Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Did we all acknowledge how Trump has made the LWNJs made heroes out of:
- Human traffickers
- Child rapists
- Groomers
- Terrorists
- Fentanyl dealers

Amazing way to build support.

---

Add cocaine dealers to that list!

BTW - we need to do something about the Chinese bringing "precursor" to Mexico and Canada. Without it, no Fentanyl. The labs are mainly in Mexico and being imported to the US.

Venezuela is mainly cocaine, and a little Fentanyl and whatever the cartels want them to ship

FLBear5630 said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Assassin said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Assassin said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Assassin said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Assassin said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Assassin said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

The largest terror funding network in the world is now the American drug user.

---

And how would you fix that? A War on Drugs? Cause that's what Trump is actually doing. Everything else has been tried.

---

We aren't even doing a "War on Drugs". We're using the human tragedy of fentanyl to attack a failing state that has little to nothing to do with the fentanyl trade in order to establish a friendly regime and get access to oil. I wonder if there has been another situation where human tragedy was used to manufacture a case around deadly chemicals to depose a rogue regime and expand energy resources, and how did it go?

And do you know what we do with terror financing already under the Patriot Act and EO 13224? That would make a users life more difficult for sure.

The real solutions require either a trimming of individual rights and freedom, or a trimming of moral outrage. I prefer the latter despite my disdain for it as a solution.

---

Fentanyl doesn't come out of Venezuela. It is cocaine we are dealing with from what I've read. As for the rest of your post, we simply disagree. I say, let's use common sense. Blow these guys out of the water and put the fear of God into all the cartels. This is happening in international waters. Make it so. This is truly America's War on Drugs. Finally

---

Then why the secrecy? Why is Congress saying Biden gave them more info? We cant have a war on drugs by one branch with the other two in the dark. Someone said, why haven't they defunded them if they didnt approve? You really want to get to that point?

---

Not sure why we would need other branches of Dept of War right now. Everything can be taken care of by the US Navy. Why are you thinking we should bring them in?

---

Only Congress can declare War. Using military is war. This BS deeming them a terror organization
is a BS move to get around reporting to Congress. That is what has people upset, not attacking drug runners. But, you are the President and SecDef axt like it and give a **** about the Constitution...

---

You don't think the Cartels are terrorist organizations? What's your basis for that?

---

They are not ideologues attacking the US. They are drug dealers breaking the law to make money. Terrorist attack to destroy based on a political ideal. Cartels sre not that. They are like the Mafia, did we go military on the Mafia? Even Bobby Kennedy didnt go that far.

Sorry dont meet definition. Create one with Congress, would be my move.

---

Terrorism is the unlawful use of violence or the threat of violence against people or property to create fear and coerce a government, civilian population, or organization to further political, social, or ideological goals. Key components include a violent act, the goal of intimidating or coercing a population or government, and political or ideological objectives.

In Mexico Sheinbaum can't make a move without getting cartel approval, the people of Mexico are in terror. In every country in Central America, the same. In the USA, we are flooded with Fentanyl from Mexico and cocaine from Venezuela, Columbia and elsewhere. Strikes the fear of god in everyone associated with it, no matter how weak the link is, especially addicts. It's unlawful and threatens violence against people and property. It is the very definition of terrorism.

---

Then the mafia is a terrorist organization.

---

Is it not? Can anyone living in their "territory" be free from fear of them? Will those in business that happens to compete with them be safe at home?

---

We are misdirecting the conversation. It is not that anyone wants to protect cartels, traffickers or the mob. The topic that needs discussion is how do you do it? Do we use the military? If so, does Exec Branch get Carte Blanche? Does Congress have oversight? Where does HSA and law enforcement fit?

These are bigger issues than blowing up a boat.

---

It seems there is a legal issue being discussed about what a terrorist organization is. That is how the boat interdiction is happening.

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Assassin said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Assassin said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Assassin said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Assassin said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Assassin said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

The largest terror funding network in the world is now the American drug user.

---

And how would you fix that? A War on Drugs? Cause that's what Trump is actually doing. Everything else has been tried.

---

We aren't even doing a "War on Drugs". We're using the human tragedy of fentanyl to attack a failing state that has little to nothing to do with the fentanyl trade in order to establish a friendly regime and get access to oil. I wonder if there has been another situation where human tragedy was used to manufacture a case around deadly chemicals to depose a rogue regime and expand energy resources, and how did it go?

And do you know what we do with terror financing already under the Patriot Act and EO 13224? That would make a users life more difficult for sure.

The real solutions require either a trimming of individual rights and freedom, or a trimming of moral outrage. I prefer the latter despite my disdain for it as a solution.

---

Fentanyl doesn't come out of Venezuela. It is cocaine we are dealing with from what I've read. As for the rest of your post, we simply disagree. I say, let's use common sense. Blow these guys out of the water and put the fear of God into all the cartels. This is happening in international waters. Make it so. This is truly America's War on Drugs. Finally

---

Then why the secrecy? Why is Congress saying Biden gave them more info? We cant have a war on drugs by one branch with the other two in the dark. Someone said, why haven't they defunded them if they didnt approve? You really want to get to that point?

---

Not sure why we would need other branches of Dept of War right now. Everything can be taken care of by the US Navy. Why are you thinking we should bring them in?

---

Only Congress can declare War. Using military is war. This BS deeming them a terror organization
is a BS move to get around reporting to Congress. That is what has people upset, not attacking drug runners. But, you are the President and SecDef axt like it and give a **** about the Constitution...

---

You don't think the Cartels are terrorist organizations? What's your basis for that?

---

They are not ideologues attacking the US. They are drug dealers breaking the law to make money. Terrorist attack to destroy based on a political ideal. Cartels sre not that. They are like the Mafia, did we go military on the Mafia? Even Bobby Kennedy didnt go that far.

Sorry dont meet definition. Create one with Congress, would be my move.

---

Terrorism is the unlawful use of violence or the threat of violence against people or property to create fear and coerce a government, civilian population, or organization to further political, social, or ideological goals. Key components include a violent act, the goal of intimidating or coercing a population or government, and political or ideological objectives.

In Mexico Sheinbaum can't make a move without getting cartel approval, the people of Mexico are in terror. In every country in Central America, the same. In the USA, we are flooded with Fentanyl from Mexico and cocaine from Venezuela, Columbia and elsewhere. Strikes the fear of god in everyone associated with it, no matter how weak the link is, especially addicts. It's unlawful and threatens violence against people and property. It is the very definition of terrorism.

---

Then the mafia is a terrorist organization.

---

Is it not? Can anyone living in their "territory" be free from fear of them? Will those in business that happens to compete with them be safe at home?

---

We are misdirecting the conversation. It is not that anyone wants to protect cartels, traffickers or the mob. The topic that needs discussion is how do you do it? Do we use the military? If so, does Exec Branch get Carte Blanche? Does Congress have oversight? Where does HSA and law enforcement fit?

These are bigger issues than blowing up a boat.

