Dear Pete Hegseth, I’m Grateful the Japanese Navy Spared My Grandfather’s Life

[FAITH-IN-HIM]

You are the one that accused Trump of attacking fishing boats. Where is the fishing gear? At least you could provide one example of any of the attacked boats that a reasonable person would possibly suspect that the vessel could have been a fishing boat. In fact, I bet you couldn't find a single example in which the vessel in question that couldn't possibly be used to smuggle drugs. Bombs were dropped on people suspected of setting up IEDs with far less evidence than what was used to blow up the boats.

President Trump and his administration are not taking action against fishing boats but boats that are carrying drugs. My question is, can we simply attack a ship transporting drugs without going through the legal process, such as prosecuting and punishing the perpetrators? Should we just strike them with missiles instead?

 

[Servus]

Yes, that's correct—more drugs enter the U.S. than any other industrialized country. But why? Is it because American consumers use more drugs, creating higher demand? Without demand for narcotics, dealers would go elsewhere. It's a matter of supply and demand economics. So, why do most drugs come to the U.S. rather than Europe or Canada?

Are you looking for any method that avoids stopping Narco drug smuggling? Like a broad socioeconomic program that could take years to become effective? The US is a huge nation that's right on Narco's doorstep. Which makes it a lot easier to set up receiving and distribution facilities.

 

[Oompa Loompa]

Let me ask two simple questions:
1) are you in favour of applying and protecting the rule of law, without ifs or buts and without exceptions?
2) Do you adhere to the principle that anybody is innocent until proven guilty?

1. The rule of law for narco terrorists should be applied and protected the same as they were applied and protected to ISIS. Which means that the military has authorization to use lethal force once the enemy is identified and confirmed as lawful military targets.

2. If they are going to be criminally charged, prosecuted, and tried, yes. But we are talking about lawful enemy combatants, not criminals being cried and prosecuted for a crime. I think that is the primary disconnect. You do not see them as enemy combatants because you do not consider the designating authority as legitimate. So you still think as though they are just mere criminals.

 

[BCP1928]

Considering how bad the Narco drug situation is in America, that method appears to not be affective enough.

In that case you had better not look into the Coast Guard's intersection rate out there. That would impose even more cognitive dissonance than you are suffering now. That, along with the fact that the drugs in the Venezualen boats were not destined for the US might be to much for you.

 

[FAITH-IN-HIM]

Are you looking for any method that avoids stopping Narco drug smuggling? Like a broad socioeconomic program that could take years to become effective? The US is a huge nation that's right on Narco's doorstep. Which makes it a lot easier to set up receiving and distribution facilities.

The United States has been waging a "war on drugs" since the 1970s. Efforts have included punishing both drug sellers and users, as well as covertly attempting to destroy sources of drugs in Latin America. So far, these strategies have not proven effective. It appears that the USA consumes more drugs than any other country.

Do Americans use illegal drugs more than other industrialized countries because of their proximity to certain borders? We hear that much fentanyl comes from Canada and China, but why don't Canadians use it themselves? And with China's population being three times larger than the U.S., why don't they face similar fentanyl issues?

 

[FAITH-IN-HIM]

1. The rule of law for narco terrorists should be applied and protected the same as they were applied and protected to ISIS. Which means that the military has authorization to use lethal force once the enemy is identified and confirmed as lawful military targets.

2. If they are going to be criminally charged, prosecuted, and tried, yes. But we are talking about lawful enemy combatants, not criminals being cried and prosecuted for a crime. I think that is the primary disconnect. You do not see them as enemy combatants because you do not consider the designating authority as legitimate. So you still think as though they are just mere criminals.

Has Congress declared individuals who brings narcotics to be enemy combatants? or is it something we just made up?

 

[BCP1928]

1. The rule of law for narco terrorists should be applied and protected the same as they were applied and protected to ISIS. Which means that the military has authorization to use lethal force once the enemy is identified and confirmed as lawful military targets.

Right, but once they are disarmed and out of the fight law prohibits them from being killed. Only a moral bankrupt would consider it the right thing to do.

2. If they are going to be criminally charged, prosecuted, and tried, yes. But we are talking about lawful enemy combatants, not criminals being cried and prosecuted for a crime. I think that is the primary disconnect. You do not see them as enemy combatants because you do not consider the designating authority as legitimate. So you still think as though they are just mere criminals.

Unlike Christian morality, the law of armed conflict prohibits the killing of helpless individuals whether they are terrorists or not,

 

[RocksInMyHead]

This is what a Caribbean fishing boat looks like:

View attachment 374199

That is what some Caribbean fishing boats look like. Others look like this:

or this:

or this:

 

[FAITH-IN-HIM]

Unlike Christian morality, the law of armed conflict prohibits the killing of helpless individuals whether they are terrorists or not,

Following 9/11, Congress granted the executive branch the authority to define who qualifies as an enemy combatant—primarily in relation to terrorism, based on specific guidelines. The President holds the power to label certain groups as enemy combatants, which, in my view, reflects an expansion of presidential authority. Moreover, since the attacks, Congress has also permitted the President to initiate military action without needing congressional approval.

Since that time, many members of Congress have attempted to reassert this power, but presidents from both parties have been reluctant to give it up. Currently, the enemy combatant designation applies only to terrorism cases; it does not extend to narcotics or other crimes. If a president wanted to include narcotics as enemy combatants, Congressional consent would be necessary to grant such authority. However, much time has passed since 2001. Today, it seems the current President or his supporters are less concerned about whether Congress approves these measures, and I doubt the current Supreme Court’s would object such action.

 

[Oompa Loompa]

Never let a good lie go to waste.

I think it is a lie to look at those images and say they are images of fishing boats. Do you agree?

