Venezuela 2025

[R7ehr]

The oil tanker was the drug tender boat?!?

[Valerie]

Right. Our government takes out fishermen.

Our government is currently killing people with no public evidence whatsoever. In an area where we have no police jurisdiction.
If they had the evidence, I think they would be showing it.

The victims have committed no acts of war. They are not agents of any entity we are at war with.

How is this different from murder?

Hmm. Somehow, i’ve never gotten the impression any administration in my life has made everything they know public,
esp not wrt police or military operations.

Yet this admin gets immediate+damning speculation no matter what they do or don’t do.
Other admins don’t seem near as “interesting”. A lot goes by without mention. An awful lot.

i look for courts to determine if the victims in this case committed crimes or acts of war, and their agency.
Beyond the scope of circus media narratives.

I admit I am no expert on drug trafficking.

Not shy to conclude, tho.

This topic is so futile. By the way, for every attempt at damning, this admiration is getting recognized for so much right that they are doing. We appreciate watching all of the round tables, discussions news, conferences, etc. where so much detail is explained. This topic goes nowhere. How much wasted time do we spend on other things that I’ve now been exposed to the truth and all those hours and hours on this discussion form Turned out to be wrong?

[Bootstrap]

You seem to misunderstand me. I used sarcasm to make a point but I’m saying that normal practice has been to tail them to get the larger ships and no I don’t know of any evidence to support that those ships that we shot and destroyed (we being the US) are connected to Tender.

Thanks, that was my question.

I get the feeling you either are restating what I say to find out if you understand it or are completely misunderstanding me entirely.

I think you are being clear now.

I am saying that sinking them is both an act of war, illegal by both US law and international law and for that matter military law.
I am saying it flies in the face of all historical practice of US drug enforcement.

I agree.

Also, just being practical, those sort of vessels don’t really make that kind of journey especially not during hurricane season.

I agree.

[temporal1]

Valerie:
.. and all those hours and hours on this discussion form Turned out to be wrong?

Is it 100%?

[Bootstrap]

And now we have a new world record.
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/us-seiz ... =128290987

US seizes tanker off coast of Venezuela, Trump says.

"Large tanker, very large, largest one ever seized, actually."

Not a skiff. Just sayin ...

[Bootstrap]

And I still maintain the boat was not a small skiff.

Me too. I think you introduced that phrase, and I should have been more careful to correct it in my response.

I also maintain that professional, unbiased reporters seem to agree that at least some of the boats shown in the videos are of the style used in drug smuggling operations in that area.

That's true. And that's what puzzled me, because I was hearing claims that these boats had fentanyl heading the the US, and I was wondering how that was possible. I only have experience with sailboats, really, mostly in the 18-20 foot range, but I once spent a week helping a friend sail a 42 foot boat that was designed for open waters. That's what raised these questions in the first place.

I think you and I agree that even professional reporters get things wrong sometimes. Is anyone unbiased? Seems like everyone has a point of view that colors their perception. Including you and me. But reporters who are careful with facts seem to be saying the same thing.

Then, after saying these boats don't look like the style used for drug trafficking, you say "Peñeros are commonly used on that route for various kinds of short-distance smuggling." And reporters who go on the ground and actually interview the locals say that drug smuggling is more-or-less an open secret. I think you've bought into a narrative and it's blinding you to the reality.

Actually, I learned from the conversation. These boats could well have been transporting drugs to Trinidad and Tobago. If so, probably cocaine, not fentanyl. But boats like these are also used for legitimate purposes between Venezuela and Trinidad & Tobago. Legal trade can involve food, clothing, household goods, spare parts and tools, and agricultural products. These boats are also used for fishing. And passenger transport. Smuggling could involve cocaine, marijuana, fuel, firearms and ammunition, alcohol, cigarettes, pharmaceuticals, cosmetics and household goods, etc.

But I say - if you have a strong position, don't weaken it by playing fast and loose with the facts. (And yes, ditch the AI, I say that too.)

With respect, the post you objected to seems to have been pretty good with the facts. I have gotten some facts wrong - but I was the one who was questioning the use of such boats for drug smuggling, I wasn't thinking of short-distance, coastal smuggling. And you have also gotten some facts wrong in this thread.

Perhaps it is more productive to check each other's facts, add more information when we have it, and avoid turning on each other? I did not feel the need to attack you for not knowing the range of boats commonly called skiffs, and it was reasonable for you to look it up in a dictionary. In other threads, someone suggested we use whatever sources we have, do our own fact checking, and take responsibility for our posts. I am trying to do that here.

Getting a fact wrong is simply getting a fact wrong. Facts can be corrected with better information. Treating mistakes as moral failures makes it hard to have productive conversations about facts. And I think we should assume that people do learn from the conversation - discrepancies from what was said earlier are normal when people learn.

