Trump dispenses with trials, orders military strike on alleged Venezuelan drug-trafficking boat (Now up to 2, 3, 4...)

[RocksInMyHead]

For each one that went to court, 100 got shot out in the field without going to court.

Because they were enemy combatants in a declared war. Last I checked, Congress has not declared war on the drug cartels.

 

[BCP1928]

You’ll have to ask them. However, you need to examine how you are going about this. This issue is a highly political issue that transcends religion with one side very quick to accuse and get all indignant before all facts are in. I don’t come to a conclusion until I have the necessary facts but many here do.

The legality of it is the earthly measure of what is just. In Christianity there is more to just an earthly measure but also heavenly as well. We believe that only God knows what is in someone’s heart and can fully objectively judge the person. Personally I can make “my” mind of someone’s guilt by the evidence presented but I can never fully know the person’s heart or motivation.

What I was asking for initially was what the Christian motivation could be for judging the killing of those two men a righteous act. You get all uppity when I bring Christanity into it, but even atheists who think interdicting those boats by just blowing them up is OK, draw the line at circling around to kill the survivors in the water. The only people who I have talked to about it who think such an action was righteous have been Christians.

 

[Hentenza]

What I was asking for initially was what the Christian motivation could be for judging the killing of those two men a righteous act.

But that is the point. There is no Christian motivation here only personal. This is not a collective group’s opinion but individual personal opinion.

You get all uppity when I bring Christanity into it, but even atheists who think interdicting those boats by just blowing them up is OK, draw the line at circling around to kill the survivors in the water.

I don’t get uppity but I do think that you are confusing personal opinion of a few with those of all Christians. You do know that is a fallacy right?

The only people who I have talked to about it who think such an action was righteousl have been Christians.

Then you need to talk to quite a few more to make such a sweeping determination. Your “survey” is hardly conclusive.

 

[Servus]

No, you didn't. Because this:

was not the argument.

Go ahead and explain what the argument was then.

 

[Servus]

Because they were enemy combatants in a declared war. Last I checked, Congress has not declared war on the drug cartels.

The war on dugs began in 1971.

 

[RDKirk]

I've been listening to some US national security lawyers on this topic. What's been interesting is the differences between the military lawyers and the intelligence community lawyers.

The former have universally been of the opinion that the strikes are illegal and most have condemned them.

The most commonly cited legal objections are that there's been no Congressional approval, that drug smuggling is a quintessential criminal activity not a military one, that there are reasonable and readily available alternatives to lethal strikes and that the classification of these groups as 'narcoterrorist' organisations is legally dubious (at best).

The intelligence community lawyers have been much more circumspect and seems to be more split about the legality and the necessity. S

ome argue that 'something' needed to be done and this 'sends a message' and while the strikes are likely illegal that misses the point and the law needs to catch up. Others point out that basic thresholds like 'response to armed attack' or 'acting in self-defense' - which are present in both US and international law - are absent and that without a Congressional Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) the whole thing here is illegal (because drug smuggling clearly doesn't even come close to the established legal definitions of terrorism under the US code).

A former IC community lawyer pointed out that if the current US position is found legal then a country like Venezuela could designate Lockheed Martin, RTX and Boeing as 'terrorist organisations' and proceed to legally blow up passenger jets with their employees on board.

I'm arguing from the perspective of an ordinary troop on the front line. What will that person be held accountable for by a court-martial?

The discussion about whether ordering strikes falls under a Congressional approval or not is 'way above the ordinary troops heads and will not affect them. What they will be accountable for is the situation in front of them when they pull their triggers. Granted, my argument is more for the "Kelly" thread.

 

[BCP1928]

But that is the point. There is no Christian motivation here only personal. This is not a collective group’s opinion but individual personal opinion.

Which they offered as Christians.

I don’t get uppity but I do think that you are confusing personal opinion of a few with those of all Christians. You do know that is a fallacy right?

No, I am not. I am only talking about those Christians who support the killing of those two men as a moral act.

Then you need to talk to quite a few more to make such a sweeping determination. Your “survey” is hardly conclusive.

