>The announcement may reflect a response to backlash after news broke last year that, in the administration's first such strike, commanders had ordered a vessel bombed twice when it became clear there were survivors, in keeping with Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth's directive to "kill everybody."

>Despite scrutiny, the campaign has continued and even escalated in the past few weeks. There have been three such bombings since the beginning of May, according to The Intercept: One on May 4 in the Caribbean that killed two, one on May 5 in the Pacific that killed three, and the Pacific strike on May 8 that killed two. The reported survivor remains missing.

>While the Trump administration claims the strikes have dramatically reduced the flow of illegal drugs into the US, evidence reveals this is not the case, according to an Intercept analysis published May 4.

>For example, Trump claimed that drugs entering the US by sea had decreased by 97%, but the administration's own data contradicts this claim, retired Rear Adm. William Baumgartner told The Intercept.

>Adam Isacson, the director for defense oversight at human rights group Washington Office on Latin America, said, "Really absurdly, there’s been no impact on flows of drugs toward the United States,” noting that Customs and Border Protection seized 6,000 pounds more cocaine at all US borders in the seven months following the strikes than in the seven months before.

>As Sanho Tree, who directs the Institute for Policy Studies' Drug Policy Project, put it, "It wouldn’t be the first time this administration just made up something out of whole cloth."

Santiago(old fisherman):"Today,Manolin, we catch da beeeeg one!"

Manolin:"Say,Santiago, does beeeeg ones fly?"

Santiago:"why you ask, Manolin?"

Manolin:"because there is real beeeg fish flying at us above our head right now!"

BOOM!
2 more drug dealers taken care of

>>1513743
>What do you call a US citizen who smuggles drugs, SOUTHCOM? A 'narco-terrorist'?
Drug dealing isn't a capital crime.

>>1513743
God, just image all the effort it took to both greentext every single line to post a Common Dreams article.
lol WTF.

So this is what it was like when the US entered Vietnam (a war we lost). An administration absolutely out of control. We can only thank the checks and balances that are still in place protecting us from what the trump administration would really want to do.

>>1513874
it doesnt take much effort

>>1513774
>Drug dealing isn't a capital crime.
And this is why nobody respects democrats.

>>1513743
>"If a US citizen [allegedly] drove drugs into Canada and they blew him away with a drone strike, would you accept it?"
YES!

>>1513895
>And this is why nobody respects democrats.
Because they follow the law of what gets you the death penalty and what doesn't?

>>1513743
>>"What do you call a US citizen who smuggles drugs, SOUTHCOM? A 'narco-terrorist'?" social media user Andrew Marinelli said in response to the Southern Command announcement. "If a US citizen [allegedly] drove drugs into Canada and they blew him away with a drone strike, would you accept it?"
Killing drug dealers would be based actually.
Imagine being the kind of person who seriously believes that killing criminals that turn everyday people to hopeless addicts is a bad idea.

>>1513925
but you love sucking billionaire dick and you hate luigi

>>1513743
>"What do you call a US citizen who smuggles drugs, SOUTHCOM? A 'narco-terrorist'?" social media user Andrew Marinelli said in response to the Southern Command announcement. "If a US citizen [allegedly] drove drugs into Canada and they blew him away with a drone strike, would you accept it?"
Well, they aren't US citizens and they aren't within US territory so they don't enjoy the protection the Constitution gives.

Jeez, why are these people so fucking retarded?

>>1513927
>Well, they aren't US citizens and they aren't within US territory so they don't enjoy the protection the Constitution gives.
Ok so why aren't we drone striking drug dealers in the middle of other countries? Do we suddenly only have authority in the ocean?

Also, why does a crime that wouldn't get you the death penalty in the US become a death penalty crime outside of it?

>>1513930
>Ok so why aren't we drone striking drug dealers in the middle of other countries? Do we suddenly only have authority in the ocean?
You dont know what international waters are?

>why does a crime that wouldn't get you the death penalty in the US become a death penalty crime outside of it?
You're asking why American law does not apply outside of America?

Just as retarded as the people in the article.

>>1513931
i can't wait until you and every foreign shill is cut off from our internet. you just wasted an entire sunday being a faggot

>>1513932
Maybe if stop being retarded and people will be nicer to you.

>>1513933
yeah, you're esl

>>1513931
>You dont know what international waters are?
How do you know these are in international waters? Did they release the locations or did they only release what amounts to a snuff film of them blowing up a boat in water?

>You're asking why American law does not apply outside of America?
yeah so why are we executing people in the middle of the Caribbean again?

>>1513934
you're losing an argument to someone who is handicapped by speaking their second language?

Giga-L

>>1513935
>How do you know these are in international waters?
Because all prior strikes have been in international waters.
>yeah so why are we executing people in the middle of the Caribbean again?
Because we can.

>>1513939
you're literally not american

>>1513940
Would me not being American change the facts of the subject were arguing over?

>>1513939
>Because all prior strikes have been in international waters.
So basically "eh I don't need evidence they're probably telling the truth"
>Because we can.
So basically all your arguments boil down to "Well we're doing it who cares if it's illegal". Yeah this'll look really good when these retards go on trial; same logic Hegseth will get when he asks why he's getting the rope.

