U.S. destroys Venezuelan vessels | Double Tap strike scrutiny

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 1K
  • Views: 27K
  • Politics 
Ramrouser said:
So you don’t think the Dems and media are dying to make Trump/Hegseth look bad with this issue and score political points in yet another attempt to “get Trump”? You really think every Dem is simply concerned about international law and the Geneva convention? I believe you care but I’m not willing to give Dem politicians and the media that benefit given the way they’ve acted towards Trump since 2016.
Click to expand...
The “every Democrat” bullshit.

So, only if 100% of Democrats support international law and the Geneva Convention do the Democrats get credit for doing so?
 
So, the boat was blown in half, capsized and without a radio. No chance of salvaging drugs or swimming to shore. The WH and Hegseth, not surprisingly, are gd liars, changing their story daily and Tom Cotton and MAGA idiots just go along with it.
 
Duke Mu said:
So, the boat was blown in half, capsized and without a radio. No chance of salvaging drugs or swimming to shore. The WH and Hegseth, not surprisingly, are gd liars, changing their story daily and Tom Cotton and MAGA idiots just go along with it.
Click to expand...
Chuck E.'s in love.

 
superrific said:
Yes, there was plenty of talk about that. It was a major reason the left soured on Obama.

The main problem with this line of inquiry is -- shocking, I tell ya -- a false equivalence. The people being targeted by those strikes were the people who had flown jets into buildings, bombed American vessels abroad, as well as a bunch of other crimes and attempted crimes. We were at war with the country who sponsored them and who they supported. Well, technically it was the Taliban, but the Taliban was the government when the war began and the Taliban has always be seen by everyone as an aspirant to government power. So we were bombing people who were actively committing terrorism against us, in support of a regime against who we were at war.

In other words, the people bombed were plausibly enemy combatants. I'm not going to say that conclusion inevitably follows, for a few reasons. But it's a non-ridiculous theory that has to be taken seriously when considering modern asymmetric warfare. I mean, they certainly thought of themselves as participating in a war against America -- OBL himself described his group's aims that way.

So with Obama, you are talking about bombing afar people who would likely be accepted battlefield targets, and who were at the time engaging in battlefield activity by directing terrorism -- not only against US but also our allies. Here, we are talking about drug dealers, granting that characterization arguendo. Not even the cartel heads; just the guys running the boats, who might or might not be doing it optionally.

Those two cases aren't alike. But you knew that already.
Click to expand...
You don't think it's even plausible that foreign Cartel drug runners could be considered enemy combatants in light of their goal to flood the USA with illegal drugs which are killing hundreds of thousands of our youth?
 
Ramrouser said:
You don't think it's even plausible that foreign Cartel drug runners could be considered enemy combatants in light of their goal to flood the USA with illegal drugs which are killing hundreds of thousands of our youth?
Click to expand...
As long as you’re good with bombing Smith & Wesson’s headquarters and double tapping any surviving execs, I could get down with that logic.
 
Ramrouser said:
You don't think it's even plausible that foreign Cartel drug runners could be considered enemy combatants in light of their goal to flood the USA with illegal drugs which are killing hundreds of thousands of our youth?
Click to expand...
An enemy combatant is a person who engages in hostilities against the United States during an armed conflict, typically on behalf of an opposing government or non-state actor.
 
Ramrouser said:
You don't think it's even plausible that foreign Cartel drug runners could be considered enemy combatants in light of their goal to flood the USA with illegal drugs which are killing hundreds of thousands of our youth?
Click to expand...
Why do you think they want to kill anybody? Dead people don't buy drugs. It's true they don't much care (Barnum's rule) but you're just being stupid again.

The real killer in our drug problem is how we handle the problem.
 
Hey, Ram. Has it ever occurred to you that every single one of Trump's policies gets less popular the more people learn about them? I can't think of a single one that has become more popular. Immigration. The OBBB. Bombing boats in the Gulf of Mexico. Tariffs. Russia. DOGE. Every single thing he has done has proven to be a political loser. Does that concern you? Give you any second thoughts about how history -- and your descendants -- will view your role in all of this?
 
Ramrouser said:
You don't think it's even plausible that foreign Cartel drug runners could be considered enemy combatants in light of their goal to flood the USA with illegal drugs which are killing hundreds of thousands of our youth?
Click to expand...
Why does it matter if they are foreign? Should we start launching missiles at suspected American drug dealer’s homes and vehicles?
 
superrific said:
Why exactly do you think Dems hate Trump? See, this is the problem. I don't hate Donald Trump because he's a Republican. I hate the Republicans because they follow Trump, and Trump is a loathsome person who is ruining the country because of his narcissism and his complete lack of understanding of the country's heritage, its current policy needs and the ideals to which it has been committed. I think of all the reasons to loathe a political figure, that's the most valid one.

