4 ms·

So if Obama give the thumbs up we can just execute the suspect on the spot. Edit: sure, downvote me, but what I said is actually 100% true. http://openchannel.

• deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
• sologoub 14y ago
  Don't see anything about these drones being armed. However, I'm sure there is some obscure way to justify it either because of his prior use of deadly force or military training or both... This is a really disturbing case on many levels. Drones are just extra food for speculation and media attention.
  • djloche 14y ago
    There's no justification for killing an innocent man. The 'manhunt' is of an innocent man, which status he maintains until found guilty in a court of law by a jury of his peers. That's the standard. Or at least it was once the standard. Now the "legal" system of the USA seems to be all about coercing guilty pleas and adding people to secret lists while sweeping corruption and fraud under the rug. The government is more likely to fire an APKWSII based missile from a drone in an attempt to kill him from the air than it is to bring him in alive for a trial.
    • danielweber 14y ago
      The 'manhunt' is of an innocent man, which status he maintains until found guilty in a court of law by a jury of his peers. ITT: cops aren't allowed to use deadly force against anyone who refuses to be brought to trial because they haven't been found guilty at trial
• _djo_ 14y ago
  These drones are unarmed.
• anigbrowl 14y ago
  No it isn't, and you're mistaken. Go read the White Paper in which the legal reasoning is laid out; Dorner would not fall within the scope of the AUMF.
  • logn 14y ago
    The victims of US executions are not required to be covered under AUMF: "the Department does not believe that US citizenship would immunize a senior operational leader of al-Qa'ida or its associated forces from use of force abroad authorized by the AUMF or in national self-defense". So, the "or in national self-defense" clause would apply here. And also a careful reading reveals that nothing hinges on it being Al Qaida specifically. Attacking US law enforcement would easily be reason. And none of this requires due process so this whole argument is moot anyhow.
    • chc 14y ago
      That passage still explicitly applies to citizens associated with al-Qa'ida. Killing police officers does not associate someone with al-Qa'ida. This interpretation of the law is entirely in your head and has never been espoused by any US official in words or in practice.
      • logn 14y ago
        They say Al Qaida but none of the legal reasoning relies on it being Al Qaida. It's all about anyone who threats the US, whether an immediate one or not, and they even say such threats need not have clear evidence. "an 'imminent' threat of violent attack against the United States does not require the United States to have clear evidence that a specific attack on U.S. persons and interests will take place in the immediate future" "A lethal operation against an enemy leader undertaken in national self-defense [...] would fall within a well established variant of public authority justification and therefore would not be murder" ... no mention of Al Qaida. Again, the theory behind this has nothing to do with them.
    • codex 14y ago
      I disagree; the word "abroad" above implies this justification only holds off of U.S. soil. "National self-defense," further, implies a national security threat, which one fugitive clearly is not. He is also not a member of al-Qa'ida, and I that language seems specific to that organization. I agree with your point about due process; it does not take a presidential order to kill an alleged cop-killer; cops kill suspects all the time in the name of self defense or danger to others.
• tptacek 14y ago
  No, it is absolutely not true. Even in the fictional universe in which armed drones had been deployed, Obama does not have the authority to use them against Americans unaffiliated with Al Qaeda or while they are on American soil even if they are affiliated with Al Qaeda. The power Obama has to order drone strikes derives from the AUMF that put us at war in Afghanistan and is structurally identical to the power FDR used to order bombings in Europe during WW2. You are more or less parroting conspiracy theories from the Internet.
  • enoch_r 14y ago
    You're absolutely right, and people are being very hyperbolic. However: Obama's power to launch a targeted strike against an American citizen does not exactly "derive from the AUMF." It derives from the Obama administration's interpretation of the AUMF (and other law). That interpretation may or may not be constitutionally correct, and at no point was this administration forced to argue the constitutionality of the strike before carrying it out. Even if we accept that the AUMF granted Obama the right to kill an American citizen abroad, Obama is making constitutionally controversial decisions without oversight. Although the white paper justifying the Aulaqi assassination did not argue that the assassination of non-Al-Qaeda citizens within the U.S. would be justified, many people are concerned that this sort of oversight-free executive decision-making sets a bad precedent, and that eventually some president might use similar arguments to justify drone strikes against American citizens.
    • tptacek 14y ago
      I think I mostly agree with you, and if we diverge, it's because where you trace the problem back to an overreaching executive branch, I trace it to a legislative branch that was willing to declare war on a state of mind rather than a sovereign state.