Kill Everybody --- Illegal Order?

[Joe Ferguson forever]

1 hour ago, Orlando Buffalo said:

The Geneva convention does not apply to drug runners, but I have a very serious question for you, why do you fight to ensure every evil criminal has full protections from their actions but the innocent people they kill you don't care about? 

Most everyone cares about innocent people getting hurt.  That's a straw man and ridiculous on its face.  And there's a questionable premise.  Are drug abusers innocent for the consequences of their actions?  I think they're at least partially culpable.

[sherpa]

5 minutes ago, Joe Ferguson forever said:

  Are drug abusers innocent for the consequences of their actions?  I think they're at least partially culpable.

 

I have no problem with your statement

 

I think it is absolutely foolish to allow these things to enter the country, as long as we have the ability to attempt to stop it.

At a most simplistic level, that's why we have alcohol laws regarding minors.

We effort to limit supply.

 

The effort is responsible and desired.

They make the choice and they live with the consequences.

 

Still, we don't need to kill helpless people.

[Joe Ferguson forever]

2 minutes ago, sherpa said:

 

I have no problem with your statement

 

I think it is absolutely foolish to allow these things to enter the country, as long as we have the ability to attempt to stop it.

At a most simplistic level, that's why we have alcohol laws regarding minors.

We effort to limit supply.

 

The effort is responsible and desired.

They make the choice and they live with the consequences.

 

Still, we don't need to kill helpless people.

Fair enough except I don't believe blowing up boats is going to work.  As long as demand and price are high, the cartels will find a way.  Emphasis should be on decreasing demand.  The targets are relatively easy to identify.  OD deaths are concentrated in impoverished areas with few decent jobs.

[sherpa]

4 minutes ago, Joe Ferguson forever said:

Fair enough except I don't believe blowing up boats is going to work.  As long as demand and price are high, the cartels will find a way.  Emphasis should be on decreasing demand.  The targets are relatively easy to identify.  OD deaths are concentrated in impoverished areas with few decent jobs.

 

It isn't "blowing up boats."

It is sending a message that if you engage in this murderous activity, you might end your life.

Your call, and removes the claim that such people are "helpless."

 

Free will. Clear consequences.

[Joe Ferguson forever]

9 minutes ago, sherpa said:

 

It isn't "blowing up boats."

It is sending a message that if you engage in this murderous activity, you might end your life.

Your call, and removes the claim that such people are "helpless."

 

Free will. Clear consequences.

The question  is, will that be effective.  Every other attempt to decrease drug supply has been minimally successful are outright failures.  They'll find another way if they need to.

[sherpa]

1 minute ago, Joe Ferguson forever said:

The question  is, will that be effective.  Every other attempt to decrease drug supply has been minimally successful are outright failures.  They'll find another way if they need to.

 

It will never be completely effective until these murderous people have other economic opportunities in their own countries, and having the US as an insurance policy prevents that.

The Biden four years set us way back.

 

I get that people here may not share that view, but I would suggest that people here have no idea how big the drug trade and illegal immigration industry is.

That comes from carrying and listening to others who have carried the massive amount of US personnel group from DEA to CIA to a host of others who have done this for years.

 

The average "guy" who posts here has absolutely no idea.

There is no way to stop it without sending a strong message that it will have fatal consequences.

I don't like it, but I understand it.

 

[Joe Ferguson forever]

3 minutes ago, sherpa said:

 

It will never be completely effective until these murderous people have other economic opportunities in their own countries, and having the US as an insurance policy prevents that.

The Biden four years set us way back.

 

I get that people here may not share that view, but I would suggest that people here have no idea how big the drug trade and illegal immigration industry is.

That comes from carrying and listening to others who have carried the massive amount of US personnel group from DEA to CIA to a host of others who have done this for years.

 

The average "guy" who posts here has absolutely no idea.

There is no way to stop it without sending a strong message that it will have fatal consequences.

I don't like it, but I understand it.

 

any estimate in the decrease in OD deaths after a year bombing?  I predict it will be tiny.  Addicts don't give up easily either.  They'll find other highs such as prescription drug abuse.  Many OD's are due to these.

