Murder on the high seas

[gowlerk 2,296]

I have heard no Americans comment here, and few elsewhere about the egregious act of high seas terrorism committed in the Caribbean sea this week. To my friends in this forum, do you think suspicion of carrying drugs justifies this murder? Or are the outrages committed by your government lately just so numerous that it just slides on by?

[JerryBaumchen 1,484]

4 minutes ago, gowlerk said:

I have heard no Americans comment here, and few elsewhere about the egregious act of high seas terrorism committed in the Caribbean sea this week. To my friends in this forum, do you think suspicion of carrying drugs justifies this murder? Or are the outrages committed by your government lately just so numerous that it just slides on by?

Hi Ken,

I agree with you 100%.

IMO this was outright murder.  While there might have been a ton of evidence that they were trafficking drugs, I have read nothing of due process.

Which BTW, is a foreign concept to Trump 2.0.

The US is going thru some tough times right now; I am, however, hopeful for the election results of next Nov.

Thanks for bringing this up for discussion; I admit to being silent about it.

Jerry Baumchen

[normiss 910]

16 minutes ago, gowlerk said:

I have heard no Americans comment here, and few elsewhere about the egregious act of high seas terrorism committed in the Caribbean sea this week. To my friends in this forum, do you think suspicion of carrying drugs justifies this murder? Or are the outrages committed by your government lately just so numerous that it just slides on by?

It's stunning how fast we're falling.

It's shocking to see most Americans blindly moving along as if nothing is happening.

This is so far beyond normal, acceptable, legal, honorable, just, or right in any way.

We have war criminal leadership in the US right now.

I look forward to the proper response. I don't think the US will EVER see the proper use of the 2nd Amendment as that is solely for mass murder. Especially for school children.

Come on Chicago, give us a real, solid response. Except I think The Great Pedo Felon POTUS will TACO, again.

[billvon 3,151]

1 hour ago, gowlerk said:

I have heard no Americans comment here, and few elsewhere about the egregious act of high seas terrorism committed in the Caribbean sea this week. To my friends in this forum, do you think suspicion of carrying drugs justifies this murder? Or are the outrages committed by your government lately just so numerous that it just slides on by?

Yeah, pretty much.  You can't keep up with all the shit the current administration is pulling.

 

[JerryBaumchen 1,484]

1 hour ago, normiss said:

It's stunning how fast we're falling.

It's shocking to see most Americans blindly moving along as if nothing is happening.

This is so far beyond normal, acceptable, legal, honorable, just, or right in any way.

We have war criminal leadership in the US right now.

I look forward to the proper response. I don't think the US will EVER see the proper use of the 2nd Amendment as that is solely for mass murder. Especially for school children.

Come on Chicago, give us a real, solid response. Except I think The Great Pedo Felon POTUS will TACO, again.

Hi Mark,

This might be why:

The Nazi's first came for the Communists and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.  Then they came for the Jews and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.  Then they came for the trade unionists and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.  Then they came for the Catholics and I didn't speak up

because I was a Protestant.  Then they came for me, and by that time there was no one left to speak for me.

 Rev. Martin Niemoeller

Jerry Baumchen

[Phil1111 1,235]

I'm surprised that the entire US chain of command has not made a peep in protest.

[BIGUN 1,520]

3 hours ago, gowlerk said:

To my friends in this forum, do you think suspicion of carrying drugs justifies this murder? Or are the outrages committed by your government lately just so numerous that it just slides on by?

Quite the history question you've proposed. We've been using the military to do this since the 80's war on drugs - including in foreign countries. It does not violate Substantive Due Process (where the courts have decided govermental regulation trumps regular constitutional norms (see what I did there)) and has been heard at the Supreme Court several times. I think most people don't give a shit when it comes to protecting the borders from an influx of drugs. I don't. Don't want to die; don't attempt to bring drugs into the country.

