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

[RocksInMyHead]

Go ahead and explain what the argument was then.

I was addressing the justification for killing people, not what actions should be taken.

The war on dugs began in 1971.

Calling something a war does not make it one. Personally, I think that using that language to characterize US drug enforcement operations was a mistake.

 

[wing2000]

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?

Sure, let's address effective ways to reduce the supply and demand for illegal drugs. Blowing up fishing boats over a thousand miles away from our sures isn't going to cut it.

 

[BCP1928]

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

How do you know we don't?

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

I certainly hope so. Killing those two survivors was unacceptable no matter what their boat was alleged to contain.

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?

Effective measures would be better.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

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?

How about we start by treating drug addiction?

Where are this administration’s efforts on that front? Without a multilayered approach to the problem, it just seems like they’re only interested in killing certain people.

 

[essentialsaltes]

How about we start by treating drug addiction?

Where are this administration’s efforts on that front?

DOGEd

Trump team revokes $11 billion in funding for addiction, mental health care​

Drug overdoses linked to fentanyl and other substances have declined sharply in recent years, thanks in part to a surge in funding for addiction treatment during the Biden administration. But street drugs still kill more than 84,000 people in the U.S. every year, according to the latest data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

President Donald Trump has made fentanyl smuggling a top concern during the opening weeks of his administration, extending an emergency declaration linked to the powerful street opioid.

But his team has also rapidly slashed the number of federal researchers focused on addiction and Trump pardoned a tech mogul convicted of building a "dark web" platform used to traffic illicit drugs.

The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration is also being merged into a new organization, called the Administration for a Healthy America (AHA), as part of a restructuring of HHS that's expected to eliminate 20,000 federal employees.

 

[Hentenza]

Which they offered as Christians.

Do they represent all Christians?

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

In some of your earlier post you did indeed accused Christians in general which is why I replied to you the you paint with a very wide brush.

It includes all of those Christians I have spoken to who support the killing of those two men as a moral act.

There are 2.6 billion Christians in the world and you talked to how many? Five? Ten? Twenty?

That group includes you.

Yep. And I told you how I felt.

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.

I don’t support killing. I told you that the 6th commandment is foundational of Christianity so I’m not sure what you are after here.

 

[BCP1928]

Do they represent all Christians?

No, and neither do you

In some of your earlier post you did indeed accused Christians in general which is why I replied to you the you paint with a very wide brush.

And I explained that I did not. Sorry for the confusion.

There are 2.6 billion Christians in the world and you talked to how many? Five? Ten? Twenty?

About that, and none of them could answer my question.

Yep. And I told you how I felt.

I don’t support killing. I told you that the 6th commandment is foundational of Christianity so I’m not sure what you are after here.

So how do you justify killing the survivors of the boat attack? You suggested that it was immoral only if it was illegal, but that argument would need some fleshing out, especially as it has become clear even to the Trump administration that, whoever gave the order, it was illegal.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

DOGEd

Trump team revokes $11 billion in funding for addiction, mental health care​

Drug overdoses linked to fentanyl and other substances have declined sharply in recent years, thanks in part to a surge in funding for addiction treatment during the Biden administration. But street drugs still kill more than 84,000 people in the U.S. every year, according to the latest data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

President Donald Trump has made fentanyl smuggling a top concern during the opening weeks of his administration, extending an emergency declaration linked to the powerful street opioid.

But his team has also rapidly slashed the number of federal researchers focused on addiction and Trump pardoned a tech mogul convicted of building a "dark web" platform used to traffic illicit drugs.

The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration is also being merged into a new organization, called the Administration for a Healthy America (AHA), as part of a restructuring of HHS that's expected to eliminate 20,000 federal employees.

AHA, of course.

 

[Hentenza]

So how do you justify killing the survivors of the boat attack? You suggested that it was immoral only if it was illegal, but that argument would need some fleshing out, especially as it has become clear even to the Trump administration that, whoever gave the order, it was illegal.

Can you point to the post where I justified the killing of the two drug runners?

My brother, I have been explicit that I don’t support killing. There is nothing more for me to say.

 

[Perpetual Student]

I see "the leftists" call for the application of the rule of law.
This has been even pointed out previously.
But let me ask you directly: are you in favour of applying and protecting the rule of law, without ifs or buts and without exceptions?
Do you equate the advocatiing for the rule of law is loving criminals?

@Servus :
I have asked the questions above at least two times, yet haven't had an answer.
1) Are you in favour of applying and protecting the rule of law, without ifs or buts and without exceptions?
2) Do you equate the advocating for the rule of law is loving criminals?
and I add a third one:
3) Do you adhere to the principle that everybody is innocent until proven guilty?

 

[Landon Caeli]

Did he say to go after "narco-terrorists" where they live? Wait a second... with an international "strike force"..?

Isn't that exactly what Trump is doing?

 

[Ophiolite]

Sure, let's address effective ways to reduce the supply and demand for illegal drugs. Blowing up fishing boats over a thousand miles away from our sures isn't going to cut it.

Unfortunately such action appeals to certain people, who see it as forceful, direct, appropriate and effective. (While it is the first two, it is certainly not the last two.) By what I am confident is the purest of coincidences such people also tend to be MAGA supporters. Who would have thought?

