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

essentialsaltes said:

Although some in the Trump Administration have tried to assert this, this is not credible.

Click to expand...

Why

RocksInMyHead said:

1100 miles as the crow flies. 1300+ miles if you take an actually physically possible route Sure, that's not too far

View attachment 374010

Click to expand...

If that's too far to ship stuff we're all in a lot of trouble.

Servus said:

If that's too far to ship stuff we're all in a lot of trouble.

Click to expand...

Speedboats are not the standard transoceanic shipping vessel.

The scariest aspect of the whole situation, is that wildlife is becoming affected. A recent study showed that 92% of sharks, near the waters of Brasil have tested positive for recent cocaine use.

First report on cocaine and benzoylecgonine detection in sharks - ScienceDirect https://share.google/1XscrXO1VDXOi99k2



"This is the first report on COC and BE concentrations in free-living sharks. It is noteworthy that all analyzed Brazilian Sharpnose sharks were exposed to cocaine during their lifetimes, as COC was detected in all muscle and liver samples. Both COC and BE concentrations in sharks exceeded levels reported in the literature for fish and other aquatic organisms by up to two orders of magnitude."

RDKirk said:

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.

Click to expand...

I don't believe this is a situation that falls under the Law of Armed Conflict though.

The claim that these are "narcoterrorists" is a patently a fiction. Drug smuggling plainly fails to meet the definitions of terrorism established under US and international law.

These are civilians being murdered. Yes, they're conducting illegal activities (transporting drugs across international borders). But that's a civil/criminal matter, not a military/defense matter.

This is just extraterritorial and extrajudicial murder.

essentialsaltes said:

We have not been offered any evidence to justify a conclusion that we "know" there were drugs on the boats. It was stated, but we do not know this.

Click to expand...

It was the same with the Iranian nuclear facilities, the American people were not provided with classified evidence. This is the way military operations are typically conducted whether under Democrat or Republican presidents. The only reason this is being discussed is because of yet another anti-Trump hoax, this time a Washington Post hoax that Trump had ordered to kill everybody. I think it is time we consider whether NY Times or Washington Post articles should still be allowed in the news threads.

Gene2memE said:

I don't believe this is a situation that falls under the Law of Armed Conflict though.

Click to expand...

ALL situations involving US military forces in armed hostile activity falls under the LOAC. These people would be classified as "Unprivileged Belligerents."

Unprivileged belligerents include members of organized armed groups and civilians directly participating in hostilities (see 5.4.1.1). Members of organized armed groups are subject to attack at any time during the armed conflict unless they are hors de combat. Unprivileged belligerents placed hors de combat are not considered POWs, but must be treated humanely. Civilians directly participating in hostilities forfeit the protections from attack afforded to civilians under the law of armed conflict and may be attacked while they are taking a direct part in hostilities. If captured, they are not considered POWs and may be tried and punished under domestic law.

Click to expand...

Shipwrecked persons include those in peril at sea or in other waters as a result of the sinking, grounding, or other damage to a vessel in which they are embarked, or of the downing or distress of an aircraft. It is immaterial whether the peril was the result of enemy action or nonmilitary causes. Following each naval engagement at sea, the belligerents are obligated to take all
possible measures, consistent with the security of their forces, to search for and rescue the shipwrecked. The status of persons detained—combatant, unprivileged belligerent, noncombatant, or civilian—does not change as a result of becoming incapacitated by wounds, sickness, shipwreck, or surrender. The decision to continue detention of persons hors de combat and the status of such detainees will be determined by their prior
classification.

https://stjececmsdusgva001.blob.core.usgovcloudapi.net/public/documents/NWP_1-14M.pdf

Click to expand...

stevevw said:

I actually said the boats have just about stopped. That particular method of smuggling the drugs has almost be completely stopped. Based on the fact that the warnings were given and then the action was taken and the warning that any further boats will also be targeted.

That changes the ball game. Now the Narcos have to access the risk. Before there was no risk and now there is. The risk of being blown out of the water, being killed and losing all their drugs. Its a pretty big factor that is now being forced onto the narcos which has changed the game.

Click to expand...

Oh. I had not heard that. What is your source the boats have all but stopped?

BCP1928 said:

And here we have another person who thinks killing those two men in the water after their boat had been sunk was a righteous act. It must be just a coincidence that you happen to be a Christian as well.

Click to expand...

