U.S. destroys Venezuelan vessels | Secret notice of “armed conflict” with some cartels

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 272
  • Views: 8K
  • Politics 

Gabbard Retracted Intelligence Report on Venezuela​

The report, which remains classified, described work by Richard Grenell, a former top intelligence official in the Trump administration.

www.nytimes.com

Gabbard Retracted Intelligence Report on Venezuela

The report, which remains classified, described work by Richard Grenell, a former top intelligence official in the Trump administration.
www.nytimes.com www.nytimes.com

“… The report, which remains classified, described work on Venezuela by Richard Grenell, a former top intelligence official in the Trump administration who is now leading the Kennedy Center.

News of the recall came amid a debate over the Trump administration’s policy toward the country. Mr. Grenell, who serves as an envoy to Venezuela, has advocated negotiations with its authoritarian government, while Secretary of State Marco Rubio has pushed for a more hard-line approach.

But other officials said the recall of the report had little to do with competing camps in the Trump administration and was more about improperly identifying a senior official in an intelligence document.…”
 
nycfan said:
Click to expand...

“A Venezuelan boat that the U.S. military destroyed in the Caribbean last week had altered its course and appeared to have turned around before the attack started because the people onboard had apparently spotted a military aircraft stalking it, according to American officials familiar with the matter.

… While the White House has not provided a detailed legal rationale, it has put forward the outlines of a novel argument that using lethal military force was permissible under the laws of armed conflict to defend the country from drugs because 100,000 Americans die annually from overdoses. Secretary of State Marco Rubio said people suspected of smuggling drugs toward the United States pose “an immediate threat.” Mr. Trump, in a letter to Congress, justified the attack as a matter of self-defense.

Many legal specialists, including retired top military lawyers, have rejected the idea that Mr. Trump has legitimate authority to treat suspected drug smuggling as legally equivalent to an imminent armed attack on the United States. Even if one accepted that premise for the sake of argument, they added, if the boat had already turned away, that would further undermine what they saw as an already weak claim of self-defense.

“If someone is retreating, where’s the ‘imminent threat’ then?” said Rear Adm. Donald J. Guter, a retired top judge advocate general for the Navy from 2000 to 2002. “Where’s the ‘self-defense’? They are gone if they ever existed — which I don’t think they did.”…”
 
nycfan said:
“A Venezuelan boat that the U.S. military destroyed in the Caribbean last week had altered its course and appeared to have turned around before the attack started because the people onboard had apparently spotted a military aircraft stalking it, according to American officials familiar with the matter.

… While the White House has not provided a detailed legal rationale, it has put forward the outlines of a novel argument that using lethal military force was permissible under the laws of armed conflict to defend the country from drugs because 100,000 Americans die annually from overdoses. Secretary of State Marco Rubio said people suspected of smuggling drugs toward the United States pose “an immediate threat.” Mr. Trump, in a letter to Congress, justified the attack as a matter of self-defense.

Many legal specialists, including retired top military lawyers, have rejected the idea that Mr. Trump has legitimate authority to treat suspected drug smuggling as legally equivalent to an imminent armed attack on the United States. Even if one accepted that premise for the sake of argument, they added, if the boat had already turned away, that would further undermine what they saw as an already weak claim of self-defense.

“If someone is retreating, where’s the ‘imminent threat’ then?” said Rear Adm. Donald J. Guter, a retired top judge advocate general for the Navy from 2000 to 2002. “Where’s the ‘self-defense’? They are gone if they ever existed — which I don’t think they did.”…”
Click to expand...
“… Mr. Trump, in announcing the attack, posted a 29-second video on social media that edited together several clips of aerial surveillance. It showed a speedboat cutting through the water, with a number of people onboard, before an explosion.

But officials briefed on the strike said that the video does not tell the entire story. It does not show the boat turning after the people aboard were apparently spooked by an aircraft above them, nor does it show the military making repeated strikes on the vessel even after disabling it, the officials said.

… One open question is where the boat was headed. Mr. Rubio initially told reporters last week that it was probably headed toward Trinidad and Tobago or some other country in the Caribbean, but administration officials have since characterized it as destined for the United States.

Another is what it was carrying. Some have expressed doubts that a vessel of its size would need an 11-member crew. Senator Rand Paul, a Kentucky Republican who has called it “despicable and thoughtless” to glorify killing people accused of crimes without trials, has argued that if there were drugs, it was more likely cocaine than fentanyl — the drug most responsible for overdoses….”
 
This boat attack appears to be the military equivalent of the guy in Houston that shot the kid running away after a dingdong ditch.

The fascist is really starting to like playing with “his” military toys.
 
This is going to be a slow burning scandal, but it will be outrageous once all the fact emerge. It's almost certain we have no idea who was on that boat or what they were doing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top