I may have found a way to spot U.S. at-sea strikes before they're announced

That’s why arrests are not an option.

I have no idea if they really were doing anything but it is the obvious cover if they were.

Does not imply a belief of innocence.

Quite the fascist take you got there, buddy.

edit: My bad. On closer reading I believe you might have said that tongue-in-cheek. Reading intent in text is hard.

What? The whole point of the "enemy combatant" designation is to say that they're not criminals and not PoWs either. I don't like it but it was the standard position under Bush, Obama, and Biden, there's nothing new here.

Also, IIRC the first strike killed 11 people. Why would you need, or want, 11 people to crew a fast boat that's supposed to be clandestine. Is it possible that they were smuggling people instead of or in addition to drugs? In which case, maybe we just killed some migrants who wanted to get out of Venezuela.

Know what Venezuela has a shit-ton of though? Oil. Guess who loves the oil, gas, and coal industries? If your answer involves someone orange you'd be right. Guess who got kicked out of Venezuela when Chavaz took over? If you said large multinational oil corporations you'd be correct.

On top of that donnie gets to look tough against a country that largely has no serious regional allies in fact I believe a lot of them are pissed, China has ties but they aren't going to ratchet up the trade fiasco over Maduro, russia is a bit busy punching itself in the balls and last I check Venezuelans aren't big fans of Maduro so donnie is basically riskless save domestically.

Also given the size of those boats I'd wager a solid amount on the total lost amount would be equivalent to taking out 8 McDonald's store shipments and claiming you've dealt a serious blow to McDonald's bottom line.

The same military used a 6 figure missile to shoot down a children's balloon https://www.npr.org/2023/02/18/1158048921/pico-balloon-k9yo

Who can blame them!

Ukraine has gone to extensive lengths to only target military and, more recently, energy infrastructure in Russia. They aren't blowing up random civilian vehicles or ships, and have a clear incentive to show that they aren't doing that.

Fighting drug smuggling is a flimsy pretext for why the US is blowing up random ships, although it's apparently one some people are willing to believe. Take the same actions but change up the countries and the reactions would be very different. This is about Trump doing yet another tough guy show of force against a much weaker country he feels safe enough bullying.

Source? Piracy's definition under UNCLOS seems pretty tight [1].

[1] https://www.un.org/depts/los/piracy/piracy_legal_framework.h...

https://www.marinepublic.com/blogs/marine-law/294870-unclos-...

Yes. The precedent being established would let e.g. China or Russia pot a yacht on the high seas for reasons which only work under their own laws.

I bet some environmentalist will argue that gold smuggling is worse than drug trafficking, but still, my bet is that most of the kills were trafficked people and gold smugglers.

True, but the legal precedent this sets is very important. The requirement for sound legal justification is the only leverage the Judicial branch has. Today's Supreme Court may be too deferential to the President, but that's not to say they don't have a line (listen to yesterday's hearing on tariffs). Also, the Supreme Court a decade from now will rely on today's justifications.

I do not want to give any President the power to unilaterally conduct military killings of people he considers a terrorist. For this specific President, remember that he's declared Antifa a terrorist organization. And that he has very casually accused a lot of citizens as being in Antifa before.

You say that, but the lady who just won it this year is practically cheering on the prospect of Trump taking military action _on her own country_ to overthrow their leader. So I don't think thirst for war or death precludes winning a peace prize, unfortunately

https://www.politico.com/news/2025/11/05/machado-praises-tru...

You don't need to think about military personnel or reconnaissance teams. They all report to the president, and as such don't have much choice in the matter. You already said that you think Trump is an idiot.

I maintain that he's doing this because he thinks it intimidates people and makes him look strong. When, in the past, has he ever worried about getting caught doing something wrong or stupid?

[1]: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/18/us-military-dr...

However, most (if not all?) of the intended targets of Obama's drone strikes were targets with a pretty reasonable connection to the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military force. So those drone strikes were likely "legal" and covered under what Congress enabled when it passed that law and has so far failed to repeal. Theoretically, these were all people Congress agreed we were essentially at war with. Congress can choose to repeal the AUMF at any time, and could have done so during Obama's term.

I don't think there's any reasonable interpretation that random boats of the coast of Venezuela have any connection to 9/11 though, and thus there's pretty much no way to contort an argument that these actions are then somehow allowable. If Trump wants to go to war against Venezuela, he needs to get Congress to approve.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Milit...

This military action in the Caribbean does not have that approval, and I don't think there is any way of categorizing the smuggling of drugs as a part of terrorism. Bad and illegal, and worthy of policing, yes. Terrorism, no.

And to be even more specific: I think that there is good evidence that in many countries the drug cartels are committing terroristic acts in many South American countries in order to force the populations there to accede to them. But those are in those countries, and are not directed at the United States. And blowing up boats that the U.S. suspects are carrying narcotics (sometimes not even on their way to the U.S.), is not fighting that terrorism.

