@AverageJoe1 saidRubio's opinions on the effectiveness of drug interdiction do not alter the illegality of the murders.
Man and manly 2 diff things I said man. See how you edit?
Rubio made a speech that interdicting does not work, it may cost only about 2% of the cartels production ..they go for it
So the difference in you and me is that you think interdicting would work, I think that because people that know more than you and I do, say that it will not work. I have to pick one side. I pick Rubio.
1 edit
@no1marauder saidRight. But follow the issue. What WE are discussing are OUR opinions on interdicting. Yes, you say above that Rubio said interdiction is an optoin, but yesterday he said it really would not work.
Rubio's opinions on the effectiveness of drug interdiction do not alter the illegality of the murders.
So what we are discussing......should we blow up drugs headed for the USA, or interdict the slime and feed them with due process. There was no choice.
The crux here is that you say it was illegal. No one has said it is per se illegal, so, you are only giving your opinion,. Like I do. I opine that he had the right, he is sworn to keep our children alive. It says that in article 19/12, president do anything to save our children.
Uh, did uou say murder? Killing in war is not murder. ANd they had it coming. IF someone has it coming, their death can hardly be called a murder. I guess you could say we executed them. They had it coming. Did the have any lluggage for their trip,,,,passports? What port do you think they were heading for? Miami??
Geez
@AverageJoe1 saidMurder is an illegal killing.
Right. But follow the issue. What WE are discussing are OUR opinions on interdicting. Yes, you say above that Rubio said interdiction is an optoin, but yesterday he said it really would not work.
So what we are discussing......should we blow up drugs headed for the USA, or interdict the slime and feed them with due process. There was no choice.
The crux he ...[text shortened]... lluggage for their trip,,,,passports? What port do you think they were heading for? Miami??
Geez
There is no war in the Caribbean.
There is no legal authority absent war for the President to order killings of anybody, including alleged criminals, without an attempt to arrest them.
Therefore, this was an act of murder.
1 edit
@no1marauder saidu are right that we are not at war, I knee jerked on that when your people said that it was a war crime, so I followed suit of some liberals. What a fool I was.
Murder is an illegal killing.
There is no war in the Caribbean.
There is no legal authority absent war for the President to order killings of anybody, including alleged criminals, without an attempt to arrest them.
Therefore, this was an act of murder.
I opened a new thread on this subject, a big subject. Obama commmied an acit of Murder with a drone as you will know. Please in your rte comments.
Shouldn't be just you and me, let's get new blood. Maybe Kewpie will weight in
1 edit
@no1marauder saidthe same law that obama used is the same law Trump can use...Tren de Aragua is a terrorist organization
Murder is an illegal killing.
There is no war in the Caribbean.
There is no legal authority absent war for the President to order killings of anybody, including alleged criminals, without an attempt to arrest them.
Therefore, this was an act of murder.
it is sickening to see you liberals take up for child traffickers and drug dealers...can you say garcia?
@Mott-The-Hoople saidHe did post about it, and has been consistent.
No you didnt…but you do lie about it…it’s called being a hypocrite
@Mott-The-Hoople saidTrump has NEVER done the "right thing".
Here is the bottom line…
All liberals, including marauder simply must, and I mean must be opposite on anything Trump does.
They must side with the ones that let men wear dress and marry other men. It gave them a false feeling of acceptance. The ones that discriminated against normal and most times white people to allow undeserving people to have jobs and positions they did not deserve.
People like mareider HAVE to be opposite of doing the RIGHT thing.
@Mott-The-Hoople saidObama used as justification the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) which states in pertinent part:
the same law that obama used is the same law Trump can use...Tren de Aragua is a terrorist organization
it is sickening to see you liberals take up for child traffickers and drug dealers...can you say garcia?
" (a) IN GENERAL.—That the President is authorized to use all
necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organiza
tions, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed,
or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001,
or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent
any future acts of international terrorism against the United States
by such nations, organizations or persons."
https://www.congress.gov/107/plaws/publ40/PLAW-107publ40.pdf
It's pretty obvious Al-Qaeda falls under those terms but Tren de Aragua does not - the latter didn't even exist in 2001. Moreover, despite Trump's proclamations TDA doesn't engage in violence for political ends - they are criminals, not terrorists. And the law does not permit the killing of criminals on sight.
@no1marauder said“in order to prevent
Obama used as justification the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) which states in pertinent part:
" (a) IN GENERAL.—That the President is authorized to use all
necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organiza
tions, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed,
or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11 ...[text shortened]... - they are criminals, not terrorists. And the law does not permit the killing of criminals on sight.
any future acts of international terrorism against the United States
by such nations, organizations or persons."
Is TDA designated as a terrorist organization?
@Mott-The-Hoople saidRead the first part; that only applies to nations or organizations that played some role in the September 11, 2001 attacks or its aftermath.
“in order to prevent
any future acts of international terrorism against the United States
by such nations, organizations or persons."
Is TDA designated as a terrorist organization?
That in no way applies to TDA. And Trump can call a duck an eagle but it has no legal force where the law mandates differently.
@no1marauder said1-has all four presidents since this act used it to take out terrorist?
Read the first part; that only applies to nations or organizations that played some role in the September 11, 2001 attacks or its aftermath.
That in no way applies to TDA. And Trump can call a duck an eagle but it has no legal force where the law mandates differently.
The answer is yes.
Why then are you suddenly concerned about it?
We all know the answer to that dont we?
@Mott-The-Hoople saidTrump is using it against common criminals, not terrorists with some connection to the 9/11 attacks.
1-has all four presidents since this act used it to take out terrorist?
The answer is yes.
Why then are you suddenly concerned about it?
We all know the answer to that dont we?
So he's not following the law yet again.
@no1marauder saidyour failure to answer my question proves your argument is a failure.
Trump is using it against common criminals, not terrorists with some connection to the 9/11 attacks.
So he's not following the law yet again.