So when you say that Democrats have been treating Trump this way since 2016, does it occur to you that Trump has been terrible since then (actually before). I actually didn't know much about Trump before 2015. I mean, I knew who he was and that he was a dick but I didn't watch TV much and I never really thought about him. He was a huckster who made some bucks calling Obama a fake citizen. Then I heard his ideas. "Build The Wall, Mexico Will Pay" (clearly racist), "I alone can fix it" (fascist almost by definition), grab em by the pussy. I saw him lie every single time he opened his mouth. I saw his ignorance of law and in fact his complete lack of interest in law.

That's why I hate Trump.

So when you imply that there's some sort of distinction here between making Trump look bad and being concerned about international law -- there isn't. It's the same thing. We want to make Trump look bad, so we can take political power away from him, for the purpose of stopping him from ruining the country even further. Especially in foreign policy, Trump can break what took 40 years to build, and will take another 20 to restore and when the reason for breaking it is non-existent other than indulgence of a narcissist, then fuck yes people will be pissed.

It's too bad that you don't have a coherent world view to guide you. If you did, you might find yourself less MAGA. I don't know if you and I would ever agree on a lot of things, or that we'd be in the same party -- but there's no law anywhere in this land that requires you to be such an incorrigible apologist for the worst of humanity.

I would go one further and speculate that you model politics as scoreboard precisely because you know otherwise you have to defend the indefensible. You know, deep down, that Trump is the fucking Balrog from Lord of the Rings. But you want your team to win. So you make up this narrative in which everybody is doing nothing but team sports, and that nothing matters other than efforts to dint approval ratings -- and then you end up describing nobody. There isn't a single Democrat anywhere who doesn't care about not murdering people, especially in this way. It's not something we think about regularly because it doesn't come up regularly; it's more of a subset of "things Dems don't like because they are cruel, unjust and make the world a worse place."
Click to expand...
Fair response.

I admit that I am guilty of currently modeling politics as a scoreboard for my team in this political environment. I would argue, however, that I've been forced into this defensive position simply because the Dems have been so relentless in attacking Trump from the day he was sworn in. Since Dems have been out for scalps for Trump and his supporters this has forced MAGA into defending Trump for almost everything he has done. Since 2023 alone Dems have done everything imaginable to bankrupt him and put him in jail for life. The NY criminal and civil cases were particularly egregious. I know you won't agree with me on this but can't you at least understand our position? Do you really think those cases would have been brought against anyone not named Trump?

Now we're in such a heated political environment that we're (and ICE and the NG and police) are routinely and loudly called fascists, NAZIs, dictators, Gestapo, Himmler, Goebbels, etc. In my opinion this has lead to Trump's assassination attempts, Kirk's assassination and the targeting and murder of the NG solders in DC. I expect in the near future we'll be talking about the murder of ICE or Border Patrol officials.

So yeah I, along with other of the President's supporters, bend over backwards to defend him but it's reasonable in light of the left's actions. Part of me wishes we could return to the pre Trump political environment since neither side appears willing to put down their swords anytime soon.
 
If he were anyone but Trump, he'd have been bankrupt and in prison before he had a chance to make The Apprentice.
 
Ramrouser said:
You don't think it's even plausible that foreign Cartel drug runners could be considered enemy combatants in light of their goal to flood the USA with illegal drugs which are killing hundreds of thousands of our youth?
Click to expand...
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.

www.justsecurity.org

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 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.
 
Duke Mu said:
Oopsie.
Click to expand...
Isn't this based upon the Dem Senator's interpretation of the video which directly conflicts with the Rep Senator's interpretation? Both sides likely spinning the video in their favor. Like Adam Schiff going on TV for years swearing that he had seen in classified briefings hard evidence of Trump colluding with Russia.
 
Ramrouser said:
Fair response.

I admit that I am guilty of currently modeling politics as a scoreboard for my team in this political environment. I would argue, however, that I've been forced into this defensive position simply because the Dems have been so relentless in attacking Trump from the day he was sworn in. Since Dems have been out for scalps for Trump and his supporters this has forced MAGA into defending Trump for almost everything he has done. Since 2023 alone Dems have done everything imaginable to bankrupt him and put him in jail for life. The NY criminal and civil cases were particularly egregious. I know you won't agree with me on this but can't you at least understand our position? Do you really think those cases would have been brought against anyone not named Trump?
Click to expand...
Yes.

www.justsecurity.org

Survey of Past New York Felony Prosecutions for Falsifying Business Records

A survey of years of New York criminal cases, which shows that the prosecution of falsifying business records in first degree is common.
www.justsecurity.org www.justsecurity.org

"Prosecution of falsifying business records in the first degree is commonplace and has been used by New York district attorneys’ offices to hold to account a breadth of criminal behavior from the more petty and simple to the more serious and highly organized. We reach this conclusion after surveying the past decade and a half of criminal cases across all the New York district attorneys’ offices."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top