6 ms·

You can't think of a good reason to be against an extrajudicial drone strike that killed 11 people?

by mikeyouse 1y ago

_mlbt 1y ago
[flagged]
- mikeyouse 1y ago
  'Narcoterrorists' who had neither a trial nor a sentence and posed absolutely no imminent threat to anyone in the US. Why would we expect our military to actually follow International or even US laws?
  - _mlbt 1y ago
    [flagged]
    - foogazi 1y ago
      > If they’re sending drugs to our streets, they do pose an imminent threat. What about the ppl in the US receiving, transporting and selling Are they imminent threats too ? > or gang violence? We are doing gangs now too ?
- esseph 1y ago
  Imagine if we had done this to a Chinese boat in international waters.
  - foogazi 1y ago
    Not all narco terrorists are the same
- guitarro 1y ago
  Who says they're narcoterrorists? I only see a very pixelated video that seems to be a boat. That then explodes, killing the people on it. Is this what we've come to? No due process, no collection of evidence, no reviewing of it, see if things are actually true & if any laws are broken. And then punish fitting to the crime? I think liquidating people without due process and then being smug about it is really befitting for a civilized society, and sounds more like something that drug cartels would do. Don't get me wrong, drug (mis)use is definitely something that needs to be addressed in a big way, but abandoning due process is not something to be celebrated I would say, and is a very, very slippery slope.
  - rayiner 1y ago
    “Due process” isn’t a concept that applies to foreign actors in international waters. We don’t have a world government with worldwide legal rights.
    - maxerickson 1y ago
      Might makes right after all. With any luck, we'll be bombing Venezuelan civilians as reprisal killings after their government has the bad judgement to murder Americans that they accused of whatever.
      - deleted 1y ago
        [deleted]
    - mikeyouse 1y ago
      There are international treaties governing this kind of thing and of course the US is nominally bound by several different laws that should prevent unilateral action like this from the Executive. But Congress has completely abdicated so here we are.
      - rayiner 1y ago
        None of those things implicate “due process,” which is a very old, very specific concept. It dates back to the Magna Carta, and refers to the legal process subjects of the sovereign are entitled to before deprivation of property rights: https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/magna-carta-muse-and-mentor/due-process-of-law.html https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/magna-carta-muse-and-mentor/due.... Due process doesn’t and has never applied to military actions against foreigners outside the country’s jurisdiction. Indeed, I’m unaware of any western country that applies its concept of domestic legal process rights to military actions against foreign actors in international waters. Such a concept would totally turn upside down how legal systems think about the boundaries between the sphere of domestic law and law enforcement and the sphere of military action. As to Congressional abdication, you might have an argument that we need some sort of Congressional sanction, as Jefferson obtained against the Barbary Pirates: https://www.monticello.org/research-education/thomas-jefferson-encyclopedia/first-barbary-war https://www.monticello.org/research-education/thomas-jeffers.... But that ship sailed a long time ago. Under the War Powers Resolution, the President is authorized to basically shoot first, ask for permission later: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Resolution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Resolution
- UncleMeat 1y ago
  What about 100? What about 10,000? 1,000,000? "The government said that these people were bad so we simply killed them" is a bone-chillingly frightening statement. We've already got the US government saying that there are members of this gang in the US based on laughable evidence. Why not just simply have the army show up at Kilmar Garcia's house and shoot him in the head? Or bomb the building he happens to be in? A horrifying future.
  - jacquesm 1y ago
    > A horrifying future. Depending on where you live, a horrifying present.

You can't think of a good reason to be against an extrajudicial drone strike that killed 11 people?

_mlbt 1y ago

[flagged]

mikeyouse 1y ago
'Narcoterrorists' who had neither a trial nor a sentence and posed absolutely no imminent threat to anyone in the US. Why would we expect our military to actually follow International or even US laws?
- _mlbt 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - foogazi 1y ago
    > If they’re sending drugs to our streets, they do pose an imminent threat. What about the ppl in the US receiving, transporting and selling Are they imminent threats too ? > or gang violence? We are doing gangs now too ?
esseph 1y ago
Imagine if we had done this to a Chinese boat in international waters.
- foogazi 1y ago
  Not all narco terrorists are the same
guitarro 1y ago
Who says they're narcoterrorists? I only see a very pixelated video that seems to be a boat. That then explodes, killing the people on it. Is this what we've come to? No due process, no collection of evidence, no reviewing of it, see if things are actually true & if any laws are broken. And then punish fitting to the crime? I think liquidating people without due process and then being smug about it is really befitting for a civilized society, and sounds more like something that drug cartels would do. Don't get me wrong, drug (mis)use is definitely something that needs to be addressed in a big way, but abandoning due process is not something to be celebrated I would say, and is a very, very slippery slope.
- rayiner 1y ago
  “Due process” isn’t a concept that applies to foreign actors in international waters. We don’t have a world government with worldwide legal rights.
  - maxerickson 1y ago
    Might makes right after all. With any luck, we'll be bombing Venezuelan civilians as reprisal killings after their government has the bad judgement to murder Americans that they accused of whatever.
    - deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]
  - mikeyouse 1y ago
    There are international treaties governing this kind of thing and of course the US is nominally bound by several different laws that should prevent unilateral action like this from the Executive. But Congress has completely abdicated so here we are.
    - rayiner 1y ago
      None of those things implicate “due process,” which is a very old, very specific concept. It dates back to the Magna Carta, and refers to the legal process subjects of the sovereign are entitled to before deprivation of property rights: https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/magna-carta-muse-and-mentor/due-process-of-law.html https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/magna-carta-muse-and-mentor/due.... Due process doesn’t and has never applied to military actions against foreigners outside the country’s jurisdiction. Indeed, I’m unaware of any western country that applies its concept of domestic legal process rights to military actions against foreign actors in international waters. Such a concept would totally turn upside down how legal systems think about the boundaries between the sphere of domestic law and law enforcement and the sphere of military action. As to Congressional abdication, you might have an argument that we need some sort of Congressional sanction, as Jefferson obtained against the Barbary Pirates: https://www.monticello.org/research-education/thomas-jefferson-encyclopedia/first-barbary-war https://www.monticello.org/research-education/thomas-jeffers.... But that ship sailed a long time ago. Under the War Powers Resolution, the President is authorized to basically shoot first, ask for permission later: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Resolution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Resolution
UncleMeat 1y ago
What about 100? What about 10,000? 1,000,000? "The government said that these people were bad so we simply killed them" is a bone-chillingly frightening statement. We've already got the US government saying that there are members of this gang in the US based on laughable evidence. Why not just simply have the army show up at Kilmar Garcia's house and shoot him in the head? Or bomb the building he happens to be in? A horrifying future.
- jacquesm 1y ago
  > A horrifying future. Depending on where you live, a horrifying present.