• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Can the US drone it's citizens abroad?

can we drone US citizens abroad?

  • extingent circumstances - where immediate response in necessary

    Votes: 7 46.7%

  • yes. if we can't go after a US citizen who has participated in killing any other way

    Votes: 4 26.7%

  • no - he must be captured or killed by host governments only

    Votes: 3 20.0%

  • yes. he is a danger just being able to roam

    Votes: 1 6.7%
  • Total voters
    15
The USA can, has, and probably will continue to use drones against its citizens who have or are attempting to harm the USA or its citizens when there is no better alternative.

Sometimes a man or a country just has to do what he or it has to do.
 
shrubnose said:
Correct.

This has been going on for a long time and has created a lot of problems for the USA which will not be going away anytime soon.
Click to expand...

It seems some people cannot differentiate between priorities, possibilities and hypocrisy. The is no more ignorant foreign policy position than to pretend that all countries can be treated the same, or that benefit to the US should not be considered. Such "reasoning" is intellectually dishonest at best, usually apologist and always pathetic.
 
Who voted this?

no - he must be captured or killed by host governments only
Click to expand...

What kind of a moron thinks a terrorist state should be responsible for apprehending a terrorist? That's goin' full retard.
 
I honestly don't know the answer to that question. Our constitution is supposed to guarantee a status of innocent until proven guilty and protect the right to due process. The best I can come up with is an arrest warrant must first be issued. Every effort must be made to make the suspect aware he is wanted by authorities and to surrender himself at the nearest US Embassy, Consulate or friendly government police for extradition to answer charges back in the US. Along with those alerts a warning that he is considered armed and dangerous and if he does not surrender peacefully in a timely manner, US authorities will have no alternative than to apprehend him by force, which may endanger his safety. I'm also okay with a court proceeding in absentia revoking their US citizenship on the grounds of treason first.
 
Last edited:
Smeagol said:
I honestly don't know the answer to that question. Our constitution is supposed to guarantee a status of innocent until proven guilty and protect the right to due process. The best I can come up with is an arrest warrant must first be issued. Every effort must be make to make the suspect aware he is wanted by authorities and to surrender himself at the nearest US Embassy, Consulate or friendly government police for extradition to answer charges back in the US. Along with those alerts a warning that he is considered armed and dangerous and if he does not surrender peacefully in a timely manner, US authorities will have no alternative than to apprehend him by force, which may endanger his safety. I'm also okay with a court proceeding in absentia revoking their US citizenship on the grounds of treason first.
Click to expand...

Looking at your post, I realized, that the question is "can?" the citizen be droned. And of course the citizen can be drone. It has been done. But do we want it to happen. Wanted! Dead or alive!
 
ecofarm said:
It seems some people cannot differentiate between priorities, possibilities and hypocrisy. The is no more ignorant foreign policy position than to pretend that all countries can be treated the same, or that benefit to the US should not be considered. Such "reasoning" is intellectually dishonest at best, usually apologist and always pathetic.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...





Some people will always find a way to make excuses for their countries bad behavior, no matter how egregious it is.
 
joG said:
Looking at your post, I realized, that the question is "can?" the citizen be droned. And of course the citizen can be drone. It has been done. But do we want it to happen. Wanted! Dead or alive!
Click to expand...

I noticed that too. I replied based on the indented meaning of the question. Asking "can" vs. "is it constitutionally legal" is just splitting hairs in a "words mean things" debate when we all know what the OP really meant.
 
shrubnose said:
Some people will always find a way to make excuses for their countries bad behavior, no matter how egregious it is.
Click to expand...

Some people will always invent boogiemen to satisfy their lust for special knowledge.
 
Smeagol said:
Asking "can" vs. "is it constitutionally legal" is just splitting hairs in a "words mean things" debate when we all know what the OP really meant.
Click to expand...

Not really.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom