Quote:JUST IN: Stephen Miller says it's high time to use the military in our OWN hemisphere against cartel narco-terrorists, rather than just the Middle East.

"For generations, we used our military to engage in action against terrorists in the Middle East and in Africa while leaving unharmed the terrorists in our own hemisphere, who are responsible for SO MANY MORE American deaths, who have spilled so much blood across the Western hemisphere, who have bereaved so many parents and families, and who have contributed to such a horrific cycle."

"Every major city in America is suffering from cartel violence."

"President Trump is finally allowing and directing the United States military to use its authorities under the Constitution to defend America from the terrorist organizations that have run free for TOO LONG in our own hemisphere."

And he is 100% CORRECT.

(09-05-2025 09:14 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-05-2025 07:53 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(09-05-2025 06:50 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-05-2025 04:42 PM)Was SoMs Eagle Wrote:  

(09-05-2025 03:53 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Being added to a terrorist organization list doesnt give carte blanche for military elimination under the laws in play, mind you.

It does put into play a world of other actions. It *doesnt* put into play 'instant ordered death sentence by the military'.

But of course we have seen that being tossed around this thread as such a rationale.

Prove you ever once complained about Barry Sotoro doing the same.

Show me a time your favorite 'whadabout subject' simply annihilated a group based *simply* and *solely* on:

a) being a member of a group on a terror watchlist, *or*

b) smuggling drugs (to somewhere, not readily determinable)

Talking with some career JAG folks, they all concurred that they were aware of *nothing* similar of being taken out *simply* because a person was on a named terrorist list. Nor for having a boatload (allegedly) of drugs.

Maybe you can educate us where there are similar instances from WashSomes specific list about WashSomes favorite 'whadabout' squeaky toy Prez.

We dont know any of that. My guess is they probably are using drones, electronic monitoring, inside informants, and satellite data to establish what is a target. Its also likely we already knew "who" and "what" was on the boat---perhaps verifying earlier in the day visually (via the Predator optics) or maybe by detecting a pinging cell phone locations---or some other means. I find it highly unlikely the same guys that let Maduro's F-16's get close to US warships without raising a finger just saw a random boat on the ocean and said--"Hey, you wanna see a Hellfire in action?".

Im sure they would be doing that. Doesnt impact either of the points I made above.

The issue isnt someone down on the chain simply pushing a button without control. The issue is the legal basis for that decision.

Quote:(btw---Bayou Bucket tomorrow. Im curious to see what the new Rice gun option looks like. I like our chances---but this game can be so unpredictable. Good luck!).

Rice has some real teething problems with it. To be effective, you need two things : a QB that can effect a portion of a run game; and a QB combined with receivers that has enough medium and short potential to keep a smarter defense from simply stuffing the box.

My gut is that UH will do that.

Good luck to you UH as well, but I dont think they will have much trouble with it.

Your calling it "what aboutism"---whereas I would say its precedent. It shows that other presidents as well as Trump himself in his previous term (remember Soulimani?) used drone strikes against people with no trial on the basis of the targets being members of a designated terrorist organization (not just the watch list) directly responsible for the deaths of US citizens. So---your point "a" above has a precedent. True, its never been used on drug cartels prior to this point---but that was because cartels were not designated as a terrorist organization by the US prior to this year. Why does that matter? The difference is the actions of a drug cartel had been just a civilian criminal matter whereas after the terrorist designation---the same cartel actions became an organized attack against the United States and are treated as an act of war. Its now a national defense matter. In war, we dont do trials before every battle--but we do make every effort to hit only what we are aiming at and try not to kill or injure innocent civilians during our attacks.

(09-06-2025 12:05 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(09-05-2025 09:14 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-05-2025 07:53 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(09-05-2025 06:50 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-05-2025 04:42 PM)Was SoMs Eagle Wrote:  Prove you ever once complained about Barry Sotoro doing the same.

Show me a time your favorite 'whadabout subject' simply annihilated a group based *simply* and *solely* on:

a) being a member of a group on a terror watchlist, *or*

b) smuggling drugs (to somewhere, not readily determinable)

Talking with some career JAG folks, they all concurred that they were aware of *nothing* similar of being taken out *simply* because a person was on a named terrorist list. Nor for having a boatload (allegedly) of drugs.