>>1513941
god you're esl

>>1513942
>So basically "eh I don't need evidence they're probably telling the truth"
Countries tend to complain when you kill people on their territory.
>Yeah this'll look really good when these retards go on trial
On trial for what? In which court?

I think the more interesting thing here is how upset you are that drug runners, and the cartels, are having a bad day.

>>1513944
war criminals tend to have bad days too when it's all said and done

>>1513945
Do you have an argument you want to make or is it just going to be the usual seethe about le orange or whatever?

>>1513946
i don't argue with shill faggots, you're objectively wrong 100% of the time

>>1513947
>no i dont have an argument
Cool. Have fun.

>>1513948
i have lots of fun making fun of you. hopefully you never get a real job so i can continue calling you an illiterate faggot at my leisure

>>1513944
>In which court?
ICC retard. They've got quite an interest in prosecuting war criminals and the next dem admin is gonna be fresh out of mercy for Hegseth and co.

>I think the more interesting thing here is how upset you are that drug runners, and the cartels, are having a bad day.
Your proof these are drug runners are non-existent retard. Of 190+ boats they've blown up there's maybe one or two that had any evidence of drugs on them. We've been blowing up fishermen.

>>1513950
>ICC retard
Good luck with that.
>Your proof these are drug runners are non-existent retard.
Yes. These boats with $100K worth of outboards, large square packages wrapped in plastic and no fishing equipment are surely fishing vessels.

>>1513950
>ICC retard
US is not a party to the ICC and does not recognize its authority. You absolute fucking retard.

This is my real problem. You're all so fucking stupid. You, the guys in the article. You have such BIG opinions and such BIG feelings, but you have no idea what the fuck you're talking about. You're one big confederacy of uninformed imbeciles.

>>1513926
..the guy Luigi killed was a health insurance CEO. Not a drug dealer.
Don't be retarded anon, you're not cute enough to make it look endearing.

>>1513958
god you're esl

>>1513957
>US is not a party to the ICC and does not recognize its authority. You absolute fucking retard.
Yeah until the next admin hands over Hegseth and company. Or hell, we can do it ourselves; rope is still good for war criminals anywhere in the world.

Face it; Hegseth literally does not survive another dem presidency. He's either spending his life in prison for war crimes or having it ended for said war crimes. And he's likely not gonna be alone in that.

>>1513963
>Yeah until the next admin hands over Hegseth and company.
Again: We're not a party to the ICC and do not recognize its authority.

Its also really fucking weird that you're writing fanfic.

>>1513965
there is no "we", esl shill. you're not american and nobody will ever think otherwise

>>1513966
I could be Bolivian. That doesn't change the fact that (1) the US is not a party to the ICC and (2) the US does not recognize the ICC's authority.

>>1513967
>so what if i'm not american
then don't use "we" as if you are, you bloviating faggot

>>1513955
>Yes. These boats with $100K worth of outboards, large square packages wrapped in plastic and no fishing equipment are surely fishing vessels.
Prove they aren't; oh wait you destroyed them and killed all the survivors with even more illegal double taps. Almost like there's a reason police don't raid drug labs by blowing up the building with everyone still inside.

BTW; multiple survivors and the families of victims have testified they were fishermen. Not a single survivor of these strikes has been convicted for drug trafficking.

>>1513967
>>1513965
>That doesn't change the fact that (1) the US is not a party to the ICC and (2) the US does not recognize the ICC's authority.
>"Wait but we didn't recognize your authority before you handed me over- ACK!"
Times change and any subsequent president is gonna have quite a bit of interest in bringing these retards to task. Tick tock.

>>1513904
>Because they follow the law of what gets you the death penalty and what doesn't?
Because they think the laws for US citizens should apply to foreigners outside our borders. Protip: they don't. Narco-terrorists from South American countries don't have rights, especially when they're bringing in tons of illegal drugs.

>>1513978
>Because they think the laws for US citizens should apply to foreigners outside our borders. Protip: they don't.
So the laws don't apply to them but we're killing them for... breaking the law. Got it.

>Narco-terrorists from South American countries don't have rights, especially when they're bringing in tons of illegal drugs.
You have maybe 1-2 confirmed drug boats out of 190+. Multiple families testified their loved ones killed by the US were fishermen, and none of the few survivors were subsequently convicted of drug crimes.

>>1513969
There's that hyper nationalist behavior fascists are known for.

>>1513990
That's not what that means.

>>1513985
>Multiple families testified their loved ones killed by the US were fishermen
Because they're lying.
These boats are made uniform with highly expensive engines. Some are nigger-rigged submarines. Those that survived the bombings were interviewed and confessed to be smuggling drugs. South America is not a serious continent.

>>1513994
>These boats are made uniform with highly expensive engines.
Yeah no. The only one the engine claim has been made about was the very first one; just looking at any of the other ones shows they're only "uniform" in the sense they're all small boats.

>Those that survived the bombings were interviewed and confessed to be smuggling drugs
No they haven't lmao.

>>1513985
>So the laws don't apply to them but we're killing them for... breaking the law. Got it.
We're killing them because they're a threat to Americans. Something Republicans at least say they give a fuck about. America FIRST. Meaning we won't think twice about blowing up a ship full of cocaine and brown people, while the democrats cry and scream racism.