[Phil1111 1,235]

13 minutes ago, BIGUN said:

Quite the history question you've proposed. We've been using the military to do this since the 80's war on drugs - including in foreign countries. It does not violate Substantive Due Process (where the courts have decided govermental regulation trumps regular constitutional norms (see what I did there)) and has been heard at the Supreme Court several times. I think most people don't give a shit when it comes to protecting the borders from an influx of drugs. I don't. Don't want to die; don't attempt to bring drugs into the country.

Hence the justification to kidnap US citizens by Russia, N.Korea, Iran, etc.

Governmental regulations of these countries sets aside the "right to life", due process, etc, I guess US included. 

The US constitution says that only Congress has the power to declare war. Article II - which lays out the president's powers - says that "the president shall be Commander in Chief of the Army" and some constitutional experts have suggested that this grants the president the power to authorize strikes against military targets Drug traffickers are not military targets no matter what Trump states.If they are then every vessel operating anywhere could be a target not for boarding and search but instead for summary sinking.

If this is allowed to stand Trump directing predator drone attacks on Mexican soil. Air to air shootdowns of "smugglers aircraft" is next. Labelling any group, any country, any individual an "enemy" will be enough for Trump to order a military kill command. 

"Trump was asked by host Maria Bartiromo about how he would handle bureaucrats who might seek to undermine him in a potential second term.

"I always say, we have two enemies," Trump said, adding: "We have the outside enemy, and then we have the enemy from within, and the enemy from within, in my opinion, is more dangerous than China, Russia and all these countries."

Trump added that a "smart president" could handle outside adversaries "pretty easily," but "the thing that's tougher to handle are these lunatics that we have inside, like Adam Schiff."

"I call him the enemy from within," he added."

[JoeWeber 3,005]

Just now, Phil1111 said:

I think most people don't give a shit when it comes to protecting the borders from an influx of drugs. I don't. Don't want to die; don't attempt to bring drugs into the country.

Sure, but that's why we have a Coast Guard. Tracking the speed boat and intercepting it would have been a no brainer and if they were drug runners and resisted with deadly force then tough shit. This was cold blooded murder not legitimate border protection. 

[gowlerk 2,296]

5 hours ago, BIGUN said:

Quite the history question you've proposed. We've been using the military to do this since the 80's war on drugs - including in foreign countries. It does not violate Substantive Due Process (where the courts have decided govermental regulation trumps regular constitutional norms (see what I did there)) and has been heard at the Supreme Court several times. I think most people don't give a shit when it comes to protecting the borders from an influx of drugs. I don't. Don't want to die; don't attempt to bring drugs into the country.

That makes about as much sense as justifying the invasion of Iraq because of WMD. Made up bullshit.

[Phil1111 1,235]

4 hours ago, JoeWeber said:

Sure, but that's why we have a Coast Guard. Tracking the speed boat and intercepting it would have been a no brainer and if they were drug runners and resisted with deadly force then tough shit. This was cold blooded murder not legitimate border protection. 

"In his first term, he(Trump) praised then-President Rodrigo Duterte of the Philippines for doing an “unbelievable job on the drug problem” in the nation where Mr. Duterte’s government had sanctioned gunning down suspected drug dealers in the streets....Mr. Duterte was arrested this year and is facing charges of crimes against humanity at the International Criminal Court over his drug war."

Conceivably Trump could face the exact same charges as Duterte. The International Criminal Court for which the US is not a signatory, could indict Trump and he could be arrested subsequent to his presidency in another country. i.e. when he goes golfing in Scotland.

[BIGUN 1,520]

4 hours ago, gowlerk said:

That makes about as much sense as justifying the invasion of Iraq because of WMD. Made up bullshit.

I will agree with you on the justification of Iraq, but that is a separate issue. The war on drugs is no where near made up. 

Edited September 5 by BIGUN

[jakee 1,624]

4 hours ago, BIGUN said:

I will agree with you on the justification of Iraq, but that is a separate issue. The war on drugs is no where near made up. 

