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

[nycfan]

“…
The U.S. Navy has long intercepted and boarded ships suspected of smuggling drugs in international waters, typically with a Coast Guard officer temporarily in charge to invoke law enforcement authority. Tuesday’s direct attack in the Caribbean was a marked departure from that decades-long approach.

The administration has said 11 people were aboard the vessel. It was unclear whether they were given a chance to surrender before the United States attacked.

The Trump administration has not offered any legal rationale. But Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said in an appearance on “Fox & Friends” on Wednesday that administration officials “knew exactly who was in that boat” and “exactly what they were doing,” although he did not offer evidence.…”

“… Pentagon officials were still working Wednesday on what legal authority they would tell the public was used to back up the extraordinary strike in international waters.

… The Trump administration has deemed several gangs and drug cartels to be terrorist organizations, including Tren de Aragua, and Mr. Rubio earlier maintained that this meant the government could use military force against them.

But as a matter of law, that is inaccurate: Such designations allow the government to sanction such groups, including by freezing their assets, but do not authorize combat activity against them….”

 

[Ramrouser]

What the hell is wrong with you? It is not "defending" anyone to suggest that: 1) summary execution without due process is not something the executive can order; 2) the operation violated US and international law; 3) we shouldn't be destroying boats without being damn well sure exactly what it is, and that clearly is not the case here.

We have drug laws, which specify the penalties for drug dealing. No federal law establishes any death penalty for any drug dealing or trafficking offense. If the executive can just kill anyone it wants, what do the penalties mean.

See, they are boiling you like a frog and you don't realize it. Every single one of these actions has been an incremental provocation. They are trying to get you to accept their lawlessness as normal, and pretty soon you just accept that the country has become a military state without semblance of rule of law. Think about it:

A. military to LA; fuck around do nothing but the pretense is protecting federal property
B. military to DC; no pretense about protecting federal property but rather stopping crime
C. military to Chicago, again no pretense that it is anything other than "cleaning up the city." Now there are military in the streets. Great job.
D. illegal deportations. That has been expressly covered on this board plenty. But at least they weren't murdered, right?
E. Now, illegal killings in international waters.

They are tugging you along by a leash, like a dog. Every single time, they want you to focus on some underlying substantive issue while ignoring the fact that they are militarizing the entire society, which is far worse. Oh, we wouldn't want to defend drug dealers! It's good that they are gunned down without any thought! Sure, let's have all of America ruled by shoot first, think later assholes!

I'm sure you offered a Super critical attack on those on the Dem side who supported Obama's 563 "illegal" drone strikes across seven countries (Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Yemen, Somalia and Pakistan) resulting in civilian deaths averaging 582 annually from 2007-20016. If any Dem supported such a lawless President he/she was aiding and abetting in the end of our Democracy. I don't recall any Dem leadership offering any such criticism but I'm sure you and this board were up at arms over this unlawful, undemocratic actions by our President. Where were these civilians "due process?"

Second, you fail to recognize that the Biden Administration caused all of this by letting in thousands of Venezuelan gangbangers into this country to infiltrate our cities and distribute poison resulting in the death of hundreds of thousands of our citizens. Trump is cleaning up this mess. Venezuela is a state run drug cartel and the drug runners are enemy combatants who are trying to destroy this country. So yes, I support military intervention and the killing of the enemy drug runners.

 

[lawtig02]

I'm sure you offered a Super critical attack on those on the Dem side who supported Obama's 563 "illegal" drone strikes across seven countries (Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Yemen, Somalia and Pakistan) resulting in civilian deaths averaging 582 annually from 2007-20016. If any Dem supported such a lawless President he/she was aiding and abetting in the end of our Democracy. I don't recall any Dem leadership offering any such criticism but I'm sure you and this board were up at arms over this unlawful, undemocratic actions by our President. Where were these civilians "due process?"

Second, you fail to recognize that the Biden Administration caused all of this by letting in thousands of Venezuelan gangbangers into this country to infiltrate our cities and distribute poison resulting in the death of hundreds of thousands of our citizens. Trump is cleaning up this mess. Venezuela is a state run drug cartel and the drug runners are enemy combatants who are trying to destroy this country. So yes, I support military intervention and the killing of the enemy drug runners.

