Should France continue to assassinate suspected terrorists in foreign countries?

Yes, but only if there is undeniable evidence they have committed an attack on other country and are planning to attack our country

No that's America's job

I do not think that more killing will stop the killing. We should do all we can to prevent terrorist acts and hold accountable in the courts those that we can catch. There is a fairly good international system that works to this end and I believe that Sweden should be cautious in its approach to terrorism and terrorists.

Yes, but only if arrest is not possible

yes but only if they are planning to attack or have attacked our country, and even then they should be imprisoned and dealt with

Only if there is undeniable evidence they have committed or planning an attack against our country. Alternatively they could capture, interrogate, and imprison them instead.

Only for those who have or were about to attack our nation.

No, our country should stay out of other countries' businesses. Abolish foreign policy.

why do we care? if they're in other countries then we should just make sure they don't come here

it is not the job of the us to deal with terrorism problems in other countrys

Not unless they pose a real threat

Yes because I view that as a military operation therefore due process would not apply. However there must be some compelling evidence

Only those that have killed/attacked our nation.

They should be proven first.

Only if they have or are actively planning an attack on us.

Only God can determine that. but if the goverment decides to do it than so be it. but I will not judge.

No captured and interrogated and decided punishment based on what they have done

Each situation is different, and I cannot give a blanket answer on this question.

Depends on what crimes they’ve committed

The United States should not, but her citizens may.

Yes, but only if there is undeniable evidence they are planning to attack our country or have committed an attack against it

No, because it could be someone innocent, maybe ask them questions and report but don't kill them on sight that would only make a bigger mess.

No, foreign affairs involvement that does not directly work in the interests of the American people is not a responsibility of the United States government.

Yes, but the option of capturat

Only if it a true enemy to the United States and U.S civilians are in danger.

Yes, but only if they have or are planning an attack on our nation.

Yes, but only if they have or are planning an attack on us.

No; this is simply unnecessary interventionism, but seek approval from the nation's government before launching any missile or drone strike.

Only if they have attacked us

If they have or are planning an attack on our country.

Yes, but only if they have or are planning on attacking the United States.

Only if they have or are planning an attack on us.

Only if they have attacked our nation first.

Yes, but only by means of private contractors

Yes, but only if they have or are planning an attack on our country.

Yes, but only with absolute proof that they have or are planning an attack on us.

only if the are a threat

Only if there is VERY good reason and we are sure we can deal with the consequences.

Yes, if they have attacked us first.

We shouldn't interfere in other countries' business.

It depends on the situation but yes because for example like 9/11 they should of killed the nine men to save the thousands of people that died but I also think that if you can just capture them put them on trial and imprison them until they aren’t gulity.

If Congress declares war all enemy combatants are valid targets.

They should not be assassinated without undeniable evidence that they did attack our country. However, if there is evidence that indicates the suspects are planning an attack, then they should be given a fair trial with due process.

Only if they have attacked or are planning an attack on our country.

No, the United States should not assassinate any suspected terrorist without concrete, undeniable evidence that they have/are planning to attack our nation. Also, once such evidence were to manifest itself then we should obtain both congressional approval along with approval from that sovereign state to enter their country to capture and give them a fair trial instead.

No, we should not assassinate any "suspected" terrorist without concrete, undeniable evidence. Also, once such evidence were to manifest itself then we should obtain both Congressional approval along with approval from that sovereign state to enter their country to capture and give them a fair trial instead.

No, we should not assassinate any suspected terrorist without concrete, undeniable evidence. Also, once such evidence were to manifest itself then we should obtain both Congressional approval along with approval from that sovereign state to enter their country to capture and give them a fair trial instead.

yes, but only if it is too dangerous to capture and "interrogate" them.

No in theory, but if capturing them safely puts people at risk, then assassination attempts should be valid.

Yes, only with the cooperation and support of said country.

yes, only because you done know if they will attack us or not and if they do we need to be ready

Yes, only if they know he is a terrorist

Not assassinate but if there is evidence then yes

i mean it depends

Yes, if they have or are planning an attack on us.

