Venezuela 2025

[JohnH]

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

Sure could, and it would be legal, too. One of the many problems with laws passed over 20 years ago that, for whatever reason, neither political party has expended any energy against repealing.

[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.

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

The laws do apply. They just basically create a new class of armed conflict that is not called "declaring war" but the government is "allowed" to engage in, as they call it, "kinetic action" against designated terrorists.

About the only transparency is that it's a matter of public record who is designated a terrorist group. As you may recall, Tulsi Gabbard was somehow designated as a terrorist threat before the last election, and thus was harassed anytime she tried to fly anywhere. They didn't go as far as drone-striking her, though.

[temporal1]

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).

Just above, P.6, there is admission of not even knowing what the label “terrorism” entails.
Wallowing in speculative fear isn’t something i notice Jesus promoting. He loves the little children, tho. Fear not.

How the world really works, according to Jesus Christ who loved the little children.
Matthew 19:14 / https://biblehub.com/matthew/19-14.htm

Frankly, looking back on my life, witnessing my children, now my granddaughter navigating, i think anything else is inexplicable.
As Cardinal Sarah titled one book: God or Nothing

“for some reason i can’t explain” ..
https://www.instagram.com/reel/DRc_pOjChfm/

sandrakingsdaughter WROTE:
When I am facing enemy I will fear no evil, knowing Jesus is with me.
Fighting my battles and never leaving me from His sight.

The battle is His, I only have to pick up my sword, which is Word of God.
Fear no evil, He is with you.

2 Timothy 1:7
https://biblehub.com/2_timothy/1-7.htm

God’s children ..
https://biblehub.com/topical/i/identity ... ildren.htm

The concept of believers being identified as God's children is a profound and central theme in Christian theology,
reflecting the intimate relationship between God and those who follow Him.

This identity is not merely a metaphorical expression but a transformative reality that shapes the believer's life, purpose, and destiny. ..

[temporal1]

The laws do apply. They just basically create a new class of armed conflict that is not called "declaring war" but the government is "allowed" to engage in, as they call it, "kinetic action" against designated terrorists.

About the only transparency is that it's a matter of public record who is designated a terrorist group. As you may recall,
Tulsi Gabbard was somehow designated as a terrorist threat before the last election, and thus was harassed anytime she tried to fly anywhere. They didn't go as far as drone-striking her, though.

Not to forget unarmed parents (domestic terrorists) daring to question school boards over porn in libraries+schools.

[Szdfan]

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

Sure could, and it would be legal, too. One of the many problems with laws passed over 20 years ago that, for whatever reason, neither political party has expended any energy against repealing.

I appreciate the honesty, John. I understand that you’re saying the government can kill anyone it deems a terrorist with impunity and without oversight. Which statutes permit this?

[JohnH]

I appreciate the honesty, John. I understand that you’re saying the government can kill anyone it deems a terrorist with impunity and without oversight. Which statutes permit this?

There is "oversight". The government has oversight over itself. See how that works?

From a 30,000 foot perspective, Congress certainly has oversight over these things (including being able to see classified information), and the judiciary does, too. For operations conducted against terrorists on U.S. soil, they would be subject to FISA courts, which conveniently have virtually everything secret. Congress does have oversight over them, too.

I'm not sure why you're questioning me that "statutes permit this". Obama did the exact same thing. It's not like there are any credible charges of war crimes against him or risk of prosecution.

In addition, it's come out that, no, nobody killed any survivors of the first blast. The idea anyone would survive on a small vessel being blasted by a missile like that was preposterous anyway. But assuming this were a war (which it isn't), the duty to rescue prisoners of war would only extend once those prisoners surrendered. The U.S. often in WWII took multiple shots at a ship after the point at which it was disabled and there were still "survivors" on it, and just finished the whole ship off.

[Szdfan]

I appreciate the honesty, John. I understand that you’re saying the government can kill anyone it deems a terrorist with impunity and without oversight. Which statutes permit this?

