ABC News Confirms September Caribbean Strike by Trump Administration Was Lawful

[struth]

?? I did read it, did you not?

ABC were reporting on what a source said, and then on the following line the article says:
"The second strike on the boat has led to criticism from some members of Congress that it may have constituted a war crime. They said there were violations of international law that protect enemy combatants no longer in the fight -- and of the maritime law guiding the rescue of persons shipwrecked at sea."

And how do they know who they were communicating with and the reasons for? If they were shipwrecked, could they not have been calling for help? Because, you know, they were on a damaged boat, and 8 of their buddies were dead? When you say they were trying to salvage the drugs, that is what I'm asking, Is there any proof of that? It cerntainly doesn't make sense, logically? Do you think it makes sense that after they suffered a drone strike which killed 80 percent of them, and damaged their boat, that they were worried about salvaging the drugs and continuing onwards to America?

And we are learning more about these strike. And the fact the administration is trying to distance themselves from it, does not make a good look for your case:

Survivors of Sept. 2 boat strike were waving before second attack, sources say

Two people who survived an early September U.S. attack on an alleged drug boat were waving overhead before they were killed in a now-controversial second strike, according to two sources.

www.cbsnews.com

"Two people who survived an early September U.S. attack on an alleged drug boat in the Caribbean were waving overhead before they were killed in a now-controversial second strike, according to two sources familiar with a video that was shown to lawmakers this week."

Himes, a Connecticut Democrat, told reporters after the briefing that "what I saw in that room was one of the most troubling things I've seen in my time in public service."
"You have two individuals in clear distress without any means of locomotion, with a destroyed vessel, who are killed by the United States," Himes said.

Of course I did, hence why i asked if you read the link to whar ABC reported, and I questioned you because you seem to leave out the part where ABC said they reengaged their mission

 

[struth]

?? I did read it, did you not?

ABC were reporting on what a source said, and then on the following line the article says:
"The second strike on the boat has led to criticism from some members of Congress that it may have constituted a war crime. They said there were violations of international law that protect enemy combatants no longer in the fight -- and of the maritime law guiding the rescue of persons shipwrecked at sea."

And how do they know who they were communicating with and the reasons for? If they were shipwrecked, could they not have been calling for help? Because, you know, they were on a damaged boat, and 8 of their buddies were dead? When you say they were trying to salvage the drugs, that is what I'm asking, Is there any proof of that? It cerntainly doesn't make sense, logically? Do you think it makes sense that after they suffered a drone strike which killed 80 percent of them, and damaged their boat, that they were worried about salvaging the drugs and continuing onwards to America?

And we are learning more about these strike. And the fact the administration is trying to distance themselves from it, does not make a good look for your case:

Survivors of Sept. 2 boat strike were waving before second attack, sources say

Two people who survived an early September U.S. attack on an alleged drug boat were waving overhead before they were killed in a now-controversial second strike, according to two sources.

www.cbsnews.com

"Two people who survived an early September U.S. attack on an alleged drug boat in the Caribbean were waving overhead before they were killed in a now-controversial second strike, according to two sources familiar with a video that was shown to lawmakers this week."

Himes, a Connecticut Democrat, told reporters after the briefing that "what I saw in that room was one of the most troubling things I've seen in my time in public service."
"You have two individuals in clear distress without any means of locomotion, with a destroyed vessel, who are killed by the United States," Himes said.

Of course I did, hence why i asked if you read the link to whar ABC reported, and I questioned you because you seem to leave out the part where ABC said they reengaged their mission

 

[excalibur]

 

[Concerned American]

It's mostly about the legality surrounding these strikes, and what it can lead to. There is a lot of legal issues with these boat strikes, even disregarding this boat strike that was the double tap.

Your same argument could be used against people on US soil. Would you be happy enough if they were conducting air strikes against buildings/positions on US soil that were believed to be drug related?

And ^^^ therein lies your fallacy. The high seas is not the US. I know it torques your democrat butt that you cannot obstruct pro American activities on the high seas, but there it is. Run along noob.

