Boat attack commander says he had to kill 2 survivors because they were still trying to smuggle cocaine

We especially don't issue death sentences for actions taken outside the country, or without trial.

Wait, we're in the upside-down. We especially do issue death sentences in those conditions.

They still haven’t proven the boat had drugs, or have they?

Super-especially-not without due process!

They're being very specific with the language, calling them "narco-terrorists".

The US has been using this kind of logic since Sept 12 2001 (arc)

SACHA PFEIFFER, HOST:

After the attacks on September 11, 2001, the George W. Bush administration arrested hundreds of suspected terrorists. Most of them were never criminally charged and eventually let go. Some spent years in inhumane conditions, even though they had no connection to the Taliban or al-Qaida. In 2002, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld visited Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, where many of those prisoners were being held, and described them using this term.

(SOUNDBITE OF ARCHIVED RECORDING)

DONALD RUMSFELD: And one of the most important aspects of the Geneva Convention is the distinction between lawful combatants and unlawful combatants.

PFEIFFER: By labeling them unlawful combatants, the U.S. said it was justified in holding them indefinitely without trial and denying them international legal protections. The Trump administration is now applying the same term to people on board boats it's blowing up because it says they're transporting drugs from South America. The language here matters. It underpins the legal arguments presidents make to justify their actions. Here's current Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth referring to the cartels that ship drugs from the southern hemisphere to the United States.

(SOUNDBITE OF ARCHIVED RECORDING)

PETE HEGSETH: So our message to these foreign terrorist organizations is we will treat you like we have treated al-Qaida.

A lot more good information and history in that article, but the important point is that because they're not soldiers (i.e. lawful combatants), they don't get Geneva Convention protection, but because they're not criminals either they don't get due process protection either. It's a completely blatant and stupid way to just ditch all the humanitarian guardrails around government violence we spent the 20th century building, it was fucked 20 years ago and it's fucked today but we never held the people doing it accountable so here we are.

The US isn't supposed to execute people for smuggling cocaine.

That is correct. You are supposed to pardon them.

That's pretty much the MO of authoritarians everywhere. Just listen to Putin or Xi, they talk like that all the time.

I agree, but it's also consistent with how the US operates. Through Afghanistan's and Iraq, anyone appearing as a military-aged male in the vicinity of an operation (e.g. a village where insurgents were shooting from) was labeled an enemy combatant and treated as valid targets.

Please don’t give Fox News any more ideas

Maybe he really is this shitty. Remember that the guy who used to have this job retired a few months ago. Maybe this guy was picked to replace him because he's just as much of an asshole as the rest of them.

You read too many Clancy novels, honor and reputation don't buy Porsches. He'll get some sweet bullshit diplomatic post or hired back as consultant.

Because cartels have A LOT of money. Money can be used to influence everything. The US also has a lot of money. The US is deciding who's money gets to influence everything. It's a power struggle.

I'm somewhat split on this

Basically you're right, the US should not dictate what other countries transport between themselves, but...

There are more than enough materials that indeed should not be allowed to be shipped anywhere. Heroine is one of those materials, there is no good application for that, period. Anything needed for actual medical or research purposes can be acquired via other channels. Two countries wanting to transport cocaine are up to no good, thatuch should be obvious.

The bigger problems are that these assholes act as if criminals are the same as a country. You're not at war with criminals, we have a justice system for that. Criminals go to court, and a judge and jury will sentence them and their main function is not to incarcerate the criminal, it's to ensure the innocent aren't incarcerated. You just cut all that away and started murdering possible criminals, but definitely a bunch of innocent citizens.

Murdering innocent civilians is nothing new for the US, but it is new that it is done so brazenly, so openly, and worst of all, with pride.

And basically nothing is done to stop this. These no kings protests had a net zero effect, nothing changed

So they're still in touch with Elon's dealer?

The perfect little insect for the Trump regime military; see all innocent civilians as legitimate targets, and make sure there is absolutely no living thing left alive in a square mile from the site.

Also it doesn't excuse the action even if it were true.

Dude seriously, I'm genuinely asking, do you not see ANYTHING wrong with us using the US FUCKING MILITARY to bomb fishing ships in another countries territory?

1. They have shown NO PROOF that these are drug vessels

2. Even if they were, are you just ok with executing people for crimes? No trial? No conviction?

Like honestly does it simply not bother you that the military is being used for executions like this? Not even just destroying the "drug" boats, but circling back and killing the survivors?

Come on man, I refuse to believe a rational decent person could be ok with this bullshit.

You mean like the Democratic former servicemembers who made a video telling members of the military not to follow illegal orders before the President said they should be killed?

….what?

A bunch of congressfolk came out talking about the tape the other day and it sure seemed like it wasn’t the democrats defending it.