[AlBUNDY4TDS]

2 minutes ago, Joe Ferguson forever said:

any estimate in the decrease in OD deaths after a year bombing?  I predict it will be tiny.  Addicts don't give up easily either.  They'll find other highs such as prescription drug abuse.  Many OD's are due to these.

Weak ass response.

[Joe Ferguson forever]

9 minutes ago, AlBUNDY4TDS said:

Weak ass response.

What is the goal of the bombing?  What is a measurable endpoint?  What percent decrease would you feel would justify the killing and expense?

[sherpa]

4 minutes ago, Joe Ferguson forever said:

What is the goal of the bombing?  What is a measurable endpoint?  What percent decrease would you feel would justify the killing and expense?

 

I'm surprised you can't answer this.

If you think the US gov and military is aware of your actions, and going to interdict, resulting in certain death, you might exercise your free right decision is a different direction.

[Joe Ferguson forever]

19 minutes ago, sherpa said:

 

I'm surprised you can't answer this.

If you think the US gov and military is aware of your actions, and going to interdict, resulting in certain death, you might exercise your free right decision is a different direction.

I can answer it.  I would think 10 percent would be a reasonable number, if the actions are legal.  I don't think it will be achieved.

 

The history of trump's framing of this action is interesting and important:

https://www.npr.org/2025/11/02/nx-s1-5593069/why-is-president-trump-calling-suspected-smugglers-unlawful-combatants

 

SCOTT ANDERSON: So the term unlawful enemy combatant first came into common usage after the 9/11 attacks as part of arguments the U.S. government advanced as to why members of al-Qaida and the Taliban and related terrorist groups didn't have to be provided with the full bundle of rights and protections that are usually provided to prisoners of war under international law pursuant to the Geneva Conventions and the related treaties in areas of international law.

 

ANDERSON: Arguably, yes, potentially. I mean, Congress has installed a lot of protections since that time, and the Supreme Court has pushed back on some of these interpretations. The reality is the Trump administration would have a very hard time doing that because we have more than two decades of intervening Supreme Court decisions and legislation that would make it very difficult and that set up pretty clear limits on substantial aspects of what the Bush administration did. But it may suggest that they want to push more in that direction than U.S. policy has drifted in the intervening years.

 

 

PFEIFFER: Is there a majority legal view on whether the term is justified in these boat strikes?

ANDERSON: It is, I think, almost the consensus view among outside legal experts that it is not. More than that, and this gets to the use of this term as a way to kind of obfuscate the legal barrier here, most lawyers looking at this say this should not even be viewed through the lens of the law of armed conflict at all because this is not a war. This is the use of military violence against people who would traditionally be viewed as civilians. And in trying to use these sometimes-controversial terms associated with the war on terrorism, the administration is trying to make this all look like just something like the war on terrorism. And the reality is it's something extremely different. You would view this as very close to state-sanctioned murder or targeted killings.

Edited 8 minutes ago by Joe Ferguson forever

[BillsFanNC]

Sounds like Quack when he once admitted that Trump never included neo Nazi's and white nationalists in his very fine people comment, in fact he specifically excluded them from the characterization:

 

Well sure, but I know what Trump really thinks.

 

       - Quack, MD

 

😂

 

Back to Kelly, the video was made based on what they thought Trump might do.

 

 

[Andy1]

So if the logic is to execute people in boats who we think are carrying drugs because that will save lives, then the next logical step is to execute those caught at the border who are confirmed to be smuggling drugs into our country because that too will save lives. Then we should also execute the regional and neighborhood dealers confirmed to be selling drugs, because that will also save lives. And let’s make the executions public because then everyone will know what happens to them if they do sell drugs. Sounds like the pro Trump crowd here is all behind that… right?

[sherpa]

5 minutes ago, Andy1 said:

So if the logic is to execute people in boats who we think are carrying drugs because that will save lives, then the next logical step is to execute those caught at the border who are confirmed to be smuggling drugs into our country because that too will save lives. Then we should also execute the regional and neighborhood dealers confirmed to be selling drugs, because that will also save lives. And let’s make the executions public because then everyone will know what happens to them if they do sell drugs. Sounds like the pro Trump crowd here is all behind that… right?

 

This forum gets more and more silly and impossible to read.

To the joy of many, I think my time is limited.