ANALYSIS: Fentanyl's Forgotten Victims: Why Trump's Military Strikes Matter
"I will not die today, but the same cannot be said for you." - From Assassin's Creed
Are you comfortable with the drug strikes?
71,145 Views |
1517 Replies |
Last: 7 min ago by whiterock
An interesting article on the people killed.
https://apnews.com/article/trump-venezuela-boat-strikes-drugs-cocaine-trafficking-e4fcf945e48e36bf2c510f9f111e031c
https://apnews.com/article/trump-venezuela-boat-strikes-drugs-cocaine-trafficking-e4fcf945e48e36bf2c510f9f111e031c
Quote:
In dozens of interviews in villages on Venezuela's breathtaking northeastern coast, from which some of the boats departed, residents and relatives told Garcia Cano the dead men had indeed been running drugs but were not narco-terrorists, as alleged by the Trump administration, or leaders of a cartel or gang.
Most of the nine men were crewing such craft for the first or second time, making at least $500 per trip, residents and relatives said. The four dead men included a fisherman, a down-on-his-luck bus driver, a former military cadet and a local crime boss. Others included laborers and a motorcycle driver.
Spin be spin
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
You do that well
Anyone but the aggies please
Anyone but the aggies please
Aliceinbubbleland said:
You do that well
Identify leftist gaslighting?
Yes, but then you guys have done it for so long it's kind of obvious now
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
Porteroso said:
An interesting article on the people killed.
https://apnews.com/article/trump-venezuela-boat-strikes-drugs-cocaine-trafficking-e4fcf945e48e36bf2c510f9f111e031cQuote:
In dozens of interviews in villages on Venezuela's breathtaking northeastern coast, from which some of the boats departed, residents and relatives told Garcia Cano the dead men had indeed been running drugs but were not narco-terrorists, as alleged by the Trump administration, or leaders of a cartel or gang.
Most of the nine men were crewing such craft for the first or second time, making at least $500 per trip, residents and relatives said. The four dead men included a fisherman, a down-on-his-luck bus driver, a former military cadet and a local crime boss. Others included laborers and a motorcycle driver.
AP News... I'm sure that's accurate and proven.
Down on the luck bus driver, fisherman, an ex military cadet and local crime dude drive off in an ocean going vessel with 4 massive outboard motors, hauling millions of dollars worth of drugs. Make sense...probably just a fishing boat looking for marlin
"I will not die today, but the same cannot be said for you." - From Assassin's Creed
Porteroso said:
An interesting article on the people killed.
https://apnews.com/article/trump-venezuela-boat-strikes-drugs-cocaine-trafficking-e4fcf945e48e36bf2c510f9f111e031cQuote:
the dead men had indeed been running drugs
Uh huh
Assassin said:whiterock said:Assassin said:Porteroso said:Assassin said:
We have info from our assets on the ground.
Hopefully they are at least near the water.
CIA Assets are everywhere
humint not likely central to shooting up cartel boats. Imagery (drone cameras) likely driving it, supplemented with signint (capturing hand-held radio and cell-phone comms).
We almost certainly know the bases from which they shipments originate. So we monitor them. We likely collect comms on preps for upcoming shipments. So it's easy to coordinate the two and spot a docked boat being loaded with bales. We wait until it gets out to sea far enough that there is no risk of collateral damage to civilian assets on shore or in harbor or any in any nearby sea lanes.....and we smoke it.
Very simple (given the technology we have today).
DEA might have assets there too. We know they were next door in Columbia.
indeed. That's their yard. I never had a chance to work with them. Wrong part of the world & all that.
Sam Lowry said:whiterock said:FLBear5630 said:whiterock said:FLBear5630 said:KaiBear said:FLBear5630 said:ScottS said:
Yes, President Trump Can Blow Up Drug Boats - Chronicles
The question is whether drugs, which has been a law enforcement issue, is the same as terrorism.
No one on here, from what I can see, thinks it is bad to destroy drugs entering the US. No one on here seems to think that there are not drugs on those boats. Those are not the concerns.
The concern is how we are determining a "terrorist organization", the same as how we are determining "National Emergencies". Both of those, which are avenues this Administration are using broadly, give the Executive Branch much more power and leeway than the Constitution intends.
On a personal note, I just find it amusing watching people on here who were strict Constitutionalist 18 months ago defending Trump's taking of power and then applying all sorts of mental gymnastics and economic lessons to justify it. When the truth is that if the person in the President's seat advances what you (any of us) want, we will turn the other way. If it is something we don't want, like Biden's agenda, scream that the Constitution never intended for that... At least some on here say they are willing to look the other way to stop Fentanyl, I respect that more than the gymnastics because it is honest.
Me, I agree with what he is doing but worry about "how" and if that can be used in the future in ways I don't support or on me, for whatever reason.
Nothing amusing with the huge number of Americans dying every year from drug overdoses.
Past rules of engagement clearly have not worked.
Very glad Trump is taking a new approach.
If I had my way, a 2nd conviction for drug smuggling into the US would receive the death penalty.
An execution which would be 'fast tracked' within 6 months.
Results would be immediate
And how is my finding it amusing watching people change do the exact same thing they yelled at the liberals for doing on climate undo my second and last paragraph's? They are just as bad as the Biden crowd, just different set of issues their willing to let go.
How far do you go for ends justifies the means? Obviously, for Fentanyl you are good with what is going on. Get it a trigger for you. But, there are ALOT of other people that don't have Fentanyl or illegal drug issues in their life. Some believe prescription drug abuse is more of a problem. Some believe the Climate is more of a problem. Some believe aggressive driving and traffic deaths are more of an issue. I can go on, depends on what happened to each of us individually. How fare are you willing to go? Automated camera traffic ticketing? Raids on Doctor's offices? Allowing Elon to take over the sky? All can be done by the President with a swipe of the pen as a National Emergency.
Change the law. The system is in place for a reason, we have *******ized it and the ramifications are brutal. As you know, what we agree on with the President can be turned to something else, very easily, both left and right.
You closed with a false dilemma. There is no law preventing a POTUS from ordering the US Navy in international waters to sink drug cartel watercraft engaged in hostile acts against the USA. In fact, he has cited explicit statutory authority to do so.
Underneath nearly all arguments against what POTUS is doing to the watercraft of drug cartels designated as terror groups is the faulty premise that non-citizens outside of our jurisdiction engaged in illegal activity may ONLY be dealt with via law enforcement measures. Not. So. If Hizballah is running drugs to raise cash (and they've done that forever) are we obligated to reel in military options and instead treat them as a LE problem? No. We should refuse to treat them as a LE problem, because to do so would require us to bring them into the jurisdiction of our courts to do so at enormous risk and cost to the taxpayer. Far cheaper and wiser to dispatch them abroad with military assets.
Small powers avoid direct confrontation of great powers, and instead choose asymmetrical warfare tactics designed to harass those greater powers, to distract and dissuade and ideally destabilize them if possible. A hostile power like Venezuela allowing drug cartels into its ruling coalition affords it the de facto proxies necessary to wage asymmetrical warfare against us, in ways that (ironically) prompt people otherwise inimical to Venezuela and drug cartels to defend the de facto alliance between Venezuela and the Cartels of the Sun from the full force of USG policy response. (as if Venezuela has some right under international law to allow its state institutions to be a safe haven for drug cartels operating against the USA).
Whether or not we created a law in 1973 or in 2003 after 911 doesn't change the concern. Both are modern laws that delegate authority from one branch to the other. Using these powers so close to the US or even in the US itself begs the question of when is Executive Power too much. Opinion polls and laws on the books are not the end all for policy. There are bad laws on the books, there are legal acts that are immoral or just not good ideas, and there are Executives that are more Authoritarian than others that use those laws.
"close to the US" is neither a concern nor a factor. You deal with the problem where it is.
"In the US itself" is manifestly not a factor. We have LE and Courts to handle it there. No role for the military inside the country until/unless things get wildly out of hand (i.e. total breakdown of civil order). This issue is about how we deal with the problem OUTSIDE the jurisdiction of US courts. (FYI, international law on piracy is written in context of "hot pursuit" scenarios or universal law claims. US has never exercised a universal law claim (in no small because we do not want to empower lesser powers to invoke it against US interests).
You are simply not addressing the issue at all. There is nothing illegal about what we are doing to the speedboats of the drug cartels who have been designated as terror organizations. If they attempt to run a blockade, they will be destroyed.
The concern is absolutely valid. Trump has just as much authority to order such strikes inside the country as to order them in the Caribbean. He's already declaring bogus emergencies (i.e. "breakdowns of civil order") as a way of involving the military.
More fiction. He has not claimed any right for US military or civilian assets to drone-strike anyone transporting drugs on our streets. He has used military in support of LE operations, NOT as a stand alone military operation.
I am reminded of the old Carl Sandberg adage about facts, laws, and tables. You are all yell, all the time.
Assassin said:Porteroso said:
An interesting article on the people killed.
https://apnews.com/article/trump-venezuela-boat-strikes-drugs-cocaine-trafficking-e4fcf945e48e36bf2c510f9f111e031cQuote:
In dozens of interviews in villages on Venezuela's breathtaking northeastern coast, from which some of the boats departed, residents and relatives told Garcia Cano the dead men had indeed been running drugs but were not narco-terrorists, as alleged by the Trump administration, or leaders of a cartel or gang.
Most of the nine men were crewing such craft for the first or second time, making at least $500 per trip, residents and relatives said. The four dead men included a fisherman, a down-on-his-luck bus driver, a former military cadet and a local crime boss. Others included laborers and a motorcycle driver.
AP News... I'm sure that's accurate and proven.
Down on the luck bus driver, fisherman, an ex military cadet and local crime dude drive off in an ocean going vessel with 4 massive outboard motors, hauling millions of dollars worth of drugs. Make sense...probably just a fishing boat looking for marlin
the article is just more social justice narrative = poverty makes it ok, particularly when it's the "little guy" sticking it to "the man" (the USA). No handsome, jewelry-adorned Pablo Escobar-esque businessmen in Panama hats in sight, ergo it's just the underclass forced into common crime by the many dysfunctions of global capitalism.
Truth is, cartel mules don't wear uniforms and drive vehicles emblazoned with logos carrying goods with QR codes and guaranteed analysis labels on them. They are street level criminals in an international drug cartel trying to remain inconspicuous. One way to shut down a drug cartel is to destroy its distribution operation by making it impossible to find boat crews (who know that pulling away from port on the Paria Peninsula in a fishing boat laden with bale of cocaine is a certain death sentence). To the extent that pressuring the drug cartels thusly also puts pressure on the national government who is protecting & promoting said cartels......well, that is good policy.
A blockade is an act of war. Notably, we are not blockading commercial traffic in/out of Venezuela. Neither the cargo ships, nor the oil tankers nor the airliners or cruise ships, etc.....just drug smuggling boats. Venezuela cannot claim such is an act of war without admitting they are allowing drug smugglers to operate from its shores. So Maduro has to bend over and take it. The cartel leadership in his cabinet is railing at him to do something. But he can't. If he does, he provokes US military response against himself directly. He knows what happened to Saddam Hussein and Bin Ladin. Nobody in their right mind, most particularly a head of state worth billions of dollars, wants to spend a decade hiding in a hole waiting for the inevitable end = to get shot a couple hundred times in the middle of the night by Seal Team 6.
War is a continuation of policy by other means. Drug cartels are overwhelming US law enforcement. Ergo we are bringing "additional resources" to bear on their operations abroad.
whiterock said:Sam Lowry said:whiterock said:FLBear5630 said:whiterock said:FLBear5630 said:KaiBear said:FLBear5630 said:ScottS said:
Yes, President Trump Can Blow Up Drug Boats - Chronicles
The question is whether drugs, which has been a law enforcement issue, is the same as terrorism.
No one on here, from what I can see, thinks it is bad to destroy drugs entering the US. No one on here seems to think that there are not drugs on those boats. Those are not the concerns.
The concern is how we are determining a "terrorist organization", the same as how we are determining "National Emergencies". Both of those, which are avenues this Administration are using broadly, give the Executive Branch much more power and leeway than the Constitution intends.
On a personal note, I just find it amusing watching people on here who were strict Constitutionalist 18 months ago defending Trump's taking of power and then applying all sorts of mental gymnastics and economic lessons to justify it. When the truth is that if the person in the President's seat advances what you (any of us) want, we will turn the other way. If it is something we don't want, like Biden's agenda, scream that the Constitution never intended for that... At least some on here say they are willing to look the other way to stop Fentanyl, I respect that more than the gymnastics because it is honest.
Me, I agree with what he is doing but worry about "how" and if that can be used in the future in ways I don't support or on me, for whatever reason.
Nothing amusing with the huge number of Americans dying every year from drug overdoses.
Past rules of engagement clearly have not worked.
Very glad Trump is taking a new approach.
If I had my way, a 2nd conviction for drug smuggling into the US would receive the death penalty.
An execution which would be 'fast tracked' within 6 months.
Results would be immediate
And how is my finding it amusing watching people change do the exact same thing they yelled at the liberals for doing on climate undo my second and last paragraph's? They are just as bad as the Biden crowd, just different set of issues their willing to let go.
How far do you go for ends justifies the means? Obviously, for Fentanyl you are good with what is going on. Get it a trigger for you. But, there are ALOT of other people that don't have Fentanyl or illegal drug issues in their life. Some believe prescription drug abuse is more of a problem. Some believe the Climate is more of a problem. Some believe aggressive driving and traffic deaths are more of an issue. I can go on, depends on what happened to each of us individually. How fare are you willing to go? Automated camera traffic ticketing? Raids on Doctor's offices? Allowing Elon to take over the sky? All can be done by the President with a swipe of the pen as a National Emergency.
Change the law. The system is in place for a reason, we have *******ized it and the ramifications are brutal. As you know, what we agree on with the President can be turned to something else, very easily, both left and right.
You closed with a false dilemma. There is no law preventing a POTUS from ordering the US Navy in international waters to sink drug cartel watercraft engaged in hostile acts against the USA. In fact, he has cited explicit statutory authority to do so.
Underneath nearly all arguments against what POTUS is doing to the watercraft of drug cartels designated as terror groups is the faulty premise that non-citizens outside of our jurisdiction engaged in illegal activity may ONLY be dealt with via law enforcement measures. Not. So. If Hizballah is running drugs to raise cash (and they've done that forever) are we obligated to reel in military options and instead treat them as a LE problem? No. We should refuse to treat them as a LE problem, because to do so would require us to bring them into the jurisdiction of our courts to do so at enormous risk and cost to the taxpayer. Far cheaper and wiser to dispatch them abroad with military assets.
Small powers avoid direct confrontation of great powers, and instead choose asymmetrical warfare tactics designed to harass those greater powers, to distract and dissuade and ideally destabilize them if possible. A hostile power like Venezuela allowing drug cartels into its ruling coalition affords it the de facto proxies necessary to wage asymmetrical warfare against us, in ways that (ironically) prompt people otherwise inimical to Venezuela and drug cartels to defend the de facto alliance between Venezuela and the Cartels of the Sun from the full force of USG policy response. (as if Venezuela has some right under international law to allow its state institutions to be a safe haven for drug cartels operating against the USA).
Whether or not we created a law in 1973 or in 2003 after 911 doesn't change the concern. Both are modern laws that delegate authority from one branch to the other. Using these powers so close to the US or even in the US itself begs the question of when is Executive Power too much. Opinion polls and laws on the books are not the end all for policy. There are bad laws on the books, there are legal acts that are immoral or just not good ideas, and there are Executives that are more Authoritarian than others that use those laws.
"close to the US" is neither a concern nor a factor. You deal with the problem where it is.
"In the US itself" is manifestly not a factor. We have LE and Courts to handle it there. No role for the military inside the country until/unless things get wildly out of hand (i.e. total breakdown of civil order). This issue is about how we deal with the problem OUTSIDE the jurisdiction of US courts. (FYI, international law on piracy is written in context of "hot pursuit" scenarios or universal law claims. US has never exercised a universal law claim (in no small because we do not want to empower lesser powers to invoke it against US interests).
You are simply not addressing the issue at all. There is nothing illegal about what we are doing to the speedboats of the drug cartels who have been designated as terror organizations. If they attempt to run a blockade, they will be destroyed.
The concern is absolutely valid. Trump has just as much authority to order such strikes inside the country as to order them in the Caribbean. He's already declaring bogus emergencies (i.e. "breakdowns of civil order") as a way of involving the military.
More fiction. He has not claimed any right for US military or civilian assets to drone-strike anyone transporting drugs on our streets.
Yet by your reasoning, he could.
Assassin said:
ANALYSIS: Fentanyl's Forgotten Victims: Why Trump's Military Strikes Matter
arbyscoin - the only crypto you can eat....
Sam Lowry said:whiterock said:Sam Lowry said:whiterock said:FLBear5630 said:whiterock said:FLBear5630 said:KaiBear said:FLBear5630 said:ScottS said:
Yes, President Trump Can Blow Up Drug Boats - Chronicles
The question is whether drugs, which has been a law enforcement issue, is the same as terrorism.
...............he same as how we are determining "National Emergencies". Both of those, which are avenues this Administration..............t or on me, for whatever reason.
Nothing amusing with the huge number of Americans dying every year from drug overdoses.
Past rules of engagement clearly have not worked.
Very glad Trump is taking a new approach.
If I had my way, a 2nd conviction for drug smuggling into the US would receive the death penalty.
An execution which would be 'fast tracked' within 6 months.
Results would be immediate
And how is my finding it amusing watching people change do the exact same thing they yelled at the liberals for doing on climate undo my second and last paragraph's? They are just as bad as the Biden crowd, just different set of issues their willing to let go. .......................nated as terror groups is the faulty premise that non-citizens outside of our jurisdiction engaged in illegal activity may ONLY be dealt with via law enforcement measures. Not. Sotreat them as a LE problem, because to do so would require us to bring them into the jurisdiction of our courts to do so at enormous risk and cost to the taxpayer. Far cheaper and wiser to dispatch them abroad with military assets.
Small powers avoid direct confrontation of great powers, and instead choose asymmetrical warfare tactics designed to harass those greater powers, to distract and dissuade and ideally destabilize them if ......................
"close to the US" is neither a concern nor a factor. You deal with the problem where it is.
"In the US itself" is manifestly not a factor. We have LE and Courts to handle it there. No role for the military inside the country until/unless things get wildly out of hand (i.e. total breakdown of civil order). This issue is about how we deal with the problem OUTSIDE the jurisdictio...................n a blockade, they will be destroyed.
The concern is absolutely valid. Trump has just as much authority to order such strikes inside the country as to order them in the Caribbean. He's already declaring bogus emergencies (i.e. "breakdowns of civil order") as a way of involving the military.
More fiction. He has not claimed any right for US military or civilian assets to drone-strike anyone transporting drugs on our streets.
Yet by your reasoning, he could.
another outstanding lowry lutz.............
- uncle fred
D!
arbyscoin - the only crypto you can eat....
Porteroso said:
An interesting article on the people killed.
https://apnews.com/article/trump-venezuela-boat-strikes-drugs-cocaine-trafficking-e4fcf945e48e36bf2c510f9f111e031cQuote:
In dozens of interviews in villages on Venezuela's breathtaking northeastern coast, from which some of the boats departed, residents and relatives told Garcia Cano the dead men had indeed been running drugs but were not narco-terrorists, as alleged by the Trump administration, or leaders of a cartel or gang.
Most of the nine men were crewing such craft for the first or second time, making at least $500 per trip, residents and relatives said. The four dead men included a fisherman, a down-on-his-luck bus driver, a former military cadet and a local crime boss. Others included laborers and a motorcycle driver.
B&G - you and other folks that get their news from The View are the only people that believe this. How many times do you have to buy these kinds of fake stories before you're stop being an gullible idiot?
Pow! Kaboom! Bam!
- The Dept. of War
D!
{ sipping coffee }
Suelten los perros, amigos!!
- The Dept. of War
D!
{ sipping coffee }
Suelten los perros, amigos!!
arbyscoin - the only crypto you can eat....
Sam Lowry said:whiterock said:Sam Lowry said:whiterock said:FLBear5630 said:whiterock said:FLBear5630 said:KaiBear said:FLBear5630 said:ScottS said:
Yes, President Trump Can Blow Up Drug Boats - Chronicles
The question is whether drugs, which has been a law enforcement issue, is the same as terrorism.
No one on here, from what I can see, thinks it is bad to destroy drugs entering the US. No one on here seems to think that there are not drugs on those boats. Those are not the concerns.
The concern is how we are determining a "terrorist organization", the same as how we are determining "National Emergencies". Both of those, which are avenues this Administration are using broadly, give the Executive Branch much more power and leeway than the Constitution intends.
On a personal note, I just find it amusing watching people on here who were strict Constitutionalist 18 months ago defending Trump's taking of power and then applying all sorts of mental gymnastics and economic lessons to justify it. When the truth is that if the person in the President's seat advances what you (any of us) want, we will turn the other way. If it is something we don't want, like Biden's agenda, scream that the Constitution never intended for that... At least some on here say they are willing to look the other way to stop Fentanyl, I respect that more than the gymnastics because it is honest.
Me, I agree with what he is doing but worry about "how" and if that can be used in the future in ways I don't support or on me, for whatever reason.
Nothing amusing with the huge number of Americans dying every year from drug overdoses.
Past rules of engagement clearly have not worked.
Very glad Trump is taking a new approach.
If I had my way, a 2nd conviction for drug smuggling into the US would receive the death penalty.
An execution which would be 'fast tracked' within 6 months.
Results would be immediate
And how is my finding it amusing watching people change do the exact same thing they yelled at the liberals for doing on climate undo my second and last paragraph's? They are just as bad as the Biden crowd, just different set of issues their willing to let go.
How far do you go for ends justifies the means? Obviously, for Fentanyl you are good with what is going on. Get it a trigger for you. But, there are ALOT of other people that don't have Fentanyl or illegal drug issues in their life. Some believe prescription drug abuse is more of a problem. Some believe the Climate is more of a problem. Some believe aggressive driving and traffic deaths are more of an issue. I can go on, depends on what happened to each of us individually. How fare are you willing to go? Automated camera traffic ticketing? Raids on Doctor's offices? Allowing Elon to take over the sky? All can be done by the President with a swipe of the pen as a National Emergency.
Change the law. The system is in place for a reason, we have *******ized it and the ramifications are brutal. As you know, what we agree on with the President can be turned to something else, very easily, both left and right.
You closed with a false dilemma. There is no law preventing a POTUS from ordering the US Navy in international waters to sink drug cartel watercraft engaged in hostile acts against the USA. In fact, he has cited explicit statutory authority to do so.
Underneath nearly all arguments against what POTUS is doing to the watercraft of drug cartels designated as terror groups is the faulty premise that non-citizens outside of our jurisdiction engaged in illegal activity may ONLY be dealt with via law enforcement measures. Not. So. If Hizballah is running drugs to raise cash (and they've done that forever) are we obligated to reel in military options and instead treat them as a LE problem? No. We should refuse to treat them as a LE problem, because to do so would require us to bring them into the jurisdiction of our courts to do so at enormous risk and cost to the taxpayer. Far cheaper and wiser to dispatch them abroad with military assets.
Small powers avoid direct confrontation of great powers, and instead choose asymmetrical warfare tactics designed to harass those greater powers, to distract and dissuade and ideally destabilize them if possible. A hostile power like Venezuela allowing drug cartels into its ruling coalition affords it the de facto proxies necessary to wage asymmetrical warfare against us, in ways that (ironically) prompt people otherwise inimical to Venezuela and drug cartels to defend the de facto alliance between Venezuela and the Cartels of the Sun from the full force of USG policy response. (as if Venezuela has some right under international law to allow its state institutions to be a safe haven for drug cartels operating against the USA).
Whether or not we created a law in 1973 or in 2003 after 911 doesn't change the concern. Both are modern laws that delegate authority from one branch to the other. Using these powers so close to the US or even in the US itself begs the question of when is Executive Power too much. Opinion polls and laws on the books are not the end all for policy. There are bad laws on the books, there are legal acts that are immoral or just not good ideas, and there are Executives that are more Authoritarian than others that use those laws.
"close to the US" is neither a concern nor a factor. You deal with the problem where it is.
"In the US itself" is manifestly not a factor. We have LE and Courts to handle it there. No role for the military inside the country until/unless things get wildly out of hand (i.e. total breakdown of civil order). This issue is about how we deal with the problem OUTSIDE the jurisdiction of US courts. (FYI, international law on piracy is written in context of "hot pursuit" scenarios or universal law claims. US has never exercised a universal law claim (in no small because we do not want to empower lesser powers to invoke it against US interests).
You are simply not addressing the issue at all. There is nothing illegal about what we are doing to the speedboats of the drug cartels who have been designated as terror organizations. If they attempt to run a blockade, they will be destroyed.
The concern is absolutely valid. Trump has just as much authority to order such strikes inside the country as to order them in the Caribbean. He's already declaring bogus emergencies (i.e. "breakdowns of civil order") as a way of involving the military.
More fiction. He has not claimed any right for US military or civilian assets to drone-strike anyone transporting drugs on our streets.
Yet by your reasoning, he could.
LOL, no. Unlike in the foreign policy realm, where lack of US jurisdiction which sharply limits the need for due process to limit the hand of the executive, inside the USA we have robust systems of state & federal law to guide policy responses to problems.
By your reasoning, we will need a lawyer to accompany every rifleman on the battlefield.
Again, the law provides jurisdiction to search and seize, and we exercise it routinely. If this were a battlefield, other laws would apply.whiterock said:Sam Lowry said:whiterock said:Sam Lowry said:whiterock said:FLBear5630 said:whiterock said:FLBear5630 said:KaiBear said:FLBear5630 said:ScottS said:
Yes, President Trump Can Blow Up Drug Boats - Chronicles
The question is whether drugs, which has been a law enforcement issue, is the same as terrorism.
No one on here, from what I can see, thinks it is bad to destroy drugs entering the US. No one on here seems to think that there are not drugs on those boats. Those are not the concerns.
The concern is how we are determining a "terrorist organization", the same as how we are determining "National Emergencies". Both of those, which are avenues this Administration are using broadly, give the Executive Branch much more power and leeway than the Constitution intends.
On a personal note, I just find it amusing watching people on here who were strict Constitutionalist 18 months ago defending Trump's taking of power and then applying all sorts of mental gymnastics and economic lessons to justify it. When the truth is that if the person in the President's seat advances what you (any of us) want, we will turn the other way. If it is something we don't want, like Biden's agenda, scream that the Constitution never intended for that... At least some on here say they are willing to look the other way to stop Fentanyl, I respect that more than the gymnastics because it is honest.
Me, I agree with what he is doing but worry about "how" and if that can be used in the future in ways I don't support or on me, for whatever reason.
Nothing amusing with the huge number of Americans dying every year from drug overdoses.
Past rules of engagement clearly have not worked.
Very glad Trump is taking a new approach.
If I had my way, a 2nd conviction for drug smuggling into the US would receive the death penalty.
An execution which would be 'fast tracked' within 6 months.
Results would be immediate
And how is my finding it amusing watching people change do the exact same thing they yelled at the liberals for doing on climate undo my second and last paragraph's? They are just as bad as the Biden crowd, just different set of issues their willing to let go.
How far do you go for ends justifies the means? Obviously, for Fentanyl you are good with what is going on. Get it a trigger for you. But, there are ALOT of other people that don't have Fentanyl or illegal drug issues in their life. Some believe prescription drug abuse is more of a problem. Some believe the Climate is more of a problem. Some believe aggressive driving and traffic deaths are more of an issue. I can go on, depends on what happened to each of us individually. How fare are you willing to go? Automated camera traffic ticketing? Raids on Doctor's offices? Allowing Elon to take over the sky? All can be done by the President with a swipe of the pen as a National Emergency.
Change the law. The system is in place for a reason, we have *******ized it and the ramifications are brutal. As you know, what we agree on with the President can be turned to something else, very easily, both left and right.
You closed with a false dilemma. There is no law preventing a POTUS from ordering the US Navy in international waters to sink drug cartel watercraft engaged in hostile acts against the USA. In fact, he has cited explicit statutory authority to do so.
Underneath nearly all arguments against what POTUS is doing to the watercraft of drug cartels designated as terror groups is the faulty premise that non-citizens outside of our jurisdiction engaged in illegal activity may ONLY be dealt with via law enforcement measures. Not. So. If Hizballah is running drugs to raise cash (and they've done that forever) are we obligated to reel in military options and instead treat them as a LE problem? No. We should refuse to treat them as a LE problem, because to do so would require us to bring them into the jurisdiction of our courts to do so at enormous risk and cost to the taxpayer. Far cheaper and wiser to dispatch them abroad with military assets.
Small powers avoid direct confrontation of great powers, and instead choose asymmetrical warfare tactics designed to harass those greater powers, to distract and dissuade and ideally destabilize them if possible. A hostile power like Venezuela allowing drug cartels into its ruling coalition affords it the de facto proxies necessary to wage asymmetrical warfare against us, in ways that (ironically) prompt people otherwise inimical to Venezuela and drug cartels to defend the de facto alliance between Venezuela and the Cartels of the Sun from the full force of USG policy response. (as if Venezuela has some right under international law to allow its state institutions to be a safe haven for drug cartels operating against the USA).
Whether or not we created a law in 1973 or in 2003 after 911 doesn't change the concern. Both are modern laws that delegate authority from one branch to the other. Using these powers so close to the US or even in the US itself begs the question of when is Executive Power too much. Opinion polls and laws on the books are not the end all for policy. There are bad laws on the books, there are legal acts that are immoral or just not good ideas, and there are Executives that are more Authoritarian than others that use those laws.
"close to the US" is neither a concern nor a factor. You deal with the problem where it is.
"In the US itself" is manifestly not a factor. We have LE and Courts to handle it there. No role for the military inside the country until/unless things get wildly out of hand (i.e. total breakdown of civil order). This issue is about how we deal with the problem OUTSIDE the jurisdiction of US courts. (FYI, international law on piracy is written in context of "hot pursuit" scenarios or universal law claims. US has never exercised a universal law claim (in no small because we do not want to empower lesser powers to invoke it against US interests).
You are simply not addressing the issue at all. There is nothing illegal about what we are doing to the speedboats of the drug cartels who have been designated as terror organizations. If they attempt to run a blockade, they will be destroyed.
The concern is absolutely valid. Trump has just as much authority to order such strikes inside the country as to order them in the Caribbean. He's already declaring bogus emergencies (i.e. "breakdowns of civil order") as a way of involving the military.
More fiction. He has not claimed any right for US military or civilian assets to drone-strike anyone transporting drugs on our streets.
Yet by your reasoning, he could.
LOL, no. Unlike in the foreign policy realm, where lack of US jurisdiction which sharply limits the need for due process to limit the hand of the executive, inside the USA we have robust systems of state & federal law to guide policy responses to problems.
By your reasoning, we will need a lawyer to accompany every rifleman on the battlefield.
Sam Lowry said:Again, the law provides jurisdiction to search and seize, and we exercise it routinely. If this were a battlefield, other laws would apply.whiterock said:Sam Lowry said:whiterock said:Sam Lowry said:whiterock said:FLBear5630 said:whiterock said:FLBear5630 said:KaiBear said:FLBear5630 said:ScottS said:
Yes, President Trump Can Blow Up Drug Boats - Chronicles
The question is whether drugs, which has been a law enforcement issue, is the same as terrorism.
No one on here, from what I can see, thinks it is bad to destroy drugs entering the US. No one on here seems to think that there are not drugs on those boats. Those are not the concerns.
The concern is how we are determining a "terrorist organization", the same as how we are determining "National Emergencies". Both of those, which are avenues this Administration are using broadly, give the Executive Branch much more power and leeway than the Constitution intends.
On a personal note, I just find it amusing watching people on here who were strict Constitutionalist 18 months ago defending Trump's taking of power and then applying all sorts of mental gymnastics and economic lessons to justify it. When the truth is that if the person in the President's seat advances what you (any of us) want, we will turn the other way. If it is something we don't want, like Biden's agenda, scream that the Constitution never intended for that... At least some on here say they are willing to look the other way to stop Fentanyl, I respect that more than the gymnastics because it is honest.
Me, I agree with what he is doing but worry about "how" and if that can be used in the future in ways I don't support or on me, for whatever reason.
Nothing amusing with the huge number of Americans dying every year from drug overdoses.
Past rules of engagement clearly have not worked.
Very glad Trump is taking a new approach.
If I had my way, a 2nd conviction for drug smuggling into the US would receive the death penalty.
An execution which would be 'fast tracked' within 6 months.
Results would be immediate
And how is my finding it amusing watching people change do the exact same thing they yelled at the liberals for doing on climate undo my second and last paragraph's? They are just as bad as the Biden crowd, just different set of issues their willing to let go.
How far do you go for ends justifies the means? Obviously, for Fentanyl you are good with what is going on. Get it a trigger for you. But, there are ALOT of other people that don't have Fentanyl or illegal drug issues in their life. Some believe prescription drug abuse is more of a problem. Some believe the Climate is more of a problem. Some believe aggressive driving and traffic deaths are more of an issue. I can go on, depends on what happened to each of us individually. How fare are you willing to go? Automated camera traffic ticketing? Raids on Doctor's offices? Allowing Elon to take over the sky? All can be done by the President with a swipe of the pen as a National Emergency.
Change the law. The system is in place for a reason, we have *******ized it and the ramifications are brutal. As you know, what we agree on with the President can be turned to something else, very easily, both left and right.
You closed with a false dilemma. There is no law preventing a POTUS from ordering the US Navy in international waters to sink drug cartel watercraft engaged in hostile acts against the USA. In fact, he has cited explicit statutory authority to do so.
Underneath nearly all arguments against what POTUS is doing to the watercraft of drug cartels designated as terror groups is the faulty premise that non-citizens outside of our jurisdiction engaged in illegal activity may ONLY be dealt with via law enforcement measures. Not. So. If Hizballah is running drugs to raise cash (and they've done that forever) are we obligated to reel in military options and instead treat them as a LE problem? No. We should refuse to treat them as a LE problem, because to do so would require us to bring them into the jurisdiction of our courts to do so at enormous risk and cost to the taxpayer. Far cheaper and wiser to dispatch them abroad with military assets.
Small powers avoid direct confrontation of great powers, and instead choose asymmetrical warfare tactics designed to harass those greater powers, to distract and dissuade and ideally destabilize them if possible. A hostile power like Venezuela allowing drug cartels into its ruling coalition affords it the de facto proxies necessary to wage asymmetrical warfare against us, in ways that (ironically) prompt people otherwise inimical to Venezuela and drug cartels to defend the de facto alliance between Venezuela and the Cartels of the Sun from the full force of USG policy response. (as if Venezuela has some right under international law to allow its state institutions to be a safe haven for drug cartels operating against the USA).
Whether or not we created a law in 1973 or in 2003 after 911 doesn't change the concern. Both are modern laws that delegate authority from one branch to the other. Using these powers so close to the US or even in the US itself begs the question of when is Executive Power too much. Opinion polls and laws on the books are not the end all for policy. There are bad laws on the books, there are legal acts that are immoral or just not good ideas, and there are Executives that are more Authoritarian than others that use those laws.
"close to the US" is neither a concern nor a factor. You deal with the problem where it is.
"In the US itself" is manifestly not a factor. We have LE and Courts to handle it there. No role for the military inside the country until/unless things get wildly out of hand (i.e. total breakdown of civil order). This issue is about how we deal with the problem OUTSIDE the jurisdiction of US courts. (FYI, international law on piracy is written in context of "hot pursuit" scenarios or universal law claims. US has never exercised a universal law claim (in no small because we do not want to empower lesser powers to invoke it against US interests).
You are simply not addressing the issue at all. There is nothing illegal about what we are doing to the speedboats of the drug cartels who have been designated as terror organizations. If they attempt to run a blockade, they will be destroyed.
The concern is absolutely valid. Trump has just as much authority to order such strikes inside the country as to order them in the Caribbean. He's already declaring bogus emergencies (i.e. "breakdowns of civil order") as a way of involving the military.
More fiction. He has not claimed any right for US military or civilian assets to drone-strike anyone transporting drugs on our streets.
Yet by your reasoning, he could.
LOL, no. Unlike in the foreign policy realm, where lack of US jurisdiction which sharply limits the need for due process to limit the hand of the executive, inside the USA we have robust systems of state & federal law to guide policy responses to problems.
By your reasoning, we will need a lawyer to accompany every rifleman on the battlefield.
Nonresponsive.
Robert Wilson said:Sam Lowry said:whiterock said:Sam Lowry said:whiterock said:Sam Lowry said:whiterock said:FLBear5630 said:whiterock said:FLBear5630 said:KaiBear said:FLBear5630 said:ScottS said:
Yes, President Trump Can Blow Up Drug Boats - Chronicles
The question is whether drugs, which has been a law enforcement issue, is the same as terrorism.
No one on here, from what I can see, thinks it is bad to destroy drugs entering the US. No one on here seems to think that there are not drugs on those boats. Those are not the concerns.
The concern is how we are determining a "terrorist organization", the same as how we are determining "National Emergencies". Both of those, which are avenues this Administration are using broadly, give the Executive Branch much more power and leeway than the Constitution intends.
On a personal note, I just find it amusing watching people on here who were strict Constitutionalist 18 months ago defending Trump's taking of power and then applying all sorts of mental gymnastics and economic lessons to justify it. When the truth is that if the person in the President's seat advances what you (any of us) want, we will turn the other way. If it is something we don't want, like Biden's agenda, scream that the Constitution never intended for that... At least some on here say they are willing to look the other way to stop Fentanyl, I respect that more than the gymnastics because it is honest.
Me, I agree with what he is doing but worry about "how" and if that can be used in the future in ways I don't support or on me, for whatever reason.
Nothing amusing with the huge number of Americans dying every year from drug overdoses.
Past rules of engagement clearly have not worked.
Very glad Trump is taking a new approach.
If I had my way, a 2nd conviction for drug smuggling into the US would receive the death penalty.
An execution which would be 'fast tracked' within 6 months.
Results would be immediate
And how is my finding it amusing watching people change do the exact same thing they yelled at the liberals for doing on climate undo my second and last paragraph's? They are just as bad as the Biden crowd, just different set of issues their willing to let go.
How far do you go for ends justifies the means? Obviously, for Fentanyl you are good with what is going on. Get it a trigger for you. But, there are ALOT of other people that don't have Fentanyl or illegal drug issues in their life. Some believe prescription drug abuse is more of a problem. Some believe the Climate is more of a problem. Some believe aggressive driving and traffic deaths are more of an issue. I can go on, depends on what happened to each of us individually. How fare are you willing to go? Automated camera traffic ticketing? Raids on Doctor's offices? Allowing Elon to take over the sky? All can be done by the President with a swipe of the pen as a National Emergency.
Change the law. The system is in place for a reason, we have *******ized it and the ramifications are brutal. As you know, what we agree on with the President can be turned to something else, very easily, both left and right.
You closed with a false dilemma. There is no law preventing a POTUS from ordering the US Navy in international waters to sink drug cartel watercraft engaged in hostile acts against the USA. In fact, he has cited explicit statutory authority to do so.
Underneath nearly all arguments against what POTUS is doing to the watercraft of drug cartels designated as terror groups is the faulty premise that non-citizens outside of our jurisdiction engaged in illegal activity may ONLY be dealt with via law enforcement measures. Not. So. If Hizballah is running drugs to raise cash (and they've done that forever) are we obligated to reel in military options and instead treat them as a LE problem? No. We should refuse to treat them as a LE problem, because to do so would require us to bring them into the jurisdiction of our courts to do so at enormous risk and cost to the taxpayer. Far cheaper and wiser to dispatch them abroad with military assets.
Small powers avoid direct confrontation of great powers, and instead choose asymmetrical warfare tactics designed to harass those greater powers, to distract and dissuade and ideally destabilize them if possible. A hostile power like Venezuela allowing drug cartels into its ruling coalition affords it the de facto proxies necessary to wage asymmetrical warfare against us, in ways that (ironically) prompt people otherwise inimical to Venezuela and drug cartels to defend the de facto alliance between Venezuela and the Cartels of the Sun from the full force of USG policy response. (as if Venezuela has some right under international law to allow its state institutions to be a safe haven for drug cartels operating against the USA).
Whether or not we created a law in 1973 or in 2003 after 911 doesn't change the concern. Both are modern laws that delegate authority from one branch to the other. Using these powers so close to the US or even in the US itself begs the question of when is Executive Power too much. Opinion polls and laws on the books are not the end all for policy. There are bad laws on the books, there are legal acts that are immoral or just not good ideas, and there are Executives that are more Authoritarian than others that use those laws.
"close to the US" is neither a concern nor a factor. You deal with the problem where it is.
"In the US itself" is manifestly not a factor. We have LE and Courts to handle it there. No role for the military inside the country until/unless things get wildly out of hand (i.e. total breakdown of civil order). This issue is about how we deal with the problem OUTSIDE the jurisdiction of US courts. (FYI, international law on piracy is written in context of "hot pursuit" scenarios or universal law claims. US has never exercised a universal law claim (in no small because we do not want to empower lesser powers to invoke it against US interests).
You are simply not addressing the issue at all. There is nothing illegal about what we are doing to the speedboats of the drug cartels who have been designated as terror organizations. If they attempt to run a blockade, they will be destroyed.
The concern is absolutely valid. Trump has just as much authority to order such strikes inside the country as to order them in the Caribbean. He's already declaring bogus emergencies (i.e. "breakdowns of civil order") as a way of involving the military.
More fiction. He has not claimed any right for US military or civilian assets to drone-strike anyone transporting drugs on our streets.
Yet by your reasoning, he could.
LOL, no. Unlike in the foreign policy realm, where lack of US jurisdiction which sharply limits the need for due process to limit the hand of the executive, inside the USA we have robust systems of state & federal law to guide policy responses to problems.
By your reasoning, we will need a lawyer to accompany every rifleman on the battlefield.
Again, the law provides jurisdiction to search and seize, and we exercise it routinely. If this were a battlefield, other laws would apply.
Nonresponsive.
Plug was pulled years ago, perhaps even in infancy. Oh…..wait…….
whiterock said:Assassin said:Porteroso said:
An interesting article on the people killed.
https://apnews.com/article/trump-venezuela-boat-strikes-drugs-cocaine-trafficking-e4fcf945e48e36bf2c510f9f111e031cQuote:
In dozens of interviews in villages on Venezuela's breathtaking northeastern coast, from which some of the boats departed, residents and relatives told Garcia Cano the dead men had indeed been running drugs but were not narco-terrorists, as alleged by the Trump administration, or leaders of a cartel or gang.
Most of the nine men were crewing such craft for the first or second time, making at least $500 per trip, residents and relatives said. The four dead men included a fisherman, a down-on-his-luck bus driver, a former military cadet and a local crime boss. Others included laborers and a motorcycle driver.