Is it separate? Bush coerced the Intelligence agencies into saying Iraq had WMD and further manipulated their reports to sound much more definite than they were before releasing them to the rest of the government. Similarly, we only have intelligence reports to say this boat was operated by the cartel and full of drugs. There was no boarding, no search, no confirmation of cargo, just a stand-off weapon fired and the boat destroyed. Sounds like a ton of overlap to me.

Now keep in mind the only say so we have that the boat was full of drugs comes from the same administration that is on a personal crusade to paint Abrego Garcia as a gang-member human-trafficking terrorist and subject him to spending the rest of his life in a foreign hell-hole dungeon just so they won't have to admit to deporting him by mistake. Even though everyone already knows they did. So you think you'd hear a peep from them if it turned out this boat might not have been full of drugs?

When I first read Kafka as a teenager I'll admit that I didn't really get it. The situations the protagonists were trapped in were so absurd, the bureaucratic oppression so pointless and unlike the purpose of real world western government that I wasn't sure what the message was supposed to be. Now? The dude was too freaking tame.

Edited September 5 by jakee

[gowlerk 2,296]

3 hours ago, BIGUN said:

I will agree with you on the justification of Iraq, but that is a separate issue. The war on drugs is no where near made up. 

Yup, go git'em cowboy. Shoot first, ask questions later. None of those people on that boat deserved to live.

[Phil1111 1,235]

1 hour ago, gowlerk said:

Yup, go git'em cowboy. Shoot first, ask questions later. None of those people on that boat deserved to live.

Speaking of cowboys: 

"Secretary of State Marco Rubio has said the US will "blow up" foreign crime groups if needed, possibly in collaboration with other countries.

"Now they're gonna help us find these people and blow them up, if that's what it takes," Rubio said during a visit to Ecuador...."The president has said he wants to wage war on these groups because they've been waging war on us for 30 years and no-one has responded."

The US Department of Defence in now renamed the Department of War to better reflect the war on domestic jaywalkers in Washington. Together with the war on high speed boats in international waters.

Too bad many CIA officers hired in the last two years were fired in May. They might have come in handy identifying all the new gangs who have waged "war" against America for the last 30 years.

Edited September 5 by Phil1111

[dogyks 24]

The plot of the Fredrick Forsyth book "The Cobra" had a paramilitary organization flying Buccaneers to down aircraft and sink vessels transporting cocaine in bulk.

As I recall, the upshot was that the drug trade recovered rapidly - nature abhors a vacuum - and the people who were corrupted by the handling of so much power were hoist with their own petard.

The war on drugs was won by drugs long ago.  The legislation in place simply serves to keep prices high enough to support the illegal drugs' economy.

I am lucky to live in an environment where people don't smoke, drink to excess, or risk failing a random drug test, so my perspective is skewed.  My libertarian view that it should pretty much all be legalized is tempered by the realities of the Kensington neighborhood of Philadelphia and the Sihlquai truce in Zurich some time back, but I still think Prohibition is a poor solution.

In any event, though blowing up boats full of drugs reflects the anger felt by some, the reality is that it's against the rules coming and going.

If you want to wear the white hat, you have to follow the rules.  If you pick and choose which rules you choose to obey, you are in no position to criticize those who also break the rules.

[gowlerk 2,296]

29 minutes ago, dogyks said:

 

If you want to wear the white hat, you have to follow the rules.  If you pick and choose which rules you choose to obey, you are in no position to criticize those who also break the rules.

I don't believe MAGA gives a shit about the colour of it's hat. And clearly not rules.

[BIGUN 1,520]

3 hours ago, dogyks said:

In any event, though blowing up boats full of drugs reflects the anger felt by some, the reality is that it's against the rules coming and going.

If it was a nuclear weapon; would we be having this conversation? Keep in mind that one kilogram of fentanyl can kill 500,000 people.  

