This is a general discussion about the war on cocaine in the Caribbean. I imagine soon it will be more than boat strikes.
Trump claims drug cartels attacked America with cocaine and there are thousands of casualties (and a few wild nights). To prevent further attacks from cocaine America must go to war with the full might of our military in self-defense to eliminate anyone bringing cocaine to America. These enemy forces can be killed as long as they are part of organization involved in its production or transport, or as collateral damage if they are near cocaine. Cocaine is a legit military objective and can be destroyed anywhere as long as civilian casualties are proportional.
This was contemplated earlier this year. The first attack was on Sep 2. There have been many since. Legal analysis can change over time as the facts change and time ticks on.
Is this a legally permissible military campaign against drug runners, or an overextension of military power into an area that should be governed by peacetime law?
This can just be a rolling discussion. Hopefully Trump won’t turn this twisted legal theory and his handling of it inward to us
The NYT has a running list of the attacks. From Sep 2 - Dec 4, 22 boat strikes, 87 murdered, 2 rescued. Multiple nationals, different drug cartels, the same basic type of speedboat, and all along the coasts from Venezuela (Caribbean) down to Peru (eastern pacific).
With that said, the NYT is just summarizing what Trump admin is saying/releasing. Not sure if or how it would be independently verified.
This is flat-out murder, and the justifications are such bullshit. I can only hope that Trump and Hegseth, and anyone else in this Administration that has been involved, face justice for these cold-blooded killings starting 38 months from now.
According to the FTFNYT tally, the killings have taken place not in the Gulf of America Mexico which would have at least possibly happened in or near our territorial waters, but in the Caribbean Sea or the eastern Pacific (with no indication that they were near the U.S. coast rather than Colombia or Ecuador. IOW, no threat that had to be met with lethal force due to any sort of imminent threat. They all could have been interdicted and searched. None of them needed to be killed.
And as noted by crowmanyclouds above, Trump then pardons a genuinely big-time trafficker, a man who was instrumental in shipping hundreds of tons of cocaine into the U.S.
As Beck said, this is part and parcel of Trump’s war on brown people. And here I thought he just wanted them out of the U.S., but he apparently wants them dead wherever they are.
We’ve seen over the past year, how little of domestic “law” is actually codified and enforceable, as opposed to simply longstanding generally accepted rules of civility and decency. International law is orders of magnitude less agreed upon and enforceable.
I agree that the actions against purported drug boats is inexcusable and reprehensible. But until somebody is able to enforce any judgment against the US, Trump’s gang will continue doing essentially whatever they wish.
I’m not sure this is even really war against brown people, so much as wagging the dog, thinking it makes him seem “tough” and like he is doing something worthwhile.
(Disclaimer, I have long advocated for legalization of all drugs, and redirecting the funds into education and rehabilitation.)
It definitely feels very strange to me, too. I’ll try to explain it, it will still feel strange, but hopefully you won’t feel like anyone is getting away with something.
As I sit here in Texas, I’m covered by at least 2 jurisdictional (State/Fed) murder laws. Those murder laws are very strict because murder is one of the worst crimes there is. I’m not allowed to unlawfully intentionally kill anyone. Meaning, unless it’s in self-defense, I can’t intend to kill anyone. This is a good law to have. They exist over every inch of the world during peacetime.
In other places, there is a war going on. It’s not peacetime there. Unfortunately, a different, looser, less strict, set of laws operate in those places. You are allowed to intentionally kill someone in war. You just can’t go nuts with it (Geneva Convention restrictions). Perfectly legal to do it, just you know, make sure the thing you’re blowing up is really necessary, if so, we’ll excuse some minor collateral damage (dead civilians). Those are the laws of war that apply. War crimes only happen in a war.
So, between those to legal frameworks, which would you prefer to apply? Civilians are much more protected from murder in peacetime than they are in a war. Of course, it’s not a choice like Trump is proclaiming (war because I said so!), but determined by the facts. Society has wanted to make it pretty hard to turn off the stricter peacetime laws so not just every little use of the military automatically becomes a war and allows the military to kill as a measure of first resort. It’s takes a bit more military conflict than blowing up drug boats who are not fighting; as bad as that is.
Hope that helps some. Put you’re quote in this thread because my responses in FQ were not really tied to the actual FQ questions anymore.
Mention of the high seas murders about 3/4 down the page. Add it to the rest of whatever label you can apply to this ongoing disaster. about sums things up
Reports are coming in Trump has had the Coast Guard seize an oil tanker off the coast of Venezuela. So it looks like we now have more than boat strikes on supposed smugglers. Not a lot of details out yet but it is being reported by multiple sources.
Two other strikes in the last week - total dead approx 95.
Congress passed a bill that heads to Trump’s desk that would require Hegseth to turn over unedited video footage of the Sep 2 strike on the 2 survivors:
Lawmakers are using the sprawling policy bill to demand the Pentagon hand over unedited videos of strikes against alleged drug-smuggling boats near Latin America…
In general, I’ve gotten the impression that lots of people are fine with the strikes because they are bad guys. At best, the same “meh” concern when we were striking terrorists.
