Trump live updates: President expands ‘narco’ boat strikes to Pacific Ocean as 8th boat is struck

[Hentenza]

....yet.

So until then it is legal.

 

[Belk]

So until then it is legal.

<Blink>

That is a novel legal claim. Anything not ruled illegal by a court is legal?

 

[Hentenza]

<Blink>

That is a novel legal claim. Anything not ruled illegal by a court is legal?

Ok so what charges would you bring against the military and under what law?

 

[Larniavc]

but it is narco-terrorism

It's actually Capitalism. Simple supply and demand.

 

[Oompa Loompa]

Mike Johnson, Speaker of the House, is using a made up term to refer to Democrats in Congress?

My point remains the same. Still a made up term. In regards to "legislative terror," the context demonstrates a communication of how Senate Democrats are literally holding the government hostage through their childish refusal to negotiate. Would I call them terrorists? No. More like spoiled rotten children who behave as if they were never told 'no' in their entire lives.

 

[Belk]

Ok so what charges would you bring against the military and under what law?

Why would I charge the military? Why would I not charge the ones directing the attack? Are you backing off your claim anything not ruled on by the court is legal?

 

[Hentenza]

Why would I charge the military? Why would I not charge the ones directing the attack? Are you backing off your claim anything not ruled on by the court is legal?

Not backing out at all. Just trying to figure out how you would bring charges against those responsible and under what law. In criminal law those that commit the crime are just as guilty as those who command or direct the crime. Even if the person or entity that commanded the crime are not in proximity to where the crime occurred they could still be charged under the jurisdiction of where the crime occurred.

The “crime” occurred in international waters so the “flag” country would usually have jurisdiction although coastal countries could share jurisdiction. So the US has not claimed jurisdiction and the US is the “flag” country and the coastal country in some of the incidents is Venezuela and they have not claimed jurisdiction hence at this time the incidents are legal. This has nothing to do with something being legal until proven illegal but a matter of law.

 

[rjs330]

Seventy times seven.
Matthew 18:21-22

Thats dealing with someone sins against you personally. It also does not deal with the consequences of the sin. If your husband beats you, you have to forgive him seventy times seven. Do you think then that it absolves him of any consequences?

Also this scripture doesnt apply to s I ending taxpayer money to help drug addicts and how money we should spend to help them.

That's true. If they are not harming you, why are you trying to force them?

Never use that argument. Its a bad one. Your husband beating on you doesn't
harm me either. But I would want to stop it because it harms you. There is a harm to society as a whole when you are addicted to drugs. Do you think no one is harmed by the drug trade?

Sure, kill the people who are not us in hopes that the people who are us will modify their own behavior. Good idea! The only ones who matter are us, not them. /s

I have no problem with our government doing that to drug dealers trying to smuggle poison into our country that has killed millions if us.

 

[Belk]

Not backing out at all. Just trying to figure out how you would bring charges against those responsible and under what law. In criminal law those that commit the crime are just as guilty as those who command or direct the crime. Even if the person or entity that commanded the crime are not in proximity to where the crime occurred they could still be charged under the jurisdiction of where the crime occurred.

The “crime” occurred in international waters so the “flag” country would usually have jurisdiction although coastal countries could share jurisdiction. So the US has not claimed jurisdiction and the US is the “flag” country and the coastal country in some of the incidents is Venezuela and they have not claimed jurisdiction hence at this time the incidents are legal. This has nothing to do with something being legal until proven illegal but a matter of law.

This might be helpful.

US strikes on 'Venezuela drug boats': are they legal?

Experts have suggested several attacks launched by the US may be illegal under international law.

www.bbc.com

However, to be clear, my issue is not with the legality per se but your claim that until a court rules on it it is legal. This seems to contradict the idea that we follow the rule of law which stipulates some things are illegal prior to a courts ruling.

 

[Hentenza]

This might be helpful.

US strikes on 'Venezuela drug boats': are they legal?

Experts have suggested several attacks launched by the US may be illegal under international law.

www.bbc.com

However, to be clear, my issue is not with the legality per se but your claim that until a court rules on it it is legal. This seems to contradict the idea that we follow the rule of law which stipulates some things are illegal prior to a courts ruling.

I explained my thought in my previous post. I think you are misunderstanding what I meant so I clarified stating that it is a matter of law. You are using it in a broader sense than what I said to claim that until a court rules everything is legal but that is not what I said. I am only speaking about this instance in particular and under these circumstances.

I read the article you quoted and agree that there could be legal grounds in question but none have brought to bear. With our non working government am not sure if any will actually be brought to bear. Trump cited article 2 for his reasoning and no court has challenged that yet. When and if it happens then we’ll know.

 

[Oompa Loompa]

Yes they do need help. And we should help them. I'm all for it. The question does become, how many times, ten twenty, three?

There is only so much we can do for people who refuse to stay off. And maybe, staunching the flow will eventually help as well. If we make it much more difficult to obtain, it may help keep them off.

Any therapist specializing in substance abuse knows you can not help an addict until they admit they have a problem.

 

[Bradskii]

They do all the time. Thugs run from police and resist police all the time. Most carry guns and use them against police or federal agents. It’s a fact of their chosen carrier.

I see. So if they have been told that they are going to be arrested, charged with smuggling drugs and read their rights but they then try to escape and open fire on the police then the police are authorised to use all necessary force. I think I understand.

So I guess that the officers who suspected that a crime had been comitted would be in serious trouble if they simply killed them without any warning whatsoever.

