HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » What is the salient diffe...

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 10:51 PM

What is the salient difference between Dorner and a terrorist?

He has vowed to attack the police which represent a central core of the domestic security of the US.

So is he not a threat to America?

If so, what legal principal ensures that he will not be killed on sight by order of the President?

In other words, IF President Obama decided that he should be killed without any ATTEMPT to arrest him, what principle would that violate in light of the recent "Drone memo" that was released?

55 replies, 3110 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 55 replies Author Time Post
Reply What is the salient difference between Dorner and a terrorist? (Original post)
Bonobo Feb 2013 OP
JDPriestly Feb 2013 #1
Bonobo Feb 2013 #2
Warpy Feb 2013 #3
Bonobo Feb 2013 #6
Warpy Feb 2013 #9
JDPriestly Feb 2013 #55
JDPriestly Feb 2013 #53
southernyankeebelle Feb 2013 #4
patrice Feb 2013 #5
Bonobo Feb 2013 #7
patrice Feb 2013 #12
Common Sense Party Feb 2013 #40
Xipe Totec Feb 2013 #8
Fire Walk With Me Feb 2013 #10
Fire Walk With Me Feb 2013 #11
Scootaloo Feb 2013 #13
Fire Walk With Me Feb 2013 #17
geek tragedy Feb 2013 #51
Glassunion Feb 2013 #14
bigapple1963 Feb 2013 #15
libodem Feb 2013 #16
Fire Walk With Me Feb 2013 #18
bigapple1963 Feb 2013 #41
Fire Walk With Me Feb 2013 #43
Zoeisright Feb 2013 #19
Bonobo Feb 2013 #20
Agnosticsherbet Feb 2013 #21
Bonobo Feb 2013 #23
Agnosticsherbet Feb 2013 #32
Bonobo Feb 2013 #34
Agnosticsherbet Feb 2013 #36
Bonobo Feb 2013 #37
EastKYLiberal Feb 2013 #25
FarCenter Feb 2013 #22
EastKYLiberal Feb 2013 #24
Fire Walk With Me Feb 2013 #45
treestar Feb 2013 #26
BlueStreak Feb 2013 #27
Bonobo Feb 2013 #28
BlueStreak Feb 2013 #31
Bonobo Feb 2013 #33
bhikkhu Feb 2013 #44
FleetwoodMac Feb 2013 #29
Bonobo Feb 2013 #30
FleetwoodMac Feb 2013 #39
Downwinder Feb 2013 #35
2naSalit Feb 2013 #38
Honeycombe8 Feb 2013 #42
dtom67 Feb 2013 #46
dsc Feb 2013 #47
JI7 Feb 2013 #48
no_hypocrisy Feb 2013 #49
geek tragedy Feb 2013 #50
d_r Feb 2013 #52
Recursion Feb 2013 #54

Response to Bonobo (Original post)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 10:55 PM

1. Good questions. Who is a terrorist? How do we know?

He certainly has threatened violence and for what might be seen as a political purpose -- changing the LAPD, a government agency.

Is the a terrorist or a common criminal? Is there a difference? Is it in the eye of the beholder?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #1)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 10:57 PM

2. If that doesn't illustrate the slippery slope, I don't know what does. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bonobo (Original post)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 10:58 PM

3. Terrorists tend to target civilians

and the attacks are entirely random, only occurring where there will be the highest number of dead.

Dorner, on the other hand, has been specific in his targets.

That's about the only difference. I just hope he's caught sooner rather than later and by some miracle, he's alive.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warpy (Reply #3)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 11:03 PM

6. Maybe, but I don't see how that could stand up legally as the difference.

It all points to the REAL question which is defining terrorism and threat to the country.

Failing to define that is... well, a problem.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bonobo (Reply #6)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 11:08 PM

9. I would think people who are not connected to the LAPD

are very much more terrified of trigger happy cops this weekend than they are of Dorner.

That is the difference.