Your conflating a bunch of things just to attack Christians or people who are posing alternative views. Now where have I heard this before I wonder lol.

Show me where I said that anything out of this situation is good. In fact I clearly stated that no matter how you look at this situation its all no good. That this is an ethical dilemma between two hard ethical situations.

I also pointed out that the conflation of assuming a moral position on what actually happened based on legacy media is unjustified. But you don't seem to get this and you keep making logical fallacies in order to put the blame all on Christians or some moralising of your personal views and beliefs being projected into this situation.

RocksInMyHead said:

Speedboats are not the standard transoceanic shipping vessel.

Click to expand...

Do you know the process involved in transporting drugs in the Caribbean or are you just spitballing?

Belk said:

Oh. I had not heard that. What is your source the boats have all but stopped?

Click to expand...

From the same intelligence that informed them that the boat was smuggling drugs. This is not just an overnight impulsive action. This is part of an ongoing intelligence operation. In fact the Biden administration knew all this.

But even logic tells you this has had an effect in slowing down the trade. If you threaten someone with consequences of lethal action on their operation.

It is completely unreal to say there will be no effect. The very principle of harsh consequences for defying the law is a deterrent. Its been part of the wests basic philosophy.

Its also inconsistent. If we are going to start strutinising about data as to what is moral then why has not these same people been morally outraged at the silence of allowing a million people dies from drugs in a generation. More than all major wars of the 20th century.

Why have not they acted on the clear data that shows drugs are killing 1,000s of people everyday. Why has not anyone questions the policies that have actually caused increases in drugs, crime and addiction.

But as soon as Trump takes action people start complaining about morals. Where were the morals for the last generation of people who were needlessly killed and all the devastation and damage done to society.

Like I said neither side has the moral justification to start moralising. What Trumps actions have exposed into the light of reality is how the past actions have not worked. Whatever the moral basis it has not worked and made things worse.

So this has highlighted a moral dilemma for people, for the future direction of how we deal with these issues. I think we have lost our way and become too soft. Perhaps Trump is going too much the other way. But this is the moral dilemma I think not just the US but the western world faces.

This is how big and serious these recent actions and approaches represent in the way we structure society including ethical. Which includes the whole idea of law and punishment and consequences ect in how we deal with these issues.

stevevw said:

We do know and this was stated. The intelligence clearly identified the boats, what was oin them and even who was on the boats. Do you really think in this day and age the US is taking blind pot shots at unidentified boats and targets.

Click to expand...

Do we? (I'm talking about you, me, and the other posters, not the US govt.) I recall claims months ago that they were smuggling fentanyl. That is virtually impossible. Fentanyl doesn't come from northern South America, it comes from *Mexico*. Cocaine (which is the term we've been using for the last few days of posts), *is* from the region. The problem is that the leadership of the US agencies involved are political appointees and keep demonstrating that they are not credible.

stevevw said:

This is a fake news narrative to undermine the the authorities and military for that matter. People hate TRump so much that they are willing to also target good people and create an undermining narrative of their integrity.

Click to expand...

Hardly. As I said there is no chain of evidence provided to a court. No warrant. Nothing. Just some non-disclosed intel and a drone strike.

stevevw said:

I find it interesting that some are going out of their way to try and make out that boat loads of drugs is not so bad. Does it really matter. We know a boat load but also in the case of the overall trade (boat loads) of drugs including one of the most lethal drugs in modern times is not going to kill and do a lot of harm.

Click to expand...

Did I say that? (No.) I explained that you can't compute "number of people it could kill" because that isn't how people use cocaine. We aren't talking about some sort of poison to be added to the food or water supply like some Batman villain. Not at all. We are talking about people who ultimately purchase doses for their own pleasure or relief of the addition-related suffering. The US consumes a few hundred TONS of cocaine each year. These boats carried a few hundred kilos to a few tons each. Even if all of the 20,000 drug deaths in the US were from cocaine, these boats would represent a few hundred OD deaths each. That, of course is an over estimate for several reasons: given the route, there is a good chance this coke was going to Europe. (2) the number I quoted for usage is purchases by users, not amount smuggled out of S. America. Drug trafficking is notoriously leaky with losses at every step: street dealers, distributors, border smugglers, transport, etc.. (3, and most important) cocaine is not the principle cause of overdose deaths. There is a big jump in cocaine deaths, but that is for cocaine laced with fentanyl. Without the fentanyl in it there would be much fewer deaths.

stevevw said:

This is many boats and other methods of transport. Altogether it is a massive assault on the US.