>You have maybe 1-2 confirmed drug boats out of 190+.
The US Air Force disagrees. I'm going to take their word over these 'family members' claiming their high-speed boat making a beeline for our territory were just peaceful fishermen.

>>1513997
>Something Republicans at least say they give a fuck about.
You can't even say they actually do. Incredible.
>I'm going to take their word
We know.

>>1513998
>You can't even say they actually do. Incredible.
Oh, great. It's the same upset fag from last night's thread who can't make an argument.

>>1513999
It's not the first time we've talked today, anon. Keep up.

>>1514001
How about you tell me what reliable source you got this line from:
>You have maybe 1-2 confirmed drug boats out of 190+

>>1514003
Dunno, NTA.

>>1514004
Because you're the same whiny bitch from this thread >>1513550 who keeps jumping into someone else's chain of replies for no reason other than to be a fag.

>>1514003
Please provide any reports of drugs being found in the wreckage of any of these boats.

>>1514008
When you tell me where you got that 1-2 confirmed drug boats out of the 190+ we've blown up, I'll consider it. Or just admit you pulled that number out of your ass.

>>1514007
That's how chans work, retard. Fuck off to reddit or twitter if you can't handle it.

>>1514012
That's hilarious coming from the same whiny homosexual who was screaming
>WAAAAAHH TRUMP'S A FASCIST WAAAAHHHH
Get bored with your echo chamber on Bluesky?

>>1514013
nta, but Trump is a facist

>>1514013
You're the one getting tilted by 4chan basics, buddy.
Oh, and pro-tip, you made the claim that they were bringing in drugs, you gotta prove it. No, the other anon having some vague numbers doesn't change that.

>>1514015
>you made the claim that they were bringing in drugs, you gotta prove it.
As I already covered, USAF said they were drug boats before our military blew them up. Do you have a source better than them?
>protip: nope

>>1514011
There's one boat where drugs were found in the wreckage. ONE.
>https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/dominican-republic-says-it-recovered-cocaine-that-was-on-speedboat-destroyed-by-u-s-military
This is literally the only boat where drugs were recovered after the fact. Out of over 192 boats sank by the US, there is exactly ONE that has been confirmed to be a drug boat. Two was being generous that maybe they confirmed at least one more but I legitimately can't find anything. This is literally the only one where any drugs were found in the wreckage.

>>1514017
Yes, because the government would NEVER lie to you. And could we get some citation on that too?

>>1514018
>There's one boat where drugs were found in the wreckage. ONE.
And the rest were destroyed and/or at the bottom of the ocean. So you don't have any proof those boats didn't have drugs and you're trying to get me to take the word of cartel family members over our own military, who also don't have any proof.

This is why democrats are a joke. They value the lives of foreigners over Americans.

>>1513743
>>1513931
The sad fact is: As long as nobody at the pentagon is arrested, it's effectively legal.

>>1514022
>So you don't have any proof those boats didn't have drugs
lol
they also killed the last living unicorn, it was on the last boat they blew up. You can't prove it wasn't there.

>>1514022
>So you don't have any proof those boats didn't have drugs
Jesus fucking christ you people are stupid. This is why I try not to argue with you.
YOU made the claim they have drugs. YOU have to prove it. If you're differing that to the USAF, then THEY have to prove they have drugs, and as you just said, they fucking haven't. It is not on anyone else to prove that they didn't have drugs, that's the exact opposite of how this works.

>They value the lives of foreigners over Americans.
You wanna talk about valuing the lives of Americans? How about the cuts to FEMA, to medicare, to food stamps? Shit that Americans actually directly need to fucking live? Oh, but there's always money to blow up foreigners. They have drugs or something! No we don't have any proof, just trust me bro.

>>1514029
>YOU made the claim they have drugs.
And every single agency involved, military and civilian.
>YOU have to prove it.
lol no the fuck I don't. YOU have to prove to me that every single branch of the military involved with these shootings, and every single civilian agency overseeing it, was lying. I'm taking their word over yours. YOU have to prove to me that they're lying. Not the other way around.

And since you have no evidence, this will be a short conversation.

>You wanna talk about valuing the lives of Americans? How about the cuts to FEMA, to medicare, to food stamps?
Good. Fuck you welfare queens and every democrat who supports that shit. Get a job.

>>1513743
Those retards are STILL doing this shit? Out here wasting valuable munitions and mission time on boats that they THINK might have a few bricks of cocaine when the Coast Guard's been boarding them without any losses for literal decades.

>>1514032
>And every single agency involved, military and civilian.
>>1514020
>lol no the fuck I don't.
lol yes the fuck you do. That's how the burden of proof works.
>Good. Fuck you welfare queens and every democrat who supports that shit.
Ah, of course. MAGA values the lives of Americans! Except for the lives of Americans they don't value! I think I can see why you could even pretend that Republicans actually give a fuck about this.
>And since you have no evidence, this will be a short conversation.
Projection, but yes, it was. I ain't humoring you if all you're going to do is shout "LALALALA I BELIEVE THEM SO THERE." You have fucking nothing.

>>1514035
>lol yes the fuck you do.
lmao no the fuck I don't, and I'm not going to. So either prove the military was lying, or go back to crying in your safe space on plebbit.
>That's how the burden of proof works.
>waaaahhhh dey wuz fishurmen n shiet! Source is a bunch of brown people who weren't there!
Riiiiight, let me know when either they, or you, have any counter-evidence. Until then, you can all fuck off.

