Is killing the people who are transporting deadly chemicals to the US that kill Americans justified? I believe so, but justified doesn’t always mean legal, and when the Democrats get back in power, those activities will without any doubt be challenged.

What’s even more certain is that if survivors of a strike were killed by a second attack, that will result in criminal charges against whoever gave the order and possibly those under him. Killing survivors of an attack that leaves them defenseless and no longer an immediate threat has long been a violation of established laws that govern even declared wars such as World War II. And anyone who believes that “following orders” is a defense against such actions needs to crack open a few of the hundreds of books written about the war crimes trials in Nürnberg and Tokyo after WWII.

This is an issue that we will only hear more about at some future time, not less.

quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:
Killing survivors of an attack that leaves them defenseless and no longer an immediate threat...

The boat crew has no way to defend themselves against such an attack anyway. A second strike is being merciful. A coup de grâce to put them out of their misery.

I certainly don't want to see them paraded in front of cameras all bandaged up and claiming they were just out for some fun in the sun when the evil Americans blasted them out of the water.

quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:
Is killing the people who are transporting deadly chemicals to the US that kill Americans justified? I believe so, but justified doesn’t always mean legal, and when the Democrats get back in power, those activities will without any doubt be challenged.

What’s even more certain is that if survivors of a strike were killed by a second attack, that will result in criminal charges against whoever gave the order and possibly those under him. Killing survivors of an attack that leaves them defenseless and no longer an immediate threat has long been a violation of established laws that govern even declared wars such as World War II. And anyone who believes that “following orders” is a defense against such actions needs to crack open a few of the hundreds of books written about the war crimes trials in Nürnberg and Tokyo after WWII.

This is an issue that we will only hear more about at some future time, not less.

Not buying it, they only make noise about it now because "we must resist everything Orange Man Bad does."
Dems had no issues with President Zero droning civilians who just happened to be near "legitimate terrorist" targets.
Then droning the rescue crews and others who showed up 10 minutes later. https://www.coffeeandcovid.com

How are those not "war crimes". No Dems called for investigations in those cases.
They only complain when the other guy does it, but not when THEY do it. Typical.

The strikes are to eliminate the deadly substance, the means of transportation, and the evil doers engaged in the transport. We aren't in a declared war, so I imagine rules of engagement are different and something dims wish to misconstrue like they do with things like "weapons of war." I imagine in a declared war, rules of engagement differ with military ship survivors vs civilian transport ship survivors, but if they were transporting military equipment they may be in the same category as military. Similarly, the drug traffickers who are part of a warlike act that is killing Americans, are the enemy and dealt with as combatants.

I'm surprised the charges are as small as they appear to be and that the boats could possible still float or survivors could exist. If the mission is to eliminate those trafficking the deadly drugs, and the boats have been identified as doing it, then the people doing it have been selected for elimination as well.

Killing drug traffickers seems to be a new bold step, but this isn't just weed or blow, but is intended to kill. Kind of like killing poachers to protect endangered animals, but easier to justify since it protects humans. DT seems to like death sentences for drug trafficking and is doing it pretty much without approval from anyone except the pentagon and admin lawyers. He chooses effective and efficient plans and I would think this has maximum deterrence and will likely pretty much halt transporting this way.

Yes, all of the "rules of war" arguments from the various conventions and accords are for uniformed military combatants of a foreign government.

This does not apply to non-uniformed terrorists transporting illegal substances. It does not apply to non-uniformed spies either. The entire argument by the leftist media and their "experts" is nonsense and they know it, and it's disappointing that Fox News is wringing it's hands over who "gave the order" rather than stating clearly it's completely irrelevant.

Now if we sink a Venezuelan military ship in the future, then it's true we cannot kill the sailors in the water trying to survive. We would probably rescue them, treat them better than their own military, and get intelligence from them.

Decades ago the government declared war on drugs! Attaching the bill of rights.

Now we are attaching the drugs shipping.