[JoeWeber 3,005]

17 minutes ago, dogyks said:

The plot of the Fredrick Forsyth book "The Cobra" had a paramilitary organization flying Buccaneers to down aircraft and sink vessels transporting cocaine in bulk.

As I recall, the upshot was that the drug trade recovered rapidly - nature abhors a vacuum - and the people who were corrupted by the handling of so much power were hoist with their own petard.

The war on drugs was won by drugs long ago.  The legislation in place simply serves to keep prices high enough to support the illegal drugs' economy.

I am lucky to live in an environment where people don't smoke, drink to excess, or risk failing a random drug test, so my perspective is skewed.  My libertarian view that it should pretty much all be legalized is tempered by the realities of the Kensington neighborhood of Philadelphia and the Sihlquai truce in Zurich some time back, but I still think Prohibition is a poor solution.

In any event, though blowing up boats full of drugs reflects the anger felt by some, the reality is that it's against the rules coming and going.

If you want to wear the white hat, you have to follow the rules.  If you pick and choose which rules you choose to obey, you are in no position to criticize those who also break the rules.

If you don't use drugs or drink to excess you shouldn't have an opinion.

[dogyks 24]

37 minutes ago, BIGUN said:

If it was a nuclear weapon; would we be having this conversation? Keep in mind that one kilogram of fentanyl can kill 500,000 people.  

After I signed approval to amputate my leg, I was waiting to be wheeled into the OR.  The anaesthesiologist ran something into the IV, and losing my leg wasn't a big deal.  In fact, life was wonderful.

"What was that?"

"Fentanyl."

"I love fentanyl."

I have spent decades in the pharma industry since then, and am quite familiar with the lethality of various drugs - to include fentanyl.

I don't have any particular sympathy for the people aboard the boat carrying drugs.  My point is sinking it involved the kind of good intentions with which the road to hell is paved.

[dogyks 24]

36 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

If you don't use drugs or drink to excess you shouldn't have an opinion.

If I drive on roads amongst people full of ethanol or barbiturates, I think some concerns are warranted.

If someone ODs or aspirates vomit at home, I'll send them a get well card.

[JerryBaumchen 1,484]

1 hour ago, BIGUN said:

If it was a nuclear weapon; would we be having this conversation? Keep in mind that one kilogram of fentanyl can kill 500,000 people.  

Hi Keith,

Re:  If it was a nuclear weapon

Those suspected drug runners did not impose an immanent threat to anyone.

Everyone should get access to due process, even mass murders.

Do you not agree?

Jerry Baumchen

PS)  And, IMO this should be part of this conversation:  The massive drug bust that wasn’t: How 50 million ‘fatal doses’ turned out to be mostly water

 

Edited September 5 by JerryBaumchen

[jakee 1,624]

1 hour ago, BIGUN said:

If it was a nuclear weapon; would we be having this conversation? Keep in mind that one kilogram of fentanyl can kill 500,000 people.  

So… it is like WMD in Iraq? Like, literally exactly like WMD in Iraq? The government claims it’s there so you definitely have to immediately go in and anyone who says otherwise is a sucker?

 

And no - any given kilo of fentanyl from a smuggler has never, ever, not once killed 500,000 people. I mean - that’s definitely a thing you only say when you already know your argument is fucked, isn’t it?

Edited September 5 by jakee

[billvon 3,151]

1 hour ago, BIGUN said:

If it was a nuclear weapon; would we be having this conversation? Keep in mind that one kilogram of fentanyl can kill 500,000 people.  

One kilogram of botulinim toxin can kill ten TRILLION people.  A poor reason to bomb Botox clinics IMO - even if the risk is many, many orders of magnitude greater based on LD50 numbers alone.

[BIGUN 1,520]

34 minutes ago, billvon said:

A poor reason to bomb Botox clinics IMO

Does that  mean we wouldn't have to see anymore celebrties with super puffy lips :)