Should France continue to assassinate suspected terrorists in foreign countries?

yes, but only if they know for sure that they have attacked the US, or going to attack the US. Also, if they know that they are part of a terrorist group.

There needs to be irrefutable evidence that they have or are planning an attack on our country.

if they are for sure and big enough of a threat

It depends on how much of a threat they are and if we know where they are at all times but I do think you should take someones life because you think they might do something.

Yes, but only if there is undeniable evidence that the suspected terrorist(s) are planning to or have in fact caused harm to our country.

i dont rlly know

Yes, but only if they are causing harm and or panic to our people or any other people.

Yes, but only if there is substantial evidence of them being a terrorist

I think we should be cautious about assassinating suspected terrorists in other countries. If we have really good reason to believe that they are committing terrorists acts against our country or their own country, we should try to apprehend them, but we should also obtain permission to enter the country from that other country. We should only kill someone if we have superb evidence in favor of them committing terrorist acts or that they will commit terrorist acts that will cause people to be in danger. And after we have considered whether or not this person's death will cause more danger for the people of our country, and the other country or countries involved.

Yes, but there has to be undeniable evidence of genocide or multiple murders

This is an issue which must be decided case by case and does not have a unilateral fix-all, what is an appropriate US response in one case may not be in another case.

Yes, only if the US can prove that they are involved in acts of terrorism

no terrorists in foreign countries is none of our buisness

Yes, but only when the suspected terrorists are proven. So, rather than just killing off of thoughts, it would stand more of as a death sentence.

no, unless they have undeniable evidence and proof they hey are planning on attacking or have attacked.

If proof they are terrorists

I’m honestly not to sure

Hugely complex issue

No, capture interrogate give a fair trial then imprison if found guilty

i don't think they should be assassinated because it's not right do that just because they look suspect but i think they should be given a fair trial if there's no evidence

Yes, the Commander in Chief owes a duty to the American People to defend and protect their right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. This includes the potential right to order a strike against a public enemy.

Yes, but only if there is undeniable evidence that they are planning to attack and cannot be effectively captured

The U.S. has no right to go into foreign countries and abduct people or kill people.

Only if all evidence points to that the person is a terrorist

I do not know where I stand on this, its a very subjective question which in my opinion.

If they have enough proof than yes.

Off the books sure, but officially, no

Yes, If there is evidence they are planning to attack and they can’t be captured.

I don't really know enough about the subject to agree or disagree on the subject. However, suspicion of anything shouldn't be the means for killing someone.

yes & no. There must be sufficient evidence the government is crooked so if you wanted a fair trial it would likely be fixed somehow. So the only 100% sure fire way to prevent would be assassinate.

Yes, if they pose a serious credible threat, and only if they can’t be captured without loss of American lives.

It depends on if they were planning on or did attack the US and still pose a real threat

Only if innocent people do not get killed.

I don’t view the targeted killing of militarize terrorists as assassination

When these individuals follow doctrines that motivate them to annihilate nations, individuals..etc for the purposes of moral cleansing, then yes.

The U.S should not interfere with foreign affairs.

The United States should intervene only if its a major radical group such as China's internment camps.

No, but we should heavily imprison known terrorists within our country

They should be smart enough to get rid of the terrorism. The books say they have to defend themselves. They could catch them alive and put em in jail. The judge will just throw the book at them and they will never get out.

US should give option for foreign nation to turn them over or risk foreign aid/US handling the matter if nation refuses

If we have undeniable intel on a violator of human rights, we should seek to end their influence on others.

No, they should heavily imprison known terrorists within the United States

I would need more information on stance.

No, the US should not operate in other countries

We should not focus on other countries so much. If we spent money in the right places and had the proper technology, knowledge and structure the chances of attack themselves would go down exponentially.

No, suspected isn't enough for an assassination.

This is a difficult question. If they knew in advance something like 9/11 and it could have been prevented then I would hope our military would do what was necessary to protect our people.

They should make sure that the source providing the information is correct but then yes.

No, unless there's undeniable evidence of intended harm if that's the case then they should be captured, interrogated and not tortured or imprisoned indefinitely