I am shocked....

I thought for sure there'd be a thread on here by a leftie defending the Narco-terrorists that Trump had whacked in the Caribbean yesterday.

Is that a bridge too far for even Lefties?

Long overdue but finally.

I thought for sure there'd be a thread on here by a leftie defending the Narco-terrorists that Trump had whacked in the Caribbean yesterday.

Is that a bridge too far for even Lefties? Originally Posted by texassapper

I don’t see why? Interdiction of piracy, smuggling, drug trafficking, human trafficking is part of the Naval tradition.

As far as I know using the navy to police international waters is both legal and in the mission of the US military.

I'll just assume the MAGAs posting in here have zero experience with drug interdiction ops, and how they've been conducted in the past. I have no problem killing narcos, but in my mind trump has zero credibility.

We used to interdict drug boats, and that way we'd KNOW if they had drugs. We could also get intel from the people on board, maybe even send them to jail or maybe find out that they're low-level mules who are only on that boat because the cartel will kill their family if they don't run drugs. It doesn't take 11 people to transport drugs, what if they were trafficking people? What if we just murdered some poor people who got kidnapped by a gang, when we could have rescued them?
The point is, we don't know because they blew the fucking boat up, along with any information about it and what it was actually doing.

And since cheeto and his followers just LOVE seeing shit explode and read dear leader's truth posts, they'll eat it up with no questions.


Thank you for your attention to this matter. lol

I'll just assume the MAGAs posting in here have zero experience with drug interdiction ops, and how they've been conducted in the past. I have no problem killing narcos, but in my mind trump has zero credibility.

We used to interdict drug boats, and that way we'd KNOW if they had drugs. We could also get intel from the people on board, maybe even send them to jail or maybe find out that they're low-level mules who are only on that boat because the cartel will kill their family if they don't run drugs. It doesn't take 11 people to transport drugs, what if they were trafficking people? What if we just murdered some poor people who got kidnapped by a gang, when we could have rescued them?
The point is, we don't know because they blew the fucking boat up, along with any information about it and what it was actually doing.

And since cheeto and his followers just LOVE seeing shit explode and read dear leader's truth posts, they'll eat it up with no questions.


Thank you for your attention to this matter. lol Originally Posted by Bunter Hiden

I would push back a little here. The same thing could be said about anti terrorism operations using drones going all the way back to the Bush administration and then mainstreamed during the Obama administration.

I’m sure there were a number of civilian casualties during those operations and a corresponding loss of possible intelligence. But I didn’t comment on operational issues then and I’m not going to do it now.

But at least in this instance he’s not deploying troops against our own people.

P.S. “I am shocked, shocked to find that there is gambling going on in here!”

I would push back a little here. The same thing could be said about anti terrorism operations using drones going all the way back to the Bush administration and then mainstreamed during the Obama administration.

I’m sure there were a number of civilian casualties during those operations and a corresponding loss of possible intelligence. But I didn’t comment on operational issues then and I’m not going to do it now.

But at least in this instance he’s not deploying troops against our own people.

P.S. “I am shocked, shocked to find that there is gambling going on in here!” Originally Posted by txdot-guy

Absolutely. And Obama had a habit of using drones on US citizens...granted they where terrorists, but I seem to remember the righties not liking that no-due-process thing. Probably because it was Obama.

Again, I'm happy to kill narcos and terrorists. Just pointing out when the only tool they have is a hammer, everything becomes a nail. And that noxious cunt in the white house isn't exactly possessed with any amount of nuance. But then again, his followers aren't the sharpest pencils in the box either.

Absolutely. And Obama had a habit of using drones on US citizens...granted they where terrorists, but I seem to remember the righties not liking that no-due-process thing. Probably because it was Obama.

Again, I'm happy to kill narcos and terrorists. Just pointing out when the only tool they have is a hammer, everything becomes a nail. And that noxious cunt in the white house isn't exactly possessed with any amount of nuance. But then again, his followers aren't the sharpest pencils in the box either. Originally Posted by Bunter Hiden

You are certainly correct in all your statements.

The question here is under what legal authority did Trump authorize this deployment and strike against international shipping.

When Obama was using drones to attack terrorism he was doing so under the Authorization for Use of Military Force of 2001 act.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Author..._Force_of_2001

Authorization for Use of Military Force

Long title: Joint Resolution to authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States
Acronyms (colloquial) AUMF
Enacted by the 107th United States Congress
Effective September 18, 2001

The Authorization for Use of Military Force is a joint resolution of the United States Congress which became law on September 18, 2001, authorizing the use of the United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the September 11 attacks. The authorization granted the president the authority to use all "necessary and appropriate force" against those whom he determined "planned, authorized, committed or aided" the September 11 attacks, or who harbored said persons or groups.

I don’t think that law applies here. Just by labeling Tren de Aragua as Narcoterrorists doesn’t necessarily make it legal to attack or arrest them in open waters. I think congress is going to need to get together and hash out some legislation if Trump wants to do this legally.

...We used to interdict drug boats, and that way we'd KNOW if they had drugs... Originally Posted by Bunter Hiden

Those were the black and white years. AmmIrite? I wonder if technology has marched on a fair bit since then?

Actually, laws against Caribbean pirates were enacted in the late 1700s, but the one I'm thinking about was in 1819 by Congress which allowed seizure of ships and hanging of pirates. Amended several times afterwards.
-Gardner W. Allen, Our Navy and the West Indian Pirates, (Salem, MA: Essex Institute, 1929), pp. 16, 97-98.-

Also, look up the history of the US Navy Brig Enterprise (built in 1799 as a schooner but later converted). Quite a few Caribbean captures in the early 1820s and also involved in the first Barbary pirate war. The laws I mentioned above applied then.

My point?
Nothing has changed in two centuries.
Current US piracy law is at US Code Title 18 Chapter 81.

However, ignore all this as current laws (2021) that allow the US to counter terrorists applies.

Go Navy!

Bunter Hiden, what are you talking about? Spent years in the USCG doing drug interdiction among other things. Most of all Coasties are MAGA.