Should Denmark assassinate suspected terrorists in foreign countries?
@ISIDEWITH6yrs
No, they should be captured and given a fair trial
Deleted6mos
Yes, but the option of capturat
@93X4TMH7mos
Only if there is undeniable evidence that they are planning/have committed an attack against our country
Yes, but only if the evidence is virtually conclusive.
@92X5HLD7mos
Yes, but only if there is undeniable evidence they are planning to attack our country or have committed an attack against it
@93T2Z957mos
No, foreign affairs involvement that does not directly work in the interests of the American people is not a responsibility of the United States government.
@Panagioti9998mos
No, this is a violation of the sovereignty of other nations. Our military should not enter any country without a congressional declaration of war.
@8W2ZDFB8mos
Yes but only if they are going to commit an attack against our country or have committed a crime against our country.
@9334YP39mos
The United States should not, but her citizens may.
@92YHQCV9mos
No, they should be instead captured, (humanly) interrogated, given a fair trial, and imprisoned instead because assassinating suspected terrorists can pose a real Public Relations problem for us, whether they are guilty OR NOT.
@dylanziehme9mos
No, suspects should be captured if necessary and possible. If there is an imminent threat, the DoD should have to get an emergency warrant from a federal judge to ensure they meet the burden of proof.
@92WX6NZ9mos
Yes, but only if there's undeniable evidence that they've attacked or are planning to attack our country
@92DC6RN10mos
Yes, but only if there is large evidence that they plotted to attack or have attacked.
@MSelvig10mos
Each situation is different, and I cannot give a blanket answer on this question.
@9299B9H10mos
No captured and interrogated and decided punishment based on what they have done
@925J4Q810mos
Depends on if they have attacked, or if we just have pure evidence that they will
@8ZVJ2LM11mos
I have very mixed feelings about this subject if they have attacked and caused pain and suffering i think assassinate but if they haven't done anything but did have inevitable plans i think imprison and interrogate.
Deleted11mos
No, we should not assassinate any suspected terrorist without concrete, undeniable evidence that they are trying to attack our country. Also, once such evidence were to manifest itself then we should obtain both Congressional approval along with approval from that sovereign state to enter their country to capture them along with a fair trial instead.
@ForWheelen11mos
Yes because I view that as a military operation therefore due process would not apply. However there must be some compelling evidence
@8ZGPKM911mos
yes only if they are authorized as some against and a risk to the USA
@8ZDTRL711mos
Yes, but only if theirs undeniable evidence that they are planning an attack on our country and if the country of the terrorist is made aware of their assassination
@8R6XWGN11mos
Yes, but only if there is undeniable evidence that they have or are planning to attack any country
@8ZCGKPD11mos
yes, but only if there is undeniable evidence that they have or are planning to attack any country
@RickStewart12mos
The US should assassinate no one, ever. The Constitution provides for war when necessary, and for justice for all, when we are not at war.
@8Z4TVW312mos
why do we care? if they're in other countries then we should just make sure they don't come here
Deleted12mos
No, we should not assassinate any suspected terrorist without concrete, undeniable evidence. Also, once such evidence were to manifest itself then we should obtain both Congressional approval along with approval from that sovereign state to enter their country to capture and give them a fair trial instead.
Deleted12mos
No, we should not assassinate any "suspected" terrorist without concrete, undeniable evidence. Also, once such evidence were to manifest itself then we should obtain both Congressional approval along with approval from that sovereign state to enter their country to capture and give them a fair trial instead.
Deleted12mos
No, we should not assassinate any "suspected" terrorist without concrete, undeniable evidence that they are planning to attack our nation. Also, once such evidence were to manifest itself then we should obtain both Congressional approval along with approval from that sovereign state to enter their country to capture and give them a fair trial instead.
@8YYBYBH12mos
No, because it could be someone innocent, maybe ask them questions and report but don't kill them on sight that would only make a bigger mess.
@7PTCG381yr
Yes, if they are confirmed (not just suspected) terrorists who are planning to attack our country and we are unable to capture and interrogate them
Deleted1yr
No, the United States should not assassinate any suspected terrorist without concrete, undeniable evidence that they have/are planning to attack our nation. Also, once such evidence were to manifest itself then we should obtain both congressional approval along with approval from that sovereign state to enter their country to capture and give them a fair trial instead.
@8YMZ8791yr
not until they have full proof that the person is really a terrorist and if not able to capture then take out.
Deleted1yr
Only those that have killed/attacked our nation.
@8Y4RVFN1yr
Capture, interrogate, and imprison first. If that leads to the possible threat, then assassinate. However, no civilians should be hurt in the process.
@7PTCG381yr
Yes, but only if gathered intelligence reveals undeniable evidence that they are terrorists who have planned an imminent attack against our country
@8XNVQ8R1yr
Yes, But only if there is undeniable evidence they are planning or have committed an attack against our country
@8XVDJS61yr
Well really no. They are 'Suspected" terrorist, that doesn't really mean you know if they are or not. Unless you research them and they have a bad background, you need to first look into the person before killing them. You never know who you're assassinating
@8XQ89RL1yr
Yes, but only if there is undeniable evidence they are planning to attack the country or if they have committed an attack against the country
@8XR2TYT1yr
no beuase they should question themmand get information out f them
@8XM9TJS1yr
only if proven that they are one should it be allowed.
@8XGX4DL1yr
Yes, but only if there is undeniable evidence that they are planning to attack our country or that they already have.
@8XGV4421yr
Yes, if they are planning to harm our country or out people and or if they already have
@8XGQ7PW1yr
No, they should be captured and given a fair trial if there is undeniable evidence that they have or are planning to attack our country
@8XFNL5B1yr
NO because they as a human should have the right to fight them selves. You should bring them to the U.S. then trial against them with hard evidence. Then the judge will do what s/he thinks is best.
@Thomasj661yr
Only proven terrorists.
@8X5XV2Z1yr
Yes, but only if there is either undeniable evidence they have committed an attack against our country or if there is undeniable evidence they are planning to attack our country
@8X58PYF1yr
yes but they should arrest them when possible
@8X2B6GG1yr
yes, but only if you know for sure that they are a terrorist
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...