People are dying of opioid and fentanyl overdoses, not cocaine overdoses. That said, Trump just pardoned one of the world’s most notorious cocaine traffickers so he must not be worried about drug deaths.
U.S. destroys Venezuelan vessels | Double Tap strike scrutiny
- Thread starter nycfan
- Start date
- Replies: 1K
- Views: 27K
- Politics
- Messages
- 2,049
By that logic, whoever killed that CEO last year was ahead of the game.
Similarly Phillip Morris execs and Exxon should avoid open spaces.
TangledUpInBlue06
Esteemed Member
- Messages
- 510
According to reporting, it's based on what "the top military official overseeing the strike [Bradley] told lawmakers" "according to three sources with direct knowledge of his congressional briefings." Three sources, no indication of party, direct knowledge, based on Bradley's statements, not based on the video.
Don't forget distilleries and breweries.
uncjhodges
Esteemed Member
- Messages
- 677
Blindly defending Donald Trump is not a reasonable action.
ChileG
Inconceivable Member
- Messages
- 2,670
And not just “considered.” But “plausible” to be “considered.”Considered, by you? By Trump? Sure, consider away. But "considering", by you or Trump, is not a legal basis to fire Hellfire missiles at random people you don't like.
There is extensive legal precedent which lays out in excruciatingly precise detail exactly how to adjudicate what constitutes a non-international armed conflict (NIAC).
To whit:
The first and most fundamental problem is simply that the United States is not engaged in an armed conflict with any drug cartel. Under the well-established understanding of the preconditions for a “noninternational armed conflict,” it is necessary (at a minimum) (i) that the non-State entity is an “organized armed group” with the sort of command structure that would render members targetable on the basis of their status because they’re subject to commanders’ direction and control and (ii) that the organized armed group has engaged in armed violence against the State that is of some intensity (think of al Qaeda’s attacks on Sept. 11, 2001) and that has been protracted. See Prosecutor v. Haradinaj, Case No. IT-04-84-T, Trial Judgment ¶ 49 (Int’l Crim. Trib. for the former Yugoslavia, Apr. 3, 2008); Prosecutor v. Tadić, Case No. IT-94-1-AR72, Decision on Defence Motion for Interlocutory Appeal on Jurisdiction ¶ 70 (Int’l Crim. Trib. for the former Yugoslavia, Oct. 2, 1995); International Committee of the Red Cross, Commentary to Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, Part C-2-b.
The Trump administration hasn’t made any effort—not publicly, anyway—to demonstrate that any of the drug cartels in question are “organized” armed groups with the sort of command structure that would render members targetable on the basis of their status. But even if it could do so, those cartels haven’t engaged in any protracted or intense armed violence against the United States.
The notice the administration sent to Congress this week asserts, without citing any evidence, that the cartels “conduct ongoing attacks throughout the Western Hemisphere” and that “their actions constitute an armed attack against the United States.” The notice, however, doesn’t identify any such armed attack against the United States, let alone attacks of sufficient intensity and duration to establish a noninternational armed conflict with the United States. (I am uncertain whether intense armed violence that isn’t “prolonged” or “protracted” would suffice to establish a noninternational armed conflict, but that question isn’t relevant here, where the cartels haven’t engaged in armed attacks against the United States that are prolonged or intense.). It’s fairly evident from the notice that when the President uses the term “armed attack” he is referring not to any actual armed attack as any States or international tribunals understand that term, but instead to the “flow of illicit narcotics into the United States,” which “illegally and directly cause the deaths of tens of thousands of American citizens each year.” The distribution of dangerous narcotics, however, isn’t an armed attack or armed violence in the sense used in international law to determine whether an armed conflict has commenced. As far as I know, there’s nothing in international law that even suggests that such drug activity is sufficient to trigger the right of the affected State to kill persons simply because they are members of the drug cartel (which isn’t surprising, given the radical implications of such a theory).
The second considerable problem with the president’s new “armed conflict” theory is that even if there were an armed conflict—i.e., even if, contrary to any evidence, a particular drug cartel was an organized armed group that has engaged in intense or prolonged armed attacks against the United States—it’s likely that the Constitution would preclude Trump from ordering ongoing status-based targeting of members of that cartel due to the absence of any domestic law authority. To be sure, Article II empowers a president to repel an actual attack against the United States (or its troops). But that’s a far cry from authorizing an ongoing series of status-based strikes by the United States against a non-State armed group as part of an exchange of attacks that is sufficiently prolonged or intense to establish a noninternational armed conflict. At least if one assumes, as Trump appears to do, that this purported armed conflict would continue for some time, then it would almost surely be of such “nature, scope and duration” to constitute “war in the constitutional sense” (see Office of Legal Counsel opinions across many administrations to which I linked in my September 10 article), and therefore would require congressional authorization pursuant to the “Declare War” clause of Article I, section 8 of the Constitution. (And, at a minimum Section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution would prohibit such attacks as of 60 days after they began, i.e., after November 1.)
For these reasons, the Trump administration’s newly announced determination that the United States allegedly is engaged in an armed conflict with an untold number of drug cartels does not offer any basis for concluding that the Caribbean strikes have been lawful. Moreover, as others will surely emphasize, such a determination raises very troubling questions about possible military action against alleged cartel members in the United States itself, and on the territory of other nations.
Legal Flaws in the Trump Administration’s Notice to Congress on “Armed Conflict” with Drug Cartels
Top legal expert analyzes the Trump administration's notice to Congress of an "armed conflict" with drug cartels.www.justsecurity.org
IOW, this is just plain old fashioned vanilla murder. Our laws don't make exceptions for "But what if I really, really,really didn't like that guy?".
This adherence to law protect you, every bit as much as it does me, as it also does drug mules.
The “don’t tread on me,” crowd doesn’t mind the government indiscriminately killing citizens, but don’t dare ask them to sometimes wear a mask during a global pandemic.
I think it's an oath Republicans take to refrain from logic and reason in favor of mystery and magic. I can't think of a thing that they support that has an overall cost/benefit advantage in terms of the nation as a whole. They do know how to pick out the prime cuts, though, and feel entitled to them.
- Messages
- 119
What if you're labelled a "baby killer"? Can you be killed at Planned Parenthood? Can a double tap be ordered if you are seen crawling out of the rubble? You could live to kill babies again.