Poll: Would you Support CIA hits on ISIS member in the USA
- Thread starter SIXERS24
- Start date
I think it's illegal for the CIA to operate in the U.S. Let the FBI take the lead, they apparently already know the number.
If we know where they are, and can prove their affiliation, and would be willing to try them in a court I would say go and capture them.
Taking hits out on people would mean that we have switched to guilty with a verdict with no intent to let a person prove innocence. Seems unAmerican to me.
Taking hits out on people would mean that we have switched to guilty with a verdict with no intent to let a person prove innocence. Seems unAmerican to me.
Well anyone could be ISIS we will need to dragnet all call and all internet behavior. We will need to open all encrypted data, inspect, and re-encapsulate all packets for your safety.
The hits would be illegal that is why I doubled it by having the CIA do it.
Plus as far as I know the FBI does not have a hit squad like the CIA does.
Plus as far as I know the FBI does not have a hit squad like the CIA does.
The GOP is ISIS. They obviously orchestrated these attacks to strengthen their position in the upcoming elections.
Read it? It all gets analyzed by an algorithm, broken up and databased, and sorted into each of our personal government files they're keeping on us.
If they are positive their mark is a terrorist I say drop the hammer.
While I take our rights seriously sometimes the end does justifies the means. I would waive the right to face your accuser for terrorist activity and organize closed door private absentia trials. A jury would hear the case against the accused terrorist and if convicted the penalty would be death by death squad.
No need to throw them in jail where they may have associates take hostages to try to gain their release and there is no need to deport them where they can either try to come back or carry on their terrorist activity elsewhere. Kill them like the wild animals they are.
While I take our rights seriously sometimes the end does justifies the means. I would waive the right to face your accuser for terrorist activity and organize closed door private absentia trials. A jury would hear the case against the accused terrorist and if convicted the penalty would be death by death squad.
No need to throw them in jail where they may have associates take hostages to try to gain their release and there is no need to deport them where they can either try to come back or carry on their terrorist activity elsewhere. Kill them like the wild animals they are.
Well we only had "yes" and "no" options. To me "no" means never and "yes" under some circumstances. The wording of the poll skews the resuls IMO.
No, I don't think we should allow the CIA to be judge, jury and executioner.
Sorry Tradition but the polls never says anything about the CIA being the judge, jury, and executioner. Matter of fact it only asks Would you support CIA hits on ISIS people in the USA. As I proposed there could be oversite involved including absentia trials with evidence and a jury deciding guilt.
The only people who are being the judge, jury, and executioner is the terrorist.
The poll question doesn't say anything about jury trials in absentia, but I do agree that foreign fighters caught in the U.S. can be tried and convicted in a different sort of proceeding than citizens enjoy. As far as "hit squads" being sent to hunt down those convicted in absentia, they should at least try to arrest before gunning them down.
And certainly no domestic drone strikes.
Right, let us pretend that in a post 9/11 Patriot Act see Freedom Act world that they will take any precautions outside of what the intelligence agency tells them. We aren't the type of country that will just detain terrorists and hold them indefinitely without trial or anything, or drone strike a hospital.
So you are saying it's ok for us to use drone strikes on foreign soil but not domestically?
IMO unarmed surveillance drones would be fine on US soil but I'd never say an absolute no to drone strikes in the US. They would however be restricted to use only when they was no risk of collateral damage (which would take them out of any populated areas). If Mr Terrorist decided to grab his AK and head to the range for a little target practice it would only make sense if the shot presented itself for the drone pilot to have his own target practice.
Of course. We don't use tank columns, cruise missiles or B-52 bombers domestically, either.
Tradition and Moral.....looks like right now you two are in the 10% minority
I remember that the Patriot Act passed with a huge majority. I have a lot of respect for anyone on the minority on that scourge.
Tradition and I agree on almost everything all the time anyway.
I remember that the Patriot Act passed with a huge majority. I have a lot of respect for anyone on the minority on that scourge.
Tradition and I agree on almost everything all the time anyway.
Oh I'm sure you and Tradition don't disagree on much....most people who argue with themselves are mentally ill.