We should had done this when the war was declared instead or attacking the bill of rights!

quote:

Originally posted by JoseyWales2:
...
Dems had no issues with President Zero droning AMERICAN CITIZENS civilians who just happened to be near "legitimate terrorist" targets.

Zero extra judicially killed at least two American citizens with drone strikes.

quote:

Originally posted by JoseyWales2:

quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:
Is killing the people who are transporting deadly chemicals to the US that kill Americans justified? I believe so, but justified doesn’t always mean legal, and when the Democrats get back in power, those activities will without any doubt be challenged.

What’s even more certain is that if survivors of a strike were killed by a second attack, that will result in criminal charges against whoever gave the order and possibly those under him. Killing survivors of an attack that leaves them defenseless and no longer an immediate threat has long been a violation of established laws that govern even declared wars such as World War II. And anyone who believes that “following orders” is a defense against such actions needs to crack open a few of the hundreds of books written about the war crimes trials in Nürnberg and Tokyo after WWII.

This is an issue that we will only hear more about at some future time, not less.

Not buying it, they only make noise about it now because "we must resist everything Orange Man Bad does."
Dems had no issues with President Zero droning civilians who just happened to be near "legitimate terrorist" targets.
Then droning the rescue crews and others who showed up 10 minutes later. https://www.coffeeandcovid.com

How are those not "war crimes". No Dems called for investigations in those cases.
They only complain when the other guy does it, but not when THEY do it. Typical.

You mean like Obama did?

Anwar al-Awlaki was an American citizen killed by a U.S. drone strike under President Barack Obama's authorization. He was a dual U.S.-Yemeni citizen and a former imam in the United States who later became a prominent figure in al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula.
The drone strike that killed him occurred on September 30, 2011, in Yemen, marking the first time the U.S. government targeted and assassinated a U.S. citizen with a drone strike.

quote:

Originally posted by downtownv:

quote:

Originally posted by JoseyWales2:

quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:
Is killing the people who are transporting deadly chemicals to the US that kill Americans justified? I believe so, but justified doesn’t always mean legal, and when the Democrats get back in power, those activities will without any doubt be challenged.

What’s even more certain is that if survivors of a strike were killed by a second attack, that will result in criminal charges against whoever gave the order and possibly those under him. Killing survivors of an attack that leaves them defenseless and no longer an immediate threat has long been a violation of established laws that govern even declared wars such as World War II. And anyone who believes that “following orders” is a defense against such actions needs to crack open a few of the hundreds of books written about the war crimes trials in Nürnberg and Tokyo after WWII.

This is an issue that we will only hear more about at some future time, not less.

Not buying it, they only make noise about it now because "we must resist everything Orange Man Bad does."
Dems had no issues with President Zero droning civilians who just happened to be near "legitimate terrorist" targets.
Then droning the rescue crews and others who showed up 10 minutes later. https://www.coffeeandcovid.com

How are those not "war crimes". No Dems called for investigations in those cases.
They only complain when the other guy does it, but not when THEY do it. Typical.

You mean like Obama did?

Anwar al-Awlaki was an American citizen killed by a U.S. drone strike under President Barack Obama's authorization. He was a dual U.S.-Yemeni citizen and a former imam in the United States who later became a prominent figure in al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula.
The drone strike that killed him occurred on September 30, 2011, in Yemen, marking the first time the U.S. government targeted and assassinated a U.S. citizen with a drone strike.

Obama didn't just extra judicially kill one American citizen, he also killed the son, Abdulrahman Anwar al-Awlaki.

He was killed in a U.S. drone strike in Yemen on October 14, 2011, two weeks after his father was killed in a separate strike. The 16-year-old was not a known militant. As stated at the time by an administration official speaking on condition of anonymity described Abdulrahman al-Awlaki was a bystander who was "in the wrong place at the wrong time."

quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:
What’s even more certain is that if survivors of a strike were killed by a second attack, that will result in criminal charges against whoever gave the order and possibly those under him.

