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

[BCP1928]

It's speculation and perception. A: they were Narco-terrorist drug smugglers. B: they were innocent fishermen.

Or, they were probably drug smugglers, which is good enough reason to stop the boat and arrest them. It's questionable whether that is a good enough reason to just blow them up. It certainly is no reason at all to kill the survivors.

Yes it's a matter of how intelligence tracked the operation. I'd say that's more likely than it being "hey look there's a boat, kill em!".

Yes, Naval Intelligence was aware that they were hauling Columbian cocaine to a larger ship in Suriname.

I think it's less likely that those involved were operating as unthinking psychopaths blowing up boats for kicks.

It's just giving them the benefit of the doubt based on available info. Innocent until proven guilty applies to the adminstraition and military as well. Seems folks condeming them didn't take that into consideration.

Whether Trump is competent or incompetent is subjective. Some say best president ever. Some say worst president ever. Others don't go to either extreme and see him as a good president in some ways and not so good in others, like any other president.

What you seem to be saying is that it is morally acceptable IFF it is legal. Does that work for gay marriage, too?

 

[durangodawood]

Yes, Congress used a AUMF declaration for Iraq instead of formally declaring war, but it was still authorised by Congress. But yeah, it's essentially to just avoid the scrutiny that comes with being officially at war with someone, as stupid as that sounds.

Yes and that weak "authorization" is still better than nothing.

Likewise, the President better get a specific authorization if we're going to do war on South American criminal organizations. Roiling it in to GWOT where the pres declares who the enemy du jour is at his sole discretion is the end of a critical constitutional limitation. Some people prefer that tho.

 

[Servus]

Yes and that weak "authorization" is still better than nothing.

Likewise, the President better get a specific authorization if we're going to do war on South American criminal organizations. Roiling it in to GWOT where the pres declares who the enemy du jour is at his sole discretion is the end of a critical constitutional limitation. Some people prefer that tho.

Some do indeed perfer swift action as opposed to a problem slowly grinding it's why though miles of bureaucracy and red tape.

 

[BCP1928]

Some do indeed perfer swift action as opposed to a problem slowly grinding it's why though miles of bureaucracy and red tape.

Yes, a Congressional resolution is just miles and miles of bureaucracy and red tape. After all, look how long it took Roosevelt to get a declaration of war out of Congress in 1941. It took Johnson even longer to get the Gulf of Tonkin resolution--three whole days!!!

 

[Oompa Loompa]

So Marines in L.A. can summarily kill them. And come back an hour later to finish off any survivors.

So you still are not reading what I posted. What part about what I said about jurisdiction did you not understand. So Marines in L.A. cannot summarily kill them because the terrorist is in the jurisdiction of law enforcement. That is why you see the FBI, not the U.S. Marines kicking down doors of known terrorists in the United States. Is there another strawman you want to hit?

 

[Yarddog]

No one has proven the administration and military involved are guilty of anything either.

Okay? Would you like to reread my question and try again? With emphasis on "after WW2."

Oh, it's a trick question. How many wars have been formally declared since WWII? I'll bet Congress declared them.

 

[Bradskii]

So Marines in L.A. cannot summarily kill them because the terrorist is in the jurisdiction of law enforcement.

Ah, I see. If the drug runners are just outside territorial waters then you want them blown up. Summarily executed. But if they're just inside then you don't want them killed. You want them arrested and given due process.

Why don't you just say that you want them all to be killed? Why not come clean and say that? Why do you spend so much time dancing around this? Show some conviction for heaven's sake. Use any excuse you want: they are terrorists. You are at war. They are intentionally killing US citizens. They are trying to destroy your society. Trump wants them all killed.

Who cares whether any excuse is valid? As long as they can be used then you can say anything you want. You can even convince yourself that you're right.

 

[Yarddog]

No one has proven the administration and military involved are guilty of anything either.

Well, we know that they have killed many people, including survivors, which is illegal. They were told by many military men and lawyers that hitting the boats may be illegal. Hopefully, we'll get a court ruling soon.

 

[BCP1928]

Well, we know that they have killed many people, including survivors, which is illegal. They were told by many military men and lawyers that hitting the boats may be illegal. Hopefully, we'll get a court ruling soon.

That's called (wait for it...) ***LAWFARE*** Because we know the President's actions were certainly legal and moral. We just want to stop him because we hate him.