1. Nice deflection. Had to go to the way-back machine, but still.

2. This board didn't exist when Obama was president.

3. TONS of liberals were critical of Obama for the drone strikes.

Obama and drone strikes: Support but questions at home, opposition abroad

In his address Thursday on U.S. counterterrorism policy, President Obama defended the use of drones, which has the support of the U.S. public but is strongly opposed abroad.

www.pewresearch.org

The U.S. public has consistently supported the use of drone strikes — and that support has been bipartisan. In a February survey, 56% of Americans approved of them while 26% disapproved. That included 68% of Republicans, 58% of Democrats and 50% of independents.

Dems, GOP turn up heat on Obama over drones

Senators are challenging the president to spell out his justification for using drones for targeted killings

www.cbsnews.com

Senate Democrats and Republicans on Tuesday challenged the Obama administration to explicitly spell out its justification for using drones for targeted killings amid growing concerns about unchecked powers of the presidency and Americans' civil liberties.

"Even as President Obama commands a military with the most sophisticated weapons known to man, including the weaponized drones used in targeted killing operations, his authority is still grounded in words written more than 200 years ago," Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., said at the start of a Senate hearing on the use of drones.

The Obama administration has successfully used drones in the war on terror and argued that the president's authority stems from his constitutional power to protect the United States from imminent attack. The administration also has cited the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force, which says the commander in chief has the authority for strikes against al-Qaida and its affiliates.

Obama has used the law's authority to target terrorists with fatal drone strikes, including Americans overseas.

The president has promised to explain his policy, but members of Congress argue that he has been less than forthcoming. Durbin listed six outstanding questions, such as the constitutional justification for targeted killing, what are the due process protections for U.S. citizens overseas who are targeted and the legal limits on the battlefield in the fight with al-Qaida.

* * *

The drone issue has created unique alliances on Capitol Hill with liberals joining forces with libertarian-leaning Republicans.

Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, told the Senate hearing that drones are technology, but the "real scope of this hearing and of the concern is on the scope of federal power."

Sen. Al Franken, D-Minn., acknowledged the odd political bedfellows on the issue, telling the witnesses and a crowded hearing room, "You know you're in strange territory when Sen. Cruz and I have the same questions."

Durbin, Cruz and Franken expressed frustration with the administration, which declined to send a witness to appear before the Senate Judiciary subcommittee.

 

[Ramrouser]

1. Nice deflection. Had to go to the way-back machine, but still.

2. This board didn't exist when Obama was president.

3. TONS of liberals were critical of Obama for the drone strikes.

Obama and drone strikes: Support but questions at home, opposition abroad

In his address Thursday on U.S. counterterrorism policy, President Obama defended the use of drones, which has the support of the U.S. public but is strongly opposed abroad.

www.pewresearch.org

The U.S. public has consistently supported the use of drone strikes — and that support has been bipartisan. In a February survey, 56% of Americans approved of them while 26% disapproved. That included 68% of Republicans, 58% of Democrats and 50% of independents.

Dems, GOP turn up heat on Obama over drones

Senators are challenging the president to spell out his justification for using drones for targeted killings

www.cbsnews.com

Senate Democrats and Republicans on Tuesday challenged the Obama administration to explicitly spell out its justification for using drones for targeted killings amid growing concerns about unchecked powers of the presidency and Americans' civil liberties.

"Even as President Obama commands a military with the most sophisticated weapons known to man, including the weaponized drones used in targeted killing operations, his authority is still grounded in words written more than 200 years ago," Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., said at the start of a Senate hearing on the use of drones.

The Obama administration has successfully used drones in the war on terror and argued that the president's authority stems from his constitutional power to protect the United States from imminent attack. The administration also has cited the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force, which says the commander in chief has the authority for strikes against al-Qaida and its affiliates.

Obama has used the law's authority to target terrorists with fatal drone strikes, including Americans overseas.

The president has promised to explain his policy, but members of Congress argue that he has been less than forthcoming. Durbin listed six outstanding questions, such as the constitutional justification for targeted killing, what are the due process protections for U.S. citizens overseas who are targeted and the legal limits on the battlefield in the fight with al-Qaida.

