One In Five Americans Think The President Ordering Drone Assassinations Is OK

obama_glenn_rect

This headline from Rasmussen Reports is the sort of thing that can make a person lose faith in democracy:

rasmussen

According to the poll, Americans are mostly split on whether or not they support drone assassinations for US citizens who are suspected of terrorism:

Just 36% of Likely U.S. Voters favor the American government’s use of unmanned drones to kill U.S. citizens in other countries who pose a terrorist threat. A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 40% oppose government use of drones for this purpose. Twenty-three percent (23%) are not sure.

Even with a plurality opposed to the drone killings, and a majority against the President having sole authority over such operations, this is still a disturbing number of Americans who apparently consider the constitution’s protections of due process to be inconsequential.

Rob Port is the editor of SayAnythingBlog.com. In 2011 he was a finalist for the Watch Dog of the Year from the Sam Adams Alliance and winner of the Americans For Prosperity Award for Online Excellence. In 2013 the Washington Post named SAB one of the nation's top state-based political blogs, and named Rob one of the state's best political reporters. He writes a weekly column for several North Dakota newspapers, and also serves as a policy fellow for the North Dakota Policy Council.

Related posts

  • SigFan

    What this really means is that 1 in 5 (at least) Americans have no clue what due process means and why it was put into our Constitution. Idiots one and all.

    • Roy_Bean

      For purposes of discussion, what due process would be appropriate here? One could argue that a citizen who is on foreign soil and engaged in acts of war against the US has given up his/her citizenship. If such a person holds a position of command and control in an enemy organization then they might be considered a legitimate military target. When Jane Fonda sat at the AAA in Hanoi, the weapon was still a legitimate target, and when she was talking to North Vietnanese leaders they were still targets and if the US used her to find them…..oh well.

      • SigFan

        For one as you describe I would have no issue with a military and executive council making a go/no-go decision if in fact the council determined that it was a legitimate national security concern and the possibility of apprehension and trial were near zero. What I object to is giving that kind of power to the president (regardless of who that is) and allowing those decisions to be made unilaterally by that person. The danger here is that it sets the precedent and opens the door to a president exercising this power for vindictive or less than truthful reasons – and ultimately can lead to use of the same power on US citizens on US soil.

  • matthew_bosch

    It is wise to fear the plebiscite as much as the tyrant.

  • mikemc1970

    The number of people that voted for Obama (65,899,660) works out to be about 20.9% of the American population (313,914,040). After the 2012 election I have no problem believing that more than one fifth of the American population is mentally retarded.

    • $8194357

      Indoctrinated….Same thing almost…

  • matthew_bosch

    At least the Soviets might grant one a show trial before execution.

  • Thresherman

    This also shows the wisdom of Bush treating terrorism as a war while Obama treats it as a crime.

    • sbark

      ………..and Clinton treated it as a diversion to take attention away from stains on a blue dress…and big cigars

      • $8194357

        Waggin the dog….

  • $8194357

    Barry can drone Americans and the DHS can search and sieze anything, anytime, anywhere….And we are not getting more and more like a communist dictatorship?

    In the case of stolen iPads, we are facing government agents who are dabbling in criminal activity that is not part of their official job. In the case of stealing all the data on your iPad, we are facing a criminal organization operating as an agency of our government. And now they have officially told us that that is what they do and there is nothing we can do about it. They have issued the memo: we own you.
    Here is the background: on August 27, 2009 the Department of Homeland Slavemastery released a memo promising, “The DHS Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties (CRCL) will also conduct a Civil Liberties Impact Assessment within 120 days.”
    Now their assessment has been released three years later. Here is the executive summary sentence:

    “We also conclude that imposing a requirement that officers have reasonable suspicion in order to conduct a border search of an electronic device would be operationally harmful without concomitant civil rights/civil liberties benefits” (emphasis added)So it is official. We can be searched without any basis for suspicion. The message from the Department of Humiliating Servitude is loud and clear: We own you.

    http://godfatherpolitics.com/9405/dhs-to-america-we-own-you/

  • sbark

    What the heck……..that happens to be the same approx percentage that was hardcore commie in the pre-Russian revolutions days…………and the same percentage of American people that call themselves hardcore Liberal……..
    what the heck……

    • $8194357

      The “vangaurd”
      in positions of power and influance.

  • Snarkie

    Maybe this is some of the s*** you should think about before you cheer on your pols when they declare and indefinite state of war.

    • sbark

      Yup, just too bad Clinton was pulling cigars instead of pulling triggers when he had OBL in his sights 20 yrs ago…….
      It all came full circle…..the Seals got Bin Laden after he was reduced to watching porn…..and Clinton should have got Bin Laden when he was making porn in the oval office closest…………….life is funny.

      • Snarky

        It must be ‘funny’ for you since you believe that GOPs shit and it is neatly wrapped in red foil, odorless save a drop of expensive french perfume.

        Still exercised about the Clinton witchhunt? A child of the ninties, eh?

        • sbark

          Facts are Facts in History—-some things the Dem’cat just cannot rewrite. They will always be 1st cousins to Stalin, Hitler and Mao, They will always be the party of the KKK and then worst yet Lifetime welfare dependency, the party of 100% failure, the party that is the home of the root problem—radical Lefist liberlism.

          • $8194357

            yup

    • Onslaught1066

      Well, you’re a drone (useless, except for quick, buggy sex) and you assassinated your (I presume) American wife (though her heritage may be of Hispanic decent. ‘else why would you refer to your in-laws as “spics”)

      Nope, not seeing your outrage here, buttfuckle.

      Go back to your booze and glue, little huffer, and sleep it off.

  • $8194357

    Brennen and Hagel…
    Muslim Brotherhood friendly agendas…
    go figure…..Trust DC? Not much…

    The Senate Armed Services Committee this afternoon approved Chuck Hagel’s nomination to be secretary of Defense on a party-line vote, 14-11. The nomination now goes to the full Senate for a final confirmation vote.

    – In August 2006, Hagel was one of only 12 Senators who refused to write the EU asking them to declare Hezbollah a terrorist organization.

    – In October 2000, Hagel was one of only 4 Senators who refused to sign a Senate letter in support of Israel.

    – In November 2001, Hagel was one of only 11 Senators who refused to sign a letter urging President Bush not to meet with the late Yassir Arafat until his forces ended the violence against Israel.

    – In December 2005, Hagel was one of only 27 who refused to sign a letter to President Bush to pressure the Palestinian Authroity to ban terrorist groups from participating in Palestinian legislative elections.

    – In June 2004, Hagel refused to sign a letter urging President Bush to highlight Iran’s nuclear program at the G-8 summit.

Top