizens by drones" quite yet... At least while they are on U.S, soil that is.
That's the crux of the issue, of course. Though in the memo it makes no claim that the President can't do this on American soil, so should arbitrary borders matter when it comes to this alleged power? Greenwald poses the question about Dorner potentially fleeing to Mexico, should he be targeted by drone if he can cross the border?
I missed that part, tjvh.
Then what Kevin said. If the battlefield is global, then they have the authority to do so on US soil. That was a portion of the provisions in NDAA 2012. To make the US part of the US war on all people that despise US officials and their policies. I see no difference here from any other supposed "terrorist".
So when was Mr. Dorner found guilty in court of Law? If he goes down in a shootout, then cops have the Right to drop him, but I don't think America has gotten to "assassination of it's own citizens by drones" quite yet... At least while they are on U.S, soil that is.
That's the crux of the issue, of course. Though in the memo it makes no claim that the President can't do this on American soil, so should arbitrary borders matter when it comes to this alleged power? Greenwald poses the question about Dorner potentially fleeing to Mexico, should he be targeted by drone if he can cross the border?
I missed that part, tjvh.
Then what Kevin said. If the battlefield is global, then they have the authority to do so on US soil. That was a portion of the provisions in NDAA 2012. To make the US part of the US war on all people that despise US officials and their policies. I see no difference here from any other supposed "terrorist".
Absolutely not.
It's absurd to even bring it up.
Absolutely not.
It's absurd to even bring it up.
If Dorner was outside of the U.S.? Yes, if we could get authorization from the country that he's in.
Since he's still here in the U.S.? No. We currently have a police force that is capable of bringing him down if they find him, but the trouble is, they have to find him first.
Would I be comfortable with an UNARMED surveillance drone flying around Big Bear with infrared cameras to find him so that the cops could go and bring him in? Absolutely.
If Dorner was outside of the U.S.? Yes, if we could get authorization from the country that he's in.
Since he's still here in the U.S.? No. We currently have a police force that is capable of bringing him down if they find him, but the trouble is, they have to find him first.
Would I be comfortable with an UNARMED surveillance drone flying around Big Bear with infrared cameras to find him so that the cops could go and bring him in? Absolutely.
Why does location matter?
If Dorner was outside of the U.S.? Yes, if we could get authorization from the country that he's in.
Since he's still here in the U.S.? No. We currently have a police force that is capable of bringing him down if they find him, but the trouble is, they have to find him first.
Would I be comfortable with an UNARMED surveillance drone flying around Big Bear with infrared cameras to find him so that the cops could go and bring him in? Absolutely.
Why does location matter?
Because we have a police force that can get to him while he's in the U.S.
If he's overseas, it's much more difficult to do, especially in the ME.
If Dorner was outside of the U.S.? Yes, if we could get authorization from the country that he's in.
Since he's still here in the U.S.? No. We currently have a police force that is capable of bringing him down if they find him, but the trouble is, they have to find him first.
Would I be comfortable with an UNARMED surveillance drone flying around Big Bear with infrared cameras to find him so that the cops could go and bring him in? Absolutely.
Why does location matter?
Because we have a police force that can get to him while he's in the U.S.
If he's overseas, it's much more difficult to do, especially in the ME.
