The war on Venezuela (the war on drugs) (regime change)

[Oryx]

@Samm

@Oryx

It would be a violation of federal law unless it was in self-defense, which it obviously wasn’t.

Can you cite the specific law? … nobody else has managed to do so.

The Uniform Code of Military Justice, Article 118. But like I said, we need more details about the strike to know if it applies.

[tnt]

@7426k

Imagine the thought process that says:

“Firing on them, sinking the boat and going back to kill the survivors? Just fine.
Taking the cargo and crew into custody? Violation of international law!”

It’s the same mental gymnastics that holds that you can only kill people in a second strike during peace time, not war time.

We are seeing the 5th Avenue Syndrome happening live…

[tnt]

@Gaius

Noting wrong with that.
we can oppose them in any manner we see fit
in any waters we see fit.

Those have always been the rules in every war and every conflict.
It is only when Rs are presidents that Ds start imagining new rules and restrictions.

(Shooting survivors in the water . . . . different story.)

We’re not at war.

[tnt]

@Ben_Natuf

another is that the incursion is imminent no matter how far away they are at the moment

Weird definition of imminent.

[tnt]

@Ben_Natuf

@tnt

told Bradley to order the strike

nope. as far as we know, Bradley advised and he approved.

That is not what Hegseth is saying now.

He is claiming Bradley was in charge of the mission start to finish

[7426k]

[tnt]

@Gaius

Three engines.
Not frat boys sunning on the deck and drigking beer
No fishing nets
No containerized cargo.

Yup its a smuggling boat.

Although . . . . they MIGHT be smuggling knock-off Birkin bags. We don’t know for sure.

What other criminals in international water are we allowed to summarily execute? Illegal fisherman? White collar ponzi schemers on their yachts?

[tnt]

@Gaius

Same as every war or conflict ever, the choice is ours.

We’re not at war.

Who would we even be at war with? Venezuala? We’re not. Even if we were, these people aren’t soldiers.

They are drug smugglers.

What other types of criminals are we allowed to summarily execute?

[PurpnGold]

@tnt

@Gaius

Three engines.
Not frat boys sunning on the deck and drigking beer
No fishing nets
No containerized cargo.

Yup its a smuggling boat.

Although . . . . they MIGHT be smuggling knock-off Birkin bags. We don’t know for sure.

What other criminals in international water are we allowed to summarily execute? Illegal fisherman? White collar ponzi schemers on their yachts?

Anyone the President deems a terrorist.

[Samm]

@7426k

We don’t have to intercept them on the high seas,
Though if we can blow them up then we can certainly board them.

Well, maybe if you were in charge things would be different.

But you’re not.

[Samm]

@tnt

@Samm

@tnt

It was destroyed. Hegseth told us so on Fox the day after the strike.

No … He said in flames, not destroyed. If it had been destroyed, there would have nothing to target in a second strike.

The parsing…dear lord.

Not parsing, accuracy. The fact is, the Admiral overseeing the operation approved a second strike because the target had NOT been “destroyed” by the initial one.

[7426k]

Right. That seems like a great insight there, Samm. I’ll remember to use it later.

[Samm]

@tnt

@Samm

@tnt

We’re talking about him. We’re talking about Pete and his ever changing story and the actions he ordered.

What changed in his story? The Post story was theirs not his.

He watched it live and ordered the strike.

He watched half of it live, and told Bradley to order the strike.

The strikes are the standing order. That is the whole reason this operation is underway … to destroy drug runners in action. Maybe Hegseth did tell him to fire (he seems like the sort who loves to think nobody can function without his direction,) but Bradley has the authority to initiate strikes at all times, not just when Hegseth is in the ready room.

[Samm]

@tnt

@Samm

@7426k

And why would we destroy the boat off the Venezuela coast instead of arresting the people on board? They aren’t going straight from Venezuela to the coast of Florida without stopping.

Technically, stopping, boarding and taking the cargo and crew into custody on the high seas could be interpreted as piracy under international law. On the other hand, nobody (here) has identified an international law that illegalizes blowing boats belonging to criminal (designated as terrorist) organizations out of the water.

You’re a gymnast.

I’ll take that as a compliment. I probably would have become a lawyer if I hadn’t become an engineer.

[Samm]

@tnt

@Samm

@7426k

And why would we destroy the boat off the Venezuela coast instead of arresting the people on board? They aren’t going straight from Venezuela to the coast of Florida without stopping.

Technically, stopping, boarding and taking the cargo and crew into custody on the high seas could be interpreted as piracy under international law. On the other hand, nobody (here) has identified an international law that illegalizes blowing boats belonging to criminal (designated as terrorist) organizations out of the water.

We can’t board them.

But we can blow them up.

What a position…

Boarding them requires that you have vessels near them when they are detected. And since their departures are unscheduled and from many locations, the Navy would have to have fast boats capable of chasing them down (the drug boats are high speed relatively small vessels) spread throughout the area. Blowing them up is much easier and more effective, does not put men at risk (intercepts would undoubtedly be met with resistance by the crews) and it’s probably cheaper as well.

[JayJay]

@Gaius

Same as every war or conflict ever, the choice is ours.

No where was it ever written
“ya gotta make a list of 100 different possible and then choose the least-interveing one.”

99% of the people on earth don’t just suddenly make up new rules because the president has an R next to his name. That delusion is held by only a tiny fraction of people.

But we aren’t at war.

President Trump made a point of saying that…how he justifies what he is doing without having to consult Congress.

It’s his dubious assertion about his authority that is causing all the trouble.

If he’d actually gone about it the proper way by asking for a declaration of war or an AUMF, legally there would be little issue with what he’s doing.

It’s his declaration that he can use the military at his whim with no oversight or consultation that is the problem.

Yes we can choose many different ways to intervene…but those methods are constrained by our laws.

Are we a nation of laws or not?

[Samm]

@7426k

Imagine the thought process that says:

“Firing on them, sinking the boat and going back to kill the survivors? Just fine.
Taking the cargo and crew into custody? Violation of international law!”

It’s the same mental gymnastics that holds that you can only kill people in a second strike during peace time, not war time.

The crews are incidental to the boats. The target is the boat. If one strike doesn’t destroy it, it is targeted again. No differently than any other military air strike since planes were invented.

“gymnastics” … Is that the new word of the week?

[Samm]

@7426k

Right.

Was that intervention required to prevent the boat from reaching Key West?

Yes … If that is where they were headed.

[Samm]

@Oryx

@Samm

@Oryx

It would be a violation of federal law unless it was in self-defense, which it obviously wasn’t.

Can you cite the specific law? … nobody else has managed to do so.

The Uniform Code of Military Justice, Article 118. But like I said, we need more details about the strike to know if it applies.

You said Federal Law. The CMJ is not Federal Law in the context of carrying out these strikes.

[Oryx]

@Samm

@Oryx

@Samm

@Oryx

It would be a violation of federal law unless it was in self-defense, which it obviously wasn’t.

Can you cite the specific law? … nobody else has managed to do so.

The Uniform Code of Military Justice, Article 118. But like I said, we need more details about the strike to know if it applies.

You said Federal Law. The CMJ is not Federal Law in the context of carrying out these strikes

Great point, as always.