Try the political quiz

23.2k Replies

 @ISIDEWITHDiscuss this answer...7yrs7Y

Yes

 @9FQW25DRepublicanfrom Guam disagreed…6mos6MO

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.

 @9G8QZRD from California disagreed…5mos5MO

killing people is morally wrong no matter when anyone has done as well as strategically a bad idea and missed opportunity for interogation or anything of the sort

 @9FRVB2K from North Dakota disagreed…6mos6MO

The assassination of someone in a Foreign can bring a lot of bad to the United States, and even war. This can result in bad blood between countries and even hurt those we are allied with.

 @9FQ2P9WRepublican from Texas disagreed…6mos6MO

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.

 @ISIDEWITHDiscuss this answer...7yrs7Y

No

 @9GL8292 from Georgia agreed…5mos5MO

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.

 @9GMN3LV from North Carolina agreed…5mos5MO

I would like someone to be proven a terrorist, not suspected, before assassination. Innocent until proven guilty is the foundation of our justice system.

 @9FJ94FYLibertarian from Texas disagreed…6mos6MO

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?

 @9GDKDTNCommunist from Washington agreed…5mos5MO

We cannot intervene in any foreign nation. Only peace and development for the world, not war and murder.

 @ISIDEWITHDiscuss this answer...7yrs7Y

Yes, but only if there is undeniable evidence they are planning to attack our country

 @9GDJJDHSocialist from Colorado disagreed…5mos5MO

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.

 @9GDNDF8Constitution from New Jersey agreed…5mos5MO

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.

 @9GX5C6Y from California disagreed…5mos5MO

Killing them wont achieve anything as they may be attached to bigger conflicts that we would lose information on if they’re gone

 @9GVZM28Libertarian from Texas disagreed…5mos5MO

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 Freedom from New York disagreed…5mos5MO

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.

 @ISIDEWITHDiscuss this answer...7yrs7Y

No, they should be captured and given a fair trial

 @9FM8H7J disagreed…6mos6MO

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.

 @9FPY3FN from California disagreed…6mos6MO

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.

 @9GN3DK5 from Arkansas agreed…5mos5MO

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

 @9G7YQ8J from Michigan agreed…5mos5MO

Just think. If you kill the wrong guy, which has a high chance of happening, you have to clean it up, cover up the assassination of some random civilian, and then deal with the person you originally intended to kill, whereas if you take them to court, you could at least get more information out of them in a humane manner. This also gives them the chance to recover and become a better person.

 @ISIDEWITHDiscuss this answer...7yrs7Y

Yes, but only if there is undeniable evidence they have committed an attack against our country

 @9FQ5ZLJ from West Virginia agreed…6mos6MO

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.

 @ISIDEWITHDiscuss this answer...7yrs7Y

No, capture, interrogate, and imprison them instead

 @9FLB4D4from Guam disagreed…6mos6MO

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.

 @9FVYL35 from Idaho disagreed…6mos6MO

No, I do not believe that should be done unless we receive more information of taking down the enemy.

 @9GCMZV5 from Indiana disagreed…5mos5MO

If they are a suspect terrorist with a bad past, capturing and imprisoning might not be enough to prevent an attack.

 @8LXGL9PIndependent from Maine answered…3yrs3Y

Yes, if either undeniable evidence of a planned or past attack is attained.

 @ISIDEWITHasked…4mos4MO

Can the intent to prevent potential threats justify the actions of countries taking the law into their own hands?

 @9H99RBKIndependent from Georgia commented…4mos4MO

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

 @9H8F3HH from North Carolina answered…4mos4MO

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.

 @9H8D226Socialist from California answered…4mos4MO

 @ISIDEWITHasked…4mos4MO

How do you perceive the balance between a government's duty to protect its citizens and the rights of individuals in other nations?

 @9H8GTSLDemocrat from Illinois answered…4mos4MO

Protection of citizen is paramount and their protection should be highest on governments priority list

 @9H8GTQV from North Carolina answered…4mos4MO

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.

 @9H8GRJT from Nebraska answered…4mos4MO

 @ISIDEWITHasked…4mos4MO

How would you feel if a foreign country carried out a secret mission on your homeland's soil without permission?

 @9H8HPPT from Minnesota answered…4mos4MO

I would be scared and worried for my family, friends, and myself. I wouldn't know what to do.

 @9H8HMCL from California answered…4mos4MO

Endangered and hope for the government to have it under control to protect its residents.

 @9GLVJ4S from Maryland answered…5mos5MO

Yes, but only with Congressional approval and only if there is undeniable evidence of a past or impending attack.

 @ISIDEWITHasked…4mos4MO

Do you believe there's a moral difference between direct military action and covert operations in foreign lands, and why?

 @9H8DRXYPeace and Freedom from Florida answered…4mos4MO

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.

 @ISIDEWITHasked…4mos4MO

What are the potential long-term implications for a country's image when it is known to carry out covert operations abroad?

 @9H8JB5HDemocrat from California answered…4mos4MO

 @9H8J8TLRepublican from California answered…4mos4MO

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.

 @ISIDEWITHasked…4mos4MO

If you learned that your safety was secured by compromising someone else's sovereignty, how would that make you feel?

 @ISIDEWITHasked…4mos4MO

Should the international community have a say in how individual countries combat threats to their own national security?

 @ISIDEWITHasked…4mos4MO

How do you think the families of suspected terrorists should be considered in the decision-making process of foreign interventions?

Engagement

The historical activity of users engaging with this question.

Loading data...

Loading chart... 

Demographics

Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion

Loading data...