 

[durangodawood]

If the

Some do indeed perfer swift action as opposed to a problem slowly grinding it's why though miles of bureaucracy and red tape.

If the US was actually attacked or under immanent threat, Congress would do it in a day.

Its these elective wars (the ones Trump fans were so dead set against until Trump changed his tune) that would and should take more scrutiny.

None of it is an excuse to bypass the Constitution tho.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

Actually they don't look alike.

As I said, they're not identical. Quibbling over the details is irrelevant - again, the point is that there is no consistent definition of what a "fishing boat" might look like in the Caribbean, so saying that something "doesn't look like a fishing boat" because it doesn't look like a random picture of a fishing boat that you found on the internet is a red herring.

The similarities between the two boats in my post are their size (roughly 20 ft) and their general layout (open boats with fairly low freeboard).

 

[Oompa Loompa]

Oh, it's a trick question. How many wars have been formally declared since WWII? I'll bet Congress declared them.

The answer is none. The last time congress executed their power to declare war was for WW2. So when you think about all the wars and conflicts the United States either started or got involved, it was not because Congress declared war. So the notion that we cannot be at war with drug cartels because "only congress can declare war" is nonsense.

 

[Oompa Loompa]

Ah, I see. If the drug runners are just outside territorial waters then you want them blown up.

Yep! As long as the drug runners are in international waters, it is open season.

 

[Yarddog]

That's called (wait for it...) ***LAWFARE*** Because we know the President's actions were certainly legal and moral.

We don't know that, "Yet." We don't even know that the boats were carrying illegal drugs.

We just want to stop him because we hate him.

You may hate him but I don't. I pray for Trump, regularly. I want him to find salvation.

 

[Yarddog]

The answer is none.

Yep, mine was a trick question, too.

The last time congress executed their power to declare war was for WW2.

Yes, now, the President has to get authorization to use military force.

So when you think about all the wars and conflicts the United States either started or got involved, it was not because Congress declared war. So the notion that we cannot be at war with drug cartels because "only congress can declare war" is nonsense.

We are not "at war" with drug cartels. Only Congress can designate that. Not nonsense, fact.
Trump is pushing his authority to new limits and this hasn't been decided if it is legal.

 

[Bradskii]

Yep! As long as the drug runners are in international waters, it is open season.

Well, it's quite a dismal abrogation of your self imposed duty in arguing for the extra judicial killing of drug runners in now suggesting that they must be granted all legal and morally accepted forms of due process should they cross an arbitrary line designating territorial waters.

What pathetic, liberal, bleeding-heart, left wing dross is this? Shame on any true red, white and blue blooded MAGA supporter who likewise supports and mollycoddles these terrorists.

As Trump said, you must kill them all. Make it known that drug dealers reaching 'a safe point' like some made up rule in a kids' game (nah, nah, I'm safe! Can't kill me now!) is something up with which you are not going to put!

Stand up and be counted! Nail those patriotic colours to that new White House mast and make the president proud!

The world will turn away in embarrasment, but don't you fret about that.

 

[Servus]

As I said, they're not identical. Quibbling over the details is irrelevant - again, the point is that there is no consistent definition of what a "fishing boat" might look like in the Caribbean, so saying that something "doesn't look like a fishing boat" because it doesn't look like a random picture of a fishing boat that you found on the internet is a red herring.

The similarities between the two boats in my post are their size (roughly 20 ft) and their general layout (open boats with fairly low freeboard).

I was being generous. They were absolutely nothing alike. It was like comparing a Toyota Yaris to a Ford F-150.

 

[Servus]

If the

If the US was actually attacked or under immanent threat, Congress would do it in a day.

Its these elective wars (the ones Trump fans were so dead set against until Trump changed his tune) that would and should take more scrutiny.

None of it is an excuse to bypass the Constitution tho.

This isn't that kind of war which goes on for years. It's a swift putting an end to a problem.

 

[Servus]

Well, we know that they have killed many people, including survivors, which is illegal. They were told by many military men and lawyers that hitting the boats may be illegal. Hopefully, we'll get a court ruling soon.

That's all hearsay, not proof.

 

[Oompa Loompa]

Yes, now, the President has to get authorization to use military force.

Under the War Powers Resolution of 1973, the President can introduce U.S. Armed Forces, including Marines, into hostilities or situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated for up to 60 days without congressional authorization.