You'd have to twist yourself into quite a tightly woven legalistic and semantic pretzel to call Dorner a terrorist.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warpy (Reply #9)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 04:27 PM

55. Absolutely true.

When the police force learns of someone so much as threatening an armed officer with a knife, they turn out in full force. I say that because, years ago, I saw them react to a confused man with a knife. He was surrounded by officers and police cars with their sirens going and did not survive the encounter.

He was clearly very confused.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warpy (Reply #3)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 04:24 PM

53. But we have hit many civilians even though our military assures us we are hitting only

targets identified by the application of an algorithm of criteria (which we have not, I believe been told) as terrorists.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bonobo (Original post)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 10:59 PM

4. Terror is terror. It could be terror on one person or hundreds.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bonobo (Original post)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 11:00 PM

5. Dorner has a potential for 2A political correctness because he is a "hero" 1 man militia. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to patrice (Reply #5)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 11:04 PM

7. Inciting a "movement"...

Wouldn't that make him even more of a "threat to the security apparatus" or whatever legalese they use?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bonobo (Reply #7)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 11:15 PM

12. Well, I think some of this stuff is already there, just waiting for opportunities to, at minimum,

trigger click storms/advertising dollars.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to patrice (Reply #5)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 01:20 AM

40. Except that he railed against easy access to guns in his manifesto.

I don't think praising DiFi and calling for a new Assault Weapons Ban is going to win Dorner a lot of fans in the RKBA community.

Maybe the Brady folks will call him, though.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bonobo (Original post)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 11:04 PM

8. The LAPD is one step ahead of the game already

5 a.m. on Thursday, Police received a radio call saying a truck matching Dorner’s gray Nissan Titan was spotted near the home of a high-ranking LAPD officer. A few minutes later, a truck rolled down the officer’s street in Torrance. As the vehicle slowly approached, officers at the house opened fire, unloading a barrage of bullets into the back of the truck.

But …

The truck was a Toyota Tacoma not a Nissan Titan.

The color was aqua blue, not gray.

And inside the truck wasn’t Dorner, a large black man, but two not-large Hispanic women — Margie Carranza, 47, and her mother, Emma Hernandez, 71 — delivering newspapers.

But hey, not to worry, folks, the LAPD Chief Charlie Beck has already excused this criminal stupidity: the officers were understandably edgy:

http://my.firedoglake.com/fairleft/2013/02/10/lapd-vs-hispanic-women-delivering-newspapers/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Xipe Totec (Reply #8)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 11:09 PM

10. If Dorner is a terrorist, LAPD are trigger-happy maniacs with zero concern for the public welfare

 

and who are only acting (as always) to protect themselves. LAPD should be immediately disarmed and thoroughly retrained. Beck should be fired.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bonobo (Original post)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 11:13 PM

11. Bonobo, you obviously know nothing about LAPD. They are out of control and self-oriented.

 

Beck must be fired and LAPD significantly re-trained and restructured to actually protect the people of this city, not to oppress and criminalize people of color, the weak, and the homeless. They must be forced to actively respect the Bill of Rights, which they most certainly do not.

Dorner says LAPD is no different than when Rodney King was beaten bloody, that those officers and officials have been promoted. I really need to know about the supporting evidence he's sent in DVD form to several journalists...and LAPD must be changed, severely.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fire Walk With Me (Reply #11)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 11:17 PM

13. Dorner being a killer doesn't make the LAPD heroes

I suppose some people just think life is easier when everyone has either a white hat or a black hat.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Reply #13)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 11:45 PM

17. There is an issue occurring of extreme disproportion.

 

Dorner is one man. LAPD are a massive criminal organization responsible for multiple brazen murders, the oppression of people of color, the destruction of the Bill of Rights, criminalization of the homeless, fear and discomfort...for many many years. That they are out shooting to kill even before achieving positive identification of their target speaks volumes.

When was the last time LAPD engaged in such a massive effort involving a crime...which was to serve and protect the public, not themselves? I do not support Dorner's alleged actions but I do support the subsequent attention placed upon this corrupt, racist, sexist monstrosity to the extent to which it causes real Change therein.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fire Walk With Me (Reply #17)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 08:11 AM

51. Do you consider Dorner a whistleblower or a murderer? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bonobo (Original post)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 11:19 PM

14. Money.

Where would the money be in vaporizing him?