* * *

The drone issue has created unique alliances on Capitol Hill with liberals joining forces with libertarian-leaning Republicans.

Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, told the Senate hearing that drones are technology, but the "real scope of this hearing and of the concern is on the scope of federal power."

Sen. Al Franken, D-Minn., acknowledged the odd political bedfellows on the issue, telling the witnesses and a crowded hearing room, "You know you're in strange territory when Sen. Cruz and I have the same questions."

Durbin, Cruz and Franken expressed frustration with the administration, which declined to send a witness to appear before the Senate Judiciary subcommittee.

My point. No one was freaking out about it and calling it the end of Democracy and the beginning of authoritarian rule. The Republicans have been consistent: supporting Obama's drone strikes and supporting Trump's interception and destruction of Venezuelan's drug cartels.

 

[lawtig02]

My point. No one was freaking out about it and calling it the end of Democracy and the beginning of authoritarian rule. The Republicans have been consistent: supporting Obama's drone strikes and supporting Trump's interception and destruction of Venezuelan's drug cartels.

No argument there. Pubs have been consistent for a long time in supporting illegal violence against black and brown people.

Thank God Dems have been, at least at times, the moral conscience of this nation.

 

[superrific]

My point. No one was freaking out about it and calling it the end of Democracy and the beginning of authoritarian rule. The Republicans have been consistent: supporting Obama's drone strikes and supporting Trump's interception and destruction of Venezuelan's drug cartels.

That's because the Venezuelan drug ship is not the end of democracy in itself. If that was all Trump was doing, I would shake my head at the horribleness but whatever.

But look at the context. Trump is just itching to provoke a conflict. That's why he is sending the military everywhere. That's why they are prosecuting sandwich throwers and punishing bird-flippers or people taking video (the latter two are clearly unconstitutional). They want to normalize "cracking down" and then use that to gain authoritarian rule.

If Trump was following the law domestically -- as Obama scrupulously did -- then we wouldn't have to fear. But since Trump has declared that he can do what he wants to do, and has thumbed his nose at rules, statutes and courts, the situation is different. Don't you think?

Also, whataboutism is pretty pathetic. It's even more pathetic when your whataboutism doesn't even hold water.

And shut up with the "it's Biden's fault." Drugs have been smuggled from South America my entire life. These people weren't in the US, which means your "Biden let them in point" is especially ridiculous.

 

[Ramrouser]

No argument there. Pubs have been consistent for a long time in supporting illegal violence against black and brown people.

Thank God Dems have been, at least at times, the moral conscience of this nation.

"Situational conscience" - Obama's actions GOOD / Trump BAD and DANGEROUS

Rand Paul is only consistent critic of both sides.

 

[lawtig02]

"Situational conscience" - Obama's actions GOOD / Trump BAD and DANGEROUS

Rand Paul is only consistent critic of both sides.

Other than the 42% of Dems who disagreed with Obama's drone strikes, you mean?

Do you even think about things like this before you hit "post"?

 

[superrific]

I'm sure you offered a Super critical attack on those on the Dem side who supported Obama's 563 "illegal" drone strikes across seven countries (Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Yemen, Somalia and Pakistan) resulting in civilian deaths averaging 582 annually from 2007-20016.

By the way, it was about 582 deaths total. And might I remind you who was president in 2007-2008?

 

[superrific]

"Situational conscience" - Obama's actions GOOD / Trump BAD and DANGEROUS

Rand Paul is only consistent critic of both sides.

Rand Paul is consistent in rhetoric. When was the last time he voted against Trump in any meaningful way? Did he vote for Hegseth? Did he vote for Gabbard? Like Susan Collins, he tries to hoodwink people by saying shit but doing nothing. It's too bad that you fall for it.

Meanwhile, it's not situational conscience. It's context. Whatever, we're not arguing about Obama. I am not going to respond any more to the bad-faith and ridiculous "blame Obama and Biden for Trump" crap. It's telling that you can't defend Trump. In fact, your strategy -- remarkably -- is to concede that Trump is horrible and then blame the other side.

