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

[Vambram]

If your argument is that it's OK because you've done it before and the evidence that you produce is shown to be wrong, then You do realise that don't have an argument any more? Notwithstanding that the argument itself is fallacious (I'll assume that I really don't have to explain why).

The evidence I showed is not wrong.

 

[Gene2memE]

https://www.tni.org/files/download/Reluctant%20recruits%20report_0.pdf

I suppose that you might think these files are also a distortion?

Do you even read your own sources?? Nothing in that document indicates direct strikes by the US military. There isn't anything beyond logistics, training, intelligence and equipment support for South American governments.

P7:

"Under the Andean strategy, which was initially developed without input from the target countries, "US military involvement was to be limited to providing logistical support, equipment, and training to host nation armed forces, unless direct military assistance was specifically requested."

P8:

" ... in 1981, when lawmakers amended the Posse Comitatus Act of 1897, which restricts US armed forces personnel from participating in
law enforcement activities ... The amendment allows the military to provide equipment, information, training, and advice to law enforcement agencies, but it retains the prohibition on military participation in search, seizure, and arrests. "



I challenge you to read paged 30-33 and see if you agree with the conclusions of the report.

 

[wing2000]

https://www.tni.org/files/download/Reluctant%20recruits%20report_0.pdf

I suppose that you might think these files are also a distortion?

Beats me. How about you state what point you are making with the referenced files.

 

[wing2000]

The evidence I showed is not wrong.

Your evidence demonstrates the US military provided logistical support and training to Bolivia in 1986. Is that what the US Navy is doing off the coast of Venezuela?

 

[RocksInMyHead]

The evidence I showed is not wrong.

FYI, "Clear and Present Danger" isn't a work of nonfiction.

 

[Bradskii]

The evidence I showed is not wrong.

There was nothing in your linked 'evidence' to show what you claimed. Your claim is, therefore, wrong. Feel free to post anything that does support it.

 

[Vambram]

There was nothing in your linked 'evidence' to show what you claimed. Your claim is, therefore, wrong. Feel free to post anything that does support it.

I already have. Feel free to ignore it if you wish to do so.

 

[Vambram]

Beats me. How about you state what point you are making with the referenced files.

The point that Trump ain't the first POTUS to use the military to fight against the narco cartels.

 

[Bradskii]

I already have. Feel free to ignore it if you wish to do so.

I didn't ignore. I read it. But I'm not sure that you have. It contains nothing about the US taking armed action against cartels. And I found this:

'This strategy temporarily became entangled in a dispute over policies adopted by the Peruvian and Colombian governments - with strong US encouragement - to shoot down
planes of suspected drug traffickers.

When Colombia announced in early 1994 that it too, like Peru, would adopt a shoot-down policy, some US officials in Washington became concerned that the policy would violate international law. After the US Justice Department ruled that "US officials who knowingly provide information that leads to the shooting down of civilian aircraft could be subject to criminal prosecution," DOD halted the sharing of "real-time" aircraft tracking information with Colombia and Peru in May
1994.'

Trump is not supplying information to allow others to illegally kill people. He's actually doing it himself.

My guess is that you didn't even know that information was in there.

 

[Bradskii]

The point that Trump ain't the first POTUS to use the military to fight against the narco cartels.

Other presidents used the military to train non Americans and supplied them with equipment and info (see quote in post above). That's not what you said, is it...

 

[Vambram]

Other presidents used the military to train non Americans and supplied them with equipment and info (see quote in post above). That's not what you said, is it...

Other presidents were weak in the war against narco terrorists cartels that are killing hundreds of thousands of Americans.

 

[Vambram]

I didn't ignore. I read it. But I'm not sure that you have. It contains nothing about the US taking armed action against cartels. And I found this:

'This strategy temporarily became entangled in a dispute over policies adopted by the Peruvian and Colombian governments - with strong US encouragement - to shoot down
planes of suspected drug traffickers.

When Colombia announced in early 1994 that it too, like Peru, would adopt a shoot-down policy, some US officials in Washington became concerned that the policy would violate international law. After the US Justice Department ruled that "US officials who knowingly provide information that leads to the shooting down of civilian aircraft could be subject to criminal prosecution," DOD halted the sharing of "real-time" aircraft tracking information with Colombia and Peru in May
1994.'

Trump is not supplying information to allow others to illegally kill people. He's actually doing it himself.

My guess is that you didn't even know that information was in there.

My guess is that you are wrong to assume stuff about me.

 

[Pommer]

Other presidents were weak in the war against narco terrorists cartels that are killing hundreds of thousands of Americans.

RIP The Rule of Law, 1215-2025

 

[Bradskii]

Other presidents were weak in the war against narco terrorists cartels that are killing hundreds of thousands of Americans.

So you admit that they weren't doing what you said they were doing.

What is the point of trying to claim that Trump is justified in doing what he's doing because other presidents have done the same if you now admit that they didn't.

I mean, seriously...what was the point you were trying to make in posting a link to a paper that you hadn't read which said things that you were unaware of which actually made the point that previous presidents were aware of the illegality of what Trump is now doing?

If I had posted it making those points then you would have rejected them. But you can post it and blissfully ignore what it says? How in heaven's name does that work? Do you honestly think that you can link to umpteen pages of detailed information about the war on drugs by previous administrations and assume that no-one is going to read it all enabling you to say whatever you want without having read it yourself?

You are kidding me.

 

[Bradskii]

My guess is that you are wrong to assume stuff about me.

You obviously haven't read it because it doesn't say anything like what you claim it says. In fact, it says that what Trump is doing now was considered illegal by previous administrations.