Try the political quiz

9,300 Replies

@9H5CC8PAmerican Solidarity from Utah answered…6mos

Yes, but only if there is undeniable evidence of an imminent threat, and a trial is not possible

@9GWBN4GRepublican from California answered…6mos

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.

@9GW6NDDVeteran from Alabama answered…6mos

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

@9GW5FZVWomen’s Equality from Florida answered…6mos

@9GW2QCPTranshumanist from Massachusetts answered…6mos

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.

@9GVSQQKTranshumanist from Texas answered…6mos

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.

@9GVN5CFWorking Family from Ohio answered…6mos

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

@9GVM8SDRepublican from Illinois answered…6mos

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

@9GVKSH5Green from Louisiana answered…6mos

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.

@9GVHKHNVeteran from Tennessee answered…6mos

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

@9GVDKJ8Independent from Texas answered…6mos

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.

@9GVD7XZWomen’s Equality from Texas answered…6mos

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

@9GVB56LLibertarian from Ohio answered…6mos

@9GV8PW5Working Family from Montana answered…6mos

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.

@9GV753QWomen’s Equality from South Carolina answered…6mos

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

@9GTXP2DVeteran from Georgia answered…6mos

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

@9GTWZF3Democrat from Massachusetts answered…6mos

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

@9GTSW94Constitution from Illinois answered…6mos

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.

@9GTRJXCWomen’s Equality from Louisiana answered…6mos

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

@9GTQJQGTranshumanist from Massachusetts answered…6mos

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

@9GTMP9YDemocrat from New York answered…6mos

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

@9GTLYB3Peace and Freedom from North Carolina answered…6mos

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

@9GTJLC2Green from North Carolina answered…6mos

@9GTF5FHDemocrat from West Virginia answered…6mos

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

@9GTBMZHIndependent from Virginia answered…6mos

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.

@9GTB7WFGreen from Ohio answered…6mos

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.

@9GT8Y63Women’s Equality from Pennsylvania answered…6mos

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

@9GT39GPPeace and Freedom from New York answered…6mos

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

@9GT2KY2Progressive from Maryland answered…6mos

@9GSY3XFIndependent from Illinois answered…6mos

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

@9GSVYFTConstitution from California answered…6mos

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

@9GSRNHPLibertarian from Ohio answered…6mos

@9GSP82MDemocrat from Illinois answered…6mos

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

@9GSB8LHTranshumanist from Texas answered…6mos

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

@9GS89LVWomen’s Equality from Ohio answered…6mos

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.

@9GS3HJFVeteran from Virginia answered…6mos

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

@9GS3GRHLibertarian from Kansas answered…6mos

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

@9GS32Y4Women’s Equality from Texas answered…6mos

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

@9GRZP85Democrat from Michigan answered…6mos

@9GRYKXGConstitution from Nevada answered…6mos

@9GRN732Democrat from New York answered…6mos

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.

@9GRJN66Democrat from Florida answered…6mos

@9GRJ93BTranshumanist from Georgia answered…6mos

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.

@9GRFYW5Republican from Wisconsin answered…6mos

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

@9GR9FF5Women’s Equality from Pennsylvania answered…6mos

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

Engagement

The historical activity of users engaging with this question.

Loading data...

Loading chart...