Maybe you can educate us where there are similar instances from WashSomes specific list about WashSomes favorite 'whadabout' squeaky toy Prez.

We dont know any of that. My guess is they probably are using drones, electronic monitoring, inside informants, and satellite data to establish what is a target. Its also likely we already knew "who" and "what" was on the boat---perhaps verifying earlier in the day visually (via the Predator optics) or maybe by detecting a pinging cell phone locations---or some other means. I find it highly unlikely the same guys that let Maduro's F-16's get close to US warships without raising a finger just saw a random boat on the ocean and said--"Hey, you wanna see a Hellfire in action?".

Im sure they would be doing that. Doesnt impact either of the points I made above.

The issue isnt someone down on the chain simply pushing a button without control. The issue is the legal basis for that decision.

Quote:(btw---Bayou Bucket tomorrow. Im curious to see what the new Rice gun option looks like. I like our chances---but this game can be so unpredictable. Good luck!).

Rice has some real teething problems with it. To be effective, you need two things : a QB that can effect a portion of a run game; and a QB combined with receivers that has enough medium and short potential to keep a smarter defense from simply stuffing the box.

My gut is that UH will do that.

Good luck to you UH as well, but I dont think they will have much trouble with it.

You’re calling it "what aboutism"---whereas I would say it’s precedent. It shows that other presidents as well as Trump himself in his previous term (remember Soulimani?) used drone strikes against people with no trial on the basis of the targets being members of a designated terrorist organization (not just the watch list) directly responsible for the deaths of US citizens.

Being a member of an organization, even of the above, is insufficient legal basis for a killing.

According to my JAG friends, that membership in an organization directly responsible for deaths of US citizens is only the first question.

In order to have a firmly legal basis, the actual and specific targets *must* have engaged in a cited action that would deem them a combatant in a wartime setting. Ie actually engage in, plan, or directly aid an act directly hostile in a war definition of hostile and directly lethal attacks.

That is why it was legal to drone ISIS and Al Quaeda leaders. And not legal to drone, say, a spokesperson of the same.

Quote:So---your point "a" above has a precedent. True, its never been used on drug cartels prior to this point---but that was because cartels were not designated as a terrorist organization by the US prior to this year.

Incorrect according to my JAG friends.

Quote: Why does that matter? The difference is the actions of a drug cartel had been just a civilian criminal matter whereas after the terrorist designation---the same cartel actions became an organized attack against the United States and are treated as an act of war.

See above. Gets closer to the line. But I dont see your analysis getting there. And further, even inclusion in the list + a criminal act falling short of an act of a direct combatant doesn’t get you there.

Quote: Its now a national defense matter. In war, we dont do trials before every battle--but we do make every effort to hit only what we are aiming at and try not to kill or injure innocent civilians during our attacks.

Your second sentence hits a point. Correct. But in war, that exclusion only covers direct combatants. That exclusion would not be sufficient if, for example, a US military unit shot down a group of Nazi Party local officials who are not combatants. Your example and thread makes that action legal —- mere membership is sufficient basis. The above is, and should be, considered a war crime.

If the President wants to use the terrorist list stuff on actual direct combatants, he could. And probably should. They have —- the drone strikes against ISIS and Al Queada had that basis according to my JAG buddies.

This one falls well outside that in their opinion.

Bill Clinton killed a janitor at an aspirin factory with a jdam.
Barry killed an American citizen without a trial.
Bribem killed a relief aid worker and a bunch of kids.
Trump kills a bunch of MS13 thugs in a boat full of deadly narcotics.
Tranqi Ofer Bois runs around with his hair on fire and his ass catching screaming at the top of his lungs “Trump is a murderer!!!”

TDS is a mental disorder.

(09-05-2025 06:58 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-05-2025 06:29 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(09-05-2025 04:42 PM)Was SoMs Eagle Wrote:  

(09-05-2025 03:53 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-05-2025 02:30 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  There is a reason being added to terrorist organization list matters. We dont treat a normal criminal group in the same fashion that we treat a organization on the US terrorist organization list.

Being added to a terrorist organization list doesnt give carte blanche for military elimination under the laws in play, mind you.

It does put into play a world of other actions. It *doesnt* put into play 'instant ordered death sentence by the military'.

But of course we have seen that being tossed around this thread as such a rationale.

Prove you ever once complained about Barry Sotoro doing the same.

