6 ms·

Although the Venezuela example is quite an overreach, none of these people fall under the US laws you think they do The legal basis is them being declared Unla

by breppp 1y ago

Although the Venezuela example is quite an overreach, none of these people fall under the US laws you think they do The legal basis is them being declared Unlawful Combatants under the Military Commissions Act of 2006. Once they do they are enemy combatants in war and can be killed. This law was so thoroughly used by all presidents since then that you cannot really claim it's illegal

bulbar 1y ago
> Although the Venezuela example is quite an overreach To me it sounds like that killing was (possibly) illegal. Idk about that 2006 Act though. From a moral stand point it doesn't matter if it was (possibly) illegal or not however.
- Den_VR 1y ago
  It matters quite a lot, it’s the biblical difference between killing and murder.
  - bulbar 1y ago
    Law at biblical times had a different foundation than today. Today the foundation is legal positivism, which is the philosophical decoupling of moral and law (which sounds terrible at first glance, but is important if you think it through). Therefore, it is not useful to apply the definition of the terms from back then, because the whole context in which they were used doesn't exist anymore. In the Western world, the meaning of murder and killing is different and while that described action might be an unlawful killing (by accident) it most likely was not a murder.
pstuart 1y ago
They're not enemy combatants, at worst they're drug runners. Just because Trump declares something to be true doesn't make it true (although his lackeys will act as if it is). This is not how to deal with The Drug War™, it's very expensive theater that does nothing to address the problem. In fact that very war is the reason why it's a problem in the first place. Remember that an earlier batch of dangerous drug dealers were Americans working out of doctors' offices.
- breppp 1y ago
  I assume the pretext is actually the war on terror because of the heavy involvement of Venezuela and its drug cartels with financing and supporting of Hezbollah and the IRGC https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/02/world/americas/venezuela-maduro-hezbollah-drugs.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/02/world/americas/venezuela-... https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/perspectives/PEA3500/PEA3585-1/RAND_PEA3585-1.pdf https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/perspectives/PEA3...
  - jonway 1y ago
    Donald Trump just pardoned CZ changpeng zhao who was banking for sanctioned entities like Iran. Should the White House therefore strike Air Force One? This is extraordinarily capricious and obviously disingenuous on the part of the administration.
- vkou 1y ago
  > They're not enemy combatants, at worst they're drug runners. And even at worst, if the Navy boarded those boats, found drugs, summarily executing everyone on board would still be murder. Rule of law is what separates us from animals, and the people ordering and carrying out these killings fall squarely in the latter. Carrying water for this is beyond the pale, but is, of course, fully in alignment with a cornerstone of a political philosophy - that there are rules that protect some people, but do not bind them, and that there are rules that bind other people, but do not protect them.
  - breppp 1y ago
    The idea here is that they are declared enemy combatants in a war (very plausible for Al-Qaeda, quite less here). In a war bombing a boat filled with combatants or members of an armed force is legal and does not amount to murder. While in the same war capturing the same boat filled with enemy combatants and executing them is illegal. So I don't think your example holds, and that distinction is probably the basis for drone assassinations
    - 1y ago
pyrale 1y ago
"...And 50 water buffalos too! They were all certified!"
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]

by breppp 1y ago

bulbar 1y ago

> Although the Venezuela example is quite an overreach To me it sounds like that killing was (possibly) illegal. Idk about that 2006 Act though. From a moral stand point it doesn't matter if it was (possibly) illegal or not however.

Den_VR 1y ago
It matters quite a lot, it’s the biblical difference between killing and murder.
- bulbar 1y ago
  Law at biblical times had a different foundation than today. Today the foundation is legal positivism, which is the philosophical decoupling of moral and law (which sounds terrible at first glance, but is important if you think it through). Therefore, it is not useful to apply the definition of the terms from back then, because the whole context in which they were used doesn't exist anymore. In the Western world, the meaning of murder and killing is different and while that described action might be an unlawful killing (by accident) it most likely was not a murder.

pstuart 1y ago

They're not enemy combatants, at worst they're drug runners. Just because Trump declares something to be true doesn't make it true (although his lackeys will act as if it is). This is not how to deal with The Drug War™, it's very expensive theater that does nothing to address the problem. In fact that very war is the reason why it's a problem in the first place. Remember that an earlier batch of dangerous drug dealers were Americans working out of doctors' offices.

breppp 1y ago
I assume the pretext is actually the war on terror because of the heavy involvement of Venezuela and its drug cartels with financing and supporting of Hezbollah and the IRGC https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/02/world/americas/venezuela-maduro-hezbollah-drugs.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/02/world/americas/venezuela-... https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/perspectives/PEA3500/PEA3585-1/RAND_PEA3585-1.pdf https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/perspectives/PEA3...
- jonway 1y ago
  Donald Trump just pardoned CZ changpeng zhao who was banking for sanctioned entities like Iran. Should the White House therefore strike Air Force One? This is extraordinarily capricious and obviously disingenuous on the part of the administration.
vkou 1y ago
> They're not enemy combatants, at worst they're drug runners. And even at worst, if the Navy boarded those boats, found drugs, summarily executing everyone on board would still be murder. Rule of law is what separates us from animals, and the people ordering and carrying out these killings fall squarely in the latter. Carrying water for this is beyond the pale, but is, of course, fully in alignment with a cornerstone of a political philosophy - that there are rules that protect some people, but do not bind them, and that there are rules that bind other people, but do not protect them.
- breppp 1y ago
  The idea here is that they are declared enemy combatants in a war (very plausible for Al-Qaeda, quite less here). In a war bombing a boat filled with combatants or members of an armed force is legal and does not amount to murder. While in the same war capturing the same boat filled with enemy combatants and executing them is illegal. So I don't think your example holds, and that distinction is probably the basis for drone assassinations
  - 1y ago

pyrale 1y ago

"...And 50 water buffalos too! They were all certified!"

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]