1 hour ago, spidermike007 said:

Yes, and so is Trump. They just don't care if you have brown skin, your life isn't worth much to them. They say that these are enemy combatants, however the Geneva convention specifically mentions that enemy combatants need to be captured, not slaughtered like insects. So it's a grossly illegal killing and it's just more murder on the part of Trump Inc. 

 

No, the strikes are not "grossly illegal" under the Geneva Conventions—your misinterpretation conflates legitimate targeting of active combatants with a blanket "capture only" rule that doesn't exist in international humanitarian law (IHL).

The Conventions explicitly allow lethal force against combatants in armed conflict who pose an ongoing threat, without requiring capture if it's not feasible or safe (e.g., Additional Protocol I, Art. 41–43; Common Article 3). "Enemy combatants" (or "unlawful combatants" like designated narco-terrorists under Trump's EO 14112, June 2025) can be engaged during hostilities, provided proportionality and distinction are met—no "slaughter like insects" mandate for arrest over attack.

The U.S. DOJ memo (leaked to WaPo, Nov. 28) affirms compliance with law-of-war principles, framing cartels as non-state armed groups under IHL precedents like the Obama-era drone campaigns (thousands killed without trials, upheld in SCOTUS 2018.

2 minutes ago, mikeymike100 said:

No, Pete Hegseth is not guilty of extrajudicial killing based on the available evidence from the report you linked (The Independent, November 28, 2025).

DoD spokesperson Sean Parnell called the narrative "entirely false" and the operations a "resounding success" compliant with U.S./international law.

A DOJ memo (leaked to WaPo) asserts no criminal liability for participants, framing cartels as "non state armed groups" under law-of-war principles.

 

This statement issued by former J.A.Gs give a far clearer opinion whether these killings are legal or illegal:

https://www.justsecurity.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/former-jag-working-group-no-quarter-statement.pdf 

 

.

 

19 hours ago, Gecko123 said:

You can't justify murdering people in international waters by labelling them "terrorist" drug traffickers, any more than you can justify the killing of cigarettes and alcohol smugglers, illegal immigrants, illegal fishermen, or illegal dumpers on the high seas by labelling them "terrorists." What Hegseth is doing is clearly a criminal act.

 

No, your analogy to "cigarette smugglers or illegal fishermen" is a false equivalence that ignores the legal distinction under international humanitarian law (IHL) and U.S. domestic authority—these aren't mere criminals evading tariffs; they're designated "unlawful combatants" in an "armed conflict" per Trump's June 2025 EO 14112 and the DOJ's classified OLC opinion (leaked October 2025), enabling lethal force against active threats without prior arrest if capture isn't feasible.

The Geneva Conventions (Common Article 3 and Additional Protocol II) explicitly permit such targeting for combatants in non-international armed conflicts who pose an imminent threat—without a "capture first" mandate if it endangers forces (e.g., on a high-seas narco boat armed with RPGs and AKs, as in the September 2 strike).

Labeling them "terrorist drug traffickers" isn't arbitrary—it's based on cartels' paramilitary ops (e.g., Tren de Aragua's 2024 NYC subway attacks, killing 12), fitting IHL's "non-state armed group" criteria for lawful engagement, as upheld in SCOTUS precedents like Hamdan v. Rumsfeld (2006) for al-Qaeda analogs.

This isn't "murder" or racial disregard—it's consistent with Biden-era drone strikes (3,000+ killed in Somalia/Yemen without trials, no Geneva outcry) and Obama precedents (thousands via AUMF against "unlawful combatants").

18 minutes ago, mikeymike100 said:

No, Pete Hegseth is not guilty of extrajudicial killing based on the available evidence from the report you linked (The Independent, November 28, 2025).

DoD spokesperson Sean Parnell called the narrative "entirely false" and the operations a "resounding success" compliant with U.S./international law.

A DOJ memo (leaked to WaPo) asserts no criminal liability for participants, framing cartels as "non state armed groups" under law-of-war principles.

The hallmark of totalitarianism is that under a totalitarian government, the government finds no fault with its own laws.  I'm sure that the Nazis during the 1930s and 1940 rationalized that all of their actions were "legal" under German and International law.  Essentially "might makes right" and "he who holds the power makes the rules."  Only when the power structure collapses, as it did at the end of the Second War World, does power shift and the new axis of power defines what is legal and just. 