AP News... I'm sure that's accurate and proven.
Down on the luck bus driver, fisherman, an ex military cadet and local crime dude drive off in an ocean going vessel with 4 massive outboard motors, hauling millions of dollars worth of drugs. Make sense...probably just a fishing boat looking for marlin
the article is just more social justice narrative = poverty makes it ok, particularly when it's the "little guy" sticking it to "the man" (the USA). No handsome, jewelry-adorned Pablo Escobar-esque businessmen in Panama hats in sight, ergo it's just the underclass forced into common crime by the many dysfunctions of global capitalism.
Truth is, cartel mules don't wear uniforms and drive vehicles emblazoned with logos carrying goods with QR codes and guaranteed analysis labels on them. They are street level criminals in an international drug cartel trying to remain inconspicuous. One way to shut down a drug cartel is to destroy its distribution operation by making it impossible to find boat crews (who know that pulling away from port on the Paria Peninsula in a fishing boat laden with bale of cocaine is a certain death sentence). To the extent that pressuring the drug cartels thusly also puts pressure on the national government who is protecting & promoting said cartels......well, that is good policy.
A blockade is an act of war. Notably, we are not blockading commercial traffic in/out of Venezuela. Neither the cargo ships, nor the oil tankers nor the airliners or cruise ships, etc.....just drug smuggling boats. Venezuela cannot claim such is an act of war without admitting they are allowing drug smugglers to operate from its shores. So Maduro has to bend over and take it. The cartel leadership in his cabinet is railing at him to do something. But he can't. If he does, he provokes US military response against himself directly. He knows what happened to Saddam Hussein and Bin Ladin. Nobody in their right mind, most particularly a head of state worth billions of dollars, wants to spend a decade hiding in a hole waiting for the inevitable end = to get shot a couple hundred times in the middle of the night by Seal Team 6.
War is a continuation of policy by other means. Drug cartels are overwhelming US law enforcement. Ergo we are bringing "additional resources" to bear on their operations abroad.
Going to war with cartels should mean trying to get the leaders, stop distribution, as you say.... which is different from killing the impoverished fishermen desperate enough to take a risky job. A losing strategy. There are quite a few poor folks in Central America.
big changes are ahoof down VZ way......................
- uncle fred*
DEVELOPING!
* dir. ufri
{ sipping coffee }
{ eating whole grain organic toast }
Viva Trumpata!!
- uncle fred*
DEVELOPING!
* dir. ufri
{ sipping coffee }
{ eating whole grain organic toast }
Viva Trumpata!!
arbyscoin - the only crypto you can eat....
Porteroso said:whiterock said:Assassin said:Porteroso said:
An interesting article on the people killed.
https://apnews.com/article/trump-venezuela-boat-strikes-drugs-cocaine-trafficking-e4fcf945e48e36bf2c510f9f111e031cQuote:
In dozens of interviews in villages on Venezuela's breathtaking northeastern coast, from which some of the boats departed, residents and relatives told Garcia Cano the dead men had indeed been running drugs but were not narco-terrorists, as alleged by the Trump administration, or leaders of a cartel or gang.
Most of the nine men were crewing such craft for the first or second time, making at least $500 per trip, residents and relatives said. The four dead men included a fisherman, a down-on-his-luck bus driver, a former military cadet and a local crime boss. Others included laborers and a motorcycle driver.
AP News... I'm sure that's accurate and proven.
Down on the luck bus driver, fisherman, an ex military cadet and local crime dude drive off in an ocean going vessel with 4 massive outboard motors, hauling millions of dollars worth of drugs. Make sense...probably just a fishing boat looking for marlin
the article is just more social justice narrative = poverty makes it ok, particularly when it's the "little guy" sticking it to "the man" (the USA). No handsome, jewelry-adorned Pablo Escobar-esque businessmen in Panama hats in sight, ergo it's just the underclass forced into common crime by the many dysfunctions of global capitalism.
Truth is, cartel mules don't wear uniforms and drive vehicles emblazoned with logos carrying goods with QR codes and guaranteed analysis labels on them. They are street level criminals in an international drug cartel trying to remain inconspicuous. One way to shut down a drug cartel is to destroy its distribution operation by making it impossible to find boat crews (who know that pulling away from port on the Paria Peninsula in a fishing boat laden with bale of cocaine is a certain death sentence). To the extent that pressuring the drug cartels thusly also puts pressure on the national government who is protecting & promoting said cartels......well, that is good policy.
A blockade is an act of war. Notably, we are not blockading commercial traffic in/out of Venezuela. Neither the cargo ships, nor the oil tankers nor the airliners or cruise ships, etc.....just drug smuggling boats. Venezuela cannot claim such is an act of war without admitting they are allowing drug smugglers to operate from its shores. So Maduro has to bend over and take it. The cartel leadership in his cabinet is railing at him to do something. But he can't. If he does, he provokes US military response against himself directly. He knows what happened to Saddam Hussein and Bin Ladin. Nobody in their right mind, most particularly a head of state worth billions of dollars, wants to spend a decade hiding in a hole waiting for the inevitable end = to get shot a couple hundred times in the middle of the night by Seal Team 6.
War is a continuation of policy by other means. Drug cartels are overwhelming US law enforcement. Ergo we are bringing "additional resources" to bear on their operations abroad.
Going to war with cartels should mean trying to get the leaders, stop distribution, as you say.... which is different from killing the impoverished fishermen desperate enough to take a risky job. A losing strategy. There are quite a few poor folks in Central America.
It's pretty funny you think the cartel would just handover millions of product to random "poor fisherman." You do you Boogers & Glue.
Harrison Bergeron said:Porteroso said:whiterock said:Assassin said:Porteroso said:
An interesting article on the people killed.
https://apnews.com/article/trump-venezuela-boat-strikes-drugs-cocaine-trafficking-e4fcf945e48e36bf2c510f9f111e031cQuote:
In dozens of interviews in villages on Venezuela's breathtaking northeastern coast, from which some of the boats departed, residents and relatives told Garcia Cano the dead men had indeed been running drugs but were not narco-terrorists, as alleged by the Trump administration, or leaders of a cartel or gang.
Most of the nine men were crewing such craft for the first or second time, making at least $500 per trip, residents and relatives said. The four dead men included a fisherman, a down-on-his-luck bus driver, a former military cadet and a local crime boss. Others included laborers and a motorcycle driver.
AP News... I'm sure that's accurate and proven.
Down on the luck bus driver, fisherman, an ex military cadet and local crime dude drive off in an ocean going vessel with 4 massive outboard motors, hauling millions of dollars worth of drugs. Make sense...probably just a fishing boat looking for marlin
the article is just more social justice narrative = poverty makes it ok, particularly when it's the "little guy" sticking it to "the man" (the USA). No handsome, jewelry-adorned Pablo Escobar-esque businessmen in Panama hats in sight, ergo it's just the underclass forced into common crime by the many dysfunctions of global capitalism.
Truth is, cartel mules don't wear uniforms and drive vehicles emblazoned with logos carrying goods with QR codes and guaranteed analysis labels on them. They are street level criminals in an international drug cartel trying to remain inconspicuous. One way to shut down a drug cartel is to destroy its distribution operation by making it impossible to find boat crews (who know that pulling away from port on the Paria Peninsula in a fishing boat laden with bale of cocaine is a certain death sentence). To the extent that pressuring the drug cartels thusly also puts pressure on the national government who is protecting & promoting said cartels......well, that is good policy.
A blockade is an act of war. Notably, we are not blockading commercial traffic in/out of Venezuela. Neither the cargo ships, nor the oil tankers nor the airliners or cruise ships, etc.....just drug smuggling boats. Venezuela cannot claim such is an act of war without admitting they are allowing drug smugglers to operate from its shores. So Maduro has to bend over and take it. The cartel leadership in his cabinet is railing at him to do something. But he can't. If he does, he provokes US military response against himself directly. He knows what happened to Saddam Hussein and Bin Ladin. Nobody in their right mind, most particularly a head of state worth billions of dollars, wants to spend a decade hiding in a hole waiting for the inevitable end = to get shot a couple hundred times in the middle of the night by Seal Team 6.
War is a continuation of policy by other means. Drug cartels are overwhelming US law enforcement. Ergo we are bringing "additional resources" to bear on their operations abroad.
Going to war with cartels should mean trying to get the leaders, stop distribution, as you say.... which is different from killing the impoverished fishermen desperate enough to take a risky job. A losing strategy. There are quite a few poor folks in Central America.
It's pretty funny you think the cartel would just handover millions of product to random "poor fisherman." You do you Boogers & Glue.
You think cartel members do all the transportation? Have you tried googling that? Watching a movie? Gosh.
Harrison Bergeron said:Porteroso said:whiterock said:Assassin said:Porteroso said:
An interesting article on the people killed.
https://apnews.com/article/trump-venezuela-boat-strikes-drugs-cocaine-trafficking-e4fcf945e48e36bf2c510f9f111e031cQuote:
In dozens of interviews in villages on Venezuela's breathtaking northeastern coast, from which some of the boats departed, residents and relatives told Garcia Cano the dead men had indeed been running drugs but were not narco-terrorists, as alleged by the Trump administration, or leaders of a cartel or gang.
Most of the nine men were crewing such craft for the first or second time, making at least $500 per trip, residents and relatives said. The four dead men included a fisherman, a down-on-his-luck bus driver, a former military cadet and a local crime boss. Others included laborers and a motorcycle driver.
AP News... I'm sure that's accurate and proven.
Down on the luck bus driver, fisherman, an ex military cadet and local crime dude drive off in an ocean going vessel with 4 massive outboard motors, hauling millions of dollars worth of drugs. Make sense...probably just a fishing boat looking for marlin
the article is just more social justice narrative = poverty makes it ok, particularly when it's the "little guy" sticking it to "the man" (the USA). No handsome, jewelry-adorned Pablo Escobar-esque businessmen in Panama hats in sight, ergo it's just the underclass forced into common crime by the many dysfunctions of global capitalism.
Truth is, cartel mules don't wear uniforms and drive vehicles emblazoned with logos carrying goods with QR codes and guaranteed analysis labels on them. They are street level criminals in an international drug cartel trying to remain inconspicuous. One way to shut down a drug cartel is to destroy its distribution operation by making it impossible to find boat crews (who know that pulling away from port on the Paria Peninsula in a fishing boat laden with bale of cocaine is a certain death sentence). To the extent that pressuring the drug cartels thusly also puts pressure on the national government who is protecting & promoting said cartels......well, that is good policy.
A blockade is an act of war. Notably, we are not blockading commercial traffic in/out of Venezuela. Neither the cargo ships, nor the oil tankers nor the airliners or cruise ships, etc.....just drug smuggling boats. Venezuela cannot claim such is an act of war without admitting they are allowing drug smugglers to operate from its shores. So Maduro has to bend over and take it. The cartel leadership in his cabinet is railing at him to do something. But he can't. If he does, he provokes US military response against himself directly. He knows what happened to Saddam Hussein and Bin Ladin. Nobody in their right mind, most particularly a head of state worth billions of dollars, wants to spend a decade hiding in a hole waiting for the inevitable end = to get shot a couple hundred times in the middle of the night by Seal Team 6.
War is a continuation of policy by other means. Drug cartels are overwhelming US law enforcement. Ergo we are bringing "additional resources" to bear on their operations abroad.
Going to war with cartels should mean trying to get the leaders, stop distribution, as you say.... which is different from killing the impoverished fishermen desperate enough to take a risky job. A losing strategy. There are quite a few poor folks in Central America.
It's pretty funny you think the cartel would just handover millions of product to random "poor fisherman." You do you Boogers & Glue.
Rarely have I read an individual more naive than Port.
Worse….she seems to enjoy her naivety.
Sam Lowry said:whiterock said:Sam Lowry said:whiterock said:Sam Lowry said:whiterock said:FLBear5630 said:whiterock said:FLBear5630 said:KaiBear said:FLBear5630 said:ScottS said:
Yes, President Trump Can Blow Up Drug Boats - Chronicles
The question is whether drugs, which has been a law enforcement issue, is the same as terrorism.
No one on here, from what I can see, thinks it is bad to destroy drugs entering the US. No one on here seems to think that there are not drugs on those boats. Those are not the concerns.
The concern is how we are determining a "terrorist organization", the same as how we are determining "National Emergencies". Both of those, which are avenues this Administration are using broadly, give the Executive Branch much more power and leeway than the Constitution intends.
On a personal note, I just find it amusing watching people on here who were strict Constitutionalist 18 months ago defending Trump's taking of power and then applying all sorts of mental gymnastics and economic lessons to justify it. When the truth is that if the person in the President's seat advances what you (any of us) want, we will turn the other way. If it is something we don't want, like Biden's agenda, scream that the Constitution never intended for that... At least some on here say they are willing to look the other way to stop Fentanyl, I respect that more than the gymnastics because it is honest.
Me, I agree with what he is doing but worry about "how" and if that can be used in the future in ways I don't support or on me, for whatever reason.
Nothing amusing with the huge number of Americans dying every year from drug overdoses.
Past rules of engagement clearly have not worked.
Very glad Trump is taking a new approach.
If I had my way, a 2nd conviction for drug smuggling into the US would receive the death penalty.
An execution which would be 'fast tracked' within 6 months.
Results would be immediate
And how is my finding it amusing watching people change do the exact same thing they yelled at the liberals for doing on climate undo my second and last paragraph's? They are just as bad as the Biden crowd, just different set of issues their willing to let go.
How far do you go for ends justifies the means? Obviously, for Fentanyl you are good with what is going on. Get it a trigger for you. But, there are ALOT of other people that don't have Fentanyl or illegal drug issues in their life. Some believe prescription drug abuse is more of a problem. Some believe the Climate is more of a problem. Some believe aggressive driving and traffic deaths are more of an issue. I can go on, depends on what happened to each of us individually. How fare are you willing to go? Automated camera traffic ticketing? Raids on Doctor's offices? Allowing Elon to take over the sky? All can be done by the President with a swipe of the pen as a National Emergency.
Change the law. The system is in place for a reason, we have *******ized it and the ramifications are brutal. As you know, what we agree on with the President can be turned to something else, very easily, both left and right.
You closed with a false dilemma. There is no law preventing a POTUS from ordering the US Navy in international waters to sink drug cartel watercraft engaged in hostile acts against the USA. In fact, he has cited explicit statutory authority to do so.