In the case of alleged terrorists being targeted by drone strikes, it would be risky in many cases to try to apprehend those individuals. They are in foreign countries or parts thereof which are not under U.S. control or control of an ally.

Maybe this hasn't been aired on Fox News, but people are:

https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/colombian-killed-us-strike-...

See also Cuba emptying its jails and sending the prisoners to Florida: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/criminals-in-exodus-from-...

What? The king of England hasn't denied that they're drug smuggling vessels either, it doesn't mean he's admitting they are. I don't understand this logic at all.

Shouldn't there be some evidence at least that this is the case? Maybe capture the boat and show the drugs, instead of just blowing up any chance of evidence?

Cartels will be fine though, do not worry. USA credibility, less and less.

Why resort to madness and slaughter?

I believe they are murdering geographically-selected fisherman and painting them as traffickers targeting the US (even though this is implausible for multiple reasons) as propaganda to manifest justifying “escalation” in a war they have been claiming even before they started those publicized murders was being actively fought between Venezuela in the US as a pretext for bypassing due process and moving toward direct executive fiat and militarization of civilian life within the US, starting with the invocation of the Alien Enemies Act on March 15.

For instance, the CIA was following the preacher Roni Bowers cessna plane as suspicious for drug trafficking. And then she was shot down, and her family killed. Because intelligence is often wrong.

Now you'll point out, after they were shot down, magically it was uncovered the CIA actually suggested the people that shot them down not do it. Even though the CIA was the one sticking them on them in the first place.[] If they had actually been drug traffickers, or just nobodies, of course, we'd hear precisely what we've been hearing about these vessels, which is jack squat from the government other than they killed the "drug traffickers" and we'd never hear about the voices that recommend they not.

If they end up killing a preacher or a scientist in the future, you can be sure they'll magically find the same evidence. "We warned them not to this time, but they did it anyway."

[] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001_Peru_Cessna_185_shootdown

The US has gone to war with entire countries over complete bullshit. Remember WMDs? Gulf of Tonkin? Do you really think the current government is above killing a few randos to make themselves look good?

But in this case the point is a bit moot anyway as laws of war apply only to losers.

The US attacks people and countries without declaring war.

If anyone did this to the US, can you imagine the butt-hurt response?

which this is not, so what's your point?

To me it sounds like that killing was (possibly) illegal. Idk about that 2006 Act though. From a moral stand point it doesn't matter if it was (possibly) illegal or not however.

This is not how to deal with The Drug War™, it's very expensive theater that does nothing to address the problem. In fact that very war is the reason why it's a problem in the first place. Remember that an earlier batch of dangerous drug dealers were Americans working out of doctors' offices.

  > not a US citizen ***on US soil*** US law does not apply.

2) US law definitely applies to non citizens on US soil.

Like that's such a ridiculous statement. Even if the law was "we can do whatever if you're not a citizen", that's still law...

You think non citizens are all sovereign citizens bound to no law? To be able to do whatever they want? I didn't know my neighbor was a diplomat.

I think you mean rights. Which this is much more dubious. The constitution definitely interchanges the use of "citizens" and "people". Notably the 11th amendment uses citizens, specifying belonging to states foreign or domestic. It was ratified only a few years after the Bill of rights, so not like a drastic language change happened.

There are people who will argue "the people" means "citizens" but I find that a difficult interpretation if you read the constitution or federalist papers.

Does not maKE SENSE... Why are people extradited to US from overseas locations .

Like why they want Julian Assange ?

"not US citizen" on "not US soil" is what I meant.

Sorry for the firestorm this created!

What I mean to say is that the USA INTENTIONALLY violates rights of people outside the USA, expressed in things like the Patriot Act re:wiretapping, and also the spaces between passport control where they say "USA laws don't apply, our agents have purview to do essentially anything". If you check the discussions in the 00s about this the fed govt was very dicey and you can tell they were chomping at the bit to be able to have essentially NO OVERSIGHT on any of these massive violations of people's rights.

I'll take the karma hit, there is no way to edit it apparently. Sorry!

Not as in a literal flag flying on the submarine. (Though they do fly flags near ports and such)

So for example it would be a war crime to punish someone for fighting in an opposing army. You can hold them as a prisoner of war for the duration of the conflict, but its supposed to be a means of keeping them out of a fight and not a punishment per se.

I think the biggest difference is that crimes can generally be punished after the fact. A murderer can be punished whenever they are caught. A soldier can be shot at at the time, but if they decide they are tired of the war and run away to a farm or something, they are now civilians and can no longer be shot at or punished for previously being a soldier (unless they comitted war crimes) even if the war is still raging on.

Ironically, by violating U.S. laws they made it virtually impossible to try Gitmo prisoners. They would have been better off presenting evidence at trial in the first place.