>>1514029
>Jesus fucking christ you people are stupid.
Don't use the name of The Lord in vain, dickhead
>YOU made the claim they have drugs.
YOU are making the claim they don't to influence people. You literally don't care if there's drugs or not. No evidence would be good enough for you to quit your bullshit.
No one owes you anything.

>>1514037
How do you reconcile these extrajudicial killings with your Christianity?

>>1514037
I mean, you seem to be claiming to be Christian here because you’re calling Jesus the Lord and only Christians do that. So I’d like you to explain how Christianity would allow the murder of, for the sake of the argument, “drug traffickers”.
Assuming you and the pentagon are right and every single one of them is a drug trafficker, why would that then make a justification for killing them? Not perhaps only in a Christian context but under US military law.

>>1514043
Not him, they're not extrajudicial. Christianity allows defense against invaders.

“Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters."

>>1514047
>So I’d like you to explain how Christianity would allow the murder of, for the sake of the argument, “drug traffickers”.

19 The acts of the flesh are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; 20 idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions 21 and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.

>>1514060
They’re not invading, it’s not even clear if any of them are even approaching US territorial waters. Even if they were in US territorial waters and had drugs and weapons it’s not enough evidence to call it an invasion, there’s no indication that any of them either attempted to or were planning on any kind of assault upon US sovereignty.
Which book are those verses from?

>>1514061
They're illegally entering the country to sell poison to our citizens. They are invaders. Even if they don't invade our country themselves, they're giving that poison to other people who then smuggle it into the country.

They are the enemy. It is very simple. Not only the enemy of America, but the enemy of Christianity - even if they weren't foreign.

>Which book are those verses from?
Luke and Galatians.

>>1514063
>They are invaders.
>Even if they don't invade…
You’re going to have such a headache

>>1514063
>And Jesus said to the people, "If anyone should strike you on the cheek then I say onto you, turn before them and vaporize them with large munitions. Be there any survivors, violate international law and let them drown. Wait, you people really buy into this bullshit? You think I did real magic? You need a fucking book to tell you how to be moral, and not just empathy? You think it makes sense I, an all-loving god, would torture you forever just for not believing I did magic and not loving me more than your kids? God you people are fucking dumb.

lol yeah trump, you're murdering all the porn by trying to ban it by the looks of it. Jealous that Ivanka Trump being pounded by BBC not enough for you? Just a distraction from the Epstein Files. I'm surprised there is not a thread on the porn ban.

>>1514063
>They're illegally entering the country to sell poison to our citizens.
lmao no they aren't they're in waters on the other half of the fucking hemisphere.

>Even if they don't invade our country themselves, they're giving that poison to other people who then smuggle it into the country.
Bro you can't even prove 99% of these boats have drugs on them at all, nevermind if they're going to the US.

>>1514013
How is murdering people without trial a non-fascist thing?

>>1513896
>>1513925
>>1513931
>>1513944
>>1513978

How do you know they're actually drug traffickers if they don't get a trial? What if it's people held hostage by cartels?

>>1513970
>>1513985
yep, survivors state they're fishermen and were tortured by the military.
https://www.dropsitenews.com/p/rare-survivors-of-pacific-boat-strikes

>>1513994
>Those that survived the bombings were interviewed and confessed to be smuggling drugs.
Source?

>>1513994
>These boats are made uniform with highly expensive engines. Some are nigger-rigged submarines
Source?

>>1514043
>>1514047
Notice how the pair of gay fuckheads completely changed focus from their bullshit they don't believe in to attack from a religious angle?
Interesting. You know you're making claims you don't believe, and so do I.

>>1514080
the missile hit them, so they're drug traffickers

>>1514088
the missile knows where the drug trafficker is, because it knows where it isn't

>>1514079
Did Osama Bin Laden get a trial?

>>1514084
That’s a different anon from the other anon. He knows and so does the other one. I think it’s a valid angle, pointing out hypocrisy and cognitive dissonance are perfectly reasonable argument tactics

>>1514090
He should have, if he’d been captured that is

>>1514099
He was unarmed when they shot him. They could've brought him back to face trial, but Obama gave the order to kill him. Does that make him a fascist?

>>1514101
>Uh killing a known terrorist leader is basically the same as blowing up random boats in the middle of the ocean!

>>1514102
lol look at those goalposts flying by! Is murdering people without trial a fascist thing? Yes or no.

>>1514105
Osama Bin Laden was indicted by the US in 1998 lmao. On a technical level, he was a fugitive.

>>1514109
And was never given a trial, even though it was in Obama's power to do so. Same goes with al-Awlaki, an American citizen killed by Obama without any due process.

I'm going to keep asking until you stop dodging.
>Is murdering people without trial a fascist thing? Yes or no.

>>1514110
>And was never given a trial
But was considered by the US to have committed a crime. Also openly confessed to being behind attacks on the US.

Your comparison is shit and you know it.

>>1514110
Were the bombers at Pearl Harbor given a trial?

>>1514111
>But was considered by the US to have committed a crime. Also openly confessed to being behind attacks on the US.
Still didn't get a trial. Do we kill everyone who claims to be a murderer or criminal?

