President Trump orders attack on Venezuelan drug runners at sea

[BackAgain]

Dangerous precedent legally and otherwise. What say you - oh supposed great legal mind?

I say that to never claimed to be a great mind. Greater than yours. But that higher than a single while on a road.

And, you failed to explain how or why, in your baseless and ignorant opinion, it constitutes a “dangerous precedent,” the dainty.

 

[drudge X]

Who sent Pelosi to Taiwan over Xi’s objections?

Cut the crap. US has been antagonizing China for decades with massive weapons sales.

 

[Hollie]

Trump’s lie about the Epstein scandal being a hoax isn’t working, so he’s trying ‘wag the dog’.

Is that your best conspiracy theory?

 

[OhPleaseJustQuit]

Look. I am no fan of alleged drug dealers but I am also no fan of a single person deciding who lives and who dies as justice - why are you ok with it? That isnt how we operate as a nation, or at least didnt.

These were not enemy combatants. These were alleged smugglers. I certainly dont have all the details but if we are going to kill people we ought to make a case.

Shit, when they accidently deported that one guy they used a Bulls jersey as evidence he was a gang member. Its clear this administration will say pretty much anything to justify their actions. Remember when Trump said that guy really had MS13 tatood? He lied about that and it covered no one's death. How about a minutia of doubt from you?

.

TFB.

This is war.






.

 

[Rawley]

Don’t see anything about boarding, bombing or the loss of intel.

Of course you don't. You're blind.

 

[Hollie]

Look. I am no fan of alleged drug dealers but I am also no fan of a single person deciding who lives and who dies as justice - why are you ok with it? That isnt how we operate as a nation, or at least didnt.

These were not enemy combatants. These were alleged smugglers. I certainly dont have all the details but if we are going to kill people we ought to make a case.

Shit, when they accidently deported that one guy they used a Bulls jersey as evidence he was a gang member. Its clear this administration will say pretty much anything to justify their actions. Remember when Trump said that guy really had MS13 tatood? He lied about that and it covered no one's death. How about a minutia of doubt from you?

Cry me a river. Obama ordered the drone strike that killed Anwar al-Awlaki, a U.S. citizen. Did you send flowers and offer thoughts and prayers?

 

[konradv]

Cut the crap. US has been antagonizing China for decades with massive weapons sales.

Now you’re shilling for the CCP?!

 

[Robert W]

Dangerous precedent legally and otherwise. What say you - oh supposed great legal mind?

Dangerous for drug runners. Are you offended?

 

[Dante]

Dangerous for drug runners. Are you offended?

Why are you so stupid you have to resort to this on a very serious issue?

 

[Dante]

I say that to never claimed to be a great mind. Greater than yours. But that higher than a single while on a road.

And, you failed to explain how or why, in your baseless and ignorant opinion, it constitutes a “dangerous precedent,” the dainty.

You living in a bubble?

Even AI in it's infancy has the info at it's "fingertips"

AI Overview


News reports and analysts are raising concerns about a dangerous precedent set by a September 2025 U.S. military strike on a vessel in the Caribbean that allegedly contained drug traffickers
. Experts have questioned the legality and ethics of the attack, marking a shift from typical drug interdiction tactics.

Details of the strike

• Trump's announcement: On September 2, 2025, former President Donald Trump stated that U.S. forces had killed 11 "narco-terrorists" in a strike on a vessel in international waters that was allegedly transporting drugs from Venezuela. He identified the individuals as members of the Venezuelan Tren de Aragua gang.
• Expansion of military presence: The strike followed a major U.S. naval deployment to the southern Caribbean, and the Trump administration declared it was the beginning of a broader campaign against drug cartels.
• Confirmation from officials: Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Secretary of State Marco Rubio confirmed the strike, with Rubio stating that "What will stop them is when you blow them up, when you get rid of them".

Concerns about dangerous precedent
Deviation from standard practice. The lethal military strike is a significant departure from traditional U.S. drug interdiction, which previously focused on interception and law enforcement rather than lethal force without an apparent self-defense justification.

Questionable legality. Legal experts and human rights advocates have raised serious doubts about the legality of the strike under both U.S. and international law. The Trump administration has not yet provided its legal rationale, though it has invoked the language of "narco-terrorists" to frame the operation.

Risk of escalation. The strike has elevated tensions with Venezuela, which mobilized its military in response. This rapid military buildup in the Caribbean raises concerns about the potential for further escalation and a direct military confrontation.

