Should an armed drone be dispatched to kill Christopher Dorner?

[Katzndogz]

If the government takes it upon itself to start sending armed military drones around to execute anyone the government feels has wronged it, we have a problem much bigger than Christopher Dorner.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

If the government takes it upon itself to start sending armed military drones around to execute anyone the government feels has wronged it, we have a problem much bigger than Christopher Dorner.

Well, that is already happening. But 300+ million TV watchers are still complacent and will continue to be complacent.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

If the government takes it upon itself to start sending armed military drones around to execute anyone the government feels has wronged it, we have a problem much bigger than Christopher Dorner.

Well it already has, the only real issue seems to be geography.

 

[Katzndogz]

Note to all those people who find state's rights objectionable. This is what you get with an unfettered federal government.

Now they feel pretty sure that Dorner had help in getting away. Like someone who met him at the burning truck and drove him off. And, feel pretty sure that he's in mexico. Now, if he's in mexico, he is not likely hiding out under a blanket in Tijuana. He has most reasonably offered his services and inside information to one of the cartels to whom a million dollar reward doesn't rise to the level of an hour's profit. After they are done with him, he'll be killed. He's too crazy to survive. He'll be just as crazy there as here.

 

[Mad Scientist]

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.

We do but all you Liberals respond with is "Well you liked it under Bush so you must be a Racist!"

 

[Papageorgio]

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?

I'm not for the government taking out their citizens, on foreign or home soil with out due process. Wrong is wrong, it matters not who the President is.

We are moving into a dangerous area when rights are compromised for expediency.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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?

I'm not for the government taking out their citizens, on foreign or home soil with out due process. Wrong is wrong, it matters not who the President is.

We are moving into a dangerous area when rights are compromised for expediency.

Nor am I, but some people are for one and not the other and I'm trying to provoke a discussion on the difference.

 

[Care4all]

No, legally the president can not use the Military for actions such as this....don't you even KNOW our acts and laws of this land?

The Posse Comitatus Act is the United States federal law (18 U.S.C. § 1385, original at 20 Stat. 152) that was passed on June 18, 1878, after the end of Reconstruction and was updated in 1981. Its intent (in concert with the Insurrection Act of 1807) was to limit the powers of Federal government in using federal military personnel to enforce the State laws. Contrary to popular belief, the Act does not prohibit members of the United States Armed Forces from exercising Law enforcement agency powers within a State, police, or peace officer powers that maintain "law and order"; it requires that any authority to do so must exist within the United States Constitution or Act of Congress (which it currently does not except under the Insurrection Act).{Federalist 29 (Hamilton, 1788)} Any use of the Armed Forces under either Title 10/Active Duty or Title 10/Reserves at the direction of the President will offend the Constitutional Law also known as Public Law prohibiting such action unless declared by the President of the United States and approved by Congress. Any infringement will be problematic for political and legal reasons.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act

 

[Sallow]

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.

We do but all you Liberals respond with is "Well you liked it under Bush so you must be a Racist!"

You don't.

You guys want to use this sort of stuff as a vehicle for impeachment.

I thought the whole invasion of Iraq was very illegal. As is torture, enemy combatants and warrantless wiretaps.

Personally? I am not against vaporizing terrorists whether they be American or otherwise hiding out in a place impossible for our military or police to get too.

But there needs to be a responsible and sane process in place to make sure that every time such an operation is carried out, it can be audited. That means getting authorization and making damn sure that the target is a real threat. That means having the military carry out the operation, not the CIA.

There should be a mechanism in place to assure that people like Osama Bin Laden can't operate safely in some no man's land. But that mechanism should be subject to checks and balances.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

No, legally the president can not use the Military for actions such as this....don't you even KNOW our acts and laws of this land?

