Skip to main content

Today's Poll: Is it OK for the U.S. to kill a citizen suspected of terrorism?

By Howard B. Owens
matt riggi

the guy who inspired this poll wasn't convicted of anything, the government is hush hush on the subject, he was refused his right to due process, there has been no proof to back any of the claims...So the govt has the authority to just kill whoever, whenever? pretty scary! i would suggest that the people who voted "yes" brush up on the facts before they vote on this poll! "suspected" is a completely different case than "convicted." Sounds like this guy had a little info that the govt didn't want him to talk about!

Oct 12, 2011, 7:49am Permalink
Pat McGinnis

I voted no on this, I assume the poll is in reference to the killing of Anwar al-Awlaki. I believe that he deserved to die but it is a slippery slope okaying the government to kill any American they see as a threat (Terrorist). If they are in country I don’t think killing them is justified unless they are actively resisting arrest and it falls under self defense of these trying to apprehend them. Out of country and they are actively plotting to murder Americans then I can see having it done as a one off type thing if we don’t have the ability to arrest them.

Oct 12, 2011, 8:04am Permalink
terry paine

It's always interesting to look at the results of the polls. Typically before you hit the 'results' button you can predict the outcome. This one is different - after reading the question you would automatically think "here comes the republican team voting to kill more people". Since the last election and the sudden blood lust from the Democrat team it is difficult to tell who's voting to kill other humans.
I hope the people that voted yes really read the question and realized it said "suspected terrorist"

Oct 12, 2011, 8:08am Permalink
Wayne Speed

This is a poor poll question. I will assume that it refers to Anwar al-Awlaki who was serving as an enemy combatant in time of war against the country of which he claimed to be a citizen - cudos to the government who eliminated him and the threat that he was to our freedoms.

Oct 12, 2011, 8:12am Permalink
matt riggi

where is the proof on this guy? I've heard the repeated claims on the news of all this proof, all these claims of his guilt...has anyone yet to actually see any real evidence? Or are we hanging this guy out to dry by what were told in the news? just curious...Also, is this the same 9/11 "terrorist" that was invited for dinner to the pentagon...after the 9/11 attacks?

Oct 12, 2011, 8:22am Permalink
Cory Hawley

I agree with Wayne. Bad question. Obviously it refers to Anwar al-Awlak, but doesn't includes the other elemnts of that situation. It was not on US soil for one. Also isn't it a bit more than suspected? I'm sure that's up for debate too, but it seems he had dirty hands. This question reads like "Is it ok to hit an animal in the road?"
I didn't answer yes or no to the question in this poll because it is not a yes or no type answer. To many variables left out of the question to say either.

Oct 12, 2011, 8:46am Permalink
Dave Olsen

To everyone who voted Yes. Luis Posada Carriles is wanted by the Venezuelan government and the Cuban government. He is facing 73 counts of murder in Venezuela along with charges of terrorism. Venezuela has been requesting extradition of this guy for years. Obama won't do it, neither would Bush, because he worked for the CIA and probably has info they don't want exposed, not to mention the Cuban-American political pressure, because Carriles is a hero to them. Are y'all OK if Hugo Chavez bombs this guy's house in Miami? Or is that different? http://www.thenation.com/article/159919/luis-posada-carriles-acquitted-…

Oct 12, 2011, 10:14am Permalink
Rex Lampke

If this was during a Republican's term there would be thousands of crys of impeachment! I feel the goverment has no right to put anyone to death not adults or babys. President Obama won the peace prize before even being in office but he routinely violates sovereign nations without a thought to due process.
Free speach is just that you can not kill someone for what the say or advocate.

Oct 12, 2011, 10:22am Permalink
terry paine

So far 309 jingoist Americans think if we have a suspicion of terrorism we should just pull the trigger. It seems they have forgotten that our Intelligence agencies are fallible. As of August 4,414 American soldiers and 864,000 innocent citizens have died in Iraq based on the false suspicions these agencies had. To give the current, or any future power mad president the power to fly robotic guns ships to kill humans based on suspicion is a scary scenario. We now have over one million people on a watch list because of suspicion. That should keep Barack busy.

Oct 12, 2011, 12:43pm Permalink
Howard B. Owens

It's a perfectly worded question and worded with great purpose.

