Should an armed drone be dispatched to kill Christopher Dorner?

[CrusaderFrank]

Absolutely not.

It's absurd to even bring it up.

Not according to Obama

 

[Katzndogz]

The police do have or use drones. The military has and uses drones. Dorner is wanted by the police. Using the military to act as the police is constitutionally prohibited.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

The police do have or use drones. The military has and uses drones. Dorner is wanted by the police. Using the military to act as the police is constitutionally prohibited.

So just give the police armed drones.

 

[Zona]

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.

Obama is just bad ass!

lol

Its going to very very hard to find this guy and if they do, there wont be time to call in a drone strike...they will be too busy shooting at him. Or two mexican females delivering papers...

Perhaps they will send in a drone to take out unarmed hispanic females delvering papers? Or perhaps on white males driving a truck. Cant be too many of them.

 

[JWBooth]

They'd have to come up with a clue as to his whereabouts first.

On the number of people shot, the score is tied at Cops 3, Dorner 3.
Any bets on the tie breaker?

 

[Bill Angel]

Absolutely not.

It's absurd to even bring it up.

Why? The President claims the power to assassinate U.S. citizens with no due process if they're deemed "terrorists," "enemy combatants," "insurgents," or any other number of horrible sounding adjectives. He does not claim that his power is limited only to use overseas. That being the case, why is it absurd to discuss whether or not this is a viable option for Christopher Dorner, who has already been deemed a "domestic terrorist?"

I would not be surprised if this fellow has already killed himself. After all what has he got to look forward to? A long time behind bars, followed by an execution by lethal injection?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Absolutely not.

It's absurd to even bring it up.

Why? The President claims the power to assassinate U.S. citizens with no due process if they're deemed "terrorists," "enemy combatants," "insurgents," or any other number of horrible sounding adjectives. He does not claim that his power is limited only to use overseas. That being the case, why is it absurd to discuss whether or not this is a viable option for Christopher Dorner, who has already been deemed a "domestic terrorist?"

I would not be surprised if this fellow has already killed himself. After all what has he got to look forward to? A long time behind bars, followed by an execution by lethal injection?

If I understand his manifesto correctly he's looking forward to attacking more innocent family members of the people he believes wronged him.

 

[editec]

When the camel's nose peaks under the tent, the camel is sure to follow.

 

[yidnar]

Absolutely not.

It's absurd to even bring it up.

why not ??

 

[Redfish]

In order to hit him with a drone strike you need to know where he is---------duh!

 

[tresbigdog]

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.

Yes we have. 3 have been executed via drone strike that we know about.

not on US soil

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

In order to hit him with a drone strike you need to know where he is---------duh!

Well they've already dispatched drones to find him, it'd seemingly be a simple matter to simply send armed drones instead of unarmed drones. That way when they inevitably find him they can just take him out on the spot.

 

[Desperado]

The next step is "Trial in Absentia' for the accused then they will send in the drones.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

The next step is "Trial in Absentia' for the accused then they will send in the drones.

Despite his being in the United States?

 

[Redfish]

In order to hit him with a drone strike you need to know where he is---------duh!

Well they've already dispatched drones to find him, it'd seemingly be a simple matter to simply send armed drones instead of unarmed drones. That way when they inevitably find him they can just take him out on the spot.

thats some super drone if it can pick out one guy out of 330,000,000.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

In order to hit him with a drone strike you need to know where he is---------duh!

Well they've already dispatched drones to find him, it'd seemingly be a simple matter to simply send armed drones instead of unarmed drones. That way when they inevitably find him they can just take him out on the spot.

thats some super drone if it can pick out one guy out of 330,000,000.

You think he's hiding in plain sight?

 

[Sallow]

Absolutely not.

It's absurd to even bring it up.

Why? The President claims the power to assassinate U.S. citizens with no due process if they're deemed "terrorists," "enemy combatants," "insurgents," or any other number of horrible sounding adjectives. He does not claim that his power is limited only to use overseas. That being the case, why is it absurd to discuss whether or not this is a viable option for Christopher Dorner, who has already been deemed a "domestic terrorist?"

He kinda does.

That's the REAL problem.

And you folks should be TALKING about getting rid of the Patriot Act and the AUMF.

You'd find friends on the other side of the aisle if that's where the conversation went.

 

[Papageorgio]

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?

Currently, if you are an American on foreign soil and are a perceived threat, our government has deemed it proper to take you out without due process.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Absolutely not.

It's absurd to even bring it up.

Why? The President claims the power to assassinate U.S. citizens with no due process if they're deemed "terrorists," "enemy combatants," "insurgents," or any other number of horrible sounding adjectives. He does not claim that his power is limited only to use overseas. That being the case, why is it absurd to discuss whether or not this is a viable option for Christopher Dorner, who has already been deemed a "domestic terrorist?"

He kinda does.

That's the REAL problem.

And you folks should be TALKING about getting rid of the Patriot Act and the AUMF.

You'd find friends on the other side of the aisle if that's where the conversation went.

He kinda does what? I'm not sure what you're referring to exactly.

As for getting rid of the Patriot Act and any other number of pieces of horrible legislation, I'm all for it.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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?

Currently, if you are an American on foreign soil and are a perceived threat, our government has deemed it proper to take you out without due process.

Dorner is a clear threat, why does it matter what soil he happens to be standing on? If he went to Mexico would it be fine to blow him up?