>Your comparison is shit and you know it.
Oh no, it's perfect. Which is why you can't answer it. Keep dodging, faggot. I'm going to ask you again:

>Is murdering people without trial a fascist thing? Yes or no.

>>1514112
Did we kill any that survived without a trial after the war?

>>1514101
It’s a false equivalence, you’re comparing bombing fishing boats filled with fishermen with a military action against the known leader of a stated enemy of the US.
Obama did a lot of bad things too but it’s not an argument to say that because Obama did this and that it’s ok for Trump to do that and this, even if they’re both doing the exact same bad things it doesn’t give Trump a pass to carry on with it, maybe Obama needs to be brought to justice too

>>1514114
I'm not the one who set the standard. This fag did >>1514079

So I'm going to hold all of you to the same standard.
>b-but that's (D)ifferent!!!

>>1514113
>>Is murdering people without trial a fascist thing? Yes or no.
Yes. Killing Osama Bin Laden, a known terrorist who openly coordinate terror attacks and took credit for hundreds of civilian deaths, is vastly different from blowing up random boats and claiming they're drug dealers with zero evidence. You're effectively comparing a gang leader being killed during a police raid to a policeman beating a random homeless person to death.

>>1514118
>>>Is murdering people without trial a fascist thing? Yes or no.
>Yes.
So the thing that every president has done for the last 40 years is fascist? Then what makes Trump so special?

>>1514119
>Then what makes Trump so special?
He's doing it to completely random boats, double tapping the survivors, then posting the snuff films and bragging about how he's openly committing war crimes in international waters? For fucks sake; he literally said "it's dangerous to be a fisherman down there". He literally knows he's ordering the deaths of innocents just so he can show it off to his base.

>>1514120
>He's doing it to completely random boats,
Except he isn't doing it completely randomly, according to every intelligence agency under his command.

But we're getting away from the point I really want to drive home into your fucking useless heads. Either admit that Trump is no more of a fascist then any other president we've had since Clinton was in office, OR (what I prefer) you fucking useless democrat retards can get rid of this notion that the same criminal justice system applies to foreigner around the world. It doesn't. We're allowed to blow motherfuckers up - like Bin Laden - like drug smuggling cartel members - when they threaten the lives of Americans. Pick one.

>>1514124
*applies to every foreigner
derp

>>1514124
>Except he isn't doing it completely randomly, according to every intelligence agency under his command.
And yet we have absolutely no evidence 99% of these boats have drugs on them. That's the whole issue here retard.

>>1514126
>no evidence
That's only being alleged by democrats. The same group of retards that also seethed about Kilmar Garcia and stopping Somali fraud.

>>1514126
The evidence is at the bottom of the ocean, where it belongs. Go fetch!

>>1514128
>>1514127
Ah yes, very normal; go get the evidence someone committed the crime after having dealt out the punishment. Yeah this is how the law works; did you know that Kirk was gonna shoot that guy before he shot him? The evidence is there you're just not looking hard enough.

>>1514127
>That's only being alleged by democrats
Have they provided any evidence other than "Well they probably did"?

>>1514129
>Ah yes, very normal; go get the evidence someone committed the crime
There was no crime. Multiple agencies and branches declared those boats as targets. I trust them more than I trust you.

>Yeah this is how the law works
That's EXACTLY how the FUCKING LAW WORKS because there IS NO LAW FOR THEM! Get that through your fucking head! They are NOT Americans! They do NOT get the same fucking protections we do! You stupid fuck!

This is why I fucking despise democrats. You fucking subhuman pieces of shit value foreigners over actual US citizens. You fucking traitors deserve to be cut into tiny fucking pieces!

... phew. I'm calm now. Anyways, as I was saying. Those boats were legit targets, per several intel agencies and our military keeping an eye on everything. No they're not going to toss OPSEC overboard just to satisfy your conspiracy theories (you wouldn't believe them even if they did), and those (((fishermen))) don't deserve a trial anymore than Osama Bin Laden did.

tl;dr cope and seethe.

>>1514132
>Multiple agencies and branches declared those boats as targets. I trust them more than I trust you.
Under what evidence?

>because there IS NO LAW FOR THEM! Get that through your fucking head! They are NOT Americans! They do NOT get the same fucking protections we do! You stupid fuck!
So we're killing them for "breaking the law" yet laws also don't apply to them?

>tl;dr cope and seethe.
You should probably take your own advice. Especially when Hegseth is facing the rope for his numerous war crimes when Trump is out. But hey at least he'll have a valid reason to drink then.

>>1514134
>So we're killing them for "breaking the law" yet laws also don't apply to them?
We're killing them because they're attempting to smuggle narcotics into our country.

> Especially when Hegseth is facing the rope for his numerous war crimes when Trump is out.
LOL keep believing that shit. Just like you fags keep saying every ICE agent is going to be thrown in jail. Not a chance in hell - and even if there was, all Trump has to do is take a page out of Biden and give everybody blanket pardons. Thank God he set that precedent for us.

>>1514130
What kind of evidence would satisfy you? The US gov has already disclosed they have retrieved both drugs and men admitting to drug smuggling from these downed vessels.

>>1514137
Nothing will satisfy them, anon. The ghost of Pablo Escobar could rise and tell them the tonnage of cocaine sunk, they'd still being whining about the rights of narco-terrorists.