Targets (not for bullets, but for relevant action) should be , as you imply, the drug lords at one end of the chain and the users at the other end.

 

[Landon Caeli]

Unfortunately such action appeals to certain people, who see it as forceful, direct, appropriate and effective. (While it is the first two, it is certainly not the last two.) By what I am confident is the purest of coincidences such people also tend to be MAGA supporters.

Such people were also the mainstream democratic party in recent times. Until the party changed drastically immediately after Trump became president.

 

[wing2000]

Such people were also the mainstream democratic party in recent times. Until the party changed drastically immediately after Trump became president.

Can you name any democrat or republican leader (prior to 2015) who called for the direct use of military force to go after drug traffickers? Admiteddly, my memory might be fuzzy, but I can't think of any. Certainly, no president in my lifetime has ever called for using our military in this manner.

 

[Landon Caeli]

Can you name any democrat or republican leader (prior to 2015) who called for the direct use of military force to go after drug traffickers? Admiteddly, my memory might be fuzzy, but I can't think of any. Certainly, no president in my lifetime has ever called for using our military in this manner.

Watch the video, it's only a minute and 45 seconds.

He calls for an "international strike force" to go after the "narco-terrorists where they live".

 

[essentialsaltes]

Rep. Jim Himes, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, said, “What I saw in that room was one of the most troubling things I’ve seen in my time in public service.”

“You have two individuals in clear distress without any means of locomotion, with a destroyed vessel, who are killed by the United States,” the Connecticut lawmaker said.

He later said that “the admiral confirmed that there had not been a 'kill them all' order, and that there was not an order to grant no quarter.”

In a joint statement, Himes and the House Armed Services Committee's ranking member, Adam Smith, D-Wash., said, “we saw or heard nothing today to convince us that the decision to strike the vessel a second time was justified.”

chairman [Tom Cotton] said that in the video, he saw two survivors “trying to flip a boat” and “load it with drugs” before they were killed.

Sen. Chris Coons ... added that he and Cotton emerged from the briefing with “different understandings” of what they saw.

 

[wing2000]

Watch the video, it's only a minute and 45 seconds.

He calls for an "international strike force" to go after the "narco-terrorists where they live".

"International Strike Force" could be the DEA or Coast Guard. He didn't say anything about the U.S. military.

 

[Landon Caeli]

"International Strike Force" could be the DEA or Coast Guard. He didn't say anything about the U.S. military.

Yeah, maybe he meant to go arrest them, in their own country, and bring them back to the US for trials.

...But more likely, he meant to go kill them.

 

[Gene2memE]

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 language is US v Calley is both stark and clear:

"the obedience of a soldier is not the obedience of an automaton. A soldier is a reasoning agent, obliged to respond, not as a machine, but as a person. The law takes these factors into account in assessing criminal responsibility for acts done in compliance with illegal orders. ​

​

The acts of a subordinate done in compliance with an unlawful order given him by his superior are excused and impose no criminal liability upon him unless the superior’s order is one which a man of ordinary sense and understanding would, under the circumstances, know to be unlawful, or if the order in question is actually known to the accused to be unlawful."​

​

However, in this administration and political climate? With this SecDef and President? Who have pushed out generals and admirals for questioning the legality of orders or asking clarifying questions?

I'd say that anyone who refuses any order, even a clearly illegal one, better hope their JAG lawyer is very good and happens to have friends who are high up in the chain of command. Or happens to hold a lot of crypto.

 

[RDKirk]

The language is US v Calley is both stark and clear:

"the obedience of a soldier is not the obedience of an automaton. A soldier is a reasoning agent, obliged to respond, not as a machine, but as a person. The law takes these factors into account in assessing criminal responsibility for acts done in compliance with illegal orders. ​

​

The acts of a subordinate done in compliance with an unlawful order given him by his superior are excused and impose no criminal liability upon him unless the superior’s order is one which a man of ordinary sense and understanding would, under the circumstances, know to be unlawful, or if the order in question is actually known to the accused to be unlawful."​

​

However, in this administration and political climate? With this SecDef and President? Who have pushed out generals and admirals for questioning the legality of orders or asking clarifying questions?

I'd say that anyone who refuses any order, even a clearly illegal one, better hope their JAG lawyer is very good and happens to have friends who are high up in the chain of command. Or happens to hold a lot of crypto.

I'm not exactly sure what point you're making with regard to my post.

But the men in uniform are operating under the Law of Armed Conflict which specifies what is illegal.

From my own investigation and military intelligence practice, I'd brief that those speedboats are, indeed, in use by drug operatives. The Administration claims that current Congressional armed force authorizations gives them authority to target these vessels, and Congress--as a body--has not disputed that. Congress has not passed any resolutions against it. The matter is being contested in court. When it reaches the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court will not rule on it because the Supreme Court's long-standing precedent is not to get involved with military operations. They leave that to Congress.

Military law speaks in terms of illegal orders being "manifestly illegal" or "patently illegal." If it takes a court to sort out whether an order is illegal, then it is not "manifestly" or "patently" so.

The specific question of whether the Administration is attacking these speedboats illegally is not for anyone in uniform to answer.

That question is for Congress to answer.

But the military is accountable for how they are attacked. They must be attacked within the legal framework of the Law of Armed Conflict that every military member has been taught.