Primary tabs

What do you think of the memo that justifies using drone strikes to target Americans?


View more polls


  1. Many in the past have argued this day would never come. That we were crazy theorists. This day we should add up what has come to pass in the last 80 years. Starting with a central banking system, a falling away from a republic and regulation. So much more than words can explain. This day we can use a cowardly approach to killing Americans. This day the definition of a terrorist includes any one who would lay down their lives for the Republic. This day I can be labeled a racist for disagreeing with a president. Drones Mr. President?....I disagree. This day we have traded our liberty for security. This day we all died.

  2. My main issues is not with drones. The method of killing makes no difference.
    The issue lies in who is determining who is a terrorist?
    Without the ability to defend oneself from the charges of being a terrorist, the rights provided by the Constitution are abridged.
    Does it matter if the citizen is in the States or not?
    That is what the Constitution is for, so a citizen cannot be accused, convicted and terminated without a chance for a defense.
    What is going on in the US?

  3. If the person is aiding our enemy in attempting to destroy our nation then they are enemy combatants and have no claim to legal niceties such as a day in court. They are enemies and should be killed wherever found, engaged in combat or just sitting around eating a meal with other enemy combatants.

    That said I believe the whole drone attack business is another case of short-sighted expediency that deliberately discounted any and all possibility of others applying the same sort of technology against targets in this country because it was convenient to kill enemy combatants without the mess of having to deal with US casualties domestically. Those that made and continue to make the drone kill decisions seem to believe, at least their short-sighted actions seem to indicate, that they have nothing to fear because by the time any of our enemies get drones capable of attacking the US they will have long retired from office and blame.

    It is long past time for politicians to make real considerations about the unrestricted employment of weapons prior to the implementation of policy approving the use of these weapons. The idea is supposed to be the protection of this nation's citizens and the use of remote weaponry at the command of any leader, just because of its expediency, without regard to future ramifications is just plain stupid in addition to counter-productive.

    Robert Ireland (PUFL)

  4. Most poll questions are ambiguous at best. The very word "Americans" is misleading. Even substituting the word "terrorist" is deceptive. When "5th column" and "treason" were understood by Americans, justifiable action could be condoned. It must be recognized that in today's America, countless millions of individuals are living here (some with visit/work permits, some with citizenship papers, some illegally)who neither care about this country nor swear allegiance to our flag. To a large degree they either usurp our hospitality or hate us or both. They are not Americans. The use of drones in the context discussed is justified if it is well defined as related to enemy combatants who swear allegiance to a country or entity that is bent on destroying our constitutional republic. But that defination does not exist. The word "Americans" is a deliberate deception coupled with rhetoric to mask the implied wording. And the implication is this. In the event that civil unrest over government policies erupts into armed confrontation, is it then justifiable to use drones on the "true" American, patriot, taxpaying, constitution/bill of rights public for the purpose of killing to sustain the corupt powers that control our lives unconstitutionally. Would we then be considered domestic terrorists for resisting tyranny? If we justify the use of drones as put before the public by the politicians (elected or otherwise) while using the term "Americans" we will, in essence, sign our own death warrant.

  5. You have to think about governments hidden agenda. Quite frankly, I don't trust any of them. The majority of U.S. citizens have already turned into what I call "Sheeple"...just hanging around being led by their noses. To concerned about their everyday life, not seeing the big picture. Our Constitutional rights are eroding little by little with each decree made by government.Though the thought of drones against the bad guys sounds intriguing,how quickly that can be used against the general population. These new gun control laws are a perfect example. If they can prohibit assault rifles, that just opens the door to prohibit other types of weapons. I have not touched a weapon since my discharge in 1971. I presently own no weapons and I am not a member of the NRA. But, I'll be damned if I'll let my government take away my rights...rights that I as well as my predecessors fought and died for. We need to keep our government in check.

  6. One man can't have that much power without a judicial review and a record of such. What happens when "another country" wants to take out a person within our boundaries of the USA? This drone technology is not just ours, it is very easy to manufacture and launch. Theirs may be not so pin-point accurate either.

  7. It is my belief that if an American citizen leaves the US, and joins a group of terrorist we are at war with, such as Al Qaida and the Taliban, then they have effectively given up their right to be an American citizen. Period. Therefore, our military has every right to treat them as a combatant enemy and should have full authority to do so. We do not need Congressional approval for every enemy we take out. How many of you remember the constraints put on us Vietnam Vets! Never again.

  8. As long as the "American" is an enemy combatant, he is fair game. I don't remember details of WWII but I'm sure there were turncoat Americans who were killed by US agents. Was there any concern over that back then?

  9. Allowing the use of drones to attack U. S. Citizens, within the continental U. S. borders, is commensurate with declaring war upon the American citizenry.

    Collateral deaths, of innocent American citizens is fully acceptable and so stated, in the Department of Justice memorandum.

  10. I'm very disappointed with the language used by the editors, or those with the assigned responsibilities of compiling and structuring the wording of this poll question. LOOK at the question CLOSELY! Does the question imply, or infer ANY information linking or affiliating Americans to acts of terrorism, treason, or acts of betrayal to the government of the United States of America? The answer LITERALLY is NO! The question was poorly constructed, and NEEDS TO BE RESTRUCTURED.

    For example, if the question was rewritten as "What do you think of the memo that justifies using drone strikes to target Americans implicated, or participating in acts of terrorism, treason, or betraying the United States government in its time of war by cooperating with the enemy?" OR:

    "What do you think of the memo that justifies using drone strikes to target Americans linked with, aiding, or cooperating with the enemy, Al Qaida and the Taliban while the United States is in a state of war?"

    The language (i.e. wording) of the former and latter questions definitely imply, or implicate, applicable Americans in crimes against the United States of America; and such Americans are not only subject to prosecution, but to JUSTIFIED, deadly force implemented against them; by the U.S. military, federal law enforcement and intelligence agencies (e.g. FBI, CIA); and any OTHER APPLICABLE department of the United States government while our nation is in a STATE of WAR!

    The original question posed in this poll participation is ambiguous, and too abstract to define, assert, and imply criminal intentions and presumptive acts that would justify deadly force (or even prosecution) against "Americans." Newly admitted American citizens into the U.S. whose native language is not English, and are not too familiar with federal laws, and the reading of the U.S. Constitution; would struggle in understanding to respond to any inferred, but not implied language to this (original, poorly worded) poll question. Legion editors and/or writers need to restructure the language of the ORIGINAL poll question.

By submitting this form, you accept the Mollom privacy policy.