---

It seems there is a legal issue being discussed about what a terrorist organization is. That is how the boat interdiction is happening.

---

I simply can't imagine anyone, liberal or conservative that supports Cartels not being terrorists.

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Assassin said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Assassin said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Assassin said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Assassin said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Assassin said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

The largest terror funding network in the world is now the American drug user.

---

And how would you fix that? A War on Drugs? Cause that's what Trump is actually doing. Everything else has been tried.

---

We aren't even doing a "War on Drugs". We're using the human tragedy of fentanyl to attack a failing state that has little to nothing to do with the fentanyl trade in order to establish a friendly regime and get access to oil. I wonder if there has been another situation where human tragedy was used to manufacture a case around deadly chemicals to depose a rogue regime and expand energy resources, and how did it go?

And do you know what we do with terror financing already under the Patriot Act and EO 13224? That would make a users life more difficult for sure.

The real solutions require either a trimming of individual rights and freedom, or a trimming of moral outrage. I prefer the latter despite my disdain for it as a solution.

---

Fentanyl doesn't come out of Venezuela. It is cocaine we are dealing with from what I've read. As for the rest of your post, we simply disagree. I say, let's use common sense. Blow these guys out of the water and put the fear of God into all the cartels. This is happening in international waters. Make it so. This is truly America's War on Drugs. Finally

---

Then why the secrecy? Why is Congress saying Biden gave them more info? We cant have a war on drugs by one branch with the other two in the dark. Someone said, why haven't they defunded them if they didnt approve? You really want to get to that point?

---

Not sure why we would need other branches of Dept of War right now. Everything can be taken care of by the US Navy. Why are you thinking we should bring them in?

---

Only Congress can declare War. Using military is war. This BS deeming them a terror organization
is a BS move to get around reporting to Congress. That is what has people upset, not attacking drug runners. But, you are the President and SecDef axt like it and give a **** about the Constitution...

---

You don't think the Cartels are terrorist organizations? What's your basis for that?

---

They are not ideologues attacking the US. They are drug dealers breaking the law to make money. Terrorist attack to destroy based on a political ideal. Cartels sre not that. They are like the Mafia, did we go military on the Mafia? Even Bobby Kennedy didnt go that far.

Sorry dont meet definition. Create one with Congress, would be my move.

---

Terrorism is the unlawful use of violence or the threat of violence against people or property to create fear and coerce a government, civilian population, or organization to further political, social, or ideological goals. Key components include a violent act, the goal of intimidating or coercing a population or government, and political or ideological objectives.

In Mexico Sheinbaum can't make a move without getting cartel approval, the people of Mexico are in terror. In every country in Central America, the same. In the USA, we are flooded with Fentanyl from Mexico and cocaine from Venezuela, Columbia and elsewhere. Strikes the fear of god in everyone associated with it, no matter how weak the link is, especially addicts. It's unlawful and threatens violence against people and property. It is the very definition of terrorism.

---

Then the mafia is a terrorist organization.

---

Is it not? Can anyone living in their "territory" be free from fear of them? Will those in business that happens to compete with them be safe at home?

---

We are misdirecting the conversation. It is not that anyone wants to protect cartels, traffickers or the mob. The topic that needs discussion is how do you do it? Do we use the military? If so, does Exec Branch get Carte Blanche? Does Congress have oversight? Where does HSA and law enforcement fit?

These are bigger issues than blowing up a boat.

---

It seems there is a legal issue being discussed about what a terrorist organization is. That is how the boat interdiction is happening.

---

Thank you for identifying the issue at hand. This is the crux of the issue. What is a terrorist organization THAT can be targeted by military forces?

I believe this question will be hammered out. No legal charges will be filed because the military and SecDef operated under the rules at the time. It gives both sides the cover to take a breath and determine if this is what we want for this type of foe.

Is it a criminal or terror act? But, everyone needs to agree on the definition. Congress and Executive. Notice, I said Congress, not all parties. Party line vote is perfectly fine. Johnson and Thume need to get their people in line.

I want to preserve the Union and the processes we use ARE important.

Bradley debrief was good based on what I read. Still questions, but I think the fact that they talked to JAG and got clearence. Pete didn't say to kill everyone and the ambiguity provides an opportunity to establish ROEs that both sides can live with.

Also, was good to hear that Congress WAS told before and during attack. That should be reported. I agree that was media and they should be called for it.

Starting to get enough info to begin having real discussions on this subject.

There are some people surrounding President Trump, like Marco Rubio, who are secretly pushing for regime change in Venezuela. They seem to forget that war powers belong to Congress, not the president.
Any step toward regime change in Venezuela is too serious to bypass Congress.…

— Rand Paul (@RandPaul) December 5, 2025

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Assassin said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Assassin said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Assassin said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

The largest terror funding network in the world is now the American drug user.

---

And how would you fix that? A War on Drugs? Cause that's what Trump is actually doing. Everything else has been tried.

---

We aren't even doing a "War on Drugs". We're using the human tragedy of fentanyl to attack a failing state that has little to nothing to do with the fentanyl trade in order to establish a friendly regime and get access to oil. I wonder if there has been another situation where human tragedy was used to manufacture a case around deadly chemicals to depose a rogue regime and expand energy resources, and how did it go?

And do you know what we do with terror financing already under the Patriot Act and EO 13224? That would make a users life more difficult for sure.

The real solutions require either a trimming of individual rights and freedom, or a trimming of moral outrage. I prefer the latter despite my disdain for it as a solution.

---

Fentanyl doesn't come out of Venezuela. It is cocaine we are dealing with from what I've read. As for the rest of your post, we simply disagree. I say, let's use common sense. Blow these guys out of the water and put the fear of God into all the cartels. This is happening in international waters. Make it so. This is truly America's War on Drugs. Finally

---

Then why the secrecy? Why is Congress saying Biden gave them more info? We cant have a war on drugs by one branch with the other two in the dark. Someone said, why haven't they defunded them if they didnt approve? You really want to get to that point?

---

Not sure why we would need other branches of Dept of War right now. Everything can be taken care of by the US Navy. Why are you thinking we should bring them in?

---

Only Congress can declare War. Using military is war. This BS deeming them a terror organization
is a BS move to get around reporting to Congress. That is what has people upset, not attacking drug runners. But, you are the President and SecDef axt like it and give a **** about the Constitution...

---

Man, you are spinning wildly out of control here. Trump is acting under clear statutory authority to interdict a major part of a state-sponsored problem that kills 6-digits of our fellow citizens every year, that creates significant regional instability in our own theater, and has established relationships with the three hostile powers, one of which has directly killed thousands of Americans.

---

n


Got it, you disagree. Neither you nor I are in left field. There are conflicting views on it. Ot will play out and we will see where it lands. I will be the first to admit that your position is where the Trump Admin is living. Many in Congress disagree.

---

LOL facts are stubborn things. And the fact is, Trump has stayed scrupulously within legal precedent.

WOAH — @marcthiessen just WRECKED Democrats for harping on POTUS's war on drugs, while staying SILENT under Obama!

