19 comments

[ 12.7 ms ] story [ 729 ms ] thread
Here’s hoping Congress wakes up and passes laws that curbs presidential power.
Congress has all the power they need, they simply refuse to use it.
You’re welcome to move to the EU. Everything is a committee. Nobody is ever responsible. Nothing ever gets done.
Seems like we're bombing a bunch of low level, poverty stricken fisherman who occasionally bring a load of drugs from point A to point B.

I'm sure the complete lack of effectiveness will be worth the condemnation and lost intelligence by our allies, and further erosion of our separation of powers.

My conspiracy theory is that the administration recognizes the current media climate (a flood of frantic but ephemeral media/social media coverage of everything he does) and are leveraging it to combat things like immigration and drug-smuggling down.

The ICE deportation shit seemed nuts at first. Sure deport undocumented immigrants, but have some compassion and sympathy. Things like deporting a mom and dad at their kids birthday party seemed psychotic and bad for everyone.

Then I read that 80% of the deportations are a result immigrants turning themselves in out of fear. Whether intentional or not the most effective thing ICE did was creating a media frenzy that resulted in people turning themselves in out of fear. Ironically the people trying to "hold ICE accountable" by blowing them up on social media have caused way more deportations than ICE themselves.

Maybe this is the same thing? If all of a sudden a few smugglers getting blown up goes viral the next fisherman who wants to make some extra money might take a pass.

The alternative is Trump is just crazy and evil and power hungry (could be easily true based on his past), but I tend to get suspicious whenever we attribute a humans motivations to: "yeah they are crazy/evil/bad" because people are much more nuanced.

Also I know I am gonna get downvoted to oblivion lol

>Seems like we're bombing a bunch of low level, poverty stricken fisherman who occasionally bring a load of drugs from point A to point B.

If I understand things correctly, no one's denying that this is what they're doing. Furthermore, not only are they denying it, in many people's minds, this is justification. I'm sure that many carjackers had awful childhoods, but when one has a gun to your head you're not really in a mood to pray that no one hurts him.

Why are you making the assumption that they are poverty stricken fishermen. That kind of boat and engines is not something a poor fisherman would use or own.
(comment deleted)
One wonders what kinds of domestic abuse such legal hacking enables as side-effect as well: "Sorry Ma'am, your husband was killed in that traffic stop, but you know, the officers were not actually targeting him, just his car..."
The US already has the "confiscate and sue the money" legal loophole process for robbing people at random, without heaving to charge the people with anything. Yay civil forfeiture.
I wonder if they're trying to setup a precedent to start deploying the military in force on US soil to fight "narco-terrorists"... "We'll we can't kill them all in the boats, so obviously we need military strike forces deployed in all major American cities and tanks on the boarder with Mexico"
They did it in Panama against Noriega in 1989.
Am I the only one who thinks that this will effectively enable vigilantism? What is stopping this from trickling downwards to lower levels of government and law enforcement? And then, of course, it trickles down to the citizenry because of the actions of that government.
Due to the sheer number of outright lies and bad faith arguments the courts really ought to order an independent council to review all administration opinions and briefs.
Civil forfeiture taken to a new level?

"We're suing the money and confiscating it, we're not suing you." -> "We're bombing drugs, not people."

Collateral damage be damned!

As here, saying the Islamic State was a criminal organization may have been true, but once they were declared to be organized armed groups participating in an non-international armed conflict, they were subject to lawful killing. Should they give clear indication that they have placed themselves hors de combat (surrendered), they are subject to life imprisonment. Though it'd probably be safer to set their own boat on fire and jump off before heading out to sea.
You can make up any story you want about the actual reason these people are in the boats, where they're going, or if they are or are not committing crimes (even intermittently). None of those stories are true. At the end of the day, we are murdering people without due process. Full stop.