If there was money to be had the powers that be would make sure he'd be labeled a terrorist.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bonobo (Original post)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 11:20 PM

15. terrorism

 

is traditionally defined as
(1) sustained attacks on civilian targets. Not sure if LEO are considered civilian. So far only two incidents.
(2) with the purpose of religious, ideological, or political goals. This seems to be missing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bonobo (Original post)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 11:28 PM

16. Any sort of

Resistance is met with lethal force these days. They can shoot you for anything.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bonobo (Original post)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 11:57 PM

18. You do realize that one of the FBI's own definitions of terrorism,

 

violence or threat of violence to change a group's actions, especially politically-based, makes the US government, DHS, FBI, sheriff and police departments and media terrorists against the Occupy Wall Street movement.




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fire Walk With Me (Reply #18)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 01:25 AM

41. weren't

 

they breaking the law? failure to disperse, disobeying lawful police order?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigapple1963 (Reply #41)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 01:31 AM

43. Oh dear...where to begin...

 

I can't, I just can't. Suffice to say, where would that justify the US government etc. with terrorism?

Edit: Here, check the Martin Luther King, Jr. quotes in this post.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022349013#post45

You make my point...non-violent direct action/civil disobedience may technically be against some laws, but with zero banksters arrested and with no change in the regulations allowing them to harm the economy, something must be said, must be done. And that when you do, you meet militarized police who are agents of DHS through the iWatch program. This is an unacceptable state of affairs all the way around.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bonobo (Original post)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 12:04 AM

19. None. He's causing terror by his actions.

And he's already murdered people. So he's a terrorist.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zoeisright (Reply #19)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 12:09 AM

20. So then he could be killed on sight on the order of the POTUS. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bonobo (Original post)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 12:14 AM

21. Dormer can in no way be linked to 911 in any way.

(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

(b) War Powers Resolution Requirements-
(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

What relevant authorizaiton to use force would he use to claim that power?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Agnosticsherbet (Reply #21)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 12:19 AM

23. Good point.

He's fortunate he is not a Muslim.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bonobo (Reply #23)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 12:45 AM

32. Being a Muslim isn't relevant to the Authorization to use force.

He is simply not affiliated with that group.

He is just a man with grudge who decided to kill the children of police who pissed him off. He is no more a terrorist than the guy who kidnapped the kid off the bus and held him in a bunker or the guy that walked into a movie theater and killed people there to see batman.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Agnosticsherbet (Reply #32)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 12:49 AM

34. Quite right, but it would be vastly easier to draw a line between the two...

making the slope quite a bit more slippery for Muslims.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bonobo (Reply #34)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 12:55 AM

36. Except that your argument doesn't make sense. He isn't a muslim and he isn't a terrorist.

He is just an old fashioned murderer of innocent people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Agnosticsherbet (Reply #36)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 12:57 AM

37. That was why I used the conditional "if" form. nt



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Agnosticsherbet (Reply #21)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 12:21 AM

25. Nice find. The hyperbole surrounding this drone poutrage is unfounded. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bonobo (Original post)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 12:16 AM

22. Wanted, Dead or Alive

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bonobo (Original post)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 12:19 AM

24. Kind of pokes holes in the fiction some are pushing about ALL Americans being vulnerable... nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EastKYLiberal (Reply #24)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 01:41 AM

45. Far too many here are not paying attention to the increasingly fuzzy definition of "terrorist"

 

and the trillion-dollar weapons and tech industry pushing for legislation (NDAA, etc.) which continue to both grant them lucrative tech contracts as well as increasingly blur that definition of "terrorist".

The Occupy movement are being spied upon and hassled by DHS and the FBI, for peaceful protest of real, actual bank and wall street crime, which is ongoing. 7400+ of us have been arrested, and zero banksters.

