US destroyed 2nd Venezuelan vessel | Pentagon focus on Latin America

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 227
  • Views: 5K
  • Politics 
Zoo_View said:
Actually, bombing boats in the Caribbean Sea or Gulf of Mexico….oops, Gulf of Trump…..that is new.

I’m not saying our actions in the Middle East were good or proper or legal.

I’m saying blowing up boats off Venezuela is new……and illegal under international law.
Click to expand...
It’s new in geography, not in morality.
 
Calheel said:
It’s new in geography, not in morality.
Click to expand...
Well, I think someone has already mentioned this -- but one obvious difference is that the drones are not launching missiles at commercially important areas.

Once you start sinking ships without warning or cause, it starts to chill commerce on the high seas. And that's a very different effect from anything that happens from a drone.

I would also say that most of our international maritime law -- and a hell of a lot of domestic maritime law as well -- has been structured around the idea of piracy. And IIRC (I did a lot of research on piracy for a case a long time ago but I don't remember the details) piracy was the first action declared to be contrary to the "Law Of Nations." That is, international law only exists because of piracy on the high seas.

So for the US to engage in piracy -- which is what this is, piracy not actually requiring any seizure of the vessel; sinking it is also piracy -- would be a big deal.
 
superrific said:
Well, I think someone has already mentioned this -- but one obvious difference is that the drones are not launching missiles at commercially important areas.

Once you start sinking ships without warning or cause, it starts to chill commerce on the high seas. And that's a very different effect from anything that happens from a drone.

I would also say that most of our international maritime law -- and a hell of a lot of domestic maritime law as well -- has been structured around the idea of piracy. And IIRC (I did a lot of research on piracy for a case a long time ago but I don't remember the details) piracy was the first action declared to be contrary to the "Law Of Nations." That is, international law only exists because of piracy on the high seas.

So for the US to engage in piracy -- which is what this is, piracy not actually requiring any seizure of the vessel; sinking it is also piracy -- would be a big deal.
Click to expand...
If we start bombing the Panama Canal or cargo ships, I could see an impact on commerce. Right now, the primary commerce impact will be fewer Venezuelan fishermen in those waters.

Obviously, this is new and bad. I just see as a change in degree as opposed to kind. In particular, the extrajudicial killing aspect of this military action is well trod ground.
 
Calheel said:
If we start bombing the Panama Canal or cargo ships, I could see an impact on commerce. Right now, the primary commerce impact will be fewer Venezuelan fishermen in those waters.

Obviously, this is new and bad. I just see as a change in degree as opposed to kind. In particular, the extrajudicial killing aspect of this military action is well trod ground.
Click to expand...
Degree as opposed to kind is fair. And while the impact on commerce of these particular attacks might be small (though see below), my point was generally about the difference between the law of piracy (which is international) and the law against drone strikes (which is much more questionable internationally), as well as the policy differences in general.

Here's the question: what will insurers do? Will they insure ships in that area? Those big ships are incredibly expensive and insurers would take a HUGE loss if one were sunk by the US.
 
In addition to the illegality of the strike itself, attacking survivors of a destroyed vessel in the water is a war crime even in an actual war. Just heinous people in charge.
 
UNCBAdookJD said:
In addition to the illegality of the strike itself, attacking survivors of a destroyed vessel in the water is a war crime even in an actual war. Just heinous people in charge.
Click to expand...
I had not paid attention to details
Good Gawd if they did that
 
ZenMode said:
Isn't labeling them narcoTERRORISTS his way of making it legal... in his tiny, underpowered brain?
Click to expand...
I'm confident it's a way of providing cover to the extent Trump even thinks it's possible for him to do something illegal. But I still think the President would generally need an AUMF to order military action against a terrorist group, right?
 
rodoheel said:
I'm confident it's a way of providing cover to the extent Trump even thinks it's possible for him to do something illegal. But I still think the President would generally need an AUMF to order military action against a terrorist group, right?
Click to expand...
True. I doubt Congress would have given blanket approval to "drone" any terrorists the President wants.

I'm sure labeling them as terrorists has some meaning. He's probably just misusing another emergency power.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top