 

[Oompa Loompa]

That is what some Caribbean fishing boats look like. Others look like this:

View attachment 374200

or this:

View attachment 374201

or this:

View attachment 374202

Yet they look nothing like the ones being blown up. Now show us a picture of one of the suspected drug boats with fishing gear.

 

[Oompa Loompa]

What are you guys, the feelings police? Liberals are required to allow war crimes because otherwise it might look like we have empathy fora group you do not like?

Well, it would be nice to show some empathy for all the lives who were destroyed by the poisons being delivered by these smugglers who have been rightfully designated as terrorists.

 

[Oompa Loompa]

In that case you had better not look into the Coast Guard's intersection rate out there. That would impose even more cognitive dissonance than you are suffering now. That, along with the fact that the drugs in the Venezualen boats were not destined for the US might be to much for you.

Does it matter where the drugs were designated to go. Like, "Sorry bro, we pulled you over because we thought you were going to bring the cocaine to the United States. You are free to go. Safe travels to Europe."

 

[Oompa Loompa]

The United States has been waging a "war on drugs" since the 1970s

We have also been on a Global War on Terrorism since 2001, and these drug smugglers have been designated as terrorists. So now they are no different than ISIS and should be treated as such.

 

[Oompa Loompa]

Right, but once they are disarmed and out of the fight law prohibits them from being killed.

Okay. When that happens, we can talk about it then.

Unlike Christian morality, the law of armed conflict prohibits the killing of helpless individuals whether they are terrorists or not,

Again, when that happens we can talk about it then.

 

[Belk]

Well, it would be nice to show some empathy for all the lives who were destroyed by the poisons being delivered by these smugglers who have been rightfully designated as terrorists.

By all means Oompa Loompa, point out how they have failed to express the appropriate level of empathy. Did they not fund enough drug rehabilitation programs? Did they fail to meet the quota for calling for drug law reform. Did their attempts to point out the correlation between poverty and drug use not reach enough people.

While we are at it how, other then killing people suspected of a crime, are conservatives showing their empathy?

 

[Aryeh Jay]

I think it is a lie to look at those images and say they are images of fishing boats. Do you agree?

I do agree, those are not fishing boats.

But they also aren't carrying drugs.

 

[Belk]

No, that only adresses any feigned moral outrage taking place. It would need to say "It adresses all of the feigned moral outrage [from group/person] taking place" for a pot and kettle. And even then it wouldn't be the same as being directed personally against the person I was replying to.

Looks the same from where I am sitting. Address your own log.

 

[ranunculus]

Let's just call it a Rorschach test. What do you see? A fishing boat, or something else? With all the talk about Trump blowing up "fishing boats," I am curious to see if we are actually looking at the same pictures. If not, I have yet to see any evidence of any fishing boat being destroyed by the Navy. Got any? Where is the rhetoric about fishing boats coming from?

Well, that answers the question. We are looking at the same pictures. I see what obviously appears to be a smuggling boat filled with drugs and you see a beautiful butterly. You say the evidence vanished. Do you not know about this thing called a "battle damage assessment?"

You seem to be under the misapprehension that any of this matters. It's like you didn't even read my post.

You're here defending either war crimes or murder. That's all that is happening here. And you're defending this because you've somehow latched onto the idea that there is a war on drugs going on and that justifies the US military doing double taps. You don't need to do this. There is no reason for you to do this.

You talk about x-number of dead Americans and "how many kids is this killing?". As if that is at all relevant. First of all it was a Colombian boat so in all likelihood if anything was being smuggled it's coke. This is not killing American kids. They don't have coke money. People on wall street maybe. And deleting a few boats from existence is doing absolutely nothing to impact the price of Don Jr's blow even one bit. And fentanyl doesn't come from Colombia. And 90% is smuggled into the US by white American citizens.

This narrative of a "war on drugs" or a "war on cartels" is nothing but rhetoric. Congress didn't declare war. You're not actually at war. It's a metaphor. It's not real.

You're not at war with drugs any more than you're at war with homelessness or obesity. Or does the fact that 300K Americans die of obesity warrant the unlawful killings of the CEOs of America's largest food producers? After all, their products are stuffed with ultra-processed harmful addictive ingredients, which kill hundreds of thousands of Americans on a yearly basis with type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and cancer.

These people in the boats, even if they are committing an illegal act, have rights. That's the issue here. I don't care if there were drugs on this particular boat. It was sitting dead in the water. There are laws and protocols to be followed when dealing with this. Don't pretend you're following a law and order ideology when you yadayada law and order.

No double taps, no extrajudicial killings. How is this difficult?

There are plenty of stories of u-boats sinking ships and the u-boat letting the survivors go. An anecdote I heard just last week of a US navy ship being sunk, the crew making it to the lifeboats in time after which the u-boat surfaced and the German captain gave the survivors some whiskey and a compass and pointed them to the nearest port.

As the burning ship sank lower in the water and the lifeboats and raft pulled away, the crew could see the submarine illuminated by flames, its deck gun now silent. "They didn't fire at the lifeboats," Semenov recalls. "In those days, everyone played by the rules."

A Compass Saves the Crew

A WWII sailor's memento recalls the harrowing ordeal when his ship, the SS Alcoa Guide, was struck by a German U-Boat

www.smithsonianmag.com

Even some Nazi captains are better than what you're defending here. Sincerely, I don't know why you are doing this. You can walk away from this.

 

[Oompa Loompa]

President Trump and his administration are not taking action against fishing boats but boats that are carrying drugs. My question is, can we simply attack a ship transporting drugs without going through the legal process, such as prosecuting and punishing the perpetrators? Should we just strike them with missiles instead?

During wartime, a combatant is lawfully subject to lethal force wherever the person is found – unless and until the individual offers to surrender. Therefore, only posisitive identification of an enemy target is required to use lethal force.