Trump dispenses with trials, orders military strike on alleged Venezuelan drug-trafficking boat

rambot · Saturday at 11:43 PM

rjs330 said:
Lol. Its always been our principle to destroy murdering narco terrorists who are killing Americans. So not sure what you are referring to.

More the bill of rights kinda stuff...maybe the constitution.

But yeah....nvm.

Nithavela · Sunday at 12:15 AM

rjs330 said:
Why, youve already made up your mind to defend rhe rights of narco terrorists who kill millions of Americans. Defend their right to exist.

Some people would argue that every human being has a right to exist and that removing that right should be consigned to either rigorous judicial processes or only done in emergencies where that course is the only option to remove an immediate threat to other lives.

rjs330 · Sunday at 12:56 AM

rambot said:
More the bill of rights kinda stuff...maybe the constitution.

But yeah....nvm.

The narco terrorists coming from Venezuala are not under the Constitution. Are Canadians? The French?

rjs330 · Sunday at 1:00 AM

Nithavela said:
Some people would argue that every human being has a right to exist and that removing that right should be consigned to either rigorous judicial processes or only done in emergencies where that course is the only option to remove an immediate threat to other lives.

Well thats where we disagree. Not every human has a right to exist. Drug cartel members delivering murderous narcots for example. Or Al Qaeda members, Hamas, ISIS, etc. Evil does not have a right to exist.

Nithavela · Sunday at 1:04 AM

rjs330 said:
Well thats where we disagree. Not every human has a right to exist. Drug cartel members delivering murderous narcots for example. Or Al Qaeda members, Hamas, ISIS, etc. Evil does not have a right to exist.

Personally I believe no human has the right to exist and the universe would be better if we all died out sooner rather than later.

DaisyDay · Sunday at 7:50 AM

rjs330 said:
It wasnt murder.

Cold blooded killing is murder. Rubio said that they could have intercepted the boat (heading to Trinidad or elsewhere in the Caribbean) but decided to kill them all instead.

Designating cartels as foreign terrorist organizations “has opened a Pandora’s Box for military use of force against them both on foreign soil and in international waters,” Wes Bryant, a former senior targeting adviser and policy analyst at the Pentagon, who was directly involved in counternarcotics activities against both the Taliban and ISIS in Afghanistan, told The Intercept. “If we head down the treacherous path of designating any group or individual person that commits a crime, or even an act of violence, as being part of a terrorist organization in order to justify the use of America’s warfighting capacity, we will find ourselves as a nation falling even further toward militarization and authoritarianism.”

(Ibid.)

rjs330 said:
How do you know guilt wasn't established?

Where is the evidence? Five days out and the WH has given nothing but claims.

rjs330 said:
Maybe people should stop defending narco terrorist cartels.

Stop falsely accusing people of defending the cartels when they are defending the rule of law. Why are you against upholding the rule of law?

But Congress hasn't authorized military force against cartels, and "as a matter of law," the Times said, Trump's terrorist designation for gangs and drug cartels only allows him to "sanction such groups, including by freezing their assets," not "authorize combat activity" against them. "Frankly, I can't see how this can be considered anything other than a nonjudicial killing outside the boundaries of domestic and international law," lawyer and former Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall told The Wall Street Journal. (source: theWeek.com)

rjs330 said:
In international waters you have a right to kill terrorists. Heck you've got that right to do it in US waters.

Not without evidence of actual terrorism. You cannot simply slap the label on someone to justify killing them in cold blood; the label alone does not make it legal.

rjs330 said:
You are absolutely correct. If we are doing that, we need to stop. I wouldnt agree with that at

We are doing that when we give money and guns in exchange for their product. Americans should stop buying the drugs which finance the cartels.

rjs330 said:
Why, youve already made up your mind to defend rhe rights of narco terrorists who kill millions of Americans. Defend their right to exist.

Now you're explicitly lying about me after I've requested that you stop telling that lie. As I have told you repeatedly throughout this thread: I am defending the rule of law against murder. I am for due process. We don't know who the people on that boat were. Even the WH claim that the boat was headed for Trinidad, not the US.

rjs330 said:
How do you know there was no.proof? Where you in the room?

It is an assumption based on the fact that none has been proffered. I know that I have not seen any proof, that no proof has been offered to the public in America or elsewhere of legal authority or justification.

Why has there still been no proof or even evidence given to the senators and congressmen on the relevant oversight committees? This is yet another egregious presidential overreach.

essentialsaltes · Sunday at 8:38 AM

rjs330 said:
The narco terrorists coming from Venezuala are not under the Constitution. Are Canadians? The French?

If it's a person, it has a Constitutional right to due process. No person can be deprived of this right.

iluvatar5150 · Sunday at 8:53 AM

essentialsaltes said:
If it's a person, it has a Constitutional right to due process. No person can be deprived of this right.

