Conspiracy theorys, where do you stand?

[Hoytvectrix]

• U.S. federal law:
  The death penalty is a legal option for drug trafficking in the United States, specifically in cases involving certain quantities of drugs or associated criminal activities like murder.
  
  How many American lives do you think are being saved by taking out large volume cartel fentanyl traffickers? I think the answer is a lot.

The key being "in the United States". These are in international waters. And even if these extrajudicial killings took place in US waters, the law would still require an actual conviction by a judge and jury, which has never happened. The US has never put someone to death because of drug offenses alone.

Call me crazy, but I would rather live in a country that actually uses the courts instead of coming up with excuses for why they aren't necessary.

 

[Westwind]

I’m interested in this story! I strongly suspect that the intel that we have before zapping these guys is way better than they can disclose without burning sources.

Should we do it is another story- Obama was well known for preferring to zap terrorists with drones. Once you kill them they believed it was “cleaner”, no custody and no trial. Bush preferred to grab them and interrogate.

I like trying to get more info personally. But I also believe we know exactly what they are doing and we definitely are not zapping fishermen. No way. But these boats aren’t loaded with fent. It’s coke. I personally don’t care about what is in the kilos, just quit shipping kilos.

 

[Westwind]

The key being "in the United States". These are in international waters. And even if these extrajudicial killings took place in US waters, the law would still require an actual conviction by a judge and jury, which has never happened. The US has never put someone to death because of drug offenses alone.

Call me crazy, but I would rather live in a country that actually uses the courts instead of coming up with excuses for why they aren't necessary.

I think this is a very fair view.

 

[Howboutthemdawgs]

I contend being international, these folks aren’t subject to the same rights as citizens. We don’t bring the houthis to court before we fire a missile into their backyards.

 

[Hoytvectrix]

I contend being international, these folks aren’t subject to the same rights as citizens. We don’t bring the houthis to court before we fire a missile into their backyards.

The earlier comment was using US law to justify these.

I would argue we also shouldn't be firing missiles into other countries to do their dirty work for them. There is a reason the US Constitution requires congressional votes to declare war. Using lethal force like this is absolutely an act of war in any other context. Every modern president has pushed the envelope using national security to justify these strikes. Just because it is being done by presidents of both parties, doesn't mean it is right, or what the founders intended when writing the Constitution.

The fact that this is being done so close to home, over drugs of all things, is an incredibly dangerous precedent. The fact that the intel hasn't been shared with Republicans or Democrats on the intelligence committees is by itself reason enough these shouldn't be happening.

 

[Telemark]

Obama was well known for preferring to zap terrorists with drones.

Obama zapped people indiscriminately with drones. He had a thing for blowing up weddings, and dozens of children died violently because of it.

Targeting a speedboat full of drugs almost guarantees the casualties are all willing participants.

It's not even remotely the same thing.