(09-06-2025 10:42 PM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  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.

to the bold text, I'm going to take exception when a 'group' is OFFICIALLY labeled as a "terrorist organization" ... it becomes all-inclusive by default ... there isn't mutual exclusivity 'just because it hasn't been part of the recipe' ... as we continue to tackle future issues, precedent will always have to be established at some point ... that would be my opinion...

the rest of the post is spot-on ... SCOTUS has their hands full for the foreseeable future...

The average Joe Blow knows these fricks are killing Americans and doesn’t care if it’s strictly “legal” to kill them back. Another 80-20 the prog filth are on the wrong side of. Fk em.

(09-07-2025 07:23 AM)BartlettTigerFan Wrote:  The average Joe Blow knows these fricks are killing Americans and doesn’t care if it’s strictly “legal” to kill them back. Another 80-20 the prog filth are on the wrong side of. Fk em.

Absolutely ^^^^

News reports: Fentanyl overdoses kill tens of thousands of Americans each year.

Tanq: Drug runners have rights!

News reports: The US is now dealing with at least hundreds of thousands of foreign gang members operating in the US, killing, raping, robbing Americans.

Tanq: Murdering gang bangers have rights!

NO. They are all foreign invaders, and this is a WAR. Due process is positive ID, then a kinetic bomb dropped on your damn heads.

Or deportation to It'sSoTiny, Africa.

(09-07-2025 07:23 AM)BartlettTigerFan Wrote:  The average Joe Blow knows these fricks are killing Americans and doesn’t care if it’s strictly “legal” to kill them back. Another 80-20 the prog filth are on the wrong side of. Fk em.

Politically, this is true, and the online comments from Vance put him in a stronger position for 2028.

You know this has overwhelming support since people like Newsom, Pritzker, Schumer, etc. are keeping their mouths shut.

(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.

Too much common sense there. All TOFB is interested in is litigation. Any litigation. Any where. Any time.
Chase that ambulance like a good little lawyer.

Quote:MIC DROP.

SCOTT JENNINGS ON CARTELS: These are transnational terrorist organizations! We have to stop thinking of these people like they are just jaywalkers. They're not. They're terrorists! If Middle Eastern terrorists were on a boat trying to come into the United States with materials that would kill hundreds of thousands or millions of people, we would bomb them into the Stone Age or into the bottom of the ocean, which is what we did with this boat. We have to think of them that way. They are terrorists. They're coming to terrorize our communities, kill our children, and create societal decline in the United States.

JD Vance was right.

(09-07-2025 07:35 AM)TripleA Wrote:  News reports: Fentanyl overdoses kill tens of thousands of Americans each year.

Tanq: Drug runners have rights!

News reports: The US is now dealing with at least hundreds of thousands of foreign gang members operating in the US, killing, raping, robbing Americans.

Tanq: Murdering gang bangers have rights!

NO. They are all foreign invaders, and this is a WAR. Due process is positive ID, then a kinetic bomb dropped on your damn heads.

Or deportation to It'sSoTiny, Africa.

I see 3A has overdosed on the dumb*** pretty much inaccurate rhetoric juice again. Lolz.

Imagine that.

I guess that is what the idiot brigade has to rely upon.....

In case you haven’t noticed tanq, pretty much no one here gives a damn what you think about pretty much anything.

(09-07-2025 07:05 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-07-2025 07:35 AM)TripleA Wrote:  News reports: Fentanyl overdoses kill tens of thousands of Americans each year.

Tanq: Drug runners have rights!

News reports: The US is now dealing with at least hundreds of thousands of foreign gang members operating in the US, killing, raping, robbing Americans.

Tanq: Murdering gang bangers have rights!

NO. They are all foreign invaders, and this is a WAR. Due process is positive ID, then a kinetic bomb dropped on your damn heads.

Or deportation to It'sSoTiny, Africa.

I see 3A has overdosed on the dumb*** pretty much inaccurate rhetoric juice again. Lolz.

Imagine that.

I guess that is what the idiot brigade has to rely upon.....

What exactly are you trying to accomplish here? Serious question.

He thinks that being a lawyer automatically makes him smarter than everyone else.

(09-07-2025 08:07 PM)BartlettTigerFan Wrote:  He thinks that being a lawyer automatically makes him smarter than everyone else.

Or it's liquid courage.

Sent from my Pixel 7 using CSNbbs mobile app

That too

Some people would rather die than acknowledge any POV other than their own.

(09-07-2025 07:05 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-07-2025 07:35 AM)TripleA Wrote:  News reports: Fentanyl overdoses kill tens of thousands of Americans each year.

Tanq: Drug runners have rights!

News reports: The US is now dealing with at least hundreds of thousands of foreign gang members operating in the US, killing, raping, robbing Americans.

Tanq: Murdering gang bangers have rights!

NO. They are all foreign invaders, and this is a WAR. Due process is positive ID, then a kinetic bomb dropped on your damn heads.

Or deportation to It'sSoTiny, Africa.

I see 3A has overdosed on the dumb*** pretty much inaccurate rhetoric juice again. Lolz.

Imagine that.

I guess that is what the idiot brigade has to rely upon.....

What part of TripleA’s comment isn’t accurate?