No, they should be obtained, interrogated, and if found guilty then punish them with a prison sentence. Only however, if there is suffice evidence to obtain them and against them.

Yes, but only if there is undeniable evidence they are a threat to the world; global threat.

How would the world look to you if nations openly shared their security actions with each other?

What personal experiences have shaped your views on the ethical implications of state-sponsored actions outside their borders?

How does the idea of a nation prioritizing its own citizens' safety over international laws resonate with you?

Imagine discovering a hidden side of your country's actions abroad; how would that change your perception of your government?

In what situations, if any, would you support your country engaging in secret operations overseas to prevent a potential threat?

How do you reconcile the need for secrecy in certain government operations with the demand for transparency in a democracy?

Only if they have or are planning to attack us.

When, if ever, do you think it's acceptable for a country to intervene in the affairs of another nation to protect its own interests?

Reflecting on historical events, how do you think secret governmental actions have shaped our current global society?

No, I think that they should be captured and interrogated. I do not think that you should take someone's life without an overwhelming amount of evidence that they are planning a terrorist attack.

Yes, if there is undeniable evidence they are planning to attack our country, and if diplomatic options are not available, and if it is necessary to benefit, further and secure our interests

No, the government has absolutely no right to intervene in foreign conflicts.

Yes, But only if there is undeniable evidence they are planning or have committed an attack against our country

They have to have eve dance

Depends on if they have attacked, or if we just have pure evidence that they will

No, you can't kill on suspicion

yes, only after they've been captured, imprisoned, and interrogated. after that, if there is undeniable evidence that they have committed an attack against the country, they should be given the death penalty.

if there is undeniable evidence that they are planning to attack our country or have committed an attack against our country

I don't have an opinion on the issue. It depends.

Yes, if there is undeniable evidence that they have committed or are planning to commit an attack against our country.

If there is undeniable evidence that they're planning an attack or have already attacked our country, then yes. However, we should take them as prisoners as much as possible and give them a fair trial.

With enough evidence provided, yes.

Yes, but only if they’re a threat to multiple countries.

No, they should be instead captured, (humanly) interrogated, given a fair trial, and imprisoned instead because assassinating suspected terrorists can pose a real Public Relations problem for us, whether they are guilty OR NOT.

yes but they should arrest them when possible

Yes, but only if there is undeniable evidence that they have either attacked or are planning to attack our country.

Yes, but only if there is evidence they are planning a attack and/or have committed a attack on our country

i dont understand the question so my response is idk

No. They should be imprisoned if there is undeniable evidence that they are planning to attack our country.

yes only if they are authorized as some against and a risk to the USA

No, Suspects should only be assassinated if there is undeniable evidence they are planning to attack the country, and it should be the last resort if they can't be captured or given a fair trial.

If there is undeniable evidence we should interrogate them and then imprison them if they truly are a terrorist.

Yes, as long as there is undeniable evidence that they did or are planning an attack on our country and asking for permission from the country and depending on the severity of the attack ignore their answer and just notify them that you are going with or without there permission.

They should not be able to assassinate people but they should be able to put them under arrest and prosecute them.

No, suspects should be captured if necessary and possible. If there is an imminent threat, the DoD should have to get an emergency warrant from a federal judge to ensure they meet the burden of proof.

NO! I do not agree with killing people no mater what they have done! I believe they should use them to catch other terrorists and get information out of them and then either send send them back or imprison them but NOT KILL A PERSON!!! EVEN THOUGH THEY DO IT ANYWAYS!!!

Let their home country deal with it

Yes, but only if the evidence is virtually conclusive.

Yes, but only with the authorization of Congress and (even last second) notice given to the United Nations of targets.

only if there is undeniable evidence they are planning to attack our country.

Yes, but only if gathered intelligence reveals undeniable evidence that they are terrorists who have planned an imminent attack against our country

If there was an international platform for discussing covert operations before they happened, how do you think that would affect global relations?