5 ms·

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 co

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
    - mikeyouse 1y ago
      The War Powers Act isn't a 'get out of jail free' card to drone strike anyone on earth - it still demands that; 'The President in every possible instance shall consult with Congress before introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances." And then within 48 hours of the strikes; the President shall submit within 48 hours to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and to the President pro tempore of the Senate a report, in writing, setting forth; (A) the circumstances necessitating the introduction of United States Armed Forces; (B) the constitutional and legislative authority under which such introduction took place; and (C) the estimated scope and duration of the hostilities or involvement. The ongoing Middle East and Northern Africa strikes have comically stretched the rationale of the 9/11 AUMF - but there's absolutely no authority to carry out strikes in Venezuela or in Mexico like they've been threatening to do and congress was never consulted about carrying out these strikes and of course there's no legislative or constitutional authority to do so. It's fine that you don't think we should be bound by international law, but surely the President should be bound by our laws? And morally, what the fuck are we doing here drone striking a small boat that could have been easily boarded and captured.
- jacquesm 1y ago
  Did you know that sometimes they get it wrong and it turns out the boat isn't a drugs carrying vessel at all? Ok, they're Venezuelans, so not really people, but still. /s
  - rayiner 1y ago
    Sure, just like drone strikes sometimes blow up weddings in Afghanistan. Still not a due process issue.
    - jacquesm 1y ago
      Try to imagine the roles reversed and realize how utterly bizarre this comment is. Just because you can perform drone strikes on parties in other countries does not make it right. If any other country would do any of this to the USA you'd be screaming blue murder but when it is the other way around you're a-ok with it. Of course it is a due process issue. The USA does not have the legal right - even if they have the capability - to blow up random people on the planet just because they can. This is the kind of attitude that powers terrorism.
      - mikeyouse 1y ago
        And trolling or not, this wasn't remotely the same as US drone strikes in Afghanistan from a legal POV. At least there, we had the AUMF to rely on and provide congressional cover for the attacks - here, there's no plausible argument that drone striking a random smuggling vessel hundreds of miles from the US shore was legal. Don't take my word for it either, several people who've had to make the legal case for drone strikes also agree this was illegal according to US law and international treaties. https://www.justsecurity.org/119982/legal-issues-military-attack-carribean/ https://www.justsecurity.org/119982/legal-issues-military-at...
      - rayiner 1y ago
        > If any other country would do any of this to the USA you'd be screaming blue murder but when it is the other way around you're a-ok with it. I'd be totally fine with another country drone striking American gangs. They would be doing us a huge favor. > Of course it is a due process issue. The USA does not have the legal right - even if they have the capability - to blow up random people on the planet just because they can. "Due process" is a legal concept in Anglo law that describes the legal process required for the sovereign to deprive a subject of life, liberty, or property. The Anglo concept has no applicability to what the military can or cannot do to foreigners. And I'm not aware of any western nation having an equivalent to due process that applies to military action. The U.S. didn't provide anything resembling "due process" before it nuked Hiroshima or Nagasaki or bombed Dresden. It makes no sense to use the word "right" to describe what the U.S. as a sovereign state can or cannot do to foreign actors on foreign soil. It's just a category error. The U.S., as a sovereign state, can do whatever it wants because nations exist within a state of anarchy as to each other: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realism_(international_relations) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realism_(international_relatio....

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
  - mikeyouse 1y ago
    The War Powers Act isn't a 'get out of jail free' card to drone strike anyone on earth - it still demands that; 'The President in every possible instance shall consult with Congress before introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances." And then within 48 hours of the strikes; the President shall submit within 48 hours to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and to the President pro tempore of the Senate a report, in writing, setting forth; (A) the circumstances necessitating the introduction of United States Armed Forces; (B) the constitutional and legislative authority under which such introduction took place; and (C) the estimated scope and duration of the hostilities or involvement. The ongoing Middle East and Northern Africa strikes have comically stretched the rationale of the 9/11 AUMF - but there's absolutely no authority to carry out strikes in Venezuela or in Mexico like they've been threatening to do and congress was never consulted about carrying out these strikes and of course there's no legislative or constitutional authority to do so. It's fine that you don't think we should be bound by international law, but surely the President should be bound by our laws? And morally, what the fuck are we doing here drone striking a small boat that could have been easily boarded and captured.
jacquesm 1y ago
Did you know that sometimes they get it wrong and it turns out the boat isn't a drugs carrying vessel at all? Ok, they're Venezuelans, so not really people, but still. /s
- rayiner 1y ago
  Sure, just like drone strikes sometimes blow up weddings in Afghanistan. Still not a due process issue.
  - jacquesm 1y ago
    Try to imagine the roles reversed and realize how utterly bizarre this comment is. Just because you can perform drone strikes on parties in other countries does not make it right. If any other country would do any of this to the USA you'd be screaming blue murder but when it is the other way around you're a-ok with it. Of course it is a due process issue. The USA does not have the legal right - even if they have the capability - to blow up random people on the planet just because they can. This is the kind of attitude that powers terrorism.
    - mikeyouse 1y ago
      And trolling or not, this wasn't remotely the same as US drone strikes in Afghanistan from a legal POV. At least there, we had the AUMF to rely on and provide congressional cover for the attacks - here, there's no plausible argument that drone striking a random smuggling vessel hundreds of miles from the US shore was legal. Don't take my word for it either, several people who've had to make the legal case for drone strikes also agree this was illegal according to US law and international treaties. https://www.justsecurity.org/119982/legal-issues-military-attack-carribean/ https://www.justsecurity.org/119982/legal-issues-military-at...
    - rayiner 1y ago
      > If any other country would do any of this to the USA you'd be screaming blue murder but when it is the other way around you're a-ok with it. I'd be totally fine with another country drone striking American gangs. They would be doing us a huge favor. > Of course it is a due process issue. The USA does not have the legal right - even if they have the capability - to blow up random people on the planet just because they can. "Due process" is a legal concept in Anglo law that describes the legal process required for the sovereign to deprive a subject of life, liberty, or property. The Anglo concept has no applicability to what the military can or cannot do to foreigners. And I'm not aware of any western nation having an equivalent to due process that applies to military action. The U.S. didn't provide anything resembling "due process" before it nuked Hiroshima or Nagasaki or bombed Dresden. It makes no sense to use the word "right" to describe what the U.S. as a sovereign state can or cannot do to foreign actors on foreign soil. It's just a category error. The U.S., as a sovereign state, can do whatever it wants because nations exist within a state of anarchy as to each other: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realism_(international_relations) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realism_(international_relatio....