Underneath nearly all arguments against what POTUS is doing to the watercraft of drug cartels designated as terror groups is the faulty premise that non-citizens outside of our jurisdiction engaged in illegal activity may ONLY be dealt with via law enforcement measures. Not. So. If Hizballah is running drugs to raise cash (and they've done that forever) are we obligated to reel in military options and instead treat them as a LE problem? No. We should refuse to treat them as a LE problem, because to do so would require us to bring them into the jurisdiction of our courts to do so at enormous risk and cost to the taxpayer. Far cheaper and wiser to dispatch them abroad with military assets.
Small powers avoid direct confrontation of great powers, and instead choose asymmetrical warfare tactics designed to harass those greater powers, to distract and dissuade and ideally destabilize them if possible. A hostile power like Venezuela allowing drug cartels into its ruling coalition affords it the de facto proxies necessary to wage asymmetrical warfare against us, in ways that (ironically) prompt people otherwise inimical to Venezuela and drug cartels to defend the de facto alliance between Venezuela and the Cartels of the Sun from the full force of USG policy response. (as if Venezuela has some right under international law to allow its state institutions to be a safe haven for drug cartels operating against the USA).
Whether or not we created a law in 1973 or in 2003 after 911 doesn't change the concern. Both are modern laws that delegate authority from one branch to the other. Using these powers so close to the US or even in the US itself begs the question of when is Executive Power too much. Opinion polls and laws on the books are not the end all for policy. There are bad laws on the books, there are legal acts that are immoral or just not good ideas, and there are Executives that are more Authoritarian than others that use those laws.
"close to the US" is neither a concern nor a factor. You deal with the problem where it is.
"In the US itself" is manifestly not a factor. We have LE and Courts to handle it there. No role for the military inside the country until/unless things get wildly out of hand (i.e. total breakdown of civil order). This issue is about how we deal with the problem OUTSIDE the jurisdiction of US courts. (FYI, international law on piracy is written in context of "hot pursuit" scenarios or universal law claims. US has never exercised a universal law claim (in no small because we do not want to empower lesser powers to invoke it against US interests).
You are simply not addressing the issue at all. There is nothing illegal about what we are doing to the speedboats of the drug cartels who have been designated as terror organizations. If they attempt to run a blockade, they will be destroyed.
The concern is absolutely valid. Trump has just as much authority to order such strikes inside the country as to order them in the Caribbean. He's already declaring bogus emergencies (i.e. "breakdowns of civil order") as a way of involving the military.
More fiction. He has not claimed any right for US military or civilian assets to drone-strike anyone transporting drugs on our streets.
Yet by your reasoning, he could.
LOL, no. Unlike in the foreign policy realm, where lack of US jurisdiction which sharply limits the need for due process to limit the hand of the executive, inside the USA we have robust systems of state & federal law to guide policy responses to problems.
By your reasoning, we will need a lawyer to accompany every rifleman on the battlefield.
Again, the law provides jurisdiction to search and seize, and we exercise it routinely. If this were a battlefield, other laws would apply.
LOL it is a battlefield, thanks to the terror designation, ergo there is no obligation to search & seize. Kinetic options suffice.
Harrison Bergeron said:Porteroso said:whiterock said:Assassin said:Porteroso said:
An interesting article on the people killed.
https://apnews.com/article/trump-venezuela-boat-strikes-drugs-cocaine-trafficking-e4fcf945e48e36bf2c510f9f111e031cQuote:
In dozens of interviews in villages on Venezuela's breathtaking northeastern coast, from which some of the boats departed, residents and relatives told Garcia Cano the dead men had indeed been running drugs but were not narco-terrorists, as alleged by the Trump administration, or leaders of a cartel or gang.
Most of the nine men were crewing such craft for the first or second time, making at least $500 per trip, residents and relatives said. The four dead men included a fisherman, a down-on-his-luck bus driver, a former military cadet and a local crime boss. Others included laborers and a motorcycle driver.
AP News... I'm sure that's accurate and proven.
Down on the luck bus driver, fisherman, an ex military cadet and local crime dude drive off in an ocean going vessel with 4 massive outboard motors, hauling millions of dollars worth of drugs. Make sense...probably just a fishing boat looking for marlin
the article is just more social justice narrative = poverty makes it ok, particularly when it's the "little guy" sticking it to "the man" (the USA). No handsome, jewelry-adorned Pablo Escobar-esque businessmen in Panama hats in sight, ergo it's just the underclass forced into common crime by the many dysfunctions of global capitalism.
Truth is, cartel mules don't wear uniforms and drive vehicles emblazoned with logos carrying goods with QR codes and guaranteed analysis labels on them. They are street level criminals in an international drug cartel trying to remain inconspicuous. One way to shut down a drug cartel is to destroy its distribution operation by making it impossible to find boat crews (who know that pulling away from port on the Paria Peninsula in a fishing boat laden with bale of cocaine is a certain death sentence). To the extent that pressuring the drug cartels thusly also puts pressure on the national government who is protecting & promoting said cartels......well, that is good policy.
A blockade is an act of war. Notably, we are not blockading commercial traffic in/out of Venezuela. Neither the cargo ships, nor the oil tankers nor the airliners or cruise ships, etc.....just drug smuggling boats. Venezuela cannot claim such is an act of war without admitting they are allowing drug smugglers to operate from its shores. So Maduro has to bend over and take it. The cartel leadership in his cabinet is railing at him to do something. But he can't. If he does, he provokes US military response against himself directly. He knows what happened to Saddam Hussein and Bin Ladin. Nobody in their right mind, most particularly a head of state worth billions of dollars, wants to spend a decade hiding in a hole waiting for the inevitable end = to get shot a couple hundred times in the middle of the night by Seal Team 6.
War is a continuation of policy by other means. Drug cartels are overwhelming US law enforcement. Ergo we are bringing "additional resources" to bear on their operations abroad.
Going to war with cartels should mean trying to get the leaders, stop distribution, as you say.... which is different from killing the impoverished fishermen desperate enough to take a risky job. A losing strategy. There are quite a few poor folks in Central America.
It's pretty funny you think the cartel would just handover millions of product to random "poor fisherman." You do you Boogers & Glue.
she's missing the escalation sequence. Striking cartel logistics in the open ocean is NOT an act of war. Striking cartel command & control in Venezuelan territory IS an act of war.
You start off with the deployments. Then you hit what you can hit in international territory. Then, you engage in covert operations. Hopefully, you provoke the regime into a response that you can define as an act of war. Then, it's game on.
That's what's afoot off the coat of Venezuela.
whiterock said:Sam Lowry said:whiterock said:Sam Lowry said:whiterock said:Sam Lowry said:whiterock said:FLBear5630 said:whiterock said:FLBear5630 said:KaiBear said:FLBear5630 said:ScottS said:
Yes, President Trump Can Blow Up Drug Boats - Chronicles
The question is whether drugs, which has been a law enforcement issue, is the same as terrorism.
No one on here, from what I can see, thinks it is bad to destroy drugs entering the US. No one on here seems to think that there are not drugs on those boats. Those are not the concerns.
The concern is how we are determining a "terrorist organization", the same as how we are determining "National Emergencies". Both of those, which are avenues this Administration are using broadly, give the Executive Branch much more power and leeway than the Constitution intends.
On a personal note, I just find it amusing watching people on here who were strict Constitutionalist 18 months ago defending Trump's taking of power and then applying all sorts of mental gymnastics and economic lessons to justify it. When the truth is that if the person in the President's seat advances what you (any of us) want, we will turn the other way. If it is something we don't want, like Biden's agenda, scream that the Constitution never intended for that... At least some on here say they are willing to look the other way to stop Fentanyl, I respect that more than the gymnastics because it is honest.
Me, I agree with what he is doing but worry about "how" and if that can be used in the future in ways I don't support or on me, for whatever reason.
Nothing amusing with the huge number of Americans dying every year from drug overdoses.
Past rules of engagement clearly have not worked.
Very glad Trump is taking a new approach.
If I had my way, a 2nd conviction for drug smuggling into the US would receive the death penalty.
An execution which would be 'fast tracked' within 6 months.
Results would be immediate
And how is my finding it amusing watching people change do the exact same thing they yelled at the liberals for doing on climate undo my second and last paragraph's? They are just as bad as the Biden crowd, just different set of issues their willing to let go.
How far do you go for ends justifies the means? Obviously, for Fentanyl you are good with what is going on. Get it a trigger for you. But, there are ALOT of other people that don't have Fentanyl or illegal drug issues in their life. Some believe prescription drug abuse is more of a problem. Some believe the Climate is more of a problem. Some believe aggressive driving and traffic deaths are more of an issue. I can go on, depends on what happened to each of us individually. How fare are you willing to go? Automated camera traffic ticketing? Raids on Doctor's offices? Allowing Elon to take over the sky? All can be done by the President with a swipe of the pen as a National Emergency.
Change the law. The system is in place for a reason, we have *******ized it and the ramifications are brutal. As you know, what we agree on with the President can be turned to something else, very easily, both left and right.
You closed with a false dilemma. There is no law preventing a POTUS from ordering the US Navy in international waters to sink drug cartel watercraft engaged in hostile acts against the USA. In fact, he has cited explicit statutory authority to do so.
Underneath nearly all arguments against what POTUS is doing to the watercraft of drug cartels designated as terror groups is the faulty premise that non-citizens outside of our jurisdiction engaged in illegal activity may ONLY be dealt with via law enforcement measures. Not. So. If Hizballah is running drugs to raise cash (and they've done that forever) are we obligated to reel in military options and instead treat them as a LE problem? No. We should refuse to treat them as a LE problem, because to do so would require us to bring them into the jurisdiction of our courts to do so at enormous risk and cost to the taxpayer. Far cheaper and wiser to dispatch them abroad with military assets.
Small powers avoid direct confrontation of great powers, and instead choose asymmetrical warfare tactics designed to harass those greater powers, to distract and dissuade and ideally destabilize them if possible. A hostile power like Venezuela allowing drug cartels into its ruling coalition affords it the de facto proxies necessary to wage asymmetrical warfare against us, in ways that (ironically) prompt people otherwise inimical to Venezuela and drug cartels to defend the de facto alliance between Venezuela and the Cartels of the Sun from the full force of USG policy response. (as if Venezuela has some right under international law to allow its state institutions to be a safe haven for drug cartels operating against the USA).
Whether or not we created a law in 1973 or in 2003 after 911 doesn't change the concern. Both are modern laws that delegate authority from one branch to the other. Using these powers so close to the US or even in the US itself begs the question of when is Executive Power too much. Opinion polls and laws on the books are not the end all for policy. There are bad laws on the books, there are legal acts that are immoral or just not good ideas, and there are Executives that are more Authoritarian than others that use those laws.
"close to the US" is neither a concern nor a factor. You deal with the problem where it is.
"In the US itself" is manifestly not a factor. We have LE and Courts to handle it there. No role for the military inside the country until/unless things get wildly out of hand (i.e. total breakdown of civil order). This issue is about how we deal with the problem OUTSIDE the jurisdiction of US courts. (FYI, international law on piracy is written in context of "hot pursuit" scenarios or universal law claims. US has never exercised a universal law claim (in no small because we do not want to empower lesser powers to invoke it against US interests).
You are simply not addressing the issue at all. There is nothing illegal about what we are doing to the speedboats of the drug cartels who have been designated as terror organizations. If they attempt to run a blockade, they will be destroyed.
The concern is absolutely valid. Trump has just as much authority to order such strikes inside the country as to order them in the Caribbean. He's already declaring bogus emergencies (i.e. "breakdowns of civil order") as a way of involving the military.
More fiction. He has not claimed any right for US military or civilian assets to drone-strike anyone transporting drugs on our streets.
Yet by your reasoning, he could.
LOL, no. Unlike in the foreign policy realm, where lack of US jurisdiction which sharply limits the need for due process to limit the hand of the executive, inside the USA we have robust systems of state & federal law to guide policy responses to problems.
By your reasoning, we will need a lawyer to accompany every rifleman on the battlefield.
Again, the law provides jurisdiction to search and seize, and we exercise it routinely. If this were a battlefield, other laws would apply.
LOL it is a battlefield, thanks to the terror designation, ergo there is no obligation to search & seize. Kinetic options suffice.
Wrong.
Sam Lowry said:whiterock said:Sam Lowry said:whiterock said:Sam Lowry said:whiterock said:Sam Lowry said:whiterock said:FLBear5630 said:whiterock said:FLBear5630 said:KaiBear said:FLBear5630 said:ScottS said:
Yes, President Trump Can Blow Up Drug Boats - Chronicles
The question is whether drugs, which has been a law enforcement issue, is the same as terrorism.
No one on here, from what I can see, thinks it is bad to destroy drugs entering the US. No one on here seems to think that there are not drugs on those boats. Those are not the concerns.
The concern is how we are determining a "terrorist organization", the same as how we are determining "National Emergencies". Both of those, which are avenues this Administration are using broadly, give the Executive Branch much more power and leeway than the Constitution intends.
On a personal note, I just find it amusing watching people on here who were strict Constitutionalist 18 months ago defending Trump's taking of power and then applying all sorts of mental gymnastics and economic lessons to justify it. When the truth is that if the person in the President's seat advances what you (any of us) want, we will turn the other way. If it is something we don't want, like Biden's agenda, scream that the Constitution never intended for that... At least some on here say they are willing to look the other way to stop Fentanyl, I respect that more than the gymnastics because it is honest.
Me, I agree with what he is doing but worry about "how" and if that can be used in the future in ways I don't support or on me, for whatever reason.
Nothing amusing with the huge number of Americans dying every year from drug overdoses.
Past rules of engagement clearly have not worked.
Very glad Trump is taking a new approach.
If I had my way, a 2nd conviction for drug smuggling into the US would receive the death penalty.
An execution which would be 'fast tracked' within 6 months.
Results would be immediate
And how is my finding it amusing watching people change do the exact same thing they yelled at the liberals for doing on climate undo my second and last paragraph's? They are just as bad as the Biden crowd, just different set of issues their willing to let go.
How far do you go for ends justifies the means? Obviously, for Fentanyl you are good with what is going on. Get it a trigger for you. But, there are ALOT of other people that don't have Fentanyl or illegal drug issues in their life. Some believe prescription drug abuse is more of a problem. Some believe the Climate is more of a problem. Some believe aggressive driving and traffic deaths are more of an issue. I can go on, depends on what happened to each of us individually. How fare are you willing to go? Automated camera traffic ticketing? Raids on Doctor's offices? Allowing Elon to take over the sky? All can be done by the President with a swipe of the pen as a National Emergency.