Funny how Tanq didnt say a peep when Biden* used a hellfire missile on a usaid worker and killed him and 10 kids.

Horrible mistake there. But there was evidence on the table to authorize the attack, albeit mistakenly.

Here -- the cackle is that the justification is that: a) they were members of an organization listed as a terrorist group; and b) they allegedly had a boatload of drugs in international waters.

Neither of which is apparently a legal basis or justification for the attack.

Sorry to rankle your feathers that the US Terrorist Group list isnt a grounds by itself for a hellfire (or, so 3A doesnt have a conniption, have 3A insert whatever means of force is okay with his POV, as I really dont want to see 3A riled up and feather ruffled as yesterday over my glib colloquialism on the military strike method and his ace #1 ascertainment of what it should be...)

maduro indicted by grand jury.

drug cartel is state-sanctioned.

state-sanction cartel is running narcotics, engaging in human trafficking, and send military-aged gang members onto American soil.


I know that's difficult to keep separate from Catholic church-goers and school moms.


Blowing up a state-sanctioned cartel drug-running operation might be a bit more legal than you think.

(09-06-2025 01:06 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-06-2025 12:05 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(09-05-2025 09:14 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-05-2025 07:53 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(09-05-2025 06:50 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Show me a time your favorite 'whadabout subject' simply annihilated a group based *simply* and *solely* on:

a) being a member of a group on a terror watchlist, *or*

b) smuggling drugs (to somewhere, not readily determinable)

Talking with some career JAG folks, they all concurred that they were aware of *nothing* similar of being taken out *simply* because a person was on a named terrorist list. Nor for having a boatload (allegedly) of drugs.

Maybe you can educate us where there are similar instances from WashSomes specific list about WashSomes favorite 'whadabout' squeaky toy Prez.

We dont know any of that. My guess is they probably are using drones, electronic monitoring, inside informants, and satellite data to establish what is a target. Its also likely we already knew "who" and "what" was on the boat---perhaps verifying earlier in the day visually (via the Predator optics) or maybe by detecting a pinging cell phone locations---or some other means. I find it highly unlikely the same guys that let Maduro's F-16's get close to US warships without raising a finger just saw a random boat on the ocean and said--"Hey, you wanna see a Hellfire in action?".

Im sure they would be doing that. Doesnt impact either of the points I made above.

The issue isnt someone down on the chain simply pushing a button without control. The issue is the legal basis for that decision.

Quote:(btw---Bayou Bucket tomorrow. Im curious to see what the new Rice gun option looks like. I like our chances---but this game can be so unpredictable. Good luck!).

Rice has some real teething problems with it. To be effective, you need two things : a QB that can effect a portion of a run game; and a QB combined with receivers that has enough medium and short potential to keep a smarter defense from simply stuffing the box.

My gut is that UH will do that.

Good luck to you UH as well, but I dont think they will have much trouble with it.

You’re calling it "what aboutism"---whereas I would say it’s precedent. It shows that other presidents as well as Trump himself in his previous term (remember Soulimani?) used drone strikes against people with no trial on the basis of the targets being members of a designated terrorist organization (not just the watch list) directly responsible for the deaths of US citizens.

Being a member of an organization, even of the above, is insufficient legal basis for a killing.

According to my JAG friends, that membership in an organization directly responsible for deaths of US citizens is only the first question.

In order to have a firmly legal basis, the actual and specific targets *must* have engaged in a cited action that would deem them a combatant in a wartime setting. Ie actually engage in, plan, or directly aid an act directly hostile in a war definition of hostile and directly lethal attacks.

That is why it was legal to drone ISIS and Al Quaeda leaders. And not legal to drone, say, a spokesperson of the same.

Quote:So---your point "a" above has a precedent. True, its never been used on drug cartels prior to this point---but that was because cartels were not designated as a terrorist organization by the US prior to this year.

Incorrect according to my JAG friends.

Quote: Why does that matter? The difference is the actions of a drug cartel had been just a civilian criminal matter whereas after the terrorist designation---the same cartel actions became an organized attack against the United States and are treated as an act of war.

See above. Gets closer to the line. But I dont see your analysis getting there. And further, even inclusion in the list + a criminal act falling short of an act of a direct combatant doesn’t get you there.

Quote: Its now a national defense matter. In war, we dont do trials before every battle--but we do make every effort to hit only what we are aiming at and try not to kill or injure innocent civilians during our attacks.

