Should the U.S. Government use deadly force in destroying terrorist cells when they are found?

Question

When positive proof is documented, that illegal aliens or non-citizens are plotting to perform terrorist acts in and upon the United States, it's people or property, would you vote to approve an amendement revoking all their rights under the Constitution, and authorizing the use of deadly force in their apprehension?

Answer 1

yes

Answer 2

Absolutely not. Are you insane?

The government cannot even follow the laws that exist when there are constitutional protections. You want to give them the legal authority to ignore all constitutional requirements just because they can claim after the fact that someone was guilty?

Do you realize how much collateral damage and how many innocent people are going to get killed along the way?

Our laws already provide for the ability to use deadly force, given probable cause and exigent circumstances. But they also hold the government accountable for making mistakes. What you're proposing eliminates that accountability and lets them have open season to attack anyone they want, just by arbitrarily declaring them a terrorist.

Even if your "proof positive" required the same standard as current criminal death penalty trials, and proof beyond a reasonable doubt, it still allows people to be sentenced to death based purely on whatever evidence the government decides to present, without any opportunity for a legal defense, and then to be killed if the government evidence shows what the government wants it to.

Our constitution is the last thin sliver of barrier standing between our country as it is and it being a full tyranny accountable to nobody. And you want to remove that protection?

Answer 3

This is a moot point as the United States government already has this power. As a matter of fact positive proof is not required. Nor is it necessary for the "terrorists" to be non-citizens. All that is required is a threat to the government or a perceived threat and the paid assassins are sent out. (Government agents of the FBI, ATF Marshals service ect?)

Examples:
Kent State University Ohio during Vietnam teenage anti war protestors were shot by the national guard on the governments orders.

A woman holding a baby was shot and killed at Ruby Ridge because her husband was "suspected" of stockpiling arms.

Remember Waco? The Branch Dividian compound? Now I agree their beliefs were way out there but how many unarmed women and children were assissinated by our government? At least over 100.

There are more.

Yet with all these murders of unarmed citizens by government agents who were sure they were part of a terrorist plot these bright people failed to stop Timothy McVeigh and the 9/11 terrorists.

Answer 4

No, I do not believe in murdering someone because they did me harm. They can be rounded up and put in prison. Not only that they can be but in prison by their own government's.

We can implement a alternative fuel infrastructure in our Nation and force their leaders (or anyone else harboring terrorist's) to imprison their terrorist's or we do not do business with them.

This is what the UN exists for. It's the peaceful choice to murdering out of vengeful desires in our own hearts. But, Bush is a cowboy and likes blood he does not wait nor work through Peaceful means.

I guess that's why Liberals want Bush out of office, he's a irrational violent man and chooses death and war before the so called peaceful Christian beliefs he claims to follow.

How many others are going to blindly follow Bush of a cliff and into dangerous actions, possibly bringing the planet down with them?

Answer 5

Let me ask you a question - what kind of world do you want to live in, a free, equal and just one or one where the State can whip up fear and panic in its population in order to maintain its power at home and abroad and convince its citizens that it has the right to kill whoever it wants, whenever it wants based on these illusory fears?

Why don't you start thinking about the world and the nasty games politicians play before inciting people to throw away their basic freedoms. How do you know the bastards wont come knocking on your door? It wouldn't be the first time a tragic mistake happened. Look at the poor Brazilian guy shot dead on the London Underground recently.They can already kill who they want with relative impunity, lets not encourage them for God's sake.

Answer 6

Good Question. Although I do agree that Police should use deadly force in apprehending criminals who are resisting arrest, by use of weapons, I believe that if these people can be apprehended alive, they should be. Many of these people are willing to martyr themselves for their cause. They should be denied the meeting of that goal. Also, as adamant as they may be, they might give authorities information to cause the arrest of their superiors (or their whereabouts). So unless they use deadly force against the arresting officers, deadly force should not be used on them.

Answer 7

No, I would not change the constitution in any way, everyone deserves a day in court. However deadly force is called for when the arresting officers come under attack and then it is called for.

Answer 8

For one if they are illegal or terrorist they would fall under enemy combatants and have no rights under the Constitution. To answer your question it is our s, and our government's responsibility to destroy any threat to our country or way of life.

Answer 9

some of the enemies are american who assist and help terrorist and they as well as those arab who blow themself up i think they should get death penalty and that may not scare but reduce them

Answer 10

Yes, they shuld.