- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Bunky's mostly peaceful fishermen
Posted on 12/10/25 at 10:34 am to cajunangelle
Posted on 12/10/25 at 10:34 am to cajunangelle
Good lord.
You could make a movie out of just how they acquire all the 300hp outboards.
You could make a movie out of just how they acquire all the 300hp outboards.
0
Posted on 12/10/25 at 10:48 am to IvoryBillMatt
quote:
And which country is “foreign terrorist organizations”?
quote:
I thought Tren de Aragua WAS the Venezuelan government? "The self defense argument revolves around Trump’s designation of Tren de Aragua as a foreign terrorist organization, a claim advanced by Miller in order to defend the deportations of dozens of Venezuelans earlier this year under the Alien Enemies Act. The administration claimed that Tren de Aragua had infiltrated the regime of Venezuelan president Nicolás Maduro – and so the presence of the cartel’s members in the US amounted to a “predatory incursion” by a foreign nation, allowing for the deportation of any Venezuelan national. “It is a drug cartel that is running Venezuela,” Miller told reporters at the White House earlier this month as he characterized Maduro as the head of the cartel. “It is not a government, it is a drug cartel, a narco-trafficking organization that is running Venezuela.” Just release the legal memorandum justifying the strikes and clear up any confusion.
You sure wasted a lot of time when you could have said “I choose to deflect”.
Your proposed likeness of “war” by striking unflagged, criminal, vessels in international waters is no comparison to striking a port of a sovereign nation. I’m sorry you chose a poor comparison. But it is what it is.
Posted on 12/10/25 at 10:58 am to IvoryBillMatt
Did we have the option to pop those specific targets like zits in international waters where our drones could fly completely unmolested and zero collateral damage could be ensured?
what an odd point
what an odd point
Posted on 12/10/25 at 11:03 am to CleverUserName
quote:
You sure wasted a lot of time when you could have said “I choose to deflect”.
What deflection? We treat Tren de Aragua as being the same as Venezuela for one area of the law. Are you saying that Miller is wrong?
Just release the legal memorandum.
President Trump seems to think we have as much authority to strike on land as we do regarding international waters:
Posted on 12/10/25 at 11:04 am to CleverUserName
quote:
Currently, against whom?
In a legal sense of course.
There is no war in the legal sense. That literally would require an Act of Congress
Posted on 12/10/25 at 11:13 am to Vacherie Saint
quote:
Did we have the option to pop those specific targets like zits in international waters where our drones could fly completely unmolested and zero collateral damage could be ensured?
what an odd point
I'm just asking what the legal justification is. You're talking about policy.
If the legal justification is "we are defending ourselves against a lethal threat," say that, along with "so far, we have chosen to take the course of action which won't endanger innocent people."
Posted on 12/10/25 at 11:15 am to IvoryBillMatt
quote:
President Trump seems to think we have as much authority to strike on land as we do regarding international waters:
He will go too far, as usual.
Posted on 12/10/25 at 11:24 am to IvoryBillMatt
quote:
Our government is constrained by laws...it's not designed to run on a "trust me" basis irrespective of how much we like and trust a particular president.
Why hasn’t Congress explicitly made these actions not allowable?
Why haven’t the courts ruled on it?
Posted on 12/10/25 at 11:26 am to IvoryBillMatt
quote:
If the legal justification is "we are defending ourselves against a lethal threat," say that, along with "so far, we have chosen to take the course of action which won't endanger innocent people."
Pretty sure they’ve already made this argument publicly. Do you need something delivered to you in person?
Posted on 12/10/25 at 11:29 am to the808bass
quote:
Pretty sure they’ve already made this argument publicly.
Few people believes it.
I doubt you really do either.
Posted on 12/10/25 at 11:37 am to cajunangelle
Damn those boats all lined up like that would make for easy pickins
Posted on 12/10/25 at 11:42 am to IvoryBillMatt
Your logic isn't tracking. Killing them is legal because the State Dept has designated them as FTO's. HOW they are killed and the theater in which they are killed are strategic, tactical, and diplomatic decisions with potential downstream legal implications separate from the FTO designation itself.
You asked why not attack them in port, and I gave you an answer.
I'm not sure what Syria has to do with any of this, but if that conflict ever presented the opportunity to eliminate isolated targets over international or allied waters, I'm certain this was favored over messy land-based attacks where other assets are at higher risk and/or sovereignty may be violated. That's a tactical call that AVOIDS potential legality issues you seem to be so concerned about.
You asked why not attack them in port, and I gave you an answer.
I'm not sure what Syria has to do with any of this, but if that conflict ever presented the opportunity to eliminate isolated targets over international or allied waters, I'm certain this was favored over messy land-based attacks where other assets are at higher risk and/or sovereignty may be violated. That's a tactical call that AVOIDS potential legality issues you seem to be so concerned about.
Posted on 12/10/25 at 11:45 am to the808bass
quote:
Pretty sure they’ve already made this argument publicly. Do you need something delivered to you in person?
I just want to see the legal memorandum which was supposedly written before the strikes.
Posted on 12/10/25 at 11:47 am to Decatur
quote:
blowing them out of the water without any military hostility is unlawful.
We don’t care though. The US will continue killing them.
Posted on 12/10/25 at 11:48 am to IvoryBillMatt
Not only those things you mentioned, the U.S. could also arrest those at the destination areas who are part of the smuggling operation. But here's the deal: the destination of these boats is NOT the United States and these boats are not carrying Fentanyl.
Posted on 12/10/25 at 11:48 am to IvoryBillMatt
Of course you do so you can argue about idiotic statutes and needless red tape specifically created to stifle limited government
Posted on 12/10/25 at 11:49 am to Lsupimp
quote:
I definitely am not showing this video to Rog and Bunk at our weekly Bad Orange Man Narco Boat Bros potluck dinner next week. Really, we’d appreciate if you’d take that down.
We all know the best way to get Rog into a chat...watch: TRUMP..TRUMP...TRUMP..
Posted on 12/10/25 at 11:59 am to Vacherie Saint
quote:
Your logic isn't tracking. Killing them is legal because the State Dept has designated them as FTO's.
I wasted a whole thread and got swarmed for asking "Does the FTO designation justify lethal action?" The answer was "no."
Has the Administration ever bothered to say WHICH FTO any particular drug smugglers belonged to?
Anyhow, I think this academic discussion has run its course. Practically, the strikes are legal, because there is no entity to check the President's assertion that they are. They are a good policy because they put a dent in someone's drug smuggling to somewhere...undoubtedly some of those drugs were destined for the US.
Posted on 12/10/25 at 11:59 am to Decatur
quote:
blowing them out of the water without any military hostility is unlawful.
Why does it have to be "military" in nature? Where is that specific standard? Can a terror group not threaten us Americans with chemicals, disease, crime, property damage, etc.? If an al qaeda sympathizer blows up an empty building, is he not a terrorist? If a member of boko haram mails the Pope an envelope filled with ricin, is he not a terrorist? Hi jacking an plane and taking hostages isn't military in nature - is it still terrorism?
And even if that were the standard, its ludicrous to categorize the cartels an "non-militant".
This post was edited on 12/10/25 at 12:04 pm
Posted on 12/10/25 at 12:01 pm to IvoryBillMatt
quote:
I just want to see the legal memorandum which was supposedly written before the strikes.
File a FOIA.
Page 5 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News