Notice the question isn't about Anwar al-Awlaki. It's about the principle of denying a U.S. citizen due process under the law, one of the foundational principles not just of the United States, but all civilized states.

There's no such thing as "a bit more suspected." Either you are a suspect or through due process of law you are convicted. There's no such thing as "somewhat pregnant."

Oct 12, 2011, 1:00pm Permalink
Cj Gorski

I'm kind of in awe of America cheering the fact that we murdered a citizen without a trial. The executive branch played judge, jury, and executioner while The fifth amendment prevents individuals from being deprived of life, liberty, or property without "due process of law."

Oct 12, 2011, 1:29pm Permalink
George Richardson

[video:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3FzM_XrgtPo&feature=related]
The definition of an oracle.

You do realize a drone could pick you off when you go out to check the mail, don't you? They fly a mile high, you would never know they were there. It seems perfectly fine with many Batavian readers, until it is you. I would suggest every American Citizen who doesn't think it is alright to kill a suspected criminal take a different route and try a different time, each day, to travel to and from whatever destination you are seeking or you might not make it and your neighbors would cheer. I guess that's the way God planned it and meant it to be.

Oct 12, 2011, 4:12pm Permalink
Tony Ferrando

His citizenship is irrelevant in this case... he was an enemy combatant actively waging war against this country. He was the self-professed operational leader of Al Qaeda. He is the inspiration for Hassan's Ft Hood rampage, and the underwear bomber who today plead guilty. He was previously brought in to the Pentagon to advise, and turned our own intelligence against us. In older terms, the minute he took up arms representing another "state" he would have lost his citizenship... but this is not a war of one state vs another, it's time to expand your definitions.

This is not an issue without historical precedent, either. There were a number Americans of German descent that answered the call to return to Germany at the onset of World War 2. Quite a few of them even shot up the ranks into the SS - a number that is not negligible. Quite a number were KIA. Others that turned themselves in - key difference there, turned themselves in - and were tried and convicted. There was another little thing called the Civil War, where the North viewed the South not as a separate country with their own laws , but as a group of rebels that were still citizens of the United States (as did the rest of the world, for that matter). It didn't stop them from getting killed, nor did it stop Sherman from cutting a 300-mile swath of destruction on his march through the South that didn't just take lives, but eliminated entire industries and railroads from the South.

In this particular instance, al-Awlaki was added to the terror list over a year ago - the ACLU flipped their lid because it meant he could be killed at the drop of a dime, they fought it court, and they lost at the Supreme Court - in fact, the administration took this case so seriously, they passed up several other opportunities to achieve this same end... after it was settled, they also failed earlier this year on a separate attempt on his life, he survived the attack. There was no outrage at that point.

And yes... if I stood on the other side of the battlefield in a time of war, and shot at US soldiers or citizens, I'd fully expect fire to be returned on me. It kinda goes without saying. Just as I'd expect that telling someone else to do it for me would yield the same results if I was merely sitting in a chair on the other side... just like how Charles Manson is guilty of murder, having never physically harmed a single individual - Amwar al-Awlaki was waging war against America, having never picked up a gun.

Oct 12, 2011, 4:20pm Permalink
Stephen Clark

If the poll read, "CAUGHT in the act of terrorism where numerous peoples lives were threatened" I'd have voted yes. however, "suspected" gives no one a right to then kill. In the case of suspected, I'd suggest the process of law, order, and trial should go through it's course

Oct 12, 2011, 9:43pm Permalink
RICHARD L. HALE

I vote for Tony Ferrando.....well said Tony..

As for your little film George Richardson...people in this country have every right to protest. They have access to all kinds of permits to allow these protests, peace marches whatever. But when the first stone is cast, the first police officer assaulted, or another citizen suffers property damage...or the march or protest infringes on any other citizens rights, all bets are off. The problem with films like this, is they only show the reaction, and not the action.

Oct 13, 2011, 1:00am Permalink
Howard B. Owens

Why should you need a permit to exercise your Constitutional rights?

As long as a demonstration is peaceful, law enforcement has no right to arrest people. And if the demonstration inconveniences other people, well, tough shit. That's still no excuse for police arrests. The right to "peacefully assemble" trumps any inconvenience it might cause others. That's the whole point of a protest.

Oct 13, 2011, 5:38am Permalink

Authentically Local