Killing survivors of an attack that leaves them defenseless and no longer an immediate threat has long been a violation of established laws…

This is an issue that we will only hear more about at some future time, not less.

My friend, you are 100% wrong. I have conducted over 100 airstrikes and commanded units executing thousands. We’ve been doing this for decades and have had many many lawyers pour over the tactics, LOAC and theater ROE. These strikes have more oversight and approval than open source articles are letting on, and everyone read-in knows this, and the democrats aren’t going to prosecute pilots or approval authorities because despite what they’re saying they know very well this is legal.

Example: At one point during the height of our Yemen campaign (pre-ISIS) in 2012 we had Jen Johnson (then the lead DOD lawyer for Obama) personally brief our unit on legalities of targeted killing and re-attacks. One of many takeaways is that your narrative above “an attack that leaves them defenseless and no longer an immediate threat” is an ASSUMPTION. How do you know based on looking through a camera that this is the case? Could the target be capable of communication? SVEST detonation? If the first shot was legal, so is the second because death is the intended objective.

It’s like watching a police shooting and asking why the officer can’t shoot them in the knee, or why did the officer shoot so many rounds? Not a perfect analogy, but unless you have a deep understanding of precision airstrike, guidance systems, IR and optical limitations, associated contextual SIGINT, etc. you’re way out of your depth critiquing a decision to re-attack. I’ll say this: it happens over half the time. That’s using the best persistent ISR and expensive boutique weapons. What you are calling a crime is normal ops and has been for decades.

quote:

Originally posted by Sig2340:

Obama didn't just extra judicially kill one American citizen, he also killed the son, Abdulrahman Anwar al-Awlaki.

He was killed in a U.S. drone strike in Yemen on October 14, 2011, two weeks after his father was killed in a separate strike. The 16-year-old was not a known militant. As stated at the time by an administration official speaking on condition of anonymity described Abdulrahman al-Awlaki was a bystander who was "in the wrong place at the wrong time."

Point of order: the son wasn’t killed by a drone. Also he was guilty as hell, he arrived armed to a dinner with confirmed top AQAP objectives and was at the table with them when weapons impacted. Also, there were multiple re-attacks that night!

I might be wrong, but I’d think that they’ve abandoned the narco boat delivery method by now.

quote:

Originally posted by Pipe Smoker:
I might be wrong, but I’d think that they’ve abandoned the narco boat delivery method by now.

I'm sure quite a few get through for every one that is destroyed. The odds are in their favor for a huge payout if they make it through. They did try a sub, which was detected and destroyed.

Part of the reason that dims are able to make a sellable stink about this is nomenclature. Trump is usually really good about things like this, but he failed to make an early campaign to call fentanyl something more correct than a merely a drug. It should have been called something like a "chemical death agent" or "chemical warfare" to delineate the difference between it other drugs sent mainly for profit and not to kill. Then clarify why the traffickers of it are different than dealers who are sentenced to less than death in the US.

quote:

Originally posted by arabiancowboy:
My friend, you are 100% wrong.

Thanks for all that.

I was of course referring to the current operation of killing suspected drug runners, not the sorts of targets you were presumably referring to that I consider to be enemy combatants in a war that they started and are actively pursuing. Calling something a war on drugs doesn't make it a real war any more than the war on poverty is/was. If, however, it did, then some people would certainly argue that the laws (i.e., treaties) pertaining to waging war should apply, to include how the enemy forces are treated.

I obviously could be wrong and perhaps the President has the legal authority to kill drug runners at his discretion, but there are some differences between the sorts of things you and I are discussing. The closest analogy I can think of about what I am referring to would be if a police officer sees someone he knew was dealing fentanyl on the street, approaches the man, the man starts running, and the officer shoots him. And then when he discovers the BG is not dead, he shoots him again. After all, the man might jump up and start running away, so better be safe. That analogy is not perfect but it is closer than what I believe you are discussing which would be like that a man shoots at the police, the police shoot him, he gets up and starts running, the police (in general) have a legal right to shoot him again because of the continuing danger he poses.