Change the law. The system is in place for a reason, we have *******ized it and the ramifications are brutal. As you know, what we agree on with the President can be turned to something else, very easily, both left and right.
You closed with a false dilemma. There is no law preventing a POTUS from ordering the US Navy in international waters to sink drug cartel watercraft engaged in hostile acts against the USA. In fact, he has cited explicit statutory authority to do so.
Underneath nearly all arguments against what POTUS is doing to the watercraft of drug cartels designated as terror groups is the faulty premise that non-citizens outside of our jurisdiction engaged in illegal activity may ONLY be dealt with via law enforcement measures. Not. So. If Hizballah is running drugs to raise cash (and they've done that forever) are we obligated to reel in military options and instead treat them as a LE problem? No. We should refuse to treat them as a LE problem, because to do so would require us to bring them into the jurisdiction of our courts to do so at enormous risk and cost to the taxpayer. Far cheaper and wiser to dispatch them abroad with military assets.
Small powers avoid direct confrontation of great powers, and instead choose asymmetrical warfare tactics designed to harass those greater powers, to distract and dissuade and ideally destabilize them if possible. A hostile power like Venezuela allowing drug cartels into its ruling coalition affords it the de facto proxies necessary to wage asymmetrical warfare against us, in ways that (ironically) prompt people otherwise inimical to Venezuela and drug cartels to defend the de facto alliance between Venezuela and the Cartels of the Sun from the full force of USG policy response. (as if Venezuela has some right under international law to allow its state institutions to be a safe haven for drug cartels operating against the USA).
Whether or not we created a law in 1973 or in 2003 after 911 doesn't change the concern. Both are modern laws that delegate authority from one branch to the other. Using these powers so close to the US or even in the US itself begs the question of when is Executive Power too much. Opinion polls and laws on the books are not the end all for policy. There are bad laws on the books, there are legal acts that are immoral or just not good ideas, and there are Executives that are more Authoritarian than others that use those laws.
"close to the US" is neither a concern nor a factor. You deal with the problem where it is.
"In the US itself" is manifestly not a factor. We have LE and Courts to handle it there. No role for the military inside the country until/unless things get wildly out of hand (i.e. total breakdown of civil order). This issue is about how we deal with the problem OUTSIDE the jurisdiction of US courts. (FYI, international law on piracy is written in context of "hot pursuit" scenarios or universal law claims. US has never exercised a universal law claim (in no small because we do not want to empower lesser powers to invoke it against US interests).
You are simply not addressing the issue at all. There is nothing illegal about what we are doing to the speedboats of the drug cartels who have been designated as terror organizations. If they attempt to run a blockade, they will be destroyed.
The concern is absolutely valid. Trump has just as much authority to order such strikes inside the country as to order them in the Caribbean. He's already declaring bogus emergencies (i.e. "breakdowns of civil order") as a way of involving the military.
More fiction. He has not claimed any right for US military or civilian assets to drone-strike anyone transporting drugs on our streets.
Yet by your reasoning, he could.
LOL, no. Unlike in the foreign policy realm, where lack of US jurisdiction which sharply limits the need for due process to limit the hand of the executive, inside the USA we have robust systems of state & federal law to guide policy responses to problems.
By your reasoning, we will need a lawyer to accompany every rifleman on the battlefield.
Again, the law provides jurisdiction to search and seize, and we exercise it routinely. If this were a battlefield, other laws would apply.
LOL it is a battlefield, thanks to the terror designation, ergo there is no obligation to search & seize. Kinetic options suffice.
Wrong.
Until SCOTUS overturns the designation, or the statute empowering it, the drug cartels we are shooting at are legally defined as terrorist organizations, rendering kinetic options an appropriate response (no matter how much you may not like it).
I would advise making a case for policy alternatives with a better chance of success rather than taking the right-wing knuckle-dragger option of declaring everything you don't like as unconstitutional.
Sam Lowry said:whiterock said:Sam Lowry said:whiterock said:Sam Lowry said:whiterock said:Sam Lowry said:whiterock said:FLBear5630 said:whiterock said:FLBear5630 said:KaiBear said:FLBear5630 said:ScottS said:
Yes, President Trump Can Blow Up Drug Boats - Chronicles
The question is whether drugs, which has been a law enforcement issue, is the same as terrorism.
No one on here, from what I can see, thinks it is bad to destroy drugs entering the US. No one on here seems to think that there are not drugs on those boats. Those are not the concerns.
The concern is how we are determining a "terrorist organization", the same as how we are determining "National Emergencies". Both of those, which are avenues this Administration are using broadly, give the Executive Branch much more power and leeway than the Constitution intends.
On a personal note, I just find it amusing watching people on here who were strict Constitutionalist 18 months ago defending Trump's taking of power and then applying all sorts of mental gymnastics and economic lessons to justify it. When the truth is that if the person in the President's seat advances what you (any of us) want, we will turn the other way. If it is something we don't want, like Biden's agenda, scream that the Constitution never intended for that... At least some on here say they are willing to look the other way to stop Fentanyl, I respect that more than the gymnastics because it is honest.
Me, I agree with what he is doing but worry about "how" and if that can be used in the future in ways I don't support or on me, for whatever reason.
Nothing amusing with the huge number of Americans dying every year from drug overdoses.
Past rules of engagement clearly have not worked.
Very glad Trump is taking a new approach.
If I had my way, a 2nd conviction for drug smuggling into the US would receive the death penalty.
An execution which would be 'fast tracked' within 6 months.
Results would be immediate
And how is my finding it amusing watching people change do the exact same thing they yelled at the liberals for doing on climate undo my second and last paragraph's? They are just as bad as the Biden crowd, just different set of issues their willing to let go.
How far do you go for ends justifies the means? Obviously, for Fentanyl you are good with what is going on. Get it a trigger for you. But, there are ALOT of other people that don't have Fentanyl or illegal drug issues in their life. Some believe prescription drug abuse is more of a problem. Some believe the Climate is more of a problem. Some believe aggressive driving and traffic deaths are more of an issue. I can go on, depends on what happened to each of us individually. How fare are you willing to go? Automated camera traffic ticketing? Raids on Doctor's offices? Allowing Elon to take over the sky? All can be done by the President with a swipe of the pen as a National Emergency.
Change the law. The system is in place for a reason, we have *******ized it and the ramifications are brutal. As you know, what we agree on with the President can be turned to something else, very easily, both left and right.
You closed with a false dilemma. There is no law preventing a POTUS from ordering the US Navy in international waters to sink drug cartel watercraft engaged in hostile acts against the USA. In fact, he has cited explicit statutory authority to do so.
Underneath nearly all arguments against what POTUS is doing to the watercraft of drug cartels designated as terror groups is the faulty premise that non-citizens outside of our jurisdiction engaged in illegal activity may ONLY be dealt with via law enforcement measures. Not. So. If Hizballah is running drugs to raise cash (and they've done that forever) are we obligated to reel in military options and instead treat them as a LE problem? No. We should refuse to treat them as a LE problem, because to do so would require us to bring them into the jurisdiction of our courts to do so at enormous risk and cost to the taxpayer. Far cheaper and wiser to dispatch them abroad with military assets.
Small powers avoid direct confrontation of great powers, and instead choose asymmetrical warfare tactics designed to harass those greater powers, to distract and dissuade and ideally destabilize them if possible. A hostile power like Venezuela allowing drug cartels into its ruling coalition affords it the de facto proxies necessary to wage asymmetrical warfare against us, in ways that (ironically) prompt people otherwise inimical to Venezuela and drug cartels to defend the de facto alliance between Venezuela and the Cartels of the Sun from the full force of USG policy response. (as if Venezuela has some right under international law to allow its state institutions to be a safe haven for drug cartels operating against the USA).
Whether or not we created a law in 1973 or in 2003 after 911 doesn't change the concern. Both are modern laws that delegate authority from one branch to the other. Using these powers so close to the US or even in the US itself begs the question of when is Executive Power too much. Opinion polls and laws on the books are not the end all for policy. There are bad laws on the books, there are legal acts that are immoral or just not good ideas, and there are Executives that are more Authoritarian than others that use those laws.
"close to the US" is neither a concern nor a factor. You deal with the problem where it is.
"In the US itself" is manifestly not a factor. We have LE and Courts to handle it there. No role for the military inside the country until/unless things get wildly out of hand (i.e. total breakdown of civil order). This issue is about how we deal with the problem OUTSIDE the jurisdiction of US courts. (FYI, international law on piracy is written in context of "hot pursuit" scenarios or universal law claims. US has never exercised a universal law claim (in no small because we do not want to empower lesser powers to invoke it against US interests).
You are simply not addressing the issue at all. There is nothing illegal about what we are doing to the speedboats of the drug cartels who have been designated as terror organizations. If they attempt to run a blockade, they will be destroyed.
The concern is absolutely valid. Trump has just as much authority to order such strikes inside the country as to order them in the Caribbean. He's already declaring bogus emergencies (i.e. "breakdowns of civil order") as a way of involving the military.
More fiction. He has not claimed any right for US military or civilian assets to drone-strike anyone transporting drugs on our streets.
Yet by your reasoning, he could.
LOL, no. Unlike in the foreign policy realm, where lack of US jurisdiction which sharply limits the need for due process to limit the hand of the executive, inside the USA we have robust systems of state & federal law to guide policy responses to problems.
By your reasoning, we will need a lawyer to accompany every rifleman on the battlefield.
Again, the law provides jurisdiction to search and seize, and we exercise it routinely. If this were a battlefield, other laws would apply.
LOL it is a battlefield, thanks to the terror designation, ergo there is no obligation to search & seize. Kinetic options suffice.
Wrong.
You're so eloquent...
"I will not die today, but the same cannot be said for you." - From Assassin's Creed
Assassin said:Sam Lowry said:whiterock said:Sam Lowry said:whiterock said:Sam Lowry said:whiterock said:Sam Lowry said:whiterock said:FLBear5630 said:whiterock said:FLBear5630 said:
And how is my finding it amusing watching people change do the exact same thing they yelled at the liberals for doing on climate undo my second and last paragraph's? They are just as bad as the Biden crowd, just different set of issues their willing to let go.
How far do you go for ends justifies the means? Obviously, for Fentanyl you are good with what is going on. Get it a trigger for you. But, there are ALOT of other people that don't have Fentanyl or illegal drug issues in their life. Some believe prescription drug abuse is more of a problem. Some believe the Climate is more of a problem. Some believe aggressive driving and traffic deaths are more of an issue. I can go on, depends on what happened to each of us individually. How fare are you willing to go? Automated camera traffic ticketing? Raids on Doctor's offices? Allowing Elon to take over the sky? All can be done by the President with a swipe of the pen as a National Emergency.
Change the law. The system is in place for a reason, we have *******ized it and the ramifications are brutal. As you know, what we agree on with the President can be turned to something else, very easily, both left and right.
You closed with a false dilemma. There is no law preventing a POTUS from ordering the US Navy in international waters to sink drug cartel watercraft engaged in hostile acts against the USA. In fact, he has cited explicit statutory authority to do so.
Underneath nearly all arguments against what POTUS is doing to the watercraft of drug cartels designated as terror groups is the faulty premise that non-citizens outside of our jurisdiction engaged in illegal activity may ONLY be dealt with via law enforcement measures. Not. So. If Hizballah is running drugs to raise cash (and they've done that forever) are we obligated to reel in military options and instead treat them as a LE problem? No. We should refuse to treat them as a LE problem, because to do so would require us to bring them into the jurisdiction of our courts to do so at enormous risk and cost to the taxpayer. Far cheaper and wiser to dispatch them abroad with military assets.
Small powers avoid direct confrontation of great powers, and instead choose asymmetrical warfare tactics designed to harass those greater powers, to distract and dissuade and ideally destabilize them if possible. A hostile power like Venezuela allowing drug cartels into its ruling coalition affords it the de facto proxies necessary to wage asymmetrical warfare against us, in ways that (ironically) prompt people otherwise inimical to Venezuela and drug cartels to defend the de facto alliance between Venezuela and the Cartels of the Sun from the full force of USG policy response. (as if Venezuela has some right under international law to allow its state institutions to be a safe haven for drug cartels operating against the USA).
Whether or not we created a law in 1973 or in 2003 after 911 doesn't change the concern. Both are modern laws that delegate authority from one branch to the other. Using these powers so close to the US or even in the US itself begs the question of when is Executive Power too much. Opinion polls and laws on the books are not the end all for policy. There are bad laws on the books, there are legal acts that are immoral or just not good ideas, and there are Executives that are more Authoritarian than others that use those laws.
"close to the US" is neither a concern nor a factor. You deal with the problem where it is.
"In the US itself" is manifestly not a factor. We have LE and Courts to handle it there. No role for the military inside the country until/unless things get wildly out of hand (i.e. total breakdown of civil order). This issue is about how we deal with the problem OUTSIDE the jurisdiction of US courts. (FYI, international law on piracy is written in context of "hot pursuit" scenarios or universal law claims. US has never exercised a universal law claim (in no small because we do not want to empower lesser powers to invoke it against US interests).
You are simply not addressing the issue at all. There is nothing illegal about what we are doing to the speedboats of the drug cartels who have been designated as terror organizations. If they attempt to run a blockade, they will be destroyed.
The concern is absolutely valid. Trump has just as much authority to order such strikes inside the country as to order them in the Caribbean. He's already declaring bogus emergencies (i.e. "breakdowns of civil order") as a way of involving the military.
More fiction. He has not claimed any right for US military or civilian assets to drone-strike anyone transporting drugs on our streets.
Yet by your reasoning, he could.
LOL, no. Unlike in the foreign policy realm, where lack of US jurisdiction which sharply limits the need for due process to limit the hand of the executive, inside the USA we have robust systems of state & federal law to guide policy responses to problems.
By your reasoning, we will need a lawyer to accompany every rifleman on the battlefield.
Again, the law provides jurisdiction to search and seize, and we exercise it routinely. If this were a battlefield, other laws would apply.
LOL it is a battlefield, thanks to the terror designation, ergo there is no obligation to search & seize. Kinetic options suffice.
Wrong.
You're so trans-eloquent...
FIFY
whiterock said:Sam Lowry said:whiterock said:Sam Lowry said:whiterock said:Sam Lowry said:whiterock said:Sam Lowry said:whiterock said:FLBear5630 said:whiterock said:FLBear5630 said:KaiBear said:FLBear5630 said:ScottS said:
Yes, President Trump Can Blow Up Drug Boats - Chronicles
The question is whether drugs, which has been a law enforcement issue, is the same as terrorism.
