Google +LinkedInPinterestYouTubeInstagramTwitterFacebook

Is it legally justified to use drones to kill U.S. citizens who are aiding the enemy in other countries?

 

View more polls

 

Craigi

October 6, 2011 - 3:46pm

Citizen or not, matters not. It's really all about self defense. These people want to kill us. We have to beat them to the draw. There are too many good people in this world to worry about the bad apples. Be gone with them any way you can.

Duane.Goehring

October 6, 2011 - 4:08pm

Traitors are shot or hung.

bonmcinlao

October 6, 2011 - 4:24pm

Born or not born in the US is not matter.If you're against the laws of the US ,you're considered the enemy of the States.If you're caught,you have the right to have a legal process,if you're killed,you're done.

RicKK51

October 6, 2011 - 4:28pm

You mess with US you mess with all of US, drone, A-10 Warthog....etc, etc.

dale r

October 6, 2011 - 4:33pm

That question shouldn't have to be asked. was it justified for terrorists to kill American citizens in the twin towers. We should use whatever means we have to stop war on America.

TonyC51

October 6, 2011 - 4:44pm

Discuss the innocent child murdered by the terrorists.

Spend your time dicussing the innocent good, decent honest muslims, and christians, and people of any different faith, who live in fear of their lives, because of the evil they sow.

God bless our troops.

Big Dav Hec

October 6, 2011 - 4:57pm

If a US citizen gives aid and comfort to the enemy of our country he is a traitor and traitors should be shot on sight. Also he had killed many innocient individuals.

Big Dav Hec

October 6, 2011 - 4:57pm

If a US citizen gives aid and comfort to the enemy of our country he is a traitor and traitors should be shot on sight. Also he had killed many innocient individuals.

jwvonl

October 6, 2011 - 5:05pm

free a terrorist or other criminal from rapid termination as performed by any of our defense systems. In other words, just because an individual is so fortunate as to be born in the USA; whether from both parents being US Citizens or immigrants should not be of consequence. Turn on the USA and the USA has the right to eliminate any threat! I do not feel that individual should be guaranteed the same legal rights as any other law abiding Citizen. A traitor is a traitor,generally they were hung or shot, in a hurry! My condolences to his parents, as long as they did not support him or his actions.

rebeldawg1124

October 6, 2011 - 5:13pm

Drones, bunker buster bombs, alpha strikes, special ops teams, even spitballs at close range...as long as the vermin are disposed of!

Those that disagree, send those vermin your home address with an invite to dinner and see what they have in mind for dessert !

FHBrass

October 6, 2011 - 5:13pm

In my opinion when Anwar al-Awlaki and Samir Khan gave both aid and comfort to the enemies they became traitors and surrendered any right they may have once had to due process and the American Justice System.

kevinp3bmodmem

October 6, 2011 - 5:41pm

He was riding with some bomb makers, who had NO PROBLEM strapping one of these onto a young boy or woman and killing our troops.
Anwar al-Awlaki and Samir Khan were just GREAT COLLATERAL KILLS. NO HARD FEELS, it's just BUSINESS

newcomb911

October 6, 2011 - 5:46pm

He should have had his citizenship revoked for his actions. He was not born in this country. None of this would have never been brought up.

dmzsgt

October 6, 2011 - 5:47pm

Why are people trying to dismantle our version of the English language that IS FOR AMERICA, not the world. TREASON, this is what Anwar al-Awlaki and Samir Khan PROUDLY did by voice, action and in print. STOP spreading ignorance and use AMERICAN ENGLISH in AMERICA without trying to create clouds of mystery.
FOR GOD AND COUNTRY,

dmzsgt.

daveb48195

October 6, 2011 - 5:59pm

If you voted yes please read this.

The Constitution was written to protect US citizens. (Are you a Citizen?) If the document is not that important to you than what were you fighting for.

Suppose that in The Revolutionary War King George could have used drones on us. Were we not traitors in his eyes? He of course would have condoned them using your same logic.

