• 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

sevenhelmet said:
That's a hell of a position- I don't think unraveling our entire society is a good solution to the drug problem.
Click to expand...

I agree with you here, but I'd submit that everything tech has done in the last decade (to include AI, stratification of COL, destroying the real estate market for normal people, monetization of everything), is the real unraveling of society.
 
Last edited:
Flash said:
I know that it is usually a long process though and I didn't see those cases through to the end.
Click to expand...

While it would have been interesting to know details for each case, most of the ones I was part of were pretty boring from a legal perspective (well, except maybe the one where they set themselves on fire accidentally).

But there were two that were unique. One I got to find out the adjudication because I had to testify. The other was a spectacularly, epically large case but all we got was a very quick debrief (like 60 seconds) from a D11 O-6. That debrief was satisfying, but wasn't specifically about the legal side. I wasn't able to follow up with JIATF later since I didn't have the case number, only the vessel's name. I do wonder what happened to those guys, both in court and afterwards.

BigRed389 said:
YouTuber/podcaster to do just that. Which honestly should be the job of journalism, but that industry has also been broken by money.
Click to expand...

Independent Youtubers have become the new journalism, for better or worse. Unfortunately, it seems to be in the process of being broken by money as well.
 
Sonog said:
So we murdered 11 people over some coke huh?
Click to expand...
Ever since the chosen one ordered the extrajudicial killing of a US citizen (four actually but only one intentionally) to the sound of thunderous applause from both the left and the right with zero due process, the dangerous precedent has been set. In full disclosure, I'm all for killing terrorists and drug dealers, but doing so without due process or even a pretty well-defined ROE is troubling to say the least.
 
Beaker18 said:
Ever since the [President Obama] ordered the extrajudicial killing of a US citizen (four actually but only one intentionally) to the sound of thunderous applause from both the left and the right with zero due process, the dangerous precedent has been set. In full disclosure, I'm all for killing terrorists and drug dealers, but doing so without due process or even a pretty well-defined ROE is troubling to say the least.
Click to expand...

A terrorist leader conducting warfare against the United States, citizenship has no bearing on whether or not someone is a legitimate target in war. We are not at war with drug smugglers, a distinction that is obviously lost on some but it is still a pretty big distinction none the less.
 
Flash said:
A terrorist leader conducting warfare against the United States, citizenship has no bearing on whether or not someone is a legitimate target in war. We are not at war with drug smugglers, a distinction that is obviously lost on some but it is still a pretty big distinction none the less.
Click to expand...
No war on drugs? POTUS has said we are...Congress hasn't declared war since the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor. Who declared the "War on terror?" Pretty sure it was POTUS-level although Congress did authorize him more power to conduct it. Was the terrorist "leader" (maybe branch manager at the most) actually conducting warfare against the US or just allegedly planning to do so? I don't entirely disagree with your point, but that doesn't change the fact that all of this is a slippery slope and not one that either side should be Trumpeting (see what I did there?) or even defending without at least considering the very real consequences. Was a FISA conviction or some other kangaroo-court decree too much to ask for in the case of al-Awlaki? They obviously had time because a lot of intel went into declaring him a terrorist and then the whole F2T2EA process.
 
Flash said:
A terrorist leader conducting warfare against the United States, citizenship has no bearing on whether or not someone is a legitimate target in war. We are not at war with drug smugglers, a distinction that is obviously lost on some but it is still a pretty big distinction none the less.
Click to expand...

Technically, nobody declared war on the terrorists either.

We have become way too comfortable with ongoing "temporary" measures and grey areas. Is it any wonder we have lost our way?
 
Beaker18 said:
No war on drugs? POTUS has said we are...Congress hasn't declared war since the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor. Who declared the "War on terror?" Pretty sure it was POTUS-level although Congress did authorize him more power to conduct it. Was the terrorist "leader" (maybe branch manager at the most) actually conducting warfare against the US or just allegedly planning to do so?
Click to expand...

He was an actual leader of a terrorist group that had conducted attacks and was planning to conduct more, not just a 'branch manager'.

sevenhelmet said:
Technically, nobody declared war on the terrorists either.
Click to expand...

Congress authorized the use of military force (AUMF) that gave legal standing/authorization for the 'War on Terror'.

Again, there is a pretty clear legal distinction between rhetoric ('War on Drugs') and what is legal when it comes to the use of force WRT to law enforcement and wartime operations.
 
Flash said:
He was an actual leader of a terrorist group that had conducted attacks and was planning to conduct more, not just a 'branch manager'.



Congress authorized the use of military force (AUMF) that gave legal standing/authorization for the 'War on Terror'.

Again, there is a pretty clear legal distinction between rhetoric ('War on Drugs') and what is legal when it comes to the use of force WRT to law enforcement and wartime operations.
Click to expand...
AUMF has criteria for engaging drug runners also...it's been a minute since I checked the ole' SIPRnet, but I'm willing to wager that the criteria has probably expanded in recent months.
 
Beaker18 said:
Ever since the chosen one ordered the extrajudicial killing of a US citizen (four actually but only one intentionally) to the sound of thunderous applause from both the left and the right with zero due process, the dangerous precedent has been set. In full disclosure, I'm all for killing terrorists and drug dealers, but doing so without due process or even a pretty well-defined ROE is troubling to say the least.
Click to expand...
Thunderous applause? WTF are you talking about? People were not happy…
 
In February, the State Department for the first time designated eight drug trafficking organizations, including Tren de Aragua, as foreign terrorist organization. To be clear, this step does not by itself provide authority for the use of force. In the past, however, it has paved the way to military action, including the strike on Iranian General Qassem Soleimani.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top