[Bootstrap]

From what I understand, active duty soldiers are trained using this manual:

Department of Defense’s Law of War Manual (2023)
https://ogc.osd.mil/Portals/99/Law%20of ... Mcsw%3d%3d

The section on "Clearly Illegal Orders to Commit Law of War Violations uses firing on shipwrecked people as the very first example:

18.3.2.1 Clearly Illegal Orders to Commit Law of War Violations. The requirement to refuse to comply with orders to commit law of war violations applies to orders to perform conduct that is clearly illegal or orders that the subordinate knows, in fact, are illegal. For example, orders to fire upon the shipwrecked would be clearly illegal. Similarly, orders to kill defenseless persons who have submitted to and are under effective physical control would also be clearly illegal. On the other hand, the duty not to comply with orders that are clearly
illegal would be limited in its application when the subordinate is not competent to evaluate whether the rule has been violated.

But the examples that the text gives are considered clear.

[Soloist]

From what I understand, active duty soldiers are trained using this manual:

Department of Defense’s Law of War Manual (2023)
https://ogc.osd.mil/Portals/99/Law%20of ... Mcsw%3d%3d

The section on "Clearly Illegal Orders to Commit Law of War Violations uses firing on shipwrecked people as the very first example:

18.3.2.1 Clearly Illegal Orders to Commit Law of War Violations. The requirement to refuse to comply with orders to commit law of war violations applies to orders to perform conduct that is clearly illegal or orders that the subordinate knows, in fact, are illegal. For example, orders to fire upon the shipwrecked would be clearly illegal. Similarly, orders to kill defenseless persons who have submitted to and are under effective physical control would also be clearly illegal. On the other hand, the duty not to comply with orders that are clearly
illegal would be limited in its application when the subordinate is not competent to evaluate whether the rule has been violated.

But the examples that the text gives are considered clear.

It’s probable that officers are taught this or at least it’s referenced. Enlisted? never.
There is a book that we’re taught from that contains the basics, we basically memorize the entire book.
And no, it does not contain the code of war or any legal stuff like that. we are taught that in an hour long briefing that we’re half awake for.
I learned more about military combat/law/Geneva conventions when I trained with Marines.
Repeatedly we were trained to violate the laws.

[Bootstrap]

From what I understand, active duty soldiers are trained using this manual:

Department of Defense’s Law of War Manual (2023)
https://ogc.osd.mil/Portals/99/Law%20of ... Mcsw%3d%3d

The section on "Clearly Illegal Orders to Commit Law of War Violations uses firing on shipwrecked people as the very first example:

18.3.2.1 Clearly Illegal Orders to Commit Law of War Violations. The requirement to refuse to comply with orders to commit law of war violations applies to orders to perform conduct that is clearly illegal or orders that the subordinate knows, in fact, are illegal. For example, orders to fire upon the shipwrecked would be clearly illegal. Similarly, orders to kill defenseless persons who have submitted to and are under effective physical control would also be clearly illegal. On the other hand, the duty not to comply with orders that are clearly
illegal would be limited in its application when the subordinate is not competent to evaluate whether the rule has been violated.

But the examples that the text gives are considered clear.

It’s probable that officers are taught this or at least it’s referenced. Enlisted? never.
There is a book that we’re taught from that contains the basics, we basically memorize the entire book.
And no, it does not contain the code of war or any legal stuff like that. we are taught that in an hour long briefing that we’re half awake for.
I learned more about military combat/law/Geneva conventions when I trained with Marines.
Repeatedly we were trained to violate the laws.

Interesting. I just heard a podcast with Frank Rosenblatt, a professor at MC Law and a former U.S. Army Lt. Col and Judge Advocate General in the U.S. Army, and Colby Vokey, former Marine Corps Lt. Col and Judge Advocate General.

https://shows.acast.com/60518a52f69aa81 ... eef03ffbf3

They claimed that this material would have been taught before a deployment. If you have time to listen to the podcast, I would be interested in your take.

I would also be interested in your take on this article:

https://www.justsecurity.org/125948/ill ... survivors/

[temporal1]

It’s probable that officers are taught this or at least it’s referenced. Enlisted? never.
There is a book that we’re taught from that contains the basics, we basically memorize the entire book.
And no, it does not contain the code of war or any legal stuff like that. we are taught that in an hour long briefing that we’re half awake for.
I learned more about military combat/law/Geneva conventions when I trained with Marines.
Repeatedly we were trained to violate the laws.

Beside that, there’s no declared war? This current action is under DHS stated terrorists? Fairly untested?
i have no idea and i’m not guessing. esp not based on msm circus reports.

- - - - - - -

i see international drug trafficking (and related crimes) as a major world industry, possibly the biggest, who’s tracking? -
any interruption is going to be met with the greatest resistance, top-down, no rules, no constraints, no shame.