Is a retroactive, dubiously legal justification for extra legal killings a thing?

[EvilCat Breath]

I would not shed any tears if someone executed the Sacklers.


Yes. Precisely. How do you not know this? Have your billionaire-owned propaganda outlets not filled you in on this fact?

.

The cases were never referred to criminal court as they should have been.

Donald Trump had America's mayor (and former NY Southern District Attorney) watching his back. His crimes were repeatedly shunted to civil court rather than criminal court.

The Sacklers had high-dollar lawyers protecting them from appearing in a criminal docket.



You know how the death penalty is called a deterrent by those in favor of it?

Yeah. If we executed those who are actually responsible for the opioid epidemic, that would send a powerful message to every other C-Suite scumbag contemplating profits over human lives and livelihoods.



We are going after gun makers for the exact same reason we are going after Big Pharma. They both flooded America's streets with more of their products than there is a legitimate demand for.

They knew they were creating a bloodbath. All in the name of more profits. A billion dollars just doesn't go as far as it used to, doncha know.



We do it all the time! How are you this ignorant of the facts?!?

Hell, I had a very small part in bringing Carlos Lehder to justice.



Again, how are you this ignorant of the facts?

.

Because you just made them up.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Trump ‘Determined’ the U.S. Is Now in a War With Drug Cartels, Congress Is Told​

President Trump has decided that the United States is engaged in a formal “armed conflict” with drug cartels his team has labeled terrorist organizations and that suspected smugglers for such groups are “unlawful combatants,” the administration said in a confidential notice to Congress this week.

The notice was sent to several congressional committees and obtained by The New York Times. It adds new detail to the administration’s thinly articulated legal rationale for why three U.S. military strikes the president ordered on boats in the Caribbean Sea last month, killing all 17 people aboard them, should be seen as lawful rather than murder.

Mr. Trump’s move to formally deem his campaign against drug cartels as an active armed conflict means he is cementing his claim to extraordinary wartime powers, legal specialists said. In an armed conflict, as defined by international law, a country can lawfully kill enemy fighters even when they pose no threat, detain them indefinitely without trials and prosecute them in military courts.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/10/02/us/politics/trump-drug-cartels-war.html?campaign_id=60&emc=edit_na_20251002&instance_id=163691&nl=breaking-news&regi_id=65145149&segment_id=207041&user_id=fecdfdffdaaa11107b72f0f4f6e429cc

Memo to Congress.........."Oh, by the way, those dead Venezuelans I ordered to be killed without any evidence that's been presented to you or anyone else, it's okay cuz I unilaterally decided it's okay. Pay no attention to this guy."

Geoffrey S. Corn, a retired judge advocate general lawyer who was formerly the Army’s senior adviser for law-of-war issues, said drug cartels were not engaged in “hostilities” — the standard for when there is an armed conflict for legal purposes — against the United States because selling a dangerous product is different from an armed attack.

Any active JAG or IG of a similar opinion will just be fired so no worries.

Two questions: 1) Were the people killed determined by the POTUS to be members of an international murder, drug smuggling, child sex trafficking organization? 2) Will they be participating in such activity in the future?

If the answers are yes, and no, I'm not seeing the downside.

 

[LAUGHatLEFTISTS]

• Republicans have cut trillions of dollars of Medicaid and SNAP benefits.
• Opposition to a minimum wage hike. The last federal minimum wage hike was in 2009. It is now far behind the inflation rate of the last 16 years.
• The tax cuts for the rich are funded by cuts to low income benefits.
• The persistent propagation of the myth of a low income individual on welfare as dining on steak and champagne to justify cuts to welfare.

And so forth.

Many MAGAs survive on government aid. When that dries up, do you think they will blame Trump and the GOP?

Nope. They are too brainwashed. Too far gone.

.

Funny stuff there.

 

[berg80]

Two questions: 1) Were the people killed determined by the POTUS to be members of an international murder, drug smuggling, child sex trafficking organization? 2) Will they be participating in such activity in the future?

If the answers are yes, and no, I'm not seeing the downside.

Is there any point at which you foresee yourself rejecting Dotard's unprecedented, repeated claims of expansive presidential powers to act in blatantly unlawful ways?

Did the President’s Strike on Tren de Aragua Violate the Law?

By applying the tools of war to civilians, the Trump administration is entering unprecedented—and deeply problematic—legal territory.

www.lawfaremedia.org

Here, however, I want to approach the matter from a less technically legal, more impressionistic perspective, because I actually think all of this attention to the details of the law—which is what we do at Lawfare and for which I am in no sense apologizing—may obscure the magnitude of what the administration did this week.

