Why is anyone surprised that people who live in countries that rely on due process for punishment aren't convinced by the asterisk of "the US military doesn't h

Why is anyone surprised that people who live in countries that rely on due process for punishment aren't convinced by the asterisk of "the US military doesn't have to abide due process outside of these imaginary lines"? You can't just hand wave the due process issues away since the boat was in international waters. Rayiner's whole presumption is legally wrong as well. We're not at war with Venezuela, and even if we were, we have laws against murder via the war crimes act (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2441 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2441 - (d)(1)(D)). And surprise surprise, the law qualifies that it only applies to those taking no part in the hostilities - which you'd need some sort of due process to justify. There's no statutory requirement for "big D" Due Process, but due process also has common usage meaning that was ignored here. You can tell how legally dubious the action was by the lawyer Marco Rubio's mealy-mouthed rationale explaining that Trump ordered the attack, that he was given the option to capture or kill and he chose to kill them. Everyone who knows better is distancing themselves from the decision chain of the attack since only the President is protected via the Supreme Court's recently invented official acts privilege. Edit; Rand Paul gets it: https://bsky.app/profile/atrupar.com/post/3lxxrrcb2bg2u https://bsky.app/profile/atrupar.com/post/3lxxrrcb2bg2u ,this isn't complicated.