Venezuela 2025

[JohnH]

But the real question is...

Do you believe it is morally wrong not to take political action against a political force that is suspected that it might be killing incapacitated survivors clinging to the remains of a destroyed boat? Yes or no?

Sure, everyone has the right to say nothing at all about any topic they choose not to engage in.

But when someone objects to people who are angry about that kind of murder ... that's not neutral, that's taking sides.

I think it's eminently reasonable to object to hearing much concern about "justice" and "the law" when drug traffickers get killed, but nothing at all is said about the impunity with which drug cartels operate and just keep killing people over and over.

Perhaps you can explain to us why this system of the courts and laws isn't working to deal with the drug cartel problem?

[ken_sylvania]

No, because Jesus said His Kingdom is not of this world. He said that if His Kingdom were of this world, then His servants would fight against the unjust treatment He was receiving.

If we believe Jesus is the source of a higher moral law, then we obey Him and do what He says to do, rather than what seems most logical to us.

Yes, but we also don’t turn around and shrug, “Well, of course Caesar crucified Jesus. No big deal, that’s just what Caesars do.” We don’t call that morally neutral. Even if Jesus’ kingdom is not of this world, we still recognize that what Caesar did was wrong. The fact that earthly rulers aren’t part of Christ’s kingdom doesn’t mean their actions escape moral judgment.

No we don't shrug it off, but it doesn't surprise us. It truly is what Caesars do. It's not morally neutral, but we don't expect Caesar to be morally neutral. RZehr made a comment a bit ago about the twisted logic of laws of war, and some of the responses make me think some folks didn't catch his point. The fact is - killing other people is morally wrong. The "laws of war" say that if the enemy is coming at you with guns and sticks, you can blast them all to smithereens until they lay down their guns - then you're supposed to go pick them all up, patch them up as well as you reasonably can, feed 'em nice and proper, then exchange them for some of your own troops that the enemy did the same thing to. Then your repatriated prisoners can pick up guns and go blast away at their repatriated prisoners and do the whole thing all over again. The idea that it's perfectly acceptable to kill thousands of people with missiles and bombs, and perfectly legal to destroy a boat and let the survivors float until they die from thirst and exposure (if it's not feasible to pick them up), but somehow morally bankrupt to send a clean-up missile to kill off the survivors of the first one just boggles my mind. Not because I think the second action is OK - rather because the whole raft of "acceptable" actions is just plain morally wrong. What bothers me is there are "Christians" - even on this forum - who aren't horrified at the immorality that is "legal war."

It's like in World War II - the German Christians get together and pray "God, we love you. Help us defeat the enemy, for Your glory and the survival of this great nation you love." Then they get in a boat and go steaming out toward America. Meanwhile, he American Christians get together and pray "God, we love you. Help us defeat the enemy, for Your glory and the survival of this great nation you love." Then they all pack up in a boat and go sailing east. In the middle of the ocean, they all find each other and shoot each other dead. What great, moral people they all were!

After all, we constantly make moral judgments about people who aren’t part of our spiritual community, e.g. adulterers, sex traffickers, abusers, exploiters. Our kingdom still says those things are wrong. Rulers don’t get a free pass on basic morality just because their kingdom isn’t the Kingdom of God.

Exactly. But what I've heard from you in the past is that rulers don't have to obey Jesus because they are "ordained by God to bear the sword" or some such thing like that. I say rulers are just as responsible to obey Jesus as what you are.

[temporal1]

But when someone objects to people who are angry about that kind of murder ... that's not neutral, that's taking sides.

Or ..
the objection is a reminder of due process.

due process doesn’t stop anger or hate, go ahead. it slows lynch mobs down.

[Bootstrap]

In this case, Caesar warned and gave plenty of notice he was going after cartels and drug traffickers.
This is not ambush+execute without warning, without crimes+sins doing vast harm, including deaths.

And if Caesar says they’re guilty, who could possibly question it? Why expect Caesar to show evidence before killing people? After all, the videos of the killings must prove they were guilty, right? Look at those cool videos Caesar filmed. Complete with music and dramatic effects. That’s all the justification we need?

I can see why that would be more entertaining than some boring hearings or evidence about what is happening.

If Caesar really wants to fight drug trafficking, why would he pardon:

• Ross Ulbricht, who founded Silk Road, earning a life sentence for drug-trafficking, money laundering, and whatever dark money can buy on the dark web?
• Alice Marie Johnson, convicted in the 1990s for cocaine trafficking and related offenses?
• Juan Orlando Hernández, the former president of Honduras, who had been convicted in a U.S. court for drug-trafficking and weapons charges?
• Larry Hoover, convicted of federal narcotics conspiracy, continuing criminal enterprise, use of minors in drug distribution, multiple cocaine distribution counts, and use of firearms in drug trafficking crime.

These are only the highest-profile cases. Every one of them was convicted based on evidence. Yet Trump has now granted over 1,600 pardons in his second term alone, many of them to major traffickers, organized-crime figures, and cartel or gang leaders. At this point in their terms, most presidents have granted zero pardons. How does issuing 1,600 pardons, mostly below the radar, “fight crime”?

Maybe we should start another thread on cartels and drug trafficking:

• What’s actually being done?
• What works?
• What doesn’t?
• What’s propaganda, and what’s real?