It includes all of those Christians I have spoken to who support the killing of those two men as a moral act. That group includes you. Right now I am talking to you and want to know how you as a Christian support the killing of those two men as a moral act.

 

[Servus]

I going to need a reference for that, I think something on the order of 8 million germans were members of the nazi party. The population of Germany at the time was much smaller than 800 million (it still is). From my understanding most got off scot-free (which was a problem in and of itself), they didn't get executed at least.

By that reasoning it seems any time the US, dropped bombs, fired guns from the air or launched artillery, it could be called execution. With dropping two atomic bombs was the greatest mass execution of them all. Or is it just now being called execution because it's Trump doing it? I think it's most likely because Trump is doing it, and certain people want to have him put on trial as a war criminal or at least impeach him again.

 

[Hans Blaster]

So how do they get Moros into a US prison. Will that stop the drug trade.

I don't know who that is.

Not saying its right but it seems just a few boats blown out of the water has just about stopped the trade overnight.

Well... I was discussing the legality and morality of it, so ... I'm not interested in your "ends justify the means" "morality".

The same thing happened with Hamas. The US bombed Iranian nuclear bunkers, take out Hama leaders and then threaten Hamas to be wiped off the face of the earth. Hamas was then negociation a peace deal to let the remaining hostages go. No other method achieved such an outcome.

Sometimes evil people don't care and are not open to negociations and doing the right thing. So what do you do then.

I didn't say anything about negotiations. I was talking about criminal interdiction of criminal activity.

 

[BCP1928]

By that reasoning it seems any time the US, dropped bombs, fired guns from the air or launched artillery, it could be called execution.

Only if we moved in afterwards and executed the disarmed and helpless survivors.

With dropping two atomic bombs was the greatest mass execution of them all. Or is it just now being called execution because it's Trump doing it? I think it's most likely because Trump is doing it, and certain people want to have him put on trial as a war criminal or at least impeach him again.

Only if he was shown to be the one who ordered it. The easy way out for him would be to admit it was wrong and let an unbiased investigation proceed. But he would have to admit it was wrong. I am more concerned with Christians who don't think it was wrong, or who only think it was wrong because it was illegal.

 

[Servus]

Which they offered as Christians.

No, I am not. I am only talking about those Christians who support the killing of those two men as a moral act.

It includes all of those Christians I have spoken to who support the killing of those two men as a moral act. That group includes you. Right now I am talking to you and want to know how you as a Christian support the killing of those two men as a moral act.

That's because you don't understand the difference between killing and murder. And just because certain people are claiming it's immoral murder doesn't make it so. The Christians you're referring to obviously do not believe those claims. And it's not unchristian to not believe every claim that's made.

So even though you're trying over and over and over and over again to disparage Christians for not accepting claims of murder and immorality having taken place being made by enemies of the administration, it doesn't wash. But my guess is you'll most likely you'll keep going at it ad nauseum.

 

[Stopped_lurking]

By that reasoning it seems any time the US, dropped bombs, fired guns from the air or launched artillery, it could be called execution. With dropping two atomic bombs was the greatest mass execution of them all. Or is it just now being called execution because it's Trump doing it? I think it's most likely because Trump is doing it, and certain people want to have him put on trial as a war criminal or at least impeach him again.

What? You made a specific statement about nazis, are you now talking about being at war? Not all nazis at the Nuremburg trials were soldiers. Venezuela is not at war with the US, nor is the people on the boats soldiers/sailors? What are you talking about?

 

[wing2000]

The war on dugs began in 1971.

Rhetoric.

No actual war begain in 1971.
Nor has the US military ever been used to engage drug runners as enemy combatants.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Rhetoric.

No actual war begain in 1971.
Nor has the US military ever been used to engage drug runners as enemy combatants.

I was gonna say, the War on Poverty began in 1964, but we're not allowed to drop bombs on homeless encampments, despite what Stephen Miller wants.

 

[Servus]

What? You made a specific statement about nazis, are you now talking about being at war? Not all nazis at the Nuremburg trials were soldiers. Venezuela is not at war with the US, nor is the people on the boats soldiers/sailors? What are you talking about?