Because as the Gen-Zers might put it on Instagram or TikTok, “OMG, guys! The U.S. military just unalived 11 civilians on a boat! On purpose!”

Now I want to stress that I am emphatically not an opponent of targeted strikes against enemy individuals or small groups.

In Lawfare’s more formative years, I was one of the most vocal public supporters of the drone strike that killed Anwar Al-Aulaqi. Indeed, over the many years that the drone strike program of the Bush and Obama administrations roiled public debate, I was a vociferous defender of the program, which I believe to this day made a critical contribution in dismantling of al-Qaeda’s terrorist capacity in several key locations around the world.

I do not in any sense recant that support for the drone program and for targeted killing of enemy military leadership more generally. What’s more, I consider my enthusiasm for the responsible deployment of drones for lethal purposes to have been largely vindicated by their robust use in a more defensive and conventionally military context by Ukrainian forces over the past few years.

So it is not as an opponent of the use of drones or targeted killings, but as a defender, that I say that this strike should not merely never have taken place. It should have been unthinkable.

Let us flag the key differences between this strike and the ones conducted by prior administrations.

The Situation: I Never Signed Up for This Kind of Targeted Killing

And it’s a profoundly dangerous power for any president to have

www.lawfaremedia.org

 

[berg80]

Two questions: 1) Were the people killed determined by the POTUS to be members of an international murder, drug smuggling, child sex trafficking organization? 2) Will they be participating in such activity in the future?

If the answers are yes, and no, I'm not seeing the downside.

Let's say there is a person in a US jail awaiting trial for being an accused international murderer, drug smuggler, and child sex trafficker (I noticed you tried very hard to justify what trump did by describing those that were killed in the most despicable way possible). If the POTUS "determines" the person is guilty and orders him to be killed are you okay with that too?

 

[Seymour Flops]

Is there any point at which you foresee yourself rejecting Dotard's unprecedented, repeated claims of expansive presidential powers to act in blatantly unlawful ways?

As soon as he acts in a blatantly unlawful way, I will reject it. "Democrats and 'not Democrats' cry about it" does not equal "blatantly unlawful."

Did the President’s Strike on Tren de Aragua Violate the Law?

By applying the tools of war to civilians, the Trump administration is entering unprecedented—and deeply problematic—legal territory.

www.lawfaremedia.org

Here, however, I want to approach the matter from a less technically legal, more impressionistic perspective, because I actually think all of this attention to the details of the law—which is what we do at Lawfare and for which I am in no sense apologizing—may obscure the magnitude of what the administration did this week.

Because as the Gen-Zers might put it on Instagram or TikTok, “OMG, guys! The U.S. military just unalived 11 civilians on a boat! On purpose!”

Now I want to stress that I am emphatically not an opponent of targeted strikes against enemy individuals or small groups.

In Lawfare’s more formative years, I was one of the most vocal public supporters of the drone strike that killed Anwar Al-Aulaqi. Indeed, over the many years that the drone strike program of the Bush and Obama administrations roiled public debate, I was a vociferous defender of the program, which I believe to this day made a critical contribution in dismantling of al-Qaeda’s terrorist capacity in several key locations around the world.

I do not in any sense recant that support for the drone program and for targeted killing of enemy military leadership more generally. What’s more, I consider my enthusiasm for the responsible deployment of drones for lethal purposes to have been largely vindicated by their robust use in a more defensive and conventionally military context by Ukrainian forces over the past few years.

So it is not as an opponent of the use of drones or targeted killings, but as a defender, that I say that this strike should not merely never have taken place. It should have been unthinkable.

Let us flag the key differences between this strike and the ones conducted by prior administrations.

The Situation: I Never Signed Up for This Kind of Targeted Killing

And it’s a profoundly dangerous power for any president to have

www.lawfaremedia.org

You should learn to think for yourself, instead of constantly posting other men's thoughts and expecting posters on here to debate someone not present.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Let's say there is a person in a US jail awaiting trial for being an accused international murderer, drug smuggler, and child sex trafficker (I noticed you tried very hard to justify what trump did by describing those that were killed in the most despicable way possible). If the POTUS "determines" the person is guilty and orders him to be killed are you okay with that too?

At least that is in your own words.

No, because he is in jail and will be processed by the U.S. justice system. The attackers that our military killed were not.

If he gets out of jail, released by some Trump-deranged judge that wants the country to fail so it will be seen as Trump's failure, and then he goes right back to killing, raping, pimping children, and distributing poison disguised as recreational drugs, then Trump would have an obligation to neutralize him.

Oh, sorry. You said "a person" and I used the "he" pronoun. Did I misgender the person you had in mind?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Have we not been at war with drugs for decades? Would that not include those who bring them into the country?