Because they don't give a fuck. Orange man is blowing up brown people and they can't stand it. Whether they were a threat to Americans is irrelevant to them.

>>1514137
>The US gov has already disclosed they have retrieved both drugs and men admitting to drug smuggling from these downed vessels.
No they haven't. There's exactly one vessel the Dominican Republican found drugs in the wreckage of, and not a single survivor has confessed to being a drug smuggler nor have they been convicted of drug smuggling.

>>1514136
>We're killing them because they're attempting to smuggle narcotics into our country.
And your evidence for this is...?

>Just like you fags keep saying every ICE agent is going to be thrown in jail. Not a chance in hell - and even if there was, all Trump has to do is take a page out of Biden and give everybody blanket pardons. Thank God he set that precedent for us.
No Dem president gets in without putting this admin on a pike. Also, Trump is involved in all these crimes personally so any pardons are null and void. Not that he will pardon them; he doesn't give those out for free and I doubt most of the rank and file can afford to donate a few million.

>>1514141
>Also, Trump is involved in all these crimes personally so any pardons are null and void.
LMAO it's no wonder you think our laws apply to foreign narco-terrorists, when you don't even know how are laws work.

>>1514143
>are
our
Damn it.

Democrats want you to believe that Trump is bombing submarines designed for fishing.

>>1514143
>LMAO it's no wonder you think our laws apply to foreign narco-terrorists, when you don't even know how are laws work.
Oh wow you're right; the president can pardon even if he's a co-conspirator. Nice loophole we need to fix.

Of course, this is assuming Trump can get to the pardon stage before he strokes out. He's rotting day by day; personally I don't think he gets that far.

>>1514148
What submarines? Every fucking clip they release shows a small boat.

>>1514137
> The US gov has already disclosed they have retrieved both drugs and men admitting to drug smuggling from these downed vessels.
source? How many vessels did they recover that from?

>>1514090
Wasn’t murder. He was an active combatant.

>>1514151
>Oh wow you're right
I know.

>>1514157
Unfortunately, still a war crime. Also, pardons don't mean shit if the next president recognizes ICC. Which is becoming a pretty popular idea now.

>>1514158
>Also, pardons don't mean shit if the next president recognizes ICC. Which is becoming a pretty popular idea now.
Name one pardon that was ever overturned or revoked.

Go ahead, I'll wait.

>>1513904
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-15121879
>no trial
>no problem

>>1514120
https://www.cnn.com/2025/12/03/politics/timeline-double-tap-strikes-shifting-explanation

Double tapping boats is a war crime

>>1514162
>Name one pardon that was ever overturned or revoked.
Doesn't have to be; US pardon doesn't absolve an ICC charges. And again, this is assuming Trump does pardon them before he either dies of a stroke or is removed from office.

>>1514178
>Doesn't have to be; US pardon doesn't absolve an ICC charges.
So?

>>1514189
So the moment the US decides to cooperate, increasingly likely as mainstream opinion turns against Israel and has interest in seeing justice done, suddenly Hegseth and co face the same noose the nazis did.

Again, all assuming Trump gives pardons for free. I guarantee you he finally rots to death before he gets around to it, and suddenly this admin has to answer for a lot they weren't planning to answer for.

>>1514178
>US pardon doesn't absolve an ICC charges
US isnt subject to the ICC.

>>1514192
>Hegseth is basically a nazi
wut

>>1514258
>US isnt subject to the ICC.
This can change. Probably will too.

>>Hegseth is basically a nazi
>wut
Yeah the crusader tattoos and repeated war crimes gave it away.

>>1514262
>This can change. Probably will too.
Will definitely not change.
>Yeah the crusader tattoos and repeated war crimes gave it away.
Generic Christian tattoos makes someone a nazi?

>>1514263
>Will definitely not change.
Maybe if Trump doesn't start mass pardoning. But already the primary reason the US doesn't recognize them is because of Israel and they're rapidly falling out of favor. All it takes is one friendly dem president and suddenly the hague is open.

>Generic Christian tattoos makes someone a nazi?
With all his other behavior? If it acts like a duck, looks like a duck...

>>1514265
>All it takes is one friendly dem president and suddenly the hague is open.
It requires a vote in the Senate. You fucking idiot.

>if he is Christian and does stuff I dont like then he is a nazi
Yeah, we know.

>>1514265
>save me ICC
ICC doesnt have authority over international waters and even if a Dem became president and if they adopted the ICC and if the Senate voted to confirm, you cant use it retroactively. SO everything that happened before confirmation is free and clear.

Get the fuck outta here with your minimum-wage takes.

>>1514266
>It requires a vote in the Senate. You fucking idiot.
Which the dems will also be winning soon. Thanks for fucking up so bad with a triple Republican government have already accepted they're losing midterms.

>>if he is Christian and does stuff I dont like then he is a nazi
Nah if he wears a bunch of white supremacist slogans and commits a ton of war crimes when given power, yeah he's a nazi.

>>1514267
>you cant use it retroactively.
lmao who said? All it takes is ICC putting a warrant out.

>ICC doesnt have authority over international waters
Actually yes they do, but they don't even need to go that far; his shenanigans in Iran would be enough.

>>1514268
>Which the dems will also be winning soon
Senate confirmation of a treaty requires a 2-3rds vote you literal fucking retard.