Do we agree?

 

[Oompa Loompa]

I see. So if they have been told that they are going to be arrested, charged with smuggling drugs and read their rights but they then try to escape and open fire on the police then the police are authorised to use all necessary force. I think I understand.

So I guess that the officers who suspected that a crime had been comitted would be in serious trouble if they simply killed them without any warning whatsoever.

Do we agree?

What rights?

 

[Hentenza]

I see. So if they have been told that they are going to be arrested, charged with smuggling drugs and read their rights but they then try to escape and open fire on the police then the police are authorised to use all necessary force. I think I understand.

So I guess that the officers who suspected that a crime had been comitted would be in serious trouble if they simply killed them without any warning whatsoever.

Do we agree?

No. We don’t agree. You blame the cops, I blame the drug traffickers.

 

[Bradskii]

No. We don’t agree.

I'm certain that others will notice the reticence. There's still a resistance to actually saying the bad things out loud. It needs quite a few posts to tease out a reply that's anywhere in the neighbourhood of a direct answer.

And this is as close as we're going to get.

You are admitting that if Trump tells you that a person deserves to be killed, then that's simply good enough. Extra judicial executions are now the norm. No evidence is needed. No warning required. No due process to be considered.

This is what was common in Argentina under the junta. It was normal in Franco's Spain. It's what happens now in Russia. But even in those examples, and so many more, those ordering the killings made excuses. They hide the truth. They pretended that someone who had disappeared was nothing to do with them. And people in these failed states pretended to believe them.

But now in the good old US of A? The guy in charge boasts about it. And the chilling fact about this? The terrible outcome of this? It's that you literally don't care.

You are no longer on the path to a failed state. You're there already.

 

[Bradskii]

What rights?

There was this guy called Miranda once. Heard of him? Maybe not. Or maybe you have but don't consider the legal requirements to read the rights to a suspected criminal worth having.

It's that ol' matter of due process. Yeah, I know. Lefty, liberal, tree hugging socialist nonsense. But the thing is my friend, it's what you deserve. It's what you would demand. It's part of what makes each of us glad that we live in civilised societies where those in power have to treat us all equally.

Do you get that last part? I'm not sure that you do. Because as strongly as you would demand those rights for you and yours, you are equally adamant that they can be ignored for others.

It doesn't work that way. There ain't one rule for you and different rules for others. Capice?

 

[Belk]

I explained my thought in my previous post. I think you are misunderstanding what I meant so I clarified stating that it is a matter of law. You are using it in a broader sense than what I said to claim that until a court rules everything is legal but that is not what I said. I am only speaking about this instance in particular and under these circumstances.


I read the article you quoted and agree that there could be legal grounds in question but none have brought to bear. With our non working government am not sure if any will actually be brought to bear. Trump cited article 2 for his reasoning and no court has challenged that yet. When and if it happens then we’ll know.

Are saying there is some ambiguity in the relevant laws and that it requires a court case to settle the matter?

 

[Oompa Loompa]

There was this guy called Miranda once. Heard of him? Maybe not. Or maybe you have but don't consider the legal requirements to read the rights to a suspected criminal worth having.

It's that ol' matter of due process. Yeah, I know. Lefty, liberal, tree hugging socialist nonsense. But the thing is my friend, it's what you deserve. It's what you would demand. It's part of what makes each of us glad that we live in civilised societies where those in power have to treat us all equally.

Do you get that last part? I'm not sure that you do. Because as strongly as you would demand those rights for you and yours, you are equally adamant that they can be ignored for others.

It doesn't work that way. There ain't one rule for you and different rules for others. Capice?

Show me where Miranda rights apply to enemy combatants, pirates, or criminals from foreign countries committing crimes in international waters without a nation flag? I will wait. By the way, Miranda rights are only applicable when someone is being questioned or interrogated.

 

[Bradskii]

Show me where Miranda rights apply to enemy combatants, pirates, or criminals from foreign countries committing crimes in international waters without a nation flag? I will wait.

I guess we're at the same point as I got to above. You've now reached the point where the extra judicial killing of someone just because Trump says he can is acceptable. Shoot people on the street? If Trump says it's OK, then sure. Blow up a house because drug dealers use it? If Trump says it's OK, then sure. Take out a few people without having to produce any evidence? If Trump says it's OK, then sure.

Remember when he said he could shoot someone on Fifth Ave. And suffer no consequences? Now you're agreeing that he can.

By the way, Miranda rights are only applicable when someone is being questioned or interrogated.

Hard to do that when they've been blown up.

 

[Bradskii]

Show me where Miranda rights apply to enemy combatants, pirates, or criminals from foreign countries committing crimes in international waters without a nation flag? I will wait. By the way, Miranda rights are only applicable when someone is being questioned or interrogated.

And this is what used to happen under Obama: U.S. Navy Grabs Suspected Pirates
https://abcnews.go.com/

​

'All of the captured suspects are middle-aged Somali men and all are now in the brig. Their fishing boat, weapons and other tools are being held as evidence.

The men were given food, medical attention and a quick shower as they were processed in the hull of the ship. Their torn clothes were replaced with orange jumpsuits as they began what will be a several-week stay with the U.S. Navy. From there, they will face trial on shore, most likely by Kenya, an African country that signed an agreement with the United States to prosecute suspected pirates.'

Do you follow? They weren't summarily killed. They were captured, evidence collected, they were processed and put on trial. That's what civilised countries do.