Trump dispenses with trials, orders military strike on alleged Venezuelan drug-trafficking boat

[rjs330]

Alleged criminals. Not terrorists.

Narco terrorists, cartels.

 

[rjs330]

Wait, I thought the argument was that the Constitution covers any person, regardless of their nation-of-origin, and though citizens get a few more “perks”, most people are accorded the (most of the) same First, Fourth and Fifth Amendment protections.

(The government can’t just decide who’s an “enemy”, based upon the “enemies” desire to sell our citizens product that is fallen out of favor (or been illegal since Methuselah)).

Setting a policy that allows the government to commit piracy (or worse?), to get what we want, is the very definition of terrorism!
“Are we the baddies?”

Maybe?

Does it apply to every person on the planet no matter who or where they are?

 

[rjs330]

Really? Proof that Americans were LITERALLY going to die from that delivery?
Of course not.

Right, there is no proof that a dirty bomb was going to literally kill Americans either.

We have a LONG history of evidence that drugs delivered to Americans will cause deaths. How much more do we need?

 

[rjs330]

Framing it as “good v. evil” is twaddle.

It is? What would you call those who are delivering deadly drugs to American citizens rhat cause millions of deaths? Good or evil?

 

[Pommer]

Only if they're within US borders or are "US persons." The Constitution doesn't cover non-US persons outside US borders.

Okay, lemme ask you this:
Say I’m on my yacht and (on the “high-seas”) almost get rammed by a cartel frigate and a ton of fentanyl falls into my boat’s hold.
Say the Navy has drug sniffing dolphins who definitely can smell the opioids in my boat, can they blow my craft out of the water?

 

[Pommer]

It is? What would you call those who are delivering deadly drugs to American citizens rhat cause millions of deaths? Good or evil?

These people aren’t coming onto our shores and intoxicating the law-abiding and unwilling, against their will.

Let’s just once try to make things so good that people won’t be such prey to dangerous ways to escape reality?

 

[rjs330]

Okay, lemme ask you this:
Say I’m on my yacht and (on the “high-seas”) almost get rammed by a cartel frigate and a ton of fentanyl falls into my boat’s hold.
Say the Navy has drug sniffing dolphins who definitely can smell the opioids in my boat, can they blow my craft out of the water?

I seriously think you can come up with a wilder and more nonsensical analogy than that. I'm disappointed.

 

[Pommer]

I seriously think you can come up with a wilder and more nonsensical analogy than that. I'm disappointed.

I’m getting tired of the constant ridicule my work here.

 

[rjs330]

I’m getting tired of the constant ridicule my work here.

I bet that won't slow you down any. Lol.

 

[Postvieww]

The administration has not provided a legal authority or justification for the attack Tuesday that killed 11 people.

1. U.S. Domestic Law

• Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act (MDLEA, 46 U.S.C. §§ 70501 et seq.)
  – Gives the U.S. jurisdiction over vessels involved in drug trafficking on the high seas, even if they’re foreign-flagged, under certain conditions (e.g., if the flag state consents).
• Posse Comitatus restrictions don’t apply to the Coast Guard
  – The Coast Guard can conduct law enforcement missions directly.
• Department of Defense authority
  – The U.S. military can support counter-narcotics operations under Title 10, with the president delegating operational control.

2. Presidential Authority

• As Commander in Chief, the president can direct military operations against threats, including narco-trafficking, when tied to national security.
• In 2020, Trump announced a major anti-drug trafficking initiative in the Caribbean and Eastern Pacific, framed as protecting U.S. national security and cracking down on cartels exploiting the pandemic.
• That directive gave cover for U.S. Southern Command and the Coast Guard to intensify operations against Venezuelan drug routes.

3. International Law

• High seas jurisdiction: States can interdict vessels engaged in piracy, slave trade, or unauthorized broadcasting — and, with agreements, drug trafficking.
• Bilateral agreements: The U.S. has “shiprider” and interdiction treaties with many nations. If a Venezuelan boat was stateless, or if Venezuela’s consent wasn’t needed because of its status, the U.S. could lawfully act.

4. What Happened in Practice

In May 2020, a Venezuelan navy patrol boat tried to ram a U.S. Coast Guard vessel involved in a drug interdiction operation. The U.S. response was lawful under self-defense and existing counter-narcotics authority.

More broadly, Trump’s administration labeled Nicolás Maduro and others in Venezuela as part of a “narco-terrorism” conspiracy, which the DOJ indicted. That added further justification for aggressive interdiction.


Bottom line: Trump didn’t have a special “new” authority to attack Venezuelan drug boats. The legal authority already existed under U.S. law (MDLEA), international law enforcement treaties, and his constitutional commander-in-chief powers. His role was mainly directing a more aggressive operational stance against Venezuelan-linked trafficking.

