Venezuela 2025

[barnhart]

How a society treats outsiders will set the pattern for the way they will treat internal dissent. We, as a society, are choosing the treatment of our grandchildren.

… our grandchildren are running drug boats from Colombia and Venezuela?

Fishing boats.

Yes. Dehumanization will not stay in discreet categories.

[Bootstrap]

Is anybody actually claiming they're "fishing boats" anymore?

What does this have to do w the price of beans? They are carrying drugs...Iraq had WMD.

Do we actually have any public evidence that these boats were carrying drugs? If there are confirmed reports, lab results, seizures, or official statements that identify drugs on board, I’d be interested to see them. But so far, all I’ve seen are claims without publicly verifiable sources.

And even if some boats were carrying drugs, that doesn’t automatically prove that all of them were. Do we actually know who is on each of these boats? Do even the military authorities know that with certainty? Those are good things to know before you start killing people. Especially with no declared war and no police jurisdiction.

So far, when individuals have been captured and we’ve had the ability to hold a transparent, public trial, they’ve instead been transferred to other countries. A public trial would give us clarity, at least for a particular prisoner.

[Southerner]

Is anybody actually claiming they're "fishing boats" anymore?

What does this have to do w the price of beans? They are carrying drugs...Iraq had WMD.

Do we actually have any public evidence that these boats were carrying drugs?

Yes, per a previous poast, all the newspapers cited that the boats were smuggling drugs. Case solved!

[temporal1]

mike:
Doesn't all this stem from designating drug cartels as terrorists, which apparently unlocks some kind of special permission to engage them with military force, no declaration of war necessary?

The terrorist designation includes extra penalties, i’m not sure of details. i’m not against extra penalties, esp for PREVENTION.

terrorist acts are infamous for the smallest number of perpetrators killing the largest numbers of usually unarmed, unwarned, defenseless targets, and doing maximum damage in general, example, NY skyscrapers.

9-11-2001:
10 terrorists killed 3000 unarmed people, billions in damages? Roll out the welcome mat?!

Terrorists have tremendous advantage - there is no surprise they are targeted, they have abundant warning.

i can’t imagine any earthly government not wanting to protect+defend its legal law abiding citizens from such attacks.

outside breaking laws of aiding+abetting, if Christians want to welcome and protect, do so! not with taxpayer dollars.
converted hearts are #1. not the work of earthly governments. hopefully, earthly governments will allow Christians.
not all do.

i very much want gov to have good intelligence before any strike. today’s tech offers many tools.
i do not use the pronoun “we” when referring to gov. i do not have access to gov resources. no security clearances!

i do not celebrate ANY loss of life, not even osama bin laden’s.
i have to accept life on earth can be violent, governments are part of it. i don’t like it. i have to accept many things i do not like.

God sees all, and is in control.

[Southerner]

To answer your question, nations which decide they are at war with a hostile enemy don’t generally send out police to try to detain the enemy and engage in trials.

The administration’s position is that Venezuela is a hostile enemy and is engaging in intentional drug trafficking to the U.S. as a matter of their national policy. I would agree that is a hostile act. If Venezuela doesn’t want to experience military action against them, then they should stop trying to smuggle drugs into other countries and instead take action against their own drug traffickers.

Oh, did Congress declare war on Venezuela? I must have missed that.

If the "administration" decided on its own that it is at war with a hostile enemy then these drug boat strikes are certainly not legal military actions if Congress hasn't declared war.

Doesn't all this stem from designating drug cartels as terrorists, which apparently unlocks some kind of special permission to engage them with military force, no declaration of war necessary?

Which was a post 9/11 response by Bush? And what involvement did Congress have regarding giving Bush this authorization? Need to look it up when I have a chance.

[Bootstrap]

Doesn't all this stem from designating drug cartels as terrorists, which apparently unlocks some kind of special permission to engage them with military force, no declaration of war necessary?

FTO designation does not authorize military action. The President still needs some form of congressional authorization to use military force overseas, unless: (1) the U.S. is responding to an imminent attack, or (2) the action fits within an existing Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF).

So I don't think declaring them terrorists means the military can just kill them. Not legally.

[mike]

Doesn't all this stem from designating drug cartels as terrorists, which apparently unlocks some kind of special permission to engage them with military force, no declaration of war necessary?

FTO designation does not authorize military action. The President still needs some form of congressional authorization to use military force overseas, unless: (1) the U.S. is responding to an imminent attack, or (2) the action fits within an existing Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF).

So I don't think declaring them terrorists means the military can just kill them. Not legally.

These actions are the latest in a very long list of military actions taken in the last 50-60 years by the US government without explicit congressional approval. By far not the first and probably not the last.

[Bootstrap]

These actions are the latest in a very long list of military actions taken in the last 50-60 years by the US government without explicit congressional approval. By far not the first and probably not the last.

True.

When the government bypasses Congress and asks us to “just believe them,” we have a long track record telling us not to believe them.

Gulf of Tonkin, the Cambodia bombings, Iran-Contra, the Iraq war, drone strikes and targeted killings ... again and again, presidents of both parties have lied to us, repeatedly, to justify killing people.

[barnhart]

Is anybody actually claiming they're "fishing boats" anymore?

What does this have to do w the price of beans? They are carrying drugs...Iraq had WMD.

I find this a reasonable parallel. It felt a little lonely to be suspicious of that war, the support was bipartisan and at high pitch.

[ken_sylvania]

To answer your question, nations which decide they are at war with a hostile enemy don’t generally send out police to try to detain the enemy and engage in trials.

The administration’s position is that Venezuela is a hostile enemy and is engaging in intentional drug trafficking to the U.S. as a matter of their national policy. I would agree that is a hostile act. If Venezuela doesn’t want to experience military action against them, then they should stop trying to smuggle drugs into other countries and instead take action against their own drug traffickers.

Oh, did Congress declare war on Venezuela? I must have missed that.

If the "administration" decided on its own that it is at war with a hostile enemy then these drug boat strikes are certainly not legal military actions if Congress hasn't declared war.

Doesn't all this stem from designating drug cartels as terrorists, which apparently unlocks some kind of special permission to engage them with military force, no declaration of war necessary?

That's the story...