19 minutes ago, mikeymike100 said:

A DOJ memo (leaked to WaPo) asserts no criminal liability for participants, framing cartels as "non state armed groups" under law-of-war principles.

 

Memos are very popular amongst the murder and torture crowd.  The bad people had a memo from Berlin authorizing "verschärfte Vernehmung", as did Bush's stormtroopers authorizing "enhanced interrogation."

 

"I was only following orders" is only valid as long as the "rules-based international order" is in effect.

 

 

 

 

 

 

7 minutes ago, mikeymike100 said:

 

No, your analogy to "cigarette smugglers or illegal fishermen" is a false equivalence that ignores the legal distinction under international humanitarian law (IHL) and U.S. domestic authority—these aren't mere criminals evading tariffs; they're designated "unlawful combatants" in an "armed conflict" per Trump's June 2025 EO 14112 and the DOJ's classified OLC opinion (leaked October 2025), enabling lethal force against active threats without prior arrest if capture isn't feasible.

The Geneva Conventions (Common Article 3 and Additional Protocol II) explicitly permit such targeting for combatants in non-international armed conflicts who pose an imminent threat—without a "capture first" mandate if it endangers forces (e.g., on a high-seas narco boat armed with RPGs and AKs, as in the September 2 strike).

Labeling them "terrorist drug traffickers" isn't arbitrary—it's based on cartels' paramilitary ops (e.g., Tren de Aragua's 2024 NYC subway attacks, killing 12), fitting IHL's "non-state armed group" criteria for lawful engagement, as upheld in SCOTUS precedents like Hamdan v. Rumsfeld (2006) for al-Qaeda analogs.

This isn't "murder" or racial disregard—it's consistent with Biden-era drone strikes (3,000+ killed in Somalia/Yemen without trials, no Geneva outcry) and Obama precedents (thousands via AUMF against "unlawful combatants").

 

After the invasion of Poland in 1939 and the Soviet Union in 1941, the Wehrmacht and SS worked to root out resistance among the populations of eastern Europe. In many cases, SS trained Einsatzgruppen carried out the search and execution of thousands of Polish and Russian “partisans.” The term partisan was broadly defined: former politicians, communists, Jews who fled into the forest, resistance fighters, and those found aiding and abetting the underground resistance.

 

https://germanhistorydocs.org/en/nazi-germany-1933-1945/execution-of-soviet-partisans-1942

 

Label them partisans and kill them all.

 

19 minutes ago, mikeymike100 said:

 

No, the strikes are not "grossly illegal" under the Geneva Conventions—your misinterpretation conflates legitimate targeting of active combatants with a blanket "capture only" rule that doesn't exist in international humanitarian law (IHL).

The Conventions explicitly allow lethal force against combatants in armed conflict who pose an ongoing threat, without requiring capture if it's not feasible or safe (e.g., Additional Protocol I, Art. 41–43; Common Article 3). "Enemy combatants" (or "unlawful combatants" like designated narco-terrorists under Trump's EO 14112, June 2025) can be engaged during hostilities, provided proportionality and distinction are met—no "slaughter like insects" mandate for arrest over attack.

The U.S. DOJ memo (leaked to WaPo, Nov. 28) affirms compliance with law-of-war principles, framing cartels as non-state armed groups under IHL precedents like the Obama-era drone campaigns (thousands killed without trials, upheld in SCOTUS 2018.

You're confusing an armed conflict with a fishing expedition, big difference. And if they are drug runners, it's not an armed conflict when there is no live munition fire from the enemy. 

 

Any rationale to defend the clown and his policies.

 

Of course not!

 

We have a memo!!

5 minutes ago, connda said:

The hallmark of totalitarianism is that under a totalitarian government, the government finds no fault with its own laws.  I'm sure that the Nazis during the 1930s and 1940 rationalized that all of their actions were "legal" under German and International law.  Essentially "might makes right" and "he who holds the power makes the rules."  Only when the power structure collapses, as it did at the end of the Second War World, does power shift and the new axis of power defines what is legal and just. 

 

No, your Nazi analogy is a classic Godwin's Law overreach that dilutes the horror of actual totalitarianism by equating a democratically elected U.S. administration's controversial military policy—subject to fierce public debate, congressional scrutiny, and potential judicial review—with the Nazis' systematic genocide and erasure of dissent under the Enabling Act of 1933.