Any mention I make about Nazis is in response to Nazis having been bought up by someone else. Which basically was 'even Nazis got a court trial". Personally I think that was a pretty bad analogy and I've been pointing out why. The US war against drugs has been going on since 1971. The US is at war with drug cartels that happen to operate from Venezuela.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I don't know and why does it matter. All I know is that theres an aweful lot of deaths.

This is what was mentioned. That theres enough drugs on each boat to kill 20,000 people. That may not happen in one year as not every one will overdose and die.

Its averaged out over a generation where there was around a million deaths. By why does it matter quibbling about numbers. Its bad. Like they said this is more deaths than all the major wars of the 20th century.

Why are not people protesting and shutting down Universities and streets over 1,000s of people being killed by the flooding of drugs from a neighbouring nation.

If all the protests are about living together in peace then if my neighbour or a house down the street was flooding the town or city with drugs. I think most people would be upset and want the drug suppliers stopped.

That's not how the law works Steve.

1. We don't know what was actually on the boats. We have no chain of evidence, no warrants, nothing.
2. Those "enough to kill X people" numbers are nonsense. The requires translating the whole load in to minimal lethal overdoes. That's not how drug users use drug. With the exception of the suicidal, drug users take the amount that will satisfy their needs/desire as best they can. (And the suicidal have easier paths to obtaining a lethal dose of coke.)
3. This is one boat load (perhaps, not even that), not 50 years of smuggled coke. No one is liable for the substances transported by *other people* or their consequences.
4. Drug smuggling is not a capital crime in the US.

 

[Belk]

So how do they get Moros into a US prison. Will that stop the drug trade.

Not saying its right but it seems just a few boats blown out of the water has just about stopped the trade overnight.

The same thing happened with Hamas. The US bombed Iranian nuclear bunkers, take out Hama leaders and then threaten Hamas to be wiped off the face of the earth. Hamas was then negociation a peace deal to let the remaining hostages go. No other method achieved such an outcome.

Sometimes evil people don't care and are not open to negociations and doing the right thing. So what do you do then.

I'm sorry, you think the drug trade has stopped? You think blowing up a few boats has stopped a $100 Billion dollar industry?

 

[Servus]

Rhetoric.

No actual war begain in 1971.
Nor has the US military ever been used to engage drug runners as enemy combatants.

Then it's probably high time it started considering how huge the drug epidemic has became and how many people have died from it.

If they were smuggling in anthrax that's been killing hundreds of Americans, would this stance against taking military action still stand?

How big does the epidemic have to get and how many more people have to die, before certain people agree that extreme measures need to be taken?

 

[BCP1928]

That's because you don't understand the difference between killing and murder. And just because certain people are claiming it's immoral murder doesn't make it so. The Christians you're referring to obviously do not believe those claims. And it's not unchristian to not believe every claim that's made.

OK, that's fine, I agree. But it is a fact, admitted by all, that US forces killed survivors in the water after attacking their boat.

So even though you're trying over and over and over and over again to disparage Christians for not accepting claims of murder and immorality having taken place being made by enemies of the administration, it doesn't wash. But my guess is you'll most likely you'll keep going at it ad nauseum.

Of course I will, because I believe that killing those survivors in the water was immoral and I can concieve of no moral justification for it, whether it was "legal" or not. When a Christian tells me it was morally justified I want to know why he thinks so.

 

[Stopped_lurking]

Any mention I make about Nazis is in response to Nazis having been bought up by someone else. Which basically was 'even Nazis got a court trial". Personally I think that was a pretty bad analogy and I've been pointing out why. The US war against drugs has been going on since 1971. The US is at war with drug cartels that happen to operate from Venezuela.

But nazis got a trial, they didn't get executed. So what position are you arguing? Soldiers got killed, as an effect of war but not because they were nazis. Shooting at german sailors in the sea was seen as bad even then. I was in the swedish navy for a short stint, no one would say that shooting at those shipwrecked is acceptable. I refuse to believe it is seen as acceptable to american sailors.