Venezuela 2025

[temporal1]

JohnH:
Well, it's OK if someone from my preferred political party does bad things.

In U.S. history, it has seemed to me, in my unofficial, pretty ignorant, layman’s view, when it comes to military action, Congress typically “glazes over” and becomes brain-dead in support, regardless of party. Iraq being a prime example, of many, Ukraine being the latest example.

With T in office, “all bets are off”. Suddenly they all forgot they’re dedicated war mongers.

[Szdfan]

1) The air strikes against Venezuelan speed boats may actually not be legal. The US is not at war with Venezuela. These speed boats are civilian, not military targets.

Conveniently, the U.S. hasn't been "at war" in a very long time (certainly not in my lifetime). That neatly sidesteps much of the argument about "war crimes".

Even though the administration has declared some of the cartels “terrorist groups,” we actually don’t know whether the targets were part of these cartels. Without any kind of due process or oversight, this terrorist designation is arbitrary. The president shouldn’t just be able to declare someone a “terrorist” and start killing arbitrarily. Hopefully the proposed Armed Services Committee Investigation will provide answers.

Well, the President can, and that's been the law on the books since I was a teenager. The President can indeed designate groups terrorist groups, and such a designee is neither a civilian target nor a military target.

The administration is acting boldly, but the legality of this is murky. There need to be investigations both by Congress and international groups. By systematically firing the JAG corps, the Trump administration removed the legal guardrails to prevent this from happening.

There's nothing "murky" about it. This has been how the U.S. government has operated for over 20 years, including prior administration (except maybe Biden's. I don't know anything about him randomly drone-striking "terrorists".)

2) While the legality of the entire operation is murky, the killing of “incapacitated” participants is not. Under the Geneva Convention, it’s clearly a war crime. The US military had a legal obligation to rescue them and detain them as prisoners of war (if in fact we are war with the cartels, which is also murky.)

Ah, but it's not a war, so the Geneva Convention doesn't apply. They are not prisoners of war either. Remember how they're "terrorists"?

I completely agree that the “rules of war” are often murky, ironic and frustrating. But I’d rather live in a world where there are at least some constraints to military action, than none at all. Removing these imperfect guardrails means more extrajudicial killings with no accountability at all.

It should be rather obvious that the world's superpowers, like the U.S., the Soviet Union, Russia, China, and so on, are not bound by any kind of "rules of war". They should be viewed more as treaties between superpowers for how they interact with one another.

Since the various terrorist groups don't exactly engage in diplomatic relations or become signatories to various treaties, they aren't part of any sort of "Geneva Convention", and there is also no sort of treaty that sets the rules for how various nations interact with terrorist groups.

Lest I sound like I am overly critical of how the world's superpowers deal with terrorists, I will acknowledge that it's a rather tricky thing to deal with terrorist groups.

John, I think the best response is to point to the statement by the Former JAG Working Group I cited in another thread —

If the U.S. military operation to interdict and destroy suspected narcotraficking vessels is a “non-international armed conflict, ” as the Trump Administration suggests, orders to “kill everybody, ” which can reasonably be regarded as an order to give “no quarter, ” and to “double-tap” a target in order to kill survivors, are clearly illegal under international law. In short, they are war crimes.

If the U.S. military operation is not an armed conflict of any kind, these orders to kill helpless civilians clinging to the wreckage of a vessel our military destroyed would subject everyone from SECDEF down to the individual who pulled the trigger to prosecution under U.S. law for murder.

So either the US is at war and the Geneva Convention applies, or it’s not at war and this is murder.

[temporal1]

Former JAG Working Group I

OR ..
whatever actual courts (not opinions of former official individuals/groups) will review and rule in due time.

it’s fine to have opinions about opinions, it can be an interesting way to pass time. it’s fine to enjoy educated opinions. i do.
it’s important to realize that’s the extent of what they are. opinions.

the thing about due process in actual courts of law is, they so often rule in unexpected ways.
that’s what makes due process so important. the unknown, the unexpected.

[JohnH]

So either the US is at war and the Geneva Convention applies, or it’s not at war and this is murder.

Or they’re “terrorists” and what was done is entirely legal. Been on the books for over 20 years.

[JohnH]

Former JAG Working Group I

OR ..
whatever actual courts (not opinions of former official individuals/groups) will review and rule in due time.

it’s fine to have opinions about opinions, it can be an interesting way to pass time. it’s fine to enjoy educated opinions. i do.
it’s important to realize that’s the extent of what they are. opinions.

the thing about due process in actual courts of law is, they so often rule in unexpected ways.
that’s what makes due process so important. the unknown, the unexpected.

This particular panel is just a partisan entity anyway. It’s notable they don’t talk about the statutes that authorize this very thing.

[JimFoxvog]

So either the US is at war and the Geneva Convention applies, or it’s not at war and this is murder.

Or they’re “terrorists” and what was done is entirely legal. Been on the books for over 20 years.

Name someone a "terrorist," and no laws apply? That's convenient! Could you point us to the law that authorizes this?

[Szdfan]

So either the US is at war and the Geneva Convention applies, or it’s not at war and this is murder.

Or they’re “terrorists” and what was done is entirely legal. Been on the books for over 20 years.

Name someone a "terrorist," and no laws apply? That's convenient! Could you point us to the law that authorizes this?

I was wondering about that too. If the government declared they the Anabaptists were terrorist organizations, they could kill us with impunity too?

[temporal1]

This particular panel is just a partisan entity anyway. It’s notable they don’t talk about the statutes that authorize this very thing.

i’m not sure why the rush and passion to judge.
Withholding judgment doesn’t mean you can’t go ahead and hate all you want in the meantime.

[Soloist]

Or they’re “terrorists” and what was done is entirely legal. Been on the books for over 20 years.

Name someone a "terrorist," and no laws apply? That's convenient! Could you point us to the law that authorizes this?

I was wondering about that too. If the government declared they the Anabaptists were terrorist organizations, they could kill us with impunity too?

Don't be unreasonable! that would never happen in this great country of ethics and morals.

[barnhart]

Name someone a "terrorist," and no laws apply? That's convenient! Could you point us to the law that authorizes this?

I was wondering about that too. If the government declared they the Anabaptists were terrorist organizations, they could kill us with impunity too?

Don't be unreasonable! that would never happen in this great country of ethics and morals.

I think this is a reasonable analogy considering actual history. A good slice of the persecution of Anabaptists was due to their failure to support the church states in their struggle against Islamic invasion. (I see your irony Soloist).