The Posse Comitatus Act is the United States federal law (18 U.S.C. § 1385, original at 20 Stat. 152) that was passed on June 18, 1878, after the end of Reconstruction and was updated in 1981. Its intent (in concert with the Insurrection Act of 1807) was to limit the powers of Federal government in using federal military personnel to enforce the State laws. Contrary to popular belief, the Act does not prohibit members of the United States Armed Forces from exercising Law enforcement agency powers within a State, police, or peace officer powers that maintain "law and order"; it requires that any authority to do so must exist within the United States Constitution or Act of Congress (which it currently does not except under the Insurrection Act).{Federalist 29 (Hamilton, 1788)} Any use of the Armed Forces under either Title 10/Active Duty or Title 10/Reserves at the direction of the President will offend the Constitutional Law also known as Public Law prohibiting such action unless declared by the President of the United States and approved by Congress. Any infringement will be problematic for political and legal reasons.

Posse Comitatus Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Legally the President can't assassinate an American citizen without due process regardless of that citizen's location, but that hasn't stopped him.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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.

We do but all you Liberals respond with is "Well you liked it under Bush so you must be a Racist!"

You don't.

You guys want to use this sort of stuff as a vehicle for impeachment.

I thought the whole invasion of Iraq was very illegal. As is torture, enemy combatants and warrantless wiretaps.

Personally? I am not against vaporizing terrorists whether they be American or otherwise hiding out in a place impossible for our military or police to get too.

But there needs to be a responsible and sane process in place to make sure that every time such an operation is carried out, it can be audited. That means getting authorization and making damn sure that the target is a real threat. That means having the military carry out the operation, not the CIA.

There should be a mechanism in place to assure that people like Osama Bin Laden can't operate safely in some no man's land. But that mechanism should be subject to checks and balances.

Impeachment is a pointless exercise.

 

[Sallow]

No, legally the president can not use the Military for actions such as this....don't you even KNOW our acts and laws of this land?

The Posse Comitatus Act is the United States federal law (18 U.S.C. § 1385, original at 20 Stat. 152) that was passed on June 18, 1878, after the end of Reconstruction and was updated in 1981. Its intent (in concert with the Insurrection Act of 1807) was to limit the powers of Federal government in using federal military personnel to enforce the State laws. Contrary to popular belief, the Act does not prohibit members of the United States Armed Forces from exercising Law enforcement agency powers within a State, police, or peace officer powers that maintain "law and order"; it requires that any authority to do so must exist within the United States Constitution or Act of Congress (which it currently does not except under the Insurrection Act).{Federalist 29 (Hamilton, 1788)} Any use of the Armed Forces under either Title 10/Active Duty or Title 10/Reserves at the direction of the President will offend the Constitutional Law also known as Public Law prohibiting such action unless declared by the President of the United States and approved by Congress. Any infringement will be problematic for political and legal reasons.

Posse Comitatus Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Legally the President can't assassinate an American citizen without due process regardless of that citizen's location, but that hasn't stopped him.

Not after the AUMF.

 

[Care4all]

No, legally the president can not use the Military for actions such as this....don't you even KNOW our acts and laws of this land?

The Posse Comitatus Act is the United States federal law (18 U.S.C. § 1385, original at 20 Stat. 152) that was passed on June 18, 1878, after the end of Reconstruction and was updated in 1981. Its intent (in concert with the Insurrection Act of 1807) was to limit the powers of Federal government in using federal military personnel to enforce the State laws. Contrary to popular belief, the Act does not prohibit members of the United States Armed Forces from exercising Law enforcement agency powers within a State, police, or peace officer powers that maintain "law and order"; it requires that any authority to do so must exist within the United States Constitution or Act of Congress (which it currently does not except under the Insurrection Act).{Federalist 29 (Hamilton, 1788)} Any use of the Armed Forces under either Title 10/Active Duty or Title 10/Reserves at the direction of the President will offend the Constitutional Law also known as Public Law prohibiting such action unless declared by the President of the United States and approved by Congress. Any infringement will be problematic for political and legal reasons.

Posse Comitatus Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Legally the President can't assassinate an American citizen without due process regardless of that citizen's location, but that hasn't stopped him.

Please show us the law that says that Kevin...that says that enemy combatants on foreign soil, on the battle field of war, whether they be Americans or a Foreigner, can not be killed on foreign soil.

I'd love to see this "law" that makes it illegal.

 

[Sallow]

We do but all you Liberals respond with is "Well you liked it under Bush so you must be a Racist!"

You don't.

You guys want to use this sort of stuff as a vehicle for impeachment.