Erosion of international norms. Human rights advocates have warned that the use of lethal, disproportionate force against a civilian vessel sets a dangerous precedent that could threaten international norms aimed at preventing unlawful violence at sea.

Use of executive power. Critics suggest the move expands the scope of executive power, arguing that a president does not have the authority to unilaterally declare a military operation of this nature.

Shift in framing. By reclassifying a drug interdiction operation as a counterterrorism effort, the administration is seen by some as attempting to provide a legal justification for actions that would not be permissible under law enforcement standards. Critics have compared the approach to the logic of the "Global War on Terror," which expanded the potential use of force

 

[Robert W]

Why are you so stupid you have to resort to this on a very serious issue?

My IQ tests dispute your false claims.

 

[OhPleaseJustQuit]

You living in a bubble?

Even AI in it's infancy has the info at it's "fingertips"

AI Overview


News reports and analysts are raising concerns about a dangerous precedent set by a September 2025 U.S. military strike on a vessel in the Caribbean that allegedly contained drug traffickers
. Experts have questioned the legality and ethics of the attack, marking a shift from typical drug interdiction tactics.

Details of the strike

• Trump's announcement: On September 2, 2025, former President Donald Trump stated that U.S. forces had killed 11 "narco-terrorists" in a strike on a vessel in international waters that was allegedly transporting drugs from Venezuela. He identified the individuals as members of the Venezuelan Tren de Aragua gang.
• Expansion of military presence: The strike followed a major U.S. naval deployment to the southern Caribbean, and the Trump administration declared it was the beginning of a broader campaign against drug cartels.
• Confirmation from officials: Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Secretary of State Marco Rubio confirmed the strike, with Rubio stating that "What will stop them is when you blow them up, when you get rid of them".

Concerns about dangerous precedent
Deviation from standard practice. The lethal military strike is a significant departure from traditional U.S. drug interdiction, which previously focused on interception and law enforcement rather than lethal force without an apparent self-defense justification.

Questionable legality. Legal experts and human rights advocates have raised serious doubts about the legality of the strike under both U.S. and international law. The Trump administration has not yet provided its legal rationale, though it has invoked the language of "narco-terrorists" to frame the operation.

Risk of escalation. The strike has elevated tensions with Venezuela, which mobilized its military in response. This rapid military buildup in the Caribbean raises concerns about the potential for further escalation and a direct military confrontation.

Erosion of international norms. Human rights advocates have warned that the use of lethal, disproportionate force against a civilian vessel sets a dangerous precedent that could threaten international norms aimed at preventing unlawful violence at sea.

Use of executive power. Critics suggest the move expands the scope of executive power, arguing that a president does not have the authority to unilaterally declare a military operation of this nature.

Shift in framing. By reclassifying a drug interdiction operation as a counterterrorism effort, the administration is seen by some as attempting to provide a legal justification for actions that would not be permissible under law enforcement standards. Critics have compared the approach to the logic of the "Global War on Terror," which expanded the potential use of force

.

AI must be the left's new god.

It's only going to be as good as its programmer. And definitely, it will be as biased as its programmer.

It's a tool, not an oracle.







.

 

[BackAgain]

You living in a bubble?

Even AI in it's infancy has the info at it's "fingertips"

AI Overview


News reports and analysts are raising concerns about a dangerous precedent set by a September 2025 U.S. military strike on a vessel in the Caribbean that allegedly contained drug traffickers
. Experts have questioned the legality and ethics of the attack, marking a shift from typical drug interdiction tactics.

Details of the strike

• Trump's announcement: On September 2, 2025, former President Donald Trump stated that U.S. forces had killed 11 "narco-terrorists" in a strike on a vessel in international waters that was allegedly transporting drugs from Venezuela. He identified the individuals as members of the Venezuelan Tren de Aragua gang.
• Expansion of military presence: The strike followed a major U.S. naval deployment to the southern Caribbean, and the Trump administration declared it was the beginning of a broader campaign against drug cartels.
• Confirmation from officials: Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Secretary of State Marco Rubio confirmed the strike, with Rubio stating that "What will stop them is when you blow them up, when you get rid of them".

Concerns about dangerous precedent
Deviation from standard practice. The lethal military strike is a significant departure from traditional U.S. drug interdiction, which previously focused on interception and law enforcement rather than lethal force without an apparent self-defense justification.

Questionable legality. Legal experts and human rights advocates have raised serious doubts about the legality of the strike under both U.S. and international law. The Trump administration has not yet provided its legal rationale, though it has invoked the language of "narco-terrorists" to frame the operation.