Holy shit you're so upset but you dont know what the fuck you're talking about.

>Christian cross
>white supremacist
wut

>>1514270
>Senate confirmation of a treaty requires a 2-3rds vote you literal fucking retard.
Yeah and Republicans are gonna want Trump gone too. Besides, if Trump has taught us anything next Dem president can just say we recognize the treaty now, hand Hegseth and everyone over, then the senate can cope and seethe but not do anything.

>>1514269
Its come to my attention that you're incredibly poorly read.
>ICC can just put out a warrant
No. The crime has to be committed in a territory or region over which it has jurisdiction - ie a signatory nation.
>Actually yes they do
No, actually they dont. They would if the ship being attacked is flagged under the flag of a nation that is a signatory.
>his shenangins in Iran
ah, you're brown. That explains the low-IQ takes.

>>1514273
>Trump has taught us anything next Dem president can just say we recognize the treaty now, hand Hegseth and everyone over, then the senate can cope and seethe but not do anything.
We've reached the point of the discussion where you start writing fanfic. That was quick.

Interesting they’re now; yeah we’re doing war crimes and we’ll get away with it too

>>1514276
Wouldn't be any more of an overreach than what Trump does every day. Sucks to suck.

>>1514281
Do you remember Obama's response to drone striking a 16 year old american citizen?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Abdulrahman_al-Awlaki

>>1514310
I don't care. I don't own nor care about my complaints.
I want to win the midterms to kill you.

>>1514313
I hope you start caring about your complaints because if you don't, nobody else will

>>1514310
>Son of an al-Quaeda organizer
>Was only killed because he was hanging around a different al-Quaeda leader

>>1514318
Killing a US Citizen, a minor, without a trial.

>>1514313
Well at least you're honest in your hypocrisy.

>>1514265
>All it takes is one friendly dem president to unravel our entire constitution and subjugate us to the laws of ICC
I couldn't ask for a better example for why nobody should ever vote democrat. Thank you for demonstrating how anti-American that party is, and confirming what I've said this whole time how they care more about foreigners than US citizens.

>>1514335
>Thank you for demonstrating how anti-American that party is, and confirming what I've said this whole time how they care more about foreigners than US citizens.
Yeah Trump has done multiple things on par with this over the course of his presidency. Thanks for admitting you only care about it when Dems do it.

Oh, and if you're curious as to what?
>war in iran
>blatant and open corruption
>selling all our personal data to DOGE and Palantir
Among others.

>>1514330
accidentally killing him when aiming for a genuine target. it doesnt seem like it was intentional.

which is pretty damn bad but its not the same thing as killing random civilians intentionally. Trump also did even more drone strikes than obama:
https://chicago.suntimes.com/news/2019/5/8/18619206/under-donald-trump-drone-strikes-far-exceed-obama-s-numbers

>>1514335
you're literally not american

>>1514338
Aha, but Biden was a huge fuck up.
>Obama deported more people
We didn't protest.
>Obama did less drone strikes
We didn't care about Obama drone strikes.

Yes, this is exactly the type of shit that makes you look like facetious pieces of trash desperate for power at any cost.

>>1514344
you're in this exact threat complaining about obama's drone strikes. you need to take more lying classes esl shill, you're god awful at this

>>1514336
>Yeah Trump has done multiple things on par with this over the course of his presidency.
Show me a time where Trump had ICC laws supercede US law. Go ahead.

>>1514350
show us a time where your pathetic little shill tactics weren't ridiculed

>>1514350
More like International Coping Court, mirite?
>>1514353
NTA but fuck off spamfaggot.

>>1514356
>NTA
yes you are, faggot shill. you really need to learn how to lie better

>>1514350
>Show me a time where Trump had ICC laws supercede US law.
No but I can cite multiple times where he tried to have his personal law supercede US law, including trying to remove birthright citizenship via executive order even though it's part of the constitution.

There's also that time he ironically sanctioned ICC judges for filing charges against ISRAELI figures.

>>1514363
>ncluding trying to remove birthright citizenship via executive order even though it's part of the constitution.
Its not part of the constitution, if it was there would not be a case in front of SCOTUS about it.

>>1514369
god you're esl

>>1514371
just a general fyi, I aint replying to that shit no more.

>>1514371
Is god an esl?

>>1514369
>Its not part of the constitution, if it was there would not be a case in front of SCOTUS about it.
Yes it is actually. 14th amendment; this is the exact reason why said case is going to result in a 9-0 "fuck off" ruling and the only reason it hasn't yet is because the conservative justices are trying to delay pissing Trump off as long as possible.

>>1514374
>Yes it is actually
Its not, actually.
> this is the exact reason why said case is going to result in a 9-0 "fuck off" ruling
You need to start reading more. Its a hotly debated legal question and always have been.

FYI native Americans did not get birthright citizenship until Congress passed the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924.

>>1514375
>Its a hotly debated legal question and always have been.
Lmao no it hasn't. Republicans have been paying legal theorists for years to find a way to interpret it otherwise and have failed for years; the 14th is black and white on birthright citizenship and not even this supreme court can say otherwise.

>>1514383
>the 14A is black and white its clear as day
>thats why we had to pass the Indian Citizenship Act
The problem is that you're a stupid person. Poorly educated. You get your opinions from late night tv hosts.