Now, however, we have a Constitution and it is suppose to protect our rights. I am not ready to give any of those rights up, to get scum bag US citizens. There is a process when it comes to citizens, which is already in place and we should use it. Not to protect those traitors, but to protect ourselves from potential leaders which might want to abuse us in the future.

If for some strange reason you end up on some terrorist list, perhaps in error, you might not relish the thought of getting droned.

fineshade17

October 6, 2011 - 5:59pm

When a person born in the USA turns against this country and organizes terrorist activities, he or she gives up any and all rights to be a citizen as far as I am concerned and should be dealt with as with any terrorist.

Papabear4

October 6, 2011 - 6:10pm

Only a pure progressive socialist liberal would even take the time to ask a question like this. For those of us who have worn the uniform and taken up arms to protect this country, this question is an affront to our sacrifice. The moment a "citizen" declares him/her self an enemy of America, his citizenship should be revoked instantly, and that person is placed on the hit list. We don't need to ask the question as to why a person would do this, it is immaterial. We are at war, period, I know America is at the Mall, but this country is truly at war and I am afraid it is going to take another 9/11 before people wake up to that fact.

Papabear4

October 6, 2011 - 6:10pm

Only a pure progressive socialist liberal would even take the time to ask a question like this. For those of us who have worn the uniform and taken up arms to protect this country, this question is an affront to our sacrifice. The moment a "citizen" declares him/her self an enemy of America, his citizenship should be revoked instantly, and that person is placed on the hit list. We don't need to ask the question as to why a person would do this, it is immaterial. We are at war, period, I know America is at the Mall, but this country is truly at war and I am afraid it is going to take another 9/11 before people wake up to that fact.

greenriverkate

October 6, 2011 - 8:01pm

Ron Paul is NOT a progressive liberal. However, some might think I am. Read my response and eat your words.

the ripster

October 6, 2011 - 6:21pm

That's the bottom line. Both of these characters have committed treason through actions and words. The punishment for treason is death. Not to mention the terrorist bit. I say kill them where they can be found and as quick as they can be found. Don't question it either, brag about it afterwards. Let it be a lesson to anyone else contemplating such actions. To put it in the words of the terrorists themselves. "Death to the infidels".

antiTyranny

October 6, 2011 - 6:30pm

Was this just another war casualty? No, this individual was intentionally targeted. Am I sorry the a-hole is dead? No. Do I think he could be considered a traitor? Oh, yes, definitely! Was he properly charged, tried by a jury of his peers, and sentenced to death? Nope! The powers-that-be in Washington acted as accuser, judge, jury, and executioner.

The powers-that-be in Washington have also more than inferred that the REAL threat is home grown terrorists, like returning veterans, TEA Party supporters, gun owners, etc. So what is to say that the powers in control who engineered the execution of this guy won't condemn YOU and send a drone to YOUR house?

It is really scary to see that 94% of the respondents to this poll have opted for immediate gratification without a thorough consideration of the issues and consequences.

Do it legally. Next time, get a warrant for arrest. Maybe we'll get lucky and the next terrorist will try to resist. At least it would be moral and legal.

VNVets

October 6, 2011 - 6:56pm

Almost voted for the Battlefield option then thought about it. The Battlefield is whereever you find the enemy. And killing them is an act of war.

SGM W. Roney

October 6, 2011 - 6:57pm

Adding "US Citizen" to the equation changes NOTHING! They forfeit any protections that title infers by waging war on their fellow citizens.There is not one enemy life worth our service personal getting so much as a hangnail. Bring on the drones. Ironic Obama is doing what he condemed Bush for.

SGM W. Roney

October 6, 2011 - 7:05pm

Um...what planet did you say you were from? Legality, Justice?? Our whole sytem is about the practice of law, NOT justice. Warrants? We are a nation at WAR. Last time I checked that has not been withdrawn. These are the same folks who brought us 911, and merrily chopped off the heads of our people, and you want a warrant? Who would issue it. Judge Judy(She might, she appears to have more balls than you do)I have spent 40 years working to support our laws, but these creatures only deserve extermination like the vermin thay are!!