That’s only if they’re within the jurisdiction of the US.

rambot · Sunday at 10:03 AM

rjs330 said:
The narco terrorists coming from Venezuala are not under the Constitution. Are Canadians? The French?

So...principles can be turned on and off depending on if you like or dislike people?

essentialsaltes · Sunday at 10:26 AM

Nithavela · Sunday at 10:47 AM

essentialsaltes said:
View attachment 369668

Vague resistance noises aside, the republican party is still firmly supportive of anything Trump says and does, as well as the opposite if deemed neccessary by Trump.

RDKirk · Sunday at 1:19 PM

rambot said:
So...principles can be turned on and off depending on if you like or dislike people?

Effectively, yes.

The US can't enforce the Constitution over people in other countries.
That's what "international law" is for.
But understand as well that international law is nothing but agreements between nations.

rjs330 · Sunday at 1:36 PM

P

essentialsaltes said:
If it's a person, it has a Constitutional right to due process. No person can be deprived of this right.

Are you putting every person across this planet under the constitution then?

rjs330 · Sunday at 1:42 PM

rambot said:
So...principles can be turned on and off depending on if you like or dislike people?

Sure, many countries and people do that all the time. Because thats their principle. The principle that says they can turn off their principles whenever dealing with people they dont lije ir agree with.

In this case however, terrorists were killed in International waters. No principles were violated since evil men were on their way to help kill millions of Americans.

durangodawood · Sunday at 2:12 PM

rjs330 said:
.....In this case however, terrorists were killed in International waters. No principles were violated since evil men were on their way to help kill millions of Americans.

Alleged criminals. Not terrorists.

Pommer · Sunday at 10:27 PM

RDKirk said:
rjs330 said:

The narco terrorists coming from Venezuala are not under the Constitution. Are Canadians? The French?

Click to expand...

rambot said:

So...principles can be turned on and off depending on if you like or dislike people?

Click to expand...

Effectively, yes.

The US can't enforce the Constitution over people in other countries.

Wait, I thought the argument was that the Constitution covers any person, regardless of their nation-of-origin, and though citizens get a few more “perks”, most people are accorded the (most of the) same First, Fourth and Fifth Amendment protections.

(The government can’t just decide who’s an “enemy”, based upon the “enemies” desire to sell our citizens product that is fallen out of favor (or been illegal since Methuselah)).

Setting a policy that allows the government to commit piracy (or worse?), to get what we want, is the very definition of terrorism!
“Are we the baddies?”

Maybe?

Landon Caeli · Sunday at 11:00 PM

Pommer said:
Setting a policy that allows the government to commit piracy (or worse?), to get what we want, is the very definition of terrorism!
“Are we the baddies?”

Maybe?

No, it's not about getting "what we want"... It's *evil* to transport deadly narcotics, such as fentanyl.

...The United States is acting morally responsible with this. The 11 on board were immoral.

rambot · Sunday at 11:34 PM

rjs330 said:
In this case however, terrorists were killed in International waters. No principles were violated since evil men were on their way to help kill millions of Americans

Really? Proof that Americans were LITERALLY going to die from that delivery?
Of course not.

Maybe it would have just ended up powering a Don Jr and Friends bender weekend in Foet Lauderdale.

RDKirk · Sunday at 11:53 PM

Pommer said:
Wait, I thought the argument was that the Constitution covers any person, regardless of their nation-of-origin, and though citizens get a few more “perks”, most people are accorded the (most of the) same First, Fourth and Fifth Amendment protections.

Only if they're within US borders or are "US persons." The Constitution doesn't cover non-US persons outside US borders.

Pommer said:
(The government can’t just decide who’s an “enemy”, based upon the “enemies” desire to sell our citizens product that is fallen out of favor (or been illegal since Methuselah)).

Sure, the US government can, and has done so many times. It's called "war," and the US government gets to make up the reasons.

The question here is whether the President can do it in this instance all by himself. But the US government certainly can.

Pommer said:
Setting a policy that allows the government to commit piracy (or worse?), to get what we want, is the very definition of terrorism!
“Are we the baddies?”

Maybe?

That wouldn't be the definition of the US government. Call it...war.

Pommer · 2025-09-08T00:27:25-0500

Landon Caeli said:
No, it's not about getting "what we want"... It's *evil* to transport deadly narcotics, such as fentanyl.

...The United States is acting morally responsible with this. The 11 on board were immoral.

Framing it as “good v. evil” is twaddle.

Trump dispenses with trials, orders military strike on alleged Venezuelan drug-trafficking boat

Senior Member

you're in charge you can do it just get louis

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

you're in charge you can do it just get louis

I Did Nothing Wrong!! ~~Team Deep State

Fact-Based Lifeform

Well-Known Member

Senior Member

Fact-Based Lifeform

you're in charge you can do it just get louis

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

re Member

CoPacEtiC SkEpTic

I ♡ potato pancakes and applesauce

Senior Member

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner

CoPacEtiC SkEpTic

Similar threads