Your second sentence hits a point. Correct. But in war, that exclusion only covers direct combatants. That exclusion would not be sufficient if, for example, a US military unit shot down a group of Nazi Party local officials who are not combatants. Your example and thread makes that action legal —- mere membership is sufficient basis. The above is, and should be, considered a war crime.

If the President wants to use the terrorist list stuff on actual direct combatants, he could. And probably should. They have —- the drone strikes against ISIS and Al Queada had that basis according to my JAG buddies.

This one falls well outside that in their opinion.

Well since neither of us knows the specifics---I'll throw out just a couple possible possibilities---

1) They arent transporting the fentanyl to the middle of the ocean to get rid of it---it was heading to the US where it would no doubt be responsible for more deaths. Why were the cartels designated a terrorist organization? Because they their smuggled product was killing Americans. So its hard to say they were not currently engaging in an act that would likely result in the deaths of US citizens.

2) For all we know some or all of these cartel members are believed to have killed or attempted to kill Federal agents (or undercover agents).

My point is, I would think your JAG friend would have to admit that without details, its impossible to know whether any drone strike is or isnt "legal".

Im more of a common sense type of guy. Since every step in the kill chain represents an enlisted soldier or officer who has a sworn duty to NOT carry out an illegal order----I'd suggest to you that the mere fact the attack took place is evidence that the order at the very least has a reasonable and substantial argument to support its legality and that nobody is likely to get court martialed for carrying out the order---suggesting it probably has sufficient precedent to be considered legal by those who would be in a position to know the most about the details. Now--that doesnt mean the info they acted on cant turn out to be wrong---but that does at least suggest that the info in hand at the time likely provided a reasonable and substantive legal basis for the attack.

(09-05-2025 07:22 AM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  

(09-04-2025 09:38 AM)miko33 Wrote:  

(09-04-2025 08:52 AM)AdoptedMonarch Wrote:  

(09-04-2025 08:25 AM)miko33 Wrote:  

(09-04-2025 07:48 AM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  "Also something to consider - when the USN destroyed that boat was the goal to prevent the drugs from coming into the U.S. or was it to prevent THAT GROUP from bringing drugs into the U.S.?"

What's the difference? Why are you trying to separate the two? Either way, neither the drugs nor those delivering them will ever be a problem again. Never ever ever. Done, cooked, finished. That particular piece of the puzzle has been solved.

I think you know where I'm going with this.

Your posts, miko, are perfectly fine. The solution (if there is one) to the catastrophic damage being done to us by the illegal drug trade is BOTH a supply and a demand concern. That’s where I think it is fair for you to point out the demand side of the equation that.

But not to the exclusion of the supply side - - and I do not read you doing so. By bringing up demand side of the discussion in the context of THIS successful action, you are open to being associated with bad-faith arguments like those of tanq.

We all saw the clip. We all heard the explanations from those with first-hand intelligence. Someone who is not open to accepting this action as a clean kill, is (in my view) someone who is not arguing in good faith.

I have zero problems with destroying a drug carrying boat from bad actors who want to bring it to the U.S. That said, I think it's a fair question to determine whether the USG is determined to stop ALL drugs or whether they are picking and choosing which groups are allowed to bring it in vs which groups are not.

It would obviously be egregious to focus on one group over another unless there were compelling reasons for doing so. As is often the case in events like this, the public only knows what is being reported. There may well be, and usually are, underlying dynamic at play that justify particular actions but to publicly divulge them might be harmful.

All I know is that when I see or hear about our government destroying a potential threat source, I'm happy to be living under such a government, even one with as many warts as ours.

I'm all in favor of stopping the flow of illegal drugs but more importantly seeing the demand for illegal drugs tank.

My concern is that going after supply is easy vs going after demand. Destroying supply is easy to show - the optics look great and look at the swelling of pride we see from many posting in this thread because the USN (f'ck ya!!) blew a speed boat out of the water. On a personal level I'm glad it happened - as you say one less bit of supply feeding our collective drug addiction. But just a bit. In the past billions upon billions of dollars were spent going after supply. Destroy a drug lab? Two pop up to take its place. That's the concern.