Cop strongly implies Occupy presence means increased terrorism threat; Federal agents at parade

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022137604


Would Martin Luther King, Jr. be a terrorist by today's definitions?

"Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and foster such a tension that a community which has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue. It seeks so to dramatize the issue that it can no longer be ignored. My citing the creation of tension as part of the work of the nonviolent resister may sound rather shocking. But I must confess that I am not afraid of the word 'tension.' I have earnestly opposed violent tension, but there is a type of constructive, nonviolent tension which is necessary for growth....

The purpose of our direct action program is to create a situation so crisis packed that it will inevitably open the door to negotiation. I therefore concur with you in your call for negotiation. Too long has our beloved Southland been bogged down in a tragic effort to live in monologue rather than dialogue.

First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro’s great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen’s Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to 'order' than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: 'I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action'; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man’s freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a 'more convenient season.' Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection."

http://mondoweiss.net/2012/01/mlk-and-the-peace-process.html


We are witnessing a very slippery slope, a very dangerous erosion of the Bill of Rights, justified by the Evil Empire of Russia. Wait, the Iranians. Wait, Saddam Hussein who was responsible for 9/11. Wait, TERRORISTs. Sorry, got lost in history a minute to show it's the same damn bogeyman, the same damn excuse to create an endless war budget for contractors and arms dealers and the military industrial complex, brought home to our own soil.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bonobo (Original post)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 12:22 AM

26. The federal government has no jurisdiction

There really is such a thing as a state issue.

Why can't LAPD take this guy out without intruding on our rights? Is he willing to give himself up?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bonobo (Original post)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 12:27 AM

27. Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't the Obama doctrine apply only

to Americans in foreign lands?

I will readily stipulate that it is only one baby step for a totalitarian regime to strike the "foreign" bit and say that a threat to America must be exterminated, no matter where he is. But we should be factual in our discussions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueStreak (Reply #27)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 12:30 AM

28. No, you are correct.

I should argue from a philosophical POV, what is the difference?

In other words, if we decide, as a society, that killing a threat without trial is a reasonable action to take, what makes this situation different?

Does that work?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bonobo (Reply #28)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 12:45 AM

31. I'll try to answer

It seems to me the central difference is a reasonable opportunity to apprehend. In the places we are blasting off drones, we have no real opportunity to go in an take prisoners. Regardless of the obvious increase in American casualties that would result from ground operations, it just isn't politically possible in most cases. And so the argument seems to be that our need to blast a person we think might be cooking up a plot against America outweighs the normal impulse to require due process.

I do not accept that reasoning as a matter of course. I do agree that there may be a very small number of exceptions, such as the case of bin Laden (who was killed by special forces rather than drones). But that is not the Obama Doctrine. The Obama Doctrine says that POTUS has unlimited powers to authorize any "personality" killings (i.e. the cases where we think we have a SPECIFIC person in our sights). Moreover, the Obama Doctrine says that there need be virtually no oversight or accountability for the other 90% of the attacks where we have no information about any specific person, but the profile of observed activity looks "not quite right."

How do we keep the Obama Doctrine from becoming the way we operate within US borders? I have no idea. That is clearly where we are headed.

It is the proverbial slippery slope. And we aren't just looking at the slippery slope. We are already sliding down that slope gaining speed every day.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueStreak (Reply #31)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 12:47 AM

33. An excellent reply and I completely agree. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueStreak (Reply #27)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 01:37 AM

44. And, I believe, only in a declared emergency can the US military deploy domestically

perhaps that's a rule that could be written around, but I don't think it has been.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bonobo (Original post)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 12:36 AM

29. Huge difference, actually. The DoJ white paper...

... "sets forth a legal framework for considering the circumstances in which the U.S. government could use lethal force in a foreign country outside the area of active hostilities against a U.S. citizen who is a senior operational leader of al-Qa'ida or an associated force of al-Qa'ida—that is, an al-Qa'ida leader actively engaged in planning operations to kill Americans."


