Sam Lowry said:
whiterock said:
Sam Lowry said:
whiterock said:
Sam Lowry said:
whiterock said:
Sam Lowry said:
whiterock said:
None of which has anything to do with UCMJ.
You are the one who raised UCMJ. I'm just pointing out it's not germane to this situation. No laws have been violated by anyone, from POTUS all the way down to the Ensign who flipped the "fire" switch. Ergo, there is no need to use UCMJ.
Another poster raised the UCMJ. In any case, it applies to any member of the armed forces who commanded, counseled, aided, abetted, or participated in the strikes. There are also federal civil statutes against murder and war crimes, one or both of which would also apply.
Someone else may have mentioned UCMJ first, but you picked up the turd on your own. Here's the stains on your hand.
Quote:
Sam Lowry said:
I'm not sure what you're getting at. You asked why no remedies had been sought against Trump. Our military is subject to the UCMJ, which prohibits the unlawful use of force. The mission to prosecute foreign drug smugglers is derived from the MDLEA and other US law. There is no blanket mandate to use kinetic force against alleged lawbreakers or designated terrorists. Any such actions must be justified case by case.
That is flatly untrue. UCMJ does not prohibit the President from ordering the destruction of cartel speedboats in the open seas. UCMJ could, however, be used to prosecute any officer or enlisted personnel who defied the order to do so.
If you don't want to win stupid prizes, don't say stupid things.
Again, no one is suggesting that the president is subject to the UCMJ. It can be used to prosecute any officers or enlisted personnel who follow an order to commit murder when the order is patently unlawful.
LOL no, you specifically did on the first part. And on the second part, you're just dead wrong again - narco-terrorist organizations outside the jurisdiction of US courts who are manufacturing or transporting incredibly deadly illegal drugs bound for our country are valid military targets.
If you want to litigate this, you'll first need to get a court order staying the Presidential Findings designating certain drug cartels as terrorist groups. Until you get that part done, your just posting blather. Nothing new about that, of course. It's what you do.
Completely wrong. Designating someone as a terrorist group in no way obviates the requirements of civil or military law.
Dead wrong. It creates legal avenues to use military responses abroad.
Under your logic we could never shoot a terrorist abroad without first ascertaining whether or not he was engaged in any activity for which he could be prosecuted under US law, which if so would require us to arrest and transport him here for trial rather than just removing him from the equation entirely.
Narco-terrorists operating in international waters are not subject to the jurisdiction of US courts = fair game.
Wrong on all points. US courts have jurisdiction through the aforementioned MDLEA. Terrorism designation does not in itself authorize military force. When such force is authorized, there is no general requirement to arrest and transport (although the Geneva Conventions do apply).
dead wrong to the nth degree. MDLEA creates structures to "allow" jurisdiction over drug enforcement outside US territory, not "require" it. It was written primarily to empower USCG to engage in drug enforcement wherever it encountered drug trafficking, US territorial waters or not. Nothing in MDLEA restricts US military from conducting kinetic strikes against drug cartels and/or terror groups abroad, or encumbers US military with due process responsibilities.
The fallacy in your thinking is that illegal activity can only be combatted via law enforcement.
The reality is, law enforcement is only an option within the jurisdiction of US courts.
Where we face threats abroad which are not within the jurisdiction of US courts, there's only two options to pursue policy - diplomacy or military force. Diplomacy with the Venezuelan regime has failed to evoke any kind of policy response to our favor. Ergo we are engaging in diplomacy via other means.
By designating certain drug cartels as terror organizations, POTUS moves the issue squarely into the realm of enumerated Article II powers over foreign policy, which have been delineated by numerous empowering statutes. We do not have to arrest and prosecute terrorists working against us abroad. We can simply destroy their operations (to include logistical infrastructure) and/or them personally. Same for drug cartel operations. No safe haven for drug lords anywhere. We have the right to bomb their fields and factories (or transportation networks), if such will further US interests.
We are witnessing a wise use of policy. The Venezuelan regime is the host body for drug cartels, a hybrid structure, a defacto cartel syndicate, which presents the same kind of dilemmas for policy response by great powers as they face in dealing with proxies of other great powers. Ergo, using kinetic force against Venezuelan cartels has the potential to destabilize the Venezuelan regime itself. It places the Venezuelan govt in an awkward position. Do they send out military assets to contest US engagement with drug cartel operations? If they do, they risk war with the USA. If they don't, they risk pushing one or more of the cartels to rebel in anger that the regime (or one or more of its cartel components) failed to come to its defense.
