Poll take 2. Same right or not.

[Solly Mack]

If the entire globe can be considered a battlefield because of non-state armed groups that are considered a threat to any country, for whatever reasons claimed - and they don't have to explain the who, what, where or why due to national security concerns (state secrets), do other countries have the right to use targeted killings inside America - if a claim is made that there are people living in America considered a threat to another country/their way of life/their security?

If country A claims there are Americans supporting/encouraging/bankrolling acts of violence against country A, then does country A have the right to use targeted killings against those Americans - wherever those Americans are ...to include inside America?




I've requested that the other thread be locked since there was a glitch.

[COLGATE4]

1. For all those who voted "No", why not?

What makes that scenario any different from what Obama is doing? Or is it just because 'we're Murkans and them damned furriners can't do that to us!!!"???

[Capitalocracy]

2. I think it's wrong for us to do it too. nt

[Greyhound]

12. sov·er·eign - a group or body of persons or a state having sovereign authority.

This is an act of war and it is only that we have the largest military on earth and a couple thousand nukes that we have not been designated a "rouge nation" by the international community.

[ixion]

3. No, they don't... and neither does the US

but being a murderous thug has never stopped the US government.

[MrSlayer]

4. You can do whatever you can get away with.

We do it because we can. Who is going to stop us? I don't see how another country is going to send in hit squads or send in bombers or whatever to get to their targets. It's just not going to happen.


So I suppose they might have the same theoretical right as we do but acting on it is near impossible. We aren't going to allow it to happen.

[Nihil]

9. "School-yard rules" explains a lot of US policy over the years ...

Having said that, I'd prefer that any of the "Country A" retribution/pre-emptive
action was finely targeted - only the person concerned rather than anyone who was
unfortunate enough to be on the same block as someone who looked like the target
at the time - as that *might* just bring the point home.

:shrug:

[Ozymanithrax]

5. UN Charter recognizes a right for all nations to act in self-defense...

So, if a nation can make an argument that they are acting in self-defense, and that a targeted killing of a person in another country is in their self defense, then they can kill whomever they can get away with.

So the answer is Yes in accordance with the UN Charter.

***modified to add my Yes vote ***

[ThomWV]

6. Yes, but at least implicitly by the least aggressive means possible

and that means as long as there is recourse to a legal solution, such as capture and deportation to face legitimate trial, then there can be no first action that is harsher. And in fact - once again implicitly - the most aggressive State action possible, the taking of it's own citizen's life, would of itself be the most heinous of crimes.

[Ozymanithrax]

8. Depends...

Would invading a country in order to arrest one person be the best method? We send in 40,000 troops to secure a safe zone and kill anyone that disagrees, even topling the government that might not like the idea of a full scale invasion to capture one person. One we have pasified the country (that is kill a lot of people) we send U.S. Marshals with a contingent of Marines to take the person by force.

In war, it is permissible to kill those who make war upon you. If a countries own people are using acts of war against its citizens, then the government does implicitly have the right to defend its citizens by killing active combatants.

The best possible method may be arrest. But if the best possible method is not avialable, or would endanger the lives of thousands of citizens (as in an invasion) then other methods are necessary.

This is about the American Citizen calling on terrorists to attack Americans, and helping those terrorists attack Americans. By activly making war against his country, by activly helping people murder American citizens, this person has made himself a legal combatant, and killing a legal combatant is within the rules of war.

[The Magistrate]

7. Certainly, Sir, The U.S. Cannot Claim the Right To Do This Without Ceding It As A General Right

[Lyric]

10. I said No, because that's not a "right" that ANYONE should have. Including us.

[L0oniX]

11. What's good for the USA is good for everyone else too. Isn't that the whole idea of

spreading freedom and democracy? Heh yea right. It's only ok when we do it because we are exceptional ...and god is on our side.

Excuse me now ...I have to go shit and barf.

:puke:

[kenny blankenship]

13. I refuse to answer this poll on the grounds that it could get me shot as a "terrorist sympathizer"

All we need now is some armbands.