1964gclass

October 6, 2011 - 7:33pm

Choices are too limited....a citizen loses citizenship when they order attacks on the US from a foreign land , thus the CINC can lawfully order kill or capture. By evading arrest the enemy combatant was an outlaw and not a US citizen.

a1brenner

October 6, 2011 - 7:43pm

Yes. Good job. We've killed more lately than any other time, proud that we are getting it done.

scar38

October 6, 2011 - 7:47pm

"I tremble for my nation, when I consider that God is Just" Thomas Jefferson No thinking citizen can condone use of these abomanations masquerading as legitimate, lawful means of dealing with American citizens, regardless of what I or the so-called government may accuse the individual with thinking, saying or alledgedly doing. Ron Paul is correct here, as well as charging that our nation has been a toy of the global banker parasites for many administrations. Due process, the security of my PERSONAL property, life, papers and liberty must mean less than nothing to the braindead-mouthbreathers who support blindly the clear d estruction of sacred principals set forth plainly, clearly and emphatically in the Constitution of these United States - a document that clearly all of us are charged in defending, protecting and honoring. Shame indeed upon any man so ignorant to violate the precept of an oath so given. s wm carson 101st ABN DVN '63-'65

greenriverkate

October 6, 2011 - 7:56pm

You need to educate yourself. We did NOT target an American. Actually, they didn't even know he was there. We do NOT have smart bombs that can seek out and hit one person in a crowd with a bomb. He declared war on the United States some time ago. Treason is punished by a death penalty. Being an American ordering terrorist hits on the US makes everything null and void. He gave up his citizenship when he declared war on us. I don't understand any of you that overlooks the basic fact he was a terrorist! It is war! There has NEVER been a war where innocent victims don't die and that is horrible. This man was not innocent, refused to come to the US and his parents still live in the US. He sure doesn't seem to give a rip about his own flesh and blood.

antiTyranny

October 6, 2011 - 8:03pm

"Our whole sytem (sic) is about the practice of law, NOT justice."

Exactly! So why do we have an administration meting out justice with no consideration for law?

"Warrants?"

Yes! Remember? We ARE a nation of law. Ever consider the fourth amendment?

"We are a nation at WAR. Last time I checked that has not been withdrawn."

Again, we are a nation of law. According to law, we haven't been at war since 31 December 1946. Check Article I, Section 8, Clause 11. Then check your history.

Worried you can't find a judge to issue a warrant? That is a valid concern. We have a judiciary who will protect a-holes like this but charge your disabled grandmother for resisting a strip search at the airport. But this, too, is a legal problem.

wwhitt

October 6, 2011 - 8:19pm

Hello

Who says he was a terrorist?
Are you willing to take the media's version of this as judgement?

How long will it be before you are the target?
Who will defend you against criminal suppression then?

Who says that terrorists attacked us on 11 September?
What absolute proof do you have that anyone can put before a judge? Nothing has ever been found.

How easy would it be when the media lables YOU as a terrorist and the public wants rid of YOU?

Bob95490

October 6, 2011 - 10:31pm

He publicly announced he was a terrorist, thus in answer to your question, "Who says he was a terrorist?" The answer is, he said he was a terrorist. Moreover, he publicly proclaimed his position as an active hostile at war with this country, bragged about his participation in terrorism and actively recruited others to attack this country. He reaped what he sowed and there was nothing wrong in this nation killing a self-proclaimed enemy combatant regardless of nation of origin.