"War crime? Start with Barack Obama. He had a drone campaign, fired 560 drone strikes, killed not just terrorists, but an American citizen! AND did it on the… pic.twitter.com/5EdK6EioPG

— Townhall.com (@townhallcom) December 4, 2025

FLBear5630 said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Assassin said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Assassin said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Assassin said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Assassin said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Assassin said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

The largest terror funding network in the world is now the American drug user.

---

And how would you fix that? A War on Drugs? Cause that's what Trump is actually doing. Everything else has been tried.

---

We aren't even doing a "War on Drugs". We're using the human tragedy of fentanyl to attack a failing state that has little to nothing to do with the fentanyl trade in order to establish a friendly regime and get access to oil. I wonder if there has been another situation where human tragedy was used to manufacture a case around deadly chemicals to depose a rogue regime and expand energy resources, and how did it go?

And do you know what we do with terror financing already under the Patriot Act and EO 13224? That would make a users life more difficult for sure.

The real solutions require either a trimming of individual rights and freedom, or a trimming of moral outrage. I prefer the latter despite my disdain for it as a solution.

---

Fentanyl doesn't come out of Venezuela. It is cocaine we are dealing with from what I've read. As for the rest of your post, we simply disagree. I say, let's use common sense. Blow these guys out of the water and put the fear of God into all the cartels. This is happening in international waters. Make it so. This is truly America's War on Drugs. Finally

---

Then why the secrecy? Why is Congress saying Biden gave them more info? We cant have a war on drugs by one branch with the other two in the dark. Someone said, why haven't they defunded them if they didnt approve? You really want to get to that point?

---

Not sure why we would need other branches of Dept of War right now. Everything can be taken care of by the US Navy. Why are you thinking we should bring them in?

---

Only Congress can declare War. Using military is war. This BS deeming them a terror organization
is a BS move to get around reporting to Congress. That is what has people upset, not attacking drug runners. But, you are the President and SecDef axt like it and give a **** about the Constitution...

---

You don't think the Cartels are terrorist organizations? What's your basis for that?

---

They are not ideologues attacking the US. They are drug dealers breaking the law to make money. Terrorist attack to destroy based on a political ideal. Cartels sre not that. They are like the Mafia, did we go military on the Mafia? Even Bobby Kennedy didnt go that far.

Sorry dont meet definition. Create one with Congress, would be my move.

---

Terrorism is the unlawful use of violence or the threat of violence against people or property to create fear and coerce a government, civilian population, or organization to further political, social, or ideological goals. Key components include a violent act, the goal of intimidating or coercing a population or government, and political or ideological objectives.

In Mexico Sheinbaum can't make a move without getting cartel approval, the people of Mexico are in terror. In every country in Central America, the same. In the USA, we are flooded with Fentanyl from Mexico and cocaine from Venezuela, Columbia and elsewhere. Strikes the fear of god in everyone associated with it, no matter how weak the link is, especially addicts. It's unlawful and threatens violence against people and property. It is the very definition of terrorism.

---

Then the mafia is a terrorist organization.

---

Is it not? Can anyone living in their "territory" be free from fear of them? Will those in business that happens to compete with them be safe at home?

---

We are misdirecting the conversation. It is not that anyone wants to protect cartels, traffickers or the mob. The topic that needs discussion is how do you do it? Do we use the military? If so, does Exec Branch get Carte Blanche? Does Congress have oversight? Where does HSA and law enforcement fit?

These are bigger issues than blowing up a boat.

---

It seems there is a legal issue being discussed about what a terrorist organization is. That is how the boat interdiction is happening.

---

Thank you for identifying the issue at hand. This is the crux of the issue. What is a terrorist organization THAT can be targeted by military forces?

I believe this question will be hammered out. No legal charges will be filed because the military and SecDef operated under the rules at the time. It gives both sides the cover to take a breath and determine if this is what we want for this type of foe.

Is it a criminal or terror act? But, everyone needs to agree on the definition. Congress and Executive. Notice, I said Congress, not all parties. Party line vote is perfectly fine. Johnson and Thume need to get their people in line.

I want to preserve the Union and the processes we use ARE important.

---

And after two to three years, after Democrats sticking to Americans in the court, one of their big cash cows for the next POTUS election, the drug cartels, will suddenly become the Liberal Media's love child. And nothing happens.

You have a "Do'r" in the White House. Let him do his job and protect American citizens, not drug cartels

boognish_bear said:

---

There are some people surrounding President Trump, like Marco Rubio, who are secretly pushing for regime change in Venezuela. They seem to forget that war powers belong to Congress, not the president.
Any step toward regime change in Venezuela is too serious to bypass Congress.…

— Rand Paul (@RandPaul) December 5, 2025

---

Then Congress better start getting their act together and correct the war powers ceded.

I am becoming deeply concerned that anyone finds out that Rand Paul had anything to do with Baylor...

Assassin said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Assassin said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Assassin said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Assassin said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Assassin said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Assassin said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

The largest terror funding network in the world is now the American drug user.

---

And how would you fix that? A War on Drugs? Cause that's what Trump is actually doing. Everything else has been tried.

---

We aren't even doing a "War on Drugs". We're using the human tragedy of fentanyl to attack a failing state that has little to nothing to do with the fentanyl trade in order to establish a friendly regime and get access to oil. I wonder if there has been another situation where human tragedy was used to manufacture a case around deadly chemicals to depose a rogue regime and expand energy resources, and how did it go?

And do you know what we do with terror financing already under the Patriot Act and EO 13224? That would make a users life more difficult for sure.

The real solutions require either a trimming of individual rights and freedom, or a trimming of moral outrage. I prefer the latter despite my disdain for it as a solution.

---

Fentanyl doesn't come out of Venezuela. It is cocaine we are dealing with from what I've read. As for the rest of your post, we simply disagree. I say, let's use common sense. Blow these guys out of the water and put the fear of God into all the cartels. This is happening in international waters. Make it so. This is truly America's War on Drugs. Finally

---

Then why the secrecy? Why is Congress saying Biden gave them more info? We cant have a war on drugs by one branch with the other two in the dark. Someone said, why haven't they defunded them if they didnt approve? You really want to get to that point?

---

Not sure why we would need other branches of Dept of War right now. Everything can be taken care of by the US Navy. Why are you thinking we should bring them in?

---

Only Congress can declare War. Using military is war. This BS deeming them a terror organization
is a BS move to get around reporting to Congress. That is what has people upset, not attacking drug runners. But, you are the President and SecDef axt like it and give a **** about the Constitution...

---

You don't think the Cartels are terrorist organizations? What's your basis for that?

---

They are not ideologues attacking the US. They are drug dealers breaking the law to make money. Terrorist attack to destroy based on a political ideal. Cartels sre not that. They are like the Mafia, did we go military on the Mafia? Even Bobby Kennedy didnt go that far.

Sorry dont meet definition. Create one with Congress, would be my move.

---

Terrorism is the unlawful use of violence or the threat of violence against people or property to create fear and coerce a government, civilian population, or organization to further political, social, or ideological goals. Key components include a violent act, the goal of intimidating or coercing a population or government, and political or ideological objectives.

In Mexico Sheinbaum can't make a move without getting cartel approval, the people of Mexico are in terror. In every country in Central America, the same. In the USA, we are flooded with Fentanyl from Mexico and cocaine from Venezuela, Columbia and elsewhere. Strikes the fear of god in everyone associated with it, no matter how weak the link is, especially addicts. It's unlawful and threatens violence against people and property. It is the very definition of terrorism.

---

Then the mafia is a terrorist organization.

---

Is it not? Can anyone living in their "territory" be free from fear of them? Will those in business that happens to compete with them be safe at home?

---

We are misdirecting the conversation. It is not that anyone wants to protect cartels, traffickers or the mob. The topic that needs discussion is how do you do it? Do we use the military? If so, does Exec Branch get Carte Blanche? Does Congress have oversight? Where does HSA and law enforcement fit?

These are bigger issues than blowing up a boat.

---

It seems there is a legal issue being discussed about what a terrorist organization is. That is how the boat interdiction is happening.

---

Thank you for identifying the issue at hand. This is the crux of the issue. What is a terrorist organization THAT can be targeted by military forces?

I believe this question will be hammered out. No legal charges will be filed because the military and SecDef operated under the rules at the time. It gives both sides the cover to take a breath and determine if this is what we want for this type of foe.

Is it a criminal or terror act? But, everyone needs to agree on the definition. Congress and Executive. Notice, I said Congress, not all parties. Party line vote is perfectly fine. Johnson and Thume need to get their people in line.

I want to preserve the Union and the processes we use ARE important.

---

And after two to three years, after Democrats sticking to Americans in the court, one of their big cash cows for the next POTUS election, the drug cartels, will suddenly become the Liberal Media's love child. And nothing happens.

You have a "Do'r" in the White House. Let him do his job and protect Am

---

How is this a Democrat or even GOP Party issue???? Why is it even in the conversation?

As Whiterock said earlier, Trump has stayed close to the rules in place. The conversation is whether those rules are what we want now that we have seen how they are implemented.

Let's start with no fault, no blame. Current Admin followed the rules that were in place. SecDef, did no wrong. From what I have read from them military guys the rules were followed. Chalk it one up for Peter and Trump. Those calling for war crimes or any criminal are going to lose. Those saying it is all perfectly fine are going to lose. This has raised enough red flags.

Now, with how this went down is it what we want as a Nation? Congress has every right to ask that question AND to determine the ROE and how terrorists that fit in the military response are identified. But, the discussion has to take place and EVERYONE has to be on the same page. That is not the current situation. That is how the system is supposed to work.

FLBear5630 said:

---

Assassin said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Assassin said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Assassin said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Assassin said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Assassin said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Assassin said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

The largest terror funding network in the world is now the American drug user.

---

And how would you fix that? A War on Drugs? Cause that's what Trump is actually doing. Everything else has been tried.

---

We aren't even doing a "War on Drugs". We're using the human tragedy of fentanyl to attack a failing state that has little to nothing to do with the fentanyl trade in order to establish a friendly regime and get access to oil. I wonder if there has been another situation where human tragedy was used to manufacture a case around deadly chemicals to depose a rogue regime and expand energy resources, and how did it go?

And do you know what we do with terror financing already under the Patriot Act and EO 13224? That would make a users life more difficult for sure.

The real solutions require either a trimming of individual rights and freedom, or a trimming of moral outrage. I prefer the latter despite my disdain for it as a solution.

---

Fentanyl doesn't come out of Venezuela. It is cocaine we are dealing with from what I've read. As for the rest of your post, we simply disagree. I say, let's use common sense. Blow these guys out of the water and put the fear of God into all the cartels. This is happening in international waters. Make it so. This is truly America's War on Drugs. Finally

---

Then why the secrecy? Why is Congress saying Biden gave them more info? We cant have a war on drugs by one branch with the other two in the dark. Someone said, why haven't they defunded them if they didnt approve? You really want to get to that point?

---

Not sure why we would need other branches of Dept of War right now. Everything can be taken care of by the US Navy. Why are you thinking we should bring them in?

---

Only Congress can declare War. Using military is war. This BS deeming them a terror organization
is a BS move to get around reporting to Congress. That is what has people upset, not attacking drug runners. But, you are the President and SecDef axt like it and give a **** about the Constitution...

---

You don't think the Cartels are terrorist organizations? What's your basis for that?

---

They are not ideologues attacking the US. They are drug dealers breaking the law to make money. Terrorist attack to destroy based on a political ideal. Cartels sre not that. They are like the Mafia, did we go military on the Mafia? Even Bobby Kennedy didnt go that far.

Sorry dont meet definition. Create one with Congress, would be my move.

---

Terrorism is the unlawful use of violence or the threat of violence against people or property to create fear and coerce a government, civilian population, or organization to further political, social, or ideological goals. Key components include a violent act, the goal of intimidating or coercing a population or government, and political or ideological objectives.

In Mexico Sheinbaum can't make a move without getting cartel approval, the people of Mexico are in terror. In every country in Central America, the same. In the USA, we are flooded with Fentanyl from Mexico and cocaine from Venezuela, Columbia and elsewhere. Strikes the fear of god in everyone associated with it, no matter how weak the link is, especially addicts. It's unlawful and threatens violence against people and property. It is the very definition of terrorism.

---

Then the mafia is a terrorist organization.

---

Is it not? Can anyone living in their "territory" be free from fear of them? Will those in business that happens to compete with them be safe at home?

---

We are misdirecting the conversation. It is not that anyone wants to protect cartels, traffickers or the mob. The topic that needs discussion is how do you do it? Do we use the military? If so, does Exec Branch get Carte Blanche? Does Congress have oversight? Where does HSA and law enforcement fit?

These are bigger issues than blowing up a boat.

---

It seems there is a legal issue being discussed about what a terrorist organization is. That is how the boat interdiction is happening.

---

Thank you for identifying the issue at hand. This is the crux of the issue. What is a terrorist organization THAT can be targeted by military forces?

I believe this question will be hammered out. No legal charges will be filed because the military and SecDef operated under the rules at the time. It gives both sides the cover to take a breath and determine if this is what we want for this type of foe.

Is it a criminal or terror act? But, everyone needs to agree on the definition. Congress and Executive. Notice, I said Congress, not all parties. Party line vote is perfectly fine. Johnson and Thume need to get their people in line.

I want to preserve the Union and the processes we use ARE important.

---

And after two to three years, after Democrats sticking to Americans in the court, one of their big cash cows for the next POTUS election, the drug cartels, will suddenly become the Liberal Media's love child. And nothing happens.

You have a "Do'r" in the White House. Let him do his job and protect Am

---

How is this a Democrat or even GOP Party issue???? Why is it even in the conversation?

As Whiterock said earlier, Trump has stayed close to the rules in place. The conversation is whether those rules are what we want now that we have seen how they are implemented.

Let's start with no fault, no blame. Current Admin followed the rules that were in place. SecDef, did no wrong. From what I have read from them military guys the rules were followed. Chalk it one up for Peter and Trump. Those calling for war crimes or any criminal are going to lose. Those saying it is all perfectly fine are going to lose. This has raised enough red flags.

Now, with how this went down is it what we want as a Nation? Congress has every right to ask that question AND to determine the ROE and how terrorists that fit in the military response are identified. But, the discussion has to take place and EVERYONE has to be on the same page. That is not the current situation. That is how the system is supposed to work

---

You are stuck on the cartel's side. Determined to bring in drugs that will kill hundreds of thousands. I dont get that. GET THESE DRUGS OUT OF OUR COUNTRY BY ANY MEANS! (I can use caps too)

Assassin said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Assassin said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Assassin said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Assassin said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Assassin said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Assassin said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Assassin said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

The largest terror funding network in the world is now the American drug user.

---

And how would you fix that? A War on Drugs? Cause that's what Trump is actually doing. Everything else has been tried.

---

We aren't even doing a "War on Drugs". We're using the human tragedy of fentanyl to attack a failing state that has little to nothing to do with the fentanyl trade in order to establish a friendly regime and get access to oil. I wonder if there has been another situation where human tragedy was used to manufacture a case around deadly chemicals to depose a rogue regime and expand energy resources, and how did it go?

And do you know what we do with terror financing already under the Patriot Act and EO 13224? That would make a users life more difficult for sure.

The real solutions require either a trimming of individual rights and freedom, or a trimming of moral outrage. I prefer the latter despite my disdain for it as a solution.

---

Fentanyl doesn't come out of Venezuela. It is cocaine we are dealing with from what I've read. As for the rest of your post, we simply disagree. I say, let's use common sense. Blow these guys out of the water and put the fear of God into all the cartels. This is happening in international waters. Make it so. This is truly America's War on Drugs. Finally

---

Then why the secrecy? Why is Congress saying Biden gave them more info? We cant have a war on drugs by one branch with the other two in the dark. Someone said, why haven't they defunded them if they didnt approve? You really want to get to that point?

---

Not sure why we would need other branches of Dept of War right now. Everything can be taken care of by the US Navy. Why are you thinking we should bring them in?

---

Only Congress can declare War. Using military is war. This BS deeming them a terror organization
is a BS move to get around reporting to Congress. That is what has people upset, not attacking drug runners. But, you are the President and SecDef axt like it and give a **** about the Constitution...

---

You don't think the Cartels are terrorist organizations? What's your basis for that?

---

They are not ideologues attacking the US. They are drug dealers breaking the law to make money. Terrorist attack to destroy based on a political ideal. Cartels sre not that. They are like the Mafia, did we go military on the Mafia? Even Bobby Kennedy didnt go that far.

Sorry dont meet definition. Create one with Congress, would be my move.

---

Terrorism is the unlawful use of violence or the threat of violence against people or property to create fear and coerce a government, civilian population, or organization to further political, social, or ideological goals. Key components include a violent act, the goal of intimidating or coercing a population or government, and political or ideological objectives.

In Mexico Sheinbaum can't make a move without getting cartel approval, the people of Mexico are in terror. In every country in Central America, the same. In the USA, we are flooded with Fentanyl from Mexico and cocaine from Venezuela, Columbia and elsewhere. Strikes the fear of god in everyone associated with it, no matter how weak the link is, especially addicts. It's unlawful and threatens violence against people and property. It is the very definition of terrorism.

---

Then the mafia is a terrorist organization.

---

Is it not? Can anyone living in their "territory" be free from fear of them? Will those in business that happens to compete with them be safe at home?

---

We are misdirecting the conversation. It is not that anyone wants to protect cartels, traffickers or the mob. The topic that needs discussion is how do you do it? Do we use the military? If so, does Exec Branch get Carte Blanche? Does Congress have oversight? Where does HSA and law enforcement fit?

These are bigger issues than blowing up a boat.

---

It seems there is a legal issue being discussed about what a terrorist organization is. That is how the boat interdiction is happening.

---

Thank you for identifying the issue at hand. This is the crux of the issue. What is a terrorist organization THAT can be targeted by military forces?

I believe this question will be hammered out. No legal charges will be filed because the military and SecDef operated under the rules at the time. It gives both sides the cover to take a breath and determine if this is what we want for this type of foe.

Is it a criminal or terror act? But, everyone needs to agree on the definition. Congress and Executive. Notice, I said Congress, not all parties. Party line vote is perfectly fine. Johnson and Thume need to get their people in line.

I want to preserve the Union and the processes we use ARE important.

---

And after two to three years, after Democrats sticking to Americans in the court, one of their big cash cows for the next POTUS election, the drug cartels, will suddenly become the Liberal Media's love child. And nothing happens.

You have a "Do'r" in the White House. Let him do his job and protect Am

---

How is this a Democrat or even GOP Party issue???? Why is it even in the conversation?

As Whiterock said earlier, Trump has stayed close to the rules in place. The conversation is whether those rules are what we want now that we have seen how they are implemented.

Let's start with no fault, no blame. Current Admin followed the rules that were in place. SecDef, did no wrong. From what I have read from them military guys the rules were followed. Chalk it one up for Peter and Trump. Those calling for war crimes or any criminal are going to lose. Those saying it is all perfectly fine are going to lose. This has raised enough red flags.

Now, with how this went down is it what we want as a Nation? Congress has every right to ask that question AND to determine the ROE and how terrorists that fit in the military response are identified. But, the discussion has to take place and EVERYONE has to be on the same page. That is not the current situation. That is how the system is supposed to work

---

You are stuck on the cartel's side. Determined to bring in drugs that will kill hundreds of thousands. I dont get that. GET THESE DRUGS OUT OF OUR COUNTRY BY ANY MEANS! (I can use caps too)

---

Sigh, you are mixing different issues. You really need to start looking at one at a time. Everyone agrees stopping drugs is a good thing. Breaking the US system of Government is not worth the small amounts we are stopping by these attacks, which are more messaging than actually putting a dent in the drug trade.

Congress needs to be good with the attacks. GOP has the majority, pass a resolution defining what terrrorists are.

I'm not sure why libtards are being so obtuse on this. We are bombing cartel drug members/drugs. We are not allowing cartel bought judges to let these guys walk. We are killing them. Why is this an issue at all????

ScottS said:

---

I'm not sure why libtards are being so obtuse on this. We are bombing cartel drug members/drugs. We are not allowing cartel bought judges to let these guys walk. We are killing them. Why is this an issue at all????

---

dems dont have any good idears - so they manufacture crises and shut down the gubmint to distract and confuse and rile the befuddled reeking masses........

- unce fred*

D!

{ sipping coffee }

{ eating donut }

* dir UFRI

Go Bears!!

FLBear5630 said:

---

Assassin said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Assassin said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Assassin said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Assassin said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Assassin said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Assassin said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Assassin said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

The largest terror funding network in the world is now the American drug user.

---

And how would you fix that? A War on Drugs? Cause that's what Trump is actually doing. Everything else has been tried.

---

We aren't even doing a "War on Drugs". We're using the human tragedy of fentanyl to attack a failing state that has little to nothing to do with the fentanyl trade in order to establish a friendly regime and get access to oil. I wonder if there has been another situation where human tragedy was used to manufacture a case around deadly chemicals to depose a rogue regime and expand energy resources, and how did it go?

And do you know what we do with terror financing already under the Patriot Act and EO 13224? That would make a users life more difficult for sure.

The real solutions require either a trimming of individual rights and freedom, or a trimming of moral outrage. I prefer the latter despite my disdain for it as a solution.

---

Fentanyl doesn't come out of Venezuela. It is cocaine we are dealing with from what I've read. As for the rest of your post, we simply disagree. I say, let's use common sense. Blow these guys out of the water and put the fear of God into all the cartels. This is happening in international waters. Make it so. This is truly America's War on Drugs. Finally

---

Then why the secrecy? Why is Congress saying Biden gave them more info? We cant have a war on drugs by one branch with the other two in the dark. Someone said, why haven't they defunded them if they didnt approve? You really want to get to that point?

---

Not sure why we would need other branches of Dept of War right now. Everything can be taken care of by the US Navy. Why are you thinking we should bring them in?

---

Only Congress can declare War. Using military is war. This BS deeming them a terror organization
is a BS move to get around reporting to Congress. That is what has people upset, not attacking drug runners. But, you are the President and SecDef axt like it and give a **** about the Constitution...

---

You don't think the Cartels are terrorist organizations? What's your basis for that?

---

They are not ideologues attacking the US. They are drug dealers breaking the law to make money. Terrorist attack to destroy based on a political ideal. Cartels sre not that. They are like the Mafia, did we go military on the Mafia? Even Bobby Kennedy didnt go that far.

Sorry dont meet definition. Create one with Congress, would be my move.

---

Terrorism is the unlawful use of violence or the threat of violence against people or property to create fear and coerce a government, civilian population, or organization to further political, social, or ideological goals. Key components include a violent act, the goal of intimidating or coercing a population or government, and political or ideological objectives.

In Mexico Sheinbaum can't make a move without getting cartel approval, the people of Mexico are in terror. In every country in Central America, the same. In the USA, we are flooded with Fentanyl from Mexico and cocaine from Venezuela, Columbia and elsewhere. Strikes the fear of god in everyone associated with it, no matter how weak the link is, especially addicts. It's unlawful and threatens violence against people and property. It is the very definition of terrorism.

---

Then the mafia is a terrorist organization.

---

Is it not? Can anyone living in their "territory" be free from fear of them? Will those in business that happens to compete with them be safe at home?

---

We are misdirecting the conversation. It is not that anyone wants to protect cartels, traffickers or the mob. The topic that needs discussion is how do you do it? Do we use the military? If so, does Exec Branch get Carte Blanche? Does Congress have oversight? Where does HSA and law enforcement fit?

These are bigger issues than blowing up a boat.

---

It seems there is a legal issue being discussed about what a terrorist organization is. That is how the boat interdiction is happening.

---

Thank you for identifying the issue at hand. This is the crux of the issue. What is a terrorist organization THAT can be targeted by military forces?

I believe this question will be hammered out. No legal charges will be filed because the military and SecDef operated under the rules at the time. It gives both sides the cover to take a breath and determine if this is what we want for this type of foe.

Is it a criminal or terror act? But, everyone needs to agree on the definition. Congress and Executive. Notice, I said Congress, not all parties. Party line vote is perfectly fine. Johnson and Thume need to get their people in line.

I want to preserve the Union and the processes we use ARE important.

---

And after two to three years, after Democrats sticking to Americans in the court, one of their big cash cows for the next POTUS election, the drug cartels, will suddenly become the Liberal Media's love child. And nothing happens.

You have a "Do'r" in the White House. Let him do his job and protect Am

---

How is this a Democrat or even GOP Party issue???? Why is it even in the conversation?

As Whiterock said earlier, Trump has stayed close to the rules in place. The conversation is whether those rules are what we want now that we have seen how they are implemented.

Let's start with no fault, no blame. Current Admin followed the rules that were in place. SecDef, did no wrong. From what I have read from them military guys the rules were followed. Chalk it one up for Peter and Trump. Those calling for war crimes or any criminal are going to lose. Those saying it is all perfectly fine are going to lose. This has raised enough red flags.

Now, with how this went down is it what we want as a Nation? Congress has every right to ask that question AND to determine the ROE and how terrorists that fit in the military response are identified. But, the discussion has to take place and EVERYONE has to be on the same page. That is not the current situation. That is how the system is supposed to work

---

You are stuck on the cartel's side. Determined to bring in drugs that will kill hundreds of thousands. I dont get that. GET THESE DRUGS OUT OF OUR COUNTRY BY ANY MEANS! (I can use caps too)

---

Sigh, you are mixing different issues. You really need to start looking at one at a time. Everyone agrees stopping drugs is a good thing. Breaking the US system of Government is not worth the small amounts we are stopping by these attacks, which are more messaging than actually putting a dent in the drug trade.

Congress needs to be good with the attacks. GOP has the majority, pass a resolution defining what terrorists are.

---

We stand on two different sides of this. You keep wanting to say it's illegal and so far, Trump has proved that its legal, while making the drug cartels scared to death.

Or we could have kept doing what we did for year, not much. This man is doing something about it. Legally. How is that "breaking the US System of Government"? If it went before Congress, even if it passed, some liberal judge would deny it and it would stay in the back of the room for months or years, and maybe the Dems take the House and it would never see the light of day. The Dems would be ecstatic as they count on the poor doing drugs. And you have hundreds of thousands more addicts dead in the street, because you wanted it to go to Congress.

william said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Assassin said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Assassin said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Assassin said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Assassin said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Assassin said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Assassin said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Assassin said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

The largest terror funding network in the world is now t to get to that point?

---

---

---

---

---

Not sure why we would need other branches of Dept of War right now. Everything can be taken care of by the US Navy. Why are you thinking we should bring them in?

---

Only Congress can deocesses we use ARE important.

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

And after two to three years, after Democrats sticking to Americans in the court, one of their big cash cows for the next POTUS election, the drug cartels, will suddenly become the Liberal Media's love child. And nothing happens.

You have a "Do'r" in the White House. Let him do his job and protect Am

---

How is this a Democrat or even GOP Pon has to take place and EVERYONE has to be on the same page. That is not the current situation. That is how the system is supposed to work

---

You are stuck on the cartel's side. Determined to bring in drugs that will kill hundreds of thousands. I dont get that. GET THESE DRUGS OUT OF OUR COUNTRY BY ANY MEANS! (I can use caps too)

---

Sigh, you are mixing different issues. You really need to start looking at one at a time. Everyone agrees stopping drugs is a good thing. Breaking the US system of Government is not worth the small amounts we are stopping by these attacks, which are more messaging than actually putting a dent in the drug trade.