Maybe this exercise is being used as a pretext for a different reason altogether. Maybe the U.S. wants to take out Maduro because he's a leftist (commie?) and we're afraid of letting him linger in the WH and causing issues like Castro did in Cuba. Maybe Venezuela becomes a base for the CCP like Cuba was for the Soviets. IDK, seems like there's more here than just a redo of the War on Drugs.

(09-06-2025 04:13 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(09-05-2025 07:22 AM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  

(09-04-2025 09:38 AM)miko33 Wrote:  

(09-04-2025 08:52 AM)AdoptedMonarch Wrote:  

(09-04-2025 08:25 AM)miko33 Wrote:  I think you know where I'm going with this.

Your posts, miko, are perfectly fine. The solution (if there is one) to the catastrophic damage being done to us by the illegal drug trade is BOTH a supply and a demand concern. That’s where I think it is fair for you to point out the demand side of the equation that.

But not to the exclusion of the supply side - - and I do not read you doing so. By bringing up demand side of the discussion in the context of THIS successful action, you are open to being associated with bad-faith arguments like those of tanq.

We all saw the clip. We all heard the explanations from those with first-hand intelligence. Someone who is not open to accepting this action as a clean kill, is (in my view) someone who is not arguing in good faith.

I have zero problems with destroying a drug carrying boat from bad actors who want to bring it to the U.S. That said, I think it's a fair question to determine whether the USG is determined to stop ALL drugs or whether they are picking and choosing which groups are allowed to bring it in vs which groups are not.

It would obviously be egregious to focus on one group over another unless there were compelling reasons for doing so. As is often the case in events like this, the public only knows what is being reported. There may well be, and usually are, underlying dynamic at play that justify particular actions but to publicly divulge them might be harmful.

All I know is that when I see or hear about our government destroying a potential threat source, I'm happy to be living under such a government, even one with as many warts as ours.

I'm all in favor of stopping the flow of illegal drugs but more importantly seeing the demand for illegal drugs tank.

My concern is that going after supply is easy vs going after demand. Destroying supply is easy to show - the optics look great and look at the swelling of pride we see from many posting in this thread because the USN (f'ck ya!!) blew a speed boat out of the water. On a personal level I'm glad it happened - as you say one less bit of supply feeding our collective drug addiction. But just a bit. In the past billions upon billions of dollars were spent going after supply. Destroy a drug lab? Two pop up to take its place. That's the concern.

Maybe this exercise is being used as a pretext for a different reason altogether. Maybe the U.S. wants to take out Maduro because he's a leftist (commie?) and we're afraid of letting him linger in the WH and causing issues like Castro did in Cuba. Maybe Venezuela becomes a base for the CCP like Cuba was for the Soviets. IDK, seems like there's more here than just a redo of the War on Drugs.

I suspect thats more right than wrong. I also think any effect strikes on these boats would have would be short lived in terms of reducing the flow. The cartels have been amazingly adaptive and resourceful. They would find an alternative transport route or they would simply move manufacturing inside our borders (which might make things ever worse long term). The worst case is to have cartels bringing brutal cartel violence and brutal cartel mayhem (as well as the drug deaths caused by their products) across the border into our towns and cities.

Quote:BREAKING: It’s been revealed that President Trump sent a letter to Speaker Johnson and Leader Thune explaining he was JUSTIFIED in taking out the narco-terrorists coming from Venezuela through the Caribbean via military strike.

That strike was bad*ss and a great optical move.

“…affiliated with a designated terrorist organization…”

No, they weren’t “civilians.”

(09-06-2025 04:10 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(09-06-2025 01:06 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-06-2025 12:05 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(09-05-2025 09:14 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-05-2025 07:53 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  We dont know any of that. My guess is they probably are using drones, electronic monitoring, inside informants, and satellite data to establish what is a target. Its also likely we already knew "who" and "what" was on the boat---perhaps verifying earlier in the day visually (via the Predator optics) or maybe by detecting a pinging cell phone locations---or some other means. I find it highly unlikely the same guys that let Maduro's F-16's get close to US warships without raising a finger just saw a random boat on the ocean and said--"Hey, you wanna see a Hellfire in action?".

Im sure they would be doing that. Doesnt impact either of the points I made above.

The issue isnt someone down on the chain simply pushing a button without control. The issue is the legal basis for that decision.

Quote:(btw---Bayou Bucket tomorrow. Im curious to see what the new Rice gun option looks like. I like our chances---but this game can be so unpredictable. Good luck!).

