Venezuela 2025

[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.

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

Bottom of P.5 cites one source / USA TODAY / https://forum.mennonet.com/viewtopic.ph ... 0&start=40

[Szdfan]

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.

Bottom of P.5 cites one source / USA TODAY / https://forum.mennonet.com/viewtopic.ph ... 0&start=40

You mean this?

Regarding allegations:

USA TODAY:

.. U.S Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth is lashing out at a report that he ordered military officials to "kill them all" during one of the Trump administration's strikes in the Caribbean aimed a boat allegedly carrying drug cargo.

"As usual, the fake news is delivering more fabricated, inflammatory, and derogatory reporting to discredit our incredible warriors fighting to protect the homeland," Hegseth, 45, said in a Nov. 28 post on X.

The defense secretary was responding to a Washington Post story citing two anonymous sources that claimed he ordered troops to leave no survivors after a missile struck the vessel, which was traveling off the Trinidad coast, as two individuals were clinging to the smoldering wreckage. ..

^^”WaPo story citing two anonymous sources”

That doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. All that means is that Hegseth denies it happened and uses his usual inflammatory “fake news” rhetoric. Considering the vindictiveness of this administration, it’s not surprising that Washington Post relied on anonymous sources. Happens all the time.

This is why a congressional investigation is necessary.

[JohnH]

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.

He got prosecuted because he lost and the winners generally punish the losers when it comes to wars.

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.”

Oversight is Congress. We live in a democracy. American voters keep voting for congressmen and Presidents who pass and enforce such legislation.

[*]And there is no specific statute authorizing this, because it’s done through secret processes and executive discretion.[/list]

I said no such thing. It’s expressly authorized by laws passed over two decades ago and which haven’t been repealed.

[JohnH]

For those who are observing my “debate” with Szdfan:

I don’t put much stock in the idea of “rules of war”. The weak will be conquered by the strong. Sometimes, the strong are fighting other strong people and it is to their benefit to temporarily claim to protect (some) of the weak.

Victors will write rules making their vanquished enemies out to be evil people worthy of punishment. They do not write rules subjecting themselves to punishment.

There is of course one nuance to this: when party A is in power, an is one of the strong, party B out-of-power may crow loudly about how what party A is doing is wrong, and there should be rules against it. When party B is in power, their advocacy for that generally vanishes and they will instead use that power for themselves.

To highlight the level of absurdity of this:

This debate is about whether it’s wrong for a second strike on “survivors” of an assault on a small vessel. So apparently they would be more morally justified in making sure to kill the crew of the vessel with the first strike?

Is that really something worth debating?



There was no second strike. So is the assault on the vessel somehow… better now? Bothers you less? Complies with international law (whatever that is)?

[Soloist]

John’s argument is actually very similar to mine. He approaches it as a matter of fact, the winner writes the rules. I agree completely with his argument, but my point is focused more on the claim for moral superiority.

[JohnH]

This begs the question of what "morality" is. Without Jesus, "morality" is often defined by whoever is strongest / most powerful ultimately being viewed as the one who gets to decide what "right and wrong" is.

Jesus instead came and told us the meek will inherit the earth - but he also taught us what right and wrong are, and there is a Law higher than man's laws. He also taught us that there is a Judge. You could call it an "international criminal court", if you wish, where all will be tested according to their works.

[Szdfan]

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.

He got prosecuted because he lost and the winners generally punish the losers when it comes to wars.

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.”

Oversight is Congress. We live in a democracy. American voters keep voting for congressmen and Presidents who pass and enforce such legislation.

[*]And there is no specific statute authorizing this, because it’s done through secret processes and executive discretion.[/list]

I said no such thing. It’s expressly authorized by laws passed over two decades ago and which haven’t been repealed.

Thanks for the response, John.

A couple of follow up questions—

1) You wrote that Milošević was prosecuted only because he “lost and the winners generally punish the losers.” Do you believe that his participation in the genocide of Bosnian Muslims was immoral or illegal independent of whether he lost the war? In other words, if Milošević had won, would this have justified or made the genocide acceptable?

2) If I was going to put a label on the worldview you’re expressing, I’d say it’s “might makes right.” In other words, what we can determine to be correct or moral is entirely determined by those in power — at least in regard to the political sphere. Is this what you believe?

3) If you do believe this, how does “might make right” fit in with your Christian beliefs and values?

4) I’d really appreciate it if you could provide the statute name, title, or code that expressly gives Presidents and the executive branch authority to summarily execute members of terrorist groups. I’d like to look at this law together to understand its scope and limitations.

[Szdfan]

John’s argument is actually very similar to mine. He approaches it as a matter of fact, the winner writes the rules. I agree completely with his argument, but my point is focused more on the claim for moral superiority.

I agree that there’s enough hypocrisy to go around and that frequently the winners and those with power escape accountability.

But I also think there’s a fundamental difference between saying:

1)The powerful commit atrocities and get away with it

2) There’s no point in trying to stop the powerful and hold them accountable.

The first is an observation. The second is nihilistic cynicism that ensures the status quo and that nothing ever changes. There are moments when justice breaks through and perpetrators are brought to account, like the Milošević prosecution or the Nuremberg trials.

As a Christian, I don’t believe that power alone determines right and wrong. As a pacifist, I recognize the reality and necessity of the military in the world, but I also want to put as much constraint on that power as possible.

[Szdfan]

This begs the question of what "morality" is. Without Jesus, "morality" is often defined by whoever is strongest / most powerful ultimately being viewed as the one who gets to decide what "right and wrong" is.

Jesus instead came and told us the meek will inherit the earth - but he also taught us what right and wrong are, and there is a Law higher than man's laws. He also taught us that there is a Judge. You could call it an "international criminal court", if you wish, where all will be tested according to their works.

If we believe Jesus is the source of a higher moral law, then Christians should resist and constrain earthly power rather than justify atrocities and abuses of power.

[temporal1]

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

Bottom of P.5 cites one source / USA TODAY / https://forum.mennonet.com/viewtopic.ph ... 0&start=40

You mean this?

Regarding allegations:

USA TODAY:

.. U.S Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth is lashing out at a report that he ordered military officials to "kill them all" during one of the Trump administration's strikes in the Caribbean aimed a boat allegedly carrying drug .. ..

That doesn’t mean it didn’t happen.

All that means is that Hegseth denies it happened and uses his usual inflammatory “fake news” rhetoric. Considering the vindictiveness of this administration, it’s not surprising that Washington Post relied on anonymous sources. Happens all the time.

This is why a congressional investigation is necessary.

Exactly.
Allegations. Opinions. Denials. Speculation.

Regardless of your very low opinion of this admin, they also enjoy due process.

Plaintiffs can be as wrong as, or as evil as, or worse than, defendents.
Courts of human law aren’t always perfect or just. They are what we have on earth. Not all on earth have equal courts or equal systems.

God has sovereign justice that is inescapable.