I thought the whole invasion of Iraq was very illegal. As is torture, enemy combatants and warrantless wiretaps.

Personally? I am not against vaporizing terrorists whether they be American or otherwise hiding out in a place impossible for our military or police to get too.

But there needs to be a responsible and sane process in place to make sure that every time such an operation is carried out, it can be audited. That means getting authorization and making damn sure that the target is a real threat. That means having the military carry out the operation, not the CIA.

There should be a mechanism in place to assure that people like Osama Bin Laden can't operate safely in some no man's land. But that mechanism should be subject to checks and balances.

Impeachment is a pointless exercise.

It's a check against Presidential power.

It's also an extreme act.

If it is used as a political tactic..then it becomes pointless..and diminishes the check.

 

[Care4all]

I'm with Sallow on this, I personally believe there should be more checks and balances before the CIC can make this call....on foreign soil.

here some info on the guy killed....over and over he claimed to be born in Yemen and claimed not to be a USA citizen....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Aulaqi

 

[Papageorgio]

I'm with Sallow on this, I personally believe there should be more checks and balances before the CIC can make this call....on foreign soil.

here some info on the guy killed....over and over he claimed to be born in Yemen and claimed not to be a USA citizen....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Aulaqi

I can agree, but I really don't expect a check and balance system, I see a real potential abuse of power and if we catch the abuse of power, what would be the consequences? Impeachment? A person is killed and we impeach? What about criminal charges? I doubt that would happen either.

So no real check and balance and no real consequence, not a good basis to give the authority.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

No, legally the president can not use the Military for actions such as this....don't you even KNOW our acts and laws of this land?

Posse Comitatus Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Legally the President can't assassinate an American citizen without due process regardless of that citizen's location, but that hasn't stopped him.

Please show us the law that says that Kevin...that says that enemy combatants on foreign soil, on the battle field of war, whether they be Americans or a Foreigner, can not be killed on foreign soil.

I'd love to see this "law" that makes it illegal.

So the government labels someone an enemy combatant, regardless of guilt, regardless of due process or location and they can be killed? NDAA 2012 maintains that the battlefield is Earth and that actions can be taken on US soil if the government deems someone an enemy combatant.

In other words, you're missing the point of due process completely. At the very least, people like Anwar al-Aulaqi should be tried in Abstentia and proven guilty. Instead, these orders come as directives from the presidents kill list and he commands who is guilty or not without due process.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

No, legally the president can not use the Military for actions such as this....don't you even KNOW our acts and laws of this land?

Posse Comitatus Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Legally the President can't assassinate an American citizen without due process regardless of that citizen's location, but that hasn't stopped him.

Not after the AUMF.

Which did not amend the Constitution.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

No, legally the president can not use the Military for actions such as this....don't you even KNOW our acts and laws of this land?

Posse Comitatus Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Legally the President can't assassinate an American citizen without due process regardless of that citizen's location, but that hasn't stopped him.

Please show us the law that says that Kevin...that says that enemy combatants on foreign soil, on the battle field of war, whether they be Americans or a Foreigner, can not be killed on foreign soil.

I'd love to see this "law" that makes it illegal.

Transcript of the Constitution of the United States - Official Text

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

You don't.

You guys want to use this sort of stuff as a vehicle for impeachment.

I thought the whole invasion of Iraq was very illegal. As is torture, enemy combatants and warrantless wiretaps.

Personally? I am not against vaporizing terrorists whether they be American or otherwise hiding out in a place impossible for our military or police to get too.

But there needs to be a responsible and sane process in place to make sure that every time such an operation is carried out, it can be audited. That means getting authorization and making damn sure that the target is a real threat. That means having the military carry out the operation, not the CIA.

There should be a mechanism in place to assure that people like Osama Bin Laden can't operate safely in some no man's land. But that mechanism should be subject to checks and balances.

Impeachment is a pointless exercise.

It's a check against Presidential power.

It's also an extreme act.

If it is used as a political tactic..then it becomes pointless..and diminishes the check.

It's without teeth. Nearly impossible to pull off, and even if it were to happen the only result would be to put the Vice President into power. Removing one member of an administration in favor of another is pointless.