Rice has some real teething problems with it. To be effective, you need two things : a QB that can effect a portion of a run game; and a QB combined with receivers that has enough medium and short potential to keep a smarter defense from simply stuffing the box.

My gut is that UH will do that.

Good luck to you UH as well, but I dont think they will have much trouble with it.

You’re calling it "what aboutism"---whereas I would say it’s precedent. It shows that other presidents as well as Trump himself in his previous term (remember Soulimani?) used drone strikes against people with no trial on the basis of the targets being members of a designated terrorist organization (not just the watch list) directly responsible for the deaths of US citizens.

Being a member of an organization, even of the above, is insufficient legal basis for a killing.

According to my JAG friends, that membership in an organization directly responsible for deaths of US citizens is only the first question.

In order to have a firmly legal basis, the actual and specific targets *must* have engaged in a cited action that would deem them a combatant in a wartime setting. Ie actually engage in, plan, or directly aid an act directly hostile in a war definition of hostile and directly lethal attacks.

That is why it was legal to drone ISIS and Al Quaeda leaders. And not legal to drone, say, a spokesperson of the same.

Quote:So---your point "a" above has a precedent. True, its never been used on drug cartels prior to this point---but that was because cartels were not designated as a terrorist organization by the US prior to this year.

Incorrect according to my JAG friends.

Quote: Why does that matter? The difference is the actions of a drug cartel had been just a civilian criminal matter whereas after the terrorist designation---the same cartel actions became an organized attack against the United States and are treated as an act of war.

See above. Gets closer to the line. But I dont see your analysis getting there. And further, even inclusion in the list + a criminal act falling short of an act of a direct combatant doesn’t get you there.

Quote: Its now a national defense matter. In war, we dont do trials before every battle--but we do make every effort to hit only what we are aiming at and try not to kill or injure innocent civilians during our attacks.

Your second sentence hits a point. Correct. But in war, that exclusion only covers direct combatants. That exclusion would not be sufficient if, for example, a US military unit shot down a group of Nazi Party local officials who are not combatants. Your example and thread makes that action legal —- mere membership is sufficient basis. The above is, and should be, considered a war crime.

If the President wants to use the terrorist list stuff on actual direct combatants, he could. And probably should. They have —- the drone strikes against ISIS and Al Queada had that basis according to my JAG buddies.

This one falls well outside that in their opinion.

Well since neither of us knows the specifics---I'll throw out just a couple possible possibilities---

1) They arent transporting the fentanyl to the middle of the ocean to get rid of it---it was heading to the US where it would no doubt be responsible for more deaths. Why were the cartels designated a terrorist organization? Because they their smuggled product was killing Americans. So its hard to say they were not currently engaging in an act that would likely result in the deaths of US citizens.

2) For all we know some or all of these cartel members are believed to have killed or attempted to kill Federal agents (or undercover agents).

My point is, I would think your JAG friend would have to admit that without details, its impossible to know whether any drone strike is or isnt "legal".

Im more of a common sense type of guy. Since every step in the kill chain represents an enlisted soldier or officer who has a sworn duty to NOT carry out an illegal order----I'd suggest to you that the mere fact the attack took place is evidence that the order at the very least has a reasonable and substantial argument to support its legality and that nobody is likely to get court martialed for carrying out the order---suggesting it probably has sufficient precedent to be considered legal by those who would be in a position to know the most about the details. Now--that doesnt mean the info they acted on cant turn out to be wrong---but that does at least suggest that the info in hand at the time likely provided a reasonable and substantive legal basis for the attack.

Absolutely, the more details the better. Would love to have them. Perhaps we should. Perhaps we should actually have someone (anyone) explain an issue that looks problematic as to what the legal basis for the issue is.

All that comes out is running away from the question, or some thin crap about Art. 2 authority.

And no, running drugs doesn’t cut it from what I can gather. Nor does the glib reliance on the gang being on the terrorist list reach the requisite level to sustain lethal action here.

(09-06-2025 05:04 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  And no, running drugs doesn’t cut it from what I can gather. Nor does the glib reliance on the gang being on the terrorist list reach the requisite level to sustain lethal action here.

terrorist organization .... what portion of this potion is confusing ... oh, yeah, it's all that other mumbo jumbo you're spewing...

just fk'n wow...

