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?