Drug Boat Strike

[Brett327]

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.

That's an awfully slippery slope you're teetering over. On one hand, I have zero issues interdicting drug runners via lethal means, but I do think that it's important to have some kind of solid legal framework that supports that kind of action. If we all decide to settle on a mindset of "fuck it, they're bad guys so we can do what we want," it's going to be increasingly easier for the USG to abuse or ignore the authorities it has in carrying out other things... things closer to home. A law enforcement or military mindset that presumes it can hand-waive the law, or do whatever it wants - as this administration continues to push those boundaries - will inevitably lead to higher risk of lots of things we do not want to see as a society, or as people who have spent our lives defending this country. Overlaying this shoot first ask questions later approach will lead to innocent Americans getting killed in the streets.

 

[Griz882]

That's an awfully slippery slope you're teetering over. On one hand, I have zero issues interdicting drug runners via lethal means, but I do think that it's important to have some kind of solid legal framework that supports that kind of action. If we all decide to settle on a mindset of "fuck it, they're bad guys so we can do what we want," it's going to be increasingly easier for the USG to abuse or ignore the authorities it has in carrying out other things... things closer to home. A law enforcement or military mindset that presumes it can hand-waive the law, or do whatever it wants - as this administration continues to push those boundaries - will inevitably lead to higher risk of lots of things we do not want to see as a society, or as people who have spent our lives defending this country. Overlaying this shoot first ask questions later approach will lead to innocent Americans getting killed in the streets.

I think, broadly, we agree. I’m not on the slippery slope, the office of the POTUS is and in my humble opinion needs to be reigned in by Congress regardless of who occupies the office. Clearly the very concept of “war” has changed so much so that separating warfighter from criminal is more and more difficult and the older mechanisms of defining an enemy is hollowed out. A reasonable framework should be established where the POTUS, under the advice of defense and intelligence experts can turn to a team appointed by Congress and ask…”Can we kill this one?” and then execute the mission with a clean slate.

 

[Mos]

A reasonable framework should be established where the POTUS, under the advice of defense and intelligence experts can turn to a team appointed by Congress and ask…”Can we kill this one?” and then execute the mission with a clean slate.

I would think that mechanism already exists in the form of the NSC, but that requires council members to be smarter than the president (and empowered to tell him no) which it can be argued isn't the case at present.

 

[Brett327]

, the office of the POTUS is and in my humble opinion needs to be reigned in by Congress regardless of who occupies the office.

On this we agree.

separating warfighter from criminal is more and more difficult

Only if you're lazy or can't be bothered to do the work. GWB wrestled with this post 9/11, and while I don't always agree with their policies or legal justification for what they did, at least they did the work in most cases.

A reasonable framework should be established where the POTUS, under the advice of defense and intelligence experts can turn to a team appointed by Congress and ask…”Can we kill this one?”

Yes, and it needs to be firmly rooted in the law, with congressional oversight... not vague post-hoc references to "lethality" like we've seen recently. The Anwar al-Awlaki case is a good example of how this can work.

 

[Beaker18]

On this we agree.

Only if you're lazy or can't be bothered to do the work. GWB wrestled with this post 9/11, and while I don't always agree with their policies or legal justification for what they did, at least they did the work in most cases.


Yes, and it needs to be firmly rooted in the law, with congressional oversight... not vague post-hoc references to "lethality" like we've seen recently. The Anwar al-Awlaki case is a good example of how this can work.

How was al-Awlaki rooted in law? Don’t get me wrong; I’m glad they shwacked him, but this was the very definition of extrajudicial. Months of F2T2 and having him on a kill list, but they couldn’t take one day to have a FISA puppet try him in absentia to at least give the appearance of jurisprudence?

 

[sevenhelmet]

How was al-Awlaki rooted in law? Don’t get me wrong; I’m glad they shwacked him, but this was the very definition of extrajudicial. Months of F2T2 and having him on a kill list, but they couldn’t take one day to have a FISA puppet try him in absentia to at least give the appearance of jurisprudence?

We have been on this slippery slope for a while. The latest iteration is an administration who prioritizes personal loyalty over legality of action, transparency, or any recognizable semblance of American/Constitutional values.

I would love to see what ROE and legal framework were used to justify this boat strike, and how they determined it was more tactically and strategically valuable to strike it versus tracking and interdiction.

Or did Pete and Donny just want to distract from the Epstein fallout by playing with their cool taxpayer-funded toys?

If we don’t push back on this trend of extrajudicial killing, it will continue to get worse, and get closer to home as @Brett327 suggests. Is this what “freedom” and “liberty” look like?

You folks still serving may have some tough choices ahead. Be clear-minded about your motives.

 

[Beaker18]

We have been on this slippery slope for a while. The latest iteration is an administration who prioritizes personal loyalty over legality of action, transparency, or any recognizable semblance of American/Constitutional values.

I would love to see what ROE and legal framework were used to justify this boat strike, and how they determined it was more tactically and strategically valuable to strike it versus tracking and interdiction.

Or did Pete and Donny just want to distract from the Epstein fallout by playing with their cool taxpayer-funded toys?

If we don’t push back on this trend of extrajudicial killing, it will continue to get worse, and get closer to home as @Brett327 suggests. Is this what “freedom” and “liberty” look like?