And if you want to know why I suspect you are not an angel in your household, it's because "blaming others instinctively" is a classic trait of abusers. It comes so naturally and freely to you. All I have is a suspicion, of course, but if you don't want people to suspect, don't give them cause to.

 

[MOUNTAINH33L]

Trump BAD and DANGEROUS

 

[TangledUpInBlue06]

Trump Administration Says Boat Strike Is Start of Campaign Against Venezuelan Cartels

The defense secretary and President Trump said a small boat was carrying drugs but offered little evidence and few details.

www.nytimes.com

A former senior federal law enforcement official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss a sensitive military matter, said the attack was a “significant change” in U.S. anti-narcotics operations.​

​

“In all of my years of doing this,” the former official said, “I’ve never seen the U.S. military say, ‘OK, this is a drug shipment,’ and then just blow it up.”​

​

The former official, who has years of direct experience in fighting drug cartels, raised several other questions about the attack on the fast boat.​

​

First, the former official said, Tren de Aragua was not known for handling large shipments of cocaine or fentanyl. Instead it was known to focus on smuggling what is known as pink cocaine — a psychedelic substance that is generally made by combining ketamine and MDMA, commonly known as ecstasy, a stimulant that can cause hallucinations.​

​

The former official also said it was unusual to have 11 people manning a vessel that could easily be crewed by two or three, especially since traffickers are always trying to maximize the amount of cargo space devoted to carrying drugs, not human beings.​

​

In the former official’s opinion, it was more likely that the vessel was carrying migrants on a human smuggling run. It would be impossible to know for sure, however, given that any evidence of drug smuggling was destroyed in the attack.​

 

[mynameisbond]

Folks like Ram should not have a law license.

While I understand this sentiment, a lawyer's political beliefs don't determine what kind of lawyer they are. I personally know other lawyers who I agree with on most things and personally like outside of a courtroom that are overly aggressive and contentious inside it. The opposite is true as well. We have an adversarial system. The rationale is that zealous advocacy on both sides of a dispute ensures full development of the issues and facts necessary for a fair decision by the ultimate trier of fact. It isn't perfect but its a much better system than many other countries have. [steps down from soapbox]

 

[superrific]

While I understand this sentiment, a lawyer's political beliefs don't determine what kind of lawyer they are. I personally know other lawyers who I agree with on most things and personally like outside of a courtroom that are overly aggressive and contentious inside it. The opposite is true as well. We have an adversarial system. The rationale is that zealous advocacy on both sides of a dispute ensures full development of the issues and facts necessary for a fair decision by the ultimate trier of fact. It isn't perfect but its a much better system than many other countries have. [steps down from soapbox]

1. It ain't a much better system, in my view.
2. The problem with Ram isn't his political beliefs. It's that he never shows understanding of the law, and frequently displays mind-boggling errors. Like when he didn't know what jurisdiction was. Or his ignorance of the 10th Am. Or his repeated bullshit about immigration law.

I'm not sure I've ever seen him make a correct statement about law. He's mentioned cases he's handled, but I don't recall him stating any rule of decision. It was mostly just procedural stuff, IIRC.

3. It's true that family lawyers rarely have to deal with law, at least in my experience. So maybe he's good at that, I don't know. He also seems slow on the uptake.

 

[lawtig02]

While I understand this sentiment, a lawyer's political beliefs don't determine what kind of lawyer they are. I personally know other lawyers who I agree with on most things and personally like outside of a courtroom that are overly aggressive and contentious inside it. The opposite is true as well. We have an adversarial system. The rationale is that zealous advocacy on both sides of a dispute ensures full development of the issues and facts necessary for a fair decision by the ultimate trier of fact. It isn't perfect but its a much better system than many other countries have. [steps down from soapbox]

Completely agree. But it does seem like people should be held to the oath they take, no?

https://www.gasupreme.us/rules/amendments-to-rules/attorney-oath/

I, ________________, swear that I will truly and honestly, justly and uprightly conduct myself as a member of this learned profession and in accordance with the Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct, as an attorney and counselor, and that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Georgia. So help me God.

 

[mynameisbond]

Completely agree. But it does seem like people should be held to the oath they take, no?

https://www.gasupreme.us/rules/amendments-to-rules/attorney-oath/

I, ________________, swear that I will truly and honestly, justly and uprightly conduct myself as a member of this learned profession and in accordance with the Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct, as an attorney and counselor, and that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Georgia. So help me God.