>>1514385
Anon the Indian Citizenship Act had to pass because the 14th amendment specified it applied to people subject to the jurisdiction of the US government, which Native Americans technically were not as they are under their own sovereign tribal nations. It was a loop hole that applied exclusively to them due to the unique circumstances of native american tribes and whether or not their land counts as part of the US.

>>1514389
I know. So, you have now concede that not everyone born in the united states is "subject to the jurisdiction of". Kinda seems like that phrase is subject to debate.

Go ahead and cite Wong Kim next.

>>1514391
>So, you have now concede that not everyone born in the united states is "subject to the jurisdiction of".
Actually no. Because the whole issue is that native territories aren't considered fully part of the United States as they have sovereign governments. So unless you were born in Native territory AND were claimed as a member of a native tribe, you're still a US citizen per the 14th as long as you were born on US soil.

>>1514385
>>1514391
Yeah you're retarded. The whole issue that led to the Indian Citizenship Act was the "subject to the jurisdiction of" requirement; since Native lands had their own governments that had jurisdiction of their own, technically people there weren't within the jurisdiction of the US and didn't meet that part of the requirement. To argue this in any way means the 14th doesn't apply to non-citizens would be to argue that the US doesn't have jurisdiction over its own territory.

>>1514393
>actually no
Whole bunch of briefing in front of SCOTUS and like half a dozen law journals say otherwise.

>>1514396
>Yeah you're retarded.
Gee bro maybe you should, like, read some of the legal arguments being presented.

>>1514397
>>1514398
Please provide them, because the part you're so confident about is completely full of shit; the literal only way birthright citizenship would not work using that as a basis would be to effectively argue the US does not have jurisdiction over its own land.

>>1514400
>the literal only way birthright citizenship would not work using that as a basis would be to effectively argue the US does not have jurisdiction over its own land.
Or, you know, that people who are here illegally are not subject to the jurisdiction of our government in the way they meant in 1868. Senator Howard, who is responsible for the 14A said
>“This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States.”
>“This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers…”

Again, this issue has been hotly debated by legal scholars for a looooong time and the originalist argument in favor of it is very strong. Stop getting your opinions from John Oliver or whatever.

>>1514402
>Or, you know, that people who are here illegally are not subject to the jurisdiction of our government in the way they meant in 1868
If they're not subject to the jurisdiction of our government, then they can't be deported. You cannot just pick and choose which of the US' laws affect them or not; either the US has jurisdiction and can prosecute them for crimes, or they have no jurisdiction and therefore those people are completely unsubjects to US law, including immigration.

>they meant in 1868
Doesn't matter. Constitution works as written and that is settled legal law. Should've elaborated; decades of Republican cope doesn't matter in the face of direct black and white language.

>>1513941
Yes. Obviously and naturally. We are discussing law and jurisdiction. You brought it up by. Why must that be explained?

>>1514402
Here's the full quote.
> Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.
The only exception is people who are born to foreign ambassadors, since they aren't subject to american law.

>>1514402
>Or, you know, that people who are here illegally are not subject to the jurisdiction of our government

This is a common right wing retard point. Like many retarded right wing talking points, if you don't think about it at all, it almost kinda sounds like it makes sense.

If what you're saying was true, it would mean nations couldn't enforce their laws on foreign citizens. It's fucking incredible you people are so astoundingly dumb this self-defeating rhetoric circulates among you.

>>1514483
https://www.heritage.org/immigration/commentary/birthright-citizenship-fundamental-misunderstanding-the-14th-amendment
The 14th Amendment doesn’t say that all persons born in the U.S. are citizens. It says that “[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” are citizens. That second, critical, conditional phrase is conveniently ignored or misinterpreted by advocates of “birthright” citizenship.

Critics erroneously believe that anyone present in the United States has “subjected” himself “to the jurisdiction” of the United States, which would extend citizenship to the children of tourists, diplomats, and illegal aliens alike.

But that is not what that qualifying phrase means. Its original meaning refers to the political allegiance of an individual and the jurisdiction that a foreign government has over that individual.

The fact that a tourist or illegal alien is subject to our laws and our courts if they violate our laws does not place them within the political “jurisdiction” of the United States as that phrase was defined by the framers of the 14th Amendment.

This amendment’s language was derived from the 1866 Civil Rights Act, which provided that “[a]ll persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power” would be considered citizens.

Sen. Lyman Trumbull, a key figure in the adoption of the 14th Amendment, said that “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S. included not owing allegiance to any other country.

As John Eastman, former dean of the Chapman School of Law, has said, many do not seem to understand “the distinction between partial, territorial jurisdiction, which subjects all who are present within the territory of a sovereign to the jurisdiction of that sovereign’s laws, and complete political jurisdiction, which requires allegiance to the sovereign as well.”

>>1514506
>Critics erroneously believe that anyone present in the United States has “subjected” himself “to the jurisdiction” of the United States, which would extend citizenship to the children of tourists, diplomats, and illegal aliens alike.
The children of diplomats are not subject to the jurisdiction of the US. They have diplomatic immunity by law.

Also, the fucking writers of the fucking amendment explained outright what it fucking meant.

>This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States.
Key words being
>who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States

Also, John Eastman was disbarred.