
Man hunt for ex-soldier who shot police chief's daughter and killed policeman - dsl
http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/376732/Man-hunt-for-ex-soldier-who-shot-police-chief-s-daughter-and-killed-policeman
======
asynchronous13
This article is terrible. It's clearly designed to make people think that the
suspect is targeted for execution via drone. The reality is that they're just
trying to find him. They'll have an IR camera in the air to help search in the
woods where the guy is hiding.

The guy claimed that he has a shoulder-launched surface to air missile and
that he'll shoot down any helicopters that come looking for him! It's no
wonder that police would rather use an unmanned aircraft instead of putting
one of their pilots at risk!

Here's an article that includes actual news, rather than inflammatory
headlines: [http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/376732/Man-hunt-for-
ex-s...](http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/376732/Man-hunt-for-ex-soldier-
who-shot-police-chief-s-daughter-and-killed-policeman)

~~~
tptacek
Look at the comment threads here to see why a story like that sells; plenty of
people on HN really want to believe that Obama is deploying drones armed with
ABEMSPKEROIII2#$* missiles against random people in the United States, because
that's convenient for them. They think we live in a Tony Scott movie.

------
anigbrowl
According to the article they're using drones to look for him. I would be
extremely surprised if they were to attack him with one. In any case, Obama
does not have, or claim the authority to take him down with a drone; his
actions against terrorists elsewhere are based on the Authorization for Use of
Military Force, which is explicitly limited to members of the organization
involved in the 9/11/2001 attacks.

~~~
adventured
Obama has been ordering attacks on supposed terrorists that had absolutely
nothing to do with 9/11 during his entire presidency.

There's nothing limiting drone attacks to just members of organizations
involved in the 9/11 attacks.

~~~
tptacek
I think you're conflating drone strikes against foreign nationals with the
(very few) strikes that implicated American citizens. The former set is not
bounded by Al Qaeda membership. The latter set is.

------
logn
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.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/02/04/16843014-jus...](http://openchannel.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/02/04/16843014-justice-
department-memo-reveals-legal-case-for-drone-strikes-on-americans?lite) The
legal reasoning supporting execution of Al Queda leaders who are US citizens
overseas holds true completely for any anti-American people on US soil

~~~
tptacek
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
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
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.

------
enoch_r
Just happened to read this[1] article today--apparently the first was back in
2011:

In June 2011 a county sheriff in North Dakota was trying to track down three
men, possibly carrying guns, in connection with some missing cows. He had a
lot of ground to cover, so — as one does — he called in a Predator drone from
a local Air Force base. It not only spotted the men but could see that they
were in fact unarmed. It was the first time a Predator had been involved in
the arrest of U.S. citizens

[http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2135132-4,0...](http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2135132-4,00.html)

------
tzs
The border patrol has been using drones for quite a while to track humans on
US soil. The only real difference in this case is they are trying to keep
someone in instead of keep someone out.

------
notatoad
other than drones being a hot subject in the media right now, how is this in
any way different to using a search plane to look for somebody?

~~~
icambron
Not only that, but the general touchiness about drones is misplaced anyway.
The problem with drone strikes isn't the drones per se, it's being aggressive
about killing people and the collateral damage that causes. It doesn't really
matter whether there's a guy in the airplane or not.

------
dmishe
It's merely another camera in the sky, what's the big deal, they're not firing
(yet?)

~~~
neotek
(yet)

~~~
dmishe
Exactly, then it will be news, now it's nothing

------
krzyk
It's a pity they don't include his full manifesto ( [http://christopher-
dorner.com/christopher-dorners-manifesto-...](http://christopher-
dorner.com/christopher-dorners-manifesto-full-unedited-copy/) ). He has a lot
of support on the internet and in the LA community. I've heard him being
called black Rambo (the one from Rambo I). Basically he is on a revenge
rampage on corrupted LAPD officers.

~~~
tptacek
He deliberately murdered an unarmed woman because she was a blood relative of
an LAPD official. Anyone who says they support him has revealed something
unbecoming about themselves.

------
beedogs
What the hell is happening up there? This is not the country I remember
growing up in. (But it _is_ the one I left.)

~~~
tptacek
We've been taken over by armed drones. Also we outlawed kale. Send help.