Eric Bailey

October 6, 2011 - 8:34pm

One thing which has alway's bothered me about this Great nation when at war; Political "Acrobatic's" vs Military Expedience. They (Congress) give us the tool's too wage war, yet; at least since WWII, "some" have tied our hand's instead of letting our miitary Might be shown.? This most recent of event's in Yeomen; Albeit an American citizen, SHOULD be applauded.. I remember quite clearly the "oath of service" I,, had taken in 88" for in-prosessing and then the second after arrival for basic training. Subsequently ,twice more for re-enlistment's. There was a certain "Para" which i had recited at least 4 Times! ( I Solemly Swear too DEFEND the Constitution of the United States, Against "ENEMIES", foreign and ""DOMESTIC""!.. iT DOES NOT MATTER IF U WERE BORN HERE. If you show Deadly intension's against her "people" or "military"; by siding w/an Established ENEMY. Then the use of deadly force can be authorized.

ghackett

October 6, 2011 - 9:12pm

I remember while I was in the military that we had to study Law of Arm Conflict. We have to weigh the risk of allowing the enemy to be protected by civilian or non-Combantants before we strike. Overall we are not to strike on civilian targets, ie. churches, stores, hospitals, etc. I think Mr. Bailey is taking a lose approach to the oath and I think that we should by all means apprehend those that are providing a safe haven for the enemy but not use the kind of force as a drone to settle our conflicts. Don't get me wrong the drone should only be used against Combantants. They have their place in war. We mind as well arm every civilian with a hand gun so that when someone makes us mad we can shoot them. Is that what we're saying we want to do with the drone? Drones need to be controled and not left to decide who the enemy is.

afjasi

October 7, 2011 - 5:20am

Your comment: Is that what we're saying we want to do with the drone? Drones need to be controled and not left to decide who the enemy is.

Just for your information, Drones are nothing more than an airborne weapon that is controlled from the ground...There are at least 3 people that are involved with every weaponized drone flight. Drones do not fly by themselves or make the decision who the enemy is,,,,It is a joint decision from the ground

gmpress2k

October 6, 2011 - 9:22pm

In this case Yes. It is my understanding that he had renounced his american citizenship.

genmar.net

October 6, 2011 - 9:28pm

"Mr. Bailey" is right on. When US Citizens choose to aid the enemy, they no longer are entitled to US rights and are you saying that if the enemy over runs a church, store or hospital, and sets up shop, we are not allowed to strike the church, store or hospital? Get real!!!

Methow Bob

October 6, 2011 - 9:49pm

Anyone who denounces the United States of America to the extent of planning terorist attacks against it, forfeits their right to citisonship protection and ultimately becomes a target for America's guns.

Bob95490

October 6, 2011 - 10:02pm

The subject of the drone attack publicly proclaimed his alliance with this nation’s enemies, publicly proclaimed his collusion in deadly terrorist attacks against this country and publicly proclaimed he was at war with this nation. This nation did exactly what it should do with any enemy at war with this nation, self-proclaimed or otherwise, we killed him. I applaud the administration’s decision to eliminate a national threat regardless of the threat’s location or prior home of record and firmly hope this action stands as a warning for all others that think they can act with impunity against this nation and believe their nationality will provide them shelter from the same fate as others who wage war against this country.

He got what was coming to him and no one is to blame for this action other than the target of the drone.

Robert Ireland (PUFL) Post 174 Willits, CA

128dcf

October 6, 2011 - 11:11pm

No matter who you attack,or assist an enemy; a normal person would understand; "Icould die". It's called war, terrorism, police action, whatever! And if you decided to assist an enemy of your own country, against your country; I do belive that is refered to as being a "Traitor". And is a death sentence. the drone saved ue thousands of dolars in court costs. I did several tours in Nam and 5 missions in iraq; those against us, had no honor, compassion; only destroy Americans. I'd of shot the person. you may not always understand or like policies of your country, but it's your country. Speak out, your right. To assist an enemy of your country, is TREASON!

bcslack

October 7, 2011 - 1:17am

Look him up on U-Tube & listen to his spew in his own words.

afjasi

October 7, 2011 - 5:33am

I don't get what all of the hoop-la is about....Anwar al-Awlaki did not give aid and comfort to the enemy....He WAS one of their top leaders,,,,Give e a break, American Justice System for an enemy ? Who in his right mind is going to serve the warrant arrest him, cuff him, mirandize him? Just because he was an American Citizen at one time? He gave up the rights of an american citizen many years ago.....