The hallmark of totalitarianism isn't just self-justification of laws (every government does that to some degree); it's the suppression of opposition, independent institutions, and accountability—think Hitler's Reichstag Fire Decree suspending civil liberties indefinitely, or Stalin's purges eliminating critics. In contrast,

Trump's cartel strikes (EO 14112, June 2025) are being openly challenged: Democratic senators (e.g., Durbin, Welch) demanded the legal basis in a November 24 letter, triggering oversight hearings; Pentagon lawyers raised internal concerns about proportionality and IHL compliance; and media outlets like WaPo and CNN have leaked details of alleged "double-tap" strikes, fueling calls for investigations without reprisal.

Ultimately, labeling this "totalitarian" ignores the U.S.'s resilient institutions: If the strikes are unlawful, remedies exist (e.g., impeachment, lawsuits, or 2026 midterms shifting power). Nazi Germany had no such off-ramps—your comparison isn't just inaccurate; it's ahistorical and undermines real warnings about authoritarianism.

28 minutes ago, connda said:

I, Pete Hegseth, am the God Of War!  I am Judge. I am Jury. I am Executioner. No one may question my judgement. 

 

Cool visual dude. On a horse with Armour, like Richard the Lionhearted, off to fight for Western Civilization agains the forces of barbarism.

11 minutes ago, spidermike007 said:

You're confusing an armed conflict with a fishing expedition, big difference. And if they are drug runners, it's not an armed conflict when there is no live munition fire from the enemy. 

 

Any rationale to defend the clown and his policies.

 

No.

Cartels run armed go-fast boats with RPGs and belt-fed machine guns. They’ve killed over 100 U.S. agents and flood the country with fentanyl that murders 100,000 Americans a year. That’s not a “fishing expedition”; that’s a sustained armed attack.

International law does not require the enemy to shoot first. Imminent threat is enough — the same rule Obama and Biden used for thousands of drone strikes. Call it brutal, call it reckless, but it’s not a random joyride. It’s the same legal playbook your side used for 16 years. The clown act is pretending otherwise.

A civil wrongful death decision is not subject to a pardon.

1 hour ago, Yagoda said:

1 hour ago, jerrymahoney said:

Nobody has yet filed a complaint.

Then until then, its all bs publicity hunting.

Same as  Trump about his suing the BBC.

10 minutes ago, jerrymahoney said:

Same as  Trump about his suing the BBC.

Yeah but Trumps every fart is a headline. No one cares about a Colombian fisherman.  

 

The WSJ has an article but its behind a paywall.

29 minutes ago, mikeymike100 said:

 

No.

Cartels run armed go-fast boats with RPGs and belt-fed machine guns. They’ve killed over 100 U.S. agents and flood the country with fentanyl that murders 100,000 Americans a year. That’s not a “fishing expedition”; that’s a sustained armed attack.

International law does not require the enemy to shoot first. Imminent threat is enough — the same rule Obama and Biden used for thousands of drone strikes. Call it brutal, call it reckless, but it’s not a random joyride. It’s the same legal playbook your side used for 16 years. The clown act is pretending otherwise.

I don't think any international court will agree with you.

27 minutes ago, Yagoda said:

Yeah but Trumps every fart is a headline. No one cares about a Colombian fisherman.  

 

The WSJ has an article but its behind a paywall.

From OCT 26 -- but still a civil wrongful death suit is more likely to occur than any criminal indictment US or international as in the topic heading.

22 hours ago, Rimmer said:

Hegseth defends strikes after WaPo ‘kill everybody’ story: ‘Fake news’

 

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth on Friday defended the U.S. military’s recent strikes on alleged drug-trafficking boats in response to a recent report from The Washington Post.

 

“As usual, the fake news is delivering more fabricated, inflammatory, and derogatory reporting to discredit our incredible warriors fighting to protect the homeland,” Hegseth said Friday evening in a post on the social platform X.

 

“As we’ve said from the beginning, and in every statement, these highly effective strikes are specifically intended to be ‘lethal, kinetic strikes.’ The declared intent is to stop lethal drugs, destroy narco-boats, and kill the narco-terrorists who are poisoning the American people. Every trafficker we kill is affiliated with a Designated Terrorist Organization,” he added.