Risk of escalation. The strike has elevated tensions with Venezuela, which mobilized its military in response. This rapid military buildup in the Caribbean raises concerns about the potential for further escalation and a direct military confrontation.

Erosion of international norms. Human rights advocates have warned that the use of lethal, disproportionate force against a civilian vessel sets a dangerous precedent that could threaten international norms aimed at preventing unlawful violence at sea.

Use of executive power. Critics suggest the move expands the scope of executive power, arguing that a president does not have the authority to unilaterally declare a military operation of this nature.

Shift in framing. By reclassifying a drug interdiction operation as a counterterrorism effort, the administration is seen by some as attempting to provide a legal justification for actions that would not be permissible under law enforcement standards. Critics have compared the approach to the logic of the "Global War on Terror," which expanded the potential use of force

Oh. So, no actual dangerous precedent at all.

Take your meds now, the dainty.

 

[Robert W]

News reports and analysts are raising concerns about a dangerous precedent set by a September 2025 U.S. military strike on a vessel in the Caribbean that allegedly contained drug traffickers

Name the news report and name the analysists?

 

[Meathead]

Why are you so stupid you have to resort to this on a very serious issue?

Danger to drug runners is a very serious issue?!

 

[Robert W]

Details of the strike

• Trump's announcement: On September 2, 2025, former President Donald Trump stated that U.S. forces had killed 11 "narco-terrorists" in a strike on a vessel in international waters that was allegedly transporting drugs from Venezuela. He identified the individuals as members of the Venezuelan Tren de Aragua gang.

Trump is the present president.

 

[Robert W]

Why are you so stupid you have to resort to this on a very serious issue?

Trump takes drug running gangs very seriously When will you follow suit?

 

[OhPleaseJustQuit]

Trump takes drug running gangs very seriously When will you follow suit?

.

Illicit drugs keep the left cult anesthetized.

.

 

[Hollie]

You living in a bubble?

Even AI in it's infancy has the info at it's "fingertips"

AI Overview


News reports and analysts are raising concerns about a dangerous precedent set by a September 2025 U.S. military strike on a vessel in the Caribbean that allegedly contained drug traffickers
. Experts have questioned the legality and ethics of the attack, marking a shift from typical drug interdiction tactics.

Details of the strike

• Trump's announcement: On September 2, 2025, former President Donald Trump stated that U.S. forces had killed 11 "narco-terrorists" in a strike on a vessel in international waters that was allegedly transporting drugs from Venezuela. He identified the individuals as members of the Venezuelan Tren de Aragua gang.
• Expansion of military presence: The strike followed a major U.S. naval deployment to the southern Caribbean, and the Trump administration declared it was the beginning of a broader campaign against drug cartels.
• Confirmation from officials: Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Secretary of State Marco Rubio confirmed the strike, with Rubio stating that "What will stop them is when you blow them up, when you get rid of them".

Concerns about dangerous precedent
Deviation from standard practice. The lethal military strike is a significant departure from traditional U.S. drug interdiction, which previously focused on interception and law enforcement rather than lethal force without an apparent self-defense justification.

Questionable legality. Legal experts and human rights advocates have raised serious doubts about the legality of the strike under both U.S. and international law. The Trump administration has not yet provided its legal rationale, though it has invoked the language of "narco-terrorists" to frame the operation.

Risk of escalation. The strike has elevated tensions with Venezuela, which mobilized its military in response. This rapid military buildup in the Caribbean raises concerns about the potential for further escalation and a direct military confrontation.

Erosion of international norms. Human rights advocates have warned that the use of lethal, disproportionate force against a civilian vessel sets a dangerous precedent that could threaten international norms aimed at preventing unlawful violence at sea.

Use of executive power. Critics suggest the move expands the scope of executive power, arguing that a president does not have the authority to unilaterally declare a military operation of this nature.

Shift in framing. By reclassifying a drug interdiction operation as a counterterrorism effort, the administration is seen by some as attempting to provide a legal justification for actions that would not be permissible under law enforcement standards. Critics have compared the approach to the logic of the "Global War on Terror," which expanded the potential use of force

You poor dear. ,You're so concerned with the welfare of drug traffickers. The cartels are hiring if you want to make yourself a pile of shark bait.

 

[Robert W]

Why are you so stupid you have to resort to this on a very serious issue?

Why do you feel sorry about Venezuelan drug running boats and crews?