Phantomfire1

October 7, 2011 - 7:05am

I think we as veterans, some American Legion, some VFW,etc. need to stop dabbling in politics. We had our chance, and now that is over. We must believe in our Joint Chiefs, and our POTUS, and support the decisons they make. I for one do not agree with the POTUS, and shall reflect that decision in the next election. As far as drones being used, they are expensive, impersonal, and devastating. If our leaders said they needed to take him out, that should be the end of it. Quit dissecting, get on board and be a team member. If you don't like it, vote. Let's get back to taking care of the Veterans that our Gov't is not. If this was just a press stimulus to get rants, so be it. I will go elsewhere
Memeber,
American Legion-Ridge MD.
VFW - California, MD
Fleet Reserve-Lexington Park, Md.
Marine Corps League-Quanitco, Va.

Retired Soldier-Medic

October 7, 2011 - 8:50am

It is really simple here. This jack-ass committed Treason against the United States, and the punishment for Treason in time of war is death. Sentence carried out by CIA / Spec Ops folks. No trail needed, no bleeding heart socialists to cry about him being repressed. That is the law, plain and simple, commit Treason and die!!!

amaida

October 7, 2011 - 9:25am

If they look like a terrorists, Act like terrorists,Talk like a terrorists, Smell like terrorists, Guess what they are terrorists.
And if they are filthy,stinking terrorists they need to be taken out. I do not care where they come from I only care where they are going and that is to hell because we are going to send them there by any means we can. Remember the 343.

stevengl

October 7, 2011 - 11:50am

Two names come to my mind. John Kerry and Jane Fonda. To bad we did not have drones in the 60's. Put Bill Ayers on that list too.

marquisfin

October 7, 2011 - 1:09pm

Absolutely, they were confirmes and verified enemy combatants and in any war a soldier must kill or the enemy will kill you. These people are religious finatics and their religion orders them to kill all non believers. This has been going on for thousands of years remember the Crusades. Unless you are a muslim they want to see "YOU" dead. Get over the bleeding liberal crap, these people have to be killed or they will kill all Infidels. Get it that means YOU!!!!

Garnetgem

October 7, 2011 - 2:57pm

It was a very good thing to kill the maggots with drone attacks or any other means. While they are at it they should target the A.C.L.U headquarters with some drones. They are some of America's biggest emenies !

mntwilly

October 7, 2011 - 4:18pm

This should answer the question: "I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America aganist all enemies, foreign and domestic; They got their PROCESS and received their DUES which I consisted Due Process. Read the Oath.

nenders

October 8, 2011 - 2:40am

At this point Anwar Awlaki's citizenship is irrelevant. We are not talking about some guy who states he is at war and then just sits on a U.S. street or a street in the UK and talk about what he believes. If that was the case then this would be murder. However we are talking about a man actively committing act of war against the U.S. and the civilized world. He was on the field of battle (or the closes thing to it in this type of war) and was acting on a daily or minute by minute basis to destroy the civilized world. Therefore he was open game to be taken out.

It was a shame we could not capture him, bring him back, put him on trial, them have him shot for treason, but we can't have every thing in life.

dserrels48

October 8, 2011 - 9:28am

yes, absolutely thats all that needs to be said.

mparson

October 8, 2011 - 11:30am

Whether it is Jane Fonda in Hanoi attempting to demoralize U.S. troops and get them to surrender or a U.S. citizen in Iraq, Iran, or any other country in the world, a traitor's actions still deserve a traitor's reward. Out intelligence agencies were foolish enough to ignore the warning signs and we learned the hard way that terrorism and treachery don't only exist in other countries. We are in a continuous war against forces that would happily destroy our democracy. If enemy forces and traitors are killed or injured in a surprise action against enemy collaboration, so be it. It comes down to accepting personal responsibility for your actions. If they didn't want to become a casualty, they should have stayed home.

Ted McMaster

October 8, 2011 - 7:24pm

Absolutely!! They are nothing but traitors. Either the firing squad, or hung.

mgkortum199

October 9, 2011 - 3:37am

I find it said that too many of my fellow veterans forget what they were representing, fighting and dieing for. As I recall it is the USA and the constitutional rights given us. I think some of my comrades in arms should take the time to become educated to a lot more of those constitutional rights than just the ones that we like and justify our own opinions. Remember those opinions fall under some of those rights. Your opinion, my opinion, John Kerry and Jane Fonda's opinions all are given under the same rights. It is also a far cry from voicing an unpopular opinion to actually commiting a terrorist act. One final note that I wish we could put to bed, in the final view Vietnam sucked, everyone hated it, the politicians who lead our government at the time lied to us, abused us and sacrificed the lives and happiness of a whole generation. Truthfully ask yourself, who should we really be mad at.

Garnetgem

October 9, 2011 - 9:57am

Jane Fonda should have been convicted of treason. She went far beyond the "Right to her Opinion". Our fellow countrymen were tortured because of what that traitor did and she should have been tried and convicted. Even in a free society there is a limit to what anyone with common sense should understand. Todays Hollywood people make me sick !!!

brtraym

October 9, 2011 - 4:40am

Yes, it is necessary to use drone on people who express, intention to harm americans or any other fellow
human beiing just to express thier views, harm, create
panic, with extreme behavior. There is a price to pay for this behavior no matter where you hide or for how long. You must be able to remove people of this way life
for the good of all man kind.

jeb s

October 9, 2011 - 9:10pm

I think it extremely disengenous of the ACLU to protect American rights abroad when for the last however long it has fought against American citizenship as a privelage in this country. Hypocrites is the best word to describe the defense. It is dangerously more than that. I find it suspicious that the American Press continues to claim President Obama's surge was a surge. 19,000 troops and the DOD requested a minimum of 40,000 AMERICAN troops was necessary to make an American presence felt everywhere at once in Afghanistan. Between that and the ROE's the democrats way of war has been spectacularly unsuccessful. Unless you are both an anti-Semite and hate Christians.
And in august of this year our troops paid the bill for the President's lack of strength and determination preferring instead to fall back on the outmoded notion all late 20th century and 21st century wars are Vietnams. It would be helpful if the leadership had a plan instead of tiredfailed Marxist cliches.

jeb s

October 9, 2011 - 9:10pm

I think it extremely disengenous of the ACLU to protect American rights abroad when for the last however long it has fought against American citizenship as a privelage in this country. Hypocrites is the best word to describe the defense. It is dangerously more than that. I find it suspicious that the American Press continues to claim President Obama's surge was a surge. 19,000 troops and the DOD requested a minimum of 40,000 AMERICAN troops was necessary to make an American presence felt everywhere at once in Afghanistan. Between that and the ROE's the democrats way of war has been spectacularly unsuccessful. Unless you are both an anti-Semite and hate Christians.
And in august of this year our troops paid the bill for the President's lack of strength and determination preferring instead to fall back on the outmoded notion all late 20th century and 21st century wars are Vietnams. It would be helpful if the leadership had a plan instead of tiredfailed Marxist cliches.

reeseb

October 10, 2011 - 10:26pm

what about those who are triators to the constitution? Should the be put to death?

GBoggan

October 13, 2011 - 3:10pm

I agree that getting rid of al Awlaki was a good idea, but in view of the separation of powers and duties that are in the Constitution, it would be nice to have the details of whether the Executive branch solely by itself confirmed the kill order or whether there was a Judicial branch oversight (a court sworn to secrecy like the FISA court)as well as the Legislative authorization to act on any gather intelligence (like the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act).
Google FISA and learn more.
There is way too much power consolidated in the Executive Branch (either for a Democratic or Republican POTUS).

Add new comment

Filtered HTML

  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <blockquote> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <p>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
By submitting this form, you accept the Mollom privacy policy.

Tell us what you think