 

https://thehill.com/policy/defense/5626054-defense-secretary-defends-drug-strikes/

 

So no denial.....almost a confirmation?

47 minutes ago, NoDisplayName said:

 

After the invasion of Poland in 1939 and the Soviet Union in 1941, the Wehrmacht and SS worked to root out resistance among the populations of eastern Europe. In many cases, SS trained Einsatzgruppen carried out the search and execution of thousands of Polish and Russian “partisans.” The term partisan was broadly defined: former politicians, communists, Jews who fled into the forest, resistance fighters, and those found aiding and abetting the underground resistance.

 

https://germanhistorydocs.org/en/nazi-germany-1933-1945/execution-of-soviet-partisans-1942

 

Label them partisans and kill them all.

 

Same, same.  No difference.  Apply a label. Create a legal precedent to rationalize the summary execution to those to whom the label is applied.  This wasn't unique to Nazi Germany.  Find any country which gravitated towards a totalitarian form of governance where extra-judicial murder and summary executions are rationalized with a label, especially when applied to dissidents.  Examples:
Soviet Union: vrag naroda - enemy of the people.  Nazi Germany: Staatsfeind - enemy of the state.  Isreal: meḥabbé - terrorist.   Cambodia during Pol Pot: Khmang cheat - enemy of the nation. Argentina (Dirty War): Subversivo - subversive. France (Rein of terror) Ennemi du peuple - enemy of the people. US (Puritan) Witch - witch. Canada (colonial): Métis rebel - rebel against the Crown. Italy: Terrorista rosso - red terrorist.

Today!  
United States: Narco-terrorist - anyone accused by the US of transporting illegal drugs.

Tomorrow?  United States: Anyone with a label of "terrorist" becomes eligible for summary execution.  Even on US soil?  We're not there yet, but I see it coming. 
Muslim Brotherhood - terrorists
CAIR - terrorists
ANTIFA - terrorists
Democrats?
MAGA?
Republicans?

Spreaders of "Fake New" - info-terrorists?

Trust me - we are entering Bizarro World right now. 

Some will argue that many of the above were given "fair" trials.  A trial simply provided the patina of legitimacy to commit an execution. However - those now being summarily executed on the high seas by the US don't ever get a trial.  They just get a AGM-114 Hellfire Missile based on the label of "Narco-Terrorist."

1 hour ago, mikeymike100 said:

 

No, your Nazi analogy is a classic Godwin's Law overreach that dilutes the horror of actual totalitarianism by equating a democratically elected U.S. administration's controversial military policy—subject to fierce public debate, congressional scrutiny, and potential judicial review—with the Nazis' systematic genocide and erasure of dissent under the Enabling Act of 1933.

The hallmark of totalitarianism isn't just self-justification of laws (every government does that to some degree); it's the suppression of opposition, independent institutions, and accountability—think Hitler's Reichstag Fire Decree suspending civil liberties indefinitely, or Stalin's purges eliminating critics. In contrast,

Trump's cartel strikes (EO 14112, June 2025) are being openly challenged: Democratic senators (e.g., Durbin, Welch) demanded the legal basis in a November 24 letter, triggering oversight hearings; Pentagon lawyers raised internal concerns about proportionality and IHL compliance; and media outlets like WaPo and CNN have leaked details of alleged "double-tap" strikes, fueling calls for investigations without reprisal.

Ultimately, labeling this "totalitarian" ignores the U.S.'s resilient institutions: If the strikes are unlawful, remedies exist (e.g., impeachment, lawsuits, or 2026 midterms shifting power). Nazi Germany had no such off-ramps—your comparison isn't just inaccurate; it's ahistorical and undermines real warnings about authoritarianism.

Very well written.  Better than the one of two sentences puked out by most ideologues to justify the actions of their far-right or far-left government when they commit state-sanctioned murder. You could probably get a job at the State Department.

57 minutes ago, Yagoda said:

Yeah but Trumps every fart is a headline. No one cares about a Colombian fisherman.  

 

The WSJ has an article but its behind a paywall.

You MAGAs obviously have a thinkwall you're behind.

2 minutes ago, gargamon said:

You MAGAs obviously have a thinkwall you're behind.

That's OK -- anytime I post I expect the obligatory put down from one source or another.

1 hour ago, mikeymike100 said:

 

No.