 

[Postvieww]

How is this not murder in international waters?

Because it was legally executed, pardon the pun.

 

[DaisyDay]

Right, there is no proof that a dirty bomb was going to literally kill Americans either.

There is no proof or evidence that that boat was carrying drugs.

We have a LONG history of evidence that drugs delivered to Americans will cause deaths. How much more do we need?

We need to stop voluntarily paying good money to drug dealers for their product.

This strike was against Maritime Law. The Coast Guard, not the Navy, is supposed to be in charge of interdicting drug traffic on the sea. This murder on international waters is not justified.

Trump's attempt to use the Alien Enemies Act to summarily deport Venezuelans was struck down because the US is not at war with Venezuela. Trump seems determined to provoke one.

 

[DaisyDay]

Because it was legally executed, pardon the pun.

Apparently not.

1. U.S. Domestic Law

• Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act (MDLEA, 46 U.S.C. §§ 70501 et seq.)
  – Gives the U.S. jurisdiction over vessels involved in drug trafficking on the high seas, even if they’re foreign-flagged, under certain conditions (e.g., if the flag state consents).
• Posse Comitatus restrictions don’t apply to the Coast Guard
  – The Coast Guard can conduct law enforcement missions directly.
• Department of Defense authority
  – The U.S. military can support counter-narcotics operations under Title 10, with the president delegating operational control.

2. Presidential Authority

• As Commander in Chief, the president can direct military operations against threats, including narco-trafficking, when tied to national security.
• In 2020, Trump announced a major anti-drug trafficking initiative in the Caribbean and Eastern Pacific, framed as protecting U.S. national security and cracking down on cartels exploiting the pandemic.
• That directive gave cover for U.S. Southern Command and the Coast Guard to intensify operations against Venezuelan drug routes.

3. International Law

• High seas jurisdiction: States can interdict vessels engaged in piracy, slave trade, or unauthorized broadcasting — and, with agreements, drug trafficking.
• Bilateral agreements: The U.S. has “shiprider” and interdiction treaties with many nations. If a Venezuelan boat was stateless, or if Venezuela’s consent wasn’t needed because of its status, the U.S. could lawfully act.

4. What Happened in Practice

In May 2020, a Venezuelan navy patrol boat tried to ram a U.S. Coast Guard vessel involved in a drug interdiction operation. The U.S. response was lawful under self-defense and existing counter-narcotics authority.

More broadly, Trump’s administration labeled Nicolás Maduro and others in Venezuela as part of a “narco-terrorism” conspiracy, which the DOJ indicted. That added further justification for aggressive interdiction.


Bottom line: Trump didn’t have a special “new” authority to attack Venezuelan drug boats. The legal authority already existed under U.S. law (MDLEA), international law enforcement treaties, and his constitutional commander-in-chief powers. His role was mainly directing a more aggressive operational stance against Venezuelan-linked trafficking.

Except that we did not interdict the boat in question, we blew it up killing everyone aboard.

 

[NxNW]

The narco terrorists coming from Venezuala are not under the Constitution. Are Canadians? The French?

Constitutional rights apply to everyone.

 

[NxNW]

We have a LONG history of evidence that drugs delivered to Americans will cause deaths. How much more do we need?

What drugs? Alcohol? I buy scotch all the time. Cigarettes? People buy those all the time.

 

[NxNW]

Only if they're within US borders or are "US persons." The Constitution doesn't cover non-US persons outside US borders.

False. Just days ago, the GOP was screaming that Constitutional rights are God- given and apply to everyone.

Sure, the US government can, and has done so many times. It's called "war," and the US government gets to make up the reasons.

What country did we declare war on?

I thought Trump promised to end wars, not start them.

 

[NxNW]

I cannot believe that it looks like the liberals are defending the rights of the narco terrorists cartels.

Was someone convicted of narco-terrorism?

 

[NxNW]

What would you call those who are delivering deadly drugs to American citizens rhat cause millions of deaths?

Capitalists?

Why not legalize everything and let Darwin take its course.

 

[durangodawood]

Narco terrorists, cartels.

Alleged criminal cartel members.

As for "terrorist" youre just redefining words to suit your political agenda. We were warned about this.

 

[RDKirk]

False. Just days ago, the GOP was screaming that Constitutional rights are God- given and apply to everyone.

Regardless of what someone in the GOP "was screaming," the Constitution does not cover non-US persons outside the borders of the US.

What country did we declare war on?

I thought Trump promised to end wars, not start them.

Nazi Germany. Imperialist Japan. Apparently worldwide terrorism.

The US Government can declare war on whoever they want, or come up with some other euphemism to direct the military against.