That could be a more productive conversation than cheering drone-strikes set to a soundtrack.

[Bootstrap]

But when someone objects to people who are angry about that kind of murder ... that's not neutral, that's taking sides.

Or ..
the objection is a reminder of due process.

due process doesn’t stop anger or hate, go ahead. it slows lynch mobs down.

No, that’s not due process.

There’s a strange reversal happening here. Due process isn’t about protecting the government from angry citizens, it’s about protecting citizens from government abuse. The government has the power to imprison, to coerce, and ultimately to kill. We do not have those powers. That’s why due process exists: to restrain the side that holds overwhelming force.

Likewise, people increasingly talk as though the Bill of Rights is meant to protect the government from the people. Wrong way around. The Bill of Rights protects the people from the government. The government inherently has freedom of speech, power of assembly, power to bear arms, power of search and seizure, and it does not need a Bill of Rights to protect that.

Citizens only have rights because they are explicitly protected against government encroachment. When we forget that, we’ve flipped the whole purpose of constitutional limits upside-down.

And frankly, there is no danger whatsoever of a mob “lynching Caesar.” The real danger is the opposite: Caesar killing plenty of people who have far less power. That’s why due process matters.

[temporal1]

boot:
And if Caesar says they’re guilty, who could possibly question it? ..

o.everything will be questioned, down to the last taxpayer dollar. i don’t fret about that part.

i have no idea about rules of engagement for this scenario. i’ll leave that to courts. civilian and military. and Congress.
the most informed minds will disagree, i’m not about to add my 2 cents. i’ll wait.

i haven’t seen any cool videos, nor will i look for them.

[temporal1]

But when someone objects to people who are angry about that kind of murder ... that's not neutral, that's taking sides.

Or ..
the objection is a reminder of due process.

due process doesn’t stop anger or hate, go ahead. it slows lynch mobs down.

No, that’s not due process.

There’s a strange reversal happening here. Due process isn’t about protecting the government from angry citizens, it’s about protecting citizens from government abuse. The government has the power to imprison, to coerce, and ultimately to kill. We do not have those powers. That’s why due process exists: to restrain the side that holds overwhelming force.

Likewise, people increasingly talk as though the Bill of Rights is meant to protect the government from the people. Wrong way around. The Bill of Rights protects the people from the government. The government inherently has freedom of speech, power of assembly, power to bear arms, power of search and seizure, and it does not need a Bill of Rights to protect that.

Citizens only have rights because they are explicitly protected against government encroachment. When we forget that, we’ve flipped the whole purpose of constitutional limits upside-down.

And frankly, there is no danger whatsoever of a mob “lynching Caesar.” The real danger is the opposite: Caesar killing plenty of people who have far less power. That’s why due process matters.

i’m not sure U.S. due process applies to foreign drug runners in international waters. who have been warned.

i don’t know. i choose to wait.
i don’t choose to be pressured by online opinions and speculation to make a decision.

How about stop drug running? You were warned, stop.

[R7ehr]

But when someone objects to people who are angry about that kind of murder ... that's not neutral, that's taking sides.

Or ..
the objection is a reminder of due process.

due process doesn’t stop anger or hate, go ahead. it slows lynch mobs down.

No, that’s not due process.

There’s a strange reversal happening here. Due process isn’t about protecting the government from angry citizens, it’s about protecting citizens from government abuse. The government has the power to imprison, to coerce, and ultimately to kill. We do not have those powers. That’s why due process exists: to restrain the side that holds overwhelming force.

Likewise, people increasingly talk as though the Bill of Rights is meant to protect the government from the people. Wrong way around. The Bill of Rights protects the people from the government. The government inherently has freedom of speech, power of assembly, power to bear arms, power of search and seizure, and it does not need a Bill of Rights to protect that.

Citizens only have rights because they are explicitly protected against government encroachment. When we forget that, we’ve flipped the whole purpose of constitutional limits upside-down.

And frankly, there is no danger whatsoever of a mob “lynching Caesar.” The real danger is the opposite: Caesar killing plenty of people who have far less power. That’s why due process matters.

Next thing I know, Democrats will become the party for 2nd Amendment enthusiast.

[JohnH]

If Caesar really wants to fight drug trafficking, why would he pardon:

• Ross Ulbricht, who founded Silk Road, earning a life sentence for drug-trafficking, money laundering, and whatever dark money can buy on the dark web?
• Alice Marie Johnson, convicted in the 1990s for cocaine trafficking and related offenses?
• Juan Orlando Hernández, the former president of Honduras, who had been convicted in a U.S. court for drug-trafficking and weapons charges?
• Larry Hoover, convicted of federal narcotics conspiracy, continuing criminal enterprise, use of minors in drug distribution, multiple cocaine distribution counts, and use of firearms in drug trafficking crime.

If you want to have a thread about Trump, can you just go start one in the Politics thread?

At this point in their terms, most presidents have granted zero pardons. How does issuing 1,600 pardons, mostly below the radar, “fight crime”?

The same way issuing 4,245 pardons does?

[ken_sylvania]

And frankly, there is no danger whatsoever of a mob “lynching Caesar.”

That so, huh? Mebbe they use a rifle instead of a rope nowadays.