No one on here, from what I can see, thinks it is bad to destroy drugs entering the US. No one on here seems to think that there are not drugs on those boats. Those are not the concerns.
The concern is how we are determining a "terrorist organization", the same as how we are determining "National Emergencies". Both of those, which are avenues this Administration are using broadly, give the Executive Branch much more power and leeway than the Constitution intends.
On a personal note, I just find it amusing watching people on here who were strict Constitutionalist 18 months ago defending Trump's taking of power and then applying all sorts of mental gymnastics and economic lessons to justify it. When the truth is that if the person in the President's seat advances what you (any of us) want, we will turn the other way. If it is something we don't want, like Biden's agenda, scream that the Constitution never intended for that... At least some on here say they are willing to look the other way to stop Fentanyl, I respect that more than the gymnastics because it is honest.
Me, I agree with what he is doing but worry about "how" and if that can be used in the future in ways I don't support or on me, for whatever reason.
Nothing amusing with the huge number of Americans dying every year from drug overdoses.
Past rules of engagement clearly have not worked.
Very glad Trump is taking a new approach.
If I had my way, a 2nd conviction for drug smuggling into the US would receive the death penalty.
An execution which would be 'fast tracked' within 6 months.
Results would be immediate
And how is my finding it amusing watching people change do the exact same thing they yelled at the liberals for doing on climate undo my second and last paragraph's? They are just as bad as the Biden crowd, just different set of issues their willing to let go.
How far do you go for ends justifies the means? Obviously, for Fentanyl you are good with what is going on. Get it a trigger for you. But, there are ALOT of other people that don't have Fentanyl or illegal drug issues in their life. Some believe prescription drug abuse is more of a problem. Some believe the Climate is more of a problem. Some believe aggressive driving and traffic deaths are more of an issue. I can go on, depends on what happened to each of us individually. How fare are you willing to go? Automated camera traffic ticketing? Raids on Doctor's offices? Allowing Elon to take over the sky? All can be done by the President with a swipe of the pen as a National Emergency.
Change the law. The system is in place for a reason, we have *******ized it and the ramifications are brutal. As you know, what we agree on with the President can be turned to something else, very easily, both left and right.
You closed with a false dilemma. There is no law preventing a POTUS from ordering the US Navy in international waters to sink drug cartel watercraft engaged in hostile acts against the USA. In fact, he has cited explicit statutory authority to do so.
Underneath nearly all arguments against what POTUS is doing to the watercraft of drug cartels designated as terror groups is the faulty premise that non-citizens outside of our jurisdiction engaged in illegal activity may ONLY be dealt with via law enforcement measures. Not. So. If Hizballah is running drugs to raise cash (and they've done that forever) are we obligated to reel in military options and instead treat them as a LE problem? No. We should refuse to treat them as a LE problem, because to do so would require us to bring them into the jurisdiction of our courts to do so at enormous risk and cost to the taxpayer. Far cheaper and wiser to dispatch them abroad with military assets.
Small powers avoid direct confrontation of great powers, and instead choose asymmetrical warfare tactics designed to harass those greater powers, to distract and dissuade and ideally destabilize them if possible. A hostile power like Venezuela allowing drug cartels into its ruling coalition affords it the de facto proxies necessary to wage asymmetrical warfare against us, in ways that (ironically) prompt people otherwise inimical to Venezuela and drug cartels to defend the de facto alliance between Venezuela and the Cartels of the Sun from the full force of USG policy response. (as if Venezuela has some right under international law to allow its state institutions to be a safe haven for drug cartels operating against the USA).
Whether or not we created a law in 1973 or in 2003 after 911 doesn't change the concern. Both are modern laws that delegate authority from one branch to the other. Using these powers so close to the US or even in the US itself begs the question of when is Executive Power too much. Opinion polls and laws on the books are not the end all for policy. There are bad laws on the books, there are legal acts that are immoral or just not good ideas, and there are Executives that are more Authoritarian than others that use those laws.
"close to the US" is neither a concern nor a factor. You deal with the problem where it is.
"In the US itself" is manifestly not a factor. We have LE and Courts to handle it there. No role for the military inside the country until/unless things get wildly out of hand (i.e. total breakdown of civil order). This issue is about how we deal with the problem OUTSIDE the jurisdiction of US courts. (FYI, international law on piracy is written in context of "hot pursuit" scenarios or universal law claims. US has never exercised a universal law claim (in no small because we do not want to empower lesser powers to invoke it against US interests).
You are simply not addressing the issue at all. There is nothing illegal about what we are doing to the speedboats of the drug cartels who have been designated as terror organizations. If they attempt to run a blockade, they will be destroyed.
The concern is absolutely valid. Trump has just as much authority to order such strikes inside the country as to order them in the Caribbean. He's already declaring bogus emergencies (i.e. "breakdowns of civil order") as a way of involving the military.
More fiction. He has not claimed any right for US military or civilian assets to drone-strike anyone transporting drugs on our streets.
Yet by your reasoning, he could.
LOL, no. Unlike in the foreign policy realm, where lack of US jurisdiction which sharply limits the need for due process to limit the hand of the executive, inside the USA we have robust systems of state & federal law to guide policy responses to problems.
By your reasoning, we will need a lawyer to accompany every rifleman on the battlefield.
Again, the law provides jurisdiction to search and seize, and we exercise it routinely. If this were a battlefield, other laws would apply.
LOL it is a battlefield, thanks to the terror designation, ergo there is no obligation to search & seize. Kinetic options suffice.
Wrong.
Until SCOTUS overturns the designation, or the statute empowering it, the drug cartels we are shooting at are legally defined as terrorist organizations, rendering kinetic options an appropriate response (no matter how much you may not like it).
I would advise making a case for policy alternatives with a better chance of success rather than taking the right-wing knuckle-dragger option of declaring everything you don't like as unconstitutional.
There's nothing unconstitutional about the statute. It just has no resemblance to the nonsense that you're spouting. You've at least made clear what a completely unhinged and authoritarian theory of executive power you're harboring, so thanks for that, I guess.
Sam Lowry said:whiterock said:Sam Lowry said:whiterock said:Sam Lowry said:whiterock said:Sam Lowry said:whiterock said:FLBear5630 said:whiterock said:FLBear5630 said:KaiBear said:FLBear5630 said:ScottS said:
Yes, President Trump Can Blow Up Drug Boats - Chronicles
The question is whether drugs, which has been a law enforcement issue, is the same as terrorism.
No one on here, from what I can see, thinks it is bad to destroy drugs entering the US. No one on here seems to think that there are not drugs on those boats. Those are not the concerns.
The concern is how we are determining a "terrorist organization", the same as how we are determining "National Emergencies". Both of those, which are avenues this Administration are using broadly, give the Executive Branch much more power and leeway than the Constitution intends.
On a personal note, I just find it amusing watching people on here who were strict Constitutionalist 18 months ago defending Trump's taking of power and then applying all sorts of mental gymnastics and economic lessons to justify it. When the truth is that if the person in the President's seat advances what you (any of us) want, we will turn the other way. If it is something we don't want, like Biden's agenda, scream that the Constitution never intended for that... At least some on here say they are willing to look the other way to stop Fentanyl, I respect that more than the gymnastics because it is honest.
Me, I agree with what he is doing but worry about "how" and if that can be used in the future in ways I don't support or on me, for whatever reason.
Nothing amusing with the huge number of Americans dying every year from drug overdoses.
Past rules of engagement clearly have not worked.
Very glad Trump is taking a new approach.
If I had my way, a 2nd conviction for drug smuggling into the US would receive the death penalty.
An execution which would be 'fast tracked' within 6 months.
Results would be immediate
And how is my finding it amusing watching people change do the exact same thing they yelled at the liberals for doing on climate undo my second and last paragraph's? They are just as bad as the Biden crowd, just different set of issues their willing to let go.
How far do you go for ends justifies the means? Obviously, for Fentanyl you are good with what is going on. Get it a trigger for you. But, there are ALOT of other people that don't have Fentanyl or illegal drug issues in their life. Some believe prescription drug abuse is more of a problem. Some believe the Climate is more of a problem. Some believe aggressive driving and traffic deaths are more of an issue. I can go on, depends on what happened to each of us individually. How fare are you willing to go? Automated camera traffic ticketing? Raids on Doctor's offices? Allowing Elon to take over the sky? All can be done by the President with a swipe of the pen as a National Emergency.
Change the law. The system is in place for a reason, we have *******ized it and the ramifications are brutal. As you know, what we agree on with the President can be turned to something else, very easily, both left and right.
You closed with a false dilemma. There is no law preventing a POTUS from ordering the US Navy in international waters to sink drug cartel watercraft engaged in hostile acts against the USA. In fact, he has cited explicit statutory authority to do so.
Underneath nearly all arguments against what POTUS is doing to the watercraft of drug cartels designated as terror groups is the faulty premise that non-citizens outside of our jurisdiction engaged in illegal activity may ONLY be dealt with via law enforcement measures. Not. So. If Hizballah is running drugs to raise cash (and they've done that forever) are we obligated to reel in military options and instead treat them as a LE problem? No. We should refuse to treat them as a LE problem, because to do so would require us to bring them into the jurisdiction of our courts to do so at enormous risk and cost to the taxpayer. Far cheaper and wiser to dispatch them abroad with military assets.
Small powers avoid direct confrontation of great powers, and instead choose asymmetrical warfare tactics designed to harass those greater powers, to distract and dissuade and ideally destabilize them if possible. A hostile power like Venezuela allowing drug cartels into its ruling coalition affords it the de facto proxies necessary to wage asymmetrical warfare against us, in ways that (ironically) prompt people otherwise inimical to Venezuela and drug cartels to defend the de facto alliance between Venezuela and the Cartels of the Sun from the full force of USG policy response. (as if Venezuela has some right under international law to allow its state institutions to be a safe haven for drug cartels operating against the USA).
Whether or not we created a law in 1973 or in 2003 after 911 doesn't change the concern. Both are modern laws that delegate authority from one branch to the other. Using these powers so close to the US or even in the US itself begs the question of when is Executive Power too much. Opinion polls and laws on the books are not the end all for policy. There are bad laws on the books, there are legal acts that are immoral or just not good ideas, and there are Executives that are more Authoritarian than others that use those laws.
"close to the US" is neither a concern nor a factor. You deal with the problem where it is.
"In the US itself" is manifestly not a factor. We have LE and Courts to handle it there. No role for the military inside the country until/unless things get wildly out of hand (i.e. total breakdown of civil order). This issue is about how we deal with the problem OUTSIDE the jurisdiction of US courts. (FYI, international law on piracy is written in context of "hot pursuit" scenarios or universal law claims. US has never exercised a universal law claim (in no small because we do not want to empower lesser powers to invoke it against US interests).
You are simply not addressing the issue at all. There is nothing illegal about what we are doing to the speedboats of the drug cartels who have been designated as terror organizations. If they attempt to run a blockade, they will be destroyed.
The concern is absolutely valid. Trump has just as much authority to order such strikes inside the country as to order them in the Caribbean. He's already declaring bogus emergencies (i.e. "breakdowns of civil order") as a way of involving the military.
More fiction. He has not claimed any right for US military or civilian assets to drone-strike anyone transporting drugs on our streets.
Yet by your reasoning, he could.
LOL, no. Unlike in the foreign policy realm, where lack of US jurisdiction which sharply limits the need for due process to limit the hand of the executive, inside the USA we have robust systems of state & federal law to guide policy responses to problems.
By your reasoning, we will need a lawyer to accompany every rifleman on the battlefield.
Again, the law provides jurisdiction to search and seize, and we exercise it routinely. If this were a battlefield, other laws would apply.
LOL it is a battlefield, thanks to the terror designation, ergo there is no obligation to search & seize. Kinetic options suffice.
Wrong.
You certainly are wrong, Sam.
Glad you are catching up.
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
Sam Lowry said:whiterock said:Sam Lowry said:whiterock said:Sam Lowry said:whiterock said:Sam Lowry said:whiterock said:Sam Lowry said:whiterock said:FLBear5630 said:whiterock said:FLBear5630 said:KaiBear said:FLBear5630 said:ScottS said:
Yes, President Trump Can Blow Up Drug Boats - Chronicles
The question is whether drugs, which has been a law enforcement issue, is the same as terrorism.
No one on here, from what I can see, thinks it is bad to destroy drugs entering the US. No one on here seems to think that there are not drugs on those boats. Those are not the concerns.
The concern is how we are determining a "terrorist organization", the same as how we are determining "National Emergencies". Both of those, which are avenues this Administration are using broadly, give the Executive Branch much more power and leeway than the Constitution intends.
On a personal note, I just find it amusing watching people on here who were strict Constitutionalist 18 months ago defending Trump's taking of power and then applying all sorts of mental gymnastics and economic lessons to justify it. When the truth is that if the person in the President's seat advances what you (any of us) want, we will turn the other way. If it is something we don't want, like Biden's agenda, scream that the Constitution never intended for that... At least some on here say they are willing to look the other way to stop Fentanyl, I respect that more than the gymnastics because it is honest.
Me, I agree with what he is doing but worry about "how" and if that can be used in the future in ways I don't support or on me, for whatever reason.
Nothing amusing with the huge number of Americans dying every year from drug overdoses.
Past rules of engagement clearly have not worked.
Very glad Trump is taking a new approach.
If I had my way, a 2nd conviction for drug smuggling into the US would receive the death penalty.
An execution which would be 'fast tracked' within 6 months.
Results would be immediate
And how is my finding it amusing watching people change do the exact same thing they yelled at the liberals for doing on climate undo my second and last paragraph's? They are just as bad as the Biden crowd, just different set of issues their willing to let go.
How far do you go for ends justifies the means? Obviously, for Fentanyl you are good with what is going on. Get it a trigger for you. But, there are ALOT of other people that don't have Fentanyl or illegal drug issues in their life. Some believe prescription drug abuse is more of a problem. Some believe the Climate is more of a problem. Some believe aggressive driving and traffic deaths are more of an issue. I can go on, depends on what happened to each of us individually. How fare are you willing to go? Automated camera traffic ticketing? Raids on Doctor's offices? Allowing Elon to take over the sky? All can be done by the President with a swipe of the pen as a National Emergency.