Click to expand...

It is not an "assualt". It is drug smuggling. They do it to make money selling it to addicts and recreational drug users.

stevevw said:

The narcos who are shippin g poison to the US have been deemed terrorist.

Click to expand...

Which is a ridiculous notion. They are contraband smugglers, not terrorists.

stevevw said:

Instead of using bombs and guns they are using poison and poisoning 1,000s of US citizens.

Click to expand...

That does not make extrajudicial killings the appropriate response to a law enforcement problem.

stevevw said:

You don't know the intelligence as to what is going on so you should not be making unsupported claims.

Click to expand...

They won't give us the info.

Hans Blaster said:

I don't know who that is.

Click to expand...

Nicolás Maduro Moros Venezuelas president.

Hans Blaster said:

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

Click to expand...

Why, even though that is not my position as you wrongly assume.

But what is the basis that you can justify your morality that rejects other peoples morality when you dismiss it ie (interested in your "ends justify the means" "morality").

You may not be interested in other pooples moral position but you can't just reject it as wrong. No more than anyone can reject your view and belief. Because its all a belief and subjective position.

If you think you can win this by authority of consensus then this does not work either.

Hans Blaster said:

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

Click to expand...

And what was the criminal activity. Are you basing this on unsupported assumptions. Trying to ccreate a narrative that is accusing someone of moral wrong when there is not justification.

Gene2memE said:

I don't believe this is a situation that falls under the Law of Armed Conflict though.

The claim that these are "narcoterrorists" is a patently a fiction. Drug smuggling plainly fails to meet the definitions of terrorism established under US and international law.

These are civilians being murdered. Yes, they're conducting illegal activities (transporting drugs across international borders). But that's a civil/criminal matter, not a military/defense matter.

This is just extraterritorial and extrajudicial murder.

Click to expand...

So foreign countries bringing in poison that's killed hundreds of Americans should only be addressed as a civil/criminal matter. Once again all the concern being show is for those in foreign countries invading the US, and no concern at all for American citizens.

RDKirk said:

Senator Cotton said that the two survivors were attempting to right the boat and salvage the cargo. The others who have saw the same film report a different view. Nobody else has echoed Cotton's opinion. So, I'll have to see it myself.

Click to expand...

I would have to agree about seeing the footage. As for Mr. Cotton, he apparently just wants to see the military shoot defenseless people as he said here 5 years ago about protestors:

stevevw said:

From the same intelligence that informed them that the boat was smuggling drugs. This is not just an overnight impulsive action. This is part of an ongoing intelligence operation. In fact the Biden administration knew all this.

But even logic tells you this has had an effect in slowing down the trade. If you threaten someone with consequences of lethal action on their operation.

It is completely unreal to say there will be no effect. The very principle of harsh consequences for defying the law is a deterrent. Its been part of the wests basic philosophy.

Click to expand...

That's what we told ourselves over and over as we bombed the Ho Chi Minh Trail night after night.

I'm waiting to hear how stopping drug cartel shipments violates their free trade rights.

stevevw said:

Nicolás Maduro Moros Venezuelas president.

Click to expand...

For Spanish names the first surname is the paternal one. If only one surname is used it is the paternal, not maternal one. So it would be "Maduro did this" rather than "Moros did this" (Unless you are talking about his mother or maternal grandfather.)

stevevw said:

Why, even though that is not my position as you wrongly assume.

But what is the basis that you can justify your morality that rejects other peoples morality when you dismiss it ie (interested in your "ends justify the means" "morality").

You may not be interested in other pooples moral position but you can't just reject it as wrong. No more than anyone can reject your view and belief. Because its all a belief and subjective position.

Click to expand...

You said the smuggling was down drastically or stopped because of the kilings. That sure looks like "ends justifying the means" to me. Do you not think the destruction of the boats is justified, and if so, what justifies it?

stevevw said:

If you think you can win this by authority of consensus then this does not work either.

And what was the criminal activity. Are you basing this on unsupported assumptions. Trying to ccreate a narrative that is accusing someone of moral wrong when there is not justification.

Click to expand...

Drug smuggling is a crime. You said something about "negotiations". Why?

essentialsaltes said:

Cigarette boats don't have a 1,000 mile range.

Click to expand...

Neither do all of the motorcycles that travle from California to the Sturgis rally in S. Dakota.