You folks still serving may have some tough choices ahead. Be clear-minded about your motives.

100%. I caution those on both extremes of the political spectrum who irresponsibly cheer when “their guy” pushes the boundary & makes a power grab…what happens when the ‘other side’ gets this power or expands on it? This has been going on since W after 9/11 and needs to be reigned in.

 

[sevenhelmet]

100%. I caution those on both extremes of the political spectrum who irresponsibly cheer when “their guy” pushes the boundary & makes a power grab…what happens when the ‘other side’ gets this power or expands on it? This has been going on since W after 9/11 and needs to be reigned in.

It has gone on longer than that. Our country has been here before. The fundamental mistake that Donald Trump and others in his administration like Stephen Miller make is in thinking they are somehow exceptional.

They are not.

 

[taxi1]

The timing of “lethality not legality” and the Department of War sending troops into Chicago…

 

[Brett327]

How was al-Awlaki rooted in law? Don’t get me wrong; I’m glad they shwacked him, but this was the very definition of extrajudicial. Months of F2T2 and having him on a kill list, but they couldn’t take one day to have a FISA puppet try him in absentia to at least give the appearance of jurisprudence?

DOJ at the time wrote a pretty detailed white paper, outlining the legal justification for what they were about to do. In other words, they did the work to make it comport to the applicable laws as they understood them at the time. Obviously there's room for debate, other interpretations, legal challenges, etc. The only legal challenge I'm aware of was the Father's suit, that was dismissed over a jurisdictional/standing issues (and not the merits), but it stands today. I'm not well versed in all the details of the case, but I think it stands to reason that designating al-Awlaki as an enemy combatant and imminent threat, gives the Government a lot of space to maneuver around the 4th and 5th amendments.

 

[MIDNJAC]

100%. I caution those on both extremes of the political spectrum who irresponsibly cheer when “their guy” pushes the boundary & makes a power grab…what happens when the ‘other side’ gets this power or expands on it? This has been going on since W after 9/11 and needs to be reigned in.

They're all idiots, regardless of political affiliation. I can't imagine what the next D administration will look like. But it will probably resemble the difference between President Trump's first and second terms, or even more extreme. This game isn't sustainable. And it is a game for complete morons that think only in black and white/idealism.

 

[Brett327]

They're all idiots, regardless of political affiliation. I can't imagine what the next D administration will look like. But it will probably resemble the difference between President Trump's first and second terms, or even more extreme. This game isn't sustainable. And it is a game for complete morons that think only in black and white/idealism.

The next D administration will closely resemble all the other D administrations going back 40 years. Center left, good economy, sensible foreign policy perspectives. The next one will have a lot of work to do in rebuilding relationships, norms, and hopefully working to legislate more assertive restraints on the Executive Branch so that what we’re all suffering through will never, ever happen again.

 

[sevenhelmet]

The next D administration will closely resemble all the other D administrations going back 40 years. Center left, good economy, sensible foreign policy perspectives. The next one will have a lot of work to do in rebuilding relationships, norms, and hopefully working to legislate more assertive restraints on the Executive Branch so that what we’re all suffering through will never, ever happen again.

Wouldn’t that be nice…

Instead, we’ll likely have some kind of disruption from the Trump people during the attempted transfer of power- embarrassing at best, a Constitutional crisis at worst.

Then- assuming the wheels haven’t already come off the wagon- whatever the new president attempts to do will be lambasted, attacked, and impeached, no matter how reasonable. People will flip on their previous positions just to disagree with the administration they didn’t vote for. An update for the newspeak will come out, banning certain words and insisting on others. Political footballs of abortion, guns, etc will rule the daily news feeds, while people continue to lose to the economic policies of the current (Trump) administration, but it’ll be THEIR fault now, that stupid new guy, because that’s the way it always is. Own the libs by ending democracy with Miller/Greene in 2032!

@MIDNJAC is right- this game is unsustainable, and incredibly stupid.

 

[Griz882]

The next D administration will closely resemble all the other D administrations going back 40 years. Center left, good economy, sensible foreign policy perspectives. The next one will have a lot of work to do in rebuilding relationships, norms, and hopefully working to legislate more assertive restraints on the Executive Branch so that what we’re all suffering through will never, ever happen again.

As nice as that would be, I don’t think that particular “D” party exists anymore. The genuine republicans and the Kennedy/Clinton democrats have all walked away from their respective parties. The primary system we have created ensures that the most partisan rises fastest - the sickness built into that infected the republicans first and now the democrats. I’ll be happy to be proven wrong, but I doubt the next “D” POTUS candidate will be a moderate by any measure just as I doubt the same for the “R” side of the equation.

 

[taxi1]

As nice as that would be, I don’t think that particular “D” party exists anymore. The genuine republicans and the Kennedy/Clinton democrats have all walked away from their respective parties. The primary system we have created ensures that the most partisan rises fastest - the sickness built into that infected the republicans first and now the democrats. I’ll be happy to be proven wrong, but I doubt the next “D” POTUS candidate will be a moderate by any measure just as I doubt the same for the “R” side of the equation.

Gerrymandering with extremely precise demographics mapping is at the heart of the problem.