(09-06-2025 05:12 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(09-06-2025 05:04 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  And no, running drugs doesn’t cut it from what I can gather. Nor does the glib reliance on the gang being on the terrorist list reach the requisite level to sustain lethal action here.

terrorist organization .... what portion of this potion is confusing ... oh, yeah, it's all that other mumbo jumbo you're spewing...

just fk'n wow...

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/jd-vanc...ont-give-s

in the words of JD...

Quote:When Krassenstein responded that "killing the citizens of another nation who are civilians without any due process is called a war crime," Vance told him, "I don’t give a s--- what you call it."

and tanq's doppelganger responds with....

Quote:Krassenstein later claimed that Vance "should be impeached for this tweet."

(09-06-2025 05:12 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(09-06-2025 05:04 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  And no, running drugs doesn’t cut it from what I can gather. Nor does the glib reliance on the gang being on the terrorist list reach the requisite level to sustain lethal action here.

terrorist organization .... what portion of this potion is confusing ... oh, yeah, it's all that other mumbo jumbo you're spewing...

just fk'n wow...

Im sorry you dont catch on.

(09-06-2025 06:22 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-06-2025 05:12 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(09-06-2025 05:04 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  And no, running drugs doesn’t cut it from what I can gather. Nor does the glib reliance on the gang being on the terrorist list reach the requisite level to sustain lethal action here.

terrorist organization .... what portion of this potion is confusing ... oh, yeah, it's all that other mumbo jumbo you're spewing...

just fk'n wow...

Im sorry you dont catch on.

not nearly as sorry as I am for you...

He’s too stupid to pity

(09-06-2025 07:43 PM)BartlettTigerFan Wrote:  He’s too stupid to pity

Yeah, the idiot thinks he's making us cry and whine, when all we're doing is laughing our butts off at him. What a doofus.

All he has to do is look at our interaction with Dazzle, as opposed to his dumb***.

(09-06-2025 07:43 PM)BartlettTigerFan Wrote:  He’s too stupid to pity

No shht. He is a dumb ass retard lib same as the rest of the dumb ass retard libs. F them all and who cares what they think. Let them keep defending Maryland dads and drug runners

I'm going to offer tanq a slight agreement on this one. He's simply referencing the legal justification of such a strike. So, that's where I will offer a modicum of agreement with the underlying premise of what he's raising but can explain in more detail below why I don't fully agree, because he's taken it a step further to basically say it's illegal and shouldn't have happened or continue to happen. I believe there is a sold argument for if not justification for the direct action.

First, let's get one minor error out of the way. Tanq is dead wrong about being able to target the spokespersons of AQ or ISIS. I advocate for those strikes because ISIS did more damage in the 20-teens to the U.S. by inspiring people through its media arm than they did directly carrying out attacks inside the U.S. As a member of AQ or ISIS - no matter what the job is you're a just target. That said the crux of the broader issue being discussed here is predicated on Authorized Use of Military Force (AUMF). Congress granted the AUMF to go to war against AQ after 9/11. Everything militarily thereafter carried out by the U.S. was "legal" without any further justification. Then ISIS was born. There was significant legal and policy debate about whether the AUMF extended to ISIS. Once the argument was demonstrated that ISIS was established from remnants of AQ in Iraq, the debate ended. AUMF is justified for ISIS.

Which leads us to the cartels. The part where tanq is actually quasi-right in this discussion is that there is no such AUMF in place to target cartels. The designation as an FTO is not an inherent justification. That part he is correct about. So, what then could possibly justify it? Well, the executive is extended broad powers under Article II to conduct military action to mitigate specific and imminent threats to the U.S. This is where you're going to get debate that falls on both sides of this issue. The same powers the President used to conduct the air strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities are being use in the targeting of cartels. That said this is purely my opinion is that the administration has made the determination that both the massive loss of life caused by China and the cartels lacing drugs with fentanyl and carfentanil as well as the risk to the national security of the U.S. through illicit drug trafficking has resulted in an unprecedented, clear and present threat to the United States. This provision grants the executive the authority to conduct strikes such as this without the declaration of war.

That said, I fully expect liberal nut jobs are probably going to seek injunction against the U.S. from carrying out any further strikes such as this. And will file in a district to get the desired outcome. Will probably be another issue the Supreme Court will eventually have to take up.