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.

 

[Howboutthemdawgs]

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.

I get where you are coming from but in my head there is nuance to dealing with an issue. If an armed Muslim terrorist group fires rockets at our ships I don’t think it’s prudent to send the police to go execute a search warrant in Yemen and after a lengthy investigation and trail slap some guys with a 10 year sentence. Running hundred to thousands of pounds of hard drugs for insanely powerful and dangerous cartel/regimes is the same to me. You are looking to harm our country and that has consequences. Drug runners have other options in life, and maybe facing the might of the us military they may decide to choose plan b next time.

 

[Howboutthemdawgs]

And for the record I don’t care one bit about drug users/addicts. I wish hard drugs were more lethal so contributing members of society didn’t have to deal with the scrounge. I’m not naive, thinking if we slow some drugs into this country a bunch of losers are going to go back to school and become accountants. It’s slowing drugs to protect the people who have to live around and with this stuff. We are all affected by drugs whether we believe it or not. There are many places in this country that operate like third world slums because of drugs and dealers. I’d say an overwhelming majority of crime in this country is drug related in some way. And there are rural places where we have to lock up our farms like Fort Knox because of drugs. Idk if blowing up some narco boats slows things down but I also don’t know how it can hurt. And for my money, now do the same with land and air distribution.

 

[H20fwler]

I don't think taking out the traffickers is the whole answer. We took out El Chapo, his kid and some of his lieutenants. They were replaced with some other supplier.
The real problem is the demand for the drugs, not the supply. The supply is just the result of the demand. For every supplier that's taken out there will be another to take their place.
We've had a war on drugs in this country since the 70's or before . And we haven't even won a battle, let alone the war.

OK, I'm still perfectly fine with doing away with cartel members trafficking massive amounts of drugs that are killing Americans.

The bad guys being killed are involved in all kinds of nefarious activities that undermine our country and hurt a lot of people, I would show them zero mercy.

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 disagree. Cartels are named terrorist groups now, that’s exactly how terrorists should be treated.

As far as the court system, terrorists and cartels know the consequences of the life they choose. They have no concern for the rights of their victims.
If the court system wasn't so full of liberal biased corrupt judges freeing criminals here the country would definitely be a better place.

 

[Westwind]

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.

I take your point. Like I said above, I personally prefer grabbing bad guys so they can be interrogated when it can be safely done by our guys in the field. Figure out what to do with them later. When it comes to the islamist terrorists, if a drone strike is the only option presented, fire away. Sympathy can be found somewhere between shit and syphillis in the dictionary.

One thing I wondered about on the first boat they shot up was there seemed to be a lot of people on it for a drug panga and from the bad pics I got the impression that some may have been females.

Maybe someday we will know more.

 

[Howboutthemdawgs]

I take your point. Like I said above, I personally prefer grabbing bad guys so they can be interrogated when it can be safely done by our guys in the field. Figure out what to do with them later. When it comes to the islamist terrorists, if a drone strike is the only option presented, fire away. Sympathy can be found somewhere between shit and syphillis in the dictionary.

One thing I wondered about on the first boat they shot up was there seemed to be a lot of people on it for a drug panga and from the bad pics I got the impression that some may have been females.

Maybe someday we will know more.

Females can’t be involved? Bad behavior doesn’t seem to follow a gender these days. Blow them up too

 

[Westwind]

They can. Or they could be young women being trafficked.

I just noticed that there were a lot of people on that first boat- usually drug boats don't have that many people on them. Thought it was interesting, thats all.