Specifically, Dorner

♦ is not located outside the country
♦ is not a senior operational leader of al-Qa'ida
♦ is not an al-Qa'ida leader actively engaged in planning operations to kill Americans.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FleetwoodMac (Reply #29)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 12:38 AM

30. I addressed that in #28 above if you are interested. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bonobo (Reply #30)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 01:11 AM

39. I've read it, and as I've noted several times previously, in my opinion, this is a false equivalency

The very title of the white paper precludes this notion (Lawfulness of a Lethal Operation Directed Against a U.S. Citizen Who Is a Senior Operational Leader of Al-Qa'ida or An Associated Force).

Extra judicial killings have been a horrific, but real reality throughout our history as a nation.

While your concerns are entirely justified, and one that is shared by many here (including myself), I feel that trying to link, and in the process, assign blame of this two century old trend to this white paper, and by extension, President Obama, is patently unfair.

President Obama's legacy of ending two wars, obliterating the al-Qaeda, refusing to send American forces into Syria despite huge internal and external pressure, should not be tainted by this broad-brushed moral indictment.

There is no new slippery slope. The barrier was breached long, long ago.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bonobo (Original post)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 12:52 AM

35. Dorner does not have to do anything more. LAPD

will do the rest. They will start kicking in doors on house to house searches. LA will be like Iraq.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Downwinder (Reply #35)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 01:08 AM

38. Somehow I get the feeling that

what you have pointed out is a big part of what this is all about though nobody is willing to say it. I have been wondering over the past decade, just when this would start happening here and how the GP will deal with it. I suspect that day may either being coming soon or may have already arrived.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bonobo (Original post)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 01:26 AM

42. The definition of terrorist doesn't fit.

A terrorist is someone who kills innocent civilians for some cause. The killing could and sometimes does include suicide of the terrorist, to ensure the killing of the civilians, all for the cause. The murders are not to exact revenge against people, or right a wrong. There is no connection between the victims and the cause. They kill anyone, at any time, anywhere. Most of the reason seems to be for publicity. Examples: The 911 terrorists, the Cole terrorists, McVeigh domestic terrorist.

This guy is on a personal vendetta mission to kill those he considers responsible for his problems, and members of their families. There is a connection in his mind between those he think wronged him and the wrongs that were done to him. He includes their families as punishment for the ones he is after. He is exacting revenge against particular persons.

The drones are after only AQ related terrorists, is my understanding. Because we are officially at war with that group, and maybe related groups. At least that's my understanding. And the drones are killing AQ related terrorists in foreign countries.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bonobo (Original post)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 02:01 AM

46. there is none...

So fuck it; why not send an armed drone to just kill him. He must be guilty of something. The police say so. They wouldn't lie just to cover their asses if there is an investigation into racism in LAPD. And anyone standing next to him when the bombs drop? They must be terrorists,too.
right?
Besides, he doesn't need due process. He is black.
The government can do no wrong. I mean, look at the success rate at guantonamo! At least 10 % of those guys were sorta guilty.
Nobody is perfect...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bonobo (Original post)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 03:14 AM

47. the ability to catch him using normal means

While the LAPD is making a mockery of the notion that this man can be found and arrested, that doesn't mean he can't be found and arrested. He can be. He isn't in Pakistan or Yemen where we don't have people able to arrest him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bonobo (Original post)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 03:39 AM

48. How was the Sniper dealt with ? there have been suspected terrorists in the united States caught

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bonobo (Original post)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 08:07 AM

49. With a broad definition of terrorist, any criminal could be labeled one.

A terrorist doesn't just break the law. There must be a motive to destabilize a government and a civil population. I don't see those goals in this situation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bonobo (Original post)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 08:09 AM

50. A police/law enforcement sniper can shoot this guy on sight possibly.

But this is within the jurisdiction of law enforcement. So it's their job, not the military's, to incapacitate him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bonobo (Original post)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 08:11 AM

52. every indication

is that there is not going to be any attempt to arrest him = how many trucks have they already shot up?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bonobo (Original post)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 04:26 PM

54. The fact that he's in the US (presumably) makes a huge difference

The "kill list" policy doesn't change posse comitatus act.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread