Sinking Drug Boats Is Legal

[DeluxAuto]

Turd brain shitty analogy.

There's more coke of Donnie jr's yacht than the boats trump is blowing up.

 

[ll74]

The LOAC does.

No it doesn't. We aren't in an armed conflict.

 

[Rightguide]

No it doesn't. We aren't in an armed conflict.

We don't have to be, nor do we don't need a declaration of War for the President to act against armed terror activity on the high seas or anywhere else. And as Obama’s al-Awlaki precedent makes clear: Even American citizenship does not bar targeting if someone is part of an enemy/terror force.

 

[RobDownSouth]

"but...but....armed terror activity!" is a cringeworthy justification for repurposing American armed forces as a law enforcement agency.

 

[Hel_Books]

The President has declared these cartels to be terrorist organizations.

Suppose the next President declares that MAGA is a terrorist organization. They did storm the USA Capitol building, which is actually on USA sovereign territory, not out in the open ocean!

Can that President order the military to shoot on sight people wearing MAGA caps?

 

[ll74]

We don't have to be, nor do we don't need a declaration of War for the President to act against armed terror activity on the high seas or anywhere else. And as Obama’s al-Awlaki precedent makes clear: Even American citizenship does not bar targeting if someone is part of an enemy/terror force.

Lol.....the law you refer to in this thread does not apply to the actions being taken.

Laws of armed conflict exist in armed conflict (the title probably gives it away)

I get that you want our armed forces attacking random boats to kill drug traffickers. Just say that and stop trying to prove it is justified by law. Drug traffickers aren't terrorists.

 

[Hel_Books]

We don't have to be, nor do we don't need a declaration of War for the President to act against armed terror activity on the high seas or anywhere else. And as Obama’s al-Awlaki precedent makes clear: Even American citizenship does not bar targeting if someone is part of an enemy/terror force.

Suppose the next President declares that MAGA is a terrorist organization. They did storm the USA Capitol building, which is actually on USA sovereign territory, not out in the open ocean!

Can that President order the military to shoot on sight people wearing MAGA caps?

 

[DraggonStone]

Turd brain shitty analogy.

So, splain it to me, stable genius

 

[Hel_Books]

Gruber concluded by pointing directly to Schumer’s role. “Go ahead, look it up, folks,” he said.

Looking it up, we find:

"...No, it 100% does not make it legal 'to take out drug boats' by blowing them up in the fashion pursued by the Trump Administration. The MDLEA is a domestic law that allows the United States to engage in law enforcement operations against vessels suspected of drug trafficking outside the territory of the United States.

... there is no area of law enforcement that would allow for extraterritorial and extrajudicial summary executions as have occurred in these several dozen incidents. None of these attacks can be construed as law enforcement operations...."

 

[Rightguide]

So, splain it to me, stable genius

Simple: A turd brain came up with a shitty analogy.

 

[Hel_Books]

Simple: A turd brain came up with a shitty analogy.

Sigh. Rightguide is throwing feces again instead of citing sources!

 

[Wilson23]

Remember that we have no reason at all to believe the boats were carrying drugs.

 

[DraggonStone]

Simple: A turd brain came up with a shitty analogy.

Just like your stable genius cult leader, you have resorted to juvenile insults. I can see that I've gotten under your thin skin

 

[contrifan32]

Remember that we have no reason at all to believe the boats were carrying drugs.

Right, because open cockpit craft leaving Venezuela at high speed with 4 outboard engines could be carrying humanitarian supplies to neighboring countries in the middle of the night.... right, you fucking moron

 

[Wilson23]

Right, because open cockpit craft leaving Venezuela at high speed with 4 outboard engines could be carrying humanitarian supplies to neighboring countries in the middle of the night.... right, you fucking moron

They could as easily be fishing. If there's proof they were drug boats, why has not that proof been published?

 

[Hel_Books]

contrifan32 said:
Right, because open cockpit craft leaving Venezuela at high speed with 4 outboard engines could be carrying humanitarian supplies to neighboring countries in the middle of the night.... right, you fucking moron

They could as easily be fishing. If there's proof they were drug boats, why has not that proof been published?

It is pretty weird. They did pick up two survivors from one of the boats (other boats that were destroyed, but had survivors, were either abandoned, for the survivors to die of exposure, or attacked again until everyone floating in the water was thoroughly dead), so USA officials must have gone to the boats afterwards and should have evidence to show everyone that there were drugs on those boats.

But they don't.

 

[Rightguide]

Lol.....the law you refer to in this thread does not apply to the actions being taken.

Laws of armed conflict exist in armed conflict (the title probably gives it away)

I get that you want our armed forces attacking random boats to kill drug traffickers. Just say that and stop trying to prove it is justified by law. Drug traffickers aren't terrorists.

Bullshit. But keep on defending terrorists, foreign invaders, who are killing our people.

 

[ll74]

Bullshit. But keep on defending terrorists, foreign invaders, who are killing our people.

I'm not defending terrorists. I'm discussing the laws which you have improperly understood.

Drug traffickers deserve to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the (actual) law. They deserve to be intercepted by the coast guard and have their cargo seized and destroyed. Government officials who facilitate their actions deserve to be sanctioned by our government and forced from office.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Suppose the next President declares that MAGA is a terrorist organization. They did storm the USA Capitol building, which is actually on USA sovereign territory, not out in the open ocean!

Can that President order the military to shoot on sight people wearing MAGA caps?

From your lips to Yahwah's ear.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Bullshit. But keep on defending terrorists, foreign invaders, who are killing our people.

Best non-CHAN histrionics I've seen today

 

[Rightguide]

I'm not defending terrorists. I'm discussing the laws which you have improperly understood.

Drug traffickers deserve to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the (actual) law. They deserve to be intercepted by the coast guard and have their cargo seized and destroyed. Government officials who facilitate their actions deserve to be sanctioned by our government and forced from office.

I haven't improperly understood the law. The President is acting according to the law. If the President acts, Congress does not stop him, and Americans are not directly restrained at home, the courts will almost certainly treat the matter as a "political question" and decline review. That’s not a loophole, that’s the system operating exactly as designed. Even before political question analysis, plaintiffs usually fail on standing: Foreign nationals have no standing, enemy combatants have no standing, killed individual's claims are extinguished, NGOs only have speculative harm, Congress members claiming institutional injury are usually rejected, if standing somehow exists, courts then apply political question doctrine and dismiss anyway. Here's why, no major use-of-force decision has been invalidated by SCOTUS on war-powers grounds. Now let us hear no more about hos what is happening isn't legal.

 

[Rightguide]

Best non-CHAN histrionics I've seen today

Just a short question, who the hell is Chan?

 

[ll74]

I haven't improperly understood the law.

You have. Neither the MDLEA nor the LOAC apply regarding actions being taken to blow up boats.

The President is acting according to the law. If the President acts, Congress does not stop him, and Americans are not directly restrained at home, the courts will almost certainly treat the matter as a "political question" and decline review. That’s not a loophole, that’s the system operating exactly as designed. Even before political question analysis, plaintiffs usually fail on standing: Foreign nationals have no standing, enemy combatants have no standing, killed individual's claims are extinguished, NGOs only have speculative harm, Congress members claiming institutional injury are usually rejected, if standing somehow exists, courts then apply political question doctrine and dismiss anyway.

It's fun that you prefer authoritarianism.
But we knew that already.

Here's why, no major use-of-force decision has been invalidated by SCOTUS on war-powers grounds. Now let us hear no more about hos what is happening isn't legal.

He is stretching the law as thin as he can get by declaring an emergency (one that doesn't actually exist)

Congress should provide proper oversight and either approve or deny the President's ability.to continue these actions.

Overall, he should prioritize and divert resources to combat drug smuggling from China, which is where the majority of fentanyl originates. Instead, he likes the marketing of blowing up boats. There is zero evidence that those actions are reducing drug trafficking in the US
.

 

[Rightguide]

Best non-CHAN histrionics I've seen today

Democrats are the driving force behind the opposition to sinking these terror-manned drug boats. Maybe more than a few are on drugs and can smell shortage-driven price inflation.

 

[ll74]

Democrats are the driving force behind the opposition to sinking these terror-manned drug boats. Maybe more than a few are on drugs and can smell shortage-driven price inflation.

Has your.cocaine pricing increased or did you stock up beforehand?