As for restrikes, the same rationale could have been applied to killing survivors of aircraft downings or ship sinkings in WWII: They were still enemy combatants whether hanging from a parachute or floating in the water. It actually has long puzzled me why that was considered a war crime—but the plain fact is that it was, and presumably still is in real warfare.

In any case, I certainly hope that you are the one of us who is right about all this. We will find out sooner or later.

Oh, yeah: Since it was brought up, it doesn’t matter whether an enemy combatant in the terrorism war is a US citizen. Not only is he a legitimate target for no more reason than being a combatant who can be killed anytime, any place, he is also a traitor in the actual sense as defined by the Constitution.

I have zero doubt that China's selling of fentanyl precursor chemicals to the drug cartels is assymmetrical warfare to further erode the U.S. industrial base, and society in general.

Look what a fentanyl O.D. of one criminal did to the country in 2020. China could stop this immediately, they know what those chemicals are and what they are used for and they know they are shipping them to a place that doesn't have legitimate pharmaceutical plants.

I agree it should have been called chemical warfare from the start. And that is not an exaggeration.

As for the Venezuelans, they are in international waters, so the U.S. Constitution does not apply. They are not uniformed soldiers or sailors from a national military so none of the Geneva or Hague conventions/accords apply. I'm not sure if Venezuela is even a signatory of any of those. It is silly to compare these strikes to a cop on the street. This is just the idiot democrats and sycophantic media trying to say everything Trump is doing is wrong. As usual they are on the wrong side of an 80/20 issue.

quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:

As for restrikes, the same rationale could have been applied to killing survivors of aircraft downings or ship sinkings in WWII: They were still enemy combatants whether hanging from a parachute or floating in the water. It actually has long puzzled me why that was considered a war crime—but the plain fact is that it was, and presumably still is in real warfare.

Here is how Obama's DOD lawyer addressed your analogy: legal combatants of uniformed state militaries are entitled to protections of law in war. Those protections do not extend, and never have, to illegal combatants: saboteurs, spies, pirates, terrorists, etc. They were summarily executed for centuries. Ergo your analogy lacks important context, making the issue at least debatable vs as settled as partisans imply.

Now, whether POTUS has authority to unilaterally declare narco smugglers as terrorists and subject to the AUMF is a more intriguing matter and legally subjective. I'm surprised that's not the issue of contention. Militarily a re-attack is a tactical decision to continue until objective is achieved.

But that's all lawyerly stuff. From a practical warfighter perspective it's a silly discussion. The idea you can't re-attack if your enemy is merely wounded on the first pass is an artificial academic construct that you will be cured of the first time a wounded enemy detonates an SVEST in front of you. Try telling your best friends wife "sorry he's gone, but LOAC was preserved." That's not hyperbole, it's exactly what this sounds like.

quote:

Originally posted by Lefty Sig:

quote:

Originally posted by Pipe Smoker:
I might be wrong, but I’d think that they’ve abandoned the narco boat delivery method by now.

I'm sure quite a few get through for every one that is destroyed. The odds are in their favor for a huge payout if they make it through. They did try a sub, which was detected and destroyed.

I guess that a week or two will reveal whether or not the narco boats are still running to any significant degree. You couldn’t get me on one for any money.

quote:

Originally posted by HRK:
... even that idiot Kelly from AZ is doubling down on the "don't follow illegal orders" program, he did it Sunday on Meet the Press..

Curious why this asshole has not been recalled to active duty and prosecuted yet. Milley as well. Trump has voided his pardon. Recall that SOB, bust him down to E1 and throw his ass in Leavenworth.

I'm also hoping that DOJ Barbie, if she can find time between her Fox News appearances, arrests Fauci. That evil little prick needs to spend the rest of his days behind bars.

https://x.com/TV_Network_/status/1995916038807171411



The next headline: "TRUMP ONLY WORKS HALF DAYS!"