And as usual the reprehensible right attempts to defend the indefensible.

 

[tahuyaman]

The drug cartels are invading the U.S. and killing American citizens. The Commander in Chief is using his constitutional authority to kill an invading force. That’s all.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Due to the rose colored, cult glasses you wear I'm sure you are okay with trump claiming, unilaterally, authority for these killings. A reply minus the specious whataboutism, including you assuming you know what I think, would be appreciated.

U.S. Military Attacked Boat Off Venezuela, Killing Four Men, Hegseth Says​

The U.S. military killed four men aboard a boat in international waters near Venezuela, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth announced on Friday, in the first such strike since the Trump administration told Congress that the United States was engaged in a formal “armed conflict” with Latin American cartels.

In his posting, Mr. Hegseth accused the four dead men of having been smuggling narcotics, without offering evidence. He also asserted that they were “affiliated” with one of the cartels and gangs that the Trump administration has designated as foreign terrorist organizations, but did not specify which.

The strike was the fourth known attack by the U.S. military on boats in the Caribbean Sea dating back to Sept. 2. In all, the military has now summarily killed 21 people it says were smuggling drugs as if they were not criminal suspects but enemy soldiers in a war zone.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/10/03/us/politics/hegseth-military-boat-venezuela.html?campaign_id=60&emc=edit_na_20251003&instance_id=163778&nl=breaking-news&regi_id=65145149&segment_id=207114&user_id=fecdfdffdaaa11107b72f0f4f6e429cc

Any thoughts as to why the regime hasn't provided any evidence or provided a defensible legal rationale for the killings other than the orange piece of shit claiming he pretty much has the right to do anything he pleases.

A lawless, criminal Trump regime doesn't need evidence or legal justification.

 

[Nostra]

A lawless, criminal Trump regime doesn't need evidence or legal justification.

Like Barry Hussein droning a 16 year old American accused of nothing?

Killing of Abdulrahman al-Awlaki - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Nostra]

And as usual the reprehensible right attempts to defend the indefensible.

Defend this..

Killing of Abdulrahman al-Awlaki - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Saying there's a "war on drugs" is not the same as a real war justifying the killing of smugglers.

Geoffrey S. Corn, a retired judge advocate general lawyer who was formerly the Army’s senior adviser for law-of-war issues, said drug cartels were not engaged in “hostilities” — the standard for when there is an armed conflict for legal purposes — against the United States because selling a dangerous product is different from an armed attack.

If they're in a boat smuggling drugs that kill people, yeah, light em up.

 

[ThisIsMe]

And as usual the reprehensible right attempts to defend the indefensible.

Wow, you all are blowing my mind here. I would think the indefensible would be to not try and stem the flow of illegal narcotics into our country

 

[berg80]

As soon as he acts in a blatantly unlawful way, I will reject it.

Well, we both know that's not true, so...............

 

[berg80]

If they're in a boat smuggling drugs that kill people, yeah, light em up.

Does it bother you no evidence has been presented substantiating the regime's claims about the occupants of the boats and their intentions considering members of the regime lie about everything all the time?

 

[berg80]

You should learn to think for yourself, instead of constantly posting other men's thoughts and expecting posters on here to debate someone not present.

When I post something like the Lawfare article it's safe to assume I agree with it and am willing to defend its content. I post such articles in the hope people will read them in their entirety and reply with a well reasoned response. If you can make one, though history says you can't, please proceed.

 

[berg80]

At least that is in your own words.

No, because he is in jail and will be processed by the U.S. justice system. The attackers that our military killed were not.

You've unwittingly exposed the legal flaw in Dotard's failed attempt to justify killing the people in those boats. A prez can not simply wave his hand and unilaterally decide who enemy combatants are. Sending a letter to Congress proclaiming he has "determined" he can order the military to kill people is the lawless act of an autocrat, not a POTUS.

 

[Seymour Flops]

You've unwittingly exposed the legal flaw in Dotard's failed attempt to justify killing the people in those boats. A prez can not simply wave his hand and unilaterally decide who enemy combatants are. Sending a letter to Congress proclaiming he has "determined" he can order the military to kill people is the lawless act of an autocrat, not a POTUS.

Sure, he can. He just did.

The War Powers Act gives him the authority to do exactly what he did. Congress gave presidents that power.

 

[Nostra]

When I post something like the Lawfare article it's safe to assume I agree with it and am willing to defend its content. I post such articles in the hope people will read them in their entirety and reply with a well reasoned response. If you can make one, though history says you can't, please proceed.

Nah, you are a troll.