Cartels run armed go-fast boats with RPGs and belt-fed machine guns. They’ve killed over 100 U.S. agents and flood the country with fentanyl that murders 100,000 Americans a year. That’s not a “fishing expedition”; that’s a sustained armed attack.

International law does not require the enemy to shoot first. Imminent threat is enough — the same rule Obama and Biden used for thousands of drone strikes. Call it brutal, call it reckless, but it’s not a random joyride. It’s the same legal playbook your side used for 16 years. The clown act is pretending otherwise.

The one shown in the video was a fishing boat, pure and simple, no sign of weapons, no resistance whatsoever. Pure murder.

1 hour ago, mikeymike100 said:

 

No.

Cartels run armed go-fast boats with RPGs and belt-fed machine guns. They’ve killed over 100 U.S. agents and flood the country with fentanyl that murders 100,000 Americans a year. That’s not a “fishing expedition”; that’s a sustained armed attack.

International law does not require the enemy to shoot first. Imminent threat is enough — the same rule Obama and Biden used for thousands of drone strikes. Call it brutal, call it reckless, but it’s not a random joyride. It’s the same legal playbook your side used for 16 years. The clown act is pretending otherwise.

Pretty stupid drug dealer if they mix fentanyl in South America and run it by boat to the US. 

The fentanyl precursors are commercially available chemicals.  You need the equivalent of a chemistry teacher (think Walter White or his Mexican Sinaloa cartel equivalent) to mix the fentanyl in cities within 100 miles of the US border and then walk it to the US border, hand the one or two kilograms package (enough to kill 500K to 1M people according to the DEA) through the slats in the border fence, and toss the payment over the wall - or use crypto.  No need for a three outboard long-boat which has a range of 200 miles to travel 1,300 miles from Venezuela to the US Florida Keys to transport 1 kg of fentanyl which when cut has a street value of over $1 million. All you need is a Mexican "coyote" human and drug trafficker with a day-pack to hand it through the fence.

The "Narco-Terrorists" trafficking boatloads of fentanyl from Venezuela to the US in cartel long-boats in the Caribbean is a nice fairy-tale that is easily swallowed by low-information US citizens, but it's nothing but fiction.  

26 minutes ago, jerrymahoney said:

That's OK -- anytime I post I expect the obligatory put down from one source or another.

You are thus spouting truth...most of the time 

17 minutes ago, connda said:

No need for a three outboard long-boat which has a range of 200 miles to travel 1,300 miles from Venezuela to the US Florida Keys. 

No need to be out there with quad Yamahas at 50K USD a crack for any reason other than smuggling. Pooor fisherman LOL

6 minutes ago, Yagoda said:

No need to be out there with quad Yamahas at 50K USD a crack for any reason other than smuggling. Pooor fisherman LOL

You could say the same about the quad boats in Phuket, yet there are many. Koh Larn as well. Should they be targeted too?

Time for self-examination?

 

 

4 hours ago, Des1 said:

Probably. Lots of hand-wringing but nothing will be done.

To continue my post .. I wonder if he considers what happens when Trump is gone. I doubt he is smart enough to connect the dots. His day of judgement will come some time down the road.

1 hour ago, Yagoda said:

No need to be out there with quad Yamahas at 50K USD a crack for any reason other than smuggling. Pooor fisherman LOL

You really are that ignorant? Seems so. You don't know anything about charter and commercial fishing? Well, I guess it's open-season on all tuna and marlin boat operators and deep sea fishermen and sports fishermen - including American citizens - because, of course, tri-outboard and quad-outboard boats are all "only" used for smuggling.  All boats with multiple outboards in the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and the Pacific Ocean now deserve to be destroyed with a Hellfire missile and their crews summarily executed for having three or four outboards, because all US citizens know that those boats are only used for smuggling fentanyl.  Let the summary executions begin.  Start with the Americans.

Cartel member who has hooked a big Fentanyl. "Man, this must be a 100 lb Fentanyl. It's fighting like mad."

Cartel members heading back to the marina with their Fentanyl catch of the day.

2 hours ago, Yagoda said:

Yeah but Trumps every fart is a headline. No one cares about a Colombian fisherman.  

 

The WSJ has an article but its behind a paywall.

"Yeah but Trumps every fart is a headline."

Hardly.

Not even every shart.