Should the US assassinate suspected terrorists in foreign countries?
The United States began using drones to conduct targeted killings in the wake of the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001. President George W. Bush authorized dozens of drone strikes against terrorism suspects , and President Barack Obama continued this practice and actually expanded the use of drones. Drones use continued under President Trump and President Biden. Drones were used in areas of war, such as Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya and also against terrorist suspects found in countries such as Pakistan, Somalia and Libya.
@ISIDEWITH7yrs7Y
Yes
@9FQW25DRepublican8mos8MO
It’s none of Americas business if there’s a threat to any other country or even for the US miles away. Assassinating someone who’s not attacking US citizens outside the US or in the US is unacceptable and the foreign countries should deal with it.
@9FLPZHC8mos8MO
The United States should not get involved in another country's domestic affairs. Keeping them out is our affair, but tracking them down and killing them is overreach.
That this would be a bad idea. Putting our troops at risk sending them to assasinate someone,which can kead to revoltes from Foreign powers.
@9FQ2P9WRepublican8mos8MO
We came up with rights because we are all human and we should keep the rules the same for everyone in our country and not discriminate.
@ISIDEWITH7yrs7Y
No
@9GL82927mos7MO
Your life is something that should never be threatened, regardless of whether or not you are a US citizen. If we are granted life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, then others around the world should too.
@9FJ94FYLibertarian8mos8MO
If they are proven to be a danger to the citizens of the united states, then why wait for people to die before taking action?
@9GMN3LV7mos7MO
I would like someone to be proven a terrorist, not suspected, before assassination. Innocent until proven guilty is the foundation of our justice system.
We cannot intervene in any foreign nation. Only peace and development for the world, not war and murder.
@ISIDEWITH7yrs7Y
Yes, but only if there is undeniable evidence they are planning to attack our country
Top Disagreement
There was "undeniable evidence" that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. There was "undeniable evidence" that Iraqi soldiers were throwing babies out of incubators in Kuwait. The propaganda arm of the U.S. government is very good at manufacturing atrocities to justify war, and very good at sweeping it under the rug shortly after the lie has been exposed.
@9GDNDF8Constitution7mos7MO
If whether or not the atrocity happened is debatable, the U.S. government should speak to the Iraqi government about this issue and come out with a solution.
@9GX5C6Y6mos6MO
Killing them wont achieve anything as they may be attached to bigger conflicts that we would lose information on if they’re gone
@9GVZM28Libertarian6mos6MO
Sometimes you have to take the chance. Sometimes its unsafe to not take the chance. It's better safe than sorry. There has to be enough evidence but not too little.
@9GKCH5TPeace and Freedom7mos7MO
The justification of murder on any act other than self-defense creates an abuse of power held by the government. These proven suspects should instead be taken into custody.
@ISIDEWITH7yrs7Y
No, they should be captured and given a fair trial
@9FM8H7J 8mos8MO
They are terrorists. They know what they got into, and they deserve harsh punishment for conducting such actions. Being strict will allow an example to be set.
@9FPY3FN8mos8MO
Unless the activities of foreign threats directly impact American operations abroad, or our defined international allies, there should be no direct involvement by any other country without explicit request or reason.
@9F9JJ2L8mos8MO
If they did a horrific act like terrorism or genocide they should be eliminated on they spot, just like there victims
@9GN3DK57mos7MO
My position of "No, they should be captured and given a fair trial" on foreign assassination is based on several key principles, such as the importance of adhering to international law, protecting human rights, and ensuring a fair and just legal process for all individuals. Here's some context and additional information to support this position:
1. International Law: The United Nations Charter and various international treaties, such as the Geneva Conventions, establish legal frameworks governing armed conflict and the treatment of individuals during armed conflicts. These inter… Read more
@ISIDEWITH7yrs7Y
Yes, but only if there is undeniable evidence they have committed an attack against our country
@9FQ5ZLJ8mos8MO
If there is not something done about them and we allow them to just go through with their attack, we are allowing innocent lives to be a stake. Either way, it will end in blood, it is just a matter of taking one life to save multiple, or letting that one life go on and losing multiple more.
@ISIDEWITH7yrs7Y
No, capture, interrogate, and imprison them instead
@9FLB4D48mos8MO
If it is found that a suspected terrorist is undeniably planning to attack our country Neutralising that target could dissuade future terrorists from attempting an attack.
@9FVYL358mos8MO
No, I do not believe that should be done unless we receive more information of taking down the enemy.
@9GCMZV57mos7MO
If they are a suspect terrorist with a bad past, capturing and imprisoning might not be enough to prevent an attack.
@8LXGL9PIndependent4yrs4Y
Yes, if either undeniable evidence of a planned or past attack is attained.
@ISIDEWITH6mos6MO
Can the intent to prevent potential threats justify the actions of countries taking the law into their own hands?
@9H99RBKIndependent6mos6MO
depends but the same time they need to take it to there own hands if needed to and for the justify actions and reasons not normal one serious ones
@9H8F3HH6mos6MO
yes it can becuase if the united states has a suspicion to suspect any possible assassins then the president can give orders to kill anyone that is taking actions against assassination.
Everyone deserves a fair trial before having their life taken away.
@ISIDEWITH6mos6MO
How do you perceive the balance between a government's duty to protect its citizens and the rights of individuals in other nations?
Protection of citizen is paramount and their protection should be highest on governments priority list
@9H8GTQV6mos6MO
The balance between a government's duty to protect its citizens and the rights of individuals in other nations is a complex and nuanced ethical and legal challenge. The concept of "Foreign Assassination" raises ethical, moral, and legal questions that touch on principles of national security, human rights, and international law.
@9H8GRJT6mos6MO
The rights of individuals in other nations is tilted more.
@ISIDEWITH6mos6MO
How would you feel if a foreign country carried out a secret mission on your homeland's soil without permission?
@9GLVJ4S7mos7MO
Yes, but only with Congressional approval and only if there is undeniable evidence of a past or impending attack.
@ISIDEWITH6mos6MO
Do you believe there's a moral difference between direct military action and covert operations in foreign lands, and why?
@9H8DRXYPeace and Freedom6mos6MO
Yes there is. Not only do covert operations allow the government to do as they please without oversight, they also undermine our relationship with foreign allies or potential allies.
@ISIDEWITH6mos6MO
What are the potential long-term implications for a country's image when it is known to carry out covert operations abroad?
It can make a country look harsh or tarnish their reputations
@9H8J8TLRepublican6mos6MO
i think that when a country assasinates someone who might have been a public figure or even a hero to someone elses eyes. it reflects on us and can ultimatley backfire and is why we need to run fair trials.
@ISIDEWITH6mos6MO
@ISIDEWITH6mos6MO
@ISIDEWITH6mos6MO
@ISIDEWITH6mos6MO
The historical activity of users engaging with this question.
Loading data...
Loading chart...
Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion
Loading data...