There is "oversight". The government has oversight over itself. See how that works?

From a 30,000 foot perspective, Congress certainly has oversight over these things (including being able to see classified information), and the judiciary does, too. For operations conducted against terrorists on U.S. soil, they would be subject to FISA courts, which conveniently have virtually everything secret. Congress does have oversight over them, too.

I'm not sure why you're questioning me that "statutes permit this". Obama did the exact same thing. It's not like there are any credible charges of war crimes against him or risk of prosecution.

In addition, it's come out that, no, nobody killed any survivors of the first blast. The idea anyone would survive on a small vessel being blasted by a missile like that was preposterous anyway. But assuming this were a war (which it isn't), the duty to rescue prisoners of war would only extend once those prisoners surrendered. The U.S. often in WWII took multiple shots at a ship after the point at which it was disabled and there were still "survivors" on it, and just finished the whole ship off.

Thanks for the clarifications, John. I'm a bit concerned about your use of WWII war crimes as precedent for war crimes today. The adoption of the Geneva Conventions in 1949 and the creation of war crime tribunals was in response to WWII atrocities. They are not a justification for current behavior, but rather why there need to be constraints on military action.

The implication of your argument is that the criminal prosecution of Slobodan Milošević for the genocide of Bosnian Muslims during the Yugoslavian Civil War was unjustified because governments have the right to kill whoever they want.

So what I hear you saying is the following:

• The government can kill anyone it designates a terrorist, even U.S. citizens.
• There is no independent oversight since “the government oversees itself.”
• And there is no specific statute authorizing this, because it’s done through secret processes and executive discretion.

What I'm not seeing in your argument is a clear legal basis. If this is really lawful authority and not extrajudicial power, then there should be statutes and court decisions that can be clearly cited to support this.

So I'll ask again:

Which specific statute authorizes the government to carry out extrajudicial killings of people it labels terrorists outside declared war zones and without judicial review or due process?

Thanks.

[temporal1]

JohnH:
In addition, it's come out that, no, nobody killed any survivors of the first blast. ..

i’m not sure why so many rush to react, when so often, initial drama is found inaccurate. The circus knows its audience.

[Szdfan]

JohnH:
In addition, it's come out that, no, nobody killed any survivors of the first blast. ..

i’m not sure why so many rush to react, when so often, initial drama is found inaccurate. The circus knows its audience.

Where did that come out? I haven’t found a source supporting that claim.

[Bootstrap]

It really shows the fallacy of having rules in war, when you are free to blast a speedboat out of the water and kill everyone on it that is not attacking anyone or is armed (let’s presume since that wouldn’t matter either way), and yet if you follow up and kill the survivors, it suddenly and somehow is greatly immoral and illegal.

It also shows that humans know deep down that killing people is wrong. But we want to kill people anyway, so we carve out allowable times to do so. Which in this case means that you must kill them with the first missile. What a tangled web we weave.

Your analysis assumes that (1) we are legally at war with Venezuala and (2) these boats are acting as agents for the government of Venezuela. In that case, it's correct - it's legal to use military force against it.

But killing shipwrecked survivors is illegal, whether or not we are at war with them. Even in war, shipwrecked survivors are no longer a military threat, andthey are protected under international law (they are considered "out of combat", Google "hors de combat" for details). Legally, attacking a boat is treated as disabling a military asset.

And outside of war, using force against a boat is permitted only to stop an imminent threat during law enforcement or self-defense operations (for example, a stateless smuggling boat firing on a Coast Guard cutter, or a vessel attempting to ram a ship). Once the vessel is no longer a threat, killing the survivors is simply murder. If the boat is not an imminent threat, then firing on the boat in the first place is simply murder.

Outside of war, suspicion of drug smuggling is never legal grounds to fire on a vessel. At most, it justifies stopping, boarding, or searching it. It does not justify lethal force.