60% of Americans approve of drone strikes, 47% even if Americans are killed

[ElectionsGuy]

47+% of Americans don't understand the constitution.

Also, 75% said that its okay to kill an American if they've joined a terrorist organization. I guess 75% of Americans don't understand the constitution. This is embarrassing.

[publicunofficial]

Outside of the internet, most people equate the military killing a terrorist to a police officer shooting an armed gunman, regardless of nation of origin.

[MaxQue]

47+% of Americans don't understand the constitution.

Also, 75% said that its okay to kill an American if they've joined a terrorist organization. I guess 75% of Americans don't understand the constitution. This is embarrassing.

They may understand it, doesn't mean they AGREE with it.

[Lief 🗽]

Americans are reasonable and do not go in for any of the internet's drone fearmongering nonsense. Good to hear.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Wow, what a bunch of idiots. Anyone smart enough to oppose the Iraq war was a terrorist according to the Califiornia Anti-Terrorist Information Center.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.globalexchange.org/news/conflating-protests-terrorism

[SWE]

Drone everyone who disagrees with my position on this issue (normal)

[bedstuy]

47+% of Americans don't understand the constitution.

Also, 75% said that its okay to kill an American if they've joined a terrorist organization. I guess 75% of Americans don't understand the constitution. This is embarrassing.

What on earth are you talking about?

There is nothing remotely unconstitutional about drone strikes.

Here's a good example:

One of the American citizens killed by drone strikes was Anwar al-Awlaki.  He was actively making war on the US in a foreign war zone.  We couldn't have asked the government of Yemen to arrest him, which would have been appropriate if he lived in a country like the UK or France.  So, we had every right to kill al-Awlaki and other members of Al Qaeda as a self-defense measure. 

Where does the Constitution contradict that?

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

I'm not sure about drone strikes because they are quite indiscriminate and lead to war becoming a bit too ... easy.

However I fail to see why a person being a citizen should be taken into account. Who cares? Are Yemenis inherently less important than Americans?

[bedstuy]

I'm not sure about drone strikes because they are quite indiscriminate and lead to war becoming a bit too ... easy.

However I fail to see why a person being a citizen should be taken into account. Who cares? Are Yemenis inherently less important than Americans?

Indiscriminate compared to what? 

[Hydera]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/ap-poll-americans-approve-of-drone-strikes-on-terrorists/2015/05/01/38931c06-efd2-11e4-8050-839e9234b303_story.html


Only 16% of democrats are opposed(hint:far left). And 10% of republicans(libertarians)

If a democrat loses the next election then expect a large amount of democrats to become against drone strikes just because they hear its a republican doing so. Support for torture amongst dems only increased when obama became president and the media stopped talking about it.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

47+% of Americans don't understand the constitution.

Also, 75% said that its okay to kill an American if they've joined a terrorist organization. I guess 75% of Americans don't understand the constitution. This is embarrassing.

Huh? I can see why one can argue that we're too quick to use drones, because we are. However, just because a policy is pigheaded, doesn't make it unconstitutional.

[Cory]

Americans are reasonable and do not go in for any of the internet's drone fearmongering nonsense. Good to hear.

[Sumner 1868]

Americans are totally unreasonable and do not go in for any of the internet's drone the media's drone-worshiping fearmongering nonsense. Good to hear.

[ingemann]

So only 13% of Americans are complete scum.

[Lief 🗽]

Americans are totally unreasonable and do not go in for any of the internet's drone the media's drone-worshiping fearmongering nonsense. Good to hear.

Source? I would be surprised if the totality of the media's representation of drone use is positive.

[© tweed]

scare people enough til they'll lay their freedom right down at the state's feet.  it's worked for drunk driving and drugs, giving police unlimited right to assault the population in the chase of a ghost.  it's a piece of cake when the alleged targets have those Muslim-sounding names and live half a world away.

the more I think about it, the more grateful I am for how little Bush did to change the country afer 09/11.  he could have gotten away with a military draft, tripling or quadrupiling of 'military' spending, trashing of the Bill of Rights, and 500k pairs of "boots on the ground" all across the Middle East.

[JonathanSwift]

Americans are totally unreasonable and do not go in for any of the internet's drone the media's drone-worshiping fearmongering nonsense. Good to hear.

[Rockefeller GOP]

Americans are reasonable and do not go in for any of the internet's drone fearmongering nonsense. Good to hear.

It'd literally be comical to see how differently you'd spin it with a Republican President.

[bedstuy]

Americans are reasonable and do not go in for any of the internet's drone fearmongering nonsense. Good to hear.

It'd literally be comical to see how differently you'd spin it with a Republican President.

Blatantly rewriting history. 

Was Bill Clinton timid about trying to kill Al Qaeda terrorists after they became a threat?  No.  Were Democrats against the "War on Terror" during the Bush administration?  No.  Democrats were against the Iraq War.  Democrats actually criticized Bush for taking the focus off Al Qaeda to shift to Iraq.  And, in 2008 Obama wanted to shift towards killing Bin Laden, even if it meant crossing into Pakistan. 

Democrats support killing terrorists who attack this country because that's just a common sense position.  The people who have been inconsistent on this issue are Republicans.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

It would help if the overwhelming majority of those killed by the drone war weren't civilians (even more if you don't fall for the administration's defining of combatants as all military-aged males)

[SATW]

Americans are reasonable and do not go in for any of the internet's drone fearmongering nonsense. Good to hear.

Amen.

[ElectionsGuy]

47+% of Americans don't understand the constitution.

Also, 75% said that its okay to kill an American if they've joined a terrorist organization. I guess 75% of Americans don't understand the constitution. This is embarrassing.

Huh? I can see why one can argue that we're too quick to use drones, because we are. However, just because a policy is pigheaded, doesn't make it unconstitutional.

Does the due process clause of the 14th amendment not protect against the loss of life without due process?

[bedstuy]

47+% of Americans don't understand the constitution.

Also, 75% said that its okay to kill an American if they've joined a terrorist organization. I guess 75% of Americans don't understand the constitution. This is embarrassing.

Huh? I can see why one can argue that we're too quick to use drones, because we are. However, just because a policy is pigheaded, doesn't make it unconstitutional.

Does the due process clause of the 14th amendment not protect against the loss of life without due process?

No, not necessarily.  Imagine a situation like the police shooting someone who is on a shooting spree. 

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

So no one wants to address the fact that the Califiornia Anti-Terrorist Information Center specifically said that anyone who protested against the Iraq war was a terrorist?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

47+% of Americans don't understand the constitution.

Also, 75% said that its okay to kill an American if they've joined a terrorist organization. I guess 75% of Americans don't understand the constitution. This is embarrassing.

Huh? I can see why one can argue that we're too quick to use drones, because we are. However, just because a policy is pigheaded, doesn't make it unconstitutional.

Does the due process clause of the 14th amendment not protect against the loss of life without due process?

I'll leave aside the fact since we're talking about the Federal government here, it's the 5th amendment and not the 14th that's relevant for due process.

Judicial-style due process before killing someone in a combat zone?  You must be kidding.  Using drones instead of boots on the ground doesn't change the law of war.  One can argue over whether Congress should have authorized the use of war powers to combat terrorism overseas, but it's a straightforward use of Article I Section 8 Clause 10: "To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations".  And of course, any misuse of the war powers Congress has authorized would be a war crime that could be tried under judicial-style due process.