Change the law. The system is in place for a reason, we have *******ized it and the ramifications are brutal. As you know, what we agree on with the President can be turned to something else, very easily, both left and right.
You closed with a false dilemma. There is no law preventing a POTUS from ordering the US Navy in international waters to sink drug cartel watercraft engaged in hostile acts against the USA. In fact, he has cited explicit statutory authority to do so.
Underneath nearly all arguments against what POTUS is doing to the watercraft of drug cartels designated as terror groups is the faulty premise that non-citizens outside of our jurisdiction engaged in illegal activity may ONLY be dealt with via law enforcement measures. Not. So. If Hizballah is running drugs to raise cash (and they've done that forever) are we obligated to reel in military options and instead treat them as a LE problem? No. We should refuse to treat them as a LE problem, because to do so would require us to bring them into the jurisdiction of our courts to do so at enormous risk and cost to the taxpayer. Far cheaper and wiser to dispatch them abroad with military assets.
Small powers avoid direct confrontation of great powers, and instead choose asymmetrical warfare tactics designed to harass those greater powers, to distract and dissuade and ideally destabilize them if possible. A hostile power like Venezuela allowing drug cartels into its ruling coalition affords it the de facto proxies necessary to wage asymmetrical warfare against us, in ways that (ironically) prompt people otherwise inimical to Venezuela and drug cartels to defend the de facto alliance between Venezuela and the Cartels of the Sun from the full force of USG policy response. (as if Venezuela has some right under international law to allow its state institutions to be a safe haven for drug cartels operating against the USA).
Whether or not we created a law in 1973 or in 2003 after 911 doesn't change the concern. Both are modern laws that delegate authority from one branch to the other. Using these powers so close to the US or even in the US itself begs the question of when is Executive Power too much. Opinion polls and laws on the books are not the end all for policy. There are bad laws on the books, there are legal acts that are immoral or just not good ideas, and there are Executives that are more Authoritarian than others that use those laws.
"close to the US" is neither a concern nor a factor. You deal with the problem where it is.
"In the US itself" is manifestly not a factor. We have LE and Courts to handle it there. No role for the military inside the country until/unless things get wildly out of hand (i.e. total breakdown of civil order). This issue is about how we deal with the problem OUTSIDE the jurisdiction of US courts. (FYI, international law on piracy is written in context of "hot pursuit" scenarios or universal law claims. US has never exercised a universal law claim (in no small because we do not want to empower lesser powers to invoke it against US interests).
You are simply not addressing the issue at all. There is nothing illegal about what we are doing to the speedboats of the drug cartels who have been designated as terror organizations. If they attempt to run a blockade, they will be destroyed.
The concern is absolutely valid. Trump has just as much authority to order such strikes inside the country as to order them in the Caribbean. He's already declaring bogus emergencies (i.e. "breakdowns of civil order") as a way of involving the military.
More fiction. He has not claimed any right for US military or civilian assets to drone-strike anyone transporting drugs on our streets.
Yet by your reasoning, he could.
LOL, no. Unlike in the foreign policy realm, where lack of US jurisdiction which sharply limits the need for due process to limit the hand of the executive, inside the USA we have robust systems of state & federal law to guide policy responses to problems.
By your reasoning, we will need a lawyer to accompany every rifleman on the battlefield.
Again, the law provides jurisdiction to search and seize, and we exercise it routinely. If this were a battlefield, other laws would apply.
LOL it is a battlefield, thanks to the terror designation, ergo there is no obligation to search & seize. Kinetic options suffice.
Wrong.
Until SCOTUS overturns the designation, or the statute empowering it, the drug cartels we are shooting at are legally defined as terrorist organizations, rendering kinetic options an appropriate response (no matter how much you may not like it).
I would advise making a case for policy alternatives with a better chance of success rather than taking the right-wing knuckle-dragger option of declaring everything you don't like as unconstitutional.
There's nothing unconstitutional about the statute. It just has no resemblance to the nonsense that you're spouting. You've at least made clear what a completely unhinged and authoritarian theory of executive power you're harboring, so thanks for that, I guess.
You've gone this far into thread and have not even made one single discernible argument. But I suppose I'll give you credit for your baseless stubbornness and ego. It's impressive in a weird way.
Robert Wilson said:Sam Lowry said:whiterock said:Sam Lowry said:whiterock said:Sam Lowry said:whiterock said:Sam Lowry said:whiterock said:Sam Lowry said:whiterock said:FLBear5630 said:whiterock said:FLBear5630 said:KaiBear said:FLBear5630 said:ScottS said:
Yes, President Trump Can Blow Up Drug Boats - Chronicles
The question is whether drugs, which has been a law enforcement issue, is the same as terrorism.
No one on here, from what I can see, thinks it is bad to destroy drugs entering the US. No one on here seems to think that there are not drugs on those boats. Those are not the concerns.
The concern is how we are determining a "terrorist organization", the same as how we are determining "National Emergencies". Both of those, which are avenues this Administration are using broadly, give the Executive Branch much more power and leeway than the Constitution intends.
On a personal note, I just find it amusing watching people on here who were strict Constitutionalist 18 months ago defending Trump's taking of power and then applying all sorts of mental gymnastics and economic lessons to justify it. When the truth is that if the person in the President's seat advances what you (any of us) want, we will turn the other way. If it is something we don't want, like Biden's agenda, scream that the Constitution never intended for that... At least some on here say they are willing to look the other way to stop Fentanyl, I respect that more than the gymnastics because it is honest.
Me, I agree with what he is doing but worry about "how" and if that can be used in the future in ways I don't support or on me, for whatever reason.
Nothing amusing with the huge number of Americans dying every year from drug overdoses.
Past rules of engagement clearly have not worked.
Very glad Trump is taking a new approach.
If I had my way, a 2nd conviction for drug smuggling into the US would receive the death penalty.
An execution which would be 'fast tracked' within 6 months.
Results would be immediate
And how is my finding it amusing watching people change do the exact same thing they yelled at the liberals for doing on climate undo my second and last paragraph's? They are just as bad as the Biden crowd, just different set of issues their willing to let go.
How far do you go for ends justifies the means? Obviously, for Fentanyl you are good with what is going on. Get it a trigger for you. But, there are ALOT of other people that don't have Fentanyl or illegal drug issues in their life. Some believe prescription drug abuse is more of a problem. Some believe the Climate is more of a problem. Some believe aggressive driving and traffic deaths are more of an issue. I can go on, depends on what happened to each of us individually. How fare are you willing to go? Automated camera traffic ticketing? Raids on Doctor's offices? Allowing Elon to take over the sky? All can be done by the President with a swipe of the pen as a National Emergency.
Change the law. The system is in place for a reason, we have *******ized it and the ramifications are brutal. As you know, what we agree on with the President can be turned to something else, very easily, both left and right.
You closed with a false dilemma. There is no law preventing a POTUS from ordering the US Navy in international waters to sink drug cartel watercraft engaged in hostile acts against the USA. In fact, he has cited explicit statutory authority to do so.
Underneath nearly all arguments against what POTUS is doing to the watercraft of drug cartels designated as terror groups is the faulty premise that non-citizens outside of our jurisdiction engaged in illegal activity may ONLY be dealt with via law enforcement measures. Not. So. If Hizballah is running drugs to raise cash (and they've done that forever) are we obligated to reel in military options and instead treat them as a LE problem? No. We should refuse to treat them as a LE problem, because to do so would require us to bring them into the jurisdiction of our courts to do so at enormous risk and cost to the taxpayer. Far cheaper and wiser to dispatch them abroad with military assets.
Small powers avoid direct confrontation of great powers, and instead choose asymmetrical warfare tactics designed to harass those greater powers, to distract and dissuade and ideally destabilize them if possible. A hostile power like Venezuela allowing drug cartels into its ruling coalition affords it the de facto proxies necessary to wage asymmetrical warfare against us, in ways that (ironically) prompt people otherwise inimical to Venezuela and drug cartels to defend the de facto alliance between Venezuela and the Cartels of the Sun from the full force of USG policy response. (as if Venezuela has some right under international law to allow its state institutions to be a safe haven for drug cartels operating against the USA).
Whether or not we created a law in 1973 or in 2003 after 911 doesn't change the concern. Both are modern laws that delegate authority from one branch to the other. Using these powers so close to the US or even in the US itself begs the question of when is Executive Power too much. Opinion polls and laws on the books are not the end all for policy. There are bad laws on the books, there are legal acts that are immoral or just not good ideas, and there are Executives that are more Authoritarian than others that use those laws.
"close to the US" is neither a concern nor a factor. You deal with the problem where it is.
"In the US itself" is manifestly not a factor. We have LE and Courts to handle it there. No role for the military inside the country until/unless things get wildly out of hand (i.e. total breakdown of civil order). This issue is about how we deal with the problem OUTSIDE the jurisdiction of US courts. (FYI, international law on piracy is written in context of "hot pursuit" scenarios or universal law claims. US has never exercised a universal law claim (in no small because we do not want to empower lesser powers to invoke it against US interests).
You are simply not addressing the issue at all. There is nothing illegal about what we are doing to the speedboats of the drug cartels who have been designated as terror organizations. If they attempt to run a blockade, they will be destroyed.
The concern is absolutely valid. Trump has just as much authority to order such strikes inside the country as to order them in the Caribbean. He's already declaring bogus emergencies (i.e. "breakdowns of civil order") as a way of involving the military.
More fiction. He has not claimed any right for US military or civilian assets to drone-strike anyone transporting drugs on our streets.
Yet by your reasoning, he could.
LOL, no. Unlike in the foreign policy realm, where lack of US jurisdiction which sharply limits the need for due process to limit the hand of the executive, inside the USA we have robust systems of state & federal law to guide policy responses to problems.
By your reasoning, we will need a lawyer to accompany every rifleman on the battlefield.
Again, the law provides jurisdiction to search and seize, and we exercise it routinely. If this were a battlefield, other laws would apply.
LOL it is a battlefield, thanks to the terror designation, ergo there is no obligation to search & seize. Kinetic options suffice.
Wrong.
Until SCOTUS overturns the designation, or the statute empowering it, the drug cartels we are shooting at are legally defined as terrorist organizations, rendering kinetic options an appropriate response (no matter how much you may not like it).
I would advise making a case for policy alternatives with a better chance of success rather than taking the right-wing knuckle-dragger option of declaring everything you don't like as unconstitutional.
There's nothing unconstitutional about the statute. It just has no resemblance to the nonsense that you're spouting. You've at least made clear what a completely unhinged and authoritarian theory of executive power you're harboring, so thanks for that, I guess.
You've gone this far into thread and have not even made one single discernible argument. But I suppose I'll give you credit for your baseless stubbornness and ego. It's impressive in a weird way.
Again, there are specific conditions under which the use of military force is authorized. This is not one of them.
whiterock said:Harrison Bergeron said:Porteroso said:whiterock said:Assassin said:Porteroso said:
An interesting article on the people killed.
https://apnews.com/article/trump-venezuela-boat-strikes-drugs-cocaine-trafficking-e4fcf945e48e36bf2c510f9f111e031cQuote:
In dozens of interviews in villages on Venezuela's breathtaking northeastern coast, from which some of the boats departed, residents and relatives told Garcia Cano the dead men had indeed been running drugs but were not narco-terrorists, as alleged by the Trump administration, or leaders of a cartel or gang.
Most of the nine men were crewing such craft for the first or second time, making at least $500 per trip, residents and relatives said. The four dead men included a fisherman, a down-on-his-luck bus driver, a former military cadet and a local crime boss. Others included laborers and a motorcycle driver.
AP News... I'm sure that's accurate and proven.
Down on the luck bus driver, fisherman, an ex military cadet and local crime dude drive off in an ocean going vessel with 4 massive outboard motors, hauling millions of dollars worth of drugs. Make sense...probably just a fishing boat looking for marlin
the article is just more social justice narrative = poverty makes it ok, particularly when it's the "little guy" sticking it to "the man" (the USA). No handsome, jewelry-adorned Pablo Escobar-esque businessmen in Panama hats in sight, ergo it's just the underclass forced into common crime by the many dysfunctions of global capitalism.
Truth is, cartel mules don't wear uniforms and drive vehicles emblazoned with logos carrying goods with QR codes and guaranteed analysis labels on them. They are street level criminals in an international drug cartel trying to remain inconspicuous. One way to shut down a drug cartel is to destroy its distribution operation by making it impossible to find boat crews (who know that pulling away from port on the Paria Peninsula in a fishing boat laden with bale of cocaine is a certain death sentence). To the extent that pressuring the drug cartels thusly also puts pressure on the national government who is protecting & promoting said cartels......well, that is good policy.
A blockade is an act of war. Notably, we are not blockading commercial traffic in/out of Venezuela. Neither the cargo ships, nor the oil tankers nor the airliners or cruise ships, etc.....just drug smuggling boats. Venezuela cannot claim such is an act of war without admitting they are allowing drug smugglers to operate from its shores. So Maduro has to bend over and take it. The cartel leadership in his cabinet is railing at him to do something. But he can't. If he does, he provokes US military response against himself directly. He knows what happened to Saddam Hussein and Bin Ladin. Nobody in their right mind, most particularly a head of state worth billions of dollars, wants to spend a decade hiding in a hole waiting for the inevitable end = to get shot a couple hundred times in the middle of the night by Seal Team 6.
War is a continuation of policy by other means. Drug cartels are overwhelming US law enforcement. Ergo we are bringing "additional resources" to bear on their operations abroad.
Going to war with cartels should mean trying to get the leaders, stop distribution, as you say.... which is different from killing the impoverished fishermen desperate enough to take a risky job. A losing strategy. There are quite a few poor folks in Central America.
It's pretty funny you think the cartel would just handover millions of product to random "poor fisherman." You do you Boogers & Glue.
she's missing the escalation sequence. Striking cartel logistics in the open ocean is NOT an act of war. Striking cartel command & control in Venezuelan territory IS an act of war.
You start off with the deployments. Then you hit what you can hit in international territory. Then, you engage in covert operations. Hopefully, you provoke the regime into a response that you can define as an act of war. Then, it's game on.
That's what's afoot off the coat of Venezuela.
Well they are there for the long haul.
What started out as a fleet activity in the millions a day using a 250k weapon. They moved a P-8 and C130J Gunship in and are going to do it more efficiently. That P-8 will find ANYTHING that is out there and the C130J can stay on station for hour and a round is only $400...
That is sending a message that we can stay long term, economically, shut down your trade with limited resources. You may even see a new base agreement in the South Caribbean.