Posted on 11/30/2025 6:35:06 PM PST by RandFan
An explosive Washington Post report, the subject of so much discussion the past two days, says that, in the first missile strike the Trump Defense Department carried out against operatives of a boat suspected of transporting narcotics on the high seas off Venezuela, two survivors were rendered shipwrecked. As they clung to the wreckage, the U.S. commander ordered a second strike, which killed them.
If this happened as described in the Post report, it was, at best, a war crime under federal law. I say “at best” because, as regular readers know, I believe the attacks on these suspected drug boats — without congressional authorization, under circumstances in which the boat operators pose no military threat to the United States, and given that narcotics trafficking is defined in federal law as a crime rather than as terrorist activity, much less an act of war — are lawless and therefore that the killings are not legitimate under the law or armed conflict. (See my Saturday column, with links to prior posts on this subject.)
Nevertheless, even if we stipulate arguendo that the administration has a colorable claim that our forces are in an armed conflict with non-state actors (i.e., suspected members of drug cartels that the administration has dubiously designated as foreign terrorist organizations (FTOs)), the laws of war do not permit the killing of combatants who have been rendered hors de combat (out of the fighting) — including by shipwreck.
To reiterate, I don’t accept that the ship operators are enemy combatants — even if one overlooks that the administration has not proven that they are drug traffickers or members of designated FTOs. There is no armed conflict. They may be criminals (if it is proven that they are importing illegal narcotics), but they are not combatants.
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com ...
Andrew McCarthy, who never saw an action that Trumpmever did and being legal, is now a military lawyer.
Hmm. Interesting
>> Vaporize drug smugglers. We should be burning their villas by now.
I like the way you think.
One of the reasons Trump was elected was to act to defend the US so the military can act without having one hand tied behind its back by lawyers.
They're unlawful combatants not entitled to the protections of the Geneva Conventions or the laws of war.
Who makes that decision under our Constitution? The President. Not the courts. The hand-wringing cucks at NR can suck it up.
Worked for Noriega.
When it rains it pours
>I view these guys as more morally culpable than opposing soldiers in a war.
Yes, not just “you view” but all the conventions of war distinguish between uniformed soldiers and un-uniformed combatants.
The former get the protection of the rules of war because they’re clearly distinguished from civilians.
The latter are given exactly no protection and deserve none because by conducting war while appearing as civilians they endanger every ordinary person in conflicts.
The left and whiney RINOs (and Rand fans, obviously) want to give terrorists and drug runners conducting asymmetrical warfare against us both the protections of civilians under law AND the protections of soldiers in war.
Not only does 30 seconds reading the various conventions dispel that, but lo, do anyone with two working brain cells think we’d *broadcast* this footage if there was any doubt?
(Vaporize drug smugglers)
I have no problem with that
The “war on drugs” started in 1971.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_drugs
Since then, tell me when the total amount of overdose deaths went down?
I would argue almost all of the anti-drug initiatives are a total waste of time.
Let me be calloused but I think realistic. Don’t legalize it, it’s destructive and you do not want to be in the business of condoning it. You don’t want to fuel the crisis.
But the focus should be on containment geographically, keep the filth out of neighborhoods that don’t want this and schools etc.
Basically, if someone wants to eliminate themselves from the gene pool, go ahead. I’m going to advise you against it, but I’m not going to waste my time and energy talking you off the edge.
You and Andy McCarthy.
Impeach him again.
It worked so well in your favor the previous two hoaxes.
Maybe he’ll get 2028 as the best FAFO if he and the US Military abolishes the current Swamp Branches of the Swamp Banana Republic and we can start back at #1 instead of 45-47.
During the Obama years, he routinely attacked suspected terrorists with missile strikes. The targets were “terrorists” because his administration said so. More often than not, there was “collateral” damage - innocent citizens killed by the blast, including at least one American citizen. These people indisputably posed no threat to the USA. Every strike carried a chance, if not a likelihood, that some innocent would be killed. Nonetheless, this never stopped Obama. Their killing was justified because innocents are killed in war.
And no one said the people in these attacks were innocent.
Where were these legal scholars then?
Additionally, there is a specific statute allowing us to intercept boats carrying drug in international waters.
They are killing far more of us, this is self defense. President is preventing the wholesale slaughter of Americans.
I approve and support him.
Works for me.
That's a pretty stupid statement.
If the National Review jumps off a bridge, are you going to also?
No, YOU run interference for and aid the left
Didn’t NR several times specifically publish anti Trump editions? So basically, the usual mental masturbator... feeling important is everything...
No. But they are openly anti Trump. So, you bragging that “Even NR said so,” is really ridiculous. Either uninformed or lying, they are simply mental masturbation.
“Even National Review says it out loud”
Even National Review??
What is it with “even.”
National Review is a sodomy pushing clown magazine.
They are pirates, Mr. McCarthy.
Regardless of what that slobbering moron thinks after he pulls his nose out of Rand Paul's ass, this country has solid moral ground to stand on.
We have plenty of allies in this action who are willing to back us up on this.
This is a good article at American Thinker that expands on this: LINK: Caribbean nations lining up to join Trump's bid to stomp out Venezuela narcoregime
RandFan can side with China, Cuba, and Venezuela on this. But these countries in the Caribbean are being ravaged by Venezuela's activities. Here is a quote from the article:
"Trinidad and Tobago Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar has been a vocal supporter of the Trump administration’s actions off the islands. "I have no sympathy for traffickers,” she said after the first strike — in September — killed 11 people. “The U.S. military should kill them all violently."
I completely agree. RandFan is so deranged that he first signed on with the Leftists who were saying these are innocent fishermen being murdered by the US military, then, when that fell apart, and he was exposed as a Useful Idiot (as was is his idol, Rand Paul) he had to fall back on: "Well, okay, they aren't innocent fishermen, but we can't kill them as if they were soldiers, they aren't even wearing uniforms."
Normal, well adjusted people who are rooted in history understand that people waging war against a country who aren't wearing uniforms are the first ones who should be killed without mercy.
I don’t give a sh*t.
All involved in the illegal drug trade should be forced to understand that their life is now forfeit.
Do it? DIE!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