Congress needs to be good with the attacks. GOP has the majority, pass a resolution defining what terrrorists are.

---

23 boats - each w/ nearly a half billion of street value = > $11 of drogas taken off the streets.

not a small amount.

and we've really just started - it adds up and the VZ Govt is missing the revenue wh/ is used to fund more drug production and terrorism.

and the POTUS is the Commander in Chief.

A Win WIn Win Win scenario.

- uncle fred

D!

... and Arby's is Americas beloved QSF Roast Beef rest.

Thank You.

{ decomposing carcass }

---

Good point.

That's a huge amount of money lost for Venezuela.

( and a lot of US drug suppliers )

Watch for increasing pressure to stop these boat sinkings from unexpected sources.

ScottS said:

---

I'm not sure why libtards are being so obtuse on this. We are bombing cartel drug members/drugs. We are not allowing cartel bought judges to let these guys walk. We are killing them. Why is this an issue at all????

---

1. The drug trade is critical to its strategy

2. The reflexively oppose anything a Republican does

KaiBear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

' Poor fisherman'



Gotta luv the internet.

---

What you love is killing them.

---

Clueless…..these 'poor fisherman' are well paid to smuggle poisons into the United States.

Poisons that contribute to the deaths of approximately 100,000 Americans each year.

Now at some rudimentary level even a 'bubble gal' is aware of this.

However it suits you to play games.

---

These are justifications for killing them right? Is it hard to explicitly admit you want these impoverished fishermen dead?

So you talk in circles about all the reasons we need to kill them?

On the coast of Venezuela?

While Trump pardons the ex President of Honduras convicted in the U.S. of....

smuggling cocaine into the U.S.?.??

---

ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND dead Americans ANNUALLY

Yet your tears are for their killers.

There is something really wrong with you.

---

Tears? Where do you guys get this stuff. No one is concerned about the drug runners, they are concerned over the Constitution and where we are going. There is a lot of stuff going on that raise red flags. You served, take no prisoners? No one lives? That is consistent with how we wage war?

---

Really think we aways took prisoners ?

Come on fella;, you know better.

---

Geez, you dont see the difference between what happens in the field and SecDef giving orders? You use pros like SEAL team 6 so anyone in leadership doesn't have to say that and put the nation in a be as position. The higher up you go, the more general the orders.

---

Nice dancing.

Now try answering my question.


You know the truth…..educate these children.

---

Come on, I know you know that the higher you go the more general the orders. There is too much National and International backlash potential. Hegseth just put Trump and his Cabinet out on the limb. Not for the first time in what, 8 months? You don't do that. Let the Pros do their job, that is why they are there. He should NOT be getting involved at the tactical level.

---

Still playing around. You don't want to lose your little 'glow'.

Taking prisoners has always been a matter of convience. When in the slightest doubt, you shoot the mother ****er who is, or has been. trying to kill you or your team. But the media doesn't want to 'shock' the fat soccer moms out there. So these little fantasy games always get played. Don't know ( and no one else knows ) exactly what the Sec of D said. However if he was merely clearing the communication lines....I have zero issue with him bringing reality into the picture.

---

And you see no difference with that being determined in the field by the on-site Commander versus an order from SecDef going into the mission? We had people in Officer Training talk of double-tapping in field exercises, which ended up with a ton of bricks coming down on them, almost cost one active duty. It is illegal, you cannot do it. ANYONE in leadership cannot condone that behavior, that is how you end up in a Mai Lai trail. But, keep playing internet Rambo...

We will see how it plays out. I fear it is not going to end well for little Petey. Professionals are not going to go down or even lose their pensions for him.

---

Again

You are attempting to look 'nice' and feel 'nice'.

When combat has never , in reality , been 'nice'.

Guys in the field need to KNOW their boss is NOT going to hang them out to dry when the **** gets real.

I applaud the Sec of Defense for his directive. ( if he actually did…which would require some huge balls ) Takes the heat OFF the guys actually doing the killing.

But no doubt the insulated soccer moms will luv your stance.

Big win for ya.

---

Taking no prisoners, killing the shipwrecked, and killing those who are surrendering has long been a war crime from a moral standpoint and by law under the Geneva Convention. There is no excuse for executing the two survivors. They should have been taken prisoner. It's a concept that the civilized world has adopted, and one that people of conscience and christians should underpin and champion.

Assassin said:

---

---

The difference is he followed the UCMJ. It's part of what has made our country great, sucessful, and set apart from the the third world.

TexasScientist said:

---

Assassin said:

---

---

The difference is he followed the UCMJ. It's part of what has made our country great, sucessful, and set apart from the the third world.

---

Kill, kill, murder, murder... Obama Good!

TexasScientist said:

---

Assassin said:

---

---

The difference is he followed the UCMJ. It's part of what has made our country great, sucessful, and set apart from the the third world.

---

LOL you really are hilarious


Really think such niceties makes the slightest difference to the relatives of the thousands Obama killed ?

TexasScientist said:

---

Assassin said:

---

---

The difference is he followed the UCMJ. It's part of what has made our country great, sucessful, and set apart from the the third world.

---

No he didn't. There are literally hundreds of videos of drone strikes, helicopter strikes, etc. shooting at people walking, often unarmed and then shooting multiple times…. You know leaving no survivors.

The wording of the law regarding boat strikes being violations depends on context: attacking shipwrecked people or those hors de combat(wounded/sick) is a war crime under Geneva Conventions, prohibited by U.S. Law of War Manual (prohibits "denial of quarter," firing on survivors). In non-conflict situations, force must be "reasonable and necessary," with lethal force generally limited to self-defense, otherwise it's unlawful, potentially violating Law of the Sea (UNCLOS, though U.S. isn't signatory but generally follows).

Here's a breakdown of relevant legal principles:

International Humanitarian Law (Law of Armed Conflict)
* Geneva Conventions: Protects wounded, sick, and shipwrecked persons, making them immune from attack. Attacking them is a grave breach.

* U.S. Law of War Manual: Explicitly forbids attacking shipwrecked or wounded individuals, calling such orders illegal and requiring soldiers to refuse them.

* "No Quarter" Prohibition: Explicitly outlaws policies to give no quarter (leave no survivors), a core principle of armed conflict law.

International Law of the Sea
* UNCLOS: Prohibits interference with vessels in international waters, allowing limited exceptions like "hot pursuit".

* Use of Force: Force to stop vessels should generally be non-lethal; lethal force only justified for self-defense against immediate threats, not just drug smuggling.

U.S. Domestic Law
* Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ):Soldiers carrying out unlawful orders (like killing survivors) can face court-martial.

* 33 U.S. Code 412: Addresses liability for violating acts related to navigation/waterways, imposing fines/license suspension.

In essence: Deliberately targeting survivors of a boat strike is illegal under both peacetime maritime law and the laws of armed conflict, constituting a war crime if in conflict, or an unlawful killing if not.

BUDOS said:

---

The wording of the law regarding boat strikes being violations depends on context: attacking shipwrecked people or those hors de combat(wounded/sick) is a war crime under Geneva Conventions, prohibited by U.S. Law of War Manual (prohibits "denial of quarter," firing on survivors). In non-conflict situations, force must be "reasonable and necessary," with lethal force generally limited to self-defense, otherwise it's unlawful, potentially violating Law of the Sea (UNCLOS, though U.S. isn't signatory but generally follows).

Here's a breakdown of relevant legal principles:

International Humanitarian Law (Law of Armed Conflict)
* Geneva Conventions: Protects wounded, sick, and shipwrecked persons, making them immune from attack. Attacking them is a grave breach.

* U.S. Law of War Manual: Explicitly forbids attacking shipwrecked or wounded individuals, calling such orders illegal and requiring soldiers to refuse them.

* "No Quarter" Prohibition: Explicitly outlaws policies to give no quarter (leave no survivors), a core principle of armed conflict law.

International Law of the Sea
* UNCLOS: Prohibits interference with vessels in international waters, allowing limited exceptions like "hot pursuit".

* Use of Force: Force to stop vessels should generally be non-lethal; lethal force only justified for self-defense against immediate threats, not just drug smuggling.

U.S. Domestic Law
* Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ):Soldiers carrying out unlawful orders (like killing survivors) can face court-martial.

* 33 U.S. Code 412: Addresses liability for violating acts related to navigation/waterways, imposing fines/license suspension.

In essence: Deliberately targeting survivors of a boat strike is illegal under both peacetime maritime law and the laws of armed conflict, constituting a war crime if in conflict, or an unlawful killing if not.

---

Please. In your lawyer world of combat, you would only get one wack at the ship or tank . . . then stop and check if anyone survived. That is not how targets get eliminated.

cowboycwr said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Assassin said:

---

---

The difference is he followed the UCMJ. It's part of what has made our country great, sucessful, and set apart from the the third world.

---

No he didn't. There are literally hundreds of videos of drone strikes, helicopter strikes, etc. shooting at people walking, often unarmed and then shooting multiple times…. You know leaving no survivors.

---

Obama even took out a few US Citizens too

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2013/5/23/us-admits-drones-killed-four-americans

Here he defends earlier strikes

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-16804247

STxBear81 said:

---

Is the Appalachian meth lab in the Caribbean or international waters on its way to USA ?
Why not have zero tolerance here also although we never will
I suppose your saying if it applies to these waters it applies within borders but I'm not arguing what anyone is dong in hillbilly ville they will be caught eventually

---

We have tolerance here because we had founding fathers were not dumbos. People make mistakes. They do bad things. They deserve second chances.

If you truly dont understand why we dont drone trap houses, you must want the death penalty for drunk drivers, death penalty for everyone breaks the law, right? I mean, how would you determine who gets tolerance?

BUDOS said:

---

The wording of the law regarding boat strikes being violations depends on context: attacking shipwrecked people or those hors de combat(wounded/sick) is a war crime under Geneva Conventions, prohibited by U.S. Law of War Manual (prohibits "denial of quarter," firing on survivors). In non-conflict situations, force must be "reasonable and necessary," with lethal force generally limited to self-defense, otherwise it's unlawful, potentially violating Law of the Sea (UNCLOS, though U.S. isn't signatory but generally follows).

Here's a breakdown of relevant legal principles:

International Humanitarian Law (Law of Armed Conflict)
* Geneva Conventions: Protects wounded, sick, and shipwrecked persons, making them immune from attack. Attacking them is a grave breach.

* U.S. Law of War Manual: Explicitly forbids attacking shipwrecked or wounded individuals, calling such orders illegal and requiring soldiers to refuse them.

* "No Quarter" Prohibition: Explicitly outlaws policies to give no quarter (leave no survivors), a core principle of armed conflict law.

International Law of the Sea
* UNCLOS: Prohibits interference with vessels in international waters, allowing limited exceptions like "hot pursuit".

* Use of Force: Force to stop vessels should generally be non-lethal; lethal force only justified for self-defense against immediate threats, not just drug smuggling.

U.S. Domestic Law
* Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ):Soldiers carrying out unlawful orders (like killing survivors) can face court-martial.

* 33 U.S. Code 412: Addresses liability for violating acts related to navigation/waterways, imposing fines/license suspension.

In essence: Deliberately targeting survivors of a boat strike is illegal under both peacetime maritime law and the laws of armed conflict, constituting a war crime if in conflict, or an unlawful killing if not.

---

Lol. You just made my point and don't realize it. M

According to you and the things you cited we would NEVER be able to attack enemy ships in international waters.

Most of what you cited is also not for military purposes. Or as you note we are not bound to.

You also ignored my point about the survivors being killed under Obama and no one making a big deal about it. There are hundreds of videos showing this. Like helicopters shooting at people walking and then shooting again when they are on the ground.

So until you post something condemning Obama for shooting survivors I know you are not serious.

ScottS said:

---

I'm not sure why libtards are being so obtuse on this. We are bombing cartel drug members/drugs. We are not allowing cartel bought judges to let these guys walk. We are killing them. Why is this an issue at all????

---

Any time we are killing people, basically anywhere, and there is no war declaration, no self defense, just stopping future crimes before they happen, half the country will have a problem with it.

KaiBear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

STxBear81 said:

---

No reason to extend the timeline of allowing drugs into the USA
If you don't want to be bombed don't traffic drugs

---

You going to drone a trap house or an Appalachian meth lab too?

---

Absolutely a method lab.

---

Appreciate the honesty, even if that's a crazy idea.

---

Spend approx 3 years volunteering in a homeless shelter, and witness first hand the horrible damage these drugs are doing to thousands of American families....and you might decide destroying meth labs isn't so crazy.

---

Have spent 20+ years volunteering in some of the worst environments in the world. While I have some empathy, no one is being forced to take drugs. In fact the vast majority of drug use in the U.S. is recreational in nature, and the highest addiction rate is in prescription drugs.

ATL Bear said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

STxBear81 said:

---

No reason to extend the timeline of allowing drugs into the USA
If you don't want to be bombed don't traffic drugs

---

You going to drone a trap house or an Appalachian meth lab too?

---

Absolutely a method lab.

---

Appreciate the honesty, even if that's a crazy idea.

---

Spend approx 3 years volunteering in a homeless shelter, and witness first hand the horrible damage these drugs are doing to thousands of American families....and you might decide destroying meth labs isn't so crazy.

---

Have spent 20+ years volunteering in some of the worst environments in the world. While I have some empathy, no one is being forced to take drugs. In fact the vast majority of drug use in the U.S. is recreational in nature, and the highest addiction rate is in prescription drugs.

---

Have now deleted 4 responses to this.

As I generally respect your opinions.

We disagree.

Have a good evening.