 

[RedrickTheCoat]

And ^^^ therein lies your fallacy. The high seas is not the US. I know it torques your democrat butt that you cannot obstruct pro American activities on the high seas, but there it is. Run along noob.

Strikes on the high seas still have laws. And the arguments being made to bypass those laws are some of the same arguments that could also technically be used to bypass some of the rules of striking drug cartel terrorists (now that they are defined as terrorists) on US soil.

Sure, they would have more restrictions to bypass to do that on US soil. But then are you saying, they can bypass laws when you think it's ok? And should laws be something that become subjective to the point that they can just ignore them if they think it shouldn't be the law? And should the determination of the validity of those laws be interpreted by whoever is President?
The facts are:
1. The U.S. has never treated purely criminal drug traffickers as terrorists to justify military force.
2. No U.S. president has used offensive military force against drug criminals without Congressional authorization.
3. The U.S. has never initiated military strikes on non-state actors without claiming an imminent threat or self-defense.
4. It is the first time the U.S. has used lethal force on the high seas against drug traffickers without attempting arrest/interdiction first.
5. It is unprecedented for the U.S. to rely on a newly invented legal category (“narcotics terrorism”) to justify lethal force.
6. It’s the first time the justification used abroad could be directly applied to U.S. soil.


International Law of the SEA:
A state cannot use military force against another state or on the territory of another state except in two circumstances:

1. Self-defense against an armed attack (Article 51)
2. With explicit U.N. Security Council authorization

On the high seas:

• All states have freedom of navigation.
• A state may only interfere with foreign vessels under very specific conditions (piracy, slavery, stateless vessels, illegal broadcasting).
• Force must be necessary and proportionate, and normally must be preceded by interdiction, boarding, or inspection.

 

[Concerned American]

Strikes on the high seas still have laws. And the arguments being made to bypass those laws are some of the same arguments that could also technically be used to bypass some of the rules of striking drug cartel terrorists (now that they are defined as terrorists) on US soil.

Sure, they would have more restrictions to bypass to do that on US soil. But then are you saying, they can bypass laws when you think it's ok? And should laws be something that become subjective to the point that they can just ignore them if they think it shouldn't be the law? And should the determination of the validity of those laws be interpreted by whoever is President?
The facts are:
1. The U.S. has never treated purely criminal drug traffickers as terrorists to justify military force.
2. No U.S. president has used offensive military force against drug criminals without Congressional authorization.
3. The U.S. has never initiated military strikes on non-state actors without claiming an imminent threat or self-defense.
4. It is the first time the U.S. has used lethal force on the high seas against drug traffickers without attempting arrest/interdiction first.
5. It is unprecedented for the U.S. to rely on a newly invented legal category (“narcotics terrorism”) to justify lethal force.
6. It’s the first time the justification used abroad could be directly applied to U.S. soil.


International Law of the SEA:
A state cannot use military force against another state or on the territory of another state except in two circumstances:

1. Self-defense against an armed attack (Article 51)
2. With explicit U.N. Security Council authorization

On the high seas:

• All states have freedom of navigation.
• A state may only interfere with foreign vessels under very specific conditions (piracy, slavery, stateless vessels, illegal broadcasting).
• Force must be necessary and proportionate, and normally must be preceded by interdiction, boarding, or inspection.

A lot of BS, with no source. Take it down the road. LOL. Like most of your democrat ilk, you run your mouth about things you have no knowledge of because------TRUMP.

 

[RedrickTheCoat]

A lot of BS, with no source. Take it down the road. LOL. Like most of your democrat ilk, you run your mouth about things you have no knowledge of because------TRUMP

So if I provide the sources for each point I stated in my comment, and those sources are valid from a legal perspective, you will agree with me?

 

[Superbadbrutha]

And another one bites the dust.


Aren't you leftoids tired of jumping on the fake news bandwagon?

​

​

ABC News has confirmed that the Sept. 2 strike against a cartel-linked cocaine vessel in the Caribbean Sea was legally justified and targeted active threats, countering earlier claims that the operation constituted a "double-tap" attack or war crime.​

​

​

The operation, intended to prevent a major shipment of cocaine from reaching the United States, resulted in the deaths of 11 designated narco-terrorists.​

​

​

Initial reports suggested two men survived the strike, but ABC cited sources familiar with the operation indicating the men reboarded the vessel, attempted to recover narcotics and maintained communication with other smuggling assets, confirming their status as active combatants.​

​

​

The strike was part of a coordinated U.S. military effort to disrupt narcotics trafficking near American waters.​

​

​

Officials emphasized that the operation was conducted under strict legal oversight, with a Judge Advocate General (JAG) officer providing guidance to ensure compliance with federal law and established rules of engagement.​

​

​

...​

ABC News Vindicates Trump Admin With Crushing Blow to Left’s Smear Campaign

They're big mad.

resistthemainstream.com

Oh, now you are listening to ABC News, any other time you call them fake news.

 

[hjmick]

You can't trust the liberal media.

I'm serious.

Unless of course they say things you like... then there are none more trustworthy, no matter how much you ran them down previously...

 

[dblack]

Unless of course they say things you like... then there are none more trustworthy, no matter how much you ran them down previously...

Not the way I play.

 

[Concerned American]

So if I provide the sources for each point I stated in my comment, and those sources are valid from a legal perspective, you will agree with me?

Provide the sources and we'll see.

 

[Dragonlady]

And another one bites the dust.


Aren't you leftoids tired of jumping on the fake news bandwagon?

ABC News has confirmed that the Sept. 2 strike against a cartel-linked cocaine vessel in the Caribbean Sea was legally justified and targeted active threats, countering earlier claims that the operation constituted a "double-tap" attack or war crime.


The operation, intended to prevent a major shipment of cocaine from reaching the United States, resulted in the deaths of 11 designated narco-terrorists.


Initial reports suggested two men survived the strike, but ABC cited sources familiar with the operation indicating the men reboarded the vessel, attempted to recover narcotics and maintained communication with other smuggling assets, confirming their status as active combatants.


The strike was part of a coordinated U.S. military effort to disrupt narcotics trafficking near American waters.


Officials emphasized that the operation was conducted under strict legal oversight, with a Judge Advocate General (JAG) officer providing guidance to ensure compliance with federal law and established rules of engagement.


...​

ABC News Vindicates Trump Admin With Crushing Blow to Left’s Smear Campaign

They're big mad.

resistthemainstream.com

Meaningless drivel. ABC News isn’t a court of law or a legal administrator. They’re innno position to opine whether this is legal.

 

[excalibur]

Meaningless drivel. ABC News isn’t a court of law or a legal administrator. They’re innno position to opine whether this is legal.

LOL

No one said they [ABC News] were a court of la, but this will never reach an American court of law.

And the DoD IG has cleared it as well.

Bye.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Meaningless drivel. ABC News isn’t a court of law or a legal administrator. They’re innno position to opine whether this is legal.

Unless, of course you like their opinion.
Then they speak Gospel.

All you do is lie.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Why would they have a JAG there for real time advice?

Ron Desantis was once the JAG for SEAL Team One.

 

[IM2]

So now they believe the media.

 

[IM2]

I think I will wait for the investigation to end. After all, ABC paid Trump 15 million in a settlement

 

[M14 Shooter]

International Law of the SEA:
A state cannot use military force against another state or on the territory of another state except in two circumstances:

When did we do this?

On the high seas:

• All states have freedom of navigation.
• A state may only interfere with foreign vessels under very specific conditions (piracy, slavery, stateless vessels, illegal broadcasting).

These boats qualify as "stateless vessels"

• Force must be necessary and proportionate, and normally must be preceded by interdiction, boarding, or inspection.

Just to be clear:
Under your interpretation, if a boat runs, force can be used to halt it.
Right?

 

[ThisIsMe]

Mmm, buttercrap on my cornhole, now I'm all set for my Christmas dinner!!!

Huh???

 

[HaShev]