-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
Drug Boat Strike
- Thread starter Griz882
- Start date
There are many thoughtful and reasonable ways to discuss the impact of illegal drugs on American society. We can discuss the realities and practicalities of legalization. We can ponder the effectiveness of post-addiction treatments vs “Just Say No” programs in school. We can call for studies on the genetics and psychology of addiction, or call for stricter enforcement of the laws by getting more police on the streets.
We can do all of that and more, but to cry “murder” over a few drug runners while trying to stand on the impossibly thin line of “enemy combatants” vs “criminal suspects” after the last several years of sanctioned extrajudicial killings is pedantic at best, but more pathetic.
Technically the killings of Osama bin Laden and Qasem Soleimani were violations of Section 3(a) of the United States Torture Victim Protection Act - as were over 2500 targeted strikes by Obama, Trump, Biden, and now Trump again. Congress has given the POTUS unprecedented power to kill outside the U.S. and they have used it. Who, exactly, determined the Houthis were an enemy combatant? According to Truman’s “the buck stops here” notion, it was the POTUS. Want to kills someone (even an American citizen overseas)? Just tap the American flag on your lapel and say “enemy combatant” and it is done. When Congress calls with questions…just say it “was in the interest of national security.” To date, the AMUF has been used in 85 countries at some level or another. If you have a problem with that, take it up with your representative and Senator because I don’t see any future POTUS easing off that accelerator.
Here’s another way to look at it…
How many U.S. service members have been killed by fatal drug overdose? 322 (between 2017 and 2021).
POW! Magic! It was done to protect American service members and our national security. There is the legal justification to help you sleep better.
Don’t get me wrong. I’m glad they murdered/killed bin Laden and his pals and I won’t waste a moment worrying over what happened to some “criminal suspects” in the open water.
Until they find the afloat equivalent of a wedding party.
Well…you’ve got me there. But, it’s ok as long as just one of the people was a bad guy.
Bluto (John Belushi) - Animal House.
Therein lies the (a series of) question(s). First of all, what did they technically shoot at? And, what were they operating under? I heard at the beginning that the flotilla in theater was operating as part of a counter-drug task force, but I've lost track if that's still the stated mission (and I welcome the correction).
So if operating under those conditions, that means the vessel hit in the video would have been classified as a specific non-flagged, non-state actor. No calls to an embassy are required, just executing a specific procedure, usually set by who has Tactical Control (in this case District 7) as defined by the entity that controls the ROE (usually JIATF).
However, since AUMF is being invoked then the whole "wedding party" scenario has some increased percentage of risk of occurring.
And who is ultimately giving the kill order? The ESG commander?
I don't know the answer, but from a legal perspective, I do wonder if you can combine the LE ROE into AUMF action. Unflagged, non-state actor -->We can shoot under LE --> declare AUMF because it's a non-state actor --> Shoot.
It just seems tactically monumentally stupid not to follow the take to its delivery point, or disable it and take it down, grabbing what is onboard. Who knows what intel was waiting to be exploited. FBI or DEA completely uninterested in getting their hands on the perps and their kit?
Almost like the “dead men tell no tales” was for our benefit.
I wonder if they are going to put this as a banner over the entrance to the Pentagon, “Maximum lethality, not tepid legality. Violent effect, not politically correct.”
Almost like the “dead men tell no tales” was for our benefit.
I wonder if they are going to put this as a banner over the entrance to the Pentagon, “Maximum lethality, not tepid legality. Violent effect, not politically correct.”
I am sure we will be told they were a bad guy. Who knows who they really were.
It should certainly be brought up during Hegseth’s impeachment hearing.
Where the F is Congress?
This was for Maduro, with a side of for the U.S. public.
Given the above, it's also really hard to grab intel from a GF. There's some time lag before an asset can arrive to execute the boarding and they usually just throw it overboard once disabled and something gray appears on the horizon. Unlike for LSVs or SPSSesssess, which can be boarded with almost no warning.
I doubt a DDG would be able to cut it off at the LSV rendezvous point. There are just too many ways it could go and the ships just aren't fast enough.
But again, that wasn't the point of this whole endeavor.
Now that there's no crime in DC thanks to those lethal guardsmen beautifying the Mall, I'm guessing Pete tested this one out at a poetry slam night in Georgetown.
We’d have the perps.
I questioned if they were lots of drugs on there given that it was carrying 11 people. I think it’s main payload was people.
I’d like to hear “Hegseth Hires a Ho”
Ufff . . . . . . now THAT is an interesting question on a number of different levels.