The ethics code of conduct (Rules of Professional Responsibility) is where the election fraud attorneys got burned.
Here in VA, we also have a statute providing sanctions for attorney fees and costs:
The signature of an attorney or party constitutes a certificate by him that (i) he has read the pleading, motion, or other paper, (ii) to the best of his knowledge, information and belief, formed after reasonable inquiry, it is well grounded in fact and is warranted by existing law or a good faith argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law, and (iii) it is not interposed for any improper purpose, such as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation. Va.Code Section 8.01-271.1(B).

 

[lawtig02]

The ethics code of conduct (Rules of Professional Responsibility) is where the election fraud attorneys got burned.
Here in VA, we also have a statute providing sanctions for attorney fees and costs:
The signature of an attorney or party constitutes a certificate by him that (i) he has read the pleading, motion, or other paper, (ii) to the best of his knowledge, information and belief, formed after reasonable inquiry, it is well grounded in fact and is warranted by existing law or a good faith argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law, and (iii) it is not interposed for any improper purpose, such as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation. Va.Code Section 8.01-271.1(B).

Yeah, Ram was certainly smart enough to avoid signing his name to Ray's pleadings. I would be surprised, but not totally shocked, if Ram violated this particular rule.

 

[Ramrouser]

Yeah, Ram was certainly smart enough to avoid signing his name to Ray's pleadings. I would be surprised, but not totally shocked, if Ram violated this particular rule.

Since you seem so interested, I had no direct or indirect involvement in any of the election law litigation in 2020 or at any time.

Attorney's fees have been mentioned. Georgia passed a law this spring which states criminal defendants are "entitled to an award of all reasonable attorney's fees and costs incurred" if the prosecutor overseeing the case against them is disqualified due to misconduct, and the charges against the defendant are subsequently dismissed. The costs reimbursed to the defendants will be paid for by the district attorney's office that prosecuted the case, which means taxpayer funds in Fulton County would be used to reimburse the defendants - likely tens of millions of dollars. Thanks Fani!!

If all conditions of the statute are met, there's going to be a lot of Fulton County liberal residents not too happy about having to pay for Trump's (and others) legal bills.

 

[lawtig02]

Since you seem so interested, I had no direct or indirect involvement in any of the election law litigation in 2020 or at any time.

Attorney's fees have been mentioned. Georgia passed a law this spring which states criminal defendants are "entitled to an award of all reasonable attorney's fees and costs incurred" if the prosecutor overseeing the case against them is disqualified due to misconduct, and the charges against the defendant are subsequently dismissed. The costs reimbursed to the defendants will be paid for by the district attorney's office that prosecuted the case, which means taxpayer funds in Fulton County would be used to reimburse the defendants - likely tens of millions of dollars. Thanks Fani!!

If all conditions of the statute are met, there's going to be a lot of Fulton County liberal residents not too happy about having to pay for Trump's (and others) legal bills.

Sweet Jesus, dude. I can't believe you're jerking off to a Trumpist, anti-constitutional bill like that. I have no doubt Georgia is governed by its uneducated, rural areas, at the expense of your Buckhead neighbors. But just because the Thyssens and the Krupps made it out intact doesn't mean you will as well. WAKE THE FUCK UP.

 

[mynameisbond]

Since you seem so interested, I had no direct or indirect involvement in any of the election law litigation in 2020 or at any time.

Attorney's fees have been mentioned. Georgia passed a law this spring which states criminal defendants are "entitled to an award of all reasonable attorney's fees and costs incurred" if the prosecutor overseeing the case against them is disqualified due to misconduct, and the charges against the defendant are subsequently dismissed. The costs reimbursed to the defendants will be paid for by the district attorney's office that prosecuted the case, which means taxpayer funds in Fulton County would be used to reimburse the defendants - likely tens of millions of dollars. Thanks Fani!!

If all conditions of the statute are met, there's going to be a lot of Fulton County liberal residents not too happy about having